The CBO exposes the fallacies of hiking the minimum wage
Obamanomics is a particularly pungent “progressive” economic philosophy whose devotees fervently believe that government can command the economy, much as a wizard magically makes all well in a Saturday morning cartoon. Not only are the immutable laws of economics not applicable, they are openly derided.
The doctrine is rooted in illiberal (as in uncultured) hubris that mocks the humility required to understand and respect the true nature, power and, yes, magic of markets.
We've seen what's no more than a conceited theology put into practice with everything from (but not limited to) the failed Cash for Clunkers program and the failing ObamaCare law to the contention that food stamps and unemployment benefits stimulate the economy. And just this week, the Obamanomics preachers again were exposed as little more than snake handlers.
On Tuesday, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stated the obvious: The Obama administration's proposal to raise the federal minimum wage by 40 percent — from $7.25 an hour to $10.10 — would lead to the elimination of 500,000 jobs and leave up to 1 million people unemployed.
The chief mouthpiece for Obamanomics, Jason Furman, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, was quick to tut-tut it all with his wacky wizard's wand, citing a mythical “consensus view of economists” in a “bulk of academic studies.” Others impugned the credibility of the CBO, never mind that this supposedly nonpartisan office often leans to the left.
The bottom line, concludes Michael Saltsman, research director of the Employment Policies Institute: The truly impoverished will not enjoy a large share of any higher earnings but they will bear the brunt of increased unemployment.
It's past time to stop entertaining the bad fictions of “progressives.”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- The Western Psych grand jury report: Do the right thing
- The House lawsuit: Necessary & proper
- Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances
- Greensburg Laurels & Lances
- The Thursday wrap
- Calling out Russia: But weakly