With the latest push for a $15 minimum wage, it is worth revisiting why many economists and politicians feel it is bad economic policy. Scott Morefield describes some of the consequences of doubling the minimum wage.

The first objection is that it will destroy jobs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that upwards of 1.4 million jobs will be lost if the $15 minimum wage goes into effect. Raising the minimum wage helps those who keep their jobs, but it hurts those who lose their jobs because an employer cannot keep them on the payroll.

I recently saw an interview with the owner of a frozen yogurt shop. Most of his employees are high school students. This may be their first job, and he could not afford to pay all of them $15 an hour. He also explained that he couldn’t just raise prices equal to the wage increase, because he would lose too many customers.

A second objection is that raising the minimum wage would hurt low-skilled workers. Professionals (doctors, lawyers, engineers) will always have work, he explains. But the job loss will affect those on the lower rung of the employment ladder.

Inflation is a third objection. That didn’t occur to me, but all you have to do is consider Economics 101. If the price of production increases, the item being produced will inevitably cost more.

Finally, the rich will get richer. He says, “giant, multi-national corporations like Amazon, Target, and Walmart can easily afford and absorb any increase in the minimum wage.” Of course, small businesses would face a more significant challenge.

I realize that American workers are struggling, but so are many American businesses. Raising the minimum wage seems like a compassionate policy until you begin to consider the consequences.

This administration has declared a war on terror, but they aren’t thinking of a war on Islamic terrorism. No, they talk about a war on “violent extremists” in America. You might think they want to go after Antifa and other groups that have been rioting and vandalizing. But I don’t think they are the target either.

There is a great deal of ambiguity in defining who are the targets of this new domestic war on extremists. And I think they are intentionally being ambiguous about their intended targets. We do have a few hints.

The newly installed Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, argued that the military needed to rid itself of “racists and extremists” in its ranks. He even ordered a 60-day stand down to root out “white supremacism” and “extremism.” Terms like “white supremacy” have often been applied to a large number of individuals.

General Stanley McChrystal says he sees terrifying parallels between Islamic terrorists with Al-Qaida and the people who stormed the Capitol on January 6. Former CIA Director John Brennan recently talked about what looked like insurgency movements overseas that could bring together an unholy alliance here of “religious extremists, authoritarians, fascists, bigots, racists, nativists, even libertarians.”

Religious extremists? Would conservative Christians fit into that category? Libertarians? Some of these terms have been so broadly applied that a large portion of America could be identified as domestic extremists.

It is time to ask this administration to speak plainly. Who do they believe is a threat? Why do they believe those groups are a threat to America? Are they talking about us? I wonder if they refuse to be precise because they want all of us to be afraid.

Attacks on free speech are increasing so much so that even liberals are concerned about people who say that free speech is dangerous and needs to be controlled. Jonathan Turley is a law professor at George Washington University. He acknowledges that many may view him as a “free speech purist” but reminds us that his views used to be the mainstream view of free speech.

He also explains that “public or private censorship does not produce better speech. It only produces more censorship and more controlled speech.” That used to be the liberal view concerning free speech, but no longer.

He reminds us that “the Constitution was written not only for times like these �” it was written during times like these.” At the start of the Republic, the various factions (Republicans and Federalists) weren’t just trying to “cancel” each other but were actually trying to destroy and even kill each other. And there were rampant conspiracy theories back in that day. In other words, the Constitution was written in a period similar to ours today.

He describes some of the more extreme efforts. Last week I talked about members of Congress who were trying to pressure various cable outlets and social media platforms to drop Fox News and any conservative commentary. An article by two law professors called for what Jonathan Turley terms “Chinese-style censorship” by arguing that China’s control of its media is better than the freedom we grant to networks.

He concludes by assuring us that he doesn’t believe that today’s activists will succeed in removing the most-watched cable news channel in 2020 from the airways.” That may be true, but they may succeed in knocking off other smaller programs, and that should concern us.

Do we have a crisis at the border? Earlier this month, the Biden administration acknowledged that it was a challenge but downplayed that it was a crisis. This statement shows how politicians change the rules and criteria in order to fit their narrative.

