AMERICAN THINKER:This January, New Jersey inaugurated our 56th governor, Phillip Murphy, a committed progressive Democrat and millionaire alumnus of Goldman Sachs, who self-financed his way to the nomination. Given the unpopularity (indeed, loathing) of incumbent governor Chris Christie, Mr. Murphy’s path to Drumthwacket was never in doubt. Once again New Jersey is entrenched in the solid blue-state column with a governor embracing progressive policies like a “millionaires tax,” a $15-an-hour minimum wage, and expanding green energy mandates.
Why? What is the appeal of this blue state model of government? Are blue states like New Jersey fairer than red states?
One thing I have noticed is that blue states are more expensive than red states. From housing, taxes, and electricity to a slice of pizza, you are going to pay more for pretty much everything in a blue state. The reason is that the cost of everything the government does is added to the price of everything you buy. This explains a lot. Blue states have lots of rich people because blue states are the historic centers of America’s economic miracle in manufacturing, finance, and now technology. In turn, blue states have lots of poor people for the exact same reason: they migrated to the blue states because that was where the opportunity was. At the dawn of the Progressive era, this glaring disparity between rich and poor was noticed, and government action was taken to “solve” this glaring problem.
The progressive model relied on the sweetest political lie ever conceived: Karl Marx’s “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” In the smiley-face socialism that has taken root in the United States, and especially the blue states, is an abiding belief that progressive taxation will “take according to his ability,” while spending generously on public welfare will pull the poor out of poverty by giving “according to his need.” From a purely political perspective, the math is amazing. You tax the few and give money to many voters, à la Robin Hood.
Despite the obvious political success, there are some nagging doubts cropping up. When Lyndon Johnson declared the War on Poverty in the 1964 State of the Union address, the national debt stood at $0.3 trillion. Today, that debt has surpassed $20 trillion in just over two generations. The poverty rate in 1964 was 19%; today, the poverty rate vacillates between 14% and 16%. A 25% reduction in the poverty rate is nothing to sneer at, but a troubling amount of multigenerational poverty illustrates the limits of the progressive model. more here
Exactly why the dem party wrote off white middle class men like plumbers years ago. They are learning that voting dem is not for their own self interest.
C’monnnnn BIG ONE! So New Joisey can slide off into the Atlantic (and take New Yawk & Taxachusetts with ya’!)!
if the price is too high in NJ and you have not figured out that liberalism is the reason please do NOT move to Virginia. Don’t come south of Maryland.
It still dumbfounds me that otherwise seemingly rational and intelligent people still believe leftism is the way forward.
Give NoKo the coordinates.