Helping the little guy one bankruptcy at a time

The Democratic Party has always sold itself as the advocate of the little guy. They are out to make life better for the poor, for minorities, and for women. They aim to balance the inequality of opportunity, and protect them from abuse by the rich. And they do all of this for the good of society. But their policies help none of these contrived factions. In fact, they hurt them.

The tacit assumption behind all Democratic policies is that government can help the little guy better in a burdened economy than he can help himself in a robust economy. The reality is that whether government programs are necessary; whether they are popular; or whether they are extravagant and insufferable; they all constitute a parasitic relationship between government and its private sector host.

Government programs fall into two basic categories: security and subsidy. The economy benefits from the security programs and is burdened by subsidy programs. While a strong military, an able police force, courts and prisons foster a safe environment in which all of us may prosper; subsidy programs deprive resources to the engine that actually creates the wealth on which they rely.

While many Democratic policies enjoy broad public support when it comes to the benefits they provide; they also bear the notoriety of creating the greatest burden on the economy – a load no one seems willing to bear. This paradox arises from naïve public acceptance of the Democrats’ bait and switch sales approach. They offer the illusion of short term gain, while obscuring the long term costs. The irony of the Democratic shell game is that those who suffer the worst when the chickens come home to roost are the little guys they claim to serve.

Democratic policies have promised a better life for their pet demographics, while consistently undermining the economic strength that is essential to that improvement. Democratic policies such as the Federal Reserve System, Social Security, Welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, the Graduated Income Tax, Minimum Wage Laws, the Community Reinvestment Act, et al., produce quantifiable consequences, proven to hobble the economic system upon which they rely.

The cumulative effect of this strategy is chronic poverty and the expansion of the ranks of the needy. If current economic policies continue, they portend the ultimate collapse of the American economy, and tragically, the final equalization of both opportunity and outcomes.

One would think that among all of the Democrat Ivy League graduates, most of whom are wealthy themselves, someone would possess at least a rudimentary understanding of the consequences of their actions. But the possibility that they really do understand is even more frightening than the assumption that they are merely dim-witted.

Consider the words of a few “luminaries” of the collectivist pantheon:

Vladimir Lenin said, “The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency.”

“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name “liberalism” they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened. I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democrat Party has adopted our platform.” Attributed to Norman Matoon Thomas, six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America.

When one considers the possibility that the goals of Democratic policy is to change America into a socialist nation, then we need to understand how their goals fit a larger context. In an American Thinker article by James Simpson, he observes that, “President Obama is not trying to lead America forward to recovery, prosperity and strength. Quite the opposite, in fact.”

According to Simpson, Obama and the Democratic leaders in Congress are employing the “Cloward-Piven Strategy [which] seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse."

Considering the high cost of Obama’s agenda, occurring on the heels of the worst economic downturn since the Depression, it is not difficult to imagine that Cloward and Piven are calling the shots for this administration.

Jack Kelly, of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette illustrates how even the Obama “economic stimulus” strategy mirrors Cloward-Piven. Kelly points out that Obama’s stimulus failed because “...funds were used to preserve jobs state and local governments could no longer afford because of falling tax revenues... Preserving government jobs may deepen the recession because government workers are not engaged in wealth creation and their salaries must be paid by people in the private sector who are.”

Not only do government jobs fail to produce wealth, but they consume more resources on average than private sector jobs. Kelly observes, “Federal government civilian wages averaged $79,197 last year, according to Free Enterprise Nation, compared to the average private sector employee's wage of $49,935. When benefits are included, federal workers have pay packages twice those of private sector workers, on average.”

If the Democrats are really out to help the little guy, why do their actions contradict their rhetoric? Their actions indicate that they have no interest in the little guy at all. When times are hard, the little guy takes it on the chin first, stays down longer and recovers more slowly than any other demographic. A strategy sincerely devoted to helping the underclass would hold economic vitality as the first of its priorities. This would be true whether they advocated self-sufficiency or government subsidies for the poor.

At some point, we must accept that the discord between word and deed exposes a calculated deception; one with nefarious motives. Based on that conclusion, the vast ideological, political and economic differences between Democrats and the rest of the nation can no longer be adequately addressed through dialogue or negotiation. When the stakes are this high, our response must be as ruthless as that of our opponents. Ironically, the Democrats must be stopped on behalf of the little guy.