The Same Old Voices

There is an interesting dynamic right now.  Not a pleasant one, just interesting.  I saw an article from President Clinton’s former Secretary of Labor condemning and belittling President Trump’s current Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for comments Mr. Carson made regarding poverty and the individual's state of mind.

For those who are not familiar with Dr. Carson, he is a black neurosurgeon who rose to prominence for his work in separating conjoined twins.  Incidentally, he grew up in a single parent home, in Chicago, where his illiterate mother took away the TV, and forced the two children to read.   

So today the liberal media is all a flutter with how “out of touch” Dr. Carson is with his thinking.  They are sure poverty is not a state of mind or an individual choice.  Those living in poverty are victims trapped by an oppressive system.  Funny how the progressive-liberal community is able to corrupt the American dream so that only privileged white folks can share it.  If we are going to talk about white privilege, I think we see a prime example of it in the words or Robert Reich, and the authors (both white and black) who condemn Carson as out of touch when he advocates for change as a personal choice.

When I was a boy we were taught that our future was in our hands.  It didn’t matter if you were black or white, rich or poor, the future of America was what you chose to make of it. To support this ideal, we were taught about Commodore Cornelius Vanderbilt.  Born into poverty on Staten Island, he began with a row boat ferry and by the time of his death was probably the richest man in America. Today, the DNC and the left clearly believe the political elite need to care for the poor as a parent cares for a child.

A friend recently pointed out the failures of our “war on poverty” on-going since the mid-1960s.  As we began the war there were 10 million Americans living below the artificially chosen line we call the poverty level.  Now roughly 50 years later, despite spending trillions on various anti-poverty campaigns we have 46 million (about 14.5%) living below the poverty level.  According to Newsmax, the number of American’s living in poverty reached a high of 50 million under the Obama administration.

The Pew Research center talks about poverty in its January 13, 2014 paper, Who’s poor in America? 50 years into the ‘War on Poverty,’ a data portrait and finds some interesting facts in the data.  In the 50 years the poverty rate has fallen only slightly from 19% in the mid-1960s to 15% in 2012.  But the demographics have changed significantly.  There are far fewer elderly poor, and there has been a breakdown in the family structure with single mother households making up almost 51% of the impoverished.  Poverty rates have dropped for the blacks, but increased for the Hispanics.  From a lay standpoint, it does not appear the trillions of dollars spent fighting this war has resulted in a winning campaign.

Apparently, the ideas of a man who succeeded in life, despite his impoverished beginning, is “out of touch with reality,” and not as important as repeating the same old programs that have failed to work for 50 years.  The cliché definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and expect a different result.  This seems to be the mantra of the left. Why inspire the young to strive to reach their potential when we can appear empathetic, while we hold them hostage to the welfare state and dole out a subsistence living?

Lesson’s That Won’t Be Learned

So here we are, five days after the beginning of the Baltimore Riots.  By now every talking head has had their say.  The President, always an opportunist, has blamed the Republican’s for not providing enough funding for inner city programs, and all the wise and wonderful politicians have weighed in on the potential causes, ranging from simple police brutality to a sense of hopelessness from the disparity of wealth and lack of opportunity for the poor, mostly caused by the Republicans and the 1% they are supposed to represent.  Finally, Mr. Sharpton has pulled himself away from his demanding MSNBC schedule to offer aid and comfort to the Mayor and her city council.

Those on the left, and on the right will naturally blame the other, for we are no longer capable of recognizing the grains of truth in each others position.  We don’t want gray, we demand black and white answers.  Even if those answers drive further division between blacks and whites and do nothing to address core issues.

Let’s pause for a moment and look at the political reality of Baltimore, as highlighted by Allen West.  Mr. West’s politics aside, I challenge anyone to dispute the fundamental facts.  This is a predominantly Democratic Party run city where the black population is not some small minority without representation.  The Democratic Party has controlled this city since 1967, yet in those 48 years they have not found a way to address the problems of poverty and racial equality for this microcosm of America. What they have done is what every politician has ever done, cater to their political contributors and give lip service to the poor.  They have poured huge sums of money into the inner Harbor, while effectively fencing off the poor.  The average income for a Baltimore citizen is $41,385 per year compared to the state average of $73,538.  What, in the last 48 years, has the Democratic leadership done to address that disparity?  What types of jobs have they brought in? 

