-
Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets
May 24, 2013 | 79 comments
-
McCain-Feingold Gave Us the IRS Scandal
May 21, 2013 | 122 comments
-
It’s.The.Law
May 20, 2013 | 20 comments
-
The Taxman Cometh (for Tea Partiers)
May 13, 2013 | 150 comments
-
Farrell’s Fallacies
May 9, 2013 | 25 comments
Special Report
Pied Pipers of Poverty
In a show of solidarity, Newark Mayor Cory Booker parades the Food Stamp Diet.
If someone writing for Black Agenda Radio says that Newark (NJ) Mayor Cory Booker is “worse” than Barack Obama, in part because Booker has “railed against wealth distribution” and “is ideologically committed to the privatization of public education and to government that serves the rich,” then Booker is probably not the total disaster we have come to expect of big-city Democrat mayors. Some Republicans were no doubt positively disposed toward Booker during the presidential campaign when the mayor criticized an Obama campaign ad that was demonizing Bain Capital.
A writer for the Care2 social action network that emphasizes “a healthy sustainable lifestyle and support(s) socially responsible causes” calls Booker a “superhero” for living in a housing project for eight years and cutting his own salary twice. (He also gets extra points from Care2 for being a vegetarian.)
But what is bringing out this week’s plaudits for Booker from commentators throughout the liberal intelligentsia is his announcement, following a November conversation with a conservative on Twitter, that he is going to live on a food budget of $30, the equivalent of being on a food stamps program, for the next week.
Other politicians have participated in the “food stamp challenge,” and I have no doubt that many of them are well-intended, as Booker’s move may be. But I, for one, am unwilling and unable to judge a policy based on claimed good intentions of its supporters rather than on actual outcomes and compliance with modest philosophical and legal guidelines, such as our Constitution.
What makes Booker’s “challenge” appear as a radical leftist publicity stunt, or at least motivated by much more radically leftist views than are often attributed to him, versus simply trying to better understand the plight of the poor is Booker’s own language describing his goals:
…to raise awareness and understanding of food insecurity; reduce the stigma of SNAP participation; elevate innovative local and national food justice initiatives and food policy; and, amplify compassion for individuals and communities in need of assistance.
Let’s discuss.
Just what is “food insecurity”? This gauzy terminology can mean anything to anyone, but it probably implies for government involvement in food what “affordable housing” meant to the taxpayer disasters caused by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Whenever a liberal talks about “insecurity,” it is thinly-disguised code for “something government should provide.”
Looked at independently, there are few things the free market does better than provide and distribute food, with an abundance of stores offering great choice, high quality, and low prices — although prices would be still lower in the absence of government policy to bribe farmers and burn 40 percent of our national corn crop to make ethanol, truly the most insane large government program in my memory. But I digress…
So to the extent that there is “food insecurity,” that can’t mean anything more than that there is poverty. But just as increasing the size, scope, and cost of welfare programs inevitably increases dependency on welfare, increasing government distribution of food will, like conditioning lab animals to respond to particular stimuli, cause recipients of the “free” food to become ever less self-reliant, ever more wards of the state, and — getting to the left’s true purpose here — characterized by ever more fealty to the Democratic Party, Giver of Government Cheese.
Nothing begets poverty like the federal government telling people that they are poor, are destined to be poor, that it’s nothing to be ashamed of, and that “we’re here to help.” Furthermore, Census Bureau measurements of poverty are designed to substantially overstate the prevalence of poverty in America. (More on this below.)
Next, Booker wants to “reduce the stigma” of being on food stamps. We’ve heard that a lot in recent years, with obvious manifestations in such things as changing the name of the program from food stamps to the “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,” or SNAP. (Who would want to deny someone “nutrition”?) A telling quote from a New York Times article on the declining stigma of food stamps: “Although the program is growing at a record rate, the federal official who oversees it would like it to grow even faster.”
It used to be, in the early days of the American welfare state, that going on the dole was a last resort, to be used after exhausting other avenues from self-reliance to family support to mutual aid societies to private charity. Taking government money was something that people would keep private out of a slight sense of shame.
Although he was not speaking of welfare, a quote from Thomas Jefferson is nevertheless apropos: “Dependance (sic) begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.” Americans used to know this to be true; it was almost a congenital trait of Americans — even if not born here — who knew that American Exceptionalism, that reaching individual and national success and self-sufficiency requires a desire to do so, and that individual success was an antibody, though not a foolproof one, to a metastasizing government.
