Project 2029 - 3 A Living Wage

Dear Friends,

 

There are many ways to improve the lives of working people.  Some of them are purely financial – increasing their incomes and/or reducing their cost of living.  There are also non-financial issues that impact the quality of life of working people – safe crime free communities, high quality schools and daycare, healthy environment.

 

Today, I want to discuss one aspect of improving the lives of working people – a living wage.  This term has many descriptions.  At its lowest level a living wage is an amount sufficient to provide a decent standard of living, including housing, healthcare, food, and education.  The MIT Living Wage Calculator https://livingwage.mit.edu/pages/methodology uses the following definition of a living wage:

 

The Living Wage Calculator was originally developed in 2003 to comprehensively estimate the employment earnings—or the living wage—that a full-time worker requires to cover or support the costs of their family’s basic needs where they live. Today, the calculator features geographically-specific costs for food, childcare, health care, housing, transportation, other basic needs including household goods, personal care items, and broadband, and taxes at the county, metro, and state levels for 12 different family types.

 

In my view that definition is the bare minimum for the richest country in the world, and for us the definition should also include the ability to save for extras and for retirement as well as provide a basic level of entertainment and vacation.  Nevertheless, for the purposes of this post, I will use the MIT Living Wage Calculator.

 

A living wage is well above the poverty level.  For the continental US, the poverty level for a one-person household is $15,960 a year and for a four-person household is $33,000.  A full-time employee earning the federal minimum wage would earn $15,080 a year.  Please note that the federal minimum wage does not provide sufficient income for a person to escape poverty. 

 

The MIT Living Wage calculator calculates that in Minnesota (I used it because that is where I live) for a one-person household a living wage is $48,475, and for a four-person household of two adults (both working) and two children a living wage is $131, 549.  As you can see for a one-person household the living wage is 3 times the poverty level and for a four-person household is almost 4 times the poverty level.

 

The federal minimum wage is currently $7.25 and has not been increased since 2009.  If the federal minimum wage had increased with inflation, today it would be about $11.25.  Based on inflation, the federal minimum wage should have increased 55% instead of staying the same.  https://www.usinflationcalculator.com  If you consider the federal minimum wage in light of productivity gains by workers, you get a similar although less dramatic result.  Since 2009 non-farm worker productivity has increased 31.24%. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OPHNFB/  On that basis the federal minimum wage should have increased to $9.51.  

 

Regardless of the calculation, the federal minimum wage needs to be increased substantially.  It is below the poverty level, it has not kept pace with productivity gains, and it has not kept pace with inflation.  

 

Fortunately, many states have higher minimum wages, and the law provides that an applicable state minimum wage takes priority if it is higher.  Thirty states plus the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands have minimum wages higher than the federal minimum wage.  Thirteen states plus the Northern Mariana Islands have minimum wages equal to the federal minimum wage and seven states and American Samoa have either no minimum wage or a minimum wage less than the federal minimum wage.  Those seven states are Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee and Wyoming.  https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/mw-consolidated#2  

 

Obviously, increasing the minimum wage would improve the living conditions of working people.  There are many studies on what the various impacts that would obtain from raising the minimum wage.  The negative impacts most often cited are a potential reduction in employment of low wage earners and an increase in prices. Unfortunately, most of these studies fail to take into account other actions that the federal government could take to offset the negative impact of raising the minimum wage on working people, like changes in the income tax rules, increasing other benefits available to working people and the impact of enforcing anti-trust laws.  

 

The Congressional Budget Office has a detailed study of the impact of raising the minimum wage based on a 2023 bill.   https://www.cbo.gov/publication/55681  I do not recommend you try to understand that study unless you really like to get into the weeds.  The Peter G. Peterson Foundation has also done a study which includes data from the CBO, but it is much more understandable.  The Peter G. Peterson Foundation is very concerned about government debt and has a right leaning philosophy, but it is regarded as being an unbiased reporter of facts and analysis. 

https://www.pgpf.org/article/heres-how-raising-the-mForinimum-wage-would-affect-everything-from-household-incomes-to-the-national-debt/

 

For a more labor friendly analysis I would suggest a study done by the Economic Policy Institute of a 2025 bill raising the minimum wage. 

https://www.epi.org/publication/rtwa-2025-impact-fact-sheet/  This study indicates that 22,247,000 workers would be impacted with an average increase of $3,200 per worker.

