The 33 States Where Our Tax Dollars Go To Support The Non-Working Class

The Cato Institute released an updated 2016 study showing that welfare benefits pay more than a minimum wage job in 33 American states, and the District of Columbia.

Even worse, welfare pays more than $15 per hour to stay home in 13 states.

According to the study, welfare benefits have increased faster than minimum wage. It’s now more profitable to sit at home and watch TV than it is to earn an honest day’s pay.

Hawaii is the biggest offender, where welfare recipients earn $29.13per hour, or a $60,590 yearly salary for doing nothing.

Here is the list of the states where the pre-tax equivalent “salary” that welfare recipients receive is higher than having a job:

  1. Hawaii : $60,590
  2. District of Columbia :$50,820
  3. Massachusetts : $50,540
  4. Connecticut : $44,370
  5. New York : $43,700
  6. New Jersey : $43,450
  7. Rhode Island : $43,330
  8. Vermont : $42,350
  9. New Hampshire:39,750
  10. Maryland : $38,160
  11. California : $37,160
  12. Oregon : $34,300
  13. Wyoming : $32,620
  14. Nevada : $29,820
  15. Minnesota : $29,350
  16. Delaware : $29,220
  17. Washington : $28,840
  18. North Dakota : $28,830
  19. Pennsylvania : $28,670
  20. New Mexico : $27,900
  21. Montana : $26,930
  22. South Dakota : $26,610
  23. Kansas: $26,490
  24. Michigan : $26,430
  25. Alaska : $26,400
  26. Ohio : $26,200
  27. North Carolina : $25,760
  28. West Virginia : $24,900
  29. Alabama : $23,310
  30. Indiana : $22,900
  31. Missouri : $22,800
  32. Oklahoma : $22,480
  33. Louisiana : $22,250
  34. South Carolina : $21,910

Hawaii, D.C. and Massachusetts pay more in welfare than the average wage their taxpaying citizens earn there.

Is it any wonder that they stay home rather than look for a job. Time for a drastic change. Americans are not stupid.

Note that California is $18.50 an hour. Are we Nuts or what? How do we undo this type of stupidity

Politicians on the Gravy Train

Now if you think paying the unemployed more than the employed s bad, check out these salaries:

  • Salary of retired United States Presidents $180,000 FOR LIFE Salary of House/Senate—$174,000 FOR LIFE.
  • Salary of Speaker of the House $223,500 FOR LIFE!
  • Salary of Majority/Minority Leader $193,400 FOR LIFE!

NOTE: The average Salary of a teacher—$40,065; Average Salary of Soldier DEPLOYED IN AFGHANISTAN—$38,000.

Nancy Pelosi will retire as a Congress Person at $174,000 Dollars a year for LIFE. She will retire as SPEAKER at $223,500 a year Plus she will receive an additional $193,400 a year for when she was Minority Leader, the fact that she has become rich while in office notwithstanding. That’s $803,700 Dollars a year for LIFE including FREE medical which is not available to us, the taxpayers.

She is just one of the hundreds of Senators and Congresspersons that float in and out of Congress every year!

I think we found where the cuts should be made! From the state houses to the White House.

If you agree please share this column with your friends and on your social media sites.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: States Where Welfare Recipients Are Paid More Than Minimum Wage

HARVARD-CAPS HARRIS POLL: Biden Approval Remains at Historic Lows

Voters overwhelmingly believe we are in or headed for a recession. Inflation and affordability are the top issue across the political spectrum.


NEW YORK, NY /PRNewswire/ — Stagwell (NASDAQ: STGW) today released the results of the July Harvard-CAPS Harris Poll, a monthly collaboration between the Center for American Political Studies at Harvard (CAPS) and the Harris Poll, a Stagwell research and insights firm.

Four in ten voters report feeling pessimistic about their lives over the next year in the face of historic inflation levels and data suggest we are looking at another hyper-partisan election cycle. The topics surveyed in this month’s poll include the political impact of Roe vs. Wade, voter views on the Biden administration energy policy, the January 6 hearings, and the 2024 presidential election. Download key results here.

“Democrats can still hold onto hope ahead of the midterms, with the race a dead heat despite President Biden’s approval rating being at a historic low and nearly half of Americans believing the country is currently in a recession,” said Mark Penn, Co-Director of the Harvard-CAPS Harris Poll. “Looking to 2024, most voters are still open to a moderate independent candidate, but among Republicans, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is solidifying his status as the second choice. In these divided times, voters themselves seem to be holding contradictory opinions on issues such as energy policy and Trump’s legal culpability in the January 6 riots.”

GOP ON THE RISE AS ECONOMY STRUGGLES 
  • Biden’s approval remains at a historic low of 38%.
  • 84% think the economy is either in recession or will be within the next year.
  • Perceptions on inflation seem to have peaked slightly: 33% of voters, up from 28% last month, think the U.S. economy is strong today, and inflation – while still the number one issue facing the country – fell 6 points.
  • Approval rating of the Republican Party neared 50 percent for the first time since February 2022 in our poll – now 5 points higher than the Democratic party approval rating.
2022 MIDTERMS ARE IN DEAD HEAT, WITH INFLATION AND ROE VS. WADE AS THE DRIVING CONCERNS
  • The generic Congressional ballot is split 50-50, with Democrats and Republicans voting along party lines; Independents lean with Republicans 54-46
  • Inflation and affordability is overwhelmingly the biggest concerns for both Democrats and Republicans, followed by Abortion Rights for Democrats and Immigration for Republicans
  • Democrats have made little progress mobilizing on abortion so far: 39% of voters, up from 36% in June, say the Supreme Court’s decision has made them more likely to vote for a Democrat in the midterms
VOTERS SEEKING FRESH CHOICES ON THE BALLOT IN 2024
  • Voters are tired of hyper-partisanship: Strong majorities of over 6 in 10 voters don’t want either Joe Biden on Donald Trump to run in 2024
  • A majority open to considering a “moderate independent candidate” in case the choice is between Trump or Biden.
ENERGY POLICIES – VOTERS BLAME BIDEN, ARE SKEPTICAL ABOUT CLIMATE ‘EMERGENCY’ 
  • 59% of voters oppose the Biden administration’s energy and gas policies, and 63% think they are responsible for most of the increase in gas prices
  • 45% think climate change is an immediate threat, including 66% of Democrats and 41% of independents. Voters want the administration to emphasize lower prices and energy independence over climate change.
  • Climate change is an immediate threat to 45% of voters, including 66% of Democrats and 41% of independents
  • Voters are wary of the climate issue being politicized: Only four in ten say that an emergency climate declaration by the Biden administration would be legitimate
JAN 6. HEARINGS & ELECTORAL COUNT – VOTERS SPLIT ON DETAILS BUT WANT COUNTRY TO MOVE ON
  • Voters are split on how and whether Trump should be held responsible: 53% of voters think Trump should face criminal indictment for his actions on January 6, but 54% think he should be allowed to run for president again.
  • Nevertheless, 69% think it is time to unite the country and heal.
  • Voters are split 50-50 on whether Congress should be involved in certifying presidential elections instead of the courts. Still, clear majorities believe the role of the Vice President and state governors should be purely ceremonial.
THE U.S. ON A GLOBAL STAGE – TAIWAN 
  • 48% of voters think Taiwan is neutral towards the U.S., 36% think it is an ally, and 16% think it is an enemy
  • 52% of voters support senior U.S. government officials visiting Taiwan even if China has signaled it might act military to prevent them from doing so—surprisingly, 59% of Democrats support it, over 10 points higher than Republicans and Independents.

