Rowley: Wealth Reed-istribution- RI Senator Enrolls in Socialism
Saturday, January 04, 2014
In the sixth year of Barack Obama’s presidency – after all that “stimulus” – we’re still talking about the extension of federal unemployment benefits. I suppose that’s the first point.
This week US Senator Jack Reed (D) – along with Republican Senator Dean Heller (who should suffer a primary battle for his cooperation) – co-sponsored a “bill to extend [federal] jobless benefits” for “three months while Congress works out a comprehensive plan.”
Something seems odd, however, because Democrats have been insisting that we have been in the midst of an economic “recovery” for quite some time now. Reed said about his legislation, “This program has been, and continues to be, a crucial benefit to millions of American households all over the country and of nearly every conceivable demographic. That is why it’s such a significant part of keeping this economic recovery going forward.”
GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE -- SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLASTBut Director of Obama’s National Economic Council Gene Sperling explained this week, “Never before have we abruptly cut off emergency unemployment insurance when we faced this level of long-term unemployment and it would be a blow to these families and our economy.”
The oblivion is becoming all too common within the Democrats’ political rhetoric. After five full years of the Democrats’ wealth redistribution and deficit spending (i.e. redistributing the wealth of our future offspring), we find an Obama advisor actually lamenting the potential halt to policies that he recognizes have been a failure – as he acknowledges a looming and ominous “level of long-term unemployment” in the second year of his boss’ second term.
That’s some “recovery,” Democrats.
Besides the fact that there is credible suspicion that Obama-bureaucrats “manipulated” unemployment data leading up to the 2012 elections in order to push the official unemployment rate below 8%, the fact remains that more than 20 million more Americans are depending on food stamps today than before Obama’s presidency.
Analysis that is consistent with this information was offered by Fox News’ George Will this week: “The recession began in December 2007. Since then we’ve added…13 million more Americans are in the country. And we have 1.3 million fewer jobs. We’ve lowered the unemployment largely, not entirely, but largely because workforce participation rate has gone down as more and more workers have been discouraged, and are no longer counted anymore because they’re not looking for work. If the workforce participation rate today were as high as it was when the recession began, the unemployment rate would be 11.3%. We wouldn’t be calling it a poor recovery because it wouldn’t count as a recovery at all.”
Yup, that’s some “recovery,” Democrats.
Sadly, no dosage of reality can reform the nation’s socialist party. It is a rare liberal who has the ability to stop being liberal. Jack Reed will continue to insist that billions of dollars in transfer payments are causing Americans to experience an economic rebound. And the Projo’s Froma Harrop will continue to draft columns that inform her readers that “ Obama may be the best American president ever for the economy.”
Welfare As An Economy
Welfare – not work – keeps the economy “going forward.” That is the mantra of the modern Democratic Party.
In recent years, we have heard Democrats claim that “for every dollar a person receives in food stamps…$1.79 is put back into the economy;” that unemployment benefits and food stamps “are two things that are the most stimulative that you can do;” that they are “the biggest bang for the buck.” (Democratic Reps. Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer).
I guess I’m just old-fashion then. I still believe that there’s nothing more powerful – nothing more “stimulative” – than capitalism; than work; than establishing the principle that people should be allowed to keep what they earn.
Democrats have let it be known that they believe in growing the economy “from the bottom-up” and “from the middle-out” – no doubt, expressions that are intended to flatter those at the “bottom” and in the “middle.” At the end of the day, however, they are merely euphemistic for liberals’ reverence for government provision and their distaste for easing up on job creators.
In July of 2012, Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly reminded former Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D) during an interview that “the economy did revive” after Ronald Reagan drastically cut taxes for America’s highest income earners. Because this was similar to the plan being proposed by Mitt Romney and the Republicans at the time, O’Reilly asked Kucinich, “Do you see that as a failure?”
“If it’s gonna accelerate wealth to the top in this country using a tax structure to do it,” Kucinich responded, “that’s wrong cuz it’s unfair. That’s not American.”
It’s not fair for successful people to be allowed to keep their own earnings. It’s not fair for poor people to have to work – particularly if wealthier individuals are simultaneously increasing their own holdings. To the modern Democrat, this would not be “American.”
Obama had a similar moment in 2008. Obama was informed during a Democratic presidential debate that “when the [capital gains tax] rate dropped [in the 1990s], revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28%, the revenues went down.” The moderator went on to ask, “So why raise it at all?” Obama’s response was that he “would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.”
Behold, the Democrats’ philosophical impediment from actually desiring an economic recovery! Oh no ya don’t. Don’t you dare. Not if the rich guy’s gonna benefit, too!
Modern Democrats don’t necessarily disagree with John F. Kennedy’s explanation that a “rising tide lifts all boats.” It’s just that they can’t stand such imagery anymore. That’s how much they hate rich people – the glorious icons of capitalism.
Remaining loyal to their party’s philosophy, this week President Obama called Reed’s bill an “urgent economic priority” while Reed referred to it as “a significant part” of an economic recovery – that is, Reed’s ability to take Rhode Island tax dollars down to the Capital, and then bring some back.
Oh, my hero.
Moreover, these are the people who snicker and scoff at the idea that they are “socialists” – even as they openly attempt to foster an economy with other people’s industry.
It is clear, however, that, for Democrats, welfare is no longer about a mere concern for the desperate and downtrodden. Welfare has become a crucial component to their economic design.
Travis Rowley (TravisRowley.com) is the author of The RI Republican: An Indictment of the Rhode Island Left.
Related Slideshow: The Best of Travis Rowley
Related Articles
- Travis Rowley: Helen’s Passion
- Travis Rowley: Some Rhode Island Liberals Can’t Reason or Read
- Travis Rowley: Progressives: Liars By Religion and Trade
- Travis Rowley: Political Consequence
- Travis Rowley: Harry Reid: A One-Man Death Panel
- Travis Rowley: Pro-Trayvon Liberals: Not Worth Talking To
- The Best of Travis Rowley
- Travis Rowley: Lessons From The Hunger Games
- Travis Rowley: Conservative Hypocrisy – The Liberal Escape
- Travis Rowley: Pilgrims and the Pope
- Travis Rowley: Duck. Duck. Gays!
- Travis Rowley: Hose the Firefighters
- Travis Rowley: Left Wants Gays To Receive Magic Beans At Mass
- Travis Rowley: Providence Student Union Ignores Blacks, Hispanics
