Ohhhh… Edwards is the Anti-Poverty Candidate

I had wondered about that.  I’d really like to see a debate between him and the pro-poverty candidate.  Whoever that may be.

It’s great to be against poverty.  Noble, even.  But the question is, is it appropriate to use government money?  The article I linked above pits John Edwards against Hillary Clinton in an “I’m more anti-poverty than you” battle.  It’s an interesting read.  And disturbing.

Edwards, like most Democrats, has this wacky idea that money belongs to the government, and that money will work the way the government says it should.  While Hillary claims to have “lifted more people out of poverty” in the ’90s than anyone anywhere (though she wasn’t president), Edwards wants to challenge her to commit to a $9.50 minimum wage.  Oh — and he claims that, as President, he will have the power to strip Congress of their healthcare package if they refuse to do what he says.  I’d like to read that paragraph in the Constitution.

But that’s the problem with Democrats, isn’t it?  The Constitution doesn’t mean all that much to them.  Sure, they’ll take a paragraph here — an amendment there … but if it stands in their way, it becomes just another cumbersome document to overcome.  It is not within the government’s purview to hand out taxpayer money.  It is not within the authority of the President to bribe, cajole or blackmail the Legislature to “fall in line.”

Finally, regarding the minimum wage, it’s been said before, but it bears repeating:  raising the minimum wage is bad for businesses, bad for workers and bad for the economy.  Think about it this way.  Edwards wants to help the poor.  Edwards, like many, would note that “the poor” are products of bad schooling.  So, if you’re an employer, and you have to pay somebody 9 bucks to do a job, who are you going to hire?  A kid from a good school, who is competent at the job?  Or one of Edwards’ “poor” who, because of bad schooling, is not as competent?  It’s a no-brainer.  And so, to quote a Dem favorite, “the rich get richer… the poor get poorer.”  That’s the best-case scenario.  More likely, small business will go under because they can’t pay their employees, creating a larger unemployment rate.  Larger business will continue to move operations elsewhere, laying off American workers, adding to the unemployment rate.  Getting the trend?

Anti-poverty or no, good intentions don’t always make good policy.  I just hope America learns this lesson before it bankrupts us.

-Streu-