 

All of these studies indicate that raising the minimum wage would be a boon to working people, but there may be some negative side effects that could hurt other working people.  In the richest country in the world, we cannot continue to deny working people a living wage.  If the Democrats are going to regain the support of working people, they must push hard for a package of laws that would among many other things increase the minimum wage and offset any the negative impact of doing so. 

 

Thanks for reading and please comment,

The Unabashed Liberal

 

 

 

 

 

Project 2029 - 2

Dear Friends,

 

There are two broad goals that the Democrats must address in Project 2029 – improving the lives of working people and improving our democracy.  There are, of course, many other goals, but if the changes are made to improve our democracy, many of the other goals can be achieved through normal democratic processes.  

 

There are two prerequisites to achieve these broad goals – elimination of the filibuster in the Senate and significantly enlarging the Supreme Court.  Other than legislation that can be shoehorned into a reconciliation bill, the filibuster will need to be eliminated to pass the legislation needed to accomplish the two broad goals.  In addition, the concept of the unitary executive, currently in vogue with the radical right majority on the Supreme Court, will need to be defeated.  Under the unitary executive theory, the President can do what Trump has done – ignore the legislation and the authorized spending and just do those things that (s)he wants. 

 

So, every Democrat running for the Senate must be asked “what legislation will you fight for that will improve the lives of working people and will improve our democracy?”.  The follow up question is “will you work to and vote for the elimination the filibuster and the enlargement of the Supreme Court?”.  If the candidate is not willing to eliminate the filibuster and enlarge the Supreme Court, they are not serious about improving the lives of working people or improving our democracy.  Without eliminating the filibuster, the legislation cannot become law; and without enlarging the Supreme Court, a President can avoid duly executing the law. 

 

The goal is not to look like we are fighting but to take action that improves the lives of working people and improves our democracy.

 

Thanks for reading and please comment,

The Unabashed Liberal

The Democrats' Project 2029 -1

Dear Friends,

 

The Republicans developed their Project 2025 to provide a clear list of their priorities and the actions they would take if they took control of the Congress and the Presidency in the 2024 election.  They have been devastatingly efficient at accomplishing their goals because Republican elected representatives were complicit in the destructive policies and because they pursued their goals without regard to the Constitution and laws of the country.  

 

The Democrats must prepare their own Project 2029 to provide a clear list of their priorities and the actions they will take when they control the Congress and the Presidency after the 2028 election.  It can also be used as a campaign platform in the 2026 midterm elections.

 

I have decided to help the Democrats out by beginning a draft of Project 2029.  My next few posts will consist of first drafts of portions of Project 2029.  I can use all the help I can get so feel free to critique and augment my draft.  As a start, here is a couple paragraph preamble to Project 2029.

 

The goal of the actions and priorities outlined in Project 2029 must be to reestablish and insure the future of our country as a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multi-religious liberal democracy in which we all respect, value and support each other, and governments at all levels respect, value and support all the people, ensuring their constitutional rights, keeping them safe and providing them with the opportunity to meet their potential and prosper.  

 

Project 2029 provides a bold vision and list of priorities to be pursued by the Democrats including both short term and long-term policies to enact and implement asap once they control the House, Senate and Presidency.  As a prerequisite for this vision, the Democrats must immediately eliminate the filibuster and reform the Supreme Court by enlarging it and in the longer-term instituting term limits and a method of providing each Presidential term with some nominations.  

 

There are many issues that must be addressed.  The Democrats must take them all on at once, much as the Republicans did with Project 2025, except that the Democrats must follow the rules.The Democrats must within the first two years of unified control prove to the voters that they are going to make good on their campaign promises.