About the Author
Ross Kaminsky is a self-employed trader and investor and is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. He is the host of The Ross Kaminsky Show on Denver’s NewsRadio 850 KOA at 11 AM on most Sundays. You can reach Ross by e-mail at rossputin(at)rossputin(dot)com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (116) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ross Kaminsky
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/12/06/pied-pipers-of-poverty
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Boys and Girls
- The Demise of Money and Credit
- Wincing at Cumberbatch
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
spike59| 12.6.12 @ 6:17AM
"…to demand better rations for those on the Democrat Plantation so they can continue to blindly pull the "D" lever each election day and don't get any ideas about thinking for themselves and achieving a better lifestyle by their own efforts and initiative"
-----------------------------------------------------------
there ya go, Corey, fixed it for ya
Jack in Wi| 12.6.12 @ 7:54AM
The Democrats are in the process of doing to America what they have done to Newark and Detroit. There are almost 50 million people in this country on food stamps. Yet I work in food programs that distribute stale food to hundreds of soup kitchens and food pantries a couple days a week. All the food goes very fast and it is hard to keep up. Thousands of volunteers are involved in my city alone. I happened to talk to a fellow yesterday who gets about 150 a month in food stamps for he and his wife. When he got on the program he was getting 400 a month. There has been a steady reduction because so many people need food stamps. Even at 150 a month he gets by because he knows how to use coupons and shop well. The Newark mayor should easily get by on 30 a week. He is a vegetarian. Beans and rice are cheap. I am a vegetarian who eats a lot of fish, actually a piscetarain. It is easy to get by on 30 dollars a week, if I cut out the fish. You can live well on beans, rice, cereals, and vegtables. If you know how to shop and cook.
Doctor Right| 12.6.12 @ 8:25AM
Is there nothing you don't know, or can't do?
Jack in Wi| 12.6.12 @ 9:16AM
Thank you very much. I am glad you realize it.
Alan Brooks | 12.6.12 @ 9:50AM
They don't like anything you do, Jack, unless
you agree with them. Please, next time they call you an anti-semite, ask them to prove it-- not merely say it and write Jackboot Jackboot Jackboot.
These guys only respect those who are assertive 24/7 and you must use their methods 24/7.
Alan Brooks | 12.6.12 @ 9:53AM
.. main reason for asking is they will run and possibly elect a Bush 5.0 in 2016: and I KNOW you don't want that.
Stan Redmond| 12.6.12 @ 2:59PM
I'm sure you are referring to Obama as Bush the 4th.
Jack in Wi| 12.6.12 @ 3:29PM
I think Alan means Jeb Bush is Bush the 4th. Your right about Obama being another Bush. Actually he is worse then any Bush.
Doctor Right| 12.6.12 @ 10:09AM
See, Jack? Your best friends on this site are uber-liberals.
"By their fruits [no pun intended, Alan], you shall know them..."
Jack in Wi| 12.6.12 @ 11:21AM
Dr. Wrong you are no conservative and never have been. Alan is not necesarily a liberal. I don't know where to place him. I think he is just independent minded. That makes him stand out among people like you who are just plain fascists.
Alan Brooks | 12.6.12 @ 11:45AM
Jack,
notice Dr. Strangelove didn't deny the scenario of Bush 5.0 in 2016? These guys want to cover themselves:
'Cover Thine Posterior' is Rule #1.
Actually, they're not smart enough o be fascists-- just read in a book that Hitler's IQ was circa 140; while these fellows are so dumb they would run an Eva Braun for POTUS if she looked like Palin!
Alan Brooks | 12.6.12 @ 11:47AM
...these bozos would run Blondi for president if she would bark like a Republican...
Doctor Right| 12.6.12 @ 12:06PM
This from the side that ran "the Magic Negro" for President...
Doctor Right| 12.6.12 @ 12:06PM
I'm not sure what your definition of "Conservative" is, Jack, but if it has anything to do with Dr. Ronnie Paul, then your accusation is laughable!
BTW, when are you going to resurrect your "Clint" identity?
Al Brooks, bleedingheartlib | 12.6.12 @ 12:27PM
Doc,
you still have not denied the scenario of Bush 5.0 four years from now, understandably, because you would not want to put your cred on the line.
Al Brooks, bleedingheartlib | 12.6.12 @ 12:33PM
BTW, changed public name to bleedingheartlib,
because
Phonyliberalcommieratmuslimterroisttwinkalfalfaeandquisheatingsurrendermonkey
would not fit.
Al Brooks, bleedingheartlib | 12.6.12 @ 12:37PM
Phonyliberalcommieratmuslimterroistwink
tofualfalfasproutsandquisheatingsurrendermonkey
heroinshootingdancingwulimastermincingpoofter
pinkunderweareroperationkeelhaulfluoridated
waterimbiberteletubbytinkiewinkiemaryjewanna...
Doctor Right| 12.6.12 @ 1:27PM
???
Nothing the idiots in the GOP do would surprise me.
Same goes for the Democrats.
Simon Templar| 12.6.12 @ 2:02PM
Thank you, once again you have verified and proven my assertion that libertarians like yourself will side with liberals in a fight and a crisis, not conservatives, as you share more in common with them than us. You even use the same rhetoric and name calling.
Your supposed desire for small government, fiscal responsibility and low taxation is less important to you than the crap you dance in lockstep with liberals the other six days of the week.
In fact, the reality and truth is you hate conservatives more than you do liberals. Alan is smart enough to pick up on that and it gives him a thrill up his leg.
You are called jackboot not because you hold some libertarian beliefs and viewpoints or you have some views that are not exactly in agreement with some conservatives. It is because you are a thick headed know it all that is obsessed with Jews and blame America for everything. Your overall views about foreign policy and war are not necessarily incorrect, they are poorly argued, misrepresented, and contain a lot of unnecessary distortions and lies. They contain a great deal of oversimplification and unrealistic expectations.
