I had the misfortune of stumbling into listening to and watching the Democrat debate in South Carolina. I’ve been paying rather close attention to the Republican field, knowing that my choice would come from that side of the debate, but felt like I needed to find out what we were up against. And frankly, what I found scared me to death.
Here is a quote from John Edwards:
“…Ending poverty is the cause, the single most important cause in my life.”
The goal of ending poverty is most certainly a Democrat issue as John Edwards asserts. I hope it remains a Democrat issue. So how does a society go about ending poverty? Well, from what I can tell from listening to all of the Democratic candidates, it starts with penalizing those who have worked hard to reach a certain level of income by raising their taxes, whilst eliminating the taxes on those below the “poverty line”. In combination with penalizing the hard-working and successful “wealthy”, we must also arbitrarily force companies to raise the wages of the poor to what is commonly referred to as a “living wage”. Finally, we must use the revenues created from penalizing the wealthy to provide services for the poor which cannot be claimed by the wealthy who are paying for them.
So let me get this straight… They want to collect money from people solely because they can “afford it” to provide services for those who can’t afford them, such as healthcare, food, transportation, etc… and then force employers to raise their wages beyond what they are worth in a free market economy because it’s the right thing to do? As Hillary Clinton calls it, that’s “economic justice”. So what you’re saying, Senator Clinton, is that it is right for you to take money from someone just because he “has enough” and give it to someone else because they don’t have “enough”? Is the government trying to establish itself as the new-age Robin Hood?
Someone needs to give the Democrats an economics lesson. In a free market economy, goods and services are valued where they are most needed. So if people want more butter, the value of butter and milk will go up. When people don’t want butter, the value of butter and milk will decrease. If there is a need for engineers in the market place, the value of engineers goes up which, in turn, provides incentive for others to train to become engineers. This allows for the most efficient use of resources to meet the demand for engineers. If the value of engineers is kept artificially high because the government legislates that engineers must make a certain amount of dollars, this will provide incentive for workers to continue to train to be engineers even as the engineering jobs are all filled. This creates a large number of unemployed engineers.
Low paying jobs are low paying for a reason. Most low paying jobs are not in high demand and could be performed by anyone with certain mental and physical faculties. Because there are great number of unskilled workers, low paying jobs have an abundance of qualified prospects compared with jobs for highly skilled jobs, such as nuclear physicists. Because there are few people capable of understanding nuclear physics, the demand and thus the compensation for nuclear physicists would be much greater than, say, a check-out clerk at Wal-mart. If companies are forced to pay a clerk at Wal-mart $15 an hour, it would be more cost efficient for them to find a way to eliminate the need for clerks, than to pay all of the clerks an inflated wage. Now you’re dealing with even more unemployment. This isn’t rocket science. If you’d like a greater understanding of government’s impact on a free market economy, you should read Thomas Sowell’s “Basic Economics: A Citizen’s Guide to the Economy”
The goal of ending poverty is not a new one. It was also carried by another political party from the past (and present), the Socialist party. The Socialist Party believes that poverty is rooted in Capitalism, as is racism and war. Socialists believe that all inequality is a result of the economic system of capitalism, in which those who have prey on those who don’t.
The belief that poverty can be eradicated by government is a fantasy. Even Jesus recognized this when he said, “the poor will always be with you…” (Matthew 26:11) While poverty is a tragic state, it certainly is not the worst of fates either. Sometimes not having money is the source of some of the greatest personal victory stories in history (If you don’t believe me, watch “The Pursuit of Happyness”) The Capitalist economic system has done more to eliminate poverty than all the government programs in the world.
Here are a few more points which should sound eerily familiar:
- We call for a minimum wage of $15 per hour, indexed to the cost of living.
- We call for a full employment policy. We support the provision of a livable guaranteed annual income (living wage).
- We call for a steeply graduated income tax and a steeply graduated estate tax, and a maximum income of no more than ten times the minimum. We oppose regressive taxes such as payroll tax, sales tax, and property taxes
- We call for the restoration of the capital gains tax and luxury tax on a progressive, graduated scale
- We support a program of massive federal investment in both urban and rural areas for infrastructure reconstruction and economic development
- We call for the elimination of subsidies and tax breaks that benefit corporations and all other forms of corporate welfare
These are the Democrat talking points on the economy. They should sound familiar and should scare Democrat supports because I copied them verbatim from the website of the Socialist Party of America. With few exceptions the Democrats side more often with the Socialists than they do with the Founding Fathers. If any of the Democrat candidates is elected, we will be well on our way to becoming the United Socialist States of America…
Next up: Why I Can’t Vote for Mike Huckabee