The Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914

The Federal Trade Commission Act was originally a bill that was instigated by president Woodrow Wilson.  The bill for Federal Trade Commission Act was created to the image President Wilson’s had in mind. When he suggested an investigatory commission in January 1914, the House of Representatives agreed with his proposal. When he proposed a prosecutorial commission in June, the Senate bill and final law embraced that proposal. When he later brought up the agency’s assistive abilities, his selection of Commissioners reflected that of a strong leadership(Winerman, 38).

The Federal Trade Commission Act has an interesting history.  Unlike most bills, it actually came from the hand of the President of the United States.  He did not necessarily write the entire bill himself, but he is the man who ordered to have it written, followed by having it presented to congress starting on the Senate floor.  The bill was proposed along side the Clayton Act.  They are both essential bills meant to reaffirm and give more power to the Sherman Act of 1890.  The Sherman Act had the express ability to bust trusts, like big gas, oil, sugar and etcetera. Big companies were making agreements with each other that would give trusts the ability to increase the cost and reduce the quality of goods without penalty.  The Sherman Act was pushed through congress quickly and put an end to these trusts, which helped the economy and generally improved the quality of life for millions of consumers.  However the Sherman Act of 1890 still didn't quite have enough power to end all unfair business practices.

There was another form of anti competitive business practice that the Sherman Act wasn't quite able to rid of, the merging of big companies into coercive monopolies.  When multiple companies selling the same product merge they become a monopoly and can have the ability to control in full the price of the goods they supply to the market.  This represents the new need for the Clayton act.  Since monopolies weren’t considered trusts the Sherman Act could do nothing about it, it didn’t have the power to prosecute or break up monopolies.  So in comes the Clayton Act of 1914 alongside the Federal Trade Commission Act.   The Clayton Act had the power to break up monopolies and prevent mergers that are likely to stifle competition.  The Clayton Act would effectively come in and close the loopholes that the Sherman Act had, creating a stronger wall defending against anti competitive and unfair business practices(Oppenheim, 821-854).

The President of the time, Woodrow Wilson, saw a need for an agency specifically dedicated to watching out for and preventing anti competitive business practice.  Wilson announced his antitrust initiative to Congress on January 20, 1914. Quoting multiple Democratic platforms, he declared “We are all agreed that ‘private monopoly is indefensible and intolerable.’”(Brown; 301 H.R. Doc. No. 625, 63d Cong., 2d Sess. 5 (1914)).  

The Federal Trade Commission Bill was presented on January 20th, 1914 at a joint session of the 63rd Congress of the United States(Stevens, 840).  President Wilson, with respect to creating the Federal Trade Commission to handle breaking up trusts and anticompetitive business strategies stated:

“The opinion of the country would instantly approve of such a commission(FTC).  It would not wish to see it empowered to make terms with monopoly or in any sort to assume control of business, as if the government made itself responsible.  It demands such a commission only as an indispensable instrument of information and publicity, as a clearinghouse for the facts by which both the public mind and the managers of great business undertakings should be guided, and as instrumentality for doing justice to business where the processes of the courts or the natural forces of correction outside the courts are inadequate to adjust the remedy to the wrong in a way that will meet all the equities and circumstances of the case(Daish, 46).”  

His words sparked a strong support base for his bill, both in congress and from the general public.  The response to the bill from the progressive platform was supportive:

“To that end we urge the establishment of  strong Federal administrative commission of high standing, which shall maintain permanent active supervision over industrial corporations engaged in interstate commerce, or such of them as are of public importance doing for them what the government now dos for the nation banks, and what is now done for the railroads by the interstate commerce commission.”  

Said the Progressive Platform 1912(Daish, 46).   The Republican Platform declared:

“In the enforcement and administration of Federal laws governing interstate commerce and enterprises impressed with a public use engaged therein, there is much that may be committed to a Federal Trade Commission, thus placing in the hands of an administrative board many of the functions now necessarily exercised by the courts.  This will promote promptness in the administration of the laws and avoid delays and technicalities incident to court procedure(Daish, 45).”  

The Republicans gave more support to the Federal Trade Commission Act.  The bill for the FTC Act now had a bipartisan backing and approval.

After a bipartisan and mutual backing of the bill from the majorities of both parties, it’s not difficult to see why congress backed and passed the bill so willingly. The Bill was introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Clayton, whom the Clayton Act is named after, and was introduced in the Senate by Senator Newlands as S. 4160(Stevens, 841).  The Senate approved the bill on September 8th by a 43-5 vote and the House of Representatives  passed the bill on September 10th by a voice vote(FTC.gov).

After congress passed the bill with a march of support from both key parties, it went to the desk of President Wilson.  Wilson’s bill was drafted, posted, passed by Congress, and finally made it to his desk to sign into law, which he eagerly did, on September 26th, 1914.  It took less than a year and his mission had to come to fruition and because of his work, there would now be an agency to defend against trusts and monopolies.  This would come to benefit the economy, the general public, and small business helping to continue to effectively support and continue to generate the “American Dream.”

Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914

Annotated Bibliography:

Brown, George Dobbin. An Essay Towards a Bibliography of the Published Writings and Addresses

     of Woodrow Wilson, 1910-1917. Vol. 2. Library of Princeton University, 1917(301 H.R. Doc.  

    No. 625, 63d Cong., 2d Sess. 5 (1914)).

          Daish, John.  “The Yale Law Journal,” Vol. 24, No. 1 (Nov., 1914), pp. 43-55,

                Published by: The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc., Stable URL:     

                http://www.jstor.org/stable/785953

The significance of this article by John Daish and its usefulness is directly related to the fact that it gives a picture of how the people saw coercive monopolies and why the public didn’t want to enable them.  It gives a view of why unfair business practices were seen as a problem in the first place and who was there to voice their opinions about it.

Oppenheim, S. Chesterfield. "Guides to Harmonizing Section 5 of the Federal Trade

    Commission    Act with the Sherman and Clayton Acts." Michigan Law Review

    (1961): 821-854.

This article provides information on section 5 of the FTC Act as well as illuminating some connections it has to the Clayton and Sherman Acts.  

Stevens, W. H. S.  “The American Economic Review”, Vol. 4, No. 4 (Dec., 1914), pp.

    840-855, Published by: American Economic Association, Stable URL:                              

                http://www.jstor.org/stable/1806005

In The American Economic Review, Stevens gives a good record of the presidents meeting and speech that led to and allowed the creation for the act.  

Winerman, Marc. "The origins of the FTC: concentration, cooperation, control, and

      competition.”        Antitrust Law Journal (2003): 1-97.

This Article is very detailed in all aspects of the origins of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Clayton Act, and how it was influenced by the Sherman Act.  

https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/our-history

       Everything that there is to know about the FTC Act is available at this url.  Where

       I have cited FTC.gov this is the assosciated link.  

History of Coffee 

The Evolution of Coffee in North American Society

Trevor Ladd - April 12, 2015 

Coffee, as the millennials know it , is very different then their parents knew coffee.  Their parents viewed coffee in a very different way than their parents knew it, and so on and so forth, coffee has gone from non-existent to ubiquitous and abundant in the United States.  There have been generations where coffee was rarely if ever drank or talked about, followed by generations of excessive coffee consumption.  In the 1950s coffee was a very cheap product that most would hardly have been able to differentiate from drinking battery acid.  It was very cheaply and artificially processed, pre-ground, and even the scent in the can was artificial and inserted before sealing.  Today, almost any run of the mill Starbucks enthusiast or drinker of fine espresso would look down their nose at someone who drinks coffee from a brand such as Folger’s or Maxwell House.  These coffee brands have been mass produced in a very artificial and gross method.  There have been several coffee revolutions in North America.  Coming from small and disappointing beginnings as habitual drinkers of unexceptional coffee, commonplace in the 1950s, to what North American society has become today, one of the biggest capitols for coffee snobs in the world.   

Never more so in North American history has society loved fine, specialty coffee and espresso as much.  Before there was a Starbucks or Peet’s Coffee on nearly every street in the United States, there was a big market for at home coffee brewing.  The standard, baby-boomer American household would always have a can of pre-ground, scoop-able Folger’s or Maxwell House brand coffee ready to boil in the percolator on the stove top.  If one were to observe some old and remarkably sexist coffee commercials from the 1950s and 1960s, it’s easy to what the the household standard was.  Normally, the woman of the house would have to get up bright and early and boil up some coffee in the percolator for the man of the house to take with him to work to make sure he’d start his day right and put a smile on his face.  However, many commercials also depicted the tongue lashings the woman of the house would get if she didn’t make the coffee just right or use the right brand of grounds.  In a Folger’s Instant Coffee Commercial in the 1960s there is a scene depicted of a woman trying to figure out what to do to fix her and her husbands relationship and what to get him for his birthday.  “Harvey, want anything special for your birthday?” to which he retorted with angst,  “Just a descent cup of coffee… I’m serious, honey your coffee’s undrinkable!” She then, looking tongue tied and saddened says “That’s pretty harsh.”  He follows up with a very lividly stated and hurtful response, “Well so is your coffee!  You know, the girls down at the office make better coffee on their hot plates!” Subtly implying that she needs to be worried that he’s going to cheat on her with “the girls in the office” because they make better coffee.  So of course she steps up her game and buys some Folger’s Instant Coffee and  makes if for him on his birthday and it makes him happy and fixes their relationship.   This goes to show how sexist our country was, that this strong sexism was even in brought out in mainstream advertising.  

Because of heavy ad campaigns from these coffee corporations, nearly every coffee drinking household in the United States had their fair share of the ready mix sludge that these corporations generated, ready to boil and burn, and almost always the woman would make the coffee for her husband.  Luckily, with much thanks for feminism and the equal rights movement, women aren’t as objectified as much as they used to be.  But companies like Folger’s, Maxwell House, and Chase and Sanborn certainly didn’t stand up for women in the matter of equality, as is evident in a coffee ad from Chase and Sanborn approving of spousal abuse in the case that a woman isn’t “store-testing” for fresh coffee(4).  

