Fast Food Workers to Strike Over Ridiculous Pay Demands.

Reading through the daily news, I ran across an article stating that "Organizers say thousands of fast-food workers are set to stage walkouts in dozens of cities around the country Thursday, part of a push to get chains such as McDonald's, Taco Bell and Wendy's to pay workers higher wages." (1) Not being completely unsympathetic to the needs of those in low income jobs, I continued to read. I was hoping that these folks weren't still demanding $15 an hour. I was wrong. As I continued reading, I became quite angry, as the story highlighted one person in particular. 

She is Shaniqua Davis, and she lives in the Bronx with her unemployed boyfriend and her 1 year old daughter. Automatically, my heart goes out to the child. Then the questions in my mind start to form. Why doesn't her boyfriend have a job? Understand that the job market is scarce, but here in Alexandria, Va, there are help wanted signs in a lot of fast food places. Next question, is he receiving unemployment assistance? The article, though read on Yahoo, is an AP article and does not take the next step in answering that question (if they ever asked her in the first place). Is Ms. Davis taking night classes or anything of that sort to improve her situation? The article never says.

I continue reading and learn that Ms. Davis is paid 7.25 an hour working at a McDonalds a few blocks from her apartment and that she is never able to work a full 40 hour week (to which I would suggest finding another part time job). She pays her rent with help from public assistance and has a hard time paying for food and diapers for her daughter. The next part infuriates me. It states that she is having trouble paying cab fees, subway fees, cable TV and other bills. Excuse me? You work a couple of blocks from where you live. So cabs and subway fares aren't needed for transportation to work. Bills are more than likely mailed to you and you can mail the payment back. Cable TV? If you can't afford diapers, why are you shelling out loot for cable TV? Where are your priorities? Ms. Davis goes on to say that her daughter needs stuff and that she (Ms. Davis) needs stuff for her apartment. Your daughter needs food, diapers and clothes. What stuff do you "need" for your apartment?

Cable TV < Diapers

I admit that I don't know Ms. Davis personally. I further acknowledge that the AP only reports what they want in order to further their own narrative. I am not trying to attack Ms. Davis personally by any means. I am only using her statements and the statements in the article to highlight the bigger problem in our great country. People would rather gripe about their situation than take the time and effort to make it better. And no, striking for $15 an hour to work fast food is not taking the time or effort. People in this situation should be picking themselves up by their bootstraps and making things better for themselves. It isn't easy. Not by any means- especially in today's economic climate. However, does who takes a minimum wage fast food job and looks at it as a long term career? Unless you plan to earn a degree while working their and pursue district managerial positions, this is no career. It is a job to help out temporarily while you pursue other endeavors such as training, education, or job hunting. I do think that it is time to review the minimum wage and consider an increase between $1.00-$2.00 an hour. Doubling it is absurd. Take for instance the case of Ms. Davis. If wages where increased to $15 an hour, that would be $31,000 a year (for a 40 hour work week which Ms. Davis says she can't get). The average salary for a police officer in the Bronx is $43,000 a year. (2) Just chew on that for a bit.

Leave me your comments and let me know what you think.

Fifty Years Later, How is Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's Dream?

Fifty years ago today, brave men and women marched on our nation's capitol to demand equality and justice. People all of colors and religions descended upon the Lincoln Memorial and hear a series of Civil Rights leaders speak about inequality in the United States of America. It was a hot summer day, but that did not deter those in attendance, nor those speaking. One man gave a 17 minute speech that has gone down in history as one of the finest speeches given in the United States of America. That man, of course, was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, and he had a dream.

His dream was one of equality, of brotherhood, of fellowship. His dream was one of all people being judged, as he so eloquently put it "...not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." On that hot summer day, he shared a dream of a nation of true freedom for all people. That dream continues into this day. We have come a long way as a nation, but to say the journey is over is to accept a half-accomplished goal.

