Paul Lampru responds to my critique of his ongoing praise of socialism by claiming that it’s useful in small quantities, and thus its rise as a core principle in his party is inconsequential. This is called the “Botulinum (Botox) defense.” Anyone who was alive and lucid in the 20th century should know socialism in all forms may be the most toxic legacy of that era, one that created untold human suffering.
Then he changes the subject. He accuses Republicans of “directly caus(ing) an ever-growing degree of income inequality.” He’s claimed in at least three letters that, per the Federal Reserve, “the richest 1% of people have 99% of all the wealth.” Could that possibly be true?
I searched the Federal Reserve website. Despite being presented with 18,464 documents in one search alone, I couldn’t confirm those numbers. The Washington Post (Dec 6, 2017) cites the second number as being 40%. Mr. Lampru seems to be more than an order of magnitude off. Perhaps he can cite a primary source for his “fact-based opinion.”
Here’s the truth: Unemployment rates are, thanks to a president that many despise, at historic lows for the U.S. workforce, especially for minorities. Love him or hate him, Trump has achieved about the most important thing that one could for the poor in less than three years (and despite rabid, unceasing opposition), something Obama didn’t accomplish, with less opposition, in eight.
Many Democrats/progressives/socialists enjoy indicting our nation because poverty persists. In 1964 progressive President Lyndon Johnson declared War on Poverty. Administrations, Democrat and Republican, have come and gone, but all have, in the aggregate, followed the War plan, expending over $22 trillion in pursuit the dream. The result?
The Heritage Foundation tells us what CNN and MSNBC will not: “Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all U.S. military wars since the American Revolution. Yet progress against poverty, as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau, has been minimal, and in terms of President Johnson’s main goal of reducing the “causes” rather than the mere “consequences” of poverty, the War on Poverty has failed completely.”
Our leaders have long known this. Their solution? “If it’s broke ... don’t fix it, fund it more!” Thus a half-century-plus of progressive-driven social injustice: injustice to the poor, to the old, the young, the infirm, the disabled and always to the taxpayer.
I invite every reader, including Mr. Lampru, to take a clear-eyed look at what this colossal social-engineering boondoggle has actually done, and not done, to realize Pres. Johnson’s dream, and then to seek a better approach. Such an approach, if successful, will most certainly draw nothing from Karl Marx.