 

Future posts will outline the various policies and actions that I think should be included in Project 2029.

 

Thanks for reading and please comment,

The Unabashed Liberal

The Deterioration of the Standard of Living of Working People in the US

The economic system in the United States was broken well before Trump started to run for President. For decades going back at least to the Clinton presidency, the Democratic Party has failed to prioritize improving the lives of working people.  Since the Democrats were not working to make their lives better, nobody was, and their lives became harder and harder.  The fact that the Democratic Party was not fighting for working people and the resulting negative impact on their lives were two of the primary reasons that working people turned against the Democrats and helped elect Trump in 2016 and again in 2024. 

 

Since the economic system has been rigged against working people and in favor of the rich and powerful for decades, policies aimed at returning to the way things were before Trump does not solve the problem. Democrats must propose dramatic and transformative policies to improve the lives of working people, reverse the movement of wealth to the top 1% and seek equity for all.  Small and incremental changes to get back to the status quo ante Trump will just lead to even worse economic conditions for working people and yet another defeat for Democrats and even more claims by the Republicans and the oligarchs that authoritarianism is the only thing that can help working people.

 

Working people have suffered in many ways because of our broken economic system.  Their share of household income and wealth has fallen well behind those on the top of the economic ladder.

 

While household incomes at all levels of income have risen over the last 50 years, the incomes of the top 10% have risen at a much higher rate than those of the bottom 50%.  According to a study by the Economic Policy Institute, the median household income from 1973 to 2023 rose 16.6% while the household income for the top 10% rose 50.0%.  

 

To give you an idea of how much income the various levels have, Census Bureau data indicates the following for 2023

Top 5%                        $526,200

Top quintile                 $297,300

2^nd quintile                  $129,400

Median                        $80,730

4^th quintile                  $47,590

Bottom quintile           $17,650

 

A Federal Reserve study on household wealth from 1989 to 2025 demonstrates that during that period 

·      the wealth of the top 0.1% increased 67% 

·      the wealth of the rest of the top 1% increased 22.5%

·      the wealth of the rest of the top 10% decreased by 4%

·      the wealth of the 50% to the 90% decreased 18.2%

·      the wealth of the bottom 50% decreased by 26.5%

 

In my view there are many reasons for this deterioration of the financial wellbeing of working people.  I will discuss several important ones – income tax rates, estate tax rates, decline of union membership and the increase in monopolistic power.

 

The maximum individual income tax rate has fallen over time, and the amount of income it applies to has also fallen.

 

In 1950 the maximum rate was 91%, and it applied to income over $400,000 ($5.4 million).

In 1975 the maximum rate was 70%, and it applied to income over $200,000 ($1.8 million).

In 2000, the maximum rate was 39.6%, and it applied to income over $288,350 ($542,659).

In 2025, the maximum rate was 37%, and it applied to income over $751,600 ($751,600)

 

The dollar amounts in parenthesis are the amount expressed in 2025 dollars.  As you can see the wealthy are not paying anywhere near their fair share, if you define fair share as what they were paying in 1950 or even 1975.

 

The same is true for estate tax rates and exemption amounts.

In 1954, the maximum rate was 77% on amounts over $10 million ($118 million).

In 1977, the maximum rate was 70% on amounts over $5 million ($27 million)

In 2009, the maximum rate was 45% on amounts over $3.5 million ($5.3 million)

In 2025, the maximum rate was 40% on amounts over $14 million ($14 million)

 

Once again, the rich are not paying their fair share and more and more generational wealth is moving to the very, very rich due to government policies.

 

A report issued by the Library of Congress in 2023 discusses union membership from the 1880s to 2022. The percentage of the workforce that were union members reached a peak in 1945 at 34.2% and stayed above 30% until 1961 when it dropped to 29.2%.  During the 1960s and 1970s, it dropped steadily but slowly.  In 1980 22.2% of the US workforce were members of unions.  After that the rate of union membership dropped faster to just 9.4% in 2022.