The minority community still faces disparate poverty and incarceration. It is not completely the fault of the government. Seventy percent of African American children are born to a single mother. Only 52 percent of black males graduate from high school. Rap music overwhelmingly promotes a "gangsta" image where drug use and gang life is exalted while working hard in school and getting an education is besmirched. An African American friend and I spoke of the lack of education in black culture. He told me that if you are the black kid in some schools that raises your hand to answer questions and you get good grades, you are mocked by your black peers.

Though I don't place the whole of the blame on the government, one place where it does hold back the African American community is with social welfare programs. Programs initially created with the intent to help now hurt. Programs meant to lift hold people back. Programs imagined with the best intentions have become the worse practice.

The Civil Rights leaders of today fail to address these things. They instead blame Conservatives. To be a black Conservative in this day and age is to be an "Uncle Tom." Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have the biggest Civil Rights pulpit and could use that to advance the need for education, the need for families, the need to break reliance on social welfare programs. Instead, they spew vitriol and draw attention away from the real issues instead of addressing them head on. I don't know why and I suppose that I never will. Until a prominent Civil Rights leader has the courage to stand up and bring attention to the real problems and call bull on the idea that one political party is trying to hold minorities down, the trend will continue and Dr. King's dream will not come to true fruition.

Should the US Conduct Strikes in Syria?

It is the biggest story of the day: The potential for US to conduct strikes in Syria in response to chemical weapons use by the Assad regime against its own citizens. Well, surprise surprise- by and large, most people's opinions tend to fall along their party affiliation. It seems to me that Democrats think strikes are necessary and Republicans think that the United States should mind its own business.

"Hey, Conservative Cody, what do you think about Syria?"
"Well, Liberal Laura, I think that we have no business there because GOP!"

I don't know what the United States should do. I do think that there should be a response to the use of chemical weapons. The response should be from the United Nations, not the United States of America. I know that that statement is loaded. For example, Russia and China hold VETO power in the UN Security Council and aren't likely to support strikes. I also believe that President Obama backed himself into a corner by making his "red line" statement. Now we have Iran watching for any actual response (or lack their of) from the United States. Also, al-Qaeda and Iran are supporting the rebels in Syria, so attacking the Assad regime is supporting them. Not a very pretty scenario. What happens if the Assad regime were to fall due to strikes? Who would fill the power vacuum. So many difficult questions and know easy answers.

The troublesome thing about all of this is that, once again, our country is proving itself inept at critical thinking and instead are relying on party affiliation to help them make decisions and arguments. Everyone from politicians to average Joe at the water cooler is weighing on it and for the most part, it is all about the party you support. That is a trend that has gotten this great nation to the political stalemate that we see today. Politicians don't vote for legislation based on the action, result and benefit of the purposed law. No, they vote for whether or not it forwards their parties narrative. The American public at large is no better. If a Liberal supports a piece of legislation drafted and overwhelmingly supported by Conservatives, he/she is a sellout. if the inverse is true, the Conservative member is labeled a RINO (Republican In Name Only). And a lot of those labeled politicians lose re-elections in favor of more extreme left/right candidates, further polarizing the political debate.

The question of striking Syria isn't a partisan one. It is a decision based on morality and practicality. It must be looked at carefully. Is it in the United States best interests to strike? I don't know. I don't envy President Obama's position. As the leader of the free world, he has to lead the way in trying to keep travesties, like those in Syria, from happening. I think that maybe, just maybe, everyone should put down the party banner, pick up the American banner, and look at this in a pragmatic way. It is only in that way that the best decision, whatever it may be, can be reached. I promise that the petty arguments will still be there after this is over.

E pluribus unum.

Entitlement State of Mind

It is everywhere in the news. The minimum wage is too low. We need a living wage. SNAP doesn't provide enough money to feed a family. Health care is a right. Home ownership is a right. The government should be helping more. Oh, and there are COMMERCIALS for so called "Obama phones." Because, again, cell phones are a right.

