The figures above show the 2012 Presidential election results by state, the highest population cities in the US, and which of these cities cling to democratic mayors and policies. Economic researches have a State Income Inequality Index which rates the level of emigration occurring in the state that involves the exodus of higher income individuals away from poor neighborhoods. This exodus leaves the poor with fewer job opportunities, role models, peers, social networks, and less school funding.
The tendency is a natural one and is not limited by race or religion. Income increases that drives people from poor neighbors is almost exclusively because middle-income individuals have a demand for single-family homes; not apartments, but is also, on a much smaller scale, related to a desire for better school districts and less crime. These neighborhoods that remain with almost entirely low-income households are what always found in the inner-city.
What you see if you look at the two maps is that States with an income equality index significantly
lower that the national average have a tendency to vote conservative; while the closer the index is to
the above average the states tend to swing liberal. So what is really happening in these states?
As the wealth move away into better neighbors taking with them all the benefits that they bring to a
neighborhood - jobs opportunity, school funding, etc. Poor people also tend to migrate away from
those neighbors toward the inner-city. The research of Harvard economist Dr. Glaeser suggests that
the urbanization of poverty comes mainly from better access to public transportation in central cities.1
The rise of public employment in the United States has for more than 150 years been linked to the
efforts of urban political machines to provide for their constituents. Once poverty accumulates to its own population centers we saw the rise of subcultures which develop into organizations focused on money and power. These can range from the rise of The Nation of Islam, community organizations like ACORN, or institutional systems that provide benefits in a non-verbal exchange for a vote. It is not that organizations such as TNI or ACORN do not provide programs and address social needs, but they arise from a desire for either power or money and if for any extended time those forces where removed they would crumble.
Local black politicians in an attempt to help the issue at the core where very active in hiring blacks into government jobs with good pay and benefits in an attempt to help the poverty in the inner cities. And temporarily, it works. However, the American dream has blind eyes and no one is going to stay in a crime ridden slum once they have money. They are going to get a car and take their family and move somewhere better and commute to work. If this plan was a true solution it would have rebuild those communities because 20 percent of all government jobs are filled by blacks while they are responsible for only 12% of the workforce.2
Democrats have had a century of policy making designed to simply keep the vote of their inner-city constituents. They continue to develop new and overlapping social programs that do nothing to solve the underlying issue and their marketing machines, the Jackson-Sharpton crowd and the progressive community organizations, just push hard and fast for support of these policies. The Democrats get votes, the community organizers make money, and the religious gain fame. If that were not disgusting enough, they then focus on crime using the same system in which they market their social programs; convincing blacks that murder is caused by guns and violence is a result of drugs.
There is little social justice to be found in inner-cities. Black make up 43% of the incarcerated population yet are only 13% of the total population. That means a black person is six times more like to be tossed in jail than that or a white person. It is not racism that drives these figures. It is because of the literal attack on the black man by drug policies. The drug of choice is cocaine. White and black alike love cocaine as a recreational drug. Yet in the 80s it was cut down and made into a cheaper product called crack cocaine. Of course it was horrible and killing the babies of the inner-city (sarcasm). Well the Democrats stopped that by helping to pass legislation throwing the
book at crack possession and dealing.
In 1986, Congress enacted the Anti-Drug Abuse act, a completely bi-partisan bill. Only one member of the Senate voted against it. ADAA establishing mandatory minimum sentences where 5 grams of crack cocaine was treated the same as 500 grams of powder cocaine. I know first hand from visiting the Bureau of Prisons back in 1999 that a major concern at the time was this legislation and its stupidity. In 2010 the Fair Sentencing Act finally straightened this out and put sentencing on equal footing. I have no doubt that someone in Congress was racist when he made his vote, but this about economics and not race; however, due to the large black concentration in inner-cities it makes these policies always appear racist. It does allow us to use stat differentials between black and whites to ascertain the real truth which is poverty versus stupid policy.