 

While I cannot say that there is a direct causation, there is certainly a correlation between the decline of union membership and fact that working people have fallen behind in the share of household income and wealth. 

 

The increased monopolistic power within the US economy has also had an adverse impact on the economic condition of working people.  As an October 2016 report from the Council of Economic Advisors states:

 

There is also growing concern about an additional cause of inequity—a general reduction in competition among firms, shifting the balance of bargaining power towards employers (Furman and Orszag 2015). Such a shift could explain not only the redistribution of revenues from worker wages to managerial earnings and profits, but also the rising disparity in pay among workers with similar skills. These trends also have broader implications for the economy as a whole: instead of promoting growth, forces that undermine competition tend to reduce efficiency, and can lead to lower output, employment, and social welfare.

 

Since that report, Trump has essentially stopped all anti-trust enforcement.  Unfortunately, even during times when Democrats controlled the White House, anti-trust enforcement has not been a priority.  

 Government policies related to income tax, estate taxes, unions and anti-trust as well as others have concentrated most of wealth and political power in the hands of a few very wealthy individuals and corporations (the "oligarchs") and have had a significant negative impact on working people.  Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have prioritized making the lives of working people better.  It is no wonder that working people are angry and frustrated.  They abandoned the Democrats because the Democrats took them for granted and never really prioritized making their lives better.  They moved to Trump because at least he promised them a better life.  It is now clear even to the working people who supported him, that Trump was lying.

 

Consequently, the Democrats have an opening to regain the votes of working people by enthusiastically embracing a platform of government policies that will improve their lives.  The word of the day is “affordability” and that is critical to improving working people’s lives, but it doesn’t stop there.  High quality childcare, education, health care, food, unemployment benefits and retirement benefits are not just affordability issues they are also quality of life issues.  Of course, part and parcel of all these issues is to reclaim our democracy where working people share equally and fully in the power and prosperity of our country.  Their voices must be heard.  The oligarchs cannot be permitted to continue to buy our elections and politicians.

 

In later posts, I will discuss what policies the Democrats should embrace to enhance the lives of working people and save our democracy.

 

Thanks for reading and please comment,

The Unabashed Liberal

Trump's Unconstitutional and Illegal War of Choice against Iran

 Dear Friends,

President Trump has initiated and is prosecuting an illegal war against Iran with the direct complicity of some members of his cabinet, some members of Congress and some senior military officers.  The oaths of office of all these officials contain the following words in one form or another, “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same”. 

The Constitution and subsequent Supreme Court interpretations make it clear that only Congress can declare war.  President Trump has not provided any evidence that Iran was about to attack the United States in any way.  So, he cannot use the theory of a preemptive strike to prevent an imminent attack on the United States as an excuse for his illegal action.  He has, however, referred to what he is doing in Iran as a “war”.  Congress has not authorized a war against Iran.  Congress has not approved the use of military force against Iran.  Congress has not even debated any form of armed conflict with Iran, much less a war of choice against Iran. 

 

Consequently, Trump’s war of choice against Iran is unconstitutional and illegal.  He has violated his oath of office, is violating the Constitution and is issuing illegal orders to the Secretary of Defense and senior military officers.  He needs to be impeached by the House of Representatives, tried by the Senate, found guilty and removed from office.

 

The President of the United States is not the only one that must face the consequences of his illegal actions.  The Secretary of Defense and some senior military officers are obeying Trump’s illegal orders and are issuing illegal orders to their subordinates to prosecute an illegal war.  They have violated their oaths of office, they have dishonored their offices, they have shown cowardice at a time when bravery is required.  The Secretary of Defense needs to be impeached and removed from office. The senior military officers who are participating in this illegal war need to be court martialed, if not by this Administration, then by the next one.