The July Harvard-CAPS Harris Poll survey was conducted online within the United States from July 27-28, 2022, among 1,885 registered voters by The Harris Poll and HarrisX. Follow the Harvard CAPS Harris Poll podcast at https://www.markpennpolls.com/ or on iHeart Radio, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and other podcast platforms.

About The Harris Poll

The Harris Poll is a global consulting and market research firm that strives to reveal the authentic values of modern society to inspire leaders to create a better tomorrow. It works with clients in three primary areas: building twenty-first-century corporate reputation, crafting brand strategy and performance tracking, and earning organic media through public relations research. One of the longest-running surveys in the U.S., The Harris Poll has tracked public opinion, motivations, and social sentiment since 1963, and is now part of Stagwell, the challenger holding company built to transform marketing.

About the Harvard Center for American Political Studies

The Center for American Political Studies (CAPS) is committed to and fosters the interdisciplinary study of U.S. politics. Governed by a group of political scientists, sociologists, historians, and economists within the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard University, CAPS drives discussion, research, public outreach, and pedagogy about all aspects of U.S. politics. CAPS encourages cutting-edge research using a variety of methodologies, including historical analysis, social surveys, and formal mathematical modeling, and it often cooperates with other Harvard centers to support research training and encourage cross-national research about the United States in comparative and global contexts. More information at https://caps.gov.harvard.edu/.

About Stagwell

Stagwell is the challenger network built to transform marketing. We deliver scaled creative performance for the world’s most ambitious brands, connecting culture-moving creativity with leading-edge technology to harmonize the art and science of marketing. Led by entrepreneurs, our 12,000+ specialists in 34+ countries are unified under a single purpose: to drive effectiveness and improve business results for their clients. Join us at www.stagwellglobal.com.

©All rights reserved.

Biden and Manchin Building America Backward

Say it ain’t so, Joes!

In 2010, when it looked like Senator Manchin could lose reelection to Republican John Raese, Manchin released a famous ad in which he literally shoots a hole in a climate cap and trade bill.

Watch: Dead Aim.

As a Senator from the energy producing state of West Virginia, he has been looked to as a protector of sound energy and a bulwark against wasteful global warming policy.

Not anymore.  Senator Manchin cut a quiet deal with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and the climate bad news is back.

Sadly, Joe Biden and Joe Manchin’s “Inflation Reduction Act” will do nothing to reduce inflation.

This massive spending bill will, however, stick us with “more inflation, more debt, more supply chain issues, more energy shortages, more blackouts” as CFACT’s Marc Morano explained on the Joe Piscopo show.

The bill spends over $351 billion on the Left’s climate agenda.  This will damage America’s energy economy, while having no meaningful impact on global temperature.  China and India’s increasing emissions alone make Biden’s climate ideology more than completely useless.

It will also weaponize the IRS by showering 45.6 billion dollars onto America’s favorite tax collector to be used to hire tens of thousands of auditors to shake down the middle class.  Or as the Wall Street Journal put it, the IRS is about to go beast mode.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine exposed decades of bad European energy policy.  The inability of wind and solar to replace energy from nuclear and fossil fuels made European nations dependent on Russian coal and natural gas.

Peter Caddle reports at Breitbart that the Prime Minister of Saxony, a German state, has declared his nation’s Energiewende, or energy transition, a failure.

“The energy transition with gas as the base load has failed,” he reportedly said, with the publication noting that — even before the current gas crisis — green energy struggled to supply sufficient power in the country last winter…“As long as the federal government has not developed a new concept for the energy transition, the nuclear power plants must continue to run.”

Europe exposed the folly of left-wing energy policy.

Biden didn’t learn.  Manchin caved.

AUTHOR

Craig Rucker

Craig Rucker is a co-founder of CFACT and currently serves as its president.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Joe Biden Denies Medicaid Funds to Moms of Newborn Babies, Uses Them to Fund Abortions

Kamala Harris Slams Pro-Life Americans: They’re “Extremists” Who Hate Women

EDITORS NOTE: This CFACT column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Why Joe Manchin Flip Flopped!

Makes deal to raise taxes and dump billions into climate change cesspool!


Sen. Joe Manchin III on Wednesday announced that he had reached a deal with Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer on a party-line bill to raise taxes and spend on climate change and health care programs.

The talks between the two Democrats were believed to have died weeks ago when Mr. Manchin, from the coal- and natural gas-producing state of West Virginia, said he would not support climate and energy provisions after months of negotiations because of inflation concerns.

The deal announced Wednesday mirrors what Mr. Manchin said he would not support, including increased taxes on large corporations and wealthy individuals.

His office rejected the characterization that the deal marked a reversal.

“Last week @Sen_JoeManchin repeatedly said he wasn’t walking away from the table and he understood the importance of these negotiations,” Manchin spokesperson Sam Runyon tweeted. “Today’s announcement is not a reversal of anything.”

