Clinton Policy: Hard Work No Solution to Poverty

Would you like to earn $25 for attending your child’s parent teacher conference? Could you use $25 per month for each of your children who achieve 95% school attendance? For your trouble, would $400 for each child who graduates from high school come in handy? How about $100 for each child who visits a dentist every six months as recommended? Would you be interested in $150 per month just for holding a full time job? If you live in New York City under Republican Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s care, you could earn cash rewards for each of these behaviors and many others if you are poor enough to qualify. Experimental cash reward programs are the new cause celebre of wealthy philanthropists like Bloomberg, and giving more money and benefits to the poor regardless of behavior has long been the desired panacea for societal ills advocated by socialist leaning liberals such as Hillary Clinton. Where do the groups diverge? They differ over the issue of hard work. Bloomberg's plan rewards work and better behavioral decisions, while the Clinton socialist vision considers hard work anathema to maintaining a poverty-stricken class of voters perpetually in need of government to "solve" their poverty problems. The difference between how the two groups would "solve" poverty is striking: Bloomberg raised $43 million in private donations to fund the experimental programs in order to avoid using government funds; Hillary and her fellow socialists intend to place the burden for all efforts to offer more benefits and free health care on American taxpayers through government funding.

Fox News reported Bloomberg’s participation in the cash reward program, and the contrast between the philanthropic approach (private donations) and Clintonesque socialist government spending is striking:

The theory behind cash rewards is that poor people are trapped in a cycle of repeated setbacks that keep them from climbing out of poverty. A person who doesn't keep up with his vaccinations and doctor's visits, for example, may get sick more often and struggle to stay employed.

Bloomberg, a billionaire Republican, said he believes paying people in such circumstances to make good decisions could help break those patterns. The program "gives New Yorkers in poverty a financial incentive to look ahead and make decisions that will improve their prospects for the future," he said in a statement.

The idea of paying people, regardless of their income level, to make good common-sense decisions is the epitome of government run amok. It does not matter whether the funding of such a program comes from philanthropy or taxation; the theory behind the program is morally bankrupt and dangerous to the survival of American ideals such as individualism and personal responsibility. Paying someone in cash to make the same logical decisions everyone else makes with no expectation of government reward is socialism in its purest and most personally debilitating form. The Republican Bloomberg’s experiment with such a program demonstrates how far America has fallen from the nation that tamed a continent and outpaced the world in industry and science for generations. We have now gone from “You can feed a man with fish, but it is better to teach him how to fish” to “Let’s pay the man $100 per month for having a fishing pole.”

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the cash rewards for good behavior programs was not that former Clinton administration officials oppose the program in New York, but the reason why they oppose it. While I dislike the cash reward idea on moral and out of control government reasons, Clintonesque socialists are outraged because the programs teach people that hard work is rewarding. Here is how one former Clinton administration official evaluated the cash program:

But some critics have raised questions about cash reward programs, saying they promote the misguided idea that poor people could be successful if they just made better choices.

"It just reinforces the impression that if everybody would just work hard enough and change their personal behavior we could solve poverty in this country, and that's not reflected in the facts," said Margy Waller, co-founder of Inclusion, a research and policy group in Washington.

Waller, who served as a domestic policy adviser in the Clinton administration, said it would be more effective to focus on labor issues, such as making sure wage laws are enforced and improving benefits for working people.

If you were looking for a single, crystallized statement of how Clinton socialists view poverty and the government's role in solving it, you need look no further than Waller’s remarks. According to the Clinton worldview, personal responsibility, hard work, and changes in behavioral choices are irrelevant to solving poverty in America. What is the solution under Clinton’s “compassionate” watchful eye? Not surprisingly, the answer, as it always is when Democrats promise services they cannot deliver, more benefits, whether they be forcibly extracted from employers or from the government through increased taxes on the “wealthy.”

What happens to a society when one of only two major political parties believes that better personal choices, responsibility, and hard work cannot solve problems? Hasn’t that always been the recipe for success in America, the land of opportunity? Opportunities are taken and capitalized upon through good and wise decisions, such as staying in school, earning a degree, gaining specialized training, developing a marketable skill in a field that can support a family, investing a modest amount in world markets, starting one’s own entrepreneurial enterprise, avoiding a criminal record, staying away from drugs, being a better parent, studying harder rather than playing more video games or watching TV. Opportunities begin at a young age, and the only sure way to break out of a cycle of poor decisions is to stop making poor decisions and correct the course one’s life is taking.