 

The members of Congress who are supporting Trump’s illegal war and who are mainly Republicans, are violating their oaths of office as well by not asserting the powers of Congress.  At I write this piece, it is not even clear that Congress will hold any votes on Trump’s illegal war of choice.  Members of Congress are willing to ignore their duty and let American service members die, be wounded and put their lives at risk, but they are too cowardly to even have a vote on the issue.  They all need to be voted out of office and publicly shamed for their dereliction of duty and immoral behavior.

 

The authors of the Constitution did not want one person, the President of the United States, to be able to start a war on his own.  The Constitution set up a process which would result in a debate on the merits of going to war.  Since that debate would take place in Congress, the American people would have a say in whether to take the monumental step of going into war.  

 

I don’t know if going to war was the best approach for American interests because there has been no debate – no facts disclosed, no goals, no strategies or tactics discussed, no risk assessments, no exit strategies, no plan b, etc.  All of which should have been thoroughly discussed before we started a war of choice.  The comments about the reasons and goals for this war of choice by President Trump, Secretary Hegseth, and General Caine have been inconsistent, constantly changing, without factual evidence and always ignoring the constitutional requirement that Congress, not the President make the decision.

 

President Trump wants to be a dictator.  There is no clearer indication that a leader is a dictator than when he assumes the right to take the country into a war of choice without following the Constitution.  We, the people, cannot let this decision stand.  Congress must act to restrain the President.

Thanks for reading and please comment,

The Unabashed Liberal

Villefranche-sur-mer - Winter 2026-6

Dear Friends,

Our time in Villefranche is rapidly coming to an end.  We are always sad when we must leave our French teacher, our friends and our home away from home.  This year is no different.  We had our last french lesson of this trip this morning.  We thought back on our time here this year and in the past.  We could never live here full time, but we still love to come here and hate to leave.  We are lucky that we can spend 3 months a year here.

After our last French lesson of the trip, we couldn't face making our own lunch so we went out to Bakaro, a small Italian bakery/coffee shop/cafe/wine bar that is just a three minute walk from our apartment.  If we go out for breakfast, it is our favorite spot.  They also have wonderful treats, great coffee and good lunches.  Today, Jane had an omelette.  They are really good especially with ham and cheese.  They are served with a little green salad.  I had their lasagna bolognaise.  Since we were sad that we would be leaving soon, we each had a glass of wine.  Jane had a wonderful little cookie with apricot filling and a noisette (small espresso with foamed milk).  I had a chocolat chaud.  Here is a picture of our dessert from lunch today.

noisette, chocolat chaud and cookie

Chocolat chaud is hot cocoa, but the Italian version and some French versions bear little to no relation to what we think of as hot cocoa.  I have written about chocolat chaud many times before.  Here is one example.  Since writing that blog, I discovered the Italian version of chocolat chaud in Ventimiglia.  It is a town located just into Italy from France and easy to get to on the train from Villefranche.  

The Italian chocolat chaud is much thicker than the french style.  The chocolat chaud at the Gran Caffe in Beaulieu-sur-mer which I had thought was the best was the Italian style but not so thick.  The chocolat chaud in Ventimiglia was great and very thick, but today I tried the chocolat chaud at Bakaro.  It is a whole new level of melted chocolat just barely able to be drunk.  

You can see from the photo below how thick the chocolat chaud is.  It is barely able to slip off the spoon.

Bakaro is so passionate about their chocolat chaud, they have a special sign describing the different styles.

Here is a very loose translation.  

Three ways to savor your chocolat chaud.

• "The Lapping" (normal)
• light, fluid, comforting 
• "The Swell" (thick)  [as in a big wave]
• more body, a texture that envelops your patate
• "The Depths" dense, intensely rich,
• to savor with a spoon

I asked the server for the thickest kind.  She actually told me after that she made me one between the "Swell" and the "Depths'.  Anyway, it was fantastic.  If it had been any thicker, I would have needed a knife.  I won't be able to go again this trip to Bakaro, but I will stop by in October to try the full on "Depths".

