Seattle: $15 minimum wage already costing jobs

**Posted by Phineas

Depression-era unemployment

“But at least we raised the minimum wage!”

And it’s not even in effect, yet.

But, it’s not surprising. Business managers have to plan for the future, and a looming huge increase in their labor cost will force many to rethink how they do business in Seattle, if they continue to do business there at all. Writing for the free-market Washington Policy Center, Erin Shannon reports on how small businesses are planning to cut back on hiring, delaying expansion, or moving out of the city to deal with the new wage law. Most striking, though, is the account of one business owner who supported the law, but now thinks she may have made a mistake:

One of those business owners is a well-known and active supporter of “progressive” labor policies, including a higher minimum wage. Jody Hall, owner of Cupcake Royale, initially supported a $15 minimum wage. But now Hall admits the proposed policy is, “keeping me up at night like nothing ever has.”

While Hall has serious concerns with Mayor Ed Murray’s plan to phase in a $15 minimum wage over seven years with a temporary tip credit, her biggest fear is if voters approve the radical charter amendment sponsored by the group 15Now. The charter amendment would force all large employers to begin paying $15 in 2015, and would give small business owners just three years to acclimate to the high wage. And the 15Now proposal would not allow for any tip credit.

If the charter amendment passes, Hall says she would be forced to close half of her seven locations and lay off 50 of her 100 workers.

But beyond the differences between Mayor Murray’s proposal or the more aggressive 15Now proposal, Hall says she now has “serious second thoughts” about a $15 minimum wage in general, especially since Seattle would be “going it alone” with a wage that is significantly higher than any other minimum wage in the nation.

Hall’s second thoughts about a $15 minimum wage have led to second thoughts about expanding her business. She was set to open a new business in Seattle this year, but has tabled the plan until after voters have their say on the charter amendment in the November election. Hall says if she considers any new locations before then, they will be outside the city limits.

In other words, when progressivism meets economic reality, guess which wins? You would think a successful businesswoman like Hall would have seen this coming. Maybe she thought she’d get a waiver from Obama.

And pay special attention to her comment about “going it alone.” As minimum wage increases are applied and then have the same effect in various places, there will be more and more calls from the fairness crowd to apply these laws statewide and even nationwide, to make sure business owners can’t just move to a friendlier jurisdiction, which would be “unfair.” The minimum wage thus becomes a wedge issue in an attack on local control, federalism, and jurisdictional competition, things progressive just hate, because their favored policies usually fail.

Meanwhile, I want to thank Seattle for volunteering to be a case study on the foolishness of government control of wages.

via Adrian Moore

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Why Obama’s polls will never tank with limousine liberals

**Posted by Phineas

"My will is enough!"

“Ruler of the New Versailles”

Historian Victor Davis Hanson writes at PJ Media about Obama’s poll numbers and why they’re not likely to hit the dismal late-term numbers of, say, George W. Bush or Harry Truman, in spite of the man’s obvious incompetence. While he discusses Obama’s support among minorities and the cover given him by  a protective media, it’s what he wrote about a third group, wealthy liberals, that I want to share:

 3) The well-off are indifferent to the Obama record, interested only in its symbolic resonance. Doctrinaire liberalism resonates mostly with the very wealthy. We see that by the voting patterns of our bluest counties, or the contributions of the very affluent. In contrast, Republicanism is mostly embedded within the middle class and upper middle class, while liberalism is a coalition of the affluent and the poor.

The result is that the Kerrys, Gores, and Pelosis are dittoed by millions of the affluent in Malibu, Silicon Valley, the Upper West Side, the university towns, Chicago, academia, the arts, highest finance, corporate America, foundations, the media, etc. Their income and accumulated wealth exempt them from worries about economic slowdowns, too much regulation, higher taxes, or the price of gas, electricity, or food. That under Obama gasoline has gone from $1.80 a gallon to $4.10 is as irrelevant as it is relevant that he has so far not built the Keystone Pipeline. That the price of meat has skyrocketed or that power bills are way up means little if global warming is at last addressed by more government.

