Missoula Reinforces Its Anti-Business Reputation

In a strong statement reinforcing Missoula's anti-business reputation, the Missoula City Council overwhelmingly voted 9-1 to urge federal and state lawmakers to amend the U.S. Constitution to state that corporations are not human beings and don't have the same rights as citizens.  Only Dick Haines had some sense and voted no.

Before members of the public spoke, Councilman Haines voiced his strong opposition and had a spat with Mayor John Engen. 

"This has got to be one of the dumbest things I've seen us do in a long time," said Haines, who noted most media outlets are corporately owned. 

Mayor Engen disagreed: "I'll suggest this is probably one of the smartest things you all have done in a long time."

Citizen John Tesdal was also against the measure:

John Tesdal, though, said the "feel-good activism" has no place in Missoula. He feared it would hurt local business that are corporations, such as the Good Food Store, Portico Real Estate and the Kettlehouse Brewing Co., one of his favorites. 

"The proposed referendum in my opinion is really anti-business," Tesdal said

I have always known Missoula is governed by ignorant Liberals but this takes the cake.  What business would ever want to start up or relocate to Missoula knowing how anti-corporate and anti-business the leaders of the community are?  Do these people have any idea at all what message they are sending?

Of course, the people quoted in support of the measure are all kooky far left wing activists - Environmental Studies UM Professor Vicki Watson, famous local self promoter Rep. Ellie Hill , and retired alternative medicine doctor Mary Stranahan.   .

Here is a quote from each:

"Corporations do not bleed or feel pain. They can't die in an unsafe workplace," Watson said. 

"This is a question of whether American democracy itself can beat back a corporate takeover," Hill said. 

"I think this is one of the most important issues we as a country face in trying to preserve what democracy we have," Stranahan said.

These three Liberal activist women along with there supporters are against corporations and businesses having the right to pay for political ads based on the first amendment.   However, they fully support the right of unions and their political and non-profit organizations the right to pay for political ads.  

How can they, if they were being honest, say it should be illegal for one type of organization to buy political ads but legal for another type of organization?  Seriously.  

It is totally political.  The goal is to muzzle organizations that lean to the right and give organizations that lean to the left a distinct advantage.    They know the Liberal message is not supported by the majority of American citizens and must do what they can to manipulate who can and cannot get their message to the public and let the public decide.

But I digress.  Bottom line, Missoula continues to reinforce their anti-business message leaving its population un and underemployed while whining and complaining there are not "living wage" jobs or good opportunities.

It makes me wonder if the Missoula Liberals really want economic prosperity.  They seem to do everything they can to drive it away.  Or they are just too dumb by thinking it comes delivered in pixie dust on unicorns.    

It breaks my heart for Missoula and its citizens when I see ignorance and stupidity like this.  Business (and corporations) give us the prosperity and lifestyle we all enjoy today.  Even the kooky Liberals who oppose them.  But the citizens of Missoula continue to vote these people into office so I guess they get what they deserve.  Sad.  

Democrat Congress Accomplishments - The First Six Months

Here is a comprehensive list of all of the significant accomplishments made by Congress this year.

1. Federal Minimum Wage went from $5.15 to $5.85. (Not really significant but I had to put something here!)











.

Prices Going Up at Missoula Businesses

I usually go to lunch in Downtown Missoula every day and I usually go the the same places and order the same thing. I'm not very adventurous when it comes to trying new things on the menu.

I noticed that the prices on the menus have gone up about 15% in the last two weeks. I wondered why. So I asked the managers and owners. They had to raise their prices in order to pay for the increase in the minimum wage.

Are all the local restaurant and business owners raising their prices? I bet they are. Are the employees who received an increase in their wages, because of the new law, coming out any more ahead? I doubt it. Employers still have to pay their bills and so they pass on the increase in their payroll expenses to the customer.

I also have bills to pay and did not benefit from the minimum wage increase so I decided to reduce my tips by about 15%.

Food Bank Still Open???

I was walking in downtown Missoula this morning and happened to pass by the Missoula Food Bank and was surprised to see that they were still open and look to remain open for the long term. So I returned to work got online and looked up their web site to see if this were true. Yes, they appear to be planning on continuing their mission.

I am very confused. Why would they continue their mission when we just recently passed an increase in the minimum wage? From what I understood, this increase to $6.15 was going to solve the problem of a family not being able to buy groceries.

If this isn't the case and a family still cannot survive on $6.15, then we need to push for a minimum wage of $15.00 per hour which is $31,200 per year. I think this would be more reasonable and fair. How can anybody be expected to survive on $6.15 anyway?

In addition, we need to pass a law requiring businesses to guarantee 40 hours a week for their employees and to keep them from raising their prices. We need to ensure that our minimum wage workers increase their buying power and not have businesses jack up their prices to "pay" for the increased wages. That wouldn't be fair.

While we are being fair, businesses should be required to pay for 100% of their employee's medical insurance and again not jack up their prices to "pay" for it.

What a wonderful world this would be if businesses would be more fair to their employees. Now that the Democrats are in power, this all may become a reality.

We can only hope...

