Letter Submission

To submit a letter to the editor, please email us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Letters must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published. We do not run anonymous letters. Local issues get priority, as do local writers. We encourage writers to keep letters to no more than 400 words, but will accept longer letters to be run on a space-available basis. Letters may be edited for spelling, grammar, punctuation and legal concerns.

 

Lawmakers know they need to 'butter the bread' of state employees

To the Daily Sun,

Let's talk budget. The top Republican lawmakers have certainly recognized that the state workers backed up by the state workers' union are the backbone of their re-election bid. The Senate president, House speaker and Senate majority leader have decided to put the $12 million state employee pay raise back into the budget as a compromise to the governor's budget veto. The state workers' union must have caught wind that the "Teflon" Dept. of Fish and Game worked out their own deal with the Senate Finance for the $1.2 million for their own employees pay raises. It is quite obvious that the state taxpayers are working for the state employees.

Our lawmakers have recognized, and have known all along the fact that if they are going to retain their seats in Concord, who is "buttering the bread". Let's use an estimated 20,000 state employees as an example. Twenty-thousand votes, added to their spouse or significant other, equals 40,000 votes. Then add children (two) and you get 80,000 votes. Then add one parent and you're up to 100,000 votes and at least one friend equals 120,000 votes.

Would you say that 120,000 votes could sway who gets elected or not? So much for this conservative majority working for their other taxpayer constituents.

A lot of people in this country think it's big money PACs which determine which elected officials get elected, when in reality it's the elected officials spending our taxpayer money on the government, state and local employees pay and benefits that determines who get elected and who keep their seats. Think about it.

How many 2016 votes were at jeopardy if this 2 percent pay raise was left out of the budget? This must have been a real hard decision for the conservatives to make.

Eric T. Rottenecker
Bristol

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 429

Raising minimum wage might be most politically viable option

To The Daily Sun,

Why raise the minimum wage? Conservatives argue that when we raise the price of a commodity, less of it will be purchased — supply and demand — and jobs will be lost. Economists are conflicted about whether that's true and how large that effect might be, if it is true. An employer might not cut any jobs if, for example, it is already at a minimum staffing level. Many liberals simply argue that it's the right thing to do. However, maybe that shouldn't be the end of the analysis.

Twenty-five years ago, the majority of those earning the minimum wage were teenagers and others supplementing family income. Today, the story is different. According to Ben Casselman, of the website fivethrityeight.com which does such a good job predicting political races and analyzing sports by the numbers, about half of those earning less than President Obama's proposed minimum of $10.10 are struggling to support themselves and their families.

That number has doubled since 1990. Some conservatives suggest that these people have character flaws that lead to their poor financial condition. But that's a large number of people, and they are working. Despite their efforts, they are poor. Living in poverty is not good for children. For example, a report out of Princeton University suggested a strong correlation between low income and low measures of children's health, intelligence, and academic success regardless of parental characteristics.

Maybe we should ask ourselves if raising the minimum wage is a good thing for our society. How many jobs will be lost? Will it hurt small business owners? How much will those struggling low wage workers benefit? Will their children benefit in the long run. Will we pay less for supplemental educational services and crime control? Is this a way to stimulate demand since that money will most likely be spent not saved and help keep the economy growing?

Some have suggested that raising the minimum wage isn't the best way to attack the problem of poverty among the working poor but we also have to do the political calculus. If we decide it's a good idea to help them, what will pass? Raising the minimum wage might be the most politically viable option. While we are thinking about that, let's not have an emotional or superficial debate about raising the minimum wage. Let's look at what is good for society now and in the long run.

Dave Pollak
Laconia

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 470