Everybody in Cleveland got an Obama phone.

There is a problem in this country when hard work and dedication have become laughable when, in thirteen states, entitlement program pay more than pay more than a $15/hr job. In fact, in D.C., a welfare recipient can get the equivalent of up to $24.43/hr according to a CATO study. Where is the motivation to work for a lesser paying job when you can just sit at home and collect welfare? This is laughable and sad at the same time. Can you imagine the anger of the Founding Fathers if they could see that? 

Benjamin Franklin is looking at us in disgust.

Truth be told, we are in a recession and the "Summer of Recovery" didn't quite pan out. It is understandable that some people are going to need some help. What isn't understandable is the expansion of welfare benefits signed into law as part of the Economic Stimulus under President Obama. The government shouldn't be expanding welfare, it should be expanding JOBS. 

This brings me to the minimum wage vs the "living wage." I am going to go ahead and get this one out of the way: Working the register at a fast food joint or Wal Mart is a no skill job that is best filled by students or adults looking for a higher paying job elsewhere. If you work at McDonalds expecting to feed a family of 2 or more off of a cashiers wage, you should smack yourself. A person in that circumstance should understand the situation that they have put themselves in and seek part time employment elsewhere or, better yet, learn a skill and seek a higher paying job. The last statement gives me an idea: how about the government cut funds from all of the pork stuffed into every bill and fund a training program in each state designed to provide skills and higher wage jobs! That would be so much more effective than just slinging buzzwords at one another. Instead of ideas and action, we get rhetoric and the blame game. It isn't fair to the American people.

I'm looking at you

And you

Some have suggested that the minimum wage should be raised, some even suggesting $15/hr become the benchmark. Well, I am no professional economist (a lot of good they've been the last few years) but I would think that if you artificially inflate wages by almost double, the prices of products are going to rise. "But wait," some say, "The corporations already have massive profit margins, they can afford it without raising prices!" Now, that is flawed for a couple of different reasons. Corporations use those profits to invest in new products and services and expansion. Eat into those profits, reduce investment and expansion. Pretty easy. Furthermore. why WOULD they want to eat the cost of wage increase and why SHOULD they. The goal of a business is to make money. You, as an employee, agree to a wage/salary and possibly benefits for doing work. The company agrees to pay it. The responsibility of the company ends there. It isn't Wal Mart's job to make sure you can make ends meet. Take a little personal responsibility and try to improve yourself instead of looking to others to do it for you.

Back to welfare and entitlements. Why are people on welfare rewarded for having more children? More children, more money! Shouldn't it be capped at say, two at most? This is one of the more idiotic aspects of welfare. It breeds a system of reliance. The Liberals are literally keeping people dependent on the system yet claim they want to help people. Another thing that I hear too often is that SNAP (food stamp program) doesn't provide enough money to feed a family. First, let me say that I support SNAP. It has it's place. But the acronym stands for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, not Sole Nutrition Allocation Program. It is meant to supplement income. "But what if I don't get an income?" Then you are likely on welfare. Get a job.

Welfare and SNAP should be tied to job hunting. If you aren't looking for employment, you don't get either. I understand that some cases exist where people can't work anymore. Those should be looked at case by case. But to keep with the widespread allowance of welfare without any checks and balances? That is irresponsible.

I am irritated seeing someone use their EBT cards to pay for food while talking on a smartphone and wearing $150.00 shoes. I get furious when I see people buy alcohol with SNAP.

Ummm, come again?

 If you have a nice, big plasma t.v. with video game consoles hooked up, you don't deserve welfare- you deserve a slap upside the head. Help yourself. Work hard for training in a higher paying career. Stop being satisfied with skill-less jobs that pay little. Stop being satisfied with relying on the government. Have some pride. That is the American way.

The Justice Department is at it Again

Well, you have to give AG Holder credit where credit is due. He has an agenda, and he is determined to see it through. The latest example of the Department of Justice (DOJ) sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong is in Louisiana. The subject of DOJ ire this time: Louisiana's statewide school voucher program.

