Real Republicans are relieved to be rid of Roy (and the alliteration here was entirely happenstance). But Tea Party malcontents feel otherwise. It's time for them, starting with our friend Bobbo, to stop waving the bloody shirt of Judge Moore, as if he were entitled to the job. He's not. He lost fair and square; in fact, he shouldn't have been allowed to run at all, given his record of judicial malfeasance. (Not to mention his retrograde nonsense.)

In the future, if sour lemon Tea Party types want to win elections, I'd advise them not to nominate clods, creeps, or nutballs. Just because they got one elected (by fluke, he LOST the popular vote) doesn't mean there should be any more. It's time we stop letting them dismiss dignity, decency, maturity or professionalism as "elitist".

Sincerely,

Stephen Van Eck, Rushville, PA

Charlie Cheap was opening a business. He realized that low overhead was the key to success. And the easiest way to cut overhead was to reduce wages to a rock-bottom minimum. A nickel was a good place to start.

As expected, no one was willing to work for 5 cents/hour. No problem. Charlie increased it to a quarter. Again, zero response. Next stop was a buck. Still no interest.

It was time to get serious: $5/hour. No takers. Next Charlie decided to take it up one dollar at a time. At $6/hour he got a few takers that stopped by his office. But facial tattoos, purple hair, and flip-flops didn't make a favorable impression.

On to $7/hour. Better. But most of the resumes looked like a rap sheet.

At $8/hour he hit pay dirt. A few applicants showed up with a good appearance, were well mannered, and had decent resumes.

At $9/hour Charlie was able to staff his business. Finally, an agreement between management and employees had been reached.

Then the social warriors butted in.

Who could make a living at $9/hr? One would have to choose either paying for food or rent. Food being the most important, Charlie's employees would subsist on a diet of McDonald's Happy Meals while living in a rent-free accommodation in a refrigerator box under a bridge.

The Washington city of Seattle stepped in to impose some sense of justice into a free market solution. It ramped-up the minimum wage from $9.47/hr to $13/hr an increase of almost 40 percent. At last, the government was in the corner for the working man. But there's a catch. It's the University of Washington.

The academics did a study on that increase. They found that "total payroll fell implying that the minimum wage ordinance lowered low-wage employees' earnings by an average of $125/month in 2016."

Seattle rolled back the wage hike.

But that didn't deter California's Democrat Gov. Jerry Brown. The year of the Seattle rollback, Gov. Brown announced a plan to raise the state's minimum wage from $10.50/hr to $15/hr. "The deal marks the largest victory to date for $15 an hour," boasted the USA Today. Wel-l-l-l, maybe not.

The proposed increase to $15/hr doesn't take full effect until 2022. During the interval between 2017 and 2022, inflation at 3 percent per annum will eat up 14 percent of that hourly increase.

Assuming the state's income increases by the yearly rate of inflation, that still leaves California with a shortfall of billions. Maybe the USA Today was cheering too loudly.

Then there's the matter of the Sunshine State's debt (state and local) of $1.5 trillion. But, what's a few billion more to Gov. Moonbeam?

Could be that the liberal newspaper shouldn't be cheering at all; unless the citizens of California think bankrupting their state is something to celebrate.

So what's the answer?

Suppose there were no minimum wage laws. What then? Would fast-food servers be paid $5/hr? The drive-thru eateries could try it and be left with empty spaces behind the counter and no one in the kitchen. How about $6 or $7? Still no go.

Quick-chow eateries would have to keep increasing the hourly pay until they could attract the number and quality of employees they wanted.

Management would offer the lowest wage possible while staff would insist upon the highest wage possible. Eventually, an equilibrium would be reached that would be acceptable to both parties.

That would be the free-market solution to a just minimum wage whether hourly, weekly, or yearly. Instead, what we have are legislative mandates drafted by third-party politicos and bureaucrats.

And by the way, though it may seem more of a distraction nowadays, the Constitution makes no mention of wages. While the states may impose a minimum wage, the federal government may not.

The national minimum wage of $7.25/hr and my proposed nickel an hour are both unconstitutional. But to a Supreme Court that "interprets" the Constitution as Madam Zoltar reads tea leaves, $7.25/hr is just what the Founding Fathers envisioned.

As for the do-gooders, political panderers, and crusaders for economic justice, perhaps they should mind their own business, not someone else's.

A parting shot. In some establishments, waitresses would be willing to work for 5 cents an hour and settle for $20 an hour in tips. Not a bad deal for management or the staff. A free market leads to some crazy solutions but eminently workable ones.

Sincerely,

Bob Scroggins, New Milford, PA