¶ Overview
Schutz served on the board of, and was formerly chair of the board for, Center of the American Experiment (CoAE), a Minnesota-based right-wing think tank. CoAE expressed support for Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” and denied claims that it would strip Medicaid coverage from Minnesotans, despite 17 million Americans and 179,000 Minnesotans being expected to lose their health care coverage under the bill.
CoAE also supported the “One Big Beautiful Bill’s” cuts to clean energy tax credits, stating that the cuts did not go far enough and advocated for fully repealing the Inflation Reduction Act. In Minnesota, the elimination of the subsidies killed 23,000 clean energy jobs.
CoAE and its members expressed radical far-right opinions on a multitude of subjects. CoAE president John Hinderaker had a personal blog where he wrote about “ties between terrorism and Islam, Hillary Clinton’s e-mails and accusations of liberal media bias.” CoAE speakers called racism an “excuse for Black failure” and claimed a $15 minimum wage would be a “disaster” for both workers and employers.
¶ Schutz Was A Board Member Of CoAE, Which Supported The “One Big Beautiful Bill” That Harmed Minnesotans
¶ Schutz Was A Board Member Of The Conservative Think Tank Center Of The American Experiment
Schutz Was A Member Of The CoAE’s Board Of Directors And Former Chair Of The Board. According to Ronald J. Schutz, “Center of the American Experiment, Board of Directors, Former Chair of the Board” [Ronald J. Schutz, Civic and Professional Involvement, Archived 4/29/26]
CoAE Took Conservative Positions On “Government Spending, Education, Taxes, Labor Unions, Crime, And Other Issues.” According to Racket, “That’s the website for the conservative Golden Valley-based think tank Center of the American Experiment (CoAE). Founded as a nonprofit in 1990, CoAE takes reliably conservative positions on government spending, education, taxes, labor unions, crime, and other issues.” [Racket, 12/6/24]
¶ CoAE Supported Medicaid Cuts In Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill”
¶ CoAE Supported Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” And Denied It Would Strip Medicaid Coverage From Minnesotans
CoAE Denied That The “One Big Beautiful Bill” Stripped Medicaid Coverage From Minnesotans, Instead They Claimed the Work Requirement And Eligibility Checks Were “Responsible” And “Easing The Program’s Burden On Both The Budget And The Broader Economy.” According to American Experiment, “As horror stories continue to circulate about the thousands who could lose Medicaid coverage due to the ‘work requirements’ and ‘eligibility checks’ in the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB), two points are worth emphasizing. First, Minnesotans support these Medicaid provisions. A Thinking Minnesota survey conducted in May found, for instance, that over half of all Minnesotans support OBBB’s work requirements, and three-quarters back its annual Medicaid eligibility checks. Second, and more importantly, to the extent that vulnerable Minnesotans have reason to worry, the real threat to Medicaid’s future isn’t the OBBB’s common-sense reforms. It is rather the state’s ongoing budget deficits, driven by the 2023 session’s unchecked welfare expansion. [...] The OBBB’s work requirements and eligibility checks are a responsible first step toward ensuring Medicaid serves those who truly need it while easing the program’s burden on both the budget and the broader economy. They should be viewed as part of the solution, not the problem.” [American Experiment, 8/5/25]
¶ At Least 17 Million Americans Could Lose Health Insurance Under The “One Big Beautiful Bill” And It Put Rural Hospitals At Risk Of Closure
HEADLINE: "At Least 17 Million Americans Would Lose Insurance Under Trump Plan" [Washington Post, 7/1/25]
HEADLINE: “By The Numbers: Harmful Republican Megabill Favors The Wealthy And Leaves Millions Of Working Families Behind” [Center On Budget And Policy Priorities, 8/1/25]
The Congressional Budget Office Estimated That 11.8 Million People Would Become Uninsured As A Result Of The Medicaid Cuts In Republicans’ Reconciliation Bill. According to the Washington Post, "The bill, which narrowly passed the Senate on Tuesday and now heads back to the House, would effectively accomplish what Republicans have long failed to do: unwind many of the key components of the ACA, President Barack Obama’s signature domestic achievement, which dramatically increased the number of Americans with access to health insurance. To start, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the Senate version of the bill would result in 11.8 million more uninsured in 2034, mostly because of Medicaid cuts, compared with 10.9 million if the House version became law." [Washington Post, 7/1/25]