We talk about training and education, certainly a hot topic in today’s society.  What has this city done to train its youth to support the emerging technology? Of course the liberal answer is we need more money and the associated more government.  That is always the answer.  We need to pay our teachers more, we need to pay our administrators more, and maybe some small percentage of every dollar will actually go to improved programs for the youth.  Maryland spends, on average, $13, 871 per student, which puts them in the top tier of per/student investment in the United States.  I wonder how much of that actually finds it way into inner city classrooms for life shaping education?  We won’t realize that more centralized management, larger bureaucracy and the advent of a nanny state administration destroys the initiative of those who would be different in how they teach.

What, you may ask, is the difference between education and training? For this discussion I will use the lessons drawn from my training as a Navigator in the USAF.  Training is the process we use to teach someone to do something.  It doesn’t matter if it is to be a good plumber or a good navigator.  We teach the individual skills, reinforce their importance, and finally evaluate the student’s ability to apply those skills.  They are usually measured against some baseline, but may also compete against others in the class.  For example, in Navigation school I learned about the stars, how to use a sextant, and how to located three stars to determine my actual position of the earth.  We did not spend time talking about Einstein’s theory of relativity or the expansion of the universe since the big bang.  These things were not critical to the task I was to learn.  Learning to be a good plumber is the same.  You need to understand some fundamental things like gravity, and hydraulic theory, but mostly you need to know how to connect pipes, install things in accordance with the local codes, and determine how to estimate the cost of a job.  Training involves practice.

Education is different.  It used to be the intent of education was to open your mind to the possibilities of the world and universe around you.  Today I am not sure that is still the case. We spend so much time talking about how far behind the rest of the world we are, and indoctrinating our youth in the “correct” ways to think of things that we seem to have shut down the idea that youth should challenge rather than accept the status quo.  Today we have more professional “educators” than at any time in our history.  What kind of challenges are they presenting to our young?  Apparently education today is more closely aligned to what we called indoctrination in the old days.  Perhaps that is why the Democrats are so high on everyone getting more education rather than legitimate job training.

Can we expect our politicians to take an introspective look at what they should do different?  Not likely!  Hell, we as individuals won’t do that so why should the politicians?  We will continue to point fingers at the other side, we will continue to indoctrinate our youth in the ways of bigger government and we will continue to jump to decisions, looking at only one side of an issue.

The Trouble with Wealth and Its Redistribution

I’ve met very few people who are actually happy with being poor.  I know of a few who do believe the accumulation of wealth is to be avoided and humble lives serving society or God is better, but it has been my experience these are rare individuals.  I would bet for every one of these humble humans there are three or four hundred others who given a choice would choose individual wealth over the service to others model. 

But these two extremes are both minority views.  For the vast majority of our society we strive for rewarding lives that do not require vast wealth, but certainly seek to be comfortable and secure in the idea that their physical needs for shelter and food are met.  There is also a sense in our society that individual worth is measured not in the good acts of the individual but by the wealth an individual can acquire.  For example, let’s look at a baseball player.  How do the MLB owners show their appreciation for the talents of a great player?  They reward them with contracts that create significant fortunes for those able to secure them.  I would guess if you look at all of professional baseball, the number of players earning $15M/year or more would be about the top 1% of the profession.  Wouldn’t it be better if the owners took half of what they will pay a star and have that money put into increased wages for the minor league players who struggle each day to pay their bills and earn a living?  Surely the star won’t mind, he has more than he needs and it’s better for baseball.

Our society is like MLB.  There are those who through talent, good fortune, or family circumstance are wealthy far beyond what is required to meet their basic needs.  Why aren't they obligated to give their excess wealth away to the members of society that have not risen to the top, and who struggle to survive?

So what’s the problem, why can’t we do this and make society a much better place where there is no poverty?  Here are just a few of things to consider, if you can fix these then I think it is clear sailing to Utopia.

Greed – This seems to be an inescapable human condition.  We all seem to want as much of something as we can get, and once we have it we don’t want to give it up.  How do we overcome greed?  How do we convince the entirety of the population they should not be greedy?  We see efforts on the part of the liberal establishment to accuse corporations and the wealthy of being greedy, but they exhibit the very same qualities when we start talking about their money and not someone else’s.  I think the first evidence that society will be making progress eliminating greed is when we stop seeing people killing each other for money, envy, or jealousy. 

