Correspondence Committee: August 2013

There are better anti-poverty tools than the minimum wage

Politicians, usually those on the left, frequently propose big hikes in the federal minimum wage — or even a dramatically higher “living wage” — as a way to fight poverty and help low-skill workers. A reasonable sounding idea to many Americans, and one that may be picking up momentum thanks to the glacial recovery in US incomes post-Great Recession. Fast-food workers in 60 US cities went on strike Thursday demanding $15 a hour. That’s twice the current federal minimum and two-thirds higher than the median wage for front-line fast-food workers, according to Reuters.

But raising the minimum wage may not be a policy idea deserving of the passion it generates. It’s not a well-targeted, poverty-fighting weapon. Only 3% of workers age 25 and over earn the minimum wage or less. About half of all minimum wage (or less) workers are age 24 or younger, many of whom presumably live at home with their parents. The 2010 study “Will a $9.50 Federal Minimum Wage Really Help the Working Poor?” by researchers Joseph Sabia and Richard Burkhauser found that a federal minimum wage increase from $7.25 to $9.50 per hour — higher than the $9 that President Obama has proposed — would raise incomes of only 11% of workers who live in poor households.

In a 2012 study, Sabia and Robert Nielsen found ”no statistically significant evidence that a higher minimum wage has helped reduce financial, housing, health, or food insecurity among the poor.” Why? You have to earn a wage to benefit and 55% of poor, less-educated individuals between ages 16 and 64 don’t work. Indeed, nearly 90% of the wage earners who benefited from the 40% increase in the federal minimum wage between 2007 and 2009 were not poor. They lived in households with an income two or three times the poverty level.

Would raising the minimum wage cause job losses? Lots of conflicting studies here. But a 2013 literature review by David Neumark, J.M. Ian Salas, and William Wascher concluded “that the evidence still shows that minimum wages pose a tradeoff of higher wages for some against job losses for others, and that policymakers need to bear this tradeoff in mind when making decisions about increasing the minimum wage.” And research last month from Texas A&M economists Jonathan Meer and Jeremy West find raising minimum wage levels may discourage firms over the long-term from hiring new workers. And that may be particularly true thanks to continuing — even accelerating — advances in automation.

Obama's Rift With Britain On Syria A Dangerous Omen

Syria: The president whose genius was going to talk Islamofascist Iran into submission can't even get America's closest ally to help us bomb a WMD-wielding terror state. You don't follow the ex-leader.

In the aftermath of the British Parliament's stunning refusal to help America attack Syria, ask yourself: would Thatcher have ever refused a Reagan request to help bomb a terrorist regime? Would Blair have refused Bush?

"To renew American leadership in the world, I intend to rebuild the alliances, partnerships, and institutions necessary to confront common threats and enhance common security," candidate Obama wrote in a 2007 Foreign Affairs article marveled at by liberal elites for its sophistication.

Today, the New York Times says if Obama attacks Syria, "he will look more isolated than any president in recent memory entering a conflict."

Keeping allies in our camp was the easy thing; the Obama ego was going to talk the devil himself into becoming a good churchgoer.

"The lesson of the Bush years is that not talking does not work," he claimed in a major foreign policy speech in 2007. "We haven't talked to Iran, and they continue to build their nuclear program. We haven't talked to Syria, and they continue support for terror."

Fast forward to 2013: in the fifth year of the Obama presidency he still hasn't talked to Iran or Syria; he was just humiliated into canceling a Moscow summit. They don't want to talk to Obama; they want to continue to exploit his lack of leadership.

Obama complained that under George W. Bush, "we dismissed European reservations about the wisdom and necessity of the Iraq war." Now his cronies are dismissing not reservations, but outright opposition from most British MPs.

What Is the Objective in Syria?

President Barack Obama said that an introduction of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war would constitute a "red line" with "enormous consequences" that "would change [his] calculus." That was a year ago. This past March, Obama said, "We will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people, or the transfer of those weapons to terrorists. ... We will hold [Bashar al-Assad] accountable."

Credible sources -- including Britain, France and U.S. intelligence agencies -- accuse the Syrian government of using chemical weapons on two or more occasions, once last December and possibly twice during March. Obama took no action.

Last week, Secretary of State John Kerry again made an allegation of another use of chemical weapons, this time resulting in the deaths of up to 1,000 men, women and children. "It is undeniable," said Kerry, that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons. Obama officials now say, off-the-record, that a military strike of some sort -- probably cruise missiles -- is just a matter of when.
Let's back up, ask some questions and revisit a few assumptions.

Former Secretary of State and then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Colin Powell issued the "Powell Doctrine" and received praise from Democrats and Republicans, doves and hawks. Powell set forth several conditions for the commander-in-chief to meet before using the military. A military mission, according to Powell, must first and foremost be vital to our national security. The mission should be clearly defined, have an exit strategy, use overwhelming force to achieve its objective and enjoy popular domestic support.

A military mission in Syria satisfies none of those conditions. Is the objective to topple the regime of Bashar al-Assad? Will firing some missiles accomplish this objective? If not, then what? If so, what comes next? Should the "rebels" succeed, will the new government be any less hostile to the U.S. and treat its people -- especially the opposition -- any better?