The Bill’s $50 Billion In Rural Hospital Relief Funding Would Not Come Close To The Gap Created By Medicaid Cuts, With 300 Rural Hospitals At “Immediate Risk” Of Closure. According to the Center For American Progress, “The OBBBA includes $50 billion in relief funding for rural hospitals over a five-year period to help reduce the disastrous impacts of the bill’s roughly $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts. As of May 2025, there were approximately 2,086 rural hospitals receiving $12.2 billion a year in net revenue from Medicaid. At the median, rural hospitals’ revenue from Medicaid is $3.9 million a year. Rural hospitals have some of the lowest operating margins in the nation, especially compared with urban hospitals, meaning that any reductions in revenue could lead to closures. The average operating margin for rural hospitals was 3.1 percent in 2023, with 44 percent of rural hospitals operating with negative margins. As a result, more than 300 rural hospitals are currently at ‘immediate risk’ of closure, especially now that the OBBBA is projected to cut Medicaid spending by $1.02 trillion. The relief fund designed to blunt the negative impacts caused by the bill would not come close to filling that gap. If every rural hospital in the country received an even share of the $50 billion in relief support, it would amount to only $4.5 million every year for five years. At the close of those five years, that funding would disappear altogether.” [Center For American Progress, 7/3/25]
¶ More Than 161,000 Minnesotans Were Expected To Lose Health Care Coverage Under Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill”
Under The “One Big Beautiful Bill,” 161,247 Minnesotans Were Expected To Lose Their Health Care By 2034, Including 53,200 ACA Enrollees And 108,047 Medicaid Recipients. According to the Joint Economic Committee Minority,
|
District |
State |
Est. # Losing ACA Coverage |
Est. # Losing Medicaid Coverage |
Est. Total # Losing Insurance |
|
MN-01 |
Minnesota |
7,100 |
12,517 |
19,617 |
|
MN-02 |
Minnesota |
5,100 |
10,263 |
15,363 |
|
MN-03 |
Minnesota |
5,500 |
10,290 |
15,790 |
|
MN-04 |
Minnesota |
6,300 |
15,959 |
22,259 |
|
MN-05 |
Minnesota |
8,300 |
15,188 |
23,488 |
|
MN-06 |
Minnesota |
6,300 |
12,994 |
19,294 |
|
MN-07 |
Minnesota |
7,900 |
15,298 |
23,198 |
|
MN-08 |
Minnesota |
6,700 |
15,538 |
22,238 |
|
All |
Totals |
53,200 |
108,047 |
161,247 |
[Joint Economic Committee Minority, 6/25]
- The House GOP Budget Bill Was Estimated To Increase The Uninsured Population By 8.6 Million By 2034. According to CNN, “The Medicaid and Affordable Care Act provisions in the package could result in 8.6 million more people being uninsured in 2034, according to an early CBO estimate released by Democratic lawmakers. That number is expected to grow with the latest changes.” [CNN, 5/28/25]
- The House GOP Budget Bill Codified A Trump Administration Proposal That Restricted Access To The Affordable Care Act. According to CNN, “The bill also calls for codifying a Trump administration proposal that would make changes to the Affordable Care Act enrollment process, including shortening the open enrollment period and eliminating the ability of low-income Americans to sign up year-round.” [CNN, 5/28/25]
- The House GOP Budget Bill Made The 2017 Income Tax Breaks Permanent And Added An Estimated $3.8 Trillion To The National Debt Over 10 Years. According to CNN, “The package includes several controversial measures that would deeply cut into two of the nation’s key safety net programs – Medicaid and food stamps – while making permanent essentially all of the trillions of dollars of individual income tax breaks contained in the GOP’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. What’s more, it would fulfill Trump’s campaign promises to cut taxes on tips and overtime, albeit temporarily. The magnitude of the measures is evident in the estimates of the cost they would incur or the savings they would produce. […] The tax changes in the package would add $3.8 trillion to the nation’s debt over a decade, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis released before last-minute changes were made to the bill.” [CNN, 5/28/25]
- HEADLINE: "House Republican Budget Takes Away Health Care, Food Aid To Pay For Expanded Tax Cuts For Wealthy" [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2/21/25]
