Pres. Obama's Platform for Tuesday Night

Open Email to Congress:

Dear Representatives and Senators,
        According to the Washington Times, Pres. Obama will ask for the following in his Tuesday night State of the Union speech, and on which I also comment:

INCREASE IN FEDERALLY MANDATED MINIMUM WAGE.  We must oppose this. It's a job killer. Higher minimum wages force business owners toward more automation, with a decrease in jobs. It also removes the opportunity for younger employees entering commercial/industrial markets to learn their trade and grow to positions of higher worth and salary.
  Apprenticeships have been common throughout the historical development of industry. Apprentices were paid a bare minimum for subsistence, but worked to become accomplished artisans, with accompanying monetary rewards.
  We still use a form of apprenticeship in our graduate school educational programs. Graduate students in research and teaching had been paid at subsistence levels. This has only changed recently with the dumping of billions of dollars in taxpayer money into research programs of universities.
  College football is another example of current apprenticeship. College football players have little benefits, but have an opportunity to gain experience and expertise to become highly paid professionals.

EXTENSION OF LONG-TERM UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS.  We must oppose this. The record shows that the longer a person has remained unemployed, the less likelihood that he will ever be employed. In effect, an extension of long-term unemployment benefits will decrease employment and increase the taxpayer costs for subsistence of so-called "indigents".
  It is also likely that most unemployed persons would rather have a better paying job, than subsistence unemployment benefits. As mentioned previously, extending unemployment benefits works against that desire and opportunity for employment.
 Termination of long-term unemployment benefits would create hardship among the unemployed, but most times the bad taste of the medicine, is outweighed by the ultimate benefit. Reduction of individual unemployment income by termination of long-term benefits, requires some action on the part of the non-recipients. This could be moving in with other family members, taking low-paying or part-time jobs, and cutting expenses such as cell phones. There is also welfare available, including homeless shelters, and food banks.

ISSUING MORE PRESIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE ORDERS.
  We must oppose this. The current record for presidential executive orders shows that in large part they are disadvantageous to the economy and employment.
  However, the current constitutional/legal system does not allow the limitation of presidential executive orders. The only defense for the continuance is a loud verbal response on the part of the opposition, with the hope and expectation that control will be obtained by public support against the President and his orders.
COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM.
  We must oppose this. We already have adequate immigration laws. The problem with our immigration system is that the laws have not been previously nor currently enforced.
  Any attempts at congressional immigration reform will be further disadvantageous to adherence of current law. A democratically controlled Senate and Congress, with marginal support of House Democrats, would likely lead to an amnesty program, which is more clearly defined as a pardon for immigration lawbreakers.
 This will leave a few million illegal immigrants in suspension, but they have been for several years without any dire effects on them or the economy. Remaining with the status quo discourages further illegal immigration and decreases economic opportunity for present illegals.
 This situation must eventually be cleared up through the deportation of illegals, combined with opportunity to stay with penalties. However, now is not the time.
FAST-TRACK AUTHORITY TO COMPLETE TRADE DEALS IN ASIA AND EUROPE.
  We must oppose this. The expected trade deals with Asia and Europe would reduce import taxes on export and import goods.
  A quick check on nonperishable goods, such as clothing and other hard items, shows that we already have in the US marketplace a more than ample supply of foreign manufactured goods. We don't need more. We need to replace those goods with American-made goods, with the subsequent development of US jobs.
  American chemical companies have been promoting this deal, because they have a great many foreign manufacturing plants and need to import those products to the US at low cost. Foreign manufacturing by US companies is reasonable to supply the manufactured products to local foreign markets, but not for export back to the US.
  With respect to low-cost raw materials in foreign countries, the concentration has been on oil and natural gas. However, the US has made available to basic chemical companies a large supply of those raw materials at low cost in the US, through francking technology. Many US chemical companies have seen the benefit of US manufacture and are moving their operations back to the US. This should continue.
  With respect to exports from the US, US manufacturers can supply quality goods at low cost probably better than any other country. We don't need a reduction in foreign custom duties in order to remain competitive.

EXPANDED CHILD TAX CREDITS.  We must oppose this. In the present society, child income tax credits probably do not encourage people to have more children. Children are born by a process of plan, usually by a more well-to-do segment of society, or lack of birth control among the "less fortunate". Children now born from planning are significantly reduced, while children born to the "less fortunate" are significantly increased. This leads to a negative change in societal economics, wherein, the less fortunate and presumably the less capable are increased. Income taxes are likely not a factor.
  However, other taxpayer-paid benefits, such as for childcare, likely do more harm than good. The theory of childcare subsidy is that when a mother and father are able to drop off the children to a childcare center, which is subsidized by taxpayers, they will be able to hold down jobs leading to self-support and general improvement of the US economy. Experience has shown that this is far from the fact.
  With various combinations of childcare support, the composition of the "less fortunate" family has significantly changed to a mother and children, with no domestic father. This leaves the children to be raised completely in a matriarchal atmosphere. This is not to say that mothers are poor at child raising. Mothers and fathers have emotional differences and practices in handling children. A child raised only by mother will obviously be deficient in the subsequent real world of mixed sexes. Up to the 1960s, children were raised by both mothers and fathers, with mothers not working outside the home during the early child years. It was proven to be a good system as compared to our current societal program, which is shown to lead to a considerable increase in social deviants evidenced by significant increases in crime.