MINIMUM WAGE (Just Facts, No Opinion)

The current (federal) minimum wage is $7.25/hr. 

Only 18 states have a minimum wage higher than the federal standard.

The minimum wage reached its (inflation-adjusted) historic high in 1968, when it was raised from $1.40 to $1.60 per hour. Adjusted for inflation that would come to $10.55 per hour (in 2012).

However, per capita income excluding current transfer receipts — that is, the personal income earned in the economy, excluding Social Security and other government programs, adjusted for inflation — has grown by 100.6% since 1968.

In other words, if minimum wages had kept pace not with just inflation alone but rather with overall income growth in the American economy, it would now be $21.16 per hour.

$7.25/hr @ 40hrs/wk = $290/wk ($15,080/yr)
$10.55/hr @ 40hrs/wk = $422/wk ($21,944/yr)
$21.16/hr @ 40hrs/wk = $846/wk ($44,012/yr)

Democrats are currently proposing a minimum wage increase to $10.10/hr. Democrats are also proposing that the minimum wage be tied to inflation and automatically increase accordingly.

$10.10/hr @ 40hrs/wk = $404/wk ($21,008/yr)

30.3 million workers would get a raise if the minimum wage was increased to $10.10/hr.

The most recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll (taken 2 weeks ago) found that 63% of Americans (including 47% of self-identified Republicans) support raising the minimum wage to $10.10/hr.

One more thing...

In conjunction with the $10.10/hr minimum wage increase proposal, Democrats are also including a raise in the minimum wage for "tip" workers (waiters, bartenders, drivers, etc.). The proposal would set the minimum wage for tip workers at 70% of the regular minimum wage.

The current (federal) minimum wage for tip workers is $2.13/hr.

If the standard minimum wage was $10.10/hr, then the minimum wage for tip workers, if set at a 70% threshold, would translate to $7.07/hr.

An increase from $2.13/hr to $7.07/hr would raise the annual income of tip workers by $10,275.

And now I'm done.

Guns: 2.0

Today we learned that from the moment he fired the first bullet into Sandy Hook Elementary's glass front doors to the moment he fired the last bullet....into himself...less than 5 minutes passed. Adam Lanza fired 152 bullets....152 fucking bullets in less than 5 minutes.

Here are two undeniable facts:

1. Adam Lanza used 30 round magazines in his military weapon. As a result he had to reload his semiautomatic Bushmaster .223 assault rifle 4 times.

2. Had Adam Lanza had 10 round magazines, he would have had to reload 14 times.

During one of the four reloads, his gun jammed, at which time six children were able to escape. 

20 children (and 6 adults) were not able to escape amongst the barrage that that killing machine made possible.

Infuriating.

Rand Paul's Filibuster:

Originally posted on FB 3/6/13

So....Rand Paul deserves props (cannot believe I just typed that) for actually doing a real filibuster. This is what's supposed to be required. I also have to admit that I understand and respect his position...to a point.

Obviously he's taking the issue to an unreasonable place (I expect nothing less from him). Accusing those who don't agree with him (specifically the president) of "shredding the Constitution"...it's too bad he's not trying to have a real debate. That being said, at least he's doing something....something that aligns with his actual convictions (please don't misinterpret that to mean I don't think he's a political hack...cuz he is).

The problem is...his position is completely ideological and void of reality and common sense. Not to sound like a NeoCon-Republican but....9/11 is the obvious example that we all need to reflect on when discussing this issue.

The passengers of flight 93 forced down and crashed a plane in PA that was ultimately destined to crash into the Capital. Prior to it's crashing, an order had been given to shoot it down from the sky before it had an opportunity to be flown into a building in DC. Does Rand Paul find that order unconstitutional?

What if we had had the same reaction time for the planes headed to the twin towers? Would it have been unconstitutional, illegal, and wrong to shoot those down? Should we have instead allowed the planes to crash and kill thousands of innocent people?

Make no mistake, shooting down those planes would have been an example of the president (without any initial oversight) ordering military action that would directly result in the killing of non-combatant americans within american borders.

This is obviously the extraordinary circumstances that Holder is referencing.

Now, don't get me wrong, we should definitely debate this (we must publicly debate and discuss this). We should define the limitations regarding it. Unfortunately an irresponsible, disingenuous, and crazy person is the one who had the courage to be the first person to stand up at the podium.

Guns:

Originally posted on FB 2/14/13

Some of us want to have a common sense discussion regarding U.S. firearm policies. Sadly, some of us don't.

There are various legislative proposals regarding gun regulations, restrictions, and bans (of specific ammunitions and assault weapons). However, despite what we hear on talk radio or read on many FB memes, there is no proposed legislation overturning the Second Amendment. No one has even proposed a ban of all semi-automatic weapons (let alone all guns). There are no federal legislative proposals being considered that would take away a person's right to own a gun, to protect their home, to hunt, and/or shoot skeet.

We as a nation should be able to have an honest debate....but many of the folks who oppose gun-control simply refuse.

As a nation, we need to talk about universal background checks, high capacity ammo, semi-automatic weapons, registration, training, ballistic fingerprinting, mental health, public school security, etc. etc.
And we should not expect that one side of the political divide will succeed in all of their goals.

But let's be clear...
You do NOT have a constitutional "right" to own/use/buy/sell a semi-automatic assault weapon.
You do NOT have a constitutional "right" to own/use/buy/sell high capacity ammo.
You do NOT have a constitutional "right" to own/use/buy/sell weapons and/or ammo free of any/all government regulation.
Period.

This was put to rest 75 years ago....since 1938 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in United States vs. Miller...when the National Firearms Act was upheld. The court held that the NFA provision (criminalizing possession of certain firearms) was not violative of the Second Amendment's restriction and therefore was not unconstitutional.
Also, in more recent times, the was of course the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 (expired in 2004).

So, now that that's been settled, if you disagree with specific gun-control proposals, then by all means, make your case....but don't hide behind a false premise/narrative that the current proposals are unconstitutional and infringing on your "rights."
I do understand why some folks do that (and will continue)....it's difficult to explain to the public why anyone needs an AK-47 (because no one does)....or why anyone needs to be able to fire 30 rounds of bullets without reloading (again, no one needs to be able to do that)....
You see, at the end of the day, if anti-gun control folks are forced to be honest, they then have to admit the truth....they simply "want" those types of guns and ammo....but such an acknowledgement then gets them into an even more difficult conversation with the public about why they want it (there's that whole 'black helicopters landing in our back yard' theory)....

The NRA (and their Ditto Heads) know they'll very likely lose this debate if we're able to have the public discourse honestly, reasonably, and without bogus distractions.
The fact that they simply want these weapons, not "need" or have a "right" but simply "want"....add to that their often crazy Branch-Davidian like views of our government....when the reality of their position is juxtaposed to the horrific realities of Newtown, Tucsan, Aurora, Virginia Tech, and so many others....when this debate is based in reality and fact....then the insanity of the status quo becomes undeniable.