- New York Times Reported The $880 Billion In Cuts Required By The Republican Budget Proposal Would Have To Come From Medicaid, Medicare, Or CHIP. According to the New York Times, "The budget resolution itself is silent on whether Congress cuts Medicaid, which provides health coverage to 72 million poor and disabled Americans. But it instructs the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over the program, to cut spending by $880 billion over the next decade. If the committee can’t save at least that much, the entire effort could be imperiled because of the special process Congress is using to avoid a Senate filibuster. Ten other committees have their own instructions to follow, though none have been assigned with cutting nearly as much. It’s not so simple as finding the cuts elsewhere. The special process, known as budget reconciliation, means Republicans will have to find all $880 billion from within the Energy and Commerce Committee’s jurisdiction. That leaves them with fewer options than one might think. […] If Republicans want to avoid major cuts to Medicaid, the largest pot of available money is in the other big government health insurance program: Medicare. […] Even if the committee cuts everything that’s not health care to $0, it will still be more than $600 billion short. The committee could also save around $200 billion by eliminating the Children’s Health Insurance Program, but that option has not been raised by the budget committee or anyone in House leadership. […] Even if all of these cuts, revenues and rule cancellations from outside health care can pass muster, the committee will still be left with hundreds of billions of dollars to cut to hit its goal. Mathematically, the budget committee’s instructions mean the committee would need to make major cuts to either Medicare, Medicaid or both." [New York Times, 2/25/25]
¶ The “One Big Beautiful Bill” And The Expiring Affordable Care Act Tax Credits Would Result In 179,000 More Uninsured Minnesotans By 2034
The “One Big Beautiful Bill” And The Expiring Affordable Care Act Tax Credits Would Result In 179,000 More Uninsured Minnesotans By 2034. According to the Center For American Progress, “The One Big Beautiful Bill Act will increase the number of Americans without health coverage in every state Estimated increase in the uninsured population due to the OBBBA and the expiration of the ACA’s enhanced premium tax credits, 2034.”
[Center For American Progress, 9/5/25]
¶ 2026: There Were 139,251 Minnesotans Enrolled In An Affordable Care Act Marketplace Plan
2026: There Were 139,251 Individuals Enrolled In An Affordable Care Act Marketplace Plan In Minnesota. According to KFF, in 2026, there were 139,251 individuals enrolled in Affordable Care Act marketplace plan in Minnesota.
[KFF, Accessed 5/4/26]
¶ The Affordable Care Act Allowed States To Expand Medicaid, Which Dramatically Lowered The Uninsured Rate Among Low-Income Workers
The Affordable Care Act Allowed States To Expand Medicaid, And States That Expanded Medicaid Dramatically Lowered The Number Of People Without Health Insurance. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “The Affordable Care Act (ACA) permits states to expand Medicaid coverage to adults with incomes up to 138 percent of the poverty level (about $20,780 annually for an individual or $35,630 for a family of three). States that have adopted the expansion have dramatically lowered their uninsured rates. Extensive research finds that the people who gained coverage have grown healthier and more financially secure, while long-standing racial inequities in health outcomes, coverage, and access to care have shrunk.” [Center On Budget And Policy Priorities, 6/14/24]
- The Uninsured Rate Among Low-Income Workers Fell From 38 Percent In 2013 To 17 Percent In 2022, Which Coincided With The Implementation Of Medicaid Expansion. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “Millions of workers have gained coverage through Medicaid expansion, including people working in industries that provide critical goods and services such as health care, transportation, grocery stores, food manufacturers, and child care. Many have no access to health coverage through their jobs. In expansion states, the uninsured rate among low-income workers fell from 38 percent in 2013 to 17 percent in 2022; this sharp decline coincided with a large increase in the share of low-income workers enrolled in Medicaid.[16] In non-expansion states, the uninsured rate among low-income workers fell much less, from 46 percent to 31 percent. (See Figure 3.)” [Center On Budget And Policy Priorities, 6/14/24]
¶ CoAE Was In Favor Of Cutting Clean Energy Tax Credits That Supported Minnesota Jobs And Fully Repealing The Inflation Reduction Act
