Day: February 10, 2018

Democrats Helped Create Neo-Nazi Arthur Jones


Arthur Jones, the Nazi congressional candidate in Illinois running as a Republican, isn’t symptomatic of Nazism in the GOP.  He’s the result of decades of a Democrat monopoly in a gerrymandered district that the Republican National Committee spends nary a nanosecond trying to win. 

The IL-3 district’s U.S. representatives have been Democrats for the last 15,700 consecutive, uninterrupted days.  The district is currently represented by Dan Lipinski, who, based on his voting record, is a more moderate Democrat, which explains why he’s being challenged in the Democratic primary by Marie Newman, a gun-grabbing, abortion-obsessed Bernie Sanders fangirl – you know, your typical modern-day Democrat.

The district is arguably unwinnable for Republicans.  Included in the district are parts of Chicago; municipally, Chicago has had only Democrat mayors and 90% Democrat city councils for the last 30,000 consecutive, uninterrupted days.  Jones, a Holocaust-denier, will run unopposed and has run for state and national office numerous times since the 1970s – unsuccessfully in each.  The Illinois Republican Party has unequivocally disavowed Jones and his candidacy.

None of this is the sexy stuff for the Democrats and the DMIC (Democrat Media Industrial Complex).  The Feb. 8 interview with Jones and Alysin Camerota, host of CNN’s New Day, was, to say the least, a bizarre stream-of-consciousness rant against Jews in the media and Israel.

Ask yourself: what was the point – what was really the point – of Camerota’s interview? To protect us and our children from the big, bad Nazi?  To alert all of us to that oddly behaved, unfriendly neighbor, who must be a white supremacist who brings his bazooka to the local Aryan Nation book club reading of Mein Kampf?

Of course not.  CNN knows full well that Santa Claus would have a better chance of winning IL-3 than Jones does.  The point of the interview was to serve up a five-course meal (with open bar!) for all the DMIC dupe dope useful idiots who associate Republicanism with the Third Reich.  Jones’s allegiance to Nazism dates back to the 1980s.  The (unintended?) irony of CNN’s interview is that it did more to promote Jones in six minutes than he’s done for himself in thirty combined years.  What qualifies as “news” is malleable and subjectively defined; if the DMIC says something is “news,” then it’s news, damn it!

The DMIC inventing “news” and “importance” is nothing new.  Take, as another example, the Ku Klux Klan: the DMIC has done more to advertise the KKK in the last two years than the organization (which was founded by Democrats) has done for itself combined in its 153 cross-burning years of existence. 

If only the DMIC were as fervent in vetting…oh, I don’t know, say, presidential nominees of the Democratic Party (here’s lookin’ at you, then-U.S. senator Obama and Empress Clinton!) as they are in vetting the fringiest of the fringe candidates (1) who have zero chance to win and (2) whom nobody cares about – except, of course, the inquiring minds of the DMIC audience members, who call anyone who differs with them Nazis but are then shocked to learn that there are people who are actually frighteningly sympathetic to the tyranny of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.  (Quick: Ask the nearest Democrat next to you if he knows that the “Z” in Nazi stands for “socialism.”  No one’s allowed to Google it!)

Democrats impugn with the insult of Nazi! Nazi! Nazi! so frequently that they have watered down to zero the horrors of Nazism.  This is yet another method by which Democrats whitewash, revise, and rewrite history.  They sound like the crazed people in the Twilight Zone episode called “The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street,” where the characters believe that monsters are all around.  (If you don’t know how this episode ends, watch it, and tell me that it isn’t exactly how the DMIC controls its paranoid sheeple.)

The DMIC’s obsession with Jones is bloody, raw red meat for DMIC consumers, who can be convinced into believing anything and everything.  (I encourage everyone to read the comments of DMIC stories about Jones.  They effectually prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Democrats are out for Trump-supporter and GOP blood this year and 2020, like a pack of wolves.)

Sadly, we know there are neo-Nazis in America.  But we also know there are homegrown radicalized Muslim jihadists.  We know there are foreign-born terrorists.  We know there are masked hammer-and-sickle pro-fascists – domestic terrorists whose sole intent is to do what the Democrats do best with opinions counter to theirs: suppress free speech and expression.  (I refuse to call them “Antifa.”)  And we know that Democrats sympathize with radical Islam and pro-fascists.  Talk about dangerous and terrifying.

