Declining Graduation Rates and the Disparity Between The Rich And The Poor

America's political left wants us all to believe that the rich are getting richer off the backs of the poor. But, that argument simply makes no sense. Using that kind of logic is the same as saying that, if we had no rich, we would then have no poor. In reality, if we had no rich we would look more like some of the poorest, 3rd world, countries on this planet. When it comes to the rich versus the poor argument, I think John F. Kennedy said it best: "A rising tide lifts all boats". Meaning that, as a country becomes more wealthy, even the poorest of the poor will benefit.

To me, the progressive/liberal argument is totally ignorant of reality. Did Steve Jobs, in becoming a millionaire, take money away from those who were poor in this country? Not hardly. If anything, his wealth, his company's profits, and the personal incomes of the workforce that he created have only helped pay for all of the government programs that support the poor; such as food stamps and even the earned income tax credit where that poorest of our tax payers pay no tax and actually get money back.

In my opinion, the real reason that the poor are getting poorer in this country has do with a decline in the value of our human capital. By that, I mean, that our workforce has become less educated and less dedicated and, as a consequence, less able to get the kind of jobs that produce a lifetime of good earnings.

In the 1960's, the average high school graduation rate was 82%. Today, that national average has declined to 70%. Worse yet, in our 50 largest cities, the rate stands at only 53%. Conversely, this means that 47% percent of the people in our highest population centers are without the discipline and motivation to finish high school and, subsequently, are without the education needed to obtain a quality, high paying job.

Based on a March 2011 report from the Bureau of Labor And Statistics titled "Education Pays..," the unemployment rate for those without a high school diploma was, at that time, just under 15%. Also, those with a diploma were nearly 50% better off with an unemployment rate of 10.3%. But, for a college degreed worker, the unemployment rate was only 5.4%; three times better than the non-high school graduate.

So, obviously, those who don't finish high school are a real drag on the economy when it comes to the unemployment rate. More importantly, a worker without a high school diploma will, on average, make 41% less money over his/her lifetime than a worker with one. And, that's the the crux of our increasing rich/poor disparity problem. With declining high school graduation rates in America, our overall workforce is becoming less educated and poorer. It's also the reason the middle class is in decline. Its no coincidence that 47% of us pay no taxes and 47% of high school students in our major cities don't graduate.

The rich aren't responsible for this. Yet the Democrats still insist on playing the class game. Just recently, the Government Accounting Office released a set of statistics showing that the top 1% of all wage earners have had their salaries jump by 270 percent in the last 30 years while the bottom 20% only saw a gain of 18%. Of course, to a liberal, this just proves that the rich are getting richer at the expense of the poor. But no. This just proves my point that we have an education problem in this country. And, despite decades of effort and billions of dollars being spent on liberal programs like increased teacher's pay, smaller class sizes, preschool and after school programs, etc., the problem has only gotten worse. But, you see, education still all comes down to the student wanting to learn and work hard for that degree. Instead of condemning the rich, we should encourage our nation's students to look up to them and want to emulate them by working hard to get a good education. Maybe then, the disparity between the rich and poor will start to narrow again.

Obama: Not Class Warfare. Its The Math.

After raising the level of deficit spending by $4 trillion in just 2-1/2 years, Obama claims his "tax-the-rich" plan will reduce the deficit by $3 trillion over the next 10 years. He claims that it's not class warfare, it's the math. (Click here to See the CBS story: "Obama: Plan not class warfare, it's math")

Well, to me, the President's math really stinks. Over the next 10 years, we'll be spending $1.6 trillion more per year than when Obama took office. Then, against that spending level, his plan proposes to save a mere $300 billion per year. That then leaves a continuing spending deficit of $1.3 trillion, every year, over the next 10 years. Obviously, his "taxing-the-rich" scheme is only a pin prick when compared to the massive spending legacy of this Presidency. Therefore, I don't really think it "is" about the math. And, if it's not the math, then what? Class warfare, maybe?

Elizabeth Warren's Socialist Blather

Elizabeth Warren, an attorney and law professor who has worked, primarily, for the Obama Administration over the last 2-1/2 years, is running to unseat Senator Scott Brown in Massachusetts. In a town hall-style event yesterday, she made these remarks:

"There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody... You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless — keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

While everything she said sounds "logically" true, the reality is that her viewpoint totally ignores the fact that "if" we didn't have the superior wealth creators that we have in this country, there would be no massive tax base and the taxable jobs to build the roads or to build the schools and pay for the teachers to educate the people. When she talks of the "rest of us" who "paid for" the "roads", who the hell is she really talking about? The 50% of this country who pays zero taxes; yet, still gets to use those roads? Obviously she's ignoring the fact that the "rich" pay 70% of all the taxes in this country.

She's playing a game of flawed chicken-and-egg political nonsense that sounds more like something a communist would have said in the former bankrupt society of the U.S.S.R. A society that, too, had teachers, police, fireman, and roads but never achieved the economic status that this country has. No wonder Obama originally hired her!

Obama Signals Trouble With His Base

Over the past two weeks, Obama has made it publicly clear that he knows he's in trouble with his political base of once-fellow Democrats.

On September 12, in an obvious attempt to win back lost Hispanic votes, he announced that his Administration will no longer deport any illegal aliens unless they have committed a felony; probably saving 300,000 from deportation. Then, there was the jobs bill to provide funding to keep unionized state government workers on the job and to provide "union" infrastructure jobs with billions in project spending. On Monday, there was his rose garden speech. In that "punish the rich" diatribe, he served up as much red meat to the left as he possibly could by playing the typical Democrat's class warfare card. Following that, his Attorney General, Eric Holder, announced in a press interview in Brussels, that Obama will seek to close Guantanamo Bay by the November elections of next year. Then, too, his U.N. speech of today was truly aimed at closing the wounds that he had opened with the Jewish community over Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. Lastly, within his U.N. Arab/Israeli speech, he oddly brought up the topic of Gay/Lesbian rights.

From all of the above, it is obvious that Obama is all out for Obama in 2012 and, could care less if his policies are good or bad for the country as a whole. With so much "base building" politics in just two short weeks, it appears the President is in panic mode and that he will do whatever it takes to "buy" his way back into winning next year's election. Now, who's putting politics before country?