¶ CoAE Supported Cuts To Clean Energy Tax Credits In The “One Big Beautiful Bill” And Suggested The Cuts Did Not Go Far Enough
CoAE Said “Congress Blundered The Opportunity To Permanently End The IRA Subsidies” With The “One Big Beautiful Bill” Because It Allowed “Projects That Begin ‘Construction’ By July 2026” To Still Be Eligible For Subsidies. According to American Experiment, “Congress blundered the opportunity to permanently end the IRA subsidies. The Senate version, which was approved by the House and signed into law, has a requirement that new solar and wind projects be ‘placed in service’ by 2027 to be eligible for subsidies. That would be significant progress; however, projects that begin ‘construction’ by July 2026 can be placed in service up until 2030 and still be eligible for subsidies. Construction can amount to dead-simple steps like committing five percent of the expected project cost to resalable assets, after which some projects can get tax credits for another ten years.” [American Experiment, 7/8/25]
The Republican Reconciliation Bill Restricted The Ability Of Projects To Qualify For Certain Clean Energy Tax Credits And Repealed Electric Vehicle Tax Credits. According to Utility Dive, "The bill restricts the ability of projects to qualify for the tech-neutral clean electricity 45Y production tax credit and 48E investment tax credit, shortens the timeline for those credits, and ends the 25D residential solar credit after this year. The 25E, 30D, 30C and 45W electric vehicle credits will terminate after Sept. 30. While clean energy advocates and congressional Democrats maintain that the final version of the bill goes too far in slashing IRA credits, some Republicans wanted to see more significant cuts." [Utility Dive, 7/3/25]
- The Final Republican Reconciliation Bill Allowed Projects To Avoid A Requirement That They Be In Service By 2027 To Qualify For Certain Credits If They Began Construction Within A Year Of The Bill Being Signed. According to Utility Dive, "Before the House Freedom Caucus reached an agreement with House leadership to vote in favor of the bill, the caucus circulated a memo that criticized the Senate’s version of the bill for offering an exemption from the House’s onerous requirement that clean energy projects be placed in service by 2027 to qualify for the 45Y and 48E credits. The Senate version allows projects to avoid this requirement if they begin construction within a year after the bill is signed into law." [Utility Dive, 7/3/25]
- The House Republican Budget Bill Included Cuts To Federal Tax Credits For Wind, Solar, Storage, And Other Clean Energy Projects. According to Utility Dive, "House Republicans on Thursday morning narrowly passed a sweeping budget bill that guts federal support for wind, solar, storage and other clean energy industries. The bill terminates most technology-neutral clean energy tax credits for projects placed in service after 2028 and those that begin construction more than 60 days after the bill’s passage. It also tightens restrictions on foreign entities’ involvement in projects, creating a ‘truly untenable’ situation for developers, Jefferies analysts said Thursday. Nuclear projects have more time to qualify for the credit." [Utility Dive, 6/3/25]
- One Trade Association CEO Said The Bill Would Weaken Power Systems, Send Shockwaves Through The U.S. Economy, And Kill Tens Of Thousands Of Jobs. According to Utility Dive, "The House bill ‘abruptly dismantles bipartisan, long-standing tax policy that has catalyzed billions in private investment for affordable, reliable energy while sparking a rebirth of manufacturing across America,’ AEU President and CEO Heather O’Neill said. ‘If enacted as written, this bill will weaken our power system and send shockwaves throughout the U.S. economy by raising electricity prices, killing tens of thousands of jobs and ceding energy dominance to China.’" [Utility Dive, 5/22/25]
¶ Energy Innovation Predicted The “One Big Beautiful Bill” Would Kill 23,000 Clean Energy Jobs In Minnesota After The Clean Energy Industry Grew Two Times Faster Than The State’s Workforce In 2024
2025: Energy Innovation Predicted The Republican Budget Bill Would “Kill Nearly 23,000 Minnesota Jobs, Slash State Gross Domestic Product By $22 Billion, And Raise Household Energy Bills By $2.7 Billion” Over The Next Decade. According to the Minnesota Reformer, “The $4 trillion GOP budget bill that squeaked through the U.S. Senate this week yesterday would ‘help usher in a golden age for American workers, farmers and families,’ according to House Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith, R-Missouri. One nonpartisan think tank disagrees, strongly. Energy Innovation says the bill will kill nearly 23,000 Minnesota jobs, slash state gross domestic product by $22 billion and raise household energy bills by $2.7 billion — a 28% increase — over the next decade.” [Minnesota Reformer, 7/3/25]