No, Democrats aren’t responsible for Jones’s abhorrent beliefs.  As he’s always done, he’ll lose and go back to being the nutty guy on the street corner with the frying pan yelling, “The end is near.”

But his guaranteed spot on the ballot has much, much more to do with the virtually impossible task of ousting a Democrat in IL-3.  Now, that’s a story I wish  Alysin Camerota, CNN, and the rest of the DMIC would cover.  We can only hope – although the last time the masses voted for hope, we got eight years of a community-agitating president from (you guessed it) Illinois.

Rich Logis is the CEO of Logis Production, Inc. and author of the upcoming book 10 Warning Signs Your Child is Becoming a Democrat.  Follow him on Twitter at @RichLogis.

Arthur Jones, the Nazi congressional candidate in Illinois running as a Republican, isn’t symptomatic of Nazism in the GOP.  He’s the result of decades of a Democrat monopoly in a gerrymandered district that the Republican National Committee spends nary a nanosecond trying to win. 

The IL-3 district’s U.S. representatives have been Democrats for the last 15,700 consecutive, uninterrupted days.  The district is currently represented by Dan Lipinski, who, based on his voting record, is a more moderate Democrat, which explains why he’s being challenged in the Democratic primary by Marie Newman, a gun-grabbing, abortion-obsessed Bernie Sanders fangirl – you know, your typical modern-day Democrat.

The district is arguably unwinnable for Republicans.  Included in the district are parts of Chicago; municipally, Chicago has had only Democrat mayors and 90% Democrat city councils for the last 30,000 consecutive, uninterrupted days.  Jones, a Holocaust-denier, will run unopposed and has run for state and national office numerous times since the 1970s – unsuccessfully in each.  The Illinois Republican Party has unequivocally disavowed Jones and his candidacy.

None of this is the sexy stuff for the Democrats and the DMIC (Democrat Media Industrial Complex).  The Feb. 8 interview with Jones and Alysin Camerota, host of CNN’s New Day, was, to say the least, a bizarre stream-of-consciousness rant against Jews in the media and Israel.

Ask yourself: what was the point – what was really the point – of Camerota’s interview? To protect us and our children from the big, bad Nazi?  To alert all of us to that oddly behaved, unfriendly neighbor, who must be a white supremacist who brings his bazooka to the local Aryan Nation book club reading of Mein Kampf?

Of course not.  CNN knows full well that Santa Claus would have a better chance of winning IL-3 than Jones does.  The point of the interview was to serve up a five-course meal (with open bar!) for all the DMIC dupe dope useful idiots who associate Republicanism with the Third Reich.  Jones’s allegiance to Nazism dates back to the 1980s.  The (unintended?) irony of CNN’s interview is that it did more to promote Jones in six minutes than he’s done for himself in thirty combined years.  What qualifies as “news” is malleable and subjectively defined; if the DMIC says something is “news,” then it’s news, damn it!

The DMIC inventing “news” and “importance” is nothing new.  Take, as another example, the Ku Klux Klan: the DMIC has done more to advertise the KKK in the last two years than the organization (which was founded by Democrats) has done for itself combined in its 153 cross-burning years of existence. 

If only the DMIC were as fervent in vetting…oh, I don’t know, say, presidential nominees of the Democratic Party (here’s lookin’ at you, then-U.S. senator Obama and Empress Clinton!) as they are in vetting the fringiest of the fringe candidates (1) who have zero chance to win and (2) whom nobody cares about – except, of course, the inquiring minds of the DMIC audience members, who call anyone who differs with them Nazis but are then shocked to learn that there are people who are actually frighteningly sympathetic to the tyranny of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.  (Quick: Ask the nearest Democrat next to you if he knows that the “Z” in Nazi stands for “socialism.”  No one’s allowed to Google it!)

Democrats impugn with the insult of Nazi! Nazi! Nazi! so frequently that they have watered down to zero the horrors of Nazism.  This is yet another method by which Democrats whitewash, revise, and rewrite history.  They sound like the crazed people in the Twilight Zone episode called “The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street,” where the characters believe that monsters are all around.  (If you don’t know how this episode ends, watch it, and tell me that it isn’t exactly how the DMIC controls its paranoid sheeple.)