Thanks for reading and please comment,

The Unabashed Liberal

Villefranche-sur-mer - Winter 2026 - 5

 Dear Friends,

Last night we went to a concert by the Orchestra Philharmonique de Monte-Carlo.  It was performed in the Auditorium Rainier III.  The program was curated just for us.

    Johann Sebastian Bach, Suite pour orchestre n3 in ré majeur

    Joseph Haydn, Concerto pour violoncello en do majeur

    Ludwig van Beethoven, Symphonie n2 en ré majeur

First a little translation - in France they use do, ré, mi, fa, sol, la and si, instead of A, B, C, D, E, F and G. We would say the Bach Suite and the Beethoven symphony were in D major (not ré) and the Hayden concerto was in C major (not do).  Also a violoncello is the French word for a cello.

Ton Koopman was the conductor.  He is a well known conductor particularly of Baroque music.  The entire concert was great, particularly because we love Baroque music.  From our point of view unfortunately, it is very difficult to hear a symphony orchestra play an entire concert of Baroque music.  The orchestra played very well and the overall concert was great, but the real star of the night was the Hayden cello concerto in which the soloist was the principal cellist of the orchestra, Thierry Amadi.  Originally a special soloist was scheduled to play but had to cancel and was replaced by Thierry.  I think that audiences really enjoy hearing one of their own players as the soloist.  The potentially greater skill and musicality of an out of town soloist is not apparent to the most of the audience, and that potential greater skill level is more than offset by the thrill of hearing one of your own and the energy with which the local player rises to the occasion of being the star of the night.  We didn't even know Thierry, but we could hear and feel the music and the pride the audience took in his performance.  He was fantastic.

The venue, the Rainier III Auditorium, is a beautiful venue located right on the Mediterranean coast. 

Here we are in the lobby just before the performance.

Here is a photo of the interior before people have arrived.

The site lines are great as are the acoustics.  The people watching is also fantastic.  

Our entire experience was great.

Thank you for reading and please comment,

The Unabashed Liberal

Villefranche-sur-mer - Winter 2026 - 4

 Dear Friends,

For Christmas one of our kids gave us a gift certificate to a 2 star Michelin restaurant in Nice.  We have only been to Michelin starred restaurants a couple of times in our lives.  Going to a Michelin starred restaurant or a restaurant that aspires to be a Michelin starred restaurant is not like going to any other kind of restaurant.  You might choose a regular restaurant because it is casual, convenient, pretty good food, friendly staff and customers; or you might choose a regular restaurant because they make a really good steak or particularly good fish or some sort of ethnic food.  Regular restaurants can be inexpensive or expensive.  But in a regular restaurant, you know what you will get, and it will not take a paragraph of specialized language to describe what it is.

At a Michelin starred restaurant, it is a total experience: the ambiance, the lighting, the greeting, the aroma, texture and flavors and how they all interact at various times during the experience.  To truly enjoy a Michelin starred restaurant, you need to suspend the concept of a regular restaurant and move into a whole new world where all of your senses are involved and where it is the combination and interaction of all your senses that matter.  Each individual texture, flavor, aroma and appearance is carefully crafted, but it is the combination and interaction that is critical.

Last week we went to Restaurant Flaveur in Nice.  It has two Michelin stars.  We had talked on the phone and via email in a combination of French and English, because we had some concerns about the length of the experience as well as the emphasis on fish in the dishes.  All of these interactions before we even arrived made us look forward to our experience and eased our concerns.  Nevertheless we were not at all sure what to expect.

Our apartment is in Villefranche which is next to Nice, but depending on traffic it can take awhile to get there.  We decided that we would splurge and take an Uber.  It was a rainy night, and we were nervous about getting an Uber and the traffic to get there.  The Uber arrived quickly and the traffic was light so we arrived at 7:20 pm for our 7:30 pm reservation. They pretended that it was perfectly normal to arrive early, and fortunately the next customers arrived 5 minutes after we did.  

