Microcosm of a successful welfare state

April 25, 1:12 PMHartford Conservative ExaminerJohn Talleos

Previous Next

Comment Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Hartford Conservative Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

   Hartford Mayor Perez is proposing tax increases of 13% for homeowners and a 20% hike to businesses.  With a city that has an unemployment rate of 13.6% this is a disaster, economically.  But is it for the philosophy of a welfare state mayor?  The function of Hartford government is set up primarily to provide services for the poor.  Whether it is right or wrong what welfare politics does is allow the poor access to home, food and medical care, and in the case of Hartford, much more.  If the city is set up to provide these services what it won't do is adopt policies that will make the poor unpoor.  You can't expect Mayor Perez to cut services and lower taxes, in his mind this will hurt his constituency.  Since homeowners and businesses don't make up the majority of the electorate his policies will tax earners to fund a system that makes the underclass comfortable in their plight.  He is for the underdog and they are for him.  As long as they remain that way he is safe in his job.

  The actual results are a mess.  Previously in this space was a description of the intricacies of Hartford's welfare apparatus.  The mayor's office for instance is loaded with programs for children that when taken in its totality ought to be called Bureau of Dad.  Perez is embarking on a program to provide free internet and computers in some neighborhoods as well.  It doesn't end and it won't.  That businesses will be taxed out of town may not be an accident.  If there were a thriving business community which enabled most of Hartford's population enter the work force, what good would it be to have a welfare state and by extention a liberal mayor?  As it is only a minority of the population works.   Business could only be looked at as competition that could only erode the power base of big city liberal Democrats.  Hartford isn't the way it is because of hard times but through years of planning.  It is a liberal success story and since the poor are well taken care of and business and "the affluent" are "paying their fair share" (ie: all of it) the results are a microcosm of urban decay and destitution.   Did these policies ever envision a different result?