Alejandro Mayorkas serves as the secretary of Homeland Security in the Biden administration. She rejected reporter questions about the crisis on the border by merely saying that it a challenge. But it was the same woman who a few years ago as deputy secretary of Homeland Security who (along with Vice President Joe Biden) referred to a border crisis when there were 1,000 attempted crossings a day.

The Border Patrol reported that on one day recently there were 6,000 border crossings in one day (4,700 trying to enter illegally, 900 who were observed but not detained, and 400 who were detained and sent back). When the Obama administration was in office seven years ago, 1,000 border crossings in a day was a crisis. Today in the Biden administration, 6,000 border crossings in a day isn’t a crisis.

Someone who believes it is a crisis is Democratic member of Congress Henry Cuellar. He finally decided to send pictures of a border facility crowded with men, women, and children to the Houston Chronicle. As a Democrat, he says he supports the Biden administration but felt he needed to do more and encourage the administration to listen to people at the border. He is frustrated that the administration is listening “to the immigration activists and advocates” and needs “to listen to the border communities.”

If we are to address the festering problem of immigration and border security, we must start by telling the truth. Denying a crisis when one exists is not a good first step. I applaud Representative Cuellar for calling attention to an issue ignored by this administration and often ignored by the media.

Research shows that Americans have less and less in common with each other. But there is a problem that the majority of Americans share: knowing what to believe.

In 2019, Pew Research Center found that 64 percent of Americans have a hard time discerning truth when listening to elected officials. Eight-in-ten Americans believe Republicans and Democrats disagree about basic facts. The inability of both parties to agree on basic facts seems to be one of the only things the parties do agree on.

A significant reason for this widespread distrust and confusion is the fact that fewer and fewer Americans share a common moral code. Increasing numbers of people in our nation are abandoning the Bible as the source of moral truth.

Here’s a disturbing statistic: 58 percent of American adults believe individuals, not God, decide what is morally true, according to research led by Dr. George Barna. This problem is only growing worse among younger Americans. Twenty-four percent of Gen Z (those born after 1998) believe morality changes over time, based on society. We are already seeing the chaotic effects of a “morality” determined by society’s whims.

Trusting in an unchanging Source of absolute moral truth is more than a spiritual comfort. It provides clarity and confidence for navigating all of life’s issues that we face every day. When we stand solidly on God’s Word, we can help others around us navigate any issues they may be facing.

On Point of View, we’re committed to helping our listeners navigate any issue they may face by relying on God’s Word as the source of moral Truth. If you know people who need that kind of moral clarity in their lives, consider pointing them to Point of View, where we discuss relevant issues through a biblical lens.

You may also consider donating to Point of View, so that we can reach even more listeners with the applicable truth found in God’s Word.

Although it is difficult to predict the future, there are many trends that we can see coming. That is the premise of the book, Seven Gray Swans, written by Chuck Bentley. A black swan is an extremely unpredictable event that it beyond what is normally expected. By contrast, a gray swan is an obvious danger we tend to ignore.

He describes seven gray swans that are on his radar right now. The first is universal basic income. Before you scoff at the idea this might be implemented, consider that you probably have received a stimulus check in the mail.

A second gray swan is digital currency. We seem headed to a cashless society. But will we lose all privacy when every transaction can be tracked? And for it to be effective, we will likely have to use biometric IDs.

A third concern is modern monetary theory. We have politicians in office and a number of economists that tell us deficits don’t matter. Government can spend as much as it wants. Money is being created out of thin air.

American democratic socialism is a fourth gray swan. As I have mentioned in previous commentaries, younger Americans often prefer socialism over capitalism.

Two more gray swans are social scoring and biometric identification. This has already been implemented to a great degree in China as a policing tool to evaluate commitment to the party. It is also a powerful source of control over free speech.

A final gray swan is the existence of fragile networks. Have you ever had your confidential data compromised? Are the networks you use safe and secure?

I encourage you to get this Crown Financial e-book and pay attention to these dangers on the horizon.