Your attitude towards conservatives and anyone that does not agree with your over simplistic notions is to do what most liberals do....
To be honest, what bothers me most about you and your ilk is you are not smart enough to figure out who your real allies are, and that makes you very foolish and dangerous.
Jack in Wi| 12.6.12 @ 3:54PM
I am a Christian, pro-life, social conservative who believes in justice for the Palistinians. I am also a libertarian on most economic and small government issues. I believe in America First and formost. I also am a Christian on foreign policy. Which means following Just War doctrine of war as an absolute last resort and only then in self defense, with limited means and goals. That means no more wars like Iraq, Afganistan, and anything against Iran.
Simon Templar| 12.6.12 @ 2:06PM
Yeah, there are no conservatives and no liberals, there is just you jackboot and everybody else that is not you.
Alan is the independent and The Doctor is the fascist.
Jack, that says more about you than you will ever know....
Simon Templar| 12.6.12 @ 2:18PM
Jack, here let me make it simple for you to understand.
See, Jack, Alan would never vote for a Republican, conservative, or a libertarian like your Ron Paul or anyone else for that matter.
Now, the Doctor, the so-called "fascist," would vote for all three if it came down to only two choices, Alan's choice, such as commie Obama, and one of the other three.
See, you are too busy with your head up your ass to notice this and too obsessed with Jews and what they are up to of late.
Doc, do not want to speak for you, but I am trying to teach, Jack, something he probably will never be able to grasp. See, Jack, many of us conservatives will vote for a Rand Paul or a libertarian, particularly one that can at least understands and respect others points of views and has a realistic plan to deal with the host of issues both domestic and foreign. Just the fact that libertarians have been included in our big tent shows we are amiable to their viewpoints, we just do not agree always with some of their solutions.
Doctor Right| 12.6.12 @ 4:22PM
No worries, you're doing just fine!
Jack in Wi| 12.6.12 @ 3:41PM
I blame the people who are responsible for the mess we are in. Some of them are Jews like Greenspan, Bernanke, Kristol, Podhoetz, Cantor, Foxman, Emmanuel, Goldamn Sachs, Rubin, Greenberg at AIG, Lehman Brothers, Sommers, most of Obama's czars etc. If they didn't make the mess they would not be criticized. I don't blame Isszy slicing corn beef at the Deli or my old accountants Julius and Dave. I lived in the most Jewish neighborhood in my state for many years. I also did a lot of business with Jews over the years. I found most to be honest business people and good neighbors. I am not blaming them but the indivigual people responsible. I also blame people named Rockefeller, Bush, McCain, Dole, Boehner etc.
Drunken Sailor| 12.6.12 @ 3:50PM
So basically the only Jews you do not blame are those you need for labor? Well that clears thing right up.
Jack in Wi| 12.6.12 @ 3:56PM
I blame the people named, not anyone else. Do you think they are right about anything? What is so smart about that gang?
Doctor Right| 12.6.12 @ 4:24PM
"That gang"...????
LOL!!! What a clueless tool you are, Jack!
You have ZERO self-awareness!
Doctor Right| 12.6.12 @ 4:23PM
ZING!!!!!
Stkman| 12.6.12 @ 4:42PM
Jack,
Do you ever think that you come across as hateful, especially towards those of the Jewish faith? Other than being Jewish what is it that the names you listed above have the most in common? Maybe instead of hating Jews, you should hate accountant or bankers or politician. Butr you like to keep bringing up a persons faith. To those of us that are conservative and believe in the Constitution you come off as very bigoted towards Jews. Maybe you might try getting your point across some way other than insulting Jews and those of us who happen to believe in freddom of religion without prosecution for the practice thereof.
Jack in Wi| 12.6.12 @ 5:11PM
Baloney: These guys made the mess. They have to have their feet held to the fire. I also blame all gentile Democrats, like the Clintons etc as well as scum like Powell, Cheney, Condy Rice, Rumsfeld etc. Did I spread the blame around enough for you?
Jack in Wi| 12.6.12 @ 5:18PM
Postscript Stkman: I tell the truth about the mess we are in. You just can't seem to handle it. Point out something I have wrong and I will correct it. You can't be for a constitutional government and be for endles wars and bailouts for Israel. We owe them nothing period. They and their crimes are their own business. It isn't anti-semitic to tell the truth. The truth is sorely lacking among a lot of the posters here. The Truth will set you free.
Cobalt| 12.6.12 @ 6:43AM
My EBT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o64Fz-KW1Dk
Appleby| 12.6.12 @ 7:00AM
But I though everybody in America was Morbidly Obese and just about to drop dead from BEING FAT, if they don't stop eating THIS VERY INSTANT! You can't have it both ways, Bunkie.