The DMIC’s obsession with Jones is bloody, raw red meat for DMIC consumers, who can be convinced into believing anything and everything.  (I encourage everyone to read the comments of DMIC stories about Jones.  They effectually prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Democrats are out for Trump-supporter and GOP blood this year and 2020, like a pack of wolves.)

Sadly, we know there are neo-Nazis in America.  But we also know there are homegrown radicalized Muslim jihadists.  We know there are foreign-born terrorists.  We know there are masked hammer-and-sickle pro-fascists – domestic terrorists whose sole intent is to do what the Democrats do best with opinions counter to theirs: suppress free speech and expression.  (I refuse to call them “Antifa.”)  And we know that Democrats sympathize with radical Islam and pro-fascists.  Talk about dangerous and terrifying.

No, Democrats aren’t responsible for Jones’s abhorrent beliefs.  As he’s always done, he’ll lose and go back to being the nutty guy on the street corner with the frying pan yelling, “The end is near.”

But his guaranteed spot on the ballot has much, much more to do with the virtually impossible task of ousting a Democrat in IL-3.  Now, that’s a story I wish  Alysin Camerota, CNN, and the rest of the DMIC would cover.  We can only hope – although the last time the masses voted for hope, we got eight years of a community-agitating president from (you guessed it) Illinois.

Rich Logis is the CEO of Logis Production, Inc. and author of the upcoming book 10 Warning Signs Your Child is Becoming a Democrat.  Follow him on Twitter at @RichLogis.



Source link

The Decline of the NFL



The kneeling protests could be only one of many reasons why Americans opted out of watching the Super Bowl. 



Source link

Show Me the Motive


Over the many months since he first cried “collusion” before a camera, one thing Adam Schiff and his fellow Democrats have never done – or conveniently avoided – is explain just what happened or provide any substantive proof or evidence of specifically what was done (or promised) during the campaign and election – and why.  In a word, what was President Trump’s motive for colluding with the Russians?  What did the Russians stand to gain from collusion with Donald Trump?

All of us have watched enough reruns of the long-running TV series Law & Order to know that District Attorney Jack McCoy and TV’s NYPD detectives always tried to establish the motive for a crime.  Motive goes a long way to explain “who done it” and, more importantly, why.  With Russia, Jack and the detectives would be at a loss to make a case, because there is no persuasive explanation for collusion that comports with the facts, the events, and reason.

So far, no one – let alone Congressman Schiff – among all those seeking to mortally wound President Trump politically with their collusion allegations has yet provided the American public a convincing rationale for why the Russians would want a President Trump instead of a President Clinton.  Russia could have obtained anything it wanted – more easily and at less cost – from a more pliable, soft, internationalist President Hillary Clinton.  In reality, every autocrat, dictator, and warlord around the world would have wanted a more malleable President Clinton over the nationalistic and assertive President Trump, who has openly adopted a more aggressive “America first” leadership approach to foreign and defense policy.

That question is now extra-compelling, given the Trump administration’s more uncompromising policy vis-à-vis Russia, which has, in the Trump administration’s first year, felt the consequences of a more assertive United States.  In November, the U.S. approved the $10.5-billion sale of Patriot anti-missile systems to NATO ally Poland in the face of perceived Russian aggression.  In December, the U.S. authorized the transfer of lethal anti-tank weapons to Ukraine to help that nation fight off Russian-backed separatists.  U.S. troop presence in Eastern Europe has increased over Obama-era levels to bolster European defenses against Russia, and the U.S. recently imposed monetary sanctions targeting bad individual Russian actors and companies instead of sanctioning that nation’s sovereign debt.

On the other hand, Russia remembered (likely fondly) Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of the Obama administration.  There was that inane “reset button” to set the tone.  The U.S. obliged the Kremlin by canceling missile defense systems for Central Europe.  How could Moscow forget the Obama administration’s fuzzy line in the sand over Syrian chemical weapons and actions?  President Putin surely approved of Obama’s concessions to Iran on the nuclear deal, and it was Obama who notably told former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev that Vladimir Putin should give him more “space” and that “after my election, I have more flexibility.”  Mr. Putin surveyed the Hillary Clinton of Benghazi infamy.  For that matter, Mrs. Clinton herself “guided” the Clinton Foundation to help arrange the sale of a large uranium concern to Russian interests in exchange for donations to her foundation.