The next coffee wave, so to speak, has its roots placed in the 1960s when Alfred Peet opened up his own coffee chain on the now famous Vine Street of Berkeley California.  Alfred Peet brought high quality coffee to the United States in a way that hadn’t yet been done.  He is considered the founder of what became a delicacy; specialty coffee. His method was profound, he believed in making smaller batches, maintaining peak freshness, using the highest quality beans, and brewing on the darkest, strongest, most flavorful coffee.  Alfred Peet turned coffee brewing into an art in a way that had not yet been done in North America.   But that is not to say coffee hadn’t been treated this way in countries other than the United States prior to Alfred Peet. In fact, he merely replicated the coffee making practices that his homeland, the Netherlands, had been practicing for many years and started to put them to use in the States.  It is said that Peet was entirely dissatisfied with the way coffee was treated in the United States, that he could not understand why the citizens of the United States would want to drink coffee as if it were army rationed(1).   He believed that coffee should always be brewed from freshly ground beans, beans that were picked at the height of their flavor and

freshness. 

Alfred Peet started a revolution here in the United States.  His ingenuity and care for his craft paved the way for a new market.  After people started to taste what fresh, real, and strong coffee tasted like from the highest quality beans, people started to steer away from the standard “army rationed” brands, as Peet would call them, such as Folger's and Maxwell House.  After tasting quality, there was a dissatisfaction that arose with the “army rationed’ brands and vastly people began to steer to the direction of quality specialty beans.  This opened up a new market for coffee houses, and for consumer buying fresh whole beans.  Peet, in essence, started the specialty coffee revolution  He would import the beans in large, brown, burlap sacks and sell them whole in little brown bags.  But it wouldn’t have been considered a coffee house by the standards we go by today, it was more along the lines of a place just do buy your beans and/or have them ground, however you could still by a brewed cup of coffee on location.  Because of his igniting the speciality, quality coffee revolution he has been labeled “The dutchman who taught America how to drink coffee.” 

As is broadly know, Starbucks is the biggest coffee house chain in the world, and it has held it’s ground as the head of the market since the early days of the company’s inception.  When Starbucks first opened in Seattle in 1971, coffee drinkers were craving something new.  They already had the cheap and lower quality rationed brands like Folger’s and Maxwell House, then came the specialty high quality coffee from Alfred Peet, and Starbucks was the next frontier for coffee enthusiasts.

Starbucks was founded by three friends who met while in school attending the University of San Francisco.  English teacher Jerry Baldwin, history teacher Zev Siegl, and writer Gordon Bowker jointly founded the Starbucks corporation in 1971(Time Out Guide San Francisco).  It is said that they gained their inspiration for starting the company from being taught to roast beans by Alfred Peet.  After that experience they felt the need to create their own high quality speciality coffees and sell them.  They founded their business at Pike Place Market in Seattle, Washington(Dorling Kindersley)and they bought their beans through the man who taught them how to roast coffee, Alfred Peet. The name Starbucks came from the chief-mate Starbuck from their mutually favored book Moby Dick, they added the “s” at the end because they felt it sounded a little better that way.  The name immediately stuck with people, and after they opened their doors for the first time it was the opening for a new revolution of coffee drinkers.  Starbucks started a lot like Peet’s coffee did, but unlike Alfred Peet, they brought even more specialty coffee drinking possibilities to the table by bringing in Howard Schultz.   Schultz traveled worldwide, searching for new methods of coffee making and inspiration for their company.  The inspiration hit when he observed many cafés in Milan(Biography.com).  This is when he realized that nobody in the United States was doing this, if he brought mainstream espresso to their company then they would become even more massive than they were because they would be the only company in North America that could respond to the demand of a product that they themselves would be the first to introduce to the America market on the broad scale.  It was a provocative idea, and turned out to be one of the most valuable ideas the Starbucks ever utilized(Florence Fabricant).  In 1986 Starbucks unleashed their espresso drinks, and suddenly they boomed.  Starbucks had lines out the door and through the roof in all their stores for this new and even higher quality beverage.  The turnout was remarkable, astonishing, and created the “Starbucksian” revolution of espresso drinkers.  They founded another new and unexplored facet of the coffee market, espresso, and as of today, Starbucks still firmly holds their place at the top of it.  

