Leadership, poverty
Lots of people think the question of the ages is “What came first, the chicken or the egg?”
However, as a conservative, I believe the more appropriate — and timely — question is “What came first, poverty or Democratic leadership?”
A little research discloses that the 10 poorest cities in the union include Detroit, Cleveland, Hartford, Dayton, Rochester, Newark, Jackson, Birmingham, San Bernardino and Syracuse (https://www.roadsnacks.net/poorest-cities-in-america).
The major distinguishing traits of these unfortunate metropolises are their poverty rates that range from 29% to 39% and unemployment rates ranging from 11% to 22%.
They are also overwhelmingly governed by Democrats. Who would have thought?
But, you may ask, were they poor first and voted for Democrats in a desperate attempt to escape poverty?
Or were they Democrats first and poverty is just a natural result of inflicting Democratic leadership on the people?
Further research reflects that, for the most part, none of these cities have had a Republican administration for at least 20 years apart from San Bernardino, which only recently elected a Republican mayor. So maybe there is hope for San Bernardino. (“The poverty of Democrats’ ideas for cities,” CNN, Aug. 21, 2008)
San Bernardino notwithstanding, however, it would appear that poverty and Democratic government go hand in hand. Where you find one, you find the other.
So, I can only conclude that electing Democrat leadership may not necessarily cause poverty, but it does seem to ensure that the condition persists.
You may wish to keep this in mind when it comes time to vote.
Dick Pilling,
Port Angeles
Editor’s note: Pilling is the former Clallam County Republican Party chairman.