The legislation, which Senate Democrats plan to pass in a party-line vote next week, would be a long-sought win for Mr. Biden. Most of his agenda went down in flames because of Mr. Manchin’s opposition to tax-and-spend bills, including Mr. Biden’s roughly $2 trillion social welfare and climate bill known as Build Back Better.

©Conservatives Commando Radio and AUNTVN. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: House Republicans Release Plan To Secure Southern Border If They Win Midterms

Despite Leadership Opposition, 24 Republicans Help Send CHIPS Package To Biden’s Desk

The House of Representatives passed the $280 billion semiconductor chip and scientific research and development package on Thursday afternoon, sending the legislation to President Joe Biden’s desk.

Despite opposition from GOP leadership, 24 Republicans joined 219 Democrats in supporting the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022. All 187 “no” votes on the legislation came from Republicans, while Democratic California Rep. Sara Jacobs, whose family founded chip-maker Qualcomm, voted present.

The bill’s companion legislation passed the Senate on Wednesday afternoon, with seventeen Republican votes in support. Republican leader Mitch McConnell had threatened to filibuster the funding following reports that Senate Democrats had renewed negotiations on an infrastructure package, but ultimately voted in favor of the bill. Later Wednesday evening, Democratic West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin announced that he would support a reconciliation package, leading House Republicans to oppose the subsidy package.

“This legislation comes to the House precisely as Senate Democrats have allegedly struck a deal on their partisan reconciliation bill, pairing up a tone-deaf agenda that on one hand gives billions away in corporate handouts, and on the other hand undoes historic tax cuts implemented by Republicans,” Minority Whip Steve Scalise wrote in a memo urging Republicans to vote against the package.

The CHIPS and Science Act includes $52 billion in subsidies for domestic semiconductor manufacturers, and $200 billion for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) research. The $200 billion includes grants to the National Science Foundation, as well as cash for schools to increase their STEM curriculum offerings.

“This final product is a result of months of bipartisan negotiations. It is also the result of dedicated efforts and long hours put in by the committee’s staff,” Democratic Texas Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, the bill’s lead sponsor, said in a floor speech. The provisions “that form this package are vital to ensuring a bold and prosperous future for American science and innovation, maintaining our international competitiveness, and bolstering our economic and national security.”

AUTHOR

MICHAEL GINSBERG

Congressional reporter.

RELATED ARTICLE: EXCLUSIVE: Bipartisan Group Of Reps Propose Semiconductor Supply Chain Review

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Fauci’s NIAID Spent Nearly $500,000 ‘to Turn Monkeys Transgender’

Unimaginable cruelty in pursuit of foul leftist propaganda. The left really thinks they are G-d. They will be punished.

Fauci’s NIAID Spent Nearly $500,000 ‘to Turn Monkeys Transgender’

The shocking experiments were covered in the organization’s annual Where’s The Pork report, but were originally uncovered in January by The National Pulse. According to the report, “Fauci’s agency awarded grants totaling $478,188 in Fiscal Years 2021 and 2022 to inject hormones into male monkeys to make them female.”

The experiments were said to be an effort to understand why transgender “women” experience higher rates of HIV.

“Scientists planned to evaluate how the injected hormones altered the males’ immune systems to determine if feminizing hormones had an adverse effect on the strength of immune systems. If so, researchers believed this weakening of the immune system could be responsible for their increased likelihood of becoming HIV positive,” the National Pulse reported.

According to a report from the Daily Telegraph, Fauci has been linked to research injecting monkeys with HIV dating back to the mid-1980s.

AUTHOR

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Testimony to House Ways and Means: Government Policies are Responsible for the American Housing Crisis

On July 13th I testified to the House Ways and Means Committee on the Building Back Better Act. I explained how the bill’s funding proposals will double down on past failed policies, fuel inflation, and once again place low-income and minority households in harm’s way.

You can find the executive summary in this email and on the Housing Center website here and read the full testimony here. 

Government Policies are Responsible for the American Housing Crisis that is Crowding Lower Income Households Out of the Housing Market

House Committee on Ways and Means

Chairman Neal and Ranking Member Brady, and distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

Executive Summary:

The housing market is changing and the real culprit is a massive house price boom fueled by federal housing and monetary policies, which is increasingly crowding out lower-income Americans out of the housing market.

The current single-family housing boom, which began in 2012, was entirely foreseeable and was first noted by the AEI Housing Center in 2013. Since then, the housing market has been marked by too much demand chasing too little supply. Yet the policy response has been to boost demand even more: Federal housing agencies have loosened underwriting and the Fed has pursued zero interest rates and multiple rounds of quantitative easing, continuing even when the housing market began to appreciate at 16% in July 2021. In May 2022, home price gains were 17% and are only now expected to slow down as the Fed reverses these policies.

As a result, homeownership has gotten further out of reach for many lower-income and minority Americans. Consider that since 2012 wages have grown by 38%, but entry-level home prices have increased about 160%.[1]

This out-of-control price spiral means increased competition for fewer and fewer affordable homes. Potential entry-level buyers are increasingly pushed to the sidelines as they cannot afford to compete with more deep pocketed individuals, who experience the same competition, but higher up the price spectrum.

This is creating knock-off effects for people downstream. Left unable to buy a home, they remain in the rental pool, helping to drive up rents, which are now increasing at 16% nationwide. Many who cannot afford these rent hikes will be pushed into homelessness.

If that were not enough, inflation is now running between 8% and 9% and a Gallup survey from Jun. 1-20, 2022 finds that the Gallup Economic Confidence Index is now at its lowest level since 2009[2]

Inflation is a regressive tax and getting by – not to mention building savings to buy a home – is becoming increasingly difficult. Thus, misguided policies have severely hamstrung lower-income Americans, in particular minorities, who severely lag White Americans in homeownership and intergenerational wealth. If they can no longer reach the first rung of the housing ladder, how will they ever catch up?

The solutions are straightforward.

First, do not repeat the mistakes of the past.

Congress has undertaken 70 years of efforts involving many trillions of dollars in program expenditures, tax benefits, and government guaranteed financing. Yet neither the goal of making owner-occupied and rental homes affordable for low-income households, nor the goal of achieving generational wealth for low-income homeowners have been met.

