Recently I heard someone reporting that according to recent figures, one in five American children lives in poverty. Well, so much for winning the war on poverty. I wonder how many trillions of dollars we have wasted (and are still wasting) funding federal programs and their legions of drone bureaucrats, in order to lose the war on poverty.
Say…, I have an idea. How about we identify all of the federal government workers (I bet we'd be surprised by the number of them) who have anything to do with trying to improve the quality of life or living standards of the "poor" and take a look at their (the government workers) pay scale. Maybe part of the problem is that the people assigned to "help" the poor aren't identifying with them closely enough. Maybe if we cut the pay of all of these government workers back to poverty levels, they would have a better grasp of what needs to be improved. Additionally, we could add a clause to their contracts stipulating that until the poverty level in the United States improves dramatically, their pay level will remain at poverty rates. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to expect some results for the huge amounts of money we're wast…, er, excuse me, investing in the war on poverty. I bet the poor would appreciate their federal overlor…, ahem, excuse me, case workers, being right there in the trenches with them in the war on poverty.
To my way of thinking, a policy like this would have a lot of pluses. One, we could cut the amount of money we are paying (through payroll) people who don't accomplish anything. That's always a plus. Two, while I myself doubt it, we might actually get some good out of some of our most wasteful (and expensive) government programs. And finally, we would probably drive the few truly productive people in these programs out in to the private sector where they might actually accomplish something. See, a win all the way around. And by the way, before anybody says that treating these programs and people like this would harm the poor they are supposed to be helping, I would like to say something. The amount of harm these government workers and their policies have done and are doing to the people they are supposed to be helping far outweighs any accidental good they've ever done, or ever will do. As an example of my argument, I would point out the fate of the poor black family. Now the poor black family is exactly who most of these programs were started to help, and after all the "help" and "government assistance" that has been focused on this issue, the "poor black family" has been all but obliterated in America. The people who have been trying to "help" the poor don't just deserve a pay cut, what they actually deserve is to be imprisoned (another place where they can observe the massive failure of the federal governments war on poverty first hand).
Of course any progressives who have read this far are probably thinking things such as: "what he's saying is totally unfair", "this isn't how we should do things", or, and this is a favorite of the left, "this writer is a right wing nazi racist nut-job" (that last is usually reserved for anybody who disagrees with liberals and is armed with some actual facts).
Something I would like to point out is that the current crop of leftists, the main stream media, and their leader The Barack, have heavily stressed something they call "Their Fair Share". Granted, Obama usually precedes the phrase "their fair share" with "They aren't paying". Meaning of course that some group (whoever is termed to be the "rich" this week) aren't contributing what he deems their fair share of the federal revenue. Never mind that the top five percent of earners in this country pay the majority of what the federal government collects through income tax all by themselves. Somehow The Barack deems that to be "not their fair share".
So if the "rich", whoever they are at any given moment (usually someone who is deemed to make more than $200.000 per year, but It can vary from speech to speech), aren't paying their fair share, then I would say the people in charge of losing the war on poverty aren't kicking in their "fair share" either. After all, if they were, wouldn't we have made some progress by now? Let's just consider any cut in pay we penalize them with (failure should come with penalties) as a "tax" which would be reduced or eliminated when the problem lessens or goes away. In fact, we can even administrate it like that, we could keep their pay levels at the same rate, but subject them to a large "poverty tax" levied directly on the people in charge of reducing or eliminating poverty. That way they could easily track their "fair share" as it's taken from them, for them to distribute among the needy. As a producing, taxpaying United States citizen, I have to say it all sounds pretty fair to me.
As easy as it is, because it's true, to hold the federal government and its (I can't honestly call them useless because not only are they not accomplishing anything, they're actually making matters worse) bureaucratic minions responsible for the tax dollars they've wasted, that's not the whole story. It's actually worse than that. Much worse.
In my opinion, the true cost to the United States of the federal governments abysmal approach to "helping" people, is the human cost. I feel that the monetary consequences of all of this pale in comparison to the lives which have been destroyed by these programs.
Considering the astronomical amounts of money we're talking about here, that's saying something. The government has used our money to create a truly dependent class of people who not only don't know any other life, but I seriously doubt the majority of them can or ever will gain control of their own lives. The federal government isn't merely complicit in the unnecessarily large number of poor people, they have directly caused it through decades of progressive policies.
I understand there are still people out there, even at this late date, who think the federal government is not heavily invested in grouping people by how much money they make, or have. For those people, I challenge you to think of any company or individual who "sorts" groups according to their income level other than the federal government. Despite the fact that the federal government pretends to like "the rich" because they can tax them, in reality the current administration is merely using the people they can call rich as a stalking horse to help divide the country. Telling the poor they are poor because the rich won't pay their fair share and help the poor works really well to draw attention away from the true causes of poverty. Causes to which the federal government contributes much more than its "fair share".
Keeping poverty levels so that "one in five" American children lives in poverty while wasting trillions of tax dollars is at best a frank display of government and societal apathy. At worst, and I personally believe this to be the case, it's an open demonstration of how politicians stay in power by destroying as many human lives as they consider to be necessary.
Bruce Kreitler is the author of Obamageddon (the Culmination of the Progressive Looting of America) and posts this and other articles at BruceKreitler.com.