I lived in Buffalo NY when the unions were causing all the major businesses to flee South to right-to-work states and thus the ancilliary businesses were closing their doors and firing their employees. I stood in grocery store lines with the change I scraped together from my temporary job at the newspaper, and watched fat women waddle through the grocery line with their two carts full of Twinkies, potato chips, steaks, beer, soda pop and "sugary cereal" which the bag boys carted outside and loaded into their late model cars. You cannot imagine the serious resentment that is bred in a community when this scene takes place day after day. By the way, those of us whose parents were Depression Babies are perfectly capable of feeding a family of four on $30 a week. In our childhood this was called Thrift and people were proud of it.
TLP| 12.6.12 @ 10:18AM
Not everyone so Obese.
Just the people on Food Stamps and Welfare.
The rest of us are too busy working to pay for THEIR Amenities. Food, Shelter, Microwave, Air Conditioner, Xbox, PS3, Flat Screen T.V.
You know - The Bare Neccessities.
Stkman| 12.6.12 @ 4:43PM
How can youleave out their free Obamphone? Don't you wish you had a tin can with a string on it that stretches all the way to D.C.?
Nancy in NC| 12.6.12 @ 7:56AM
Thanks Ross for a great article that articulates so well what many of us have been thinking for years and have been attacked for saying so.
My spouse and I were truly poor when we were first married. We didn't have a car, a TV, a radio, or any of the luxuries that almost everyone in America has today. He was a young Marine who made very little money and I received an allotment of $95 per month. I had $12 to spend each week for groceries. We didn't starve and we certainly didn't have food stamps. I'm fairly sure they didn't exist. Often he would have to borrow 50 cents for a haircut to be repaid on payday.
I remember the thrill of saving $10 so we could buy a radio. I also remember meeting such nice people when I went to yard sales and bought small items we needed for the household. I recall the great neighbors who would give us a ride to the store to buy groceries...I will never forget their kindness and generosity.
By hard work and some good luck we are 40 plus years later still working in our small business and we own our own home and two cars. We have no debt.
The point? The government through it's legal plunder is denying others the sense of accomplishment my husband and I have. We have lived the American dream. The American dream has turned into a nightmare for many. They are stuck in a system which by design is almost impossible to escape. Who thinks that is compassionate?
Von Mises Jr| 12.6.12 @ 8:15AM
The profound truth you touch on Nancy is that money used to be worth much more in purchasing power. Twelve dollars a week bought your groceries while today you can buy a gallon of milk, a loaf of bread and a pound of bologna.
This is actually the same reason we have much of the violence in the Middle East. The freaking people spend half their income just to eat. When prices go up 25% as they did in the US in the last year, instead of an Egyptian or Iranian average citizen needing half his income, it becomes 5/8th or an additional one-quarter of what he had left. This can tend to piss people off and get them out in the street, especially when Mubarak or "Little Hitler" I'm-on-a-jihad lives in multiple palaces with a fresh virgin every night.
So perhaps I will talk with Perp today if the jackass can tell me what is this "social justice" when we pay $1.4B to fly around and entertain little barry bama and Moochelle for one stinking year when some inner-city mother is trying to feed a family for $30 per week that doesn't cover seven cheap lunches anymore?
I will be awaiting your genius Caliban.
TLP| 12.6.12 @ 10:25AM
"You're just a Racist."
(That should hold you over until Purp gets outta bed at 2:30)
You're Welcome.
TLP| 12.6.12 @ 6:51PM
The Contest is up and running at Monday's Story - The Artist as Ethnographer.
You're gonna need the "Previously" Button, and the Contest runs until Saturday at 7pm.
Good Luck.
Appleby| 12.6.12 @ 10:36AM
But keep in mind when $12 a week bought us groceries, we were earning $50 a week. Or anyway I was. That's a difference nobody ever mentions.
Von Mises Jr| 12.6.12 @ 11:01AM
With an inflation rate of 3%, it takes 24 years for prices to double. Our government BLS admits to 2% as Core Inflation, but this is a similar lie to the U3 being 7.9% when it is at 15%. Real inflation now is estimated at 6% by Peter Schiff and others have placed it closer to 8%.
So using the Rule of 72, it now will take 9 to 12 years for prices to double. But Ben "The bank" Bernanke increased the M2 money supply from $3T to $9T in five years, is adding $40B per month with QE3 and now touts QE4. So we are ramping up in quantum speed.
At this pace, Appleby, it won’t be long before a loaf of bread costs $12.
Appleby| 12.6.12 @ 1:46PM
A loaf of good quality bread here in Kanukistan costs $5 at the present. Cheap bread costs $2.99. A year ago good bread cost $2.49 and cheap bread cost $1.09.
Stkman| 12.6.12 @ 4:48PM
Don't forget that when our honest government gives us those inflation rates they hide a little note at the bottom of the page next to an asterik.
*does not account for food or energy cost.
So what the hell else is there for a middle class or lower class American after food and energy cost? Not damn much, thats what.
TLP| 12.6.12 @ 10:20AM
Stop kissing his @ss, Nancy.
I'm told that he can barely fit his head through the door, now.
