Here's an
interesting article on Minneapolis and its higher than average poverty and crime rates. The author links it to bad government policies, e.g. redistributionist policies.
The city of Minneapolis, Minnesota—whose population is composed of 63.8% whites, 10.5% Hispanics, and 18.6% African Americans—has been governed exclusively by mayors from the Democratic Farmer Labor Party, the state affiliate of the Democratic Party, since 1978.
As of 2011, the poverty rate in Minneapolis was 23.5%, more than one-and-a-half times the national figure of 15%. This differential is consistent with a longstanding, well-documented trend: Virtually all of America’s poorest cities have been led politically by Democrats for many years, even decades. In 2010,
for example, not even one of the ten poorest large cities in the U.S.
had elected a Republican mayor since the 1980s. In fact, 8 of the 10
cities had been led exclusively by Democrats for more than half a
century.
The author says the way liberals lock themselves into power is they create a political base by creating dependency on government programs which in turn causes the economic and crime problems.
The common thread running through each of these economically decrepit
cities is a phenomenon that Harvard scholars Edward Glaeser and Andrei
Shleifer famously dubbed “The Curley Effect,”
after its prototype, James Michael Curley, who served four
non-consecutive terms as mayor of Boston between 1914 and 1950. This
phenomenon, Glaeser and Shleifer explain, is the strategy of “increasing the relative size of one’s political base through distortionary, wealth-reducing policies.” Forbes magazine puts it this way:
“A politician or a political party can achieve long-term dominance by
tipping the balance of votes in their direction through the
implementation of policies that strangle and stifle economic growth.
Counterintuitively, making a city poorer leads to political success for
the engineers of that impoverishment.”
This typically occurs when Democratic administrations adopt policies
that redistribute wealth from the prosperous to the poor, causing the
latter to become economically dependent upon their political patrons,
and thus to become a permanently pro-Democrat voting bloc. At the same
time, these redistributive policies cause the people harmed by them
(i.e., those from whom wealth is extracted) to emigrate to other cities
and states, thereby further solidifying the political power of Curleyist
practitioners.
The beneficiaries of Curleyist redistributionism invariably become
unable to perceive the connection between left-wing policies and their
negative consequences. Instead, they view Democrats as the noble, last
line of defense that stands between them and total destitution. As a
result, their loyalty to Democrats persists, undiminished, regardless of
how bad conditions may get—chiefly because they interpret the failures
of leftist policies as evidence that those policies simply did not go
far enough, probably as a result of conservative obstructionism. Thus do
residents of Democrat-controlled cesspools of poverty and crime
continue, in perpetuity, to elect Democrats to political office.
Before the shift in power in Minneapolis to leftward politicans and policies, the city had lower poverty rates than the national average. Now it's the opposite.
Prior to the permanent Democratic takeover of Minneapolis in 1978, the city’s poverty rate had been consistently lower
than the national average. Then, through most of the 1980s, the ripples
of the Reagan economic boom delivered a positive effect to cities
nationwide, including Minneapolis. Indeed, Minneapolis added
some 3,000 new jobs to its downtown area each year from 1981-87. In
1983, only 8% of the city’s metropolitan-area population lived below the
poverty level, as compared to approximately 15% nationally.
But by 1988, Minneapolis’s left-wing
Democratic mayor, Donald Fraser, had grown troubled by the stark
contrast between those sections of his city that were thriving
economically, and a number of African-American neighborhoods where
crime, teenage pregnancy, and welfare dependency were widespread. Fraser
believed that the proper remedy for these pathologies would be to
implement a host of taxpayer-funded, government-administered
social-welfare programs. “What is needed,” said
the mayor, “is a more thoughtful discussion, a rethinking of the city,
of welfare support, and it should begin right here.” Specifically,
Fraser held that federal and local agencies needed to focus more of
their attention and financial resources on the economic and social
problems confronting unwed mothers and their children. His successors as
mayor, Sharon Sayles Belton and R.T.Rybak,
have shared this same perspective—a mindset that has fueled the
decades-long trend of ever-increasing wealth redistribution and
government subsidies for the poor, not only in Minneapolis but across
the United States.
To pay for government programs and the resulting dependency, property taxes have gone up. Only 15 cities have higher property burden than Minneapolis.
By no means is financial hardship in Minneapolis limited solely to
low-income residents. Indeed, the city’s homeowners pay higher property taxes than their counterparts in most other metropolitan municipalities. One study of 142 metro areas found that only 15
of them bore a heavier property-tax burden than Minneapolis as of 2010,
and that was before Minneapolis raised its property taxes by 4.7% in
2011.
And then there is the crime problem. While things have improved, Minneapolis is still higher than the national average.
Just as Minneapolis residents face significant economic challenges,
so must they deal with the city’s sizable crime problem. In the early
1990s, crime began trending downward in much of the U.S. for various
reasons, including the decline of the crack cocaine epidemic, more
aggressive policing strategies, and harsher punishments for criminal
behavior. New York City, under Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and police
commissioner William Bratton, led the way in this regard with their CompStat crime-tracking system and their use of the so-called “broken-windows”
approach to crime-prevention. In comparison to other cities,
Minneapolis was slow to adopt the new law-enforcement and
criminal-justice strategies and thus lagged behind the national trend
for several years. But once the city changed its ways (e.g., by incorporating CompStat) in the late 1990s, it likewise experienced a noteworthy reduction in crime.
Notwithstanding this positive downward trend, however, crime rates in
Minneapolis remain far higher than statewide and national figures
alike. For example, in 2010 the violent crime rate for Minneapolis exceeded the corresponding Minnesota rate by 346.55%, and the overall U.S. rate by 161.03%. Similarly, the property crime rate in Minneapolis surpassed the Minnesota rate by 84.44%, and the national rate by 61.27%.
In a particularly ugly development, Minneapolis in recent times has
been the scene of numerous incidents involving “flash mob” violence,
usually by large groups of black assailants targeting white victims. For example, on March 17, 2012, a gang of some 20 young men inflicted serious brain injuries on one young man, just an hour after a large group of assailants had beaten an out-of-town couple in that same location. Six days later,
without provocation, 15 to 20 suspects attacked and beat three
cyclists, leaving one of the victims with a broken jaw. As Sergeant
Steve McCarty of the Minneapolis Police Department observed:
“It’s just mainly to create mayhem, assault people and just whatever
they can do. It’s a weird mentality I don’t think a lot of people can
fathom or understand. Just to victimize people.” And a few days
after that, four Minneapolis juveniles assaulted two men in quick
succession, rendering one of the victims unconscious and inflicting
serious injuries (including a broken arm) on the other.
It has long been commonplace for Democrat-led cities to have
much-higher-than-average crime rates. As of 2011, for instance,
America’s ten most dangerous cities were all strongholds of Democratic political leadership. Minneapolis’s experience, therefore, is par for the course.
Yesterday, I testified at a state House hearing on a bill which would massively expand early childhood programs in the state. Basically, the state is trying to get the poor's three and four year old kids into government subsidized preschool programs. In other words, take over parenting responsibilities from the poor. In attendance was the above mentioned former mayor of Minneapolis Donald Fraser.
No comments:
Post a Comment