All Americans, but particularly those who are in poverty, should examine closely the question of why liberal socialists want to keep them in poverty by teaching them that their choices don’t matter and they are poor because they are victims of societal greed or uncontrollable misfortune. It is fascinating that on one hand there is an intense debate raging over illegal aliens flooding America allegedly because of the opportunity to find employment and share that income with their families in other nations, while on the other hand Clintonesque socialists insist that hard work and responsible common-sense behavioral choices are no solution to poverty. Many illegal aliens, through their long hard work find employment in respectable industries such as construction and manage, albeit illegally, to eke out a modest lifestyle for themselves and their families. Socialists like Wallen, however, refuse to encourage America’s poor to do likewise rather than subsist entirely on government welfare or charitable donations such as Bloomberg’s well meaning but completely misguided cash rewards for behavior program.

America is indeed in grave danger of losing its competitive place among the world’s elite nations if its populace is continually taught that personal behavior and hard work do not overcome problems, setbacks, or obstacles. America’s poor should be taught that there is no magic path to success that avoids hard work and decisions based on life priorities. Both Bloomberg and liberal welfare socialists do a disservice to those in poverty; Bloomberg by paying them to make good decisions they should make simply because they want to get out of poverty; and liberals welfare socialists by brainwashing the poor to believe that nothing they do for themselves will make a difference, thus sapping their natural human spirit of self-respect.

Technorati:
Michael Bloomberg Cash Rewards for Good Behavior Poverty New York Philanthropy,Margy Waller Hillary Clinton Socialism Personal Responsibility

Hillary Bets On Socialism's Appeal in 2008

Hillary Clinton is often touted as the “most intelligent woman in America.” I have an aunt who is practically salivating (or is that foaming at the mouth?) over the prospect of a Hillary presidency, as Hillary will surely solve all of America’s inequalities with a woman’s touch. Political pundits like Dick Morris insist that the “Clinton Machine” is unstoppable and will make no significant errors while piloting her over any rocky reef en route to the White House in 2008. If one accepts any of these paradigms, Hillary’s speech to the Manchester (NH) School of Technology this week was quite a conundrum; it was either a major and suicidal campaign sinker or it signaled that the Democratic Party believes America is ready to abandon its 231 year experiment with self-determination and capitalism.

Here are a few highlights from the AP/Yahoo story:

Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision Tuesday, saying it's time to replace an "on your own" society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.

The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an ownership society really is an "on your own" society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.

"I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society," she said. "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none."

…"There is no greater force for economic growth than free markets. But markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed," she said. "Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the right government policies."

Karl Marx? Lenin? Stalin? No, these are the views of Hillary Rodham Clinton, socialist extraordinaire. The only chance “workers” have for success is when the government steps in to “help.” It isn’t fair that some get rich while others remain poor. “Fairness doesn’t just happen,” the government must make life fair by punishing achievers for having too much success. These are the tenets of socialism, with “fairness” serving as the emotionally charged catchphrase slogan to disguise the intended vehicle for Hillary’s version of “fairness.” Had this Manchester speech been a slip-up or something taken out of context, it would still stand out as particularly socialist. However, Hillary has gone down this road before. This is what she said in June 2004:

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Now that’s an inspiring campaign slogan for a potential American president!

I recently wrote that America’s leaders are becoming more French while France’s leaders are becoming more American. Newly elected French President Nicolas Sarkozy was elected on a platform consisting of the following: Fight the War on Terror as America’s ally; reform France’s immigration system, particularly as it applies to the influx of Muslim immigrants; shrink the government’s role in providing social services (including socialized medicine) to its citizens; eliminate the 35 hour work week and promote more work, greater achievement, and less dependence on government subsidies for the unemployed and business owners.

Contrast that winning French platform with what Hillary is proposing for America in 2008: retreat from Iraq and giving al Qaeda victory in the War on Terror; “reform” America’s immigration policy through amnesty and citizenship for 12-20 million illegal aliens; increase the role of government by providing massive new services such as “universal health care” (socialized medicine) and replacing economic self-determination with “shared prosperity” through government intervention (socialism).