Personal Ambition – Historically this has been a quality that separates the successful from the failures.  This should not be confused with people who have failed, but rather those who give up when failing.  As Thomas Edison allegedly said “I’ve not failed, I have discovered 10,000 ways it won’t work.”  That dogged determination is foundational to the success of America.  If the population is given wealth, with no expectation of achievement tied to it, will America continue as it has or will we cease to exist?  How will you stop the ambition of some to succeed beyond the rest and rise to a level above the others?  For the later will be equally bad if we are talking about a Utopia were everyone is equal.

Political Agenda’s and Government Incompetence.  I put these together because they seem to go hand-in-hand.  On the one side we have shown when either of the political parties tries to do something it will never turn out as they promise.  For example, all those who are talking about income inequity never seem to have a plan that does not involve writing new laws or creating new taxes.  I would point out that one of the reasons income inequity exists to the degree it does is because we have created loopholes for some, programs for others, and tax shelters for the rest.  Each and every new law or regulation we implement, regardless of Democrat or Republican sponsorship has done its small part in widening the gap between the rich and the poor.  So to believe we solve this problem with more government involvement flies in the face of common sense.  As Albert Einstein defined it, “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.”  So I have to wonder, why do we think our government can make this better?  My conclusion is we don’t!  It is just a convenient sharpening stone for those with political axes.  They push the mime because it plays well to their fan base.

So there you have my synopsis of the minor hurdles to solving the income inequity problems created by having rich people getting richer and poor people staying poor.

Cause and Effect

All my experience has driven me to seek to understand the relationship between cause and effect.  Partly this stems from my upbringing -- first, as I sought escape from an insufferable situation, but later it was encouraged in my collegian years and then in the profession of arms I chose.  So I was intrigued the other day when a friend shared this blog posting, NYC Turn of the Century Gangs by Eamon Loingsigh.  I think it is an excellent post, and if you are interested in the Irish history in New York City I believe he is an author you should certainly look into; his latest book, Light of the Diddicoy, should be available on St. Patrick’s Day this year.

In his post he says he’s reached, “as [would] any other person with a sense of awareness,” the conclusion, that gangs existed, and continues to exist, because of poverty.  That certainly seems a credible reason, but then I listen to Milton Friedman talk about the successes of America and our economic system and I wonder, is poverty truly a cause of the gangs, or are gangs a product of some far more complex social dynamic that is lost in the simplified explanation of poverty?  I believe the latter to be true, and by blaming everything on poverty we can never understand the true human condition or correctly address the cause.  For example, under the identical conditions of NYC, why does one individual turn to a gang, and another become the founder of a vast railroad empire and at the time of his death have the equivalent wealth of 1/87^th of the gross national product[1]?  Both come from the same environment; yet one not only escapes, but also becomes a tycoon during the industrial revolution!  Surely the conditions of poverty alone do not explain the choices made.  I doubt for the majority of individuals trapped in those dire conditions criminal enterprise is really the path they follow. 

Although it is out of favor today, I like the social needs framework proposed by Abraham Maslow to explain how humans are motivated and how their needs change as the security of their existence improves.  This hierarchy sets a context for understanding a common set of human needs, and it is how an individual goes about fulfilling the need that helps explain the differences between those who are trapped by their poverty and those who can escape it.  It also helps understand why just throwing money at the poor can never actually solve the problems of the impoverished and put an end to poverty.

---

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius_Vanderbilt

Does Welfare and Social Engineering Enrich the Soul?

A simple question, does government welfare benefit individuals so they can improve their lives and gain independence and success, or does it just create a new class of people who now, like children, become dependent on the whims of the state?

In the 1930’s Franklin Delano Roosevelt, directing the Government as it dealt with the depression following the stock market crash of 1929, said this in his 1935 State of the Union address. 

“We have undertaken a new order of things; yet we progress to it under the framework and in the spirit and intent of the American Constitution. We have proceeded throughout the Nation a measurable distance on the road toward this new order….We find our population suffering from old inequalities, little changed by vast sporadic remedies. In spite of our efforts and in spite of our talk, we have not weeded out the over privileged and we have not effectively lifted up the underprivileged. Both of these manifestations of injustice have retarded happiness. No wise man has any intention of destroying what is known as the profit motive; because by the profit motive we mean the right by work to earn a decent livelihood for ourselves and for our families.

