From: Hans Madland
Come on, Jeremy, what’s the real reason you’re opposed to local control?
You’re a smart guy who knows it costs a lot more to rent an apartment in the Twin Cities than in Rushford, right? Renter and auto insurance rates in St. Paul are higher than in St. Charles. So what’s the real reason you believe the minimum wage should be the same, no matter your local living expenses?
You’re a family guy with kids. I’m pretty sure you would never in a thousand years agree to live on minimum wage, right? Could you imagine getting your kids’ clothes at the Salvation Army? Still, for some reason that makes my head spin, you think it’s right for poor people to just get by, each month a painful choice between groceries or rent.
So like I said, what is the real reason you’re against poor people making a living wage? Be honest with us! Republicans are always telling us that local leaders know local conditions best and therefore know best what works locally. Why in this case do you change your mind on this?
You’re a smart guy who clearly has bigger ambitions, so the question I have for you is this: Are you working for all of us or mostly for yourself and the small group of people who are giving you campaign money? I know your answer, but action speaks louder than words.
As you say, it’s a burden for bookkeepers to figure out how to keep up with different labor regulations, but put yourself in the shoes of the parent that has to tell the kids that there isn’t enough money to buy groceries and pay the rent this month. Their burden is hunger and homelessness; the bookkeeper’s burden in a mere inconvenience.