One of the ongoing talking points from the far left is the constant discussion on the redistribution of wealth in America. Normally the discussion goes something like: “Tax the rich and give it to the poor so we are all equal.”
That is perhaps the way it was, but not how it is going to be. You see, we were struck by the Chinese Plague about one year ago, forcing us to shut down the economy while our scientists and leaders tried to figure out what was happening. To comply with the edicts and orders of our Governors and Health Officials, we dutifully and compliantly shut the doors to almost all of the small businesses across the country – the very same small businesses that we all understand are literally the backbone of our economy.
We cannot shut down the Walmart’s or the Home Depot’s or Best Buy’s; but for Mom-and-Pop stores, restaurants, boutiques we tell them to “Shut Up and Comply.” And so, they did. Throughout the summer of 2020, they tried to make a comeback, at least to a sustainable level, and we saw those efforts succeed in the declining unemployment numbers.
But you know the mantra of the Socialist Democrat – “Never let a crisis go to waste” – and as we have continued to deal with the pandemic, I believe that a plan formed in the heads of the Socialist Democrat leadership to ensure that they were able to use this crisis to their political benefit. They concluded that if they kept the economy closed and small businesses continued to fail, it would of course be blamed on the arch enemy Donald Trump.
But their motives are even more sinister: redistributing the wealth by the government to those they favor.
As small businesses began to fail early in the pandemic, the Socialist Democrats were all in on the PPP and trying to buoy up small business – and then something happened. Some nine months ago the Speaker of the House put forward a bill that she knew would be so onerous the Republican-led Senate would never be able to pass it. Many will recall that months ago the President had already agreed to a bigger spending package for COVID-19 relief than the Republicans wanted, but not quite as large as the package offered by Speaker Nancy Pelosi. A good compromise on behalf of the American people could have been reached, but it was rejected time and again by Pelosi. Why was that? Is it possible that the Biden staff came up with a scheme that we are just now seeing starting to play out right before our eyes?
It was announced recently by Sleepy Joe himself that as we get the virus under control, and the country and the economy start to return to “normal” under the guidance of his Small Business Administrator at the Small Business Administration (the same government agency that administered the first round of PPP relief), it will undertake an aggressive small business loan program to help with the recovery of small business. So, how does that result in a massive transfer of wealth?
This same announcement closes that loop and answers the question. You see, while there will be another round of massive government spending on small business – this announcement makes it clear that the first in line for these “loans” will be people of color. White Americans will go to the back of the line and if the money runs out before we get to you… ‘Just mail in your taxes and your government thanks you!” White entrepreneurs obeyed and lost, only to be replaced by Black and Brown entrepreneurs at the direction of Black Lives Matter and “Squad” Member AOC… and so it begins!
Biden for President is already organizing small business owners and entrepreneurs nationwide and in key battleground states. The events are targeted to key sectors of the small business community, including Latino, African American, AAPI, Native American, women, rural, LGBTQ+, disabled and other diverse business owners and leaders. The organizing opportunities will mobilize the small business community in support of the Biden-Harris campaign, and provide an opportunity for small business leaders to connect, learn about Joe Biden’s plan for small business, and get involved with the campaign.
It seems inarguable to state that poverty creates desperation. Through casual observation, one can come to understand this statement as a self-evident truth. For instance, in the most innocent of circumstances, a single mother working two full-time jobs at, or near, the minimum wage standard for both occupations is unlikely to pursue these professions out of passion, or because she believes this will ultimately prove to be lucrative. Contrarily, she is honorably striving to provide for her family and make ends meet to the best of her ability.
In more dire situations, those who live in impoverished circumstances are more likely to turn to criminal activity in an attempt to address financial short comings. Algis Sileika and Jurgita Bekeryte (2012) discuss this correlation in the Journal of Security and Sustainability Issues. The authors note a correlation between high poverty rates and a growth in criminal activity, while also observing the negative side effects poverty produces on an individual’s physical and mental health.
So, what does poverty look like for individuals and families long term? Well, in the first scenario, it not only looks like an exhausted mother trying to provide for and raise her children, but the effects of poverty-based desperation are paid forward to the child. Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs notes that children who do not receive consistent responses from their parents are more likely to be, “aggressive, defiant, and hyperactive as adults” (Huber, 2014). Furthermore, Huber (2014) notes that children who do not create strong bonds with their “mothers or fathers,” through having basic emotional and physical needs met regularly, will likely enter kindergarten with deficient language and behavioral skills. While an impoverished mother and/or father are desperately trying to meet the basic necessities for survival, their child is already developing a pattern that is likely to conclude with poverty in their own adulthood.