The Build Back Better Act (BBBA) provides $184 billion in new housing related program expenditures, confirming that we have not learned from these failures.

As a cautionary tale, let’s examine the Housing and Community Development Act of 1968 and its aftermath.  By 1975 its devastating inflationary impact and ineffectiveness were clear as these two books so forcefully document.

The first, “Cities Destroyed for Cash: The FHA Scandal at HUD”, was written by a reporter at the Detroit Free Press in 1973. As the title indicates, in the aftermath of the 1968 act, neighborhood after neighborhood was ruined as they were “FHA’d”. Many of these neighborhoods have yet to recover.

The second, “Housing Markets and Congressional Goals” (1975), was written by Ernest Fisher, one of the nation’s leading housing economists for 50 years. Fisher noted that the 1968 act and its goals “were unrealistic as a quota of production, and…were inappropriate and would probably prove as disappointing as had many of the programs presented to and adopted by Congress over the past two and a half decades.”

He observed:

[f]rom 1967 to 1971…the Boeckh index of cost of residential construction rose by nearly 33%, and the average sales price of new houses purchased with the assistance of FHA mortgage insurance rose by 28%, from $18,611 in 1967 to $23,835 in 1971.

[Expanding leverage] so as to make home purchase “possible for lower income prospective purchasers” may bring greater profits and wages to builders, building suppliers, and building labor rather than assisting lower-income households compete in the market.

There you have it: the 1968 act led to neighborhood ruination, scandal, housing inflation, and government profit seeking.

In my view, BBBA would have the same unrealistic and disappointing results.

Next, with regard to zoning, the federal government has again had a sordid past. The federal government back in 1921 led a national effort to implement exclusionary zoning and land use policies designed to make newly built homes too expensive for racial and ethnic groups to afford and we are still living with the consequences.

There is no denying that we need more market rate supply. But subsidies and easy credit are not the solutions. There is a growing consensus that to make housing more affordable we must increase supply, not ease credit or increase government subsidies or suppress interest rates. In order to stop the price spiral that is pricing lower-income Americans out of the housing market and driving up rents we need more market-rate supply. Let me add, zoning and land use policies are fundamentally a state and local issue and should be addressed at those levels. We are already seeing promise across the country, even in California, where the legislature has recently passed laws, which could meaningfully encourage new construction activity.

Next, federal policies to boost demand have been shown to be counterproductive. The Fed has belatedly realized that it needs to tighten the monetary spigot. But its policies have already done a lot of damage and will continue to haunt lower income Americans in the form of higher home prices, inflation, and rents for years to come.

The compounding effect of these changes will mean less resiliency for borrowers and neighborhoods, many of which are lower-income and minority, to withstand an economic stress event. With many economic dangers from rising interest rates, inflation, and sky-high home prices, lurking, regulators should do more to protect borrowers and taxpayers, rather than lowering lending standards. We have seen this movie before and we should not allow it to happen again.

What should be done beyond state and local actions to add to supply? Congress should set a policy goal of reliably building sustainable generational wealth for lower-income and minority Americans.  Build intergenerational wealth and neighborhood and borrower resiliency by reducing the loan term to 20- or 15-years on high-risk loans (Low-Income First Time Homebuyers (LIFT Home)):[3]

  • The FHA should implement Low-Income First Time Homebuyers (LIFT Home) for low-income, first-time, first-generation home buyers.[4]
  • The GSEs should implement the Wealth Building Home Loan to reduce risk to taxpayers and to encourage borrowers to build equity.[5]
  • Congress should consider funding the Low-Income First-Time Homebuyer tax credit (LIFT Home).[6]S. Senator Mark R. Warner (D-VA) and colleagues in 2021 introduced the Low-Income First Time Homebuyers (LIFT) Act to establish a new program to help first-time, first-generation homebuyers – predominately Americans of color – build wealth much more rapidly.  By offering new homeowners a 20-year mortgage for roughly the same monthly payment as a traditional 30-year loan, LIFT will allow them to grow equity twice as fast.[7]

Find the executive summary on the Housing Center website here and read the full testimony here. 


Footnotes:

[1] https://www.epi.org/nominal-wage-tracker/ and https://www.aei.org/housing

[2] https://news.gallup.com/poll/148613/economic-confidence-sinks-lowest-level-march.aspx

[3] Wealth Building Home Loan and LIFT Home

[4] LIFT loans should be structured as an interest rate buy down on a 20-year loan made to first-generation homebuyers, rather than down payment assistance. The rate buy down, combined with a slightly lower rate due to the shorter term, along with a lower mortgage insurance cost, allows LIFT Home to have the same buying power as a 30-year loan. For the rate buy down, assistance should be provided as compensation to HUD/Rural Housing/Treasury for buying a below market yield Ginnie MBS.

[5] Applies the same concepts as LIFT Home, but runs through conventional loans and without federal subsidy.

[6] BBBA provided $5 billion for Lift Home.

[7] https://www.warner.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2021/9/warner-colleagues-introduce-legislation-to-assist-first

SURVEY: Women Voters 50+ Say Inflation and Rising Costs Will Influence their Vote in 2022

HARRISBURG, Pa./PRNewswire/ —  A new survey from AARP Pennsylvania reveals that the priorities and concerns of women voters age 50 and older will influence the outcome of the 2022 midterm elections.  Women 50-plus make up a significant share of the 2022 electorate in Pennsylvania.  They account for one-third (32%) of likely voters overall, and more than half (53%) of likely voters 50-plus.

New data from the survey shows women voters 50-plus are heading into the 2022 general election worried about pocketbook issues with gas prices (49%) and food costs (27%) at the top of their inflation concerns.  The survey also points out that several of AARP’s core issues – protecting Social Security (90%) and Medicare (83%) – are extremely or very important to these influential voters. Further, 79% say that the country is on the wrong track and a significant majority (87%) indicate that they are “extremely motivated” to vote in the 2022 general election.

“There are two things those running for office need to know about women voters 50-plus: They vote, and they’re influential,” said Bill Johnston-Walsh, AARP Pennsylvania State Director. “Nearly 37 million women voters over 50 cast a ballot in the 2018 midterms — that’s 30% of all Americans who showed up at the polls. Today, with the prices of groceries, gas and prescription drugs skyrocketing, women voters in Pennsylvania want to see solutions.”