When a liberal who is a former Democratic adviser warns that the nation is headed toward a totalitarian state, we need to pay attention. Naomi Wolf has served as an advisor to Bill Clinton’s reelection campaign in 1996 and recently voted for Joe Biden �” a decision she is starting to regret.

She has been posting warnings on Twitter for months, but she reached a larger audience of conservatives when she appeared on “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” She told the host that this “is not a partisan thing.” In fact, she said it “transcends everything you and I might disagree or agree one. That should bring together left and right to protect our Constitution.”

She went on to describe the impact the lockdowns have had. “The state has now crushed businesses, kept us from gathering in free assembly to worship as the First Amendment provides, is invading our bodies . . . which is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, restricting movement, fining us in New York state.” She added that the violations go on and on.

Naomi Wolf has been a student of totalitarian regimes and wrote a book years ago outlining the ten steps that “would-be tyrants always take when they want to close down a democracy.” She explained that the trend is always the same “whether they are on the left or the right, they do these same ten things.” She never expected to see this happening in America in her lifetime.

Perhaps her most ominous statement was her belief that America has now arrived at step number 10. That would be the suspension of the rule of law. She sees it as a “merger of corporate power and government power, which is really characteristic of fascism in the ‘20’s.”

She believes it is time for America to wake up. I agree.

Yesterday I talked about the decision by Amazon to no longer provide the book by Dr. Ryan Anderson on transgenderism. Ironically, Anderson didn’t even know his book was pulled until a reader told him. He logged onto Amazon and was greeted with a message that it was not a functioning page. That’s because free speech isn’t a functioning principle at that e-commerce company.

Did Amazon and Jeff Bezos merely give into the woke mob? That is hard to imagine. Two years ago, when the National Enquirer attempted to blackmail him, he resisted them and went public. As one of the richest men in the world, he can afford to stand up to those calling for a virtual book-burning. Besides, he didn’t have to stand up to the mob. He was content to go along with it.

Does Amazon have the right to exclude book from its online service? It does. But it is interesting to see what books aren’t banned from Amazon. Rod Dreher noted that “Jeff Bezos will sell you Hitler’s autobiography, because he correctly trust readers” but “will not sell you a book by the head of a major American think tank.”

Will more Amazon censorship take place? That is certain. Two congressional Democrats wrote a stern letter to Jeff Bezos that was demanding more censorship. They lament that the “country’s public discourse is plagued by misinformation, disinformation, conspiracy theories, and lies.” A good way to counteract some of that would be to have more quality books, like the one written by Ryan Anderson that just was censored.

They weren’t finished, they also demanded to know why Amazon Fire TV carries conservative programs. They also sent similar letters to a dozen cable CEOs and tech CEOs pressing them to drop contracts with right-of-center outlets like Fox News.

All of this suggests that we will see more censorship in the future.

Last year, Amazon began removing books the gatekeepers felt took the wrong side of the ongoing LGBTQ debate. Some of them weren’t the sort of books most small bookstores would deem to have on their shelves because of their mean-spirited tone.

Then came Abigail Shrier’s book Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters. When I interviewed her on the book three months ago, we talked about some of the negative controversy that resulted in Target pulling the book off the shelves. But you could still buy the book on Amazon.

That is no longer the case with Dr. Ryan Anderson’s book When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment. Amazon pulled the book, even though the
book was released three years ago. Why now? Some speculate that it was an inconvenient reminder of the dangers posed if Congress passed the Equality Act.

If you read the book, you will find an accurate presentation of scientific, medical, and legal debates about transgenderism. Anderson currently serves as the president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. It would be hard to describe him as a bomb-throwing radical, though he obviously has a viewpoint that comports with a biblical view of marriage and family.

Critics of Amazon usually focus on its size and market share. There’s another problem: its opacity. We still do not know who decided to ban the book or why the Amazon gatekeepers even felt the need to ban the book.

Removing books from Amazon has larger implications. First, it also removes them from Amazon subsidiaries like Kindle, Audible, and Abe Books. Second, it sends a signal to other bookstores not to carry the book.

Here’s the issue. Censorship makes its it easy to maintain that there is only one side to an argument, when one of the sides is no longer given a forum.