For the liberal grandee, there is a margin of safety to ensure that the California legislature takes up questions like prohibiting the sale of Confederate insignia or ensuring restrooms for the transgendered or shutting down irrigated acreage to please the delta smelt. In their view, Obama represents their utopian dreams where an anointed technocracy (1), exempt from the messy ramifications of its own ideology, directs from on high a socially just society — diverse, green, non-judgmental, neutral abroad, tribal at home — in which an equality of result is ensured, albeit with proper exemptions for the better educated and more sophisticated, whose perks are necessary to give them proper downtime for their exhausting work on our behalf.

In other words, unlike the rest of us, the liberal elite can actually afford the society they want to impose on us all. For our own good.

And of such times are populist revolts born.

Footnote:
(1) Seems like VDH and I were thinking along the same lines. As usual, though, he says it a lot better than I.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Opposition to #Obamacare is racist, and why Democrats love the race card

**Posted by Phineas

Liberal tolerance racist

Oh, brother. If we needed any more convincing that it was well-past time for Senator Jay Rockfeller (D-WV) to retire and never be heard from again, this clip of him not just playing the race card, but slamming it on the table and dancing around it should do the trick:

(h/t David Freddoso)

Apparently the senator’s “analysis” was aimed at Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI), who was at the hearing. Naturally, Johnson took offense:

“My opposition to health care has nothing to do with the race of President Obama,” Johnson said. “I objected to this because it’s an assault on our freedom. … I found it very offensive that you would basically imply that I’m a racist because I oppose this health care law.”

“You’re evidently satisfied with a lot of people not having health insurance,” Rockefeller responded.

“I am not. Quit making those assumptions. Quit saying I’m satisfied with that. I’m not. There’s another way of doing this,” Johnson said. “Please, don’t assume, don’t make implications of what I’m thinking and what I would really support. You have no idea.”

“I actually do,” Rockefeller said. “God help you.”

“No senator, God help you for implying I’m a racist,” Johnson replied.

Thankfully, Senator Rockefeller (D-RaceBaiter) will retire in January, hopefully to be replaced by Republican Shelley Moore Capito.

But the senator from West Virginia didn’t just slam his colleague from Wisconsin; he cavalierly insulted all of us who oppose the Affordable Care Act. While I can’t speak for others, let me recapitulate the reasons I oppose it:

Political Philosophy: By placing the State in charge of people’s healthcare, you fundamentally alter the relationship between citizen and State, turning free people into dependent wards of a Leviathan-like government and taking away their control over a crucial part of their own lives. To a conservative/classical liberal like me, this is a bad thing.

Constitutionalism: Congress has no authority –none!– to force a citizen to buy a private product under penalty of law. This is an abominable legislative usurpation and a trammeling of individual liberty. It tortures the Commerce Clause until it begs for mercy. It goes against the spirit and intent of our founding documents, and the Supreme Court, in the worst decision since Korematsu, was wrong to uphold the law.

Bad Law: I’ll be more charitable than Senator Rockefeller and stipulate that most voting for this law thought they were doing good and helping people. But that doesn’t justify defending a law that just isn’t working. It’s not even meeting its basic goals: healthcare premiums are still skyrocketing; millions have lost the insurance they liked; millions have lost access to the doctors they liked; and, even when you have insurance, you may not be able to find a physician who will take you. (Really. Watch that one.) When a law performs as poorly as this, is it any wonder people hate it? Are they all racists, Jay?

Somehow, looking over those reasons, I think it’s safe to say the President’s ancestry doesn’t matter to me and my opposition to his miserable law. In fact, I can quite honestly say I couldn’t give a rat’s rear end about President Obama’s race.

But I don’t expect you to get that, Senator.

PS: On a lighter note, I’m happy to say Andrew Klavan is back at last making satirical political videos. Longtime readers will recall my love for his “Klavan on the Culture” series. Now he’s returned, producing them for Truth Revolt. (He also still works with PJMedia and PJTV) In this video, he explains what we’ve all wondered: Just why do Democrats call us racist? Enjoy.

Welcome back, Andrew! smiley dance

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Ann & Nancy Wilson: Sarah Palin can’t use our music but Hillary can

Sarah Palin - Heart

Image via People.com

Such petty women. Via The Hill:

They told Sarah Palin to stop using their rock song, “Barracuda,” but two of Heart’s core members say they’ll gladly lend the 1977 hit to Hillary Clinton if she throws her hat in the ring for president.