Among women voters 50-plus, Attorney General Josh Shapiro (D) leads State Senator Doug Mastriano (R), 55% to 41%. John Fetterman (D), the Lieutenant Governor, leads Mehmet Oz (R), 56% to 40% in the open race for U.S. Senate. Both Democratic candidates hold their overall narrow leads (3 percentage points in the Governor’s race, and 6 percentage points in the Senate race) in part due to support from women 50+.

The survey found that the top issues for Pennsylvania women voters over 50 include:

  • 94% are more likely to vote for a U.S. Senate candidate who supports protecting Social Security from cuts to workers’ earned benefits;
  • 94% are more likely to vote for a U.S. Senate candidate who supports protecting Medicare from cuts and ensure America’s seniors get the healthcare they need;
  • 93% are more likely to vote for U.S. Senate candidate who supports allowing Medicare to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices;
  • 91% are more likely to support a candidate for governor who will provide funding to allow seniors needing daily support to receive care at home rather than having to enter a costly nursing home;
  • 87% are more likely to support a candidate for governor who will protect low-income older Pennsylvanians from property tax increases; and
  • 70% are more likely to vote for a gubernatorial candidate who supports creating Keystone Saves, so that they have an option to contribute a portion of their paychecks to their retirement. Currently, 2 in 5 Pennsylvania workers do not have access to a retirement savings program through their employer.

Earlier in 2022, AARP’s “She’s the Difference” poll conducted by GOP pollsters Kristen Soltis Anderson and Chris Matthews, and Democratic pollsters Celinda Lake and Margie Omero, found similar results. By more than a two-to-one margin, women voters over 50 want a politician who is willing to work together to get things done — even if the result is an occasional compromise that goes against voters’ values (67%) — over a politician who consistently fights for their values but doesn’t often find a solution (30%). This finding remains consistent across party identifications, with 77% of Democratic women and 57% of Republican women preferring a politician who compromises, while 21% of Democratic women and 40% of Republican women prefer a values-oriented politician.

AARP commissioned Fabrizio Ward and Impact Research to conduct this survey. The firms interviewed 1,382 likely Pennsylvania voters, which includes a statewide representative sample of 500 likely voters, with an oversample of up to 550 likely voters age 50 and older, and an oversample of up to 332 African-American/Black likely voters age 50 and older. The survey was conducted between June 12-19 via landline, cellphone, and SMS-to-web. The margin of error for the 500 statewide sample is ±4.4%; for the 855 total sample of voters 50+ it is ±3.3%. View the full survey results.

For more information on how, when and where to vote in Pennsylvania, visit aarp.org/PAvotes.

About AARP

AARP is the nation’s largest nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to empowering people 50 and older to choose how they live as they age. With a nationwide presence and nearly 38 million members, AARP strengthens communities and advocates for what matters most to families: health security, financial stability and personal fulfillment. AARP also produces the nation’s largest circulation publications: AARP The Magazine and AARP Bulletin. To learn more, visit www.aarp.orgwww.aarp.org/espanol or follow @AARP@AARPenEspanol @AARPadvocates and @AliadosAdelante on social media.

©PRNewswire. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘A Definite Slowdown’: Business Owners Say They’re Already Seeing Signs Of Recession

Biden is solely responsible for sabotaging the US economy and energy sector

VIDEO: Ten Minute Lesson on the Nature of Money

I was sent this by a gentleman who has a financial magazine read by some of the top people in finance. This is not my field and am uncomfortable even thinking about it in some ways. But I am reliably informed by a few people now, that there is truth in this world view, and profundity. In fact, this is not the usual video about how things work or what to invest in, so much is its an attempt to explain an entire world view about how money is created and destroyed, what wealth is, and so on. I plan to watch it a few more times and hopefully develop an understanding that gives me some predictive ability.

To the extent that I get it now, it doesn’t necessarily change much. It still appears that we are moving from a more or less credit driven free market system into what might be a more controlled feudal system. I dunno. Hopefully this offers insight. Looking forward to the comments on this.

EDITORS NOTE: This Vlad Tepes Blog column by  Eeyore is republished with permission.

U.S. Devotes $195 Mil to ‘Redress the Legacy of Harm’ in Racist Transportation Infrastructure

In the Biden administration’s latest racial equity project, American taxpayers will spend $195 million to help connect minority communities that are cut off from economic opportunities by racist transportation infrastructure. The costly plan is known as Reconnecting Communities Pilot (RCP) and it is part of the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) “Equity Strategy Goal to reduce inequities” across the nation’s transportation systems and the communities they effect. In its announcement, the DOT writes that “preference will be given to applications from economically disadvantaged communities, especially those with projects that are focused on equity and environmental justice, have strong community engagement and stewardship, and a commitment to shared prosperity and equitable development.” The language sounds like material found in a communist manifesto.

DOT Secretary Pete Buttigieg justifies the investment by explaining that “transportation can connect us to jobs, services, and loved ones, but we‘ve also seen countless cases around the country where a piece of infrastructure cuts off a neighborhood or a community because of how it was built.” RCP is the first-ever initiative funded by the federal government that is completely dedicated to unifying neighborhoods living with the impacts of infrastructure that divides them, Buttigieg adds. It will help reconnect communities that are cut off from economic opportunities by what the administration seems to claim is a racist transportation infrastructure. In fact, the lengthy grant announcement states that the multi-million-dollar community reconnection program “seeks to redress the legacy of harm caused by transportation infrastructure.” The “harm” includes barriers to opportunity, displacement, damage to the environment and public health, limited access and “other hardships,” according to the document.

In pursuit of redressing the legacy of harm, RCP “will support and engage economically disadvantaged communities to increase affordable, accessible, and multimodal access to daily destinations like jobs, healthcare, grocery stores, schools, places of worship, recreation, and park space,” the administration writes in the grant announcement. Thus, the new program will be implemented in line with a multitude of other federal initiatives launched by a 2021 Biden executive order to advance racial equity and support for underserved communities through the federal government. Besides the DOT’s Equity Action Plan, the agency grant document identifies them as federal actions to address environmental justice in minority and low-income populations, affordable housing in the nation’s most desirable neighborhoods and a program to strengthen the economy through the creation of good-paying jobs with the free and fair choice to join a union, strong labor standards, and workforce programs. There are many more that were left out of the RCP document.

