A New P.R.I.M.E. Directive: Eliminate the Bureaucracy that Impoverishes the Poor

Many poor persons seek to escape their confinement through the off ramp of entrepreneurial pursuit.  They don't lack from ideas.  They have spent years, in relatively threatening neighborhoods, toiling over laws and mathematics to garner a degree in a field of study.  They have taken the risks of public transportation, even leaving the care and education of their children in the hands of progressive captors, to gain the skills essential to building a modest enterprise.  Through the collective of sincere and loving capitalist investors--yes, family and friends, these future Wall Street tycoons have yielded their minds, bodies and souls to the perils of discovery and small free market engines that will spur economic growth and employment.  Yet, these angels of prosperity face a stranglehold that is greater than the application for a commercial loan.  It is an enemy that seeks to wage continual warfare on the profits of their ideas and the investments of the ones that they love.  Their enemy is so emboldened that it will even use their sometimes skill lacking employees against them to spur economic surrender.  It seems the great dishonor amongst these wizards of overcoming lack with providential resolve and stubborn will is that they did it without a government program.  For this, they will pay handsomely.  Beyond tax and fee liberalism, the stranglehold on those seeking to escape poverty through entrepreneurial pursuit is bureaucracy.  Relief of the poor will not come from a monthly subsidy but capital investment, hard work and profit.  We must overcome poverty by eliminating the bureaucracy that sustains it.  Those with People Reinvesting In Marriage and Economics (P.R.I.M.E.) interests must consider this our next Directive. 

Former Anti-Integration Democrat South Carolina Governor James F. Byrnes once quipped, "The nearest approach to immortality on earth is a government bureau."  It was an observation well understood by a man who surrendered his post as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court to become Head of the Office of Economic Stabilization for President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR).  It was created under the Stabilization Act of 1942 to regulate taxes and control prices, wages and salary increases.  He understood the access, power and influence of operating a Congressionally approved bureau.  Nine months after slowing the economic growth of the American economy by over-regulating private enterprise, FDR made Byrnes Head of the Office of War Mobilization, an independent agency created by Presidential Executive Order 9347.  Its purpose?  It was created to oversee all government agencies involved in the war effort including managing the construction of all new factories, the utilization of all raw materials, hiring civilian and military personnel and the transportation of military personnel.  The REAL POWER that he possessed is revealed in the McNair Papers: 

"...to formulate ,and develop a comprehensive national economic policy relating to the control of civilian purchasing power, prices, rents, wages, salaries, profits, rationing subsidies, and all related matters--all for the purpose of preventing avoidable increases in the cost of living, cooperating in minimizing the unnecessary migration from one business, industry or region to another, and facilitating the prosecution of the war. To give effect to this comprehensive national economic policy the Director shall have power to issue directives on policy to the Federal departments and agencies concerned.

The Bureaucrat Byrnes would become known as "The Assistant President".  His agencies would be disbanded by executive orders under later presidencies.  However, the FDR initiatives of price controls and rent controls lives eternally in modern government bureaus like the Department of Treasury and the Department of Housing.  

With the extensive power to regulate public and civilian life, one must ask, "Did the New Deal work?"  Let us hear the words of an expert observer:

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot."

So Ken, who was that?  Ronald Reagan?  Thomas Sowell?  Dr. Brooks Robinson?  No.  No.  No.  The US Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, Jr. who was uniquely responsible for funding the unfulfilled promises of FDR's New Deal.  How effectual were they?  The effect so measurable that there seemed only one option: Raise Taxes!  

We have never begun to tax the people in this country the way they should be..... I don't pay what I should. People in my class don't. People who have it should pay.

Rather than cutting budgets, spending and taxes, FDR sought to regulate, tax and spend more.  

FDR sought a 100% Tax, by executive order, on persons earning more than $25,000 net income.  Adjusted for inflation, 1942's net income of $25,000 in 2015 dollars is $358,446 net income.  Let's put this in perspective.  According to Sokanu.com, the Average Entrepreneur Hourly Wage in the United States is $82.50 and median salary of $171,610 per year.  Today's entrepreneur earning the FDR hated $358,446 net income would pay nearly $96,000 in federal income taxes.  We are not talking state taxes, insurance and other benefit costs.  Imagine 100%!  This is negative to the individuals' desires to make wealth from their ambitions and ideas.  Moreso, when the entrepreneur is stymied by government, the business is stymied to grow jobs in the free market.  According to the Kaufman Foundation, "New businesses account for nearly all net new job creation and almost 20 percent of gross job creation, whereas small businesses do not have a significant impact on job growth.  Companies less than one year old have created an average of 1.5 million jobs per year over the past three decades."  So who losses?  Most new businesses take greater risks on less skilled employees to produce the profit necessary to expand the business, grow revenue, increase salaries and hiring more labor.  The less skilled, less educated worker is the loser.  