So why would Russia want a President Trump when actual events suggest that it could have achieved its objectives much more easily with Hillary in office, whose actions, predilections, and temperament the Russians had observed and benefited from while she was Obama’s secretary of state?

Let’s turn the tables.  If one wants “motive,” all Democrats may have to do is find a mirror.  Americans did not hear the words “Russia” or “collusion” in earnest until shortly after the “impossible” dawned on the post-election morning of Wednesday, November 9.  The Democrat establishment needed an explanation – an excuse – for the election results to take the spotlight off their candidate’s considerable shortcomings.  One suspects that the Democrats surmised that if they kept shouting “collusion” long and loud enough, they could also hang it like a legal and political millstone around the new administration’s neck to keep it pinned down, disjointed, and on guard for some time.  Add a fawning press and mass media, ostensibly not at all curious about what had actually happened, along with a small cadre of hyper-partisan government apparatchiks not inhibited by our laws, and you have the makings of guerrilla war against a president Democrats loathe.

One last – but not small – related point.  If Russia did interfere in the 2016 presidential election, there was only one person ultimately responsible for the defense and security of this nation in his role as “commander-in-chief,” and his name was Barack Obama.  If there was determined organized foreign interference, he ultimately failed in his oath-sworn responsibility to keep the nation’s democratic processes secure and free from that interference.

For the American public, it is long past time for Congressman Schiff to make the Democrats’ case.  Show us the motive.  And after spending this much time casting collusion aspersions, you’d best “go big or go home.”

Chris J. Krisinger (colonel, USAF ret.) writes on governance and national security topics.  He lives in Burke, Virginia.

Over the many months since he first cried “collusion” before a camera, one thing Adam Schiff and his fellow Democrats have never done – or conveniently avoided – is explain just what happened or provide any substantive proof or evidence of specifically what was done (or promised) during the campaign and election – and why.  In a word, what was President Trump’s motive for colluding with the Russians?  What did the Russians stand to gain from collusion with Donald Trump?

All of us have watched enough reruns of the long-running TV series Law & Order to know that District Attorney Jack McCoy and TV’s NYPD detectives always tried to establish the motive for a crime.  Motive goes a long way to explain “who done it” and, more importantly, why.  With Russia, Jack and the detectives would be at a loss to make a case, because there is no persuasive explanation for collusion that comports with the facts, the events, and reason.

So far, no one – let alone Congressman Schiff – among all those seeking to mortally wound President Trump politically with their collusion allegations has yet provided the American public a convincing rationale for why the Russians would want a President Trump instead of a President Clinton.  Russia could have obtained anything it wanted – more easily and at less cost – from a more pliable, soft, internationalist President Hillary Clinton.  In reality, every autocrat, dictator, and warlord around the world would have wanted a more malleable President Clinton over the nationalistic and assertive President Trump, who has openly adopted a more aggressive “America first” leadership approach to foreign and defense policy.

That question is now extra-compelling, given the Trump administration’s more uncompromising policy vis-à-vis Russia, which has, in the Trump administration’s first year, felt the consequences of a more assertive United States.  In November, the U.S. approved the $10.5-billion sale of Patriot anti-missile systems to NATO ally Poland in the face of perceived Russian aggression.  In December, the U.S. authorized the transfer of lethal anti-tank weapons to Ukraine to help that nation fight off Russian-backed separatists.  U.S. troop presence in Eastern Europe has increased over Obama-era levels to bolster European defenses against Russia, and the U.S. recently imposed monetary sanctions targeting bad individual Russian actors and companies instead of sanctioning that nation’s sovereign debt.

On the other hand, Russia remembered (likely fondly) Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of the Obama administration.  There was that inane “reset button” to set the tone.  The U.S. obliged the Kremlin by canceling missile defense systems for Central Europe.  How could Moscow forget the Obama administration’s fuzzy line in the sand over Syrian chemical weapons and actions?  President Putin surely approved of Obama’s concessions to Iran on the nuclear deal, and it was Obama who notably told former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev that Vladimir Putin should give him more “space” and that “after my election, I have more flexibility.”  Mr. Putin surveyed the Hillary Clinton of Benghazi infamy.  For that matter, Mrs. Clinton herself “guided” the Clinton Foundation to help arrange the sale of a large uranium concern to Russian interests in exchange for donations to her foundation.