Louis Jenkins| 12.6.12 @ 8:29AM
Steak, pork chops, rib roasts, twinkies, junk food, etc.? "A Movement Toward Food Justice." That is certainly not what I'm eating, yet time and again I see the same fat women mentioned above waddling around the store pushing and pulling two buggies loaded to the brim with such far. And yes, they do leave the store in their Lincolns and Caddies. Food is expensive for those of us who earn our living. There are two Americas. One are those receiving "A Movement Toward Food Justice" and the other are those of us who earn what we eat. And we earners are coming up short!! Thanks Obama for the great justice you are doing to the producers.
Pecos Pete| 12.6.12 @ 8:53AM
Louis, we'll enjoy it even more when we are also living in ObamaBoxes.
TLP| 12.6.12 @ 6:52PM
The Contest is up and running at Monday's Story - The Artist as Ethnographer.
You're gonna need the "Previously" Button, and the Contest runs until Saturday at 7pm.
Good Luck.
Cobalt| 12.6.12 @ 9:17AM
How many of you have seen people use their EBT card, or food stamps, to pay for whatever they can, and then whip out a wad of money to pay for beer, wine, etc., the things the government wouldn't cover?
c. j. acworth| 12.6.12 @ 9:30AM
Me for one.
mike 3/505| 12.6.12 @ 1:10PM
2
Stkman| 12.6.12 @ 4:50PM
Every damn one of us has seen some one do that or get into a brand new CTS or Esplanade or whatever the hell its called.
A hairweave ain't cheap and neither are those long nasty looking glue on nails.
Drunken Sailor| 12.6.12 @ 4:03PM
Lots of disposable cash when Uncle Sam is covering the cost of food, housing, childcare, education, cell phones, etc.
It's a fact when working a minimum wage job one week a month and you can still have more disposable income than working a full time job making $60,000 a year.
Just one site that says so.
http://www.zerohedge.com/artic.....family-mak
Here is another story they used with some interesting graphs
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/.....-earn-more
JD| 12.6.12 @ 4:36PM
I've posted these before. They need more airtime.
Drunken Sailor| 12.6.12 @ 5:13PM
I agree!
TLP| 12.6.12 @ 4:44PM
The Contest is up and running at Monday's Story - The Artist as Ethnographer.
You're gonna need the "Previously" Button, and the Contest runs until Saturday at 7pm.
Good Luck.
Kwan| 12.6.12 @ 10:12AM
The Community Reinvestment Act was suppose to battle housing injustice, and the world is still trying to recover from that little journey into leftist insanity. What's next on the menu? Perhaps income injustice. A guaranteed income for one and all. Why work when Obama can just borrow the money from China, and hand it out to every deserving victim of the American capitalistic system. These leftist assaults on the American economy only have one purpose: Bankrupting the nation and in the resulting chaos attempt to transform the country into a Communist People's Republic.
Doctor Right| 12.6.12 @ 10:23AM
"Housing injustice"...
Isn't that a ridiculous term? Is it unjust that someone can't afford a house? WHY?!?!?
Do they have the money? The credit? The collateral?
I'd like a 20,000 square-foot mansion on a hilltop in Aspen; is there a government program I can access to get it?
Because, you know, I want it...and it's unjust that I can't have it, damnit!
Appleby| 12.6.12 @ 10:37AM
I'm holding out for Lamborghini Injustice.
Doctor Right| 12.6.12 @ 4:26PM
How about "Hot Babe Injustice"???
Why should Leonardo DiCaprio and Tom Brady get all the super-models? Just because they're rich and famous and young???
NOT FAIR!!! I want my government-provided allowance of hot babes!
And just to show I'm not a dirty old man, send me one my age...
SEND ME BROOKE SHIELDS!!!
JD| 12.6.12 @ 12:19PM
Read Thomas Sowell's book on the housing crisis. In addition to a number of things I already knew, he illustrates, using mountains of data, how leftist land-use "innovations" created the price disparities that the CRA attempted to fix.
TLP| 12.6.12 @ 4:45PM
Mr.Kwan.
The Contest is up and running at Monday's Story - The Artist as Ethnographer.
You're gonna need the "Previously" Button, and the Contest runs until Saturday at 7pm.
Good Luck.
Doctor Right| 12.6.12 @ 10:20AM
Too many people who should know better have been duped by Cory Booker for more than a few years, now.
Make no mistake about it - this guy is a died-in-the-wool left-wing liberal.
He won a lot of attention and praise when he first ran against former Newark Mayor (and convicted felon) Sharp James. James was the type of corrupt machine politician that typified a LOT of big-city black mayors in the 60's and 70's, like Marion Barry. His supporters loved him, but everyone else, liberals included, detested him. In contrast, Booker was a breath of fresh air.
Since becoming Mayor, Booker does a lot of talking and lots of symbolism (such as living in a housing project) but is not so good when it comes to results. Newark is still a cesspool of a town, with high crime and unemployment. Surprise!
Booker was taken to the woodshed for the Bain capital comments and swiftly acquiesced. His pro-Obama tweets during the debates were nothing but liberal talking points.
Booker has his sights on bigger things. In 2013, he'll likely challenge Chris Christie for Governor. And he may actually win, too. Despite the "love" Christie gets in the national press, he's not as loved here in New Jersey, especially by Conservatives. In addition, New Jersey is a DEEP BLUE state, and the Democrats would love to knock Christie's sizable posterior off of the platform of potential GOP nominees in 2016.
