From the Sacramento Bee:
Census Bureau: California still has highest U.S. poverty rate
By Dan Walters | firstname.lastname@example.org | 10/16/2014 11:25 AM | 10/17/2014 9:46 AM
California continues to have – by far – the nation’s highest level of poverty under an alternative method devised by the Census Bureau that takes into account both broader measures of income and the cost of living.
Nearly a quarter of the state’s 38 million residents (8.9 million) live in poverty, a new Census Bureau report says, a level virtually unchanged since the agency first began reporting on the method’s effects.
Under the traditional method of gauging poverty, adopted a half-century ago, California’s rate is 16 percent (6.1 million residents), somewhat above the national rate of 14.9 percent but by no means the highest. That dubious honor goes to New Mexico at 21.5 percent.
But under the alternative method, California rises to the top at 23.4 percent while New Mexico drops to 16 percent and other states decline to as low as 8.7 percent in Iowa.
More at the link.
The formerly Golden State, blessed by God with a long coastline and mild climate, the most populous state in the union, used to be among our wealthiest states, and affluence is on vivid display there. But this now heavily Democratic state — it wasn’t that long ago that the Republicans controlled California — demonstrates an exceptionally brutal contrast between the haves and the have nots, precisely the thing that the left say they are trying to fight. It isn’t all that far from the glamor and opulence of Hollywood to the barrios of East Los Angeles, and, despite it’s high-end appearance, the San Francisco Bay area is considered among the poorest areas under the new methods due to its high costs of housing.
And then there are taxes. WalletHub ranked the fifty states and the District of Columbia in tax burden, and the Pyrite State, with an average annual state and local tax burden of $9,509, 36% above the national average, was number 50, with only New York’s $9,718 rate being worse.
Yet, with all of the oh-so-well-intended taxes and state services being provided, so very many Californians are poor. Of course, we have previously noted that states that emphasize redistribution above growth have a wider gap between lower and higher incomes, and that California among other business unfriendly states have negative impacts on business, costing states jobs. That’s what happens when you let liberal Democrats run things!
The point is obvious: liberals simply don’t understand economics, or reality, and the further to the left that you go, the worse it gets. The Freedom Socialist Party, based in Seattle, another Left Coast hotbed of liberalism, has been advocating a minimum wage of $20.00 per hour, but has been offering $13.00 an hour for a “Web Content Manager.” Nearby SeaTac, Washington, has a minimum wage of $15.00, but the Freedom Socialist Party couldn’t even offer that much! Seattle itself has a $15.00 an hour minimum wage, but that is being phased in over time, so the Freedom Socialist Party isn’t in violation of the law . . . yet. A conservative might think, well, that little irony ought to teach them that their political wishes and views have little to do with the actual economy, but then, that same conservative would realize that the left are blind to their own irony, and impervious to actual logic and introspection.
Yet Texas, home to the former President that the left blame for everything, and home to a conservative economic approach of lower taxes and fewer regulations, has not only been leading the nation in job growth, but, to answer the complaints of the left, the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas reported that the Lone Star State has been leading the nation in job creation at all pay levels.
When it comes to economics, your Editor is concerned about only one thing: results! He has been involved in production, in the ready-mixed concrete industry, for almost three decades now, and real world, real time results are the only things which matter; you produce and make money, or you go broke. If the economic policies of the left had produced good results, he would support those policies. But the cold and sober facts are that it has been the economics of the conservatives which have yielded the greater real world results. In the United States, those states which have lower taxes and fewer regulatory burdens have, generally speaking, had better economic outcomes than those which have been governed by liberals. Worldwide, the nations which have been more capitalist have grown the fastest, taking a significant share of what used to be American industrial jobs, by producing more, for lower costs. The two Koreas, sharing an ethnic background and history, are a whole world apart, with capitalist South Korea being an economic powerhouse, while the unfortunate subjects of the Kim dynasty in North Korea suffer widespread malnutrition, while socialist Venezuela, with the world’s largest proven petroleum reserves but a government-run oil industry, is in desperate shape economically.
In the end, only actual results matter, and the results of conservative economics, of capitalism, have been far greater than those produced by the left, by socialism. Politics being what it is, the promises of the left, of socialism, certainly do have a greater visceral appeal, promises of greater wealth for everybody, promises of increased fairness, along with the wealthy getting their comeuppance, and thus we have seen, in California as in other places, the poorer voters voting for the people who make such promises. Mitt Romney, in an unfortunately-made-public video, said that there was a solid 47% of the electorate which would vote Democratic because they are “dependent upon government,” because they believe that they are entitled and have been unfairly treated by businesses and corporations and the wealthy, and he was right. But the promises made by the left for their economic policies have not been kept, have never been kept, and can never be kept, because they are based on a complete failure to understand economics. We’ve said it before: if liberals actually understood economics, they wouldn’t be liberals any more.