Are Democrat policies and mayors responsible for the decline of our inner cites, or does it go much deeper than that?
There is an email circulating widely that I received the other day about the relativism between having a Democrat mayor and city poverty levels. It noted, and the facts are correct, that of the 10 cities that are lowest on the list of wealth, all 10 have Democrat mayors. This of course leads one to the assumption that Democrat mayors caused the poverty.
Well, let’s take a look at that.
The fact that poverty stricken cities (Detroit was #1, with 32.7% living below the poverty line) have Democrat mayors does not necessitous mean that it was the mayor that caused the problems. Considering the fact that 65% of the nations large cities mayors are Democrat, that could be statistically insignificant, at least on the face of it.
Who runs the wealthiest cities in America?
By the same results gleaned from the U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 American Community Survey, of the top 10 cities, 7 were Republican mayors, 1 was a town-council (Seattle) and 2 were Democrat.
The question is, of course, what came first, the chicken or the egg? Did the rise in poverty levels cause the electorate to vote in a Democrat?
Possibly. But the important thing to note, is that voting in a Democrat certainly didn’t help them. Again, looking at Detroit, they haven’t had a Republican mayor since 1961. And things are certainly worse in Detroit since the high flying car years of the 50’s and 60’s. The run of Democrat mayors didn’t bring any new jobs to the city. The increase in entitlements didn’t cure any of the problems of poverty. The increase in tax levels over that period nearly doubled- which wasn’t going to bring in any new businesses to employ the skyrocketing unemployment over those years.
It should be also noted that during the period these cities were all declining, real median household income in the United States climbed, and by 2006, it reached $48,200, nearly double that of the top 10 cities. Democrat stewardship may not have caused wage problems, but it certainly didn’t help any.
Philadelphia hasn’t had a Republican in office since 1952- and things were pretty good for Philadelphia in 1952. Not so much anymore, with 25% of the population living below the poverty line. Entitlements sure did grow though- in both Detroit and Philadelphia, the expansion of entitlement systems over the period of 1960-2006 more than sextupled.
So what about the richest cities? Well, they tended to be older cities but there really wasn’t any correlation between wealth and demographics until you get to employment. Every city on the top 10 list had one thing in common, a strong centralized industry that employed people- not a government that increased its size or its taxes or its entitlements. The top city was, of course, San Jose- Silicon Valley with the highest median income, and interestingly enough, a Republican mayor- an anomaly in the Democrat high country of Northern California.
The interesting thing about San Jose, is that the current mayor, Chuck Reed-R was on the city council and spearheaded major change in the city from 2000-2006 and was highly public in his criticism of the problems growing in San Jose during that period (such as increased crime and traffic), and was instrumental in making major changes to the city’s taxation and infrastructure. These changes led to San Jose’s continued growth even during the recent recession years.
We all know the story of NYC and Giuliani, of course. How did a bankrupt and crime ridden city turn itself around into a financial powerhouse? How did the city, which was the poster child of inner city turmoil and financial mismanagement become, what some consider, a model for financial responsibility and city management?
Not through increased taxes and entitlements. It did it through a strong hand in crime prevention and enforcement, and strict rules on the handling of its finances and major government cutbacks, rather than simply growing thick with bloat.
Does having a Republican mayor guarantee success? Certainly not. Does having a Democrat mayor insure failure?
By no means.
Look at Washington DC- one of the top 10 wealthiest cities and its been run by Democrats for years. Of course the bulk of its wealth is being driven by the high salaries of Congressmen, since its major industry is running the government. But Honolulu is on there as well, and they have had the same Democrat in office for some time.
So you can’t say Democrats=failure, nor Republicans=success.
But here’s what IS evident from the analysis of that same census report. A cities wealth is directly tied to the management of the industry within its borders and its level of employment. Every one of the top 10 wealthiest cities are a result of people WORKING and generating incomes.
There is no such thing a ‘jobless’ recovery, despite what you are being told. Entitlements and government money does not solve any problems of crime or poverty. Social programs do not solve the ills of a city that is poorly managed or decayed to moral and civic neglect. Benefits do not equal financial success. Government does not create jobs, the private sector does.
High taxes and government checks in the mail is not a fix to economic decline, and electing a Democrat is sure to generate both.
No, that census data, while indicative of the link between Democrats and poverty, is no chicken and the egg. You can’t blame the Democrat mayor for problems in the city that start to grow. But you CAN blame them for not doing anything to alleviate the problem.
Democratic and liberal policies and agendas may not cause economic decline, but they certainly won’t get you out of it.