So why would Russia want a President Trump when actual events suggest that it could have achieved its objectives much more easily with Hillary in office, whose actions, predilections, and temperament the Russians had observed and benefited from while she was Obama’s secretary of state?

Let’s turn the tables.  If one wants “motive,” all Democrats may have to do is find a mirror.  Americans did not hear the words “Russia” or “collusion” in earnest until shortly after the “impossible” dawned on the post-election morning of Wednesday, November 9.  The Democrat establishment needed an explanation – an excuse – for the election results to take the spotlight off their candidate’s considerable shortcomings.  One suspects that the Democrats surmised that if they kept shouting “collusion” long and loud enough, they could also hang it like a legal and political millstone around the new administration’s neck to keep it pinned down, disjointed, and on guard for some time.  Add a fawning press and mass media, ostensibly not at all curious about what had actually happened, along with a small cadre of hyper-partisan government apparatchiks not inhibited by our laws, and you have the makings of guerrilla war against a president Democrats loathe.

One last – but not small – related point.  If Russia did interfere in the 2016 presidential election, there was only one person ultimately responsible for the defense and security of this nation in his role as “commander-in-chief,” and his name was Barack Obama.  If there was determined organized foreign interference, he ultimately failed in his oath-sworn responsibility to keep the nation’s democratic processes secure and free from that interference.

For the American public, it is long past time for Congressman Schiff to make the Democrats’ case.  Show us the motive.  And after spending this much time casting collusion aspersions, you’d best “go big or go home.”

Chris J. Krisinger (colonel, USAF ret.) writes on governance and national security topics.  He lives in Burke, Virginia.



Source link

California East


This January, New Jersey inaugurated our 56th governor, Phillip Murphy, a committed progressive Democrat and millionaire alumnus of Goldman Sachs, who self-financed his way to the nomination.  Given the unpopularity (indeed, loathing) of incumbent governor Chris Christie, Mr. Murphy’s path to Drumthwacket was never in doubt.  Once again New Jersey is entrenched in the solid blue-state column with a governor embracing progressive policies like a “millionaires tax,” a $15-an-hour minimum wage, and expanding green energy mandates.

Why?  What is the appeal of this blue state model of government?  Are blue states like New Jersey fairer than red states?

One thing I have noticed is that blue states are more expensive than red states.  From housing, taxes, and electricity to a slice of pizza, you are going to pay more for pretty much everything in a blue state.  The reason is that the cost of everything the government does is added to the price of everything you buy.  This explains a lot.  Blue states have lots of rich people because blue states are the historic centers of America’s economic miracle in manufacturing, finance, and now technology.  In turn, blue states have lots of poor people for the exact same reason: they migrated to the blue states because that was where the opportunity was.  At the dawn of the Progressive era, this glaring disparity between rich and poor was noticed, and government action was taken to “solve” this glaring problem.

The progressive model relied on the sweetest political lie ever conceived: Karl Marx’s “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”  In the smiley-face socialism that has taken root in the United States, and especially the blue states, is an abiding belief that progressive taxation will “take according to his ability,” while spending generously on public welfare will pull the poor out of poverty by giving “according to his need.”  From a purely political perspective, the math is amazing.  You tax the few and give money to many voters, à la Robin Hood.

Despite the obvious political success, there are some nagging doubts cropping up.  When Lyndon Johnson declared the War on Poverty in the 1964 State of the Union address, the national debt stood at $0.3 trillion.  Today, that debt has surpassed $20 trillion in just over two generations.  The poverty rate in 1964 was 19%; today, the poverty rate vacillates between 14% and 16%.  A 25% reduction in the poverty rate is nothing to sneer at, but a troubling amount of multigenerational poverty illustrates the limits of the progressive model.

Why have progressive tax-and-spend economic policies lost their momentum in combating poverty?  Because everything the government does, even if it is popular, is a compulsory addition bolted onto our free-market economy.  A free-market transaction would be something like this: one farmer trades a dozen eggs to another farmer for a quart of milk.  This free-market trade is so simple that it doesn’t even need cash to consummate.  Cash is necessary to enable trade where barter is not practical.  The same egg-farmer really wants a steak, but trading 250,000 eggs for one cow is not practical, and he still doesn’t have his steak.  But a free-market economy will determine the price of a dozen eggs; the price of cattle; and, after the butcher has completed his work, the price of every cut of meat, including the steak.

