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must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published.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.


When labor costs go up, employers have but two choices . . .

To The Daily Sun,

Bob Joseph believes that based on rates of inflation, the minimum wage should be around $15 to $16 an hour. At least that was his assertion in a recent letter. Hey Bob, why not $20 or even $30 an hour. Wouldn't that be even more equitable, fair and compassionate? Just forcing businesses to pay employees more, despite razor-thin profit margins, makes those on the left feel really good. They can move on to other issues now that their work is done here. Good intentions are so quickly accomplished and you don't have to get your hands dirty.

Being in that party of the so-called harsh and less compassionate right, I thought I might check out some hard, cold facts. I enlisted the exhaustive research done by Thomas Sowell, esteemed economist and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Walter E. Williams, professor of economics at George Mason University and, finally, Ellen Sauerbrey, chairman of Maryland Business for Responsive Government. Oh, and despite what either Jon Hoyt or Henry Osmer said about me, I constantly cite resources that I use when voicing my opinions. How could you not know that?

Professor Walter Williams' book, "Race and Relations" has many historical and statistical facts to ponder. "In 1948, black teen unemployment was lower than white teen unemployment. Today, black teen unemployment is 40 percent while white teen unemployment is 20 percent." Over the past 50 years, black teen unemployment has never been less than 20 percent, and has been as high as 50 percent, says Thomas Sowell.

Dr. Sowell confirms that "minimum wage laws reduce employment opportunities for the young and unskilled of any age." It has been happening around the world for generations and Sowell says you can check out those statistics by reading a copy of the distinguished British magazine, The Economist, at any local library.

Ellen Sauerbrey notes that "markets set wages". "When labor costs go up, employers have two choices. They can attempt to pass the price on to consumers (and perhaps lose customers) or find a way to cut costs." In the restaurant business that can mean increasing menu prices, cutting employees, or just closing up shop. According to one San Francisco newspaper, restaurants and grocery stores in Oakland's Chinatown have closed after the minimum wage law was passed.

The Heritage Foundation reports that 97 percent of wage earners make more than the minimum wage and the majority of them are between the ages of 18 and 24. Many are students working part time and living in households averaging $53,000 per year. The Department of Labor reports that only 4 percent of minimum wage workers are single parents with full-time jobs.

For the most part, these "compassionate" minimum wage laws are more about allowing liberal/progressives (see most Democrats) to pat themselves on the back and feel good about themselves while leaving the poor and unskilled unable to take that first step onto the career ladder in order to gain some valuable experience in the job market. That has caused devastation for decades in those populations. Check out Spain, Greece and South Africa and their generous minimum wage laws for proof. Then check out Switzerland's unemployment rate which has no minimum wage laws — it always seems to remain below 4 percent, says Dr. Sowell.

There is some pro and con debate to the Earned Income Tax Credit, but many economists claim it works much better in helping low-income earners. They say it doesn't lead to job loss, it doesn't deter hiring and since it penetrates about 80 percent of low income working families, it raises the effective minimum wage for a mom with two kids from $7.25 an hour to $10.44 an hour.

Again Walter Williams' book, "Race and Economics" (2012), is brimming with dozens of studies that show how these minimum wage laws have had a negative employment effect on low skilled workers. Bob Joseph claims that "what happens when you increase people's wages, you increase their spending power." Well yes, Bob, providing they actually have a job and don't lose their job or get cut back to part-time status.

Let's have a real and honest debate about this issue shall we? Good intentions make liberals feel good about themselves while providing them with one more opportunity to label those conservative types as lacking in compassion for those less fortunate than them. Somehow, the results of those good intentions gets lost in the translation. The destruction to families this particular policy has caused worldwide is there for all to see. Why do the liberal/progressives pretend not to see? Why don't they understand that allowing entrepreneurship to thrive by getting the government out of the way, thus creating more jobs, is the way to go?

Russ Wiles


  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 367

God is slow to anger but don't mistake his forbearance for impotence

To The Daily Sun,
E. Scott Cracraft starts out his column of Feb. 24, "I think that Jesus was quite likely a historical character." Please! If he were talking about Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great would he make such a disclaimer or would he just go on and write about them.

Yes, some writers have challenged Jesus' existence, but it's a silly challenge, for to do so is to put the reality of all recorded history in doubt. If his intent is to write a scholarly piece about Christianity, why would he lead us to believe that Jesus existence is somewhat tenuous. Writing a scholarly piece about Christianity is not his intent, but to disparage orthodox Christian doctrine is his intent.

Scott goes on to demonstrate his ignorance of what Scripture is, elevating it seems all "Christian" writing from the early church period to equal genuine scripture for trustworthiness and authority. In this he makes a grave mistake.
He writes as though Christian doctrine evolved through the centuries, rather than being distilled. The difference is huge, and it renders all of his skeptical points about the debate over who Jesus is as non sequiturs, for those who don't want get out your dictionaries, worthless BS.

The doctrine of the Trinity wasn't merely decided at the council in Nicaea in 325 AD it was recognized and protected as a distillation of the true teaching of the Scriptures and of the true church.

Critics of the Bible like to have it both ways. They like to depict it as hand-me-down stories that have been added to and altered and not authentic accounts. Then as Mr. Cracraft does here; they complain about part of the process that has kept it pure and they try to introduce extra canonical texts and heresies and say why weren't these included?

Was there debate over who Jesus was? You bet. He was executed because most of he Jewish leaders did not believe He was who He said He was. Was there debate between Paul and Peter and the rest of the 12 about this? No, there wasn't. Jesus received worship. Only God can receive worship otherwise it is idolatry. (John 20:26-29; Rev. 5; John 1:1-18; Rom. 1:1-5)

Were there others who did not believe this and would corrupt the true teaching? Yes. Did their teaching need to be weeded out and rejected as not canonical and some as even heretical? Yes. Would Mr. Cracraft try to second-guess the process by which heresies were rejected and canonical teaching was protected, and would he elevate these heresies -- that have been rejected by our church fathers, in order to protect sound doctrine which is a correct distillation of Biblical teaching — to equal to true Biblical teaching? I think so.

Mr. Cracraft, please, it is my understanding that you are a quite amiable person. You have a column in a respected local newspaper. Please do not write so as to cause those who might believe in Christ to stumble. It is the God of the whole Earth that you are disparaging. I write this in love sir. Please be more careful in what you write. Of all the things you could write about you chose to disparage God's church. This is not a small thing that you should wave off. Please consider carefully what it is you are doing. For though God is slow to anger. Do not mistake his forbearance for impotence.

Would it not be better to know Him in His mercy? That is why Jesus came and died and was raised, to bring a salvation that only God Himself could bring. The truth is simple sir. A child can understand it. It's not way up there so that only the very intelligent can understand it. But it's down in the heart where even the simple can grasp it. Please don't let your great intelligence — for it is as nothing compared to God's — prevent you from receiving the truth. (2 Peter 3:9-18)

Put your knowledge down for a minute sir and hear God. Please sir take a Sunday and go to a Bible preaching church, not as a critic, but to hear what God would speak to you. If you go expecting to hear from God and with a pure heart you will not be disappointed.

John Demakowski


  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 359