February 18, 2008 by Tom Armstrong.

I link to this video (28 minutes) only for tomorrow’s discussion. I’ll talk about it tomorrow, but if you watch the video, notice what Milton Friedman says about Social Security. Now link his words to today’s discussion of universal health insurance.

Posted in General post | 1 Comment »

February 18, 2008 by Tom Armstrong.

This is the best article of the day, by far.

Posted in General post | 1 Comment »

February 18, 2008 by Tom Armstrong.

Read how lower marginal tax rates can increase tax revenue here.

Posted in General post | No Comments »

February 18, 2008 by Tom Armstrong.

I love reading the ultra-liberal Paul Krugman. Today he discusses poverty, and he even suggests the political right likes to see poor children starve. Let me just say, Krugman is not innocent himself; he takes more than his just share. One only need to look at him to understand this. He’s a good 25% to 30% body fat. If he went on a reasonable diet, we could use that extra food to feed half the poor children west of the Mississippi. There is nothing I loath more than hearing a morbidly obese liberal tell me how I can help others by either living on less or giving more (same thing). M. Moore is another of those people. Neither one of this guys has room to tell anyone how he/she must sacrifice for the good of others, at least not until they each lose no less than 100 pounds.

Anyway, with the personal insults out of the way, let’s look at his data. He says:

L. B. J. declared his “War on Poverty” 44 years ago. Contrary to cynical legend, there actually was a large reduction in poverty over the next few years, especially among children, who saw their poverty rate fall from 23 percent in 1963 to 14 percent in 1969.

But progress stalled thereafter: American politics shifted to the right, attention shifted from the suffering of the poor to the alleged abuses of welfare queens driving Cadillacs, and the fight against poverty was largely abandoned.

In 2006, 17.4 percent of children in America lived below the poverty line, substantially more than in 1969. And even this measure probably understates the true depth of many children’s misery.

Krugman says the poverty rate among children dropped from 23% in 1963 to 14% in 1969, thanks to the LBJ’s war on poverty, of course. But wait one second, what was the trend? Data on the poverty rate dates back to 1959. (Data on the poverty rate can be found here. I took some of my data from this Census report.) Looking at the data, we see the trend in child poverty and overall poverty was dropping since 1959. Child poverty had been closer to 30% in 1959. So it looks to be an expanding economy had more to do with removing children from poverty than did poverty programs, although I’m sure these programs did create dependency for some of the poor–and a reason for them to vote for their caregivers.

I’ve got to run, but I encourage everyone to learn more about poverty and how people like Krugman punish the data to reach the conclusion they are looking for. Krugman never mentions how poverty is measured and how government transfer income is excluded from the calculation. If it were included, the poverty rate would be lower. He never mentions that the poverty rate is calculated on income, and accumulated wealth is not a factor. A very wealthy entrepreneur could have a bad year, and he/she could be included in the poverty statistics. Of course, his/her $10,000,000 in the bank is ignored.

Krugman also does not differentiate between situational and generational poverty. Generational poverty is long term. It’s the type of poverty we should be worried about. The other type of poverty–situational–arises from an individual or family going through a transition. For instance, a banker or engineer loses his job and it takes several months for him to find another one. This can place someone in poverty, but it’s short term. I, like many others, have lived in situational poverty. For example, I was technically living in poverty when I went back to obtain my masters degree. There is also cyclical poverty, but I believe that’s self explanatory. The point is that the poverty rate is not a good measure of people in real, long-term poverty. We are mostly concerned with generational–long term–poverty, and that rate is much lower than the official poverty rate.

Remember, the poor are doing better than they ever have. And income mobility is alive and well in America. A poor man is free to dream and fulfill those dreams in the United States, which is something a poor man or women could not do in the type of society Krugman desires. Our rising tide has lifted all boats. The “poor” today, even the truely poor, enjoy much better housing than existed for even the richest of noblemen hundreds of years ago. They have microwaves, freezers, indoor plumbing, computers, Internet, TVs, DVD players, and much more (yes, even the poorest among us have many of these things–people like Krugman would suggest otherwise but people like Krugman have never known poverty or spent much time around it). These poor people have cars and other transporation means the richest noblemen of hundrends of years ago could have never imagined. The poor also have access the health care (maybe not health insurance), and the equipment used to treat them is the same high-tech equipment used to treat the richest guy in town.

Let me conclude with this tip to Krugman: Yes, poverty is poison, and so is that box of glazed donuts you wolfed down this morning. Don’t tell me how much you care about those in poverty, not when your ass is as wide as a dump truck.  

Update: Krugman says:

“many children growing up in very poor families with low social status experience unhealthy levels of stress hormones, which impair their neural development.” The effect is to impair language development and memory — and hence the ability to escape poverty — for the rest of the child’s life.

Poverty is a relative term, although in the U.S. we base its calculation in absolute terms. Would Krugman agree that poor children raised in the Great Depression did not experience unhealthy levels of stress hormones because so many others were poor as well? I think he might.

He and other liberals, since they understand some people will always be relatively poorer than others, seem to believe making other people poorer is the key to curing poverty. That is, they aim to make some people poorer through income redistribution in order to make some people relatively richer. These equality of outcome routes, however, just make everyone worse off in absolute terms. Their ideas will just lower the tide for all. It’s almost as if they prefer a poor agricultural society, one in which everyone lives in grinding poverty, to one that provides hope and prosperity to almost all people. I prefer hope and prosperity for most to abject poverty for all. The middle class and rich do more than their fair share to aid those who can’t do for themselves, at least when private donations are also considered. That’s not to say we cannot do more. In fact, I believe we should, through private donations. Individuals, non-profit organizations, churches, and others give to those with less. I, however, do not support unconstitutional welfare programs that compel people to relinquish the fruits of labor (i.e. I favor voluntary action of individuals and freedom to state coercion). State welfare programs just crowd out private charities. Like President Bush said in his last State of the Union Address: people like Krugman are free to send checks and money orders to the IRS if they want to do more.  Better yet, send it directly to the poor to avoid overhead expenses.

Posted in General post | 1 Comment »