Today, society is experiencing a new revolution in coffee.  In cities like Portland, OR, Seattle, OR, Austin, TX, and Sacramento, CA there are large and growing abundances of a new cultural facet known as the hipsters.  Hipsters can be described as those who want to be original, do things differently, and do things first.  They are a part of our population that is becoming the majority in urban areas, and don’t want to be part characterized as part of the main crowd, the main stream.  If everyone is going to Starbucks, which they are, then the hipsters won’t want to go to Starbucks as much.  Starbucks has become the main stream coffee house chain in North America, and the world.  People like it too much, it appeals to too broad of a range of people, everybody goes there, and it’s generally a positive thing to people.   However, hipsters can’t be the same as everyone else, they won’t be able to call themselves a part of the counter-culture if they do what the rest of society does.  Starbucks has been placed on the back burner by hipsters.  It’s now their secondary coffee shop them, they’ll only go if there are no other options.   Amongst this facet of society Starbucks is no longer trending, but the hole in the wall, “mom and pop” coffee house will be their first destination in the hunt for a fine cup of coffee or espresso.  

Many cities are becoming more and more densely populated with people that only want to drink their coffee from the most scarcely heard of hole in the wall coffee bars that man can’t find.  It’s the new and unexplored coffee frontier that the hipster are dipping into, and it’s a growing trend at that.  Society is, by it’s own will, slowly drifting away from mainstream and towards the lesser known coffee shops.  This is the new coffee revolution, the one that is paving the way for the advancement in a new coffee market.  A market dedicated to coffee houses with a keen skill for generating the abstract, for creating an environment that is unique, original, and above all, able to generate the highest of quality in espresso drinks available that the world has yet to taste.  

Works Cited:

1.) http://nos.nl/artikel/64234-nederlander-leerde-amerika-koffie-drinken.html

2.) Time Out (2011). Time Out Guide San Francisco. Time Out Guides. 

3.) http://www.biography.com/people/howard-schultz-21166227#birth-of-the-modern-starbucks

4.)http://www.purpleclover.com/entertainment/694-sexist-ads/item/very_sexist_ads_640_14/

5.) Stephen Brewer; Constance Brissenden; Anita Carmin (26 September 2012). DK Eyewitness Travel Guide: Pacific Northwest. Dorling Kindersley. pp. 135

6.)Florence Fabricant (2 September 1992). "Americans Wake Up and Smell the Coffee". The New York Times.

Trevor Ladd

Immediate Threat to the United States; The People of the United States.  

Political ignorance has become an epidemic in the United States today, and now it’s costing the American people their quality of life.  The U.S.  has more nonvoters than voters, more “pop” culture news than political news—we are under informed, undereducated, and lack significant political interest.  The number of nonvoters in this country is ever increasing—it’s time to address why.  

In the United States “the People” are quite uninformed about politics; creating problems for the country as a whole.  The average American tends to blame government for any problems that are in our country, but who truly needs to be addressed and blamed is “The People.”  The United States operates under a federal government system, all voting and elections are decided by the people.  Every member of congress and the senate are considered members of “the People.”  We the people is the first thing seen and the pretty much the only legible writing on the United States Constitution.  It further sheds light on the fact that only “We the People” have the power, the power that is innately invested in us to make the our own decisions and not have our government make them for us.  Every decision that government makes in the United States is fundamentally decided by the people, not some evil  government monster as many deluded people would seem to believe.  This information is troublesome for several reasons.  Firstly, it shows that the people of the United States don’t know enough about their government to know that they run; that government is an institution set up purely to dictate that the needs of the people are being adequately maintained.  Secondly, it is a testament to how wildly and devastatingly under informed and uninterested the american people are with regards to  politics.  

There is something wrong, seriously wrong, if the people of the United States don’t understand the way in which their country is run, how it affects them, and why it’s an issue.  Too many people just dismiss politics, it just doesn’t matter to them.  It’s not their fault though, media and society are training the people of the United States to not care about such matters and to think that it’s an unreasonable talking topic.  Many people are taught since they are young that religion and the politics are two things that aren’t fit for discussion, as they are seen as topics that breed confrontation(for whatever reason).  The catch; it’s starting to affect us.  The people blame government when a bill gets passed that they don’t appreciate, or someone gets elected that they don’t like.  It’s time for the the people to own up to it and understand that it is the fault of their own if they are underrepresented and their opinions aren’t strongly conveyed.  It’s simple why, they didn’t vote; if they did it would be a whole different story.  About 60% of the voting eligible population votes during presidential election years, and about 40% votes during midterm elections. If the other 40% of the United States decided to take an interest in the actions and decisions of its country and actually vote, then the common interest would be truly and accurately expressed.  But sadly, we as a society today dismiss religion and politics in conversation because we don’t want to hurt peoples feelings, start a fight, or “Rock the boat.”   Most households in the United States treat politics as something that’s a problem starter, a fight starter, and etcetera.  So they stay away from it, they don’t talk about it, they don’t acknowledge it, and they don’t care about it until it’s too late and the damage is done.   

  In the interest of being non confrontational, the people of the United States have alienated themselves from politics and government.  It’s getting the country nowhere, because now our votes and elections are only taking what approximately 60% of our voter eligible population population into account.  The rest of our nation, the nonvoters,  aren’t getting the representation they need through votes and congress because they aren’t voting.  A majority of the population is dissatisfied with the rules, regulations, new laws, and elections that are taking place because they “Wouldn’t have voted for it.”  Well, the problems arise in that they didn’t vote against it either.   The nonvoters of the country are dissatisfied with the job government is doing when it comes to taking care of it’s people and the choices it makes.  They are not acknowledging that it is they who run government and it is they who are slacking and it is they who are digging themselves and ever bigger whole to climb out of because they are to lazy and uninformed to pay attention to current issues, take interest in politics, and vote for their stake in society and this country.  