In the last year, key federal agencies have implemented racial equity plans as per Biden’s order. The Department of Justice (DOJ) created a special initiative to advance equity for marginalized and underserved communities. The Department of Labor (DOL) dedicated $260 million to promote “equitable access” to government unemployment benefits by addressing disparities in the administration and delivery of money by race ethnicity and language proficiency. The Treasury Department named its first ever racial equity chief, a veteran La Raza official who spent a decade at the nation’s most influential open borders group. The Department of Defense (DOD) is using outrageous anti-bias materials that indoctrinate troops with anti-American and racially inflammatory training on diversity topics. The U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) created an equity commission to address longstanding inequities in agriculture. The nation’s medical research agency has a special minority health and health disparities division that recently issued a study declaring COVID-19 exacerbated preexisting resentment against racial/ethnic minorities and marginalized communities. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) recently hired a Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer even though most of its employees come from “underrepresented racial and ethnic groups.” Just a few days ago Judicial Watch reported that the administration is spending $6 million to advance racial equity in the government’s food-stamp program that already serves a large minority population.

EDITORS NOTE: This Judicial Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Monmouth Poll Reveals What’s Most Important to 2022 Voters — It’s the economy, stupid!

It’s not what you think.

Monmouth Poll Reveals What’s Most Important to 2022 Voters – You Won’t Believe What Outranks Abortion

By: Mike Vance, Daily Patriot Report, July 5, 2022

With the recent response to the overturning of Roe v. Wade, you would think that abortion/reproductive rights would be at the top of what’s most important to 2022 voters. Well, it turns out that is not the case, according to a Monmouth poll.

The top three issues at the top of the poll are inflation at 33%, gas prices at 15% and the economy at 9%.

Going down the list the next thing is everyday bills, groceries etc. at 6% and it’s followed by abortion/reproductive rights at 5%. If you look at the bottom of the poll results, you can see there is another issue that’s viewed as more important than abortion.

“I don’t know” checks in at 6%. That’s right, there are more people that don’t know what is important to them as a 2022 voter than there are people who prioritize abortion/reproductive healthcare.

Take a look:

This poll also resulted in an all-time low approval rating for President Joe Biden at 36% and 58% of people disapproving of him. The poll also marks a full year since his approval rating was greater than his disapproval rating.

Read the rest…..

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

We are living through a Communist revolution

CA Gov. Newsom Bans State Workers From Traveling to Certain States, Then Prances Off To Vacation In One of Them

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

New York’s Dem Governor Urges Biden To Use Military Bases For Abortions

Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul on Friday urged the Biden administration to consider opening up military bases for abortions to women living in states that heavily restrict the procedure, ABC News reported.

Since military bases are considered federal lands, Hochul argued in a virtual meeting with President Joe Biden that federal law would allow them to override state bans, according to ABC. Her suggestion heeds widespread outcries from  Democratic politicians about loss of women’s rights following the Supreme Court’s decision on June 24 overturning Roe V. Wade.

“Veterans hospitals, military bases and other places where the federal government controls the jurisdiction in some of the states that are hostile to women’s rights” could “make sure that those services can be available to other women” not publicly employed, Hochul said, according to ABC.

Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico, also in the meeting, floated the idea of using Indian Health Service clinics and tribal territory, where state law does not govern, as alternatives to private abortion facilities, ABC reported.

Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren stated that the U.S. government should plant abortion facilities on the outskirts of national parks on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” Sunday and in a Washington Post interview Monday.

Health and Human Services secretary Xavier Becerra said Tuesday that “every option is on the table” regarding abortion access, but the agency would “have a conversation with the president to make sure we implement his directives”

The White House, while agreeing with the Democratic leaders on the supposed need for comprehensive reproductive healthcare availability for all, said on Tuesday putting abortion centers on government-owned property could have “dangerous ramifications.”

Currently, however, federal facilities, including military bases, can only perform abortions in the case of rape, incest or where the life of the mother is in danger due to the Hyde Amendment, which prevents taxpayer dollars from funding elective abortions.

The House Appropriations Committee approved amendments to the fiscal year 2023 funding bill Thursday that would repeal the Hyde Amendment, allowing federal medical centers to perform abortions to the degree Congress decides, according to a press release.

“The bill eliminates the Hyde and Weldon amendments, a long-standing discriminatory policy that denied low-income women their legal right to an abortion,” the bill summary stated.

Hochul’s office and the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies did not respond to The Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

AUTHOR

MICAELA BURROW

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Just Days After Roe Reversal, Abortion Is Already Banned In Almost A Quarter Of America

ESPN’s Elle Duncan Pushes Fathers To Be Pro-Abortion To Support Their Daughters

‘We Need Two More Votes’: Biden Calls Out Manchin And Sinema For Not Rolling Over On Filibuster

‘All They Do Is Virtue Signal’: Daily Caller’s Kay Smythe Says Politicians Are ‘Failed Actors’ Seeking Popularity

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Why Do The Woke Hate Clarence Thomas So Much?

Justice Clarence Thomas, being African American, is seen as a traitor to the woke cause.


After the overturning of Roe v Wade, Justice Clarence Thomas has been a particular target of venomous attack from the woke mob. Why do they hate him so much? One might be forgiven for thinking that it is due to his staunch anti-abortion views. But that explanation does not work.

Pope Francis has long expressed that opposing abortion is “closely linked to the defense of each and every other human right”, and yet, the Left is not obsessed with him (in fact, many even take a liking). At some point, even Joe Biden supported letting States overturn Roe v Wade, and again, the Left did not go ballistic on him.

Not behaving as expected

So, why the animus against Thomas? There can only be one explanation: race. In 1991, as he was accused of sexually harassing Anita Hill, Thomas countered that he was the victim of “a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you.”

This was loose talk, as it trivialised the suffering of real lynching victims in America’s troubled history of race relations. But Thomas did have a point in arguing that in the United States, any black person who dares to deviate from the official narrative of how blacks are supposed to act, will face severe harassment.

In 1991, he anticipated a trend that would become mainstream in our times: if you are born with a particular skin colour, you are supposed to behave in a certain way, and uphold a specific ideology. If not, you are a race traitor. As Biden so neatly phrased it:

“[I]f you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.”

Any competent scholar of the history of racism would immediately recognise this as race essentialism. As Angelo Corlett explains in his book Race, Racism and Reparations,
“proponents of race essentialism define human races by a set of genetic or cultural traits shared by all members of a ‘racial’ group.”

Who are the neo-Nazis now?

In the first half of the 20th Century, this view was popular amongst proponents of so-called “racial science”. They believed that racial biological traits determine how people behave. Hitler believed that no matter how much a person with Jewish ancestry tried to assimilate to German society (even converting to another religion), he or she would still be a dangerous Jew, because it was in his or her essence.

Race essentialism is abhorrent, and one might think that after 1945, the world learned a lesson. And yet, race essentialism is alive and kicking, but this time, under the guise of woke progressivism. As per today’s woke rules, if you are black, you must embrace the whole woke mindset.

White people (such as Pope Francis) may occasionally be forgiven for having anti-abortion views, but if you are black and you deviate from the woke line (such as Clarence Thomas), you are a race traitor, an Uncle Tom. Unsurprisingly, Thomas has been called “Uncle Clarence” multiple times.

If you are black, not only do you have to act a certain way, but you must also have a special sexual preference. The woke pay lip service to interracial relationships, but amongst them there is a sense of unease when they contemplate a successful black man marrying a white woman.

For example, when Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States, USA Today columnist Barbara Reynolds wrote: “Here’s a man who’s going to decide crucial issues for the country and he has already said no to blacks; he has already said if he can’t paint himself white he’ll think white and marry a white woman.” Russell Adams, chairman of African American studies at Howard University, said that Thomas “marrying a white woman is a sign of his rejection of the black community.”

Truly racist

Frantz Fanon is a figure beloved by the Left. In 1952, he published Black Skin, White Masks, a canonical text of wokeness. In that book, he also scorns black men who fall in love with white women. Fanon castigates himself for, at some point, having had these thoughts: “Out of the blackest part of my soul, across the zebra striping of my mind, surges this desire to be suddenly white. I wish to be acknowledged not as black but as white… I marry white culture, white beauty, white whiteness.” The implication of this passage is that loving a white woman is an act of racial treason.

Fanon felt disdain for black people who embraced Western values. He claimed they were wearing white masks, as if somehow, they were deviating from their real essence, and were therefore living an inauthentic life. Therefore — so Fanon believed — Western civilisation must be rejected entirely. As he explained in The Wretched of the Earth“When the colonized hear a speech on Western culture, they draw their machetes or at least check to see they are close to hand.” He who admires Western values is a sellout.

Ever since Fanon, racial essentialism in the name of progress has only grown worse. People of color are now encouraged not to honour punctuality, because being on time is part of whiteness. Black kids who are academically talented run the risk of being told they are “acting white”. Analysing things objectively is an act of white supremacy. And so on.

Consequently, Clarence Thomas is not allowed to have anti-abortion views. Nobody cares about his anti-abortion arguments, because he is not supposed to make them in the first place. Other jurists, philosophers or theologians will be allowed to oppose abortion, but only if they are white. Thomas is hated not because of his views, but because of his skin colour. He upsets the arbitrary racial classifications that the woke are so eager to embrace.

As per woke taxonomy, black people cannot be conservative, and if they are, they are only wearing a “white mask”. To paraphrase the late Christopher Hitchens, “identity politics poisons everything”. We can no longer have a meaningful discussion about anything as vital as the ontological status of a fetus, because the race of the discussants will determine who is allowed to uphold a particular view. It’s time to push back against this madness.

AUTHOR

Gabriel Andrade

Gabriel Andrade is a university professor originally from Venezuela. He writes about politics, philosophy, history, religion and psychology. More by Gabriel Andrade

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Biden Administration Invests $6 Mil to Advance Racial Equity in Food Stamp Program

The Biden administration is spending millions of taxpayer dollars to advance racial equity in the government’s bloated, multi-billion-dollar food-stamp program that already serves a large minority population. A record 45 million people receive the welfare benefit, according to the latest figures published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), at a cost of about $80 billion. This month the administration announced it is investing $6 million to fund data projects centered on identifying inequities in the food stamp program, which was rebranded Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) by the Obama administration to eliminate the welfare stigma.

The costly project is known as SNAP E&T Data and Technical Assistance (DATA) and its mission is to help states make data-driven decisions to advance equity in the food stamp program. “Throughout the United States, systemic barriers for historically underserved communities have, historically and to this day, led to significant barriers to education, training, and full participation in the labor market,” the Biden administration writes in the grant announcement. “SNAP E&T programs are primed to be leaders in promoting equitable (i.e. race, gender, geographic, sexual orientation, religion, etc.) access to good jobs and sustained family-supporting wages in high-demand career fields for those from historically underserved groups; as measured by educational attainment, households that participate in the SNAP program are the least well-off in the labor market.”

For those unfamiliar with term equity, the document identifies it in a long-winded footnote as the “consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who belong to underserved communities that have been denied such treatment, such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality.” The USDA’s Food and Nutrition Services (FNS) plans to support and invest in projects to help states make data-driven decision to advance equity in SNAP programs, the announcement says.

The data complied under the project will help look inwardly at state policy and operational decisions to identify if they have impacts on equitable program participation, according to the grant document. It will look outwardly to build an understanding of the environment in which food stamp recipients and programs operate that may lead to inequitable outcomes for participants of various identities, backgrounds, and geographic locations. Advancing the ability of states to use data to improve and maintain equitable access and outcomes for all participants is the ultimate goal. Once the data has been gathered, it will be analyzed to understand opportunities or disparities for historically underserved communities, the grant document states. It will also incorporate individual, community, political and historical contexts of race, gender, sexual identity, disability status and geographic location to inform recommendations. Appropriate measures will then be developed that allow states to make accurate and timely decisions related to program policies and operations to advance equity as well as equitable participation and outcomes for food stamp recipients.

