What Nobody is Saying About Raising Minimum Wage

Minimum wage is a hot topic this election, especially among the Governor candidates. Gov Quinn wants to raise the minimum wage a substantial 25%, while the GOP candidates that have previously held office all have voted in favor of, or have co-sponsored, or have proposed legislation that would LOWER the minimum wage. Yep...each of the GOP candidates have recently tried to REDUCE the minimum wage. The facts are available as a matter of record, or through various websites ( VoteSmart.org etc.) that track a candidates performance, to include voting records and stated positions on a variety of social issues. Rutherford, Dillard, and especially Brady have all advocated LOWERING the minimum wage recently.
Last month, businessman and Governor candidate Bruce Rauner was interviewed on radio and stated that he would be in favor of reducing minimum wage UNDER CERTAIN conditions. Unfortunately for him, it came across as though he wished to cut a dollar an hour from the working poor's wages and his opponents gleefully jumped on that statement as evidence that Rauner was "out of touch" with the common folk. He was also interviewed later that day and expressed support for RAISING the minimum wage UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS. So let's take a look at what Rauner was really trying to express before we nail him to a cross.
Rauner is not a seasoned politician, as is apparent by his blunt approach to campaigning and his annoying tendency to give actual direct answers to questions asked of him. He also tends to believe that the audience are NOT glassy-eyed fools that will swallow whatever non-committal rhetoric an experienced candidate spews automatically to cater to their audience. Rauner has been successful as an investor and a businessman, producing investment returns for various state pensions at an annualized average rate of 17.5%, even when factoring in bad years. He absolutely understands fiscal management and knows firsthand about Springfield politico's habit of tossing the baby out with the bathwater.
But he's a bit blunt and cuts to the chase...and that is a double edged sword. Do you want to listen to hours of mind numbing boring details and actuarial figures from the guru or do you want to hear the end result? I vote for the end result, it saves time and the Rauner is a guy has the proven expertise to be trusted. So why would Bruce Rauner state on one occasion that, again under certain conditions, he would favor a cut to the minimum wage...and then state that he would also, under certain conditions, favor RAISING the minimum wage? Is he a flip-flopper pandering for votes or is there something else? As it turns out, his "under certain conditions" preface is not only valid, but it is enlightening.
Here's the predicament in a nutshell. As Rauner recently said, " What good is it to raise a working poor person' that is barely surviving's income by $40 a week if they lose $50 a week in assistance?" Now that's a pretty darn simple explanation of why a person can actually hold 2 opposing positions and be correct on both. As Rauner puts it, "Quinn's approach to simply raising the minimum wage 25% is noble but naive. The financial impact on many people struggling with low wages could actually be negative with such an immediate and drastic raise. It would also have an impact on the businesses that pay those increases. Sure, it may very well put more cash in a person's pocket, but it may actually reduce their quality of life by reducing other assistance programs that they rely on simply to survive..."
Rauner has addressed an issue in a manner that no other candidate has. While Brady, Dillard, and Rutherford are vehemently condemning Bruce for his "cut minimum wage" statement they are simultaneously denying their own recorded positions that state that each of them APPROVE OF REDUCING minimum wage. None of them have voiced any ideas about how to address the situation without a negative impact upon both the workers and the employers, to include Gov. Quinn, the man that has made it clear that he wants an immediate substantial RAISE to minimum wage.
I like Bruce Rauner, and I trust his fiscal judgement. I have had numerous conversations with him and while I do not always agree with him, I always learn something. I do not believe he is out of touch with the working class or any class for that matter. I'm a tradesman and small business owner that got creamed in the economy, yet he speaks to me with respect for my opinions and my dignity. What I really like is his concern about ways to improve the business environment in Illinois and the plight of the workers. He bluntly calls it like it is...Illinois is screwed up. Too many decisions were made to get votes and too little consideration was given to what the future impact of those actions would be. The taxpayer has continuously been stuck paying for the tab. 
Rauner accurately identifies the brass tacks of the minimum wage problem: How do we increase wages without causing a decline in quality of life or an excessive burden to the taxpayer or employers? 
Rauner wants to approach the situation by creating a cooperative system to raising the income of Illinois residents and to bring more decent paying jobs into the state. To do so, the minimum wage should be raised in a coordinated manner with a decline in public assistance in order to reduce or eliminate any negative impact on an already suffering populace. Ideally it is done at a rate that weans people off of the need for taxpayer provided assistance programs while simultaneously increasing the citizen's quality of life and maintaining a healthy and fair business environment.
The gradual reduction of assistance to the recipient should be made up by the gradual raise in cash income. The raise in cash income stimulates local or micro economies. Stimulated economies support healthier environments for business and create demand for products. Healthy business environments allow for reduced taxes, which then attracts new business to the state. That in turn allows employers to raise incomes beyond what the minimum wage is to ensure a "livable wage" for its' employees and still remain profitable if not prosperous.
This "everyone gets skin in the game" approach to addressing a major problem in Illinois has neither been voiced nor proposed by any of the other current Governor candidates from either party. My belief is that the other candidates have been too busy, too entrenched, and too indoctrinated into the Springfield Circus to be capable of looking at this issue from any point other than the least inconvenient to campaign donors and the most likely approach to garner votes. It's an occupational hazard. They each have decades  in office and MUST accept their part of the blame for the mess Illinois is in. Rauner is a proven financial genius with the ability to expedite solutions with no encumbrance from political donors. The other guys can barely pay their own bills. In fact, Brady recently lost lawsuits in MKcClean County for defaulting on numerous personal and business loans.
When it comes to minimum wage, any action is useless and probably harmful without proper preparation and prevention. Quite frankly, this issue, in my opinion, is beyond the ability of Rutherford and Dillard. Further, Quinn has not shown himself to be strong enough to implement such a coordinated and symbiotic approach to improving the quality of life for Illinois citizens and Illinois businesses.
My confidence goes to Rauner. It truly is time to try something different and electing the same guys over and over to address these systemic problems is simply repeating the same action over and over again expecting a different result...and that my friends is how we define a moron. I refuse to be a moron, how about you?