Hey Liberals, Want to End Poverty? We Have the Answers

Now, I firmly believe that a lot of what Democrats and liberals want, can actually be achieved through conservatism. Crazy idea, I know; but it's true.

Liberals and Democrats are always talking about helping the poor. They are strong advocates of social welfare. Because of this, they get the vote of many poor people. But tell me, what dividends have we seen? Has poverty been cured? Even helped, to a noticeable level? Nope. A while back, Glenn Beck talked about this exact thing.

But although the problem may unite us, the solutions don't. And perhaps nothing illustrates that better than what's been happening in Detroit, Michigan, and Buffalo, New York.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly a third of the residents in those cities are living beneath the poverty line, the highest rates among large cities in the entire country.

No matter what side of the political aisle you're on, that is nothing short of appalling. Yet if you ask people what we should do about it, you'll probably hear answers that inexplicably break down right along party lines.

Is there a perfect answer? Probably not. But what bothers me is that people stubbornly stick to their solution, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that it's not working.

For example, Detroit, whose mayor has been indicted on felony charges, hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961. Buffalo has been even more stubborn. It started putting a Democrat in office back in 1954, and it hasn't stopped since.

Unfortunately, those two cities may be alone at the top of the poverty rate list, but they're not alone in their love for Democrats. Cincinnati, Ohio (third on the poverty rate list), hasn't had a Republican mayor since 1984. Cleveland, Ohio (fourth on the list), has been led by a Democrat since 1989. St. Louis, Missouri (sixth), hasn't had a Republican since 1949, Milwaukee, Wisconsin (eighth), since 1908, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (ninth), since 1952 and Newark, New Jersey (10th), since 1907.

The only two cities in the top 10 that I didn't mention (Miami, Florida, and El Paso, Texas) haven't had Republicans in office either -- just Democrats, independents or nonpartisans.

Over the past 50 years, the eight cities listed above have had Republican leadership for a combined 36 years. The rest of the time -- a combined 364 years -- they've been led by Democrats.

Five of the 10 cities with the highest poverty rates (Detroit, Buffalo, St. Louis, Milwaukee, Philadelphia and Newark) have had a Democratic stranglehold since at least 1961: more than 45 years. Two of the cities (Milwaukee and Newark) have been electing Democrats since the first Model T rolled off the assembly line in 1908.

Two cities, 100 years, all Democrats.

If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, the asylums in those cities must be as full as the soup kitchens.

Clearly, the Democratic approach doesn't work. Social welfare, by itself, leads to cycliality; poverty leads to welfare, welfare leads to dependence, dependence leads to poverty.

So what is the solution? Well, I believe conservatives have the answer.

One step in the right direction would be school choice. late great economist Milton Friedman first proposed the idea in the 1960’s. School choice simply refers to allowing parents to use tax vouchers in order to opt out of sending their children to public school and instead sending them to a private school of their choice. You know the touted "public option" in proposed health care reform? You know how liberals claim that this would create competition? Well, think of this as the inverse of that. This would create a "private option" in education. Creating competition with government run schools could be a very good thing. When students have access to a good education, they have a chance to make something of themselves. They have a chance to get good jobs to support themselves and their dependents, without taking handouts from the government.

Another good step would be the elimination of the income tax. When the government gets it's hands out of our pockets, we have more money to spend. When there is more money to be spent, people can afford to provide for themselves, it's simple. Where would government funding come from, you ask? Who cares. If they don't have enough funding, I guess they will just have to downsize, and stick to doing what the constitution says they should be doing.

Another good idea is the concept of earning your welfare. If someone is able to work, but still needs help, then they are capable of earning that help. Want free food? Sure, but you will have to donate your time at a cannery, helping to supply food to others. Need some money to get bye? Sure, but you will have to volunteer at the VA hospital, keeping veterans company, and cleaning out bedpans. This approach would not only provide free labor, it would also teach a sense of responsibility and worth, as well as discourage people from freeloading.

There are many other viable options, but these are certainly a good start.