Businesses to Raise Prices on Goods and Services With Minimum Wage Increase

This article in California points out the consequences of artificially raising the minimum wage as opposed to allowing the free market to work it's magic. Payroll is businesses largest expense and when they are forced to raise that expense by 11% in California, for example, they pass on that expense to their customers.

With an increase in minimum wage comes an increase in goods and services which negates that "raise" that the minimum wage worker receives. Their buying power basically remains the same as it was before their increase. Liberals next move should be government mandated price controls on business so these poor repressed people can get ahead. We need socialism!

This goes back to my point that an employee that is always a minimum wage worker is only worth minimum wage. That is their value to an employer. If that employee exhibits greater value to the employer, that employer will pay the employee more. Employees that only rely on mandated minimum wage increases rather then their own abilities are simply not good employees and only worth what they are paid.

While this article is from California, I know many businesses in Missoula will be raising their prices when our minimum wage law goes into effect. With the increase, most everybody's wage will need to be increased but with that, of course, comes price increases on goods and services which leave everybody right where they started.

So for those who felt good about themselves when they voted for I-151, they really didn't accomplish anything. Just the smug feeling that they were good people helping those less fortunate.

This is Liberalism - support those things that make you feel like you're helping but not those difficult things that really do help.

The 2006 Montana Initiatives

The Liberals are feeling pretty smug that they were successful in having three "conservative" initiatives (CI-97, CI 98 and I-154) thrown out but are now upset that their "liberal" initiatives (I-151 and I-153) are being challenged on illegal signature gathering as well.

I think it's great that they are getting a little taste of their own medicine. I hope that our side is shopping for a sympathetic judge as they did for their case. I support the three conservative initiatives and oppose the two liberal initiatives. I am glad my side is fighting to reinstate the three and get the other two thrown out.


Here is my take on the five initiatives:

CI-97: This is the Balanced Budget and spending limit initiative. What is ironic about the Liberal's opposition to this is Tester is campaigning on how important balanced budgets are. I like this because I think having spending limits are important. It will force our legislators to think and work harder to spend my tax dollars more wisely and efficiently. It will, hopefully, eliminate wasteful and sloppy spending. Both Dems and Republicans are guilty of this and I would like to see it end.

CI-98: This is the judge recall initiative. The purpose of this one is to amend the Montana Constitution to provide for recall by petition of state court justices for any reason. The Constitution currently provides for physical or lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of the oath of office, official misconduct or conviction of a felony offense.

Liberals really dislike this one because they count on the judiciary to do most of their work for them. Liberals have been very successful in populating the courts with liberal jurists who will make law from the bench rather than rule on the merits of the case.

I-154: This is the eminent domain initiative. I wrote on this back in August. This one protects private property owners. Liberals want to be able to control what private property owners do with their property.

I-151: This is the minimum wage initiative. Again, I wrote on minimum wage back in July. People who count on the government for a wage increase are people who are poor employees and are not worth more than the minimum.

I-153: This one prohibits state legislators and state officials from becoming licenced lobbyists for 24 months after departure from state government. Liberals want to restrict people from seeking employment. Lobbyists are part of the government process and the most qualified people for organizations to hire are people who understand the system - the former state officials.

Liberal organizations would be hurt by this as they would not be able to hire an influential former state official to lobby for them either.

Raising the Minimum Wage is a Bad Idea

I was navigating through the New West Missoula web site yesterday and ran across an article about the minimum wage vote coming up in November's election. I read with interest the debate in the comments that followed and, of course, was reminded how many uninformed and uneducated people there are out there. I was compelled to add to the comments, particularly one that attacked republicans and President Bush's tax cuts. The entire minimum wage argument is one of the Liberal's classic class warfare techniques. They attack President Bush's tax cuts for the rich while keeping the minimum wage so low without acknowledging that the top 1% of wage earners pay 34% of the taxes and the top 50% pay 94.5% of the taxes. That tax cuts fuel economic growth by putting more money into the hands of people that know how to generate more economic production. I would argue that the tax cuts help increase the wages of the bottom 50% of wage earners.

People who count on the government to pass a law increasing the minimum wage to give them a raise are not what an employer would consider a good employee. Those people who cannot earn a raise on their own work ethic or drive deserve to earn the minimum wage. When I was a teenager making the minimum wage at my first job, I worked hard and quickly became an asset to my employer who, in turn, gave me a raise within two months - that was the last time I ever earned minimum wage. Now, as an employer, I rarely hire anybody at minimum wage because the job market is so competitive in Missoula. Those that work hard and produce for me, I give regular wage increases to show my gratitude and reward them for their contribution and to not lose them to another employer. Those that are mediocre or poor performing employees, I will not increase their wages. Why reward mediocrity and poor performance? I hope the mediocre find other jobs and I dismiss the poor performers. This is the reality.

If one can only make minimum wage, that is all he is really worth to an employer. If one honestly is a hard working, good producing employee but finds himself with a rotten employer who does not pay fairly, there will be hundreds of other employers willing to pay more for that employee. If he is a mediocre or poor employee, he will be paid poorly. It's that simple.