When considered from this perspective, electing Hillary would place America on a sure path to becoming socialist France, while the French electing Sarkozy placed them on a course to emulate capitalist America. Hillary’s GOP opponents should wield these contrasts like a political bludgeon, hitting her hard every time she utters a phrase that espouses socialist tendencies and bluntly referring to her as a socialist. This is why her speech was a conundrum. The “Clinton machine” so ominously reverenced by Dick Morris must surely know that the majority of Americans will reflexively vote against someone who can effectively be branded as a socialist, yet they do nothing to curb her references to “shared prosperity” or government provided fairness. Why is Hillary speaking so openly of her socialist ideas during a primary campaign cycle when it can so easily be used later in the general election cycle by the GOP nominee to paint her (accurately) as a socialist?

Two reasons come to mind. First, Hillary must earn the nomination of her party, which embraces Euro-socialist ideals, and she will not be the nominee without establishing, at least verbally, her socialist credentials. Instead of “street cred”, the DNC demands “Soc cred,” the promise that all people will be given everything they need or want through government services. Second, Hillary’s advisers truly believe America is ripe for a socialist harvest in 2008. Despite record stock market growth and peaks, despite record low unemployment (4%), and despite the highest percentage of Americans owning their own homes in the nation’s history, Hillary’s camp is preaching the gospel of class envy and apparently is betting that they can convince voters by 2008 that the economy is failing, everyone is out of work, no one can afford health insurance, and the rich are grinding the faces of the poor every chance they get.

It is ironic that the same liberals who insist that Darwin was right about evolution and natural selection refuse to accept capitalism as economic Darwinism, with the survival of the fittest as the linchpin of a free market system. Are animals that cannot adapt through evolution allowed to survive out of “fairness?” Should businesses that produce a product no longer wanted in the market be protected from their competitors who are meeting market demands for new and better goods? Should workers who are incompetent or unproductive be protected from termination out of “fairness?” For that matter, what should be done with candidates who lose elections? After all, it isn’t “fair” that one should prosper while another languishes in defeat. Who decides what is “fair,” the government? No thanks.

The government has never been the solution to poverty, unemployment, racism, or any of the other social ills that can infect society. Poverty has proven much more virulent war opponent than terrorism. FDR could not eliminate it, Johnson waged a “war on poverty” but poverty, like the impervious cockroach, seems to survive all threats to its existence. Could it be that poverty survives because economic “fairness” is a socialist utopian dream that runs counter to nature? There have always been, and will always be rich and poor people in every society, but do the poor need rescuing? It is the arrogance of the wealthy (and most liberal socialists are rich, like Clinton) to assume that success in life must be measured by the accumulation of wealth. There can be dignity in poverty, usually far more dignity and humility than is found among the affluent. If success is measured, as it should be, by living an honorable life, then one does not need income redistribution or “fairness” in economic opportunity to be successful in life.

Socialism has failed in every respect in every society that has ever attempted to live by it, yet the DNC, and Hillary in particular, continue to aggressively foist it upon America as the magic medicinal tonic that will cure all of society’s ills. Rather than taking Hillary’s or Obama’s or any other American liberal’s endorsement of socialism at face value, we should consider some dissenting opinions:

"To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, 'the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.'" - Thomas Jefferson

“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” - Winston Churchill

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” – Winston Churchill

“Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.” – Alexis de Tocqueville

“The assumption that spending more of the taxpayer's money will make things better has survived all kinds of evidence that it has made things worse. The black family- which survived slavery, discrimination, poverty, wars and depressions- began to come apart as the federal government moved in with its well-financed programs to ‘help.’” – Thomas Sowell

“You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man’s age-old dream -- the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order – or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, ‘The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.’” — Ronald Reagan

The “Clinton machine” would have us believe that a vote for Hillary is a vote for “fairness,” but as Reagan stated, there is only an up or down. Voting for Hillary is voting for Marx, rather than Jefferson. The Founding Fathers defined fairness as the opportunity to succeed or fail based on the inherent capacities of the individual (see Jefferson above). Hillary wants to assure that no one can fail, thus clearly she has abandoned the intent and content of our founding documents. Socialism does not just happen. We do not wake up one morning, fire up the Internet and read on Capital Cloak that America became a socialist nation overnight. However, if we continue to embrace government programs as the solution to poverty or social problems, the addiction to socialism will become unbreakable while we were sleeping.

Technorati: Hillary Clinton Socialism Shared Prosperity Presidential Campaign