“Whatever Hillary Clinton needs from me, she’s got,” Ann Wilson recently told ITK.

[…]

Back in 2008, Wilson and her sister, Nancy, emailed a statement to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and the former Alaska governor’s presidential campaign requesting that “Barracuda” stop being used as a theme for Palin, the VP nominee.

“The Republican campaign did not ask for permission to use the song, nor would they have been granted that permission,” the pair wrote.

After the song continued to be played, Nancy Wilson told EW.com, “I think it’s completely unfair to be so misrepresented. I feel completely [expletive] over.”

Right, because it’s the END OF THE F**KING WORLD IF A CANDIDATE FOR OFFICE USES YOUR MUSIC WITHOUT YOUR EXPRESS PERMISSION. I mean, OMG, IT MEANS THE APOCALYPSE IS NEAR! TAKE COVER!

Seriously, I love Heart’s music to pieces – Barracuda is one of my favorites. And, yes, they do have the right to demand permission for use of their music, have the right to give it and have the right to request a stop in usage if they haven’t given it. But why not take the high road and do what a former band member suggested at the time and let politicians you don’t agree with use your music, and then turn around and take the profits from the increased sales and donate them to your favorite candidates or charities? Guess that’s too much to much to ask from Cheap Shot Annie and Nancy, who would much rather a pro-choice “feminist” who rose to political fame and fortune on the back of her husband honor them with the use of the Heart song of her choice rather than allow a pro-life, successful woman who paved her own way in politics actively fighting (and winning) almost single-handedly against the male-dominated establishment culture in Alaska to do the same.

Liberal musicians can be such tools sometimes. SMH. 8-|

CNN Worldwide president Jeff Zucker: Our network has no shame whatsoever

CNN Jeff Zucker

Image via Salon.com

There’s really no other way to interpret Zucker’s remarks, as quoted from a Monday interview he did with thew New York Times – which was recorded by Capital New York (via):

Last night, CNN Worldwide President Jeff Zucker gave a hint of where the network will go next now thats its two-plus-month coverage of missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 is subsiding.

“I don’t think there’s any question about our commitment to breaking news, as evidenced by all the questions about the plane,” he told New York Times television reporter Bill Carter during an interview at the Deadline Club’s annual awards dinner. “So we’re still there whenever that happens, but we’re going to supplement that with some different kind of storytelling.”

[…]

CNN’s round-the-clock coverage of the search for the missing Malaysian flight was mocked widely for its obsessiveness, and was the “so-called 777 in the room” at the Waldorf Astoria hotel in midtown, where the New York City chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists was celebrating its annual awards.

Asked whether he considered his channel’s ratings-elevating coverage of the event was ever excessive, Zucker said, “If I take a step back from our coverage of the Malaysian plane’s disappearance, I’m incredibly comfortable with it. I believed early on, right from the start, that it was an enormously important story: an American-made Boeing jet liner, with Rolls Royce engines with 239 people, disappears into thin air…That’s why we devoted the resources that we did to it.”

CNN continues to mention the story every day, Zucker said, noting that the families of the 239 people aboard the plane still ask for updates. Yesterday, CNN reported that raw satellite data about the plane’s course could soon be made public.

Zucker was also asked if his network would devote any significant amount of time covering the upcoming Benghazi special committee hearings where House Republicans will try to get to the bottom of who knew what and when:

“We’re not going to be shamed into it by others who have political beliefs that want to try to have temper tantrums to shame other news organizations into covering something,” he said. “If it’s of real news value, we’ll cover it.”

Translation: If they can figure out a way to sensationalize the hell out of the murders of four innocent Americans on foreign soil for ratings, as they did the MH 370 disaster, they’ll be all over it.  Keeping a watchful eye on government hearings purely for the sake of a little thing like oversight and accountability is not enough. As far as politically “shaming” his network into covering an issue, it all depends on who is having the “temper tantrums” and doing the “shaming”, however (natch):

Carter asked if the network, which has been criticized for its oversight of climate change, might devote more live airtime to the subject.

