Class of 2morrow - Hanna column 10-31

By ADAM HANNA

I've tried to stay out of politics -- I've tried hard.

Ever since I was elected Student Government President at Southeast Missouri State University, I've tried to avoid offending anyone by talking about my politics. But just a week before the election, I've finally "had enough."

Recently, as I was taking the scenic drive down North Sprigg from my apartment, I heard another Claire McCaskill radio advertisement on the country station I listen to. I usually tune out political ads simply because I already know where the candidates stand.

For some reason, there was something about this ad that stuck when the McCaskill campaign criticized Senator Jim Talent on two economic points.

First of all, Senator Talent has voted for tax breaks for the "big oil" companies. We all know that gas prices are too high -- mostly because of supply and demand issues (i.e. damaged refineries near the coast, and a significant increase in demand from China.)

Simple economic principles show tax breaks will positively affect the price of fossil fuels. As taxes and regulatory costs go down, the savings are passed along to the consumer. Naturally, I would expect most Americans to be in favor of lower gas prices.

Oil company profits benefit millions of Americans. If you believe everything you see on TV, you might be convinced that oil company profits go exclusively toward new mansions and yachts for Dick Cheney.

But what they don't tell you on television is millions of regular, middle-class Americans own stock in energy companies. Profits are returned to shareholders in the form of dividends and an increase in stock value. It is very possible that the profits from energy companies benefit your grandparents' retirement or help fund your college savings.

The second economic point that gets under my skin is the minimum wage issue. Claire McCaskill's campaign has repeatedly criticized Senator Talent for opposing an increase in the minimum wage. Perhaps his opposition is based upon the fact that raising the minimum wage would do virtually nothing to end poverty, and would pass the increased costs on to the consumer.

I worked at a Wal Mart in Illinois for about four years. When Illinois raised its own minimum wage a few years ago, the effect was drastic.

Wal-Mart didn't adjust its budget in payroll when the minimum wage increase was passed. Instead, they reduced the employees' hours. Departments were minimally staffed, and everyone's paycheck looked about the same.

I can tell you from experience that a minimum wage increase did not positively affect take home pay of low-income workers.

Do we really want to raise the minimum wage and provide an incentive against career growth and advancement? Even in a retail or food service setting, the only way to stay in a minimum wage position for long is to do nothing.

Perhaps I'm a bit old-fashioned, but I believe America is characterized by hard work and sacrifice. That's why I'm voting for Jim Talent.

Adam Hanna is a student at Southeast Missouri State University. He is the student government president.