Poverty begets desperation which begets continued poverty.
While I do not intend to over simplify the problem or the solution, a few observations regarding modern responses are relevant to this discussion. First, our well-intentioned policy makers who would self-identify as left or left-leaning often seek to ensure a more equal outcome between those who are currently in poverty with those who are currently experiencing greater affluence.
Public housing plans, social welfare policies, and minimum wage mandates are often points of discussion in this debate.
While I can choose to trust that the intention of these policy makers is to provide families and individuals with the necessary breathing room to more appropriately care for their children and better themselves, I fear the conclusion to these principles results in well-intentioned harm. These programs are often, I believe, unsustainable. Moreover, it can lead to a type of practical slavery experienced by sharecroppers in the Jim Crow South.
Sadly, however, many policies to address this situation from well-intentioned policy makers who would self-identify as right or right-leaning, often offer responses that do not recognize or satisfy the urgency of the situation. Tax cuts, while necessary and helpful, take years to move a family from one socio-economic environment to another. Additionally, school choice – which will be addressed momentarily – is a non-immediate benefit experienced by the next generation. When considering the plight of the economically depressed, policies need to be both sustainable and as immediate as possible.
Algis Sileika and Jurgita Bekeryte (2012) identify, among other variables, a lack of education and sustainable employment opportunities as two great factors that contribute to poverty. To address the shortfalls of education, I believe school choice needs to be the cornerstone of public policy regarding academic advancement. This conclusion is both practical and principled.
Why should the government be permitted to dictate where free men and women educate their children?
Why is it that the government – which is an organization constituted by nothing more than fellow citizens – can mandate where my children go to school and my only response to benefit from this publicly funded option is to say, “yes, master”?
How does this design benefit our most vulnerable and impoverished citizens? Public schools are primarily funded through property taxes, and impoverished communities generate less revenue which leads to underfunded and less effective schools.
The prevailing laws of the day encourage a cycle where poverty propagates poor education, and public policy forces impoverished students to learn in ineffective institutions. The conclusion of this system results in a student that is less prepared to compete for well-paying jobs where upward professional mobility is also a possibility. And yet again, poverty begets poverty, which begets greater desperation, which begets further poverty.
However, school choice cannot be the only answer. Rather, if the point of education is to prepare for a career, why not foster a greater bond between professionalism and education? I believe a greater partnership between tradesmen (e.g., welders, plumbers, electricians, carpenters, contractors, etc.) and public education institutions would benefit individuals, communities, schools, and businesses. This is not to be confused with a current system where career and technical education are options in the existing curriculum.
I believe a partnership between companies that specialize in a particular trade will practically enhance the principles, curriculum, and opportunities of technical education.
Tradecraft education could permit a company to assist in the development of a curriculum, ranging from one to four years for completion, where they are able to teach the “tricks of the trade” and possibly help students prepare for initial certification(s); this would make the student immediately marketable upon graduation, and just as quickly lift them – and potentially their family – out of poverty in a sustainable fashion. Internships for upperclassmen could also be offered, much like a professional version of dual-enrollment courses, allowing graduates to have work experience and academic success on their initial résumé.
Finally, schools should be able to choose which companies they want to participate in this program from a pre-approved list of interested businesses. As I said earlier, this program must be a consensual partnership between a school and a company participating by their own volition. Of note, within the framework of school choice, schools would be even more likely to participate in this program, as this would enhance the product/service they’re bringing to market by appealing to a wider array of consumers.
This idea, of course, cannot be forced upon companies. However, I believe there are a number of benefits companies could derive from the structure of this program, which would be both naturally and legislatively achieved.
First, I believe companies could be incentivized to participate through tax legislation.
For example, the state could provide tax credits of a set amount to participating companies; or they could treat every hour of an employee’s time spent on this program as a charitable contribution from the company, by multiplying the hours spent by the average revenue generated by an employee, and reducing the corporation’s taxable revenue by the total of that amount.
Additionally, to further incentivize business, you could apply a tax credit for every former student a company employs out of this program. However, the tax credit for this action would need to be relatively minor, or you create a market for hiring poor employees – which would, in all likelihood, result in termination of employment for an individual, a potential return to poverty, and a greater budget deficit for the state government. Rather, this particular credit would need to be an added bonus, which responds to corporate hiring patterns that would have likely happened with or without the credit, based on the merit of the former student and prospective employee.
To this end, there are natural benefits a corporation has to participating in this program, one of which is the ability to establish a pipeline of prospective employees. By participating in this program, companies would be able to become very familiar with the character, skills, and qualifications of a potential employee. Instead of making hiring determinations based solely on a résumé and short interview(s), the company could now establish a channel of prospective employees who they personally know have the necessary qualifications, skills, and work ethic to grow the business and represent the company well.
