By Mary Mostert, Analyst, Banner of Liberty (www.bannerofliberty.com)
February 16, 2001
It never ceases to amaze me how dedicated socialists are to the notion that government solves problems best. In the face of clear and irrefutable evidence of the failure of the notion of it "Taking a village" to raise a child, rather than a loving an dedicated family, we hear more and more calls for the government to solve our problems.
For example, in today's Washington Post the lead story today is about homelessness getting worse in the city of Washington, D.C. The article begins with:
Six years after an ambitious partnership was launched to combat homelessness in the District, outreach agencies, shelters and soup kitchens are reporting a growing number of adults in need of services, signaling an increase in what is already one of the highest homeless rates in the nation.New data and anecdotal evidence provided by dozens of homeless service providers contradict the official estimates of the Community Partnership for the Prevention of Homelessness, the nonprofit entity that has managed services for the homeless in Washington since 1994 and has spent about $20 million a year in federal and District funds.
The article also points out that Washington, D.C., the proud capitol of the world's most affluent super-power, ranks first among 13 jurisdictions surveyed in the percentage of the population that was homeless at some point in 1999. In 1999, 7,493 people, or 1.4 percent of Washington's population, were homeless at one point, compared with rates of 0.9 percent in Philadelphia, 0.8 percent in New York City and 0.4 percent in nearby Montgomery County, Virginia.
To make us all feel bad about the situation, the picture accompanying the story is an wrinkled faced, elderly black woman, Nancy Hill, cigarette in hand, peering sadly out from under her layered head coverings at the camera. The caption says she has been "homeless for three years."
How can this possibly be? The City of Washington, D.C. voted with nearly a 90% majority, 171,923, for Al Gore to 18,073 for George W. Bush. Why, do you suppose, Nancy's picture is appearing on the front page of the Washington Post NOW, three weeks into the Bush Administration if she's been homeless for three years? How could the half million people of the city, most of whom are black liberal Democrats, have allowed Nancy to be homeless for three years while Bill Clinton, who has been dubbed "America's first black president" was in the White House?
It's not because there are no jobs in Washington, D.C., or that the jobs are poor paying jobs. Teachers in Washington, D.C. make the highest average salaries, $45,012 with one of the lowest teacher-student ratios, 1-15. Students, on the other hand, in Washington, D.C., have the lowest test scores in the entire nation. The average income of the people in Washington, D.C., this 90% Democrat town, is a $34,952.
That compares with conditions in the most ardently Republican state in the Union, Utah, which pays its teachers an average of $31,750, has a teacher-student ratio of 1-23.8, yet they have one of the highest test scores in the entire nation. It also has a very low homeless rate and, compared to Washington, D.C., an equally low average income of $19,156.
Near the end of the Reagan Administration , which, we were told, was just terrible for the black, the poor and the downtrodden, there the count of the number of homeless in Washington, D.C. was 2652. Today after 8 years of a caring liberal Democrat in the White House, the number of homeless in Washington D.C. has skyrocketed to an estimated 6600.
Now, I am not saying that being a low income Republican automatically guarantees a high test score on education tests and a low homeless rate. However, isn't it a bit odd that Washington, D.C.'s representative in Congress, Eleanor Holmes, keeps asking low-income Utahans to subsidize Washington, D. C. at ever spiraling costs? Where is the evidence that spending more money in Washington, D.C. actually HELPS the people like Nancy Hill? Could it possibly be that George W. Bush is right? That throwing money at problems in government run programs just doesn't work?
Whether it is liberal California in the West, which is demanding the poorer states around it increase THEIR energy costs to subsidize wealthy California which has a governor intent on socializing electric power in the state or it is liberal Washington, D.C., that wants everyone in the country to continue to subsidize their socialist housing failures, there is an obvious trend here. Perhaps it is time for the Washington Post to pause in its photo opts of folks like Nancy Hill and start to talk to them.
First question might be: "Nancy, how come you have enough money to sit around all day not working and smoke cigarettes but not enough money to rent a room somewhere?
To comment: mmostert@bannerofliberty.com
To Subscribe to the Reagan Monitor, the newsletter that gives you news FACTS you can USE to make your life, and the world, better go to:
Start Your Subscription