“Climate change is one of those stories that deserves more attention, that we all talk about,” Zucker said, “but we haven’t figured out how to engage the audience in that story in a meaningful way. When we do do those stories, there does tend to be a tremendous amount of lack of interest on the audience’s part.”

Don’t ever change, CNN.  Please don’t ever change.

Eleanor Clift doubles down on #Benghazi “smoke inhalation death” stupidity

Eleanor Clift

The fail is strong with this one.

Still acting in the role of human shield for possible 2016 contender Hillary Clinton, liberal commentator Eleanor Clift is standing by her remarks that Ambassador Chris Stevens wasn’t ‘technically’ murdered in Benghazi:

A longtime political pundit under fire for claiming the American ambassador to Libya was not “murdered” in Benghazi is standing by her claim he died of smoke inhalation.

“I’d like to point out that Ambassador (Chris) Stevens was not ‘murdered;’ he died of smoke inhalation in that safe room in that CIA installation,” Eleanor Clift, a columnist at The Daily Beast, said Sunday on “The McLaughlin Group.”

While Clift may be technically correct in light of reports that Stevens died from smoke inhalation, she was criticized because the ambassador died as a result of a fire ignited during a terrorist raid on the Benghazi consulate on Sep. 11, 2012.

She stood by her comment Tuesday during a radio interview.

“I was taking issue with the sort of glib use of the word ‘murdered,'” Clift told radio host Steve Malzberg. “My point is that it was a very chaotic event. The CIA was involved, which is why there was a lot of confusion initially, and that all the questions that this special committee is raising have been asked and answered in previous investigations.”

Malzberg asked if she would feel the same way if it was her relative. She replied, “I would say he died of smoke inhalation.”

Right. In the same way a man whose house was deliberately set on fire wasn’t “murdered” but instead “died of smoke inhalation” – or “died of 1st degree burns on their entire body.” The same way a woman whose car was intentionally wrecked while she was still in it “died from blunt force windshield trauma” or “drowned in the river.” Would someone please buy this woman a 55 gallon drum of clues when it comes to murder classifications, please? She sure as hell needs it.  Dum dum. o=> :-w

In “protect Hillary” mode, Eleanor Clift says Amb. Stevens died of “smoke inhalation”

Hillary Clinton testifies on Benghazi

HIllary Clinton testifies on Benghazi. – January 2013

There are any number of excuses liberal Democrats are using to circle around potential Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in order to try and protect her on the Benghazi issue, but this one – via the Washington Times – takes the cake:

Eleanor Clift, noted liberal columnist and pundit from the Daily Beast, insisted during a broadcast discussion of Benghazi on “The McLaughlin Group” that U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens wasn’t really murdered.

[…]

Her exact words: “I’d like to point out that Ambassador Stevens was not ‘murdered,’ ” she said, bending her fingers in the air to suggest the drawing of quote marks, “but died of smoke inhalation in a CIA safe room.”

[…]

Ms. Clift’s reply: The terrorist attack was fueled by the anti-Muslim video. And “it was still a CIA [outpost]. If you’re going to put somebody on trial, put David Petraeus on trial, not Hillary Clinton.”

The Times was quoting Mediate.com, which has video of the exchange you can watch. Pretty shameful that Clift is so much in the tank for Hillary Clinton that she deliberately tries to obfuscate the issue in order to help her chances at running for President.

Next thing you know, someone will be yelling out, “What difference at this point does it make?!?” Oh wait, that’s already happened

The maturity level & “professionalism” of the Obama admin in one quote

Everything's a joke unless they declare otherwise. Official White House Photo by Pete Souza

Everything’s a joke unless they declare otherwise.
Official White House Photo by Pete Souza

I think this about sums up how “adult’ the “adults in charge” are at the White House:

Former White House spokesman Tommy Vietor, in a tense interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier, downplayed the revived controversy over the Benghazi talking points, saying he does not remember his own role in the editing process because: “Dude, this was like two years ago.”

Vietor, the former spokesman for the National Security Council, insisted on “Special Report with Bret Baier” Thursday that emails that link a White House adviser to former U.N. ambassador Susan Rice’s controversial Sunday show statements about the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate say nothing new.