"Governor" Booker? "President" Booker?
Don't be surprised...especially after November.
loulou| 12.6.12 @ 10:32AM
Can't these parasites just go to a gubmint warehouse and collect their surplus cheese, powdered milk, powdered eggs, etc? Didn't we used to give them surplus cheese?
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Whole Foods accept food stamps? I object.
TLP| 12.6.12 @ 4:46PM
The Contest is up and running at Monday's Story - The Artist as Ethnographer.
You're gonna need the "Previously" Button, and the Contest runs until Saturday at 7pm.
Good Luck.
Denver Todd| 12.6.12 @ 10:34AM
Everyone in America suffers from hunger, at least three times a day.
RAM| 12.6.12 @ 10:39AM
The shame in this case is that the government that offers and touts food stamps takes other steps (taxation, regulation...) to prevent employers from offering jobs to the current food stamp recipients.
TLP| 12.6.12 @ 4:46PM
The Contest is up and running at Monday's Story - The Artist as Ethnographer.
You're gonna need the "Previously" Button, and the Contest runs until Saturday at 7pm.
Good Luck.
Anthony| 12.6.12 @ 11:05AM
Ah yes, Mayor Booker wants to engage in performing leftist political theatre by "living" off of $30 for a week to "raise consciousness and political awareness". That is the hip phrase, to use correct?
Hey, maybe the actor Martin Sheen is available to join the scharade, if he's not sleeping on a subway grate for a night, to demonstrate the plight of the homeless. I bet Martin retired to The Plaza Hotel the next day to wash off the soot and grime of the city streets. Oh the sacrifice of these concerned citizens!!!
Then he and Booker, after a day of fighting for "Food Justice", can retire to Booker's office and pull out the $75 bottle of Johnny Walker Blue and congratulate themselves on their social awareness.
Appleby| 12.6.12 @ 4:25PM
Won't anybody invite Ben Stein?
Dodd2| 12.6.12 @ 11:23AM
How about this is a reform.
As a condition of receiving food stamps (or whatever) the recipients have to gather in a public forum and give vocal thanks to the taxpayers who provide their benefits.
This show of gratitude would do wonder to adjusting the moral compass of the recipients and might well spur many of them to straighten up and fly right.
Drunken Sailor| 12.6.12 @ 4:06PM
Hell, just making them go pick up their stamps or benifit checks instead of waiting for them in the mail would make a dent in who receives them.
Plus some would get the added bonus of physical excercise and a little sunshine.
TLP| 12.6.12 @ 4:46PM
The Contest is up and running at Monday's Story - The Artist as Ethnographer.
You're gonna need the "Previously" Button, and the Contest runs until Saturday at 7pm.
Good Luck.
TLP| 12.6.12 @ 6:53PM
Don't tell Ben Stein.
He's not invited.
Slacker| 12.6.12 @ 11:33AM
This demoralizes the lower middle class.
Consider the responsible working class family man who busts his ass at a shit job set against the slacker household across the street. At first glance both families look to have the similar standards of living. But, one is real and the other is a fake creation of subsidized housing, food stamps, and the EITC.
The working class folks who bust their asses are being robbed of the pride that comes from seeing themselves as better off. Social justice isn’t too evenhanded.
JD| 12.6.12 @ 12:10PM
Indeed. I grew up in a middle class household and worked hard to become better than that, yet it seems many with middle class jobs actually have more toys and fun.
Unfortunately, I know other people at my income level who take it a different way. They see their own financial situations and say "how can anyone possibly live on a fraction of my income?" Then they vote Democrat.
They don't realize the fallacy of comparing pre-tax incomes. Like the marginal tax rates Purp loves so much, these numbers serve only to mislead. What matters is what you have left after all the redistribution is done.
TLP| 12.6.12 @ 4:47PM
The Contest is up and running at Monday's Story - The Artist as Ethnographer.
You're gonna need the "Previously" Button, and the Contest runs until Saturday at 7pm.
Good Luck.
Hardcard| 12.6.12 @ 12:12PM
I want my MTV (HD) , obamao phone and gobmint cheese. Up is down, in is out, right is wrong and the rich are greedy, just give us the stuff, we want it, we demand it or else.We gonna be mad, give up the stash we vot4ed many time for the "one". Gimme Gimme !!!!
Kingofthenet| 12.6.12 @ 12:44PM
Ross, this guy saved TWO people in House Fires, he REALLY is a Hero. Mark my words, BIG things are in store for this fine man.
djn1313| 12.6.12 @ 1:25PM
Why do we keep feeding generation after generation of these unproductive creatures? We feed them to breed, increasing the burden on productive society. There is no logical reason to destroy our nation for the benefit of feeding those that contribute NOTHING.
If you are healthy and able to work, there is no reason for society to support you.
Third Army| 12.6.12 @ 1:27PM
I work for my food. And it's a struggle to do it since the prices have skyrocketed over the past couple years. Particularly flour and sugar and meat. But when I go to the store I see obese people buying tons of food with their swipe cards. I've yet to see a thin person in California that survives on food stamps. It's very puzzling. $30 a week in New Jersey? How skimpy is that? He should come to California. It's the best place for welfare and food stamp recipients. You get section 8 subsidized housing, lots of food stamps, susidized fuel and free cell phones and Medi-Cal. And you don't even have to be here legally!
