The usual argument in favor of a minimum wage is protection of the lower classes. It is claimed business owners have so much power that unless the government intercedes people will be forced into sweat-shops, making subsistence wages while languishing in horrific working conditions. These claims usually mask the results of intrusive legislation, while hiding the lesser known motives of those clamoring for the increases. For example, some unions set the pay scales in their negotiated contracts as multiples of the federal minimum wage. If Congress raises this number then all those covered by these contracts get an automatic pay raise—no strikes, no picketing needed, let Congress do it for you. Another group with hidden motives is Congress itself. Every worker pays a flat percentage of their income in federal taxes (SSI, etc) whether they make enough to pay income taxes or not. The employer is also forced to pay a percentage of the employee’s salary in matching taxes. As a flat percentage of wages, when you increase the wages you increase these taxes proportionally. The employee is oblivious to this because his net pay goes up. However, the business owner has his portion increased and ultimately paid the extra amount taken from the employee. Seldom is Congress able to raise taxes with public support.

It is often forgotten that labor is a commodity—just like anything bought or sold. When prices go up for a product, demand for the product goes down. We see this when the price of gas goes up. People find ways to use less gas. They don’t do this to save the planet, or reduce dependency on foreign oil. They are motivated by basic economics—deciding on the best way to use their limited resource (income). Just like the average family balancing their needs, when the cost of doing business goes up the owner must reduce his profits or learn to economize.

The Robin Hood wannabes in Congress imagine that very penny increase to wages is a penny decrease in evil profits for the wicked business man. People do not go into business to provide jobs or to increase the GDP. They go into business to make money. When costs go up a business owner wanting to expand may decide to forgo hiring new personnel due to the higher costs. To do this he may shuffle his current staff or change their job requirements. If the owner is in a situation where he has no choice but to hire he may hold out for someone experienced instead of hiring one in need of training. Those suffering from an increase in the minimum wage are minorities, the uneducated and inexperienced—the same people liberals claim to champion.

Another problem with government intervention in wages is the loss of liberty. Seeking employment is an attempt to sell one’s time and skills. The highly skilled and educated are more valuable because their training empowers them to produce more in an hour than a less trained person. As a result they receive higher wages. Another person with no skills or training must take that into account when negotiating pay. Paying a certain wage for a set period of time is an exchange of value. If the value the employer receives matches up to the amount one is willing to take then a bargain is struck. When government sets a minimum wage, opportunities for the unskilled are reduced. If my time is not worth the artificial minimum, then the government has priced me out of the job market and stolen my ability to negotiate and my right to enact a private contract. If I am willing to sell the hours of my day for $2 each and an employer is willing to purchase them for that amount, what business is it of Congress or anyone else? The minimum wage reduces the freedoms of the average American.

In party politics we as individuals must realize that we will never have a perfect candidate—one who is supported by all of the party. Compromise is essential in politics, even on the choice of a candidate. In deciding whom to support we take many things into account and their position on issues are only part of the equation. We must also keep in mind that, at least on the federal level, no single candidate will ever accomplish anything. The lone wolf is the most ineffective member of Congress. Change comes from majorities. If the majority will be freedom loving then it may be necessary to tolerate a few RINOs so long as the majority is large enough to counter their foolish votes. Unfortunately, with the last Republican majority this concept caused trouble. First, the majority was slim enough that liberal Republicans often obliterated the advantage of the majority by voting with the opposition. Second, once the ratio of conservatives, moderates and liberals in the majority tips from one to the other you may have the same party in charge, but an entirely different agenda.

The Republican party leadership must realize that the base will not support a liberal or moderate majority, even a Republican one. As conservatives and libertarians we must support candidates who believe in the maximum of freedom, even if at times it means our party loses.

We ordain the Constitution to protect our liberty.
We permit the government to wield our power.
We create parties to express our voice.

The GOP got the mistaken idea that the members of the party exist to keep them in office and power. They forgot that the liberties, the power and the voice are ours. They are simply one of several tools. Like any tool, it is of value so long as it performs its function, other wise it is discarded.

I attended a meeting of a local Republican organization and heard a speech from the county Chairman of the party. Out of respect I will neither say what group nor identify the person. The problem was not the speaker nor the venue but the substance of what was said. Seldom have so many words been spoken with so little being said. The entire time was spent on a litany of charges against Barack Obama with the occasional back-handed jab at the Clintons; all of which were the same old screeds bouncing around the internet. While many of these charges are serious and should be investigated, this chance to motivate the grassroots was wasted with pointless tirades. There was nothing of substance to show what the party should do or what the GOP had to offer. This speech made me wonder if the GOP is reverting back to opposition party mentality as the anti-Obama party: “vote for us because we are not Barack Obama.” We saw this before when Bob Dole ran as the moral antithesis of Bill “Where’s my cigar” Clinton. This tactic never succeeds and if the GOP is going to adopt it then yet another election cycle will be lost.

Conservatives and libertarians in the GOP must lay out a plan. Running against Barack Obama will fail, while a workable plan with a definite direction is the road to success.

I was a bit shocked when Governor Palin was chosen as the running mate. I hoped this could turn things around, but felt it was the death knell of the McCain campaign. Governor Palin is a great governor, a smart conservative and a wise politician who was eviscerated by the media and the self proclaimed defenders of women. I was alarmed at her pick, because a candidate picks a running mate to make up for personal shortcomings or to open up other regions of the country. For example, Kennedy picked LBJ to run with him in 1960 to make him more attractive in the south. Obama chose Biden because of his own lack of experience. John McCain, instead of bringing in someone to help win new areas, had to bring in someone to help win his own base. Over the course of his career, he has so alienated himself from the Republican party that there had been serious speculation after 2000 that he might defect to the Democratic party.

The Republicans loss had two side. On one you had Obama, the historical candidate—masses couldn’t wait to say they’d voted for the first black president. On the other side the actions of George Bush, a misguided GOP congress and the maverick John McCain left conservatives adrift without a party.

Today, the GOP Chairman announced the creation of the Center for Republican Renewal. The Center is supposed to promote the parties core principles, which sounds good until Chairman Duncan says the Center will be dedicated to “identifying the most inventive and effective ideas and policies across America.”

It is my hope that the Center for Republican Renewal will be an honest effort to return the party to the days of limited government and fiscal responsibility. If the chairman means to take the party further along its route into the darkness then it should learn to enjoy its position on the political periphery. The GOP had eight years of trying to win the populist vote. The populists didn’t trust them and the conservative base had no reason to support them. More of the same will lead to more of the same.