Placeholder Your Letters

$15-an-hour minimum

wage would be beneficial

I have a problem with Sunday’s editorial “Killing the neediest with kindness,” regarding raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour.

You wrote,“The CBO finds a minimum wage increase to $15 per hour would boost wages for 17 million workers and lift 1.3 million people out of poverty.” You also report that 1.3 million workers would become jobless with as many as 3.7 million people becoming unemployed, mainly due to lower-paying jobs being replaced by automation.

First of all, 1.3 million people would be lifted out of poverty with this minimum wage increase and wages for 1.7 million more would be increased. That is significant.

Second, employers will seek to automate no matter what the minimum wage is because it lowers costs. They are doing that now.

Third, raising the minimum wage may help people not need to have two jobs to support their families. That would open up more jobs. An increase in wages means an increase in spending, which promotes economic growth.

Could I live on less than $15/hour? It’s possible the Democrats want to increase the minimum wage for humanitarian reasons more than political reasons. But I doubt the Republican-run Senate will vote for this increase anyway.

Janet Kropp

St. Joseph

Rights of citizens swept away

by bureaucrats’ handling of river

The more information that seeps through the muck of reports on the Missouri River flooding makes it plain that the Army Corps of Engineers is not the only participant in this government fiasco.

The Corps of Engineers once worked to keep the Missouri within bounds, and engineered the water flow to stop formation of oxbow lakes and flooding. This was their mission, and people living along the Missouri relied on them. They have betrayed this trust and joined with conservationists, environmentalists and the recreational tourist industry’s interests to completely change the Missouri River to accommodate these interests.

What is proposed by these interests is a whole new ecosystem along the Missouri. The main part of the plan is to widen the flood plain. This is not a new plan. Implementation of this plan started with the Gavins Point dam and lake. There will be no going back from this implementation.

Conservationists will be happy to control more wildlife habitat, and can pursue their dream of bringing back the pallid sturgeon.

Environmentalists and the EPA want control of the river as a navigational waterway, and the opportunity to build hydroelectricity-producing dams. This is in keeping with their green energy plans.

Recreational big money wants the opportunity to make even more money by developing lucrative tourist attractions.

None of these reasons for widening and drastically changing the ecosystem of the Missouri are intrinsically bad. However, the means to achieve this change have been underhanded, and the cost and damage incurred by those rightful owners of houses, farms and businesses along the river have been tremendous and totally unjust.

Rights of individuals and the right of all citizens to vote on matters of this consequence have been swept away by powerful government bureaucrats who see no reason to consider the average American. After all, they know best.

Carol Cornelius

Easton, Missouri