Governing at any level is not a simple task. It often requires officials to engage in complex challenges while making difficult choices from a myriad of options, none of which promise success and all of which carry risk.
Rather than viewing the primary role of government as a means to progress society, I believe the primary role of government is to protect individual liberty.
Secondary to that principle, government does have a responsibility to promote the general welfare through careful investments, striving for equal opportunity within its jurisdiction, and removing obstacles to success not resulting from personal choice. I believe the framework of this plan champions both liberty and sustainable socio-economic advancement by recognizing that an individual’s freedom is both inalienable and necessary if an individual is to seize control of their own destiny, and that taxes are both essential for society and an obstacle to wealth generation.
FACT: Throughout American politics and mainstream media today, corruption runs rampant.
There are a handful of politicians, like Trey Gowdy, who came in believing in justice and tried to make a difference. He fought with conviction, passion, and always told the truth. Pay attention: Gowdy voluntarily left his seat in the House (which included the role of Chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s Select Committee on Benghazi) because he, like many of the good ones before him, became disheartened over the ugly truth. Watching Hillary Clinton go unpunished for her direct involvement in the Benghazi Scandal and blatantly lying to the American people and families of the slain… it all became too much.
I look around our Country today and everything is unrecognizable.
We must continue to support young agents of change like Candace Owens.
This woman gets it and no matter what some do in an effort to hurt, scare, and/or intimidate her, Candace comes back swinging, relying only on facts and data.
Never be afraid to stand up and tell the truth… regardless of the consequences.
Who knew there would be consequences for being honest? In any event, the corrupt people who sit in positions of power will one day answer for their crimes. No question about it. They might not answer to you or me but I promise you they understand they’ll be faced with a true day of reckoning, and there is no amount of money that will be able to buy them out of the mess they helped to create.
President Donald J. Trump and Vice President Mike Pence may not be perfect, but they have both been honest and have done their best to do right by the American People. The biggest and only failure I’ve witnessed over the last four years is the utter and complete downfall of American Journalism. The horrific behavior of Mainstream Media toward our President, and quite frankly the gross abuse of their “special privileges,” is horrible to watch.
People like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi need to be removed from office and criminally charged for the fraud, waste, and abuse of American tax dollars. That woman has spent MILLIONS solely on trying to hurt The President of the United States… last I checked, isn’t that considered treason?
I am supporting the Trump/Pence ticket (exactly as I did last election) because in this election they truly are the only choice.
Literally every conversation I’ve had with a Trump hater (“Hater”) about the upcoming election:
Hater: I can’t wait to get Donald Trump out of office.
Hater: Why?!?! Don’t tell me you don’t think he colluded with Russia!
Me: According to Robert Mueller’s exhaustive, multi-million dollar investigation, there was no evidence of that. But there was evidence that the Obama administration spied on him and his campaign using the FBI.
Hater: Well, he said he’d repeal and replace Obamacare. What happened to that?
Me: Well, he removed the tax penalty which removes the mandate. Congress now just has to move with its replacement. He can’t do it by Executive Order. You do know Obama had very little to do with the writing of the Affordable Care Act, right?
Hater: Well, he said he’d build a wall and Mexico was gonna pay for it. Haha. What happened to that?
Me: They’ve built over 265 miles of new wall so far and he’s renegotiated NAFTA (now USMCA), costing Mexico billions of dollars that were given to them by Bill Clinton through the returning of jobs in America.
Hater: Well, that’s not them paying for it!
Me: BILLIONS. Did you think he literally meant Mexico was gonna write a check with “Wall” in the memo?
Hater: Well, he’s buddy buddy with [Russian President Vladimir] Putin and [North Korea Supreme Leader] Kim Jong-un.
Me: Getting along with your adversaries is not a bad thing. Or would you prefer he antagonize them? By the way, when was the last “test missile” North Korea sent Japan’s way?
Hater: Well, he doesn’t like the military! He called the dead soldiers “losers!”
Me: You’re referring to a report made from “anonymous sources” when over nine people who were with the President that have gone on record saying that it wasn’t true? That doesn’t send up any red flags for you? He’s brought our Veterans home and has taken great strides- and put a lot of money into fixing the Veterans Administration- ask any veteran you know. Funny way to treat people you think are “losers,” don’t you think?
Hater: Well, he got impeached for God’s sake!
Me: Yes, impeached by a partisan House and subsequently acquitted as there was no evidence that the President did anything wrong (no quid pro quo) in his communication with the President of Ukraine. By the way, you did know that Joe Biden actually admitted on national television to doing that exact thing while he was in office as Vice President though, right?