America has only been a federal government for the last 226 years, and already the people are bored with it, it would seem.  Not being tentative enough to care about making sure their own needs are represented fairly and that they vote the right people into office to represent them.  Today, it seems that hardly anybody pays much attention to politics accept at the national level, and only peripherally at that.  This isn’t very healthy for individual needs of the people of this country in their respective states, counties, and cities. National politics doesn’t handle the matters of the state and local government that immediately effects the people of those states except under rare circumstances.  The Capitol here in Sacramento  is where many of the most important decisions regarding our state our made, these decisions affect the people of California more than any federal decisions do.  

The local level of government receives almost no media attention today, this is one of the reasons we have so little interest in Politics in the United States.  The people have had their thoughts and interests become driven and taken over by the media.  We watch television constantly, listen to music whether in a car driving or while exercising, and only go to big events regarding musicians and comedians.  The media doesn’t care about politics, the people, and keeping us informed—it’s a business.   If the media(in general) truly cared about the people, it would educate us.  There would be dozens of channels devoted to political information, we’d have local political news stations, wed have local radio stations; we’d have dozens of magazines related to politics, especially our local politics.  Local politics and local government is just disastrously under journalized, nobody cares about the politics affect them the most.  

The media is everywhere.  It’s attractive, it elicits an emotional response, it creates excitement, and it just finds a way to appeal to your interests and grab your attention.  Media is filled almost entirely with entertaining, controversial, and emotional stirring topics.  Politics, passing laws, electing mayors, conducting fundraisers, and etc. doesn’t garner enough attention from viewers for networks to air more political educating shows.  Because it doesn’t attract viewers as much as reality television like “The Kardashians,” or “Housewives of Orange County,” or “Big Brother” and other reality shows alike, it isn’t as valuable to television networks.   Thereby making it not as profitable to television networks,  so they air political and educational shows less and less, now it has hit a bare minimum.  It’s all about business, attracting viewers, and playing to there interests.  We need to have more and more news networks, more and more local coverage of local government, more and discussions about passing or not passing certain bills, laws,and etcetera.  We need a reform in our country, we need to educate our people on politics whether they like it or not.   If we can make that happen, the country will be much more pleased with it’s governments decisions because it will begin to reflect the will of the people, the majority, more and more until our country is what it’s people want it to be. 

We need to end the growth of this large and ever-present group of people, known as the nonvoters.  These nonvoters, a majority in our country, are fundamentally causing the decline of our values, rights, and importance.  We need a media reform, an advertising reform, a news reform.  We need to end the reality shows and replace them with more “CNN,” “MSNBC,” and etcetera until finding political news and information is easier than finding reality news controversies and the daily “411” on your favorite celebrities.  To get the people to pay attention to issues is a necessity, for them to care about issues that effect the country as a whole.  If the people don’t focus on politics why would they focus on the fact that they don’t focus on politics?  We need to talk about it, the longer we don’t the more of an issue it becomes.  We can’t avoid our problems, we can’t ignore our needs as a country.  If we pretend everything is okay until the bitter end then our society will certainly come to see a bitter end.  It will not take long, either.  With the advancement of media, technology, and, most importantly, advertisement, people are becoming more and more immersed until all we do, and all we are is what we experience in the media.  We need to ensure that what we become isn’t the wrong thing, that its educational and not harmful.  We need advancements in technology and media and our immersement in it to lend to our own ubiquitous knowledge of what’s going on in the world; it should educate us not dumb us down.  

It is time to reverse the trend and attack the growth of the nonvoters.  no longer should medias advancement hold our education for ransom, it should freely add to it.  If the television networks put as much into making politics interesting as they did into Charlie Sheen’s breakdown, than we would have a wonderfully developed social political standard.  Not the one that is continuing to degrade into the dull and government hating society we have become.  Our lack of knowledge and disinterest is purely self destructive.  It’s time to stop the trend, and the way to start is by paying due diligence and attention to your local government.  This affects you, your friends, your family, and your state as a whole.  Remember, politics matter, government isn’t to blame because the people run government, and most importantly, ignorance is not bliss.  Ignorance is our nations downfall, it will be the death of the constitutional rights of our people.  Don’t contribute to the nonvoters.  

Elizabeth Wood

23 February 2015

Minimum Wage: Raise the Pay

Countless Americans work hard every day to pay for the things they need, have, and want. Much of this work force is starting or stuck in an entry level job, and many find it difficult to continue out of this job bracket. Regardless of age—and more importantly, life situation—these workers all have an identical problem: minimum wage. While this may sound unimportant, or perhaps even deserved by the workers, there are actually many problems present with the current federal minimum wage. Typically, one would think that the current state of the minimum wage is reasonable, with the assumption that most minimum wage workers are high school or college students, new to the work force, looking to earn a few bucks aside from what their parents allot them. However, this wage is harming more than just well to-do teenagers. Employers could make an immense difference in the lives of thousands with a slight increase in pay for their employees. 