48% of all convicts in federal prison are incarcerated for drug charges. State prisons are holding about 17% for drug charges. 33% of all people on probation are for their for drug charges. Democrats have made lies about drug control and turned it into an entire industry of demanding tax money for treatments, community policing, etc. All thanks to the policies they create , once they develop the perception of need, they can milk it for decades. If this sounds far fetched just think about the global warming issue and all the evidence that keeps emerging against its hypothesis.
More proof that social welfare programs are about making money for the government and its friends is that whites are 77% of the population and blacks 17% of the population while both have about 39% of their populations on welfare. To anyone who is racist: this means more white are on welfare than blacks. This illustrates that poor is poor. By now the poor of this country are just radioactive waste. Democrats know their policies cannot fix the inner-city. Republicans know they cannot take the stupid programs away. To keep the vote Democrats must keep reinventing the wheel, such as with the PPACA. To not completely lose the Republicans usually fain to be angry and may delay the legislation before passing it with a "compromise". It is one big inside job and the poor are the punch-line.
To further injury they pass legislation like gun control and ban guns from the cities because hardened criminals spend so much time shopping at Walmart for a shotgun. They steal the economics of escape then literally sentence their inner-city constituents to death and black leaders and paid organizers have the duty to sell sell sell. If you look at the largest cities in America patterns begin to emerge. When cities with high poverty rates give in to the system and begin electing democrat after democrat they are completely buried in liberal policies that seal their coffins.
A list of the worst of the worst shows a direct correlation based upon the long history of liberal leadership. The status on Democrats mayors in major cities
Chicago -since 1931
NYC - 80 of the past 100 years
Cleveland 58 of the years since 1942
San Fran - since 1964
Los Angeles - since 1961, 1 republican mayor 8 years
Boston - since 1930
Jacksonville - only 2 republicans since 1888
New Orleans - since 1870
Atlanta - since 1942
Detroit -since 1962
Kansas City - 1 Republican since 1930
Denver - since 1961
Nashville - at least 1951 possibly longer
Seattle - at least 30-40 years
Philly - since 1952
Washington DC - since 1883
Cities in the same scenarios that have no given in to these destructive Democrat politicians have fared much better overall although the basic poverty issues still exist. Columbus, Ohio, Charlotte, NC, Indianapolis, IN, Miami, FL, Virginia Beach, VA, Phoenix, AZ, Houston, TX, Dallas, TX, Fort Worth, TX, and Mobile, AL. All of these cities enjoy at least 25% Independent or Republican Mayors in recent history ( 1960s). This is important because the states where high poverty cities continue to make smarter political choices is reflected in how their states vote in Presidential
elections. These cities are all very population dense and among the top cities by population in the country.
The Republicans, Tea Party, and Libertarians would do well to simple focus educational and community efforts in this troubled cities and they will begin to see a massive change in federal elections. As we know PA, OH, and CO are 3 of the 9 swing states from the 2012 election and targeting cities within these states are a priority for 2016. Targeting Cleveland would make sense because while it is slightly liberal the state itself is historically moderate-conservative. Another target would be Denver which is recently experiencing backlash against democratic politicians. Nashville is in a historically very religious South and would be open to the faith-based approach. Philadelphia is interesting as it is similar to Cleveland as it is a patriotic blue-collar hard working town that is open to straight talk as long as it is backed up by loyal actions.
1Glaeser, Edward L., Matthew E. Kahn, and Jordan Rappaport.2008. Why do the poor live in cities? The role of public transportation. Journal of Urban Economics 63, no. 1: 1-24. doi:10.1016/j.jue.2006.12.004 Accessed: October 20, 2013 12:05:11 PM EDT
2 2011 . Why Blue Can’t Save The Inner Cities Part I. Walter Russell Mead. The American Interest. Via Meadia. http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/07/17/why-blue-cant-save-the-inner-cities-part-i/ Accessed: October 20, 2013 4:16 PM EDT
http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:2958224
No comments:
Post a Comment