These three shifts—from an industrial economy to an information one, from a producer society to a consumer one, and from a participatory culture to a spectator one—have come together in an extreme way to politically immobilize the very group that is the poorest in the United States—African-Americans. Relatively well-employed in manufacturing industries, they have little employment in information companies. Consequently, the majority of young African-American males are now found either among the unemployed, within the underground economy, or in prison. They are certainly not found in social movements, including the long-moribund civil-rights movement. This does not prevent them, however, from being totally absorbed with conspicuous consumption and with spectator sports. Ironically, there had been more involvement by young African-American males in social and political activities back in the bad old days of segregation.

The greater the government intervention, the less likely "the least, the last and the lost" are, not apply but, actually find an employer for the lower skills.  The groups the suffer the most: Hispanics and Blacks, especially the young in each.  A government program does not replace the modern skill sets lost from the absence of participating in the free market.   Bureaucracy that seeks to morally justify regulations, taxation and spending actually must falsely explain why "white people" or "capitalism" has deprived them of their well being.  In addition, they offer a solution.  Vote for the representatives that persist in promoting the New Deal philosophies that keep "the least, the last and the lost" broke, busted and disgusted.

Ludwig von Mises is the acknowledged leader of the Austrian School of economic thought--grounded in verbal logic which provides a relief from the technical mumbo jumbo of mainstream economics.  His frame of references was Nazi Germany during its origination in the 1930's.  In "Bureaucracy", Mises asserts, "THE main issue in present-day social and political conflicts is whether or not man should give away freedom, private initiative, and individual responsibility and surrender to the guardianship of a gigantic apparatus of compulsion and coercion, the socialist state."  He advised that the government that depended on a well-educated, powerful bureaucracy to instigate financial growth rather than depending on free market capitalists doom their economy and their state.  

The New Deal Workings extended a depression, originated in 1929 under Republican Herbert Hoover's Presidency, from 1933 to it's end about 1948.  The poor did not escape the throes of poverty and the rich were not denied their skill to make wealth.  However, in exchange for security that utterly leaves men and women dependent on the State and impoverished, these subjects have been given the assurance that if ever poverty becomes too tough then, someone will be there to care.  Probably a Democrat will offer the care of more government dependency because Republicans only care for the rich.  Whether you weave hair in Anacostia, seek an urgent care center in Barry Farms or train individuals on Microsoft technology in Northeast DC, it is important for you to fight against any and all bureaucracy or red tape that will distort your God-given ability to make wealth and to create the vessel that most assures the well being of your community: employment.  We must overcome poverty by eliminating the bureaucracy that sustains it.  Those with People Reinvesting In Marriage and Economics (P.R.I.M.E.) interests must consider this our next Directive. 

A New P.R.I.M.E. Directive: Strengthening Families Financially Through Marriage Rather than Subsidy Dependency

America's Election Season has focused much attention on the number 1,237.  The vibrant and competitive Grand Ole Party (GOP) Republican Presidential Election has all eyes on the numbers to propel either Billionaire Donald J. Trump or Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) to the Convention Nomination in Cleveland.  If you listen to the "Trumpinistas", Cruz should exit stage left from Indiana and head home to the US Senate.  The "Cruzites" assure us that it is impossible for Trump to win the majority of remaining primaries and that they will win the Second Convention Vote.  On the Mathematically Exclusive Delegate argument, Robert Eno makes it very clear.  They are all excluded of wining the GOP Nomination on the First Ballot.  Eno writes."The analysis above showing that Cruz would most likely win on a third ballot, at the latest, is why Indiana has become so pivotal to his chances at the nomination.  If Cruz does not stop Trump in Indiana, the likelihood is that Trump will attain 1,237 delegates before the convention, making this analysis an exercise in futility."  With the Gurus of Statistical Analysis, modern cable television commentators, jockeying for prognosticator honors, there are other numbers that those seeking to institute a New Urban P.R.I.M.E. Directive should concern themselves.   

For the District of Columbia, the numbers are 16,000 and 6,000.  Prior to the November 2016 DC General Election, the City will implement, if they don't delay another year for essential political public relations, a five (5) year ban on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) which provides cash assistance to needy families with dependent children when available resources do not fully address the family's needs and while preparing program participants for independence through work.  Adults with dependent children receiving TANF must meet financial and technical eligibility requirements.  Conditions of eligibility include cooperation with child support, participation in work activities and compliance with substance abuse provisions. Earned and unearned income cannot exceed the benefit level paid for the assistance unit size and assets are limited to $2,000.00.  Sanctions may be imposed for program noncompliance.