Currently, the federal minimum hourly wage is a mere $7.25 (Perez), and a pitiful $2.13 for workers who receive tips ("What Is the Minimum Wage for Workers Who Receive Tips?"). While there are many states working to boost the minimum wage, the highest standing minimum hourly wage is $10.50 in the District of Columbia ("What’s the Minimum Wage in Your State?").  According to an article by Dustin Hawkins, the opposition for raising the minimum wage tends to arise from those concerned for the well being of businesses, the availability in the work force, and the effects of a higher minimum wage on other costs (Hawkins). In his article, Hawkins addresses that an increased minimum wage would cause employers to be more selective with their hiring decisions, since “employers would rather pay one excellent employee $16/hr with benefits rather than pay two inexperienced entry-level workers $9 with benefits,” which would be bad news for anyone searching for an entry level job (Hawkins). Another concern was that the increase of cost to pay for employees would negatively affect the businesses paying to afford them. However, according to an article by Dave Gilson, since 1990 the cost of living has increased 67%, whereas the value of minimum wage has only increased 21%. This means that working full time at minimum wage, a worker could earn about $15,000 year, but in order for a single worker to have enough income for economic security, they would have to earn $30,000 annually (Gilson). Without an increase in pay, workers could never live comfortably—it would be impossible when only earning half of what they need to survive without being impoverished. 

While this lack of sufficient pay is causing workers to suffer, the money that the workers aren’t seeing is actually going to the top 1%, who in 2007, earned 160% more than the average American household (Gilson).  While every business owner is not in the “1%” category, the people signing the paychecks could likely spare more money than they may have thought. Despite Hawkins’ concerns, increasing minimum wage would not hurt businesses, and according to the United States Department of Labor, “Academic research has shown that higher wages sharply reduce employee turnover which can reduce employment and training costs” ("Minimum Wage Mythbusters"). While it may only be a start to changing the lives of all Americans, raising the minimum wage to at least $10.90/hr could make a huge change in the lives of these workers. The reason the proposed raise to the Federal Minimum wage is so low is that many articles state that raising the minimum wage would cause employers to reduce the amount of employees they need to pay in order to compensate for the increase of cost (Gillikin). In fact, it’s surpisingly difficult to find too many popular articles that attest to raising the minimum wage as being generously conducive to the American population. There are articles stating that it would harm teens and minorities because of the reduced job availability, that low skill or entry level workers would be out-competed for a job (Gillikin), and that about 49% of minimum wage workers are 24 years old and under (Wilson), until it comes to the point where it is difficult to justify raising it. It would only help a few people and cut out the rest of them, which would just cause more problems than it would fix. But here’s the thing: after the minimum wage is raised, if employers don’t fire off half of their employees for the sake of maintaining profits, there could actually be some serious benefits. 

Here’s the truth: 88% of people who might benefit from an increased minimum wage are 20 and older, and 55% percent of that 88% are women ("Minimum Wage Mythbusters"). Maybe some of these article writers were never in want of money growing up, but looking at statistics for college students, in October 2013, “the labor force participation rate…for full-time students [was] 43.4 percent [and]… for part-time students 82.1 percent” ("College Enrollment and Work Activity of 2013 High School Graduates"). That means that 82.1% of part time students were also working, more than likely to be able to pay for their classes, their food, their housing, their fuel, their insurance, their appliances, or any combination of. Even full time students are working to pay for these things. College is expensive. Even with federal aid, even with student loans, it takes years, sometimes even decades, for these students to pay off their college debt. That’s not an easy task. Everyone jokes about the “starving student,” but truly, many of these students will actually be going hungry tonight, or maybe this week, because they work a minimum wage job when they can and have to spend all of their earnings on school or any other expense that comes with being a human being. If the minimum wage were higher, maybe less people would drop out of college in fear of debt. Maybe more people would attend college because they weren’t afraid of not being able to provide for themselves immediately out of high school. If more people were more educated, they wouldn’t have to worry about working minimum wage jobs, opening up the job market for others that need entry-level work.

Additionally, if employers took the leap to raise their own minimum wage, regardless of federal minimum wage, the economy could potentially see a visible positive difference. With minimum wage as low as it is, the amount one may receive from welfare is about 4$ a week less than one may receive from actually working at minimum wage (Gillikin). Maybe others think differently, but if one could be paid roughly the same to either work or sit around and read a book, they’d probably much rather read a book. There is almost no incentive for a minimum wage worker to bother doing probably grueling labor over living a relaxed life. If one were to look at numbers of people below poverty line, according to the United States Census Bureau, 14.5% of Americans rest in that category—that’s 45.3 million people. It is baffling that none of these articles mention that raising the minimum wage would give these people incentive to work—rather than take from the government—which would in turn lower the amount of government spending. Also, if these families were paid decently, they could begin to pay taxes, which would potentially lower the massive deficit that currently sits on our White House. Moreover, when people make more money, they spend more money. If people earned more, they could pay for more things, further stimulating the economy and compensating for the raise in pay that Americans could potentially see. 

