The Left and the Issue of Income Inequality: Why Their ‘Progressive’ Politics will Fail

[Geee]

PJMedia:

The new domestic issue of choice for the Left in America is “income inequality.” When New York Mayor Bill de Blasio went to the White House to meet with President Obama, he told the press the topic they discussed was the great gap in income between the wealthy and the rest of America.

 

It is true that wages have been stagnant, and that the wages of the average worker have not risen as fast as the pay scale of corporation CEOs, and have not kept up with increasing inflation over the years. Yet, it is also true that even the poor are better off than their counterparts were decades ago, and that compared to the poor in other countries, the poor in America seem actually wealthy. We are way past the time period, still existing as LBJ began “the War on Poverty,” when those in rural poverty especially had no roads leading to where they lived, and had no indoor plumbing or electricity.

 

The question is how one should deal with the issue. The Left and self-proclaimed “progressives” — actually social-democrats, democratic socialists, Marxists, and leftover Communists — have one answer: redistribute the wealth and tax the rich. Of course, those who make that proposal always seem to favor redistributing everyone else’s wealth while not touching their own — especially if it’s private property they own, including their homes.

Every time the New York Times mentions Mayor Bill de Blasio’s home, two row houses worth over $1.1 million each, they refer to it as a modest dwelling. Ira Stoll, writing in Reason, quips that since many Americans can’t even afford one such home, “if de Blasio really wants to ‘put an end’ to economic inequality, he should sell both houses and distribute the proceeds to everyone else.” Or, perhaps he should invite 20 poor families to take over one of the units, properly collectivizing the units, as was the case in the Soviet Union of the 1920s and 1930s.

[Valin]

Will De Blasio Sacrifice Pensioners, Taxpayers to Protect Union Chiefs?

1/10/14

 

If you’re looking to blast NY Mayor De Blasio for his union ties, you don’t have far to look. The city’s new progressive honcho looks poised to protect sinecure board positions for union leaders that may cost pensioners and taxpayers billions of dollars annually.

 

The Economist writes that New York’s screwy management system for public pension funds is to blame for its funds’ mediocre returns: not only are public pensions run inefficiently by five separate pension plans (each with its own policies, trustees and consultants), but none of the five funds manages assets itself, instead outsourcing the job to other well-paid managers and consultants.

 

 

(Snip)

 

To the list of those who are licking their chops at the prospect of four more years of “progressive” administration at Gracie Mansion, we can now add Wall Street consultants, asset managers and union leaders. Pensioners and taxpayers, on the other hand, have much less to look forward to.

 

________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

the People have spoken. Now they must be punished.