Hater: Well he handled COVID horribly!
Me: What would’ve you done differently?
Hater: He didn’t close the borders in time!
Me: He announced travel restrictions on January 31, 2020 and was called xenophobic for doing so, all the while Nancy Pelosi and Bill DeBlasio were walking in Chinatown telling everyone to come on down, the water is fine.
Hater: Well, he refused to wear a mask.
Me: Here’s a picture of him wearing a mask.
Hater: Well, that was too far after!
Me: After what? He had two of his experts on national TV every day giving updates and telling everyone to wear a mask?
Hater: Well, he said everything will be fine and this will end!
Me: Did you want him to run around screaming that the sky was falling?
Hater: Well, listen to the way he talks! He’s nasty! He’s not how I want my President to sound.
Me: Ahhh. NOW we’re getting somewhere. You don’t like his personality. And everything you’ve mentioned up until now is because you don’t like his personality. So for you it seems personal and not about the job he’s done.
So listen, if you want a President who will tell you whatever you want to hear, flip- flopping on every issue, not getting anything done his entire time while in office, but who sounds like a nice guy (even though he seems seriously impaired), then Joe Biden is definitely your man.
Please let me be clear – I do not have a blanket opposition to the county government providing goods or services to those who need it without the recipient being required to pay an additional fee for its receipt. However, I continue to be increasingly offended every time I see a government communication proclaiming ‘they’ are giving “FREE” this or that, as the county notice attached below does.
Government cannot give anything for FREE. You are providing something that TAXPAYERS HAVE FUNDED VIA OUR TAXES. So please stop diminishing what MoCo taxpayers contribute while you – the county government – acts like Santa Claus on OUR dime.
The lack of transparency of the cost of “FREE” stuff in Montgomery County government is bad enough, as this blog post discusses:
“Unlike out-of-pocket costs paid by hospital patients, MoCo’s testing costs don’t directly hit the wallets of those being tested. But they do hit residents’ wallets through their tax bills. On top of that, possible litigation with AdvaGenix looms. The fact that MoCo taxpayers do not know how their tax dollars are being spent is highly problematic. And that is the case because their county government wants it that way.”
Do you not want to remind taxpayers how and where you are spending our money? Or is it that you want the “credit” for being so generous (with our money)? Or is it both?
If you may or may not be ripping off taxpayers without disclosing it, AT LEAST GIVE US CREDIT FOR FUNDING IT, whatever it is you are giving away with possibly foolish contracts you are entering into on our behalf. Henceforth, I hope in place of “FREE” we will see “TAXPAYER FUNDED.” It is much more accurate and much more honest.
I often hear “words matter” and if that is the case then let’s see it. Please stop disrespecting the taxpayers and please correct the lack of precision and accuracy of county government communications and STOP saying ANYTHING is “FREE” when it in reality has been PAID FOR by taxpayers or, on occasion, with the help of other private stakeholders.
That is the sole request here. This is not rocket science. But if this is beyond the capabilities of any of the current county government elected officials to fix this, then voters should bear that in mind in two years.
Voters should expect a higher level of communication from our county government-elected office holders, as well as from the county government employees who execute their will. And we need a county government structure that allows us to know much more clearly exactly WHO to hold accountable when there is a lack of performance.
I am viewing this – replacing “Free” with “Taxpayer Funded” in official government communications – as a tiny test that has now been brought to the attention of the entire Council – and it has also been shared with a few fellow-MoCo voters too, to raise their awareness. This test will be graded Pass / Fail. We will all benefit together if you earn a Passing grade.
It wouldn’t do any good to try to wake people up; the socialists don’t care. Their goal is to destroy and redistribute wealth. The voters of this County get what they vote for. I hope to move from this County shortly, since most of my children have left already.
I realize the futility in attempting to educate those ignorant in their own subjugation. They vote for handouts and freebies with no regard for the future, and the “elected representatives” continue to pander to them with dwindling funds. They will endure a day of reckoning and at that point they will merely move on to another wealthy area. It’s easily followed as the only counties in this state losing tax payers are the sanctuary counties- same as in Virginia.
This last election told me that those leaving are the Republicans and conservatives, as the Democrats easily won their races; the voters didn’t turn up because they simply no longer lived there or were leaving prior to the election.
Maryland is the absolute worst state to retire in. If it weren’t for the first responder’s exemption, I would have already moved. I don’t view Maryland as a changeable state. It’s been corrupt for generations and not likely to change. The populous are too ignorant or lazy to realize what it is they are voting for; honestly, I was surprised when Hogan won twice.