Raising the minimum wage is a circle that has yet to be fully considered, but in the end, there are few that would not benefit. If businesses raised what they paid their workers, if the governments recognized that $7.25/hr is not enough to keep a family alive, healthy, and functioning, and if article writers addressed how the increased pay would provide more good than bad to our country, then maybe the people in power would recognize that it really is time to make a change. However, awareness is the largest factor: while raising the minimum wage has become a growing concern, there are still those who feel it won’t help those who really need it. Perhaps those who express concern are the ones that would be paying for the raise in pay. In that case, maybe the Americans who work hours on end for measly cash to barely scrape by should get a taste of the salary of those who don’t pay enough. They think employees can live like that, so maybe they should try it. However, since that’s not particularly likely, the best that can be done is continue to raise awareness, share your own story through sites such as raisetheminimumwage.com, and press business owners to make the change and pay what American’s really need. 

"College Enrollment and Work Activity of 2013 High School Graduates." U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. United States Department of Labor, 22 Apr. 2014. Web. 23 Feb. 2015.

Gillikin, Jason. "Problems With Minimum Wage." Small Business. Chron, n.d. Web. 22 Feb. 2015.

Gilson, Dave. "Overworked America: 12 Charts That Will Make Your Blood Boil." Mother Jones. N.p., July 2011. Web. 22 Feb. 2015.

Hawkins, Dustin. "Why Conservatives Oppose Raising the Minimum Wage." US Conservatives. Conservative Politics: Economy and Taxes, n.d. Web. 22 Feb. 2015.

"Minimum Wage Mythbusters." United States Department of Labor. Secretary of Labor, n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2015.

Perez, Thomas E. "Wages." U.S. Department of Labor. Secretary of Labor, n.d. Web. 22 Feb. 2015.

"United States Census Bureau." About Poverty. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Feb. 2015.

"What’s the Minimum Wage in Your State?" Raise the Minimum Wage. National Employment Law Project, n.d. Web. 22 Feb. 2015.

"What Is the Minimum Wage for Workers Who Receive Tips?" United States Department of Labor. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2015.

Wilson, Mark. "The Negative Effects of Minimum Wage Laws." Downsizing the Federal Government. N.p., Sept. 2012. Web. 23 Feb. 2015.

Was Barack Obama born in the U.S.?

Author: Trevor Ladd Date:2/15/2015

Editor: Elizabeth Wood

Was Barack Obama born in the United States?

America’s great democratic president, Barack Obama, is often hostilely accused by the political right wing of being born outside of the United States, and more specifically, Kenya.  This is an absurd statement that can be easily falsified once exposed to the hard facts lended to the public by the White House.  A large amount of  commotion was started about Obama’s citizenship by the “birthers,” who are a group of mostly white, middle to upper class, christian, conservative-republican men who engage in the tribalistic group action of labeling elected officials in government that they don’t care for as non-natural born citizens in an ill-fated attempt to get said officials removed from office.  The White House was quick to shut down any conspiracy theories about President Barack Obama being born outside the U.S. by releasing his long form birth certificate at WhiteHouse.GOV1  for review by the public.  Now, one would think this would, reasonably, be proof enough for the citizenship of any other American, but in the curious case of Barack Obama, the ‘birthers’ tribe still won’t give into the evidence.  They’ve began to label the certificate, calling it fake, a forgery, illegitimate, etcetera.  These statements should merely be disregarded, they hold no merit or weight.  The people that claim such things about our President of the United States, while ignoring the easily acquirable proof of his citizenship1, rightfully earn their own set of labels, such as ‘ignorant,’ ‘racist,’ ‘biased,’ and ‘tribalistic.’ Upon reading this essay, it should be irrefutably clear that our president was not only born in the United States, but that his roots run deep in our great country.  

One may inquire what the significance of the citizenship has to politics and presidency. To elaborate on the matter:  Under Article Two, Section One, Clause Five of the United States Constitution, it states:

”No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”(US Const. art. II, sec. 1)3

Essentially, if the President of the United States happens to not be a natural born citizen3 , the Constitution reserves the right to remove the most powerful man in the free world from the highly touted presidential seat.  The constitution would essentially mandate his immediate removal from office, which would invariably be a dream for anybody who opposes our presidents leadership.  Which, of course, is why our presidents’ citizenship is even being called into question in the first place, in addition to being black.  The Republican Party innately has a strong disdain for Obama.  First of all, he is a Democrat, making him a member of the opposing party. Therefore, they fundamentally don’t want him in office merely because of their tribalistic support of the Republican Party’s agenda.  One couldn't call him or herself a Republican if he/she doesn’t do and agree with everything the party believes in, even if it goes against their own independant beliefs. They’d use their tribalism-fueled emphaticism do anything and everything within their power to have a democrat removed from the presidency, it’s a sure win in the minds of the members of the GOP.  