What dastardly Republican legislators would introduce such a prudent conservative idea on one of the Nation's most Progressive Cities?  They are Marion Barry (D-Ward 8), posthumously, and Yvette M. Alexander (D-Ward 7).  Yes, two of the City's most liberal politicians thought it wise to end dependency on government after over 100 years of legislative intervention.  "We have to break the cycle," Barry said. "Part of the purpose of the bill is to start a dialogue about how ineffective our current system is."  In 2010, when the ban became law, over 40% of the 17,000 persons receiving subsidy had done so for more than 5 years.  The cost was $35 million annually with an average payout of $370 per month.  So how do we define progress with a conservative concept?  In 2016, the City delayed implementation of the ban for a year, spent $42 million on "employment" and "behavioral health services" for at-risk families and increased average payout to $444 per month.  What remained?  There are 17,000 persons receiving subsidies.  We ask what was the purpose for a ban begun at the federal level by America's First Black President, William Jefferson Clinton (D), in 1996. and, finally, instituted by the Human Rights laden City Council in 2010?  Alexander put it this way, "For far too long, we have cradled a large part of the population, and our cradling has actually handicapped people.  Many of our residents view government assistance as a way of life, and in my opinion, we are actually hurting our residents instead of helping them."  So how will the City help those made most at-risk by government intervention?  Mayor Muriel Bowser (D) has proposed a FY 2017 budget that funds Families that have received assistance for 60 months or more will continue to receive just $154 a month for a family of three.  Under the 2017 budget, all families would lose income and employment assistance in October 2017, regardless of their circumstances.  

In testimony before the City Council, Nina Smith, a single mother affiliated with the Southeast Ministry, a nonprofit job-training and study program, advised that her return to the TANF program was forced by her lack of access to child care which led to her resigning from her job.  She advised, "I'm back on, not because I want to be but to support my household.  I am asking you not to pass this because if you do, a lot of us will be cold, homeless and hungry and our kids will suffer because we won't have the money to support them."  This is the mark of indictment on a noble intention that has supplanted the scope of marriage and resolve of family.  The dependence on subsidy so great that the only option seemingly available is the visible hand of government, both federal and local.  As the Nation's Capital moves steadfastly towards the October 1 deadline, it is urgent that Faith, families and neighbors assemble to discuss how the bane of poverty can best be defeated  without obscuring the individuals' needs to make decisions that will prosper their households.  We must be willing to accept the limitations of government and the unlimited potential of the individual.  In the confines of marriage, not government programs, we are assured a more prosperous society.  Generational Welfare limits the individual's assent to either a "Pathway to the Middle Class"--as some are content to restrain--or to the Founding Father's Assurances of Life, liberty and the Pursuits of Happiness.  We should never feel comfortable that any American is so chained to the State that they can not imagine life or liberty without its financial allowances.

Class warfare agents have long understood the prolific political power as a return of investment for demonizing one side of the aisle and uplifting the other in the $22 Trillion Dollar "War on Poverty".  Political Machines in early Urban America were organized to provide social services and jobs in exchange for votes.  Such unhealthy collusion maintained political dominance, especially among the Progressives.  It fit well with the liberal philosophy of creating a welfare state.  The flaws to such noble intentions: time and money.  The benefit: one can say that they care for people in exchange for their continued political allegiance and economic submission.  As early 20th century private organizations surrendered the support of the poor and needy to well accessed non-profit organizations and political operatives, their came greater demand of local governments to raise taxes to cover this interest.  Eventually, local and state systems of public relief were simply unprepared to cope with the volume of requests for help from individuals and families without jobs.  Hence, it was time to move to the next level: federal intervention.

The Democrats refer to the Father of the Third Bill of Rights, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (D), as the sovereign grantor of the civil rights of security.  However, before Roosevelt, President Herbert Hoover (R) signed the Emergency Relief and Construction Act (ERCA) on July 27, 1932.  Intended as a temporary assistance to business and labor, Hoover provided one of the first federal interventions of relief of the poor and the needy.  How did Hoover pay for it?  He raised taxes!  The impact?  Hoover's federal revenue decreased and added anxiety to the economy.  Yes, he decided that in order to save capitalism he would have to try socialism.  Where have I heard that before?  He opened the door as well to FDR's New Deal policies.  Immediately after assuming office in 1933, FDR proposed and then signed the Federal Emergency Relief Act (FERA), which, in its first year enabled the national government to distribute more than $1 billion to the states to shore up their existing public relief programs.  Thank You, Mr. Hoover!

