Your Opinion:Nanny government usurps wage decisions

Dear Editor:

The Democrats are again out to buy votes with someone else’s money by increasing the minimum wage and continuing the ridiculous length of unemployment benefits.

Why are those in D.C. involved in setting minimum wages? Missouri just raised our minimum wage. Does Claire McCaskill think that Missourians are too ignorant to set the minimum wage in Missouri; that we must have the nanny-state federal government make all our decisions? We do not need a “one size fits all” minimum wage.

A government-mandated minimum wage is just a mechanism to force business to make welfare (more government forced income redistribution) payments. (A workers skill set and work ethic determine their value. No employer has the duty to pay a person more than their value. If you aren’t happy with your pay then improve your skill set and/or work ethic.)

We have the Earned Income Tax Credit which supplements the income of those with low paying jobs. In 2012 a single parent with two kids, who had an earned income of $17,100 ($8.22/ hr for a full time worker,) could collect $5,236 a year ($2.52/hr) in EITC benefits. EITC benefits cost taxpayers around $60 billion a year. If Democrats want to support even more forced income redistribution then they need to push for higher EITC benefits. EITC does not consider the value of the food stamps, housing subsidies, utility subsidies, Medicaid, etc that this mom and her kids might also be receiving.

In Indiana, where I lived prior to retirement, the cost of unemployment benefits (FUTA, a federal unemployment tax act, and SUTA, a state unemployment tax act) were based on the employers history of employees collecting benefits and a 26 week benefit period. If Democrats want to pay benefits for 99 weeks then they need to be push to at least triple the amount of payroll withholding for these programs. These programs should be funded as actuarially sound insurance funds, instead of the current practice of funding them as yet another welfare program. The cost of this “insurance” should also be shown clearly on an employees check.

Have you heard, Rhode Island now won’t allow employers to ask about people’s criminal convictions on job applications? What will be the next area of our lives where government takes control of our lives and reduces our freedom even further?