One may ask why Barack Obama is the first president to ever have his citizenship called into question repeatedly, or perhaps even inquire as to what singles him out amongst Republicans.  The answer may be quite simple: Barack Obama is our very first black president--how foreign!   Doesn’t it seem reasonable to call into question over and over again the legitimacy of our president’s citizenship, regardless of all of the proof1 that’s been placed before us, simply because he happens to be a black man?  It certainly shouldn’t be.  These are racially driven accusations, and they are only brought about by the unfamiliar and foreign color of his skin in the White House.  There are people in Congress who deem racially driven accusations as acceptable, even necessary, and these people continue to uphold and support the actions of the ‘birthers.’ Thusly, the ‘birthers’ are allowed to continue on with their ignorant march, a racially driven attempt at a smear campaign lividly directed toward our President.  

In the end, will their ill-willed efforts amount to anything, will they do enough to disprove the citizenship of our president and have him removed from office? It would certainly appear not considering the lack of any substantial evidence.  The only shreds of opposing evidence that the GOP has as evidence in favour of their stance is circumstantial at best and certainly illegitimate.  For example, the Obama birth certificate released by the Kenyan Government.  Considering the country itself wasn’t even established until two years after Obama’s birth4, we can immediately disregard this as false. The Obama opposing forces have been met repeatedly by pragmatic people with real evidence proving his place of birth and citizenship at every corner.  He was in fact born at the location denoted born by his birth certificate, Honolulu, Hawai’i.

Is there still hope for the Republican Party to disprove his legitimacy as President of the United States?  At this point in his presidency, it most certainly appears not.  It’s a little late for that, however it’s quite amusing and says good deal about the Grand Old Party for the fact that they are still attempting to prove his citizenship false.  At the very least, after all is said and done, these ‘birthers’ will do little more than damage the name and legitimacy of themselves and their own party, along with its choices and actions.  

After having been subjected to the fact that there is an immense amount of proof regarding the legitimacy of president Obama’s citizenship, it is only responsible to see that any remaining doubt be disposed plainest of indefinitely.  President Obama’s family roots run deep in our country--in fact, he is eligible to be a member of the National Society of the Sons of the American Revolution.5 Due to his family’s service in the Revolutionary War, he is made eligible and meets the requirement of being a male descendant of someone who served in the Revolutionary War.6  His mother, Ann Dunham, was born in the United States in 1942 in Wichita, Kansas.7  She was an achiever of some of the highest honors in education and earned her PHD from the University of Hawai’i at Manoa.8  While she was working towards her degree, she became in close acquaintanceship with Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. who was a student from Kenya studying at the University of Manoa.  This all serves as grand evidence to repeal any accusations against Obama Jr.’s citizenship for the fact that his mother was of United States citizenship and she married his paternal father in the United States.  All it takes to be a “Natural Born Citizen” is to have the fortune of being born to an American family with citizenship.  No matter where Obama would have been born, it wouldn’t matter.  His citizenship would still be within the United States.  So not only does the public possess Barack Obama’s birth certificate, they have his parents marriage certificate9 and proofs of citizenship as well.  Left without any option, one has to declare Obama, undoubtedly, a citizen of the United States, and therefore rightful heir to the seat of the President of the United States in Washington, District of Columbia.

Cited Sources:

(1) Birth Certificate, VIA WHITEHOUSE.GOV: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

(2)The official “Birthers” website.  http://birthers.org/

(3) Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

(4) Obama was born August 4th, 1961(age 53), the Republic of Kenya was formed in 1963:  http://www.kenyarep-jp.com/kenya/history_e.html

(5) National Society of the Sons of the American Revolution: https://www.sar.org/

(6)Obama as a descendant of the Revolutionary War:

http://aattp.org/what-now-teabaggers-president-obama-descended-from-14-revolutionary-war-veterans-which-makes-him-more-american-than-pretty-much-anyone/

(7) Peters, Susan (2009-01-27). "President Obama: from Kansas to the capital, part II (video at videosurf.com)". Wichita: KAKE 10 News (ABC). Retrieved 2009-09-12.

(8) Dewey, Alice; White, Geoffrey (November 2008)."Ann Dunham: a personal reflection". Anthropology News49

Reprinted by:

Dewey, Alice; White, Geoffrey (2009-03-09). "Ann Dunham: a personal reflection". Honolulu: University of Hawaii Department of Anthropology. Archived from the original on 2012-04-02. Retrieved 2010-11-22.[dead link]

• "Spotlight on Alumni: EWC Alumna Ann Dunham— Mother to President Obama and Champion of Women’s Rights and Economic Justice". East-West Center. Honolulu, HI, USA: East–West Center. 2008-12-09.

(9)Marriage: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/07/were_ann_dunham_and_barack_obama_really_married.html