U. S. Heads to Poverty

Not only did I read this article, I bought the book ("Dead Aid" by Dambisa Moyo)! There are no revelations in it other than putting names and numbers on feelings I have had about much of our foreign aid for years. Like many harmful activities which have become trendy, mindless, yet harmful, foreign aid to Africa is not about to end. But in considering the "insidious aid culture which has left African countries more debt-laden, more inflation-prone, more vulnerable…" one must draw an analogy to us here in the United States. Are we not a country dependent on governmental aid? Aid which doesn't come from faceless third-party countries, but from ourselves. We tax ourselves, hire elected officials (our "employees") who turn around and re-distribute all that money to...ourselves, keeping a sizeable amount for themselves. Hmmm. How is that different? And isn't it an "insidious aid culture" which is leaving us more dependent, not to mention debt-laden, and prone to upcoming almost guaranteed inflation? Aren't we more vulnerable to those holding all that debt? According to the author, Dambisa Moyo, a Zambian female who was educated and has worked only in the West, corruption costs Africa something like $50 billion a year. Is it too much of a stretch to ask: doesn't Congress in its own legal way threaten to pass laws, or not, and change taxation, or not, to demand campaign contributions? Is that corruption? Aid creates dependency; dependency strangles freedom. Dependency is the antithesis of freedom. Can you think of one small area in our country that the government's tentacles aren't wrapped around our freedoms? President Obama and the Democratic Congress intend to turn the octopus into a giant squid. As Ms. Moyo explained, we know what works (and what doesn't work) to reduce poverty and encourage growth. It is not where we are headed in the United States.

The parallel of the discovery of the need for rich countries to "save" the African continent from abject poverty and the emergence of the moral authority of the United States to save Negroes from racism, discrimination and poverty heaped upon them by centuries of slavery. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society were big screen displays of ridding our country of racism, discrimination and poverty. Not to matter that it didn't work even after 35 years, it was in the trying that mattered: the ability of citizens to feel good about themselves. Of course, the real goal was for Democrats to continue the charade of helping targeted segments of American voters to get votes. As rich, mostly western countries spread aid to Africa, America was spreading aid and changing laws to provide for African Americans. While the goals of the aid to Africa started out for political reasons, to wit to "win" the cold war through real estate, it morphed into a trendy thing for liberals to discuss over cocktail parties and for which to throw benefits. What both have in common is the establishment of gigantic bureaucracies which the members depend for income and to some extent their vary identites. Those bureacracies need to continue the dependency on government. And those dependencies guarantee poverty and a lack of opportunity for Africans and African Americans. Both are still endemic in the continent of Africa and in African American society in the United States.

Democratic policies have destroyed two generations of African Americans.

Cut the apron strings, which really are tentacles, and empower.

Democrats have used the words "poverty" and "Middle class stagnation" with great impact, they have been lying. According to official government figures, the best (lowest) poverty rate was -- get this -- in 1973, but percapita income is 50% higher today than in 1973, median family income (smaller families) 20%. Yet spending on "antipoverty" programs doubled. Consider what Democrats don't want known-- they use misleading numbers to obfuscate people's standards of living -- using consumption figures , what people actually buy and get, are far better now than then. Then 50% of the "poor" didn't have cars and today nearly 75% do, and 14% have two! Poverty? Today the "poor" spend more than than they get in income, assuming welfare like food stamps and earned income credits aren't "income", so why does the left-leaning government bureaucracy measure "income"? In order for Democrats to keep and get the votes of the poor. Democrats need to keep the "poor" (of course as Democrats define "poor") thinking they need aid; then the act of giving it to them keeps them voting Democrat.


And the Obama government plans to change the Bush emphasis on the free market and private companies to purchase for the government and will hire 13,00 new civil servants plus up to 30,000 more within five years to replace private contractors. More Democrats to vote to keep Democrats in power.

And then there's healthcare. But that's another story.

The United States needs real conservatives to right this listing ship of state. It needs a coda of growth not dependency. With Democrats continuing in power the entire United States population ultimately will end up like the African American generations of hopelessness and poverty.