Now, suppose that, through a “political process,” the “people” decide that they really do not trust those farmers, and we need a Department of Agriculture to keep an eye on them.  The employees of this new arm of the “public will” need to be paid.  How do we do that?  In New Jersey, we tax rich people like the egg-farmer, the dairy-farmer, the cattle-rancher, and the butcher!  These farmers just accept this, right?  No!  They raise their prices to cover the cost of the tax.  It does not matter if the government program is a necessary priority like national defense or a fire department, or a good political idea like Social Security or Medicare, or a useless idea like a bridge to nowhere; the cost of every program, regulation, and court decision, at every level of government, is added to the price you pay for everything you buy.

This takes us to a second critical point.  Economically, there are two types of people: those who have pricing power and those who do not.  The people who have pricing power are able to cover the higher prices needed to pay for new government expenses by increasing the prices they charge for their goods or services.  Obviously, CEOs have pricing power, but plumbers have pricing power, too.  It may not be perfect pricing power.  When the housing market is soft, plumbers suffer like everyone else, but when housing is booming, and your toilet is backed up, you will understand the concept of pricing power pretty well.  The economic point here is that whatever price increases government action adds to everyone’s prices, CEOs and plumbers – indeed, anyone who has marketable skills, will eventually see his price (wages) increase to cover new expenses.  You achieve price equilibrium when plumbers’ market wages include the new government-created expenses.

The point of this article is not that we need to hold a bake sale to help CEOs and plumbers.  They can take care of themselves.  The point is to consider the other end of the economic spectrum: poor people.  Poor people have to pay these higher prices just like everyone else.  People on welfare receive most of their “income” from non-cash subsidies such as housing, food stamps, and other programs, but what cash they do have buys less and less.  The working poor are in a much more vulnerable position.  Wages have been flat for years, but prices keep creeping up.  People without pricing power keep sliding down the economic ladder.  Those who have pricing power may complain about taxes and prices, but they have the economic capacity to keep up.  Those who lack pricing power get left behind.  New Jersey’s and every liberal blue-state politician’s first instinct is to help: raise the minimum wage, create a program, give away phones.  But in the end, higher prices, and lost opportunities, swallow up the subsidies and leave poor people financially trapped, with fewer and fewer options.

One final observation: The modern Democratic Party has become a coalition of blue-state rich people (oodles of pricing power) and the non-working poor (who lack pricing power but receive a majority of their income through mostly non-cash subsidies), while the Trump coalition is made up of people in between: plumbers who have pricing power but need a growing economy to keep up and the working poor who need a growing economy, coupled with low immigration, to create a supply and demand shortage, driving up wages for their labor.

All we need to do is convince about 6% of New Jersey voters to keep prices low by embracing free-market prosperity instead of government programs to keep the Garden State from becoming even more like California East.  You got a problem with that?

 Mr. Boyd is the former labor commissioner for the State of New Jersey.

This January, New Jersey inaugurated our 56th governor, Phillip Murphy, a committed progressive Democrat and millionaire alumnus of Goldman Sachs, who self-financed his way to the nomination.  Given the unpopularity (indeed, loathing) of incumbent governor Chris Christie, Mr. Murphy’s path to Drumthwacket was never in doubt.  Once again New Jersey is entrenched in the solid blue-state column with a governor embracing progressive policies like a “millionaires tax,” a $15-an-hour minimum wage, and expanding green energy mandates.

Why?  What is the appeal of this blue state model of government?  Are blue states like New Jersey fairer than red states?

One thing I have noticed is that blue states are more expensive than red states.  From housing, taxes, and electricity to a slice of pizza, you are going to pay more for pretty much everything in a blue state.  The reason is that the cost of everything the government does is added to the price of everything you buy.  This explains a lot.  Blue states have lots of rich people because blue states are the historic centers of America’s economic miracle in manufacturing, finance, and now technology.  In turn, blue states have lots of poor people for the exact same reason: they migrated to the blue states because that was where the opportunity was.  At the dawn of the Progressive era, this glaring disparity between rich and poor was noticed, and government action was taken to “solve” this glaring problem.