Last year the USDA launched a Racial Justice and Equity Working Group to address the agency’s “history of systemic discrimination via policies and programs designed to benefit those with access, education, assets, privilege rather than for those without.” A few weeks later the USDA dedicated $1 billion to bring healthy food to underserved minority communities. The allocation is part of a multi-trillion-dollar Biden administration initiative called Build Back Better to supposedly “rescue” and “rebuild” the country by, among other things, tackling racial injustice and inequity. “Black and Latino Americans, Native Americans, immigrants, and women have never been welcomed as full participants in the economy,” according to a White House document outlining the plan. The initiative is broad and features a three-part agenda that includes promoting food stamps. “There is extra money available for food,” Build Back Better assures, encouraging the public to apply for SNAP.

EDITORS NOTE: This Judicial Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

There is No Such Thing as Trickle-Down Economics

The point is not to transfer wealth up and down but rather to create universal opportunity.


Critics of liberalism and the market economy have made a long-standing habit of inventing terms we would never use to describe ourselves. The most common of these is “neo-liberal” or “neo-liberalism,” which appears to mean whatever the critics wish it to mean to describe ideas they don’t like. To the extent the terms have clear definitions, they certainly don’t align with the actual views of defenders of markets and liberal society.

Trickle Down

Another related term is “trickle-down economics.” People who argue for tax cuts, less government spending, and more freedom for people to produce and trade what they think is valuable are often accused of supporting something called “trickle-down economics.” It’s hard to pin down exactly what that term means, but it seems to be something like the following: “those free market folks believe that if you give tax cuts or subsidies to rich people, the wealth they acquire will (somehow) ‘trickle down’ to the poor.”

The problem with this term is that, as far as I know, no economist has ever used that term to describe their own views. Critics of the market should take up the challenge of finding an economist who argues something like “giving things to group A is a good idea because they will then trickle down to group B.” I submit they will fail in finding one because such a person does not exist. Plus, as Thomas Sowell has pointed out, the whole argument is silly: why not just give whatever the things are to group B directly and eliminate the middleman?

There’s no economic argument that claims that policies that themselves only benefit the wealthy directly will somehow “trickle down” to the poor. Transferring wealth to the rich, or even tax cuts that only apply to them, are not policies that are going to benefit the poor, or certainly not in any notable way. Defenders of markets are certainly not going to support direct transfers or subsidies to the rich in any case. That’s precisely the sort of crony capitalism that true liberals reject.

General Prosperity

What the critics will find, if they choose to look, is many economists who argue that allowing everyone to pursue all the opportunities they can in the marketplace, with the minimal level of taxation and regulation, will create generalized prosperity. The value of cutting taxes is not just cutting them for higher income groups, but for everyone. Letting everyone keep more of the value they create through exchange means that everyone has more incentive to create such value in the first place, whether it’s through the ownership of capital or finding new uses for one’s labor.

In addition, those of us who support such policies don’t want to “give” anything to anyone, whether rich or poor. When people talk about tax cuts as “giving” something to someone, they implicitly start from the premise that everything belongs to government and we are only able to keep some for ourselves by its indulgence of us.

Aside from the fact that rights are not what government gives to us but what we already have that it should, in theory, protect, the only reason government has any revenue in the first place is because it was taken through taxation from those in the private sector who created it. Government doesn’t “give” us tax refunds; it simply refrains from taking more of what we created through mutually beneficial exchange in the first place.

Grain of Truth

However, there is one small grain of truth in the “trickle down” idea. One of the key reasons that modern Westerners, including poor ones, live so much better today than at any point in the past is because our ability to combine our labor with more and better capital has driven up our wages and driven down the cost of goods and services. The accumulation of capital by some does contribute to the enrichment of others as that capital makes workers’ labor more productive and thus more valuable.

That historical truth is not a justification for directly subsidizing the current owners of capital. Contrary to what thinkers like Thomas Piketty appear to believe, merely possessing capital does not ensure a flow of income. It is not ownership of capital per se that benefits others, but the ability to deploy capital in ways that create value for consumers. That is why reducing the tax and regulatory burden on everyone is so important: anyone can come with new ways to create value and potentially enrich themselves and others in the process.

The key is not transferring funds to the currently rich, but ensuring the most competitive economic environment possible so that those with the better ideas can put them into practice. The current owners of capital should not be able to lock in their position by using the political process to enrich themselves by legislation that specifically benefits themselves.

As Hayek observed in his defense of competition:

[I]t is by no means regularly the established entrepreneur, the man in charge of the existing plant, who will discover what is the best method [for efficient production]. The force which in a competitive society brings about the reduction of price to the lowest cost at which the quantity salable at that cost can be produced is the opportunity for anybody who knows a cheaper method to come in at his own risk, and to attract customers by underbidding the other producers.

Today’s owners of capital do not have all of the answers, and the way to ensure the best result for everyone, especially the least well off, is to give everyone the freedom to enter and exit the market and to have the maximum incentive to do so by enabling them to keep the fruits of their successful value creation.

Wealth Creation First

No serious economist believes the lives of the poor are improved by wealth being transferred to the rich and then “trickling down” to the poor. What economics does tell us is that wealth has to be created first and foremost. You can’t transfer something that does not exist. Wealth creation is most likely to happen when people are able to innovate without permission and put their ideas to the market test.

This process of market-tested permissionless innovation will indeed make some people rich, and it will make some rich people poor. What it also does is to drive the creation of value across entire societies, raising the standard of living for all of their inhabitants.

The momentary snapshots of rich and poor are not the categories that matter for sound economic policy. Wealth does not “trickle down” from rich to poor. It is created by all of us when we develop new ideas, skills, and products as either workers or owners of capital.

The way to help the poor is to maximize our freedom to create and keep value through the unhampered market economy. The answer is not giving hand-outs to those who, momentarily, occupy the group we call “the rich.” And history tells us that the improving standard of living for everyone that results from more economic freedom will be more of a flood than a trickle.

AUTHOR

Steven Horwitz

Steven Horwitz is the Distinguished Professor of Free Enterprise in the Department of Economics at Ball State University, where he also is Director of the Institute for the Study of Political Economy. He is the author of Austrian Economics: An Introduction.

RELATED ARTICLE: 30 of Walter Williams’s Best Quotes on Liberty, Rights, Property, and Coercion

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.