Your article ("Minimum Wage Push" April 10) describes the plight of Bridget Highkin. Ms. Highkin is a 25-year-old mother of two, who because of the slow economy has seen her restaurant waitress pay decrease significantly. She now lives with her mother and relies on food stamps and child and health care subsidies. Shouldn't Ms. Highkin have qualified for the earned income tax credit? Her sons are 4 and 6. Therefore Ms. Highkin had two children by 21. The article does not mention the father(s) of her children. Shouldn't the children's father(s) and for that matter the father(s)'s parents contribute to the children's well being? What about Ms. Highkin's father contributing to the welfare of his daughter and his grandchildren?
Unfortunately today's society "saints" the single mother and discourages and absolves fathers of any emotional or financial responsibility to their children and their children's mother. Not to worry, the beneficent government (taxpayers) will stand in for fathers.
Further, shouldn't individuals who can afford to eat at restaurants be encouraged to do so in order for waitresses and other staff to be self-supportive? I believe in one of her broadcasts Oprah Winfrey told her audience to save money by not eating at restaurants that night. Gee, discouraging restaurant goers is great news for restaurant owners and their employees like Ms. Highkin. Also for the food suppliers, truckers, et al.
The article also quotes Jen Kern, "It doesn't cost taxpayers anything." Save this article for when the public sector unions cite the new minimum wage when demanding increased wages. Their workers will have to get at least whatever is the minimum wage increase is. your article $2.50/hour. Or wouldn't their members be losing spending power?
Glenn Cunningham, Nottingham