Progressive Ideology of Forced Dependency : Taking From the Productive

How many times do we have to keep repeating the same story of failure, to understand government is not the answer to solving problems, the free market is the answer. The problem for the progressive socialists is having the control of outcomes in the hands of the people, and therefore the progressive loses access to the money and the power. Unacceptable!

Taking from the productive and giving it to the unproductive is a sure winner for vote getting. Bringing down the productive while making sure the poor stay poor and dependent will secure and enlarge the voter base. This is called leveling the playing field where everyone is mediocre and dependent. The progressive know this and have used this tactic many times in the past with great results. Helping the poor to prosper will only harm the progressive voter base as once people become self sufficient they become independent and out of the grip of progressive democrats.

Little wonder why the progressive socialists are fighting as hard as they are using as many wedge issues as they can, the war on women, the poor, immigration, inequality of pay, to retain the power they already have and to secure as much power as they can before the elections in 2014 and 2016 they might lose.

Ever wonder why the progressives never debate real issues to improve the country?

As always, everything is about power, getting it and keeping it. Death and dying is of no consequence. Benghazi? The motto and ideology for the progressive is 'by any means necessary'.

Help the Poor without Taxing the Rich
Source: Jason Russell, "How to Help the Poor Without Taxing the Rich," Economics21, May 22, 2014.

June 2, 2014

"To lift the poor, you can't avoid taxing the rich," wrote Center on Budget and Policy Priorities fellow Jared Bernstein recently in the New York Times. Jason Russell, research associate at Economics21, picks apart Bernstein's claims.

Bernstein writes that inequality is rising, therefore creating barriers to mobility.

• This link between inequality and mobility often comes what is known as "The Great Gatsby Curve," a chart created by economists Alan Krueger and Miles Corak that purports to show that greater income inequality reduces mobility.
• However, Russell cites a Manhattan Institute study showing that when more accurate measures of mobility and inequality are used, no significant relationship exists between mobility and inequality.

To lift the poor from poverty, Bernstein calls for a publicly funded infrastructure program with jobs targeted at the poor.

• But Russell writes that another stimulus will fail, just as the February 2009 stimulus failed.
• A year after the first stimulus passed, unemployment had risen 1.5 percentage points and labor force participation had fallen 0.9 percentage points.
• While employment rose in May 2010, the rise was due to government hiring for the U.S. Census, not the stimulus.

Bernstein claims that the U.S. is not collecting enough revenue to fund government programs, noting that the average federal tax rate and revenue as a percent of GDP is lower today than it was in 1990.

• However, Russell explains that this does not mean that the government lacks enough revenue for welfare programs.
• In 1990, the government spent 9.5 percent of GDP on transfer payments, while it spent 15.3 percent of GDP on such programs in 2010.

Bernstein argues for universal preschool, contending that it will make workers more productive.

• But despite $8 billion in annual funding, Head Start programs have little, if any, impact by the time participants have reached third grade.
• School choice programs, on the other hand, have proven to be successful in improving educational outcomes, while at the same time saving taxpayer money.

Russell notes that countries with more economic freedom -- lower taxes, fewer regulations and smaller government -- have less poverty than those with high taxes. If the U.S. could tax its way to prosperity, it would already have done so.