The Left Lane

K9 Connection: At-Risk Teens And Shelter Dogs Get A New 'Leash' On Life

2009-12-17T00:06:00.003-06:00

At-risk teens and animals abandoned at shelters. Two marginalized groups in great need of love, security and a chance at a better life. With an alarmingly high rate of teen suicides and over three-million unwanted dogs and cats euthanized in shelters each year, it is understandably easy to feel helpless when it comes to dealing with these two very sad issues.

A solution: k9 connection. The mission of k9 connection:

Put these two groups together and unleash the healing power of the human-animal bond. At-risk teens learn how to train homeless shelter dogs in basic obedience skills in order to increase their chances of adoption.

The benefits:

Troubled teens benefit by learning how to be more responsible and accountable, the importance of goal setting, and how positive reinforcement offers an alternative to force and violence.

The shelter dogs develop skills allowing them to smoothly transition into permanent, loving homes.

Work in Progress � Fox News, WashPost Pushing Cuts in Minimum Wage to Help Workers

2009-12-16T22:26:00.019-06:00

You got to love this. Fox News and the Washington Post suggesting that perhaps; it is time to cut the minimum wage.

To quote Washington Post Editorial Board member Charles Lane:

Reduce the federal minimum wage. In 2007, Congress enacted a three-step increase in the minimum wage, which was then $5.15 per hour. The final installment took effect in July, raising the rate to $7.25 per hour. In the meantime, unemployment climbed from 4.7 percent to 9.5 percent.

I am not saying that the minimum wage increase caused this; far from it. But study after study has shown that this supposed benefit to the poor prices low-skilled workers out of entry-level jobs. It was unwise to keep raising the cost of hiring them in a recession.

Lowering the minimum wage will not only work to drive millions of more Americans into to poverty, but we are supposed to believe that this is one way in which it can be touted as a vehicle of job creation. As Firedoglake reports:

This gets to a bigger issue of corporate groups stealing the frame of "workers".

Furthermore, as the Nobel-prize winning economist Paul Krugman of the NYT states:

The belief that lower wages would raise overall employment rests on a fallacy of composition. In reality, reducing wages would at best do nothing for employment; more likely it would actually be contractionary.

Here’s how the fallacy works: if some subset of the work force accepts lower wages, it can gain jobs. If workers in the widget industry take a pay cut, this will lead to lower prices of widgets relative to other things, so people will buy more widgets, hence more employment.

But if everyone takes a pay cut, that logic no longer applies. The only way a general cut in wages can increase employment is if it leads people to buy more across the board. And why should it do that?

Dear readers, the next time Fox News or the Washington Post start putting forth ideas on how best move this country in a new direction economically; Beware: it is most likely a new angle of thought of how to best screw over the American worker even more.

Sanders “Not Voting” For Health Care Bill

2009-12-16T21:24:00.004-06:00

Tonight on the Fox Business Channel with Neil Cavuto, Senator Bernie Sanders stated flatly that he would not vote for the health care currently moving through the senate in its current form.

Senator Sanders:

I’m struggling with this. As of this point, I’m not voting for the bill. … I’m going to do my best to make this bill a better bill, a bill that I can vote for, but I’ve indicated both to the White House and the Democratic leadership that my vote is not secure at this point. And here is the reason. When the public option was withdrawn, because of Lieberman’s action, what I worry about is how do you control escalating health care costs?

Which is a big concern of many on the left with the legislation currently snaking its way through the senate. As it stands there are many good reforms contained within this bill but there is no real cost containment, no competition, and an individual mandate that Americans will be required to purchase a crappy product from the Insurance Cartel. NO REAL REFORM CAN BE ACHIEVED IF IT IS COME AT FROM THE POINT OF:

HOW DO WE KEEP FOR-PROFIT INSURANCE BUT TRY TO ENACT REAL REFORM.

This is the same argument that was brought forth in 1993-94 and we see what happened. No reform. I find it interesting that we are the only first world industrialized nation on the face of the earth that does not have universal health care coverage; whether it be a single-payer system like Canada or a heavy regulated industry with exchanges like Sweden.

Make no mistake there is no real regulation within this bill. Wendell Potter (former insurance executive) and now at the Center for Media and Democracy states that this is a dream bill to the insurance industry. Hell, it should be. Their lobbyists helped write it and their paid shills like Nelson, Baucas, and Lieberman have whored themselves out to due their bidding. And the secret deals that the White House has made with big pharma have only worked to piss of the far left even more.

Last night, Byron Dorgan's amendment to allow the re-importation of drugs from countries like Canada back to the United States was defeated. A full thirty democrats voted against it. The reasoning as I see it: Many Senators were worried that this amendment would only work to further kill the bill by alienating big Pharma. The White House worked out $80 billion is concessions from the Pharma which seems like a lot but only roughly accounts to about 2 percent of their profits over the next decade. Man, they got one hell of a deal.

Democrats, you are no longer the party of the people. You have become part of the problem instead of the solution.Passions are running high and your base is becoming disillusioned. What are you (Democrats) willing to do about it?