2024: Minnesota Added Nearly 1,700 Clean Energy Jobs, Growing The Clean Energy Industry Two Times Faster Than The State’s Total Workforce. According to MPR News, “A new report says Minnesota added nearly 1,700 clean energy jobs last year, outpacing the overall state economy — although federal policy shifts could mean a slowdown is ahead. Clean Energy Economy Minnesota, an industry-led nonprofit, annually estimates the number of people working in clean energy fields, including solar and wind energy, electric vehicle manufacturing and energy efficiency. Its latest report released Wednesday estimates that number grew to almost 64,000 in 2024, a 2.6 percent increase from the previous year. Jobs in clean energy-related fields grew more than two times faster than the state's total workforce. However, the report doesn’t reflect the effects of President Donald Trump’s tax and spending act, which Congress passed in July. It ended some tax credits for clean energy projects on Dec. 31.” [MPR News, 10/15/25]
¶ CoAE Held Far-Right Views On Subjects Including Affirmative Action, School Vouchers, And The Minimum Wage
¶ CoAE’s Leadership Had Right-Wing Connections And Opinions
¶ CoAE’s President Wrote About “Ties Between Terrorism And Islam, Hillary Clinton’s E-Mails And Accusations Of Liberal Media Bias” On His Personal Blog
CoAE President John Hinderaker Had A Personal Blog Where He Wrote About “Ties Between Terrorism And Islam, Hillary Clinton’s E-mails And Accusations Of Liberal Media Bias.” According to the Minnesota Star Tribune, “Although the center officially is nonpartisan, its decidedly conservative views — including support for school choice and conventional two-parent families, opposition to light-rail expansion and disdain for the Metropolitan Council — appeal mainly to Republicans. Some say the center has taken a sharper edge on certain issues under Hinderaker, whose 14-year-old blog doesn't shy away from provocative stances on the ties between terrorism and Islam, Hillary Clinton's e-mails and accusations of liberal media bias.” [Minnesota Star Tribune, 12/7/16]
- Hinderaker Became The President Of CoAE After Serving On The Organization’s Board Of Directors. According to American Experiment, “John Hinderaker is President of Center of the American Experiment. He spent 41 years as a litigator with Faegre & Benson and its successor Faegre Baker Daniels, during which time he tried 100 jury cases and appeared in courts in 19 states. Upon his retirement from the legal profession at the end of 2015, he became president of the Center of the American Experiment. John has had a long association with the Center, including co-authoring several papers published by the Center and serving on the organization’s Board of Directors. John was Chairman of the Center’s board in 1998-2000.” [American Experiment, Staff, Archived 5/5/26]
¶ A Reagan Appointee Founded CoAE, Which Supported School Vouchers And Opposed Affirmative Action
CoAE Was Founded By A Reagan Appointee And Supported School Vouchers And Opposed Affirmative Action. According to Inforum, “The Center of the American Experiment is a Minnesota-based think tank advocating for conservative and free-market principles, according to its website. Founded in 1990 by Mitch Pearlstein, a President Ronald Reagan appointee, the center supports school vouchers and has opposed affirmative action.” [Inforum, 6/13/23]
¶ CoAE Was A Member Of “A National Network Of Center-Right Think Tanks,” The State Policy Network
CoAE Was A Member Of The State Policy Network, “A National Network Of Center-Right Think Tanks” Which Had A “Huge Number” Of Member Organizations That Were “Climate Denial Groups” And “Central Organizing Members Of The Climate Counter-Movement.” According to Racket, “CoAE is a member of the State Policy Network, which Walsh, the CoAE spokesman, described as ‘a national network of center-right think tanks.’ In 2022, ProPublica called SPN ‘a group of influential state-level think tanks that push for deregulation and tax cuts.’ Hall says he’s ‘not too familiar’ CoAE, specifically. However, he notes that many SPN member groups take part in the climate change counter-movement. ‘A huge number of these organizations have at some point or another been relatively open climate denial groups and/or climate delay,’ Hall says, adding that ‘the central organizing members of the climate counter-movement’ are part of SPN.” [Racket, 12/6/24]