Jack London| 12.6.12 @ 2:07PM
"96 percent of poor parents stated that their children were never hungry at any time during the year because they could not afford food.
83 percent of poor families reported having enough food to eat.
82 percent of poor adults reported never being hungry at any time in the prior year due to lack of money for food."
Parents will sacrifice everything for their children – you know that Ross. The other figures show substantial need, given the huge number of the poor we have.
I know you think there is no problem in 1% of the population owning 99.9% of the wealth eventually – but you may want to to pause and think again.
Ross Kaminsky| 12.6.12 @ 3:08PM
Actually, I would think that 1% owning 99.9% would be a problem.
The number of poor in America is vastly overstated, as noted at the end of my article.
Jack London| 12.6.12 @ 3:34PM
Ross - I don't think you have the slightest clue about the extent of poverty in the US as clearly you only take your views from the Heritage Foundation. Here's a balanced report in a conservative publication – The Economist - that will put you right.
http://www.economist.com/news/.....ey-deserve
JD| 12.6.12 @ 3:42PM
As always, Jack must tell US what conservatism is. To let actual conservatives decide what conservatism is is inconceivable.
The Economist has leaned left of late.
As for your particular link, it is thoroughly debunked by Ross's Heritage links. ALL your link does is cite ONE anecdote, then cite the number of people defined as "poor" by the government. That's it.
Meanwhile, the Heritage links explain that the people the government defines as "poor" (the same number the economist uses) are by and large living better than the stereotype of the "middle class". This thoroughly debunks the simplistic "one anecdote represents 50 million people" logic of the Economist.
You see, the Economist isn't just moving left in that it's taking Leftist positions. It's also getting dumber, which seems to be a prerequisite of a move to the Left.
Your link also hilariously described the woman's wages as "before taxes", when she likely "pays" negative taxes at her income.
I have consistently explained how Leftists dishonestly evaluate people's "need" using their pre-tax income. No Leftist has ever demonstrated that he comprehends the error of this. Ross's article explains it well - pre-tax income is far less than final purchasing power for the poor. For the rest, it's the opposite.
Jack London| 12.6.12 @ 3:42PM
And also take note that our welfare programs are very low compared with other countries, and also that without what we do provide we would send the economy into a bigger depression;
"A paper by Fabrizio Perri and Joe Steinberg at the Minneapolis Fed showed that during the recent crisis, while incomes in America’s bottom quintile fell by 30% relative to median-income levels and that quintile’s total wealth declined by 40%, their relative consumption levels remained constant. So anti-poverty programmes both cushioned the recession’s impact on the bottom 20% of American earners and helped prop up consumer spending. Redistribution may be a dirty word in American politics, but without it the recession would have been far more painful, not just for the poor, but for America’s economy generally."
JD| 12.6.12 @ 3:46PM
Without social welfare, there wouldn't have been a recession to combat. As Thomas Sowell's "The Housing Boom and Bust" well explains, leftist policies created the recession.
Your claim contradicts itself. First you whine that our social welfare is low, despite Heritage's evidence to the contrary. Then you speak of how "well" social welfare "worked"!
And in all of this, you cling to the fallacy that "propping up consumer spending" is key to the economy. Production drives economies, not spending. We've been over this, and you've never had an answer.
Doctor Right| 12.6.12 @ 4:27PM
Compared to what "poverty" actually means in the rest of the world, there really aren't any "poor" people in America...
JD| 12.6.12 @ 3:35PM
Straw Man Jack returns.
Read the two Heritage Foundation links Ross posted, Jack. If you can do this and find fault with them, I promise to answer. If, however, you make claims that demonstrate that you have not read the links, then do not expect engagement from us.
KennesawJack| 12.6.12 @ 2:32PM
"anything from lack of shame to apparent outright pride in non-self-sufficiency -- is a moral hazard of the highest order" This is the most telling phrase in the entire essay. There was a time in this country when to not be able to take care of oneself or one's family was a source of shame. That we have lost that moral ground speaks to the insidious evil of the welfare state and the attendant loss of dignity by its victims that evil visits upon them. You have to hand it to the Marxists, though. They were able to create both a large dependent class and preserve that class'es ability to vote. Unlike the Bolsheviks, of 1917, the modern American Marxists don't need to use force to aggregate power. They have created the inner city gulags and festooned them with just enough baubles to keep their lemmings sated and subservient. Pretty slick. Cry, the Beloved Country.
TLP| 12.6.12 @ 4:47PM
The Contest is up and running at Monday's Story - The Artist as Ethnographer.
You're gonna need the "Previously" Button, and the Contest runs until Saturday at 7pm.
Good Luck.
DRed| 12.6.12 @ 2:32PM
A structural inequality in the American food system doesn't mean that it's unjust that some people can't afford to buy whatever they want in a safeway. It means that many poor people live in areas where they can't buy anything at all in a safeway, because there is no safeway. And the groceries they do have access to are more expensive and of poorer quality than groceries in more affluent neighborhoods.
