Poverty Monopoly

I would say it's unbelievable that the Democratic Party has the monopoly on the poverty vote, but it's not unbelievable. It is frustrating though. I think it is fair to say that the demographic below the poverty line is less educated than the middle class and upper class. Thus, it seems logical that the poor would be more easily swayed by election year rhetoric. And there is no greater modern rhetorician than Barack Obama.

The Democrats have a great message for voters: "Vote for us and we'll ease your problems." Obama's message to voters is that he will "spread the wealth around" because that's "good for everyone". He'll then take us out of an "unnecessary" war and spend that money to help the poor pay for medical expenses.

According to the National Taxpayers Union, Obama's plan involves cutting National Defense and International Relations spending by $72.6 billion dollars. Yet, he wants to spend an increased $139 billion in health care. His total spending plan will increase government spending by $292.9 billion. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the US has had an average deficit of $285 billion the past four years. We are talking about spending an increased amount MORE than the current average deficit. And Obama plans on paying for that with increased taxes on the rich. YEEEEAAAH, RIIIIGHT.

According to the Laffer curve, a well-known economics tool, raising the tax RATE does not ensure raising tax REVENUE. The idea is that the higher the RATE is raised, the less incentive workers have to work hard for raises and to invest their earnings. The more of my income that I get to keep, I will work harder, produce more, and invest my money more frequently. So, raising the tax rate on the rich will not necessarily produce more tax revenue for the politicians to spend. In fact, the rich might just quit spending their money on trifles and save more. They will almost certainly hire fewer employees.

While this philosophy might sound like "social justice", it actually hurts the poor more than the rich. Ruppert Murdoch has lost over half of his value over the past few months. He's still a billionaire though. Employees of Murdoch will feel the hurt more than him. On one side, Murdoch's product prices will rise to offset taxes imposed on the supply-side, making our money less valuable. Inflation is a silent killer. On the other side, some will get lower wages, some prospective employees will not be offered jobs, and some employees will be laid off. These are the people that Obama wants you to think he's fighting for. We've seen these policies before with Jimmy Carter. They failed then and they will fail again. Obama may ask voters to overlook history in order that he may be elected. But once the effects of Obama's policies hit America, the poor will once again look to an up-and-coming politician for relief.

Government was never the answer to our problems. Government is not the answer to our problems. Government will never be the answer to our problems. Government IS the problem. If government spending were the solution, poverty would have ceased to exist in America decades ago. We keep throwing money that we don't have at issues that we don't understand and get frustrated when the problems don't go away. I yearn for the day a true conservative runs for office and coherently tells the American people this truth. Maybe then America will turn from its way of blindly following the deceiving ways of Obama and friends.