The Obama administration has been under fire since the emails were released earlier this week, with some Republicans calling them the “smoking gun.” The emails indicate a White House aide helped prep Rice for her appearances and pushed the explanation that the attack was because of an Internet video. The White House is now facing credibility questions, since they had previously downplayed their role in Rice’s talking points.

Vietor repeated the stance of Press Secretary Jay Carney, who has repeatedly tried to claim that the so-called “prep call” with Rice — as it was described in one email — was not about Benghazi. Vietor said the email was referring to ongoing protests around the world against American embassies.

Baier then asked Vietor whether he personally changed the word “attack” to “demonstrations” in the talking points for Rice.

“Maybe, I don’t really remember,” Vietor said.

When pressed by Baier, Vietor said, “Dude, this was like two years ago. We’re still talking about the most mundane process.”

You can watch the video at Right Scoop.

Note to Vietor: Dude, like 4 American citizens including a US Ambassador were MURDERED in cold blood.  Doesn’t matter if it happened 20 years ago.  The American people – and the families of those killed especially – deserve answers.  And since when did this “it happened years ago” argument hold water for the left anyway? How many issues came up during the Bush administration that they’re still talking about  – and blaming him for – today? Always count on Democrats to out themselves as hypocrites. Never fails.

Yeah, I know Vietor isn’t in the administration anymore but he was at one time – and this is the mindset of Team Obama from the top down: “Beer Summits” are supposed to resolve decades old racial tensions that bubble to the surface thanks to the President inserting himself into a debate that he shouldn’t have, Presidential appearances on late night TV talk/entertainment shows are meant to showcase the “coolness” of the Commander in Chief, and when you can’t refute serious questions about a major policy issue seriously impacting voters, you puff out your bottom lip and essentially declare that although you don’t know the numbers on Obamacare – you also know that the numbers being given to you by the press aren’t correct, either.

Unfreakingreal. I sure as hell can’t wait for actual adults to be in charge of this country again. What an absolute disgrace.

QOTD: “I’m not a numbers cruncher” on #Obamacare, says @PressSec Carney (VIDEO)

I said earlier today on Twitter that I almost – almost – feel sorry for White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, who has probably dished out more lies and deliberate misinformation for an administration than any other Press Secretary in modern history. But, he gets paid very well for what he does – and being in the Beltway likely insulates him from the much-needed criticism he deserves, so with that in mind, I don’t feel sorry for him at all. Watch below as he hilariously tells a reporter during today’s White House press briefing questioning him on Obamacare data that he is “not a numbers cruncher”:

In case you can’t stomach watching another presser featuring the Obama administration’s top paid Minister of Truth, the Washington Free Beacon provides a recap:

White House press secretary Jay Carney attempted to cast doubt on a House Energy and Commerce Committee report showing only 67 percent of Obamacare enrollees have paid their premiums Thursday in the White House press conference. Carney called the report overly selective and unlikely to be representative of the entire insurance market.

However when asked if he had a sense of how many people will ultimately pay their premiums, Carney admitted he did not know but doubted the 67 percent figure because of anecdotal figures he has seen out of the insurance industry. “I’m not a numbers cruncher,” he said.

“What I can say is that we have seen from the anecdotal reports from issuers that the percentages of those paying their premiums are in the 80 to 90 percent range, but we will wait until we have an accurate picture of it and provide that data when we have it.”

In other words – never.

Here’s the much shorter version of Carney’s various deflections and weaves on questions related to Obamacare enrollment numbers, via Conservative Intelligence Briefing‘s editor David Freddoso:


Anymore questions? Tough! Now shaddup about exact numbers, ya rubes.

The whitewashing

This pretty much says it all, right?

Rep. Bennie Thompson channels Holder on “racist” criticism of Obama

Racism sign

Yep.

Remember a few weeks ago when US Attorney General Eric Holder, speaking at a National Action Network (Sharpton) gathering,  strongly implied racism was behind opposition to both him and his boss – our celebrity President?  Here’s a refresher, via PJ Tatler’s Bryan Preston:

Holder said, “I am pleased to note that the last five years have been defined by significant strides, and by lasting reforms. Even in the face…even in the face…of unprecedented, unwarranted, ugly and divisive adversity.”