Ross Kaminsky| 12.6.12 @ 3:09PM
That is not "structural" in the sense that Booker means it, in my opinion.
DRed| 12.6.12 @ 3:38PM
I speak liberal a lot better than you do, Ross. It's what he's talking about.
JD| 12.6.12 @ 3:43PM
Where is there no Safeway, and WHY is this the case?
Somehow "because the rich don't pay enough taxes" doesn't seem like the right answer.
Drunken Sailor| 12.6.12 @ 4:16PM
And just why are there no Safeway's there? It couldn't be because of the high crime rates could it?
DRed| 12.6.12 @ 4:23PM
Sure, that could be a part of the problem. So what?
JD| 12.6.12 @ 4:37PM
So... the solution is not to increase social welfare. The solution is to solve the "structural problem."
DRed| 12.6.12 @ 4:54PM
That's the tricky bit, but yes, that's the basic idea.
Drunken Sailor| 12.6.12 @ 5:16PM
JD got the point. But do you not see the irony of that being, in many cases, a self inflicted wound?
Granted there are many who suffer due to this that have no part of the high crime rate, but a large part of today's inner city gang members are the product of years of Daddy Goverment.
Stan Redmond| 12.6.12 @ 3:10PM
Booker, wether he realizes it or not, is giving conservatives the perfect opportunity to display the insanity of welfare programs. He is showing just how comfortable it is to make the choice of "living in poverty." I'm not sure exactly what he's trying to show the welfare dwellers but to me he's showing that when it is so comfortable to willingly take money from your fellow citizens you don't need to work. Why bother. Just shout out "Food Justice" "Housing Justice" "Welfare Justice" "Income Justice" "Electricity Justice" "Utility Justice" and have some poverty pimp like Obama go steal money from other people on your behalf. Get a firkkin job if you wanna eat. But nope, it's easier to keep holding that democrat lever like a tweaker with a crackpipe.
Tafuna| 12.6.12 @ 3:35PM
My grandmother was eligible for food stamps but never ever considered going on the program. She had too much pride, something sadly lacking in today's welfare recepients.
Ralph Novy| 12.6.12 @ 6:00PM
"Looked at independently, there are few things the free market does better than provide and distribute food...."
What a foul, stupid, thoughtless lie!
Never in history has such been true.
Cite a single counter-example, sir.
What a suck-up you are.
Shame on you.
Drunken Sailor| 12.6.12 @ 6:13PM
Let me get this straight. You want him to cite a counter-example against his own argument? How lazy are you? If you don't agree, you cite the example.
DRed| 12.6.12 @ 6:32PM
I'm just not sure what Ross is talking about, though, because the food market in America is not exactly a free market. It's both regulated and heavily subsidized.
Drunken Sailor| 12.6.12 @ 6:59PM
So are you Novy now?
I get what you mean about subsidized. Farm subsidies should go away. According to Heritage, that would save roughly 190 billion. No small chump change there. And as for regulation, other than food safety I don't know of any.
As far as food supply in the US goes though it is more free market than not. Last thing we need is for Uncle Sam to try and run it for us.
DRed| 12.6.12 @ 7:31PM
ha, no, I'm certainly no Novy. But the federal government is heavily involved in the food market in all sorts of ways, not just agricultural subsidies. Ranchers graze on federal lands, they get tax preferences, both agricultural and livestock research is heavily subsidized by the government, the government buys billions of dollars of food a year, etc. Market forces are undoubtedly the main driver when it comes to food production, but they're certainly skewed by the government. And Ross seems to think it does a great job, which I find interesting.
Drunken Sailor| 12.6.12 @ 8:20PM
I'll agree to ending some of those if the left will also agree to ending the Ethanol stupidity. Corn should be eaten (or drunk) but not burned in our cars.
DRed| 12.6.12 @ 8:37PM
Only one problem there, DS, it's not only the left that loves ethanol. You're not getting any real Americans in the heartland saying no to that money. You want struggling family farmers like the Archer Daniels Midland's to suffer?
JD| 12.6.12 @ 9:44PM
What does it mean to be on the right or on the left, if not to support right-wing or left-wing ideas? If someone supports government subsidy of an industry, he is on the left.
JD| 12.6.12 @ 9:44PM
What does it mean to be on the right or on the left, if not to support right-wing or left-wing ideas? If someone supports government subsidy of an industry, he is on the left.
sdfhlk | 12.6.12 @ 8:02PM
It just doesn't appeal to minorities or the young.
Gartenmayer| 12.7.12 @ 3:30AM
no doubt that many of them are well-intended, as Booker's move may be. But I, for one, am unwilling and unable to judge a policy based on claimed good intentions of its supporters rather than on actual outcomes and compliance with modest philosophical and legal guidelines, such as our Constitution.
What makes Booker's "challenge" appear as a radical leftist publicity http://www.chaussuresfree.com/ stunt, or at least motivated by much more radically leftist views than are often attributed to him, versus simply trying to better understand the plight of the poor is Booker's own language describing his goals: