In its "Gov Beat" section about events in state and local government, the Washington Post has published an article pointing out that the economic "recovery" has made income inequality worse. During the last four years, people at the top of the income distribution have done well and those at the bottom have also improved but the vast middle income section of the American people has suffered. According to the Post, that is true in nearly all states other than a few like North Dakota where there has been faster growth (fueled by an oil boom in the case of North Dakota).
It is amazing that the WaPo could print an article like this without stating the obvious: the policies being followed by president Obama have hit the middle class hard. Not only is the middle income group no better off after five years of Obama, they are substantially worse off. The only places where this is not true are those states where despite Obama there has been significant growth. North Dakota, for example, has seen huge increases in oil production on private land, and increase that Obama could not stop, but which he did not help. The truth is that for middle America (which is the vast majority of the country) to prosper, we need to have a strongly growing economy. If Obama had managed just growth at the rate of 4%, a rate that has normally been achieved in all recoveries after recessions, the income gap would have closed and not gotten wider.
Maybe the simplest way to say all this is to point out that although Obama and the Democrats use every opportunity to lament the income inequality in America, the policies pushed by this group work to increase that inequality and not to decrease it. I wonder what the liberals will come up with next? Will they impose segregation to fight the racial tensions in America? Will they eliminate doctors and hospitals to promote healthcare (wait, they already seem to be moving in that direction.) Will they agree to an Iranian nuclear weapons to promote nuclear nonproliferation?
It is amazing that the WaPo could print an article like this without stating the obvious: the policies being followed by president Obama have hit the middle class hard. Not only is the middle income group no better off after five years of Obama, they are substantially worse off. The only places where this is not true are those states where despite Obama there has been significant growth. North Dakota, for example, has seen huge increases in oil production on private land, and increase that Obama could not stop, but which he did not help. The truth is that for middle America (which is the vast majority of the country) to prosper, we need to have a strongly growing economy. If Obama had managed just growth at the rate of 4%, a rate that has normally been achieved in all recoveries after recessions, the income gap would have closed and not gotten wider.
Maybe the simplest way to say all this is to point out that although Obama and the Democrats use every opportunity to lament the income inequality in America, the policies pushed by this group work to increase that inequality and not to decrease it. I wonder what the liberals will come up with next? Will they impose segregation to fight the racial tensions in America? Will they eliminate doctors and hospitals to promote healthcare (wait, they already seem to be moving in that direction.) Will they agree to an Iranian nuclear weapons to promote nuclear nonproliferation?
No comments:
Post a Comment