We have, however, a clear mandate from the people, that Americans must forswear that conception of the acquisition of wealth which, through excessive profits, creates undue private power over private affairs and, to our misfortune, over public affairs as well. In building toward this end we do not destroy ambition, nor do we seek to divide our wealth into equal shares on stated occasions. We continue to recognize the greater ability of some to earn more than others. But we do assert that the ambition of the individual to obtain for him and his a proper security, a reasonable leisure, and a decent living throughout life, is an ambition to be preferred to the appetite for great wealth and great power.”

The President, just as we see today, lays out a grand plan to reshape the financial structure of the country and in so doing redistribute the wealth and provide all with an appropriate share.  He outlines the public works programs to provide government funded work for the unemployed, and sets the framework for the social security program that would be enacted later that year.  Did these programs bring America out of the depression, and can we expect to see similar programs bring us out of today’s depression?  I don’t know the answer, but I wander from my original question.  Do these social engineering efforts lead to happier, more fulfilled individuals who contribute to the success of a democracy, or do they lead to something else?

Perceptions of Self-Esteem in a Welfare-To-Wellness-To-Work Program is an extract of a research project to assess a program to help welfare recipients with their self-esteem and mental health.  It has a very small sample size to draw its conclusions; never the less it says that the program they were studying improved a participant’s self-esteem.  That is not so unusual, but the some of the other data is striking, in this sample they suggest poor self-esteem prevents many low-income families from ever leaving the program.  Mental health and drug dependency issues are also contributors to long-term welfare dependency.  

There are numerous studies that speak to the penalty one pays from a perspective of their personal self-worth, so what is the answer? Do we benefit the individual with government welfare or do we just prolong the suffering?

Freedom

For no particular reason I began considering the word Freedom today.  I guess while I mow the yard I don’t have much to concentrate on, and when that happens I wander off into random thoughts.  Today with the clear blue sky above me, a refreshing gentle breeze, and the noise of the mower isolating me, I wandered the yard semi-lost in thought. 

Perhaps it is because I am older, or perhaps because I was in the Air Force and had an opportunity to see other parts of the world, but for whatever reason I like to think I understand the concept a little better than most young adults.  So I thought I would take a few minutes to write about freedom.

In the United States, most of Europe, the Common Wealth, and a good number of other countries the US has influenced, there is a fairly common view of the rights of the citizen.  In the US they are codified in the Bill of Rights, in England and most parliamentary governments they are not so clear, but they are there.  We, for the last 231 years or so, have governed ourselves, sometime well, other times no so well, but our governments have, for the most part, respected the right of the individual, over the rights of the state.  Why?  Because we are a nation of laws, and the courts serve as a valuable check to the Executive and the Legislature, both of which are driven by the passion and politics of the day.

The key here is law, not opinion, not feelings, not common sense, not mob rule, but law.  If we are to maintain our freedom we have to have laws, and we have to have a vast majority of our population believe in and obey those laws.  Unlike a teenager who disagrees with the parents and rebels with little impact, we cannot disregard the law, if we can do so without consequence, then the society fails.

With the advent of television it seemed we would open ourselves up to the rest of the world, to see how the rest of the world is, and let them see us.  Unfortunately it appears television has had just the opposite affect on the US.  Our nightly news rarely has more than a moment or two of foreign coverage and only then if some American has been killed, maimed or otherwise inconvenienced.  So how can we know what life is like and what freedom means to the rest of the world?  We are so busy watching the Simpson’s and taking opinion polls on what we should do about some Mother who murdered her children we don’t ever give the rest of the world a second’s thought.

So what does freedom mean to a good portion of the world?  Well, based on my experiences, freedom doesn’t mean diddlysquat.  It is an abstract concept, for them their concern is survival, today and tomorrow is all they can afford to think about.  There is no thought of choice.  It doesn’t matter if they have a prince, a king, a warlord or a dictator, they are only concerned that someone doesn’t come in the middle of the night to steal their children, their livestock or their lives.  Perhaps some in America can appreciate this but it does not appear to be many.   For all who complain about our nation and how corrupt or wrong we are they have no clue as to what they have that allows them this freedom.

We talk about the homeless, the poor and the starving in America.  It is a shame we have this problem, I believe we shouldn’t, but unfortunately we don’t live in a utopia, in a real world we will always have poverty.  Even if all these people who believe the wealth of the rich belong to the Government got their way; they would not eradicate poverty.  There will always be those who have and those who don’t have as much.  Perhaps it is insensitive of me but when I see the beggars on the corners, they don’t compare to the beggars I’ve seen in other parts of the world.  Here beggars have a chance to be something else, in Bangladesh they don't.  That is Freedom.