February 17, 2014
Even Republicans agree that when a county is as terribly poor as Robeson, throwing money at it can’t hurt. It just isn’t sustainable.
With the loss of more than 30 industries and the tobacco buyout, Robeson is essentially an economic disaster. If it were not for Interstate 95, Robeson would be a wasteland where too few federal and state dollars are thrown. NAFTA and the tobacco buyout, which crippled the county, were bipartisan measures. It’s easy to make the case that Robeson took one for the team as the nation benefited.
Republicans and Democrats can also agree Robeson deserves some subsidy to regain a foothold. The problem is that Democratic leadership focuses on subsidy programs that have never been shown to deliver a populace from destitution. In fact, the evidence reveals the contrary, trapping folks in cycles of dependency for 50 years.
With few exceptions, every well-meaning social program failed. As government grew, so did poverty. Interesting correlation. Welfare was never intended to be a lifestyle passed on to generations, but that’s what occurred. Liberals believe its because the United States didn’t spend enough. But a rational examination of the design of these programs reveals they perversely trapped the very people they were supposed to help.
Oddly, liberal Democrats were the first to sound this alarm. Democratic Sen. Daniel Moynihan from New York was about as liberal as they come. In 1965, he examined the research of social programs and denounced programs that encouraged single motherhood, for example. He called the chaos that followed “inevitable” as the war on poverty did exactly the opposite.
Poverty isn’t always the lack of resources. Studies show it’s about incentives. When government provides incentives to families to be broken and unemployed, there is no reason to escape. Research reveals married, two-parent families with education degrees who wait to have children after marriage succeed. That’s where incentives should be placed. Perversely, government encourages the opposite.
Poverty also isn’t solved by wealth transfer, but by wealth creation. Over $2 trillion in aid over 50 years hasn’t created wealth in impoverished communities. But in India and China where investments are made in entrepreneurship, capitalism and business, people are rising from poverty after turning away from programs designed for dependency.
This is where Democrats and Republicans diverge in thinking. Republicans believe incentivizing strong families and implementing wealth creation strategies is the solution — the same solutions that poverty stricken countries are discovering.
Democrats seem to be following Saul Alinsky’s strategies to creating a socialist state instead. According to Alinsky:
— Control health care to control people.
— Increase poverty, as the poor are easier to control if you provide them with everything.
— Increase debt to increase poverty.
— Gun control to remove the ability of self-defense.
— Provide welfare to control every aspect of people’s lives.
— Control education for indoctrination.
— Remove belief in God from government.
— Divide by class to make it easier to tax the wealthy, causing more discontent.
The Democratic platform looks eerily like a cleaned up version of Alinsky’s actual strategies that President Obama and Hillary Clinton admit influenced them. This means the war on poverty wasn’t intended to succeed anyway.
Here’s the point: Democratic policies and control haven’t raised Robeson from poverty. But neither has Republican policy because it hasn’t been allowed here.
Solidly controlled Democratic areas suffer impoverishment. Detroit, Chicago and Robeson are classic examples where programs are well meaning, certainly have utility but are not enough and clearly not sustainable. Detroit and Chicago refused to elect Republicans. The results there are clear.
In Robeson, Democrats are finally willing to elect Republicans who are the antithesis to Alinsky’s strategies. Someone has to believe that Robeson has unlimited resources and needs a hand up more than a hand out. Someone has to believe government isn’t always the solution and many times is the problem. Only balanced government can stop socialist visionaries while offering a brighter future.