¶ CoAE Speakers Opposed Critical Race Theory And Said Racism Was The “All-Purpose Excuse For Black Failure”
¶ American Experiment Policy Fellow Catrin Wigfall Called Critical Race Theory “An Extension Of Marxism”
2021: American Experiment Policy Fellow Catrin Wigfall Gave A Presentation Claiming Minnesota Schools Were Introducing “Critical Race Theory.” According to the Post Bulletin, “The Center for the American Experiment held a conference Tuesday afternoon in Rochester as part of a tour around the state. Dubbed the 'Raise Our Standards Tour,' multiple speakers gave presentations highlighting the ways they say the educational system is providing a disservice to young people. [...] American Experiment Policy Fellow Catrin Wigfall went on to speak about how 'critical race theory' is being introduced to Minnesota's school systems.” [Post Bulletin, 6/8/21]
- Wigfall Said Critical Race Theory Was “Really An Extension Of Marxism,” And Said Equity “Only Comes When You Gerrymander A System To Favor One Group Over Another.” According to the Post Bulletin, “She said although the theory is dressed up in appealing terms like 'inclusion' and 'diversity,' it's really an extension of Marxism. 'We have seen that the word 'equity' is easily confused with the American principle of 'equality,' ' she said. 'The two are very different. Equality is all about equal opportunity. Equity, on the other hand, is about guaranteeing equal outcomes, and that only comes when you gerrymander a system to favor one group over another, which, at its core, is discrimination.” [Post Bulletin, 6/8/21]
¶ Black Conservative Jason Riley Said Racism Was An “Excuse For Black Failure” And Said Affirmative Action Was “Setting Up Kids To Fail”
2016: Black Conservative Jason Riley Spoke At A CoAE Luncheon Where He Claimed Racism Was The “All-Purpose Excuse For Black Failure” And Affirmative Action Was “Setting Up Kids To Fail” And Holding Black People To Lower Standards. According to the Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder, “To get their message out, CAE is hosting a series of four quarterly luncheons with that theme; the first one was on February 18 at the downtown Minneapolis Hilton Hotel featuring a talk by Black conservative Jason Riley. Riley, whose latest book is titled Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed, is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, columnist for the Wall Street Journal and a member of their editorial board, and a frequent commentator on Fox News. [...] ‘Affirmative action,’ Riley said, ‘gets more credit than it deserves,’ as it has ‘never equaled what Blacks were already doing on their own. Holding Blacks to lower standards’ and ‘setting kids up to fail’ is what Riley described as effects of affirmative action. ‘Racism,’ Riley declared, is the ‘all-purpose excuse for Black failure.’” [Minnesota Spokesman-Record, 3/2/16]
¶ A CoAE Speaker Opposed A $15 Minimum Wage
¶ Economics Professor Mark Perry Said A $15 Minimum Wage “Would Be A Disaster For Both Unskilled Workers And The Employers Who Hire Them”
Mark Perry Opinion: At A CoAE-Sponsored Event, Perry Claimed A $15 Minimum Wage “Would Be A Disaster For Both Unskilled Workers And The Employers Who Hire Them,” And Would Result In “Thousands, Possibly Millions Of Workers” Losing Their Jobs. According to a Mark Perry opinion from the American Enterprise Institute, “Think of it this way: Suppose the government imposed a $15,500 annual tax on employers per full time unskilled worker. Is there any doubt that that level of tax — $15,500 per employee — would reduce employment opportunities for unskilled workers? Of course there’s no doubt, and that’s the exact same outcome as an increase in the minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 an hour – it would be like a $15,500 tax + payroll taxes on employers for each full-time minimum wage worker. And that would be a disaster for both unskilled workers and the employers who hire them. [...] In closing, remember that the real minimum wage is always zero, because that is the wage that thousands, possibly millions of workers will receive following a government-mandated $15 minimum wage, because they will either lose their jobs or fail to find jobs when they enter the labor force.” [Mark Perry Opinion - American Enterprise Institute, 9/20/16]
- Economics Professor Mark Perry Discussed His Opposition To A $15 Minimum Wage At A CoAE-Sponsored Event. According to a Mark Perry opinion from the American Enterprise Institute, “Here are the remarks below that I delivered today in Minneapolis at a minimum wage debate sponsored by the Center of the American Experiment.” [Mark Perry Opinion - American Enterprise Institute, 9/20/16]