|
|
 |
|
The
views expressed
on this page are soley those of the author and do not
necessarily
represent the views of County News Online
|
 |
Gearing Up for Class Warfare?
By Kate Burch
The President’s forays into flyover country have lately involved
touting his “Middle Class Economics” programs—programs that he says are
designed to give everyone a shot at achieving the American Dream.
Problem is, his proposals, such as universal child care and free
community college seem geared more toward expanding the dependent class
than giving a leg up to those who can thereby become
self-supporting. More growth of government and increased
spending, accelerating the slide into dysfunction typical of the
collapsing European welfare state, is the last thing we need.
The vast “middle”—those between the top fifth (earning more than
$105,900. in 2013) and the bottom fifth (earning less than $20,900.)
includes people who differ tremendously in their characteristics and in
their prospects. This group has historically shown great fluidity
with regard to economic status, depending on many circumstances, some
within their control, others not. The group earning less than
$40,000. comprises what used to be called “lower middle class.”
Though many of them are hurting now because of high unemployment, they
are much more likely than the chronically poor to have a high school
diploma and the characteristics and connections that allow for upward
mobility.
The political scientist Charles Murray, in his book “Coming Apart,”
identified four characteristics that are reliably associated with
success in America: marriage, work ethic; respect for the law; and
religious observance. These characteristics do not grow out of a
government program, but are built in the context of stable families and
values-based education and training.
“Middle Class Economics” seems more like a way to bolster the
President’s commitment to demonizing and penalizing the “rich” and his
false promise that taking and redistributing their wealth can cure
poverty, than an effective means of building the middle class.
His apparent desire to lump everyone in the middle together and make
them all equally dependent on government largesse would likely have the
effect of impairing economic mobility within that “middle.”
Policies and programs that encourage growth of business and
productivity; that support marriage and family; and that encourage
respect for the law and our institutions are much better ways to ensure
that people can achieve success.
|
|
|
|
