Crush Liberalism

"Study Finds Rich-Poor Income Gap Growing"

Shocker. Could the headline have said “Study Finds Fat-Skinny Gap Growing”? Anyway, from the AP:

The disparity between rich and poor is growing in America as the federal minimum wage has remained flat for years, union membership has declined and industries have faced global competition, according to a study released Thursday.

The report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Economic Policy Institute, both liberal-leaning think tanks, found the incomes of the poorest 20 percent of families nationally grew by an average of $2,660, or 19 percent, over the past 20 years. Meanwhile, the incomes of the richest fifth of families grew by $45,100, or nearly 59 percent, the study by the Washington-based groups said.

Families in the middle fifth saw their incomes rise 28 percent, or $10,218.

This is going to come across as insensitive, so I need you fine folks to do me a HUGE favor and remind me later to care about the perceived insensitivity, m’kay? Thanks in advance.

First, note the study groups: “liberal-leaning think tanks.” Nuff said there.

Secondly, nobody lives on minimum wage! Rarely does anyone even try to live off of minimum wage. Minimum wage jobs are starter jobs, for college or high school kids, or retirees looking for some extra cash, or some other kind of part-time work. I’ve worked for minimum wage before…when I was in high school and college! If a man with little to no education or marketable skills knocks up a woman and insists on supporting a family off of minimum wage, I’d like to know just why in the hell is it anyone else’s fault but his (and hers, for that matter)?

While on the topic of minimum wage, where does the government get off interfering with a voluntary working agreement between an employer and an employee? The market should determine the prevailing wage rate, not some government pencil-pushers! if the boss is wanting you pay you less, convince him/her you’re worth more…or go work somewhere else where they will pay you more.

Thirdly, I have a hard time seeing how “declining union membership” makes people poorer. It might make unions poorer, but how someone with extra money in his/her check that was going to the union gets poorer defies reasoning.

Speaking of unions, unions are always pushing for increases in minimum wage. Why? After all, their union members don’t make minimum wage, right? Well, their interest lies in the fact that most unions’ bargaining agreements tie the unions’ minimum wage to the federal minimum wage. So if the federal minimum wage increases, so do union members’ wages…which means, so do union dues coffers! Way to look out for the little guy, unions! Keep that in mind when you hear union mouthpieces complain about the minimum wage.

Finally, poverty is overwhelmingly a way of thinking. Sure, bad things happen to good people. However, the overwhelming majority of those in poverty have failed to take advantage of the plethora of opportunities this country has for them: free education, job training, learning marketable skills, etc. They have neglected to take seriously their schooling and careers. Instead, folks mired in poverty have adopted a mindset that perpetuates their poverty. Look no further than what happened in New Orleans during Katrina.

However, successful people have taken their education, careers, and finances seriously. The overwhelming majority of “rich” people in this country were NOT born into wealth. They actually (could it be true?) earned it! Also, success isn’t defined by money. I would argue that teachers, cops, soldiers, firefighters, and anyone else that has taken their education and/or careers seriously are successful, even if their paychecks don’t always reflect it. However, successful people adopt the proper mindset. I’m not rich, but by God, I am successful!

In other words, the “rich” will continue to do the same things they’ve always done that has gotten them rich, and the “poor” will continue to do the same things they’ve always done that has kept them poor. It’s human nature, and no amount of government interference or liberal think-tank studies will change this aspect of human behavior.

Neal Boortz once said that your success in life can be virtually guaranteed if you adhere to four things: (1) don’t have kids you’re not in a position to take care of financially; (2) don’t do drugs; (3) take your education seriously; (4) get a job that you will like and be good at. That’s overly simplistic to an extent, but by and large, he is correct.

January 27, 2006 Posted by crushliberalism | Uncategorized | Leave a Comment

Hastert defends pork

Yeah, the GOP are really fiscal “conservatives.” From the Washington Times:

Some members have proposed a ban on earmarks, but top Republican leaders such as House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois have defended the practice.

“Who knows best where to put a bridge or a highway or a red light in their district,” he said in a radio interview with Michael Reagan this week. “We need to change how we do earmarks, we need to do it in the light of day and not the last minute type of situation, but I think we can do some reform on that and still serve what’s in the best interest of the American people.”

In a column yesterday in Roll Call, a newspaper covering Capitol Hill, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis, California Republican, said giving up earmarks would end the congressional power of the purse.

Hey, Hastert! It is not the responsibility of a taxpayer in Florida to fund a bridge in Illinois! It does not serve “the best interest of the American people” to have our paychecks confiscated to fund what are otherwise local projects! As a purported “conservative”, you should know this, right?

Let’s thank Congressman Jerry Lewis, sharing names with another less-than-funny American, for being upfront about the motivation behind pork: power. Giving up earmarks would end the “congressional power of the purse”? Do you mean Congress would not be allowed to fund defense or any other federal program if they weren’t allowed to fund pork projects? Color me with the “skeptical” crayon on that assertion, Jerry!

Finally:

The Congressional Research Service said earmarks have grown from 4,126 in 1994, the year before Republicans gained control of Congress, to 15,268 in 2005.

Let’s see here. In 1994, Democrats controlled the Oval Office and both houses of Congress. Later that year, they lost the Congress to “fiscal conservatives.” These “revolutionaries” were so conservative that they…nearly quadrupled the number of pork projects in the subsequent decade.

At least Sen. Coburn (R-OK) is serious about fighting pork. He promised to fight it when he ran for the Senate last year. He’s pissed off his fellow Republicans for actually having the unmitigated gall to keep that campaign promise!

January 27, 2006 Posted by crushliberalism | Uncategorized | Leave a Comment

Chicagoans, thank your unions!

From Boortz:

Wal-Mart has just opened a new store in Evergreen, Illinois .. just outside of Chicago. In fact the new store is just one block outside of the Chicago city limits! Wal-Mart originally wanted to locate inside Chicago, but the Chicago city council, or whatever they call themselves, said no. Chicago area unions were raising hell and protesting the new Wal-Mart because of Wal-Mart’s low pay and lack of employee benefits.

So … Wal-Mart opens in Evergreen. How many jobs? This Wal-Mart employs 325 people. How many people applied for those jobs? Try 25,000! The unions may hate Wal-Mart … the workers sure don’t.

I guess the 25,000 people who applied for jobs need the unions to tell them how bad Wal-Mart sucks, because apparently, those rubes didn’t get the memo! For those of you on the left, the prior sentence was sarcasm.

January 27, 2006 Posted by crushliberalism | Uncategorized | Leave a Comment