The progressive model relied on the sweetest political lie ever conceived: Karl Marx’s “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”  In the smiley-face socialism that has taken root in the United States, and especially the blue states, is an abiding belief that progressive taxation will “take according to his ability,” while spending generously on public welfare will pull the poor out of poverty by giving “according to his need.”  From a purely political perspective, the math is amazing.  You tax the few and give money to many voters, à la Robin Hood.

Despite the obvious political success, there are some nagging doubts cropping up.  When Lyndon Johnson declared the War on Poverty in the 1964 State of the Union address, the national debt stood at $0.3 trillion.  Today, that debt has surpassed $20 trillion in just over two generations.  The poverty rate in 1964 was 19%; today, the poverty rate vacillates between 14% and 16%.  A 25% reduction in the poverty rate is nothing to sneer at, but a troubling amount of multigenerational poverty illustrates the limits of the progressive model.

Why have progressive tax-and-spend economic policies lost their momentum in combating poverty?  Because everything the government does, even if it is popular, is a compulsory addition bolted onto our free-market economy.  A free-market transaction would be something like this: one farmer trades a dozen eggs to another farmer for a quart of milk.  This free-market trade is so simple that it doesn’t even need cash to consummate.  Cash is necessary to enable trade where barter is not practical.  The same egg-farmer really wants a steak, but trading 250,000 eggs for one cow is not practical, and he still doesn’t have his steak.  But a free-market economy will determine the price of a dozen eggs; the price of cattle; and, after the butcher has completed his work, the price of every cut of meat, including the steak.

Now, suppose that, through a “political process,” the “people” decide that they really do not trust those farmers, and we need a Department of Agriculture to keep an eye on them.  The employees of this new arm of the “public will” need to be paid.  How do we do that?  In New Jersey, we tax rich people like the egg-farmer, the dairy-farmer, the cattle-rancher, and the butcher!  These farmers just accept this, right?  No!  They raise their prices to cover the cost of the tax.  It does not matter if the government program is a necessary priority like national defense or a fire department, or a good political idea like Social Security or Medicare, or a useless idea like a bridge to nowhere; the cost of every program, regulation, and court decision, at every level of government, is added to the price you pay for everything you buy.

This takes us to a second critical point.  Economically, there are two types of people: those who have pricing power and those who do not.  The people who have pricing power are able to cover the higher prices needed to pay for new government expenses by increasing the prices they charge for their goods or services.  Obviously, CEOs have pricing power, but plumbers have pricing power, too.  It may not be perfect pricing power.  When the housing market is soft, plumbers suffer like everyone else, but when housing is booming, and your toilet is backed up, you will understand the concept of pricing power pretty well.  The economic point here is that whatever price increases government action adds to everyone’s prices, CEOs and plumbers – indeed, anyone who has marketable skills, will eventually see his price (wages) increase to cover new expenses.  You achieve price equilibrium when plumbers’ market wages include the new government-created expenses.

The point of this article is not that we need to hold a bake sale to help CEOs and plumbers.  They can take care of themselves.  The point is to consider the other end of the economic spectrum: poor people.  Poor people have to pay these higher prices just like everyone else.  People on welfare receive most of their “income” from non-cash subsidies such as housing, food stamps, and other programs, but what cash they do have buys less and less.  The working poor are in a much more vulnerable position.  Wages have been flat for years, but prices keep creeping up.  People without pricing power keep sliding down the economic ladder.  Those who have pricing power may complain about taxes and prices, but they have the economic capacity to keep up.  Those who lack pricing power get left behind.  New Jersey’s and every liberal blue-state politician’s first instinct is to help: raise the minimum wage, create a program, give away phones.  But in the end, higher prices, and lost opportunities, swallow up the subsidies and leave poor people financially trapped, with fewer and fewer options.

One final observation: The modern Democratic Party has become a coalition of blue-state rich people (oodles of pricing power) and the non-working poor (who lack pricing power but receive a majority of their income through mostly non-cash subsidies), while the Trump coalition is made up of people in between: plumbers who have pricing power but need a growing economy to keep up and the working poor who need a growing economy, coupled with low immigration, to create a supply and demand shortage, driving up wages for their labor.

All we need to do is convince about 6% of New Jersey voters to keep prices low by embracing free-market prosperity instead of government programs to keep the Garden State from becoming even more like California East.  You got a problem with that?

 Mr. Boyd is the former labor commissioner for the State of New Jersey.



Source link