Justice as we see it.

                                                           

Taken from the states website for the Louisiana Scholarship Program:
The Luoisiana Scholarship Program is a program designed to provide students with additional opportunities to attend high quality schools. Applicants are eligible to receive state-funded scholarships to enroll in participating nonpublic schools or high performing public schools.
Only students who meet the residency and income requirements and are attending a "C," "D," or "F" public school this school year are eligible to apply.  (1)

The law allows for low-income families to transfer students from failing schools to successful schools. You know, give them a "fair shot," a favorite phrase of President Obama . (2).

No fair shot at staying dry

                                                                 


It would seem that AG Holder is against such a fair shot for low-income families because the families taking that shot are white. The DOJ contention is that this program is essentially segregating schools in Louisiana. Note that ALL low-income families meeting the requirements qualify and have an opportunity to utilize the program, not just white families.



AG Holder could use this as an opportunity to encourage minority families to use this program to get their children out of failing schools and into private schools, yet he chooses not to do that. Instead, he would rather deprive children of this opportunity because some families aren't taking advantage. I don't see the motivation behind this and am having trouble understanding why anyone would want to deny this opportunity. What do you think? Am I way off base? Am I missing something? Let me know in the comments.

Voter ID and the false narrative of voter suppression

It is an issue that most feel strongly about. It is an issue where the line in the sand is drawn, inexplicably, along party lines. I am talking, of course, about Voter ID. Love the idea or vehemently oppose the idea, there is no denying that it is one of the hottest topics in today's political discussion. In my opinion, it is an idea that seems so simple. Others (read the Left) argue that implementing a Voter ID is morally objectionable. They use buzz words/phrases like"disenfranchise" and "voter suppression." They claim that it is an attempt by Conservatives to deny minorities their constitutional right to vote (never mind the Liberal agenda to deny citizens their Second Amendment rights).

Voter ID is racist!

The argument against Voter ID is well-intentioned at best, misleading in practice, and obtrusive/divisive at it's core. It is an attempt by Democrats to continue a narrative that Conservatives are inherently racist and want to ensure that minorities never get a voice in politics. I have yet to meet a Republican that wants to suppress minority voting. There may be a fringe element out there with that motivation. Just like there is a fringe element on the Left that wants to socialize the United States. To blanket all people in the GOP as race-hating voter-suppressors is an argument with no merit.

The Left would have you believe that there is no evidence of voter fraud. The Right would have you believe it runs rampant. The truth, as often it does, lies somewhere in the middle. Searching for examples on line will yield conflicting reports, depending on the inherent political leaning of the organization/website presenting the "evidence." I submit that none of that matters directly in the need for Voter ID. Requiring an ID to vote should be a principal requirement.

Instances requiring a government issued ID:
-Renting an apartment/home
-Applying for a mortgage
-Flying commercially
-Renting a car
-Buying tobacco/alcohol
-Using a credit card

That list obviously isn't all inclusive. It is meant only to provide a snapshot of the ways ID's are inherent in American life. Why isn't voting one of them? We already have to register to vote, why not issue a government "Voting ID Card" with it? For no cost, of course. That last statement is likely to anger Conservatives, as government spending is already out of control. There are plenty of places to cut funds from other places to pay for this endeavor. For example- the Travel Promotion Act of 2009, which Harry Reid is set to be a huge benefactor, provided the pork laden Immigration Reform Act passes. link

Every state that has passed Voter ID laws has offered free photo-ID to those lacking one. It isn't unreasonable to require photo identification to vote. Let's get over the gloom and doom rhetoric of the likes of Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Mellissa Harris-Perry, Eric Holder, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, et. al. If it is disenfranchising to request an ID when someone votes, it is disenfranchising to require and ID when I enjoy a bottle of suds. Use your brains, people.

It really isn't that hard.