It is a small restaurant, maybe 8 or 10 tables.  We have no idea how many people were in the kitchen, but in the front of the house, there were two:  one of the brothers who owned the restaurant and one helper.  They presented each of us with a personalized menu.  Just a quick aside, in English the word menu connotes a list of the food/drink being offered.  The appropriate translation of the English word "menu" to French is "la carte" (unlike English words, French words have a sex.  La carte is feminine).  The word "le menu" in French refers a group of special choices with a special price.  In the case of Flaveur, there is only un prix fixe (a fixed price) menu.  You can choose between 7 or 9 courses with a prix fixe for each one.  There was also a supplement available for an additional amount.  We had the 7 course menu plus the supplement.

Here is a photo of my personalized menu.  Jane's was somewhat different because of her desires we told them about in advance.

A couple of words of explanation are in order.  It appears from my "Exploration" that there 5 courses plus a possible supplement.  Never fear though, some of the headings were divided so we really did get the promised number of courses.  In addition, while it may appear that there are several choices under each heading, in reality you get all of the items listed under the heading, usually in a variety of small bowls or plates.  The brothers that own and run the restaurant were born in Guadeloupe.  The first heading items are an homage to their heritage which they refer to as from the Caribbean.  The second heading items are an homage to food of the French Riviera.  At the end of the meal you return to the Caribbean.  It is all quite esoteric.

The items listed under each heading are in fact virtually every ingredient in the dishes under that heading.  While we took many pictures of the dishes, I cannot begin to list with certainty which picture goes with which description.  The following photos are in chronological order.

This is the first food that arrived, just a little amuse bouche.  The one on the top of the picture is for Jane as it has crab in it and mine has scallops.  They had asked earlier if Jane liked crab. 

This is a close up of mine.

This is what one course looked like when I had finished it.

This is the butter, sitting on a stone, just in case you couldn't tell. 

 

I haven't mentioned the wine.  The wine and liquor is an add-on to the prix fixe.  We each started with a glass of champagne -  Jane a rosé and I a blanc.  Both were fantastic.  

Then we took advantage of the four glasses of wine menu which were served at the appropriate time during the meal.  Here was our first wine.

This is the fish of the day.

This is the lobster supplement and the wine pairing.

Here is a little something more.

We then moved on to the dessert courses with their paired wine.

Of course at the end of the meal, a photo of the two of us as I prepare to pay the bill.  Fortunately, the server was a much better server than photographer.

So while we are on the subject of the bill, the other thing about going to a Michelin starred restaurant is that you need to suspend all concerns or thoughts about money.  If you think about all the work that goes into preparing a Michelin starred meal, you can understand why it is so expensive from a cost perspective.  We once spent a morning in the kitchen of a one star Michelin restaurant watching the preparation for the lunch service.  There were many people working hard all morning at very specific tasks.  As an example one guy was poaching quail eggs all morning essentially one at a time so that they all had exactly the same doneness and amount of egg white on them.  Those eggs were one small part of a salad to be served with the lunch.  The amount of individual effort that goes into every ingredient is incredible.  Having said that, you cannot possibly justify the total price of a Michelin starred experience from a value perspective  except by comparison to other Michelin starred experiences.  Since we didn't have enough of those for a comparison, we just enjoyed the experience and paid the bill.  Justifying the price/value ratio cannot be done by any logical or honest process.  

One of the concerns we had going into the meal was the amount of time the experience takes.  We were assured that the experience would take 3 hours minimum.  In actuality it took 4 hours from start to finish.  That was a long time for us particularly when it started at 7:30 pm.  The service started off somewhat slow as there were times we had no new course for quite a while.  Once the experience got going, it moved along at an appropriate pace.  I would not go to a Michelin starred restaurant unless you are prepared to spend four hours.  If you get frantic about how long it is taking, you will miss a lot of the enjoyment of the experience.

In the end, we are very happy that we got the gift certificate for this experience.  We would not have done it without that impetuous, and we would have never had the experience that we had.  We certainly would not do it every night or even once a year, but it was a great experience completely different from anything we had previously done.

Thank you for reading and please comment,

The Unabashed Liberal