The audience applauded.

Holder continued: “Forget about me. You look at the way the Attorney General of the United States was treated yesterday by a House committee. Had nothing to do with me. Forget that. What attorney general has ever had that kind of treatment?”

Holder is referring to his exchange with Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX). Gohmert and other Republicans were trying to pin down when Holder’s Department of Justice would fulfill a promise that Holder had made to deliver documents. Holder refused to answer forthrightly. Gohmert called him out, to which Holder replied “You don’t want to go there, buddy!”

Holder continued: “What president has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment?”

Translation: No President nor his AG have ever had to deal with nasty partisanship on the level we have! Can only be one reason, wink wink!

Fast forward to this week, and we have Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS) essentially echoing Holder – but taking it further:

(CNN) – In an exclusive interview with CNN Chief Congressional Correspondent Dana Bash, Rep. Bennie Thompson doubled down on controversial remarks he made about race over the weekend.

The Mississippi Democrat had argued Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, a black conservative, is an “Uncle Tom” who doesn’t stand up for African Americans.

In his interview with the New Nation of Islam webcast on Sunday, which was first reported by BuzzFeed, the eleven-term African American argued President Barack Obama has been mistreated by other politicians, including Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, because he is black.

[…]

Bash: The other thing you were talking about is the fact that you believe some of the opposition, maybe even much of the opposition, to the president is because of the color of his skin.

Thompson: “Well, I’ve been here a long time. I’ve seen a lot of issues come before Congress. I’ve never seen the venom put forth on another candidate or a president like I’ve seen with this president and that’s my opinion.”

Bash: Are there specific things that people have said that are racially tinged that make you say that, or are you reading the tea leaves of what’s going on?

Thompson: “I’ve seen quite a few State of the Union messages, I’ve never heard a president called a liar in a State of the Union message.”

Bash: You think Congressman Joe Wilson was race based?

Thompson: “Well, I’ve never heard it before, it was a stupid decision…statement, but it has no real bearing.”

[…]

Bash: Were Mitch McConnell’s comments were racist?

Thompson: “It had nothing to with that. The comments are insensitive. To say to a president that you’re going to oppose anything that he puts out there is just totally…”

Bash: You think it was race based?

Thompson: “Well I’ve never heard him say it to any other president.”

Keep in mind that we’ve known since before President Obama was elected to his first term that the opposition was automatically going to be conveniently painted as “racist” because it happened all during his candidacy – starting in the 2007-2008 Democrat primary where his campaign tried to insinuate Hillary Clinton and her husband and former Prez. Bill Clinton (the original “first black President“) were closet racists.  It then went on to the general election campaign season, where the candidate himself – then-Senator Barack Obama – played the race card against the GOP, which his then-chief strategist David Axelrod even acknowledged later.  And it’s continued on since his first election and his re-election on a regular basis on any number of issues, from the economy to healthcare to voter ID and other issues.

But this is the first time I can recall a prominent Congressional Democrat try to explain the “rationale” used to determine when the race card should be played. What Holder said above, and Thompson expanded on in detail is this:   If you falsely believe (or in Thompson’s and Holder’s cases, pretend) that there have never been any other senior administration officials (including the President)  in history that were treated so “nastily” by the opposition , well – it must be racism, then, even if the criticisms themselves don’t have anything whatsoever to do with race.  You don’t even have to prove it to be racism. You just slide the insinuation onto the table and hope that it sticks. And sometimes it does.

This is all part and parcel of the modern Democrat party and their ongoing chilling efforts at shutuppery – whether it be by government force or trying to shame and intimidate others from publicly disagreeing with the President and other elected/appointed officials in his party.   The two main reasons they do this: 1) to stay in power (obviously) and 2) they think their ideas are just so wonderful and perfect that they just can’t fathom the possibility that people out there might have a legitimate issue with what they advocate, so naturally whoever stands in opposition is racist/sexist/homophobic/classist, etc.  It’s their world and you’re just living in it. They believe you must conform to their ideals … or else.

Raise your hand if you’re ready to fall in line.

Yeah, I didn’t think so. ;)