We should not be so critical of Hoover as he attempted in every way possible not to involve federal intervention.  According to the The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History, Hoover sought to maintain a Republican form of governance in spite of calls to submit to socialism: 

"As the Depression became worse, however, calls grew for increased federal intervention and spending. But Hoover refused to involve the federal government in forcing fixed prices, controlling businesses, or manipulating the value of the currency, all of which he felt were steps towards socialism.  He was inclined to give indirect aid to banks or local public works projects, but he refused to use federal money for direct aid to citizens, believing the dole would weaken public morale." 

What was the reward for his audacious offense against the arguments of Keynesian politicians and New Deal promises?  He lost the Presidential election against FDR.  

It was the Progressives' intent to express the Keynesian notion that America would always have the financial resolve to provide for the welfare of its citizens.  This provision even at the dissolution of the family code of ethics and the move of traditional marriage "from an institution to a companionship".  However, as fiscal budgets tighten, the absolute truth is what von Mises would advise.  You eventually run out of other people's money.  At once, you must decide if it is reasonable to persist in maligning the dependent few in order to stoically proclaim a Pyrrhic ideological victory.  

Marriage is our New Urban P.R.I.M.E. Directive.  If DC would be so bold as to declare financial independence from Congress then, it should be even bolder to encourage those affixed on the promises of the Democrat and Republican progressive machines to declare financial independence.  However, as these families and households lose the financial inducements and regulatory control of the state and federal governments, the Faith communities should take the helm in creating neighborhood councils that encourage marriage and family life.  Dr. Linda Malone-Colon, Executive Director of The National Center on African-American Marriages and Parenting at Hampton University, and other men and women of reason would advise that marriage is the greatest means of reducing poverty.  Dr. Malone-Colon, in National Summit on Marriage, Parenting and Families advises, "There are many parents today who grew up in fatherless households because of the requirements that made it unlawful for recipients to have a man in the house. The lack of fatherhood is associated with negative outcomes many of which perpetuate the absent father problem."  The Heritage Foundation reports, "Over a third of single-parent families with children are poor, compared to only seven percent of married families. Overall, children in married families are 82 percent less likely to be poor than are children of single parents. The strong impact of marriage in reducing poverty still appears when married and non-married families of the same race and education level are compared."  Time and money are running out on these at-risk families.  The Government has exhausted our wealth and its patience in meeting the needs of the poor and needy.  Faith leaders and families have a unique responsibility to taxpayers and society in general to create the environment in which families can be restored to the institution that would best preserve their wealth and well-being.   Marriage should be on the agenda of every cultural institution in DC by October 1, 2016.  Preach it!  Our financial independence depends on it.

Government Failure to Replace the Father In The Home Requires A New P.R.I.M.E. Directive

There is a empty lot in Southeast Washington, DC.  1/10th the size of Washington Redskins' FedEx Field, Skyland Town Center is an emblem of pride for the surveyors of private-public collaboration.  The promise was JOBS!  Jobs, Jobs, Jobs!  The vision promised over 340,000 square feet of retail development and over 400 residential units.  The dream of enjoined living, shopping and gathering would transform one of the most glaring economic deserts in the City into an Urban Economic Renaissance.  It all seemed so real.  Then, we hear "CRASH"!  Wal-Mart walks.  There is a Cry of Racial Injustice.  Claims are made that private corporations will suffer.  Suddenly, silence erupts.  The winds blow dust across the empty terrain.  The fences that separate the people from the promise have witnessed the murders of Charnice Milton and Ivy Tonett Smith.  In spite of the most noble intentions, the unoccupied lot is merely a dusty memorial to a unyielding territory of "the least, the last and the lost".  Businesses close.  Jobs are lost.  The people suffer.  The promise suffers.  Yet, the cycle prevails, "Stay the Course, Full Speed Ahead!"

Skyland Town Center's empty lot is a metaphor for the many empty lots in the homes of East of the River families.  Filled with promise yet, yielding the results of systemic poverty.  David Steib, Ayuda Board member and Director of its Language Access, speaks to the "duress" in Poverty and Participation, East of the River:

"...several other obstacles faced by those who live east of the river.  More than a third encountered crime, including the sale of illegal drugs, in their neighborhoods.  Nearly 70% had received food stamps in the past two years and more than 60% had felt uncertain about having enough to eat.  And nearly a fourth had received Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) in the past two years; the DC Council is currently determining whether to terminate from the TANF program over 6,000 families—including over 13,000 children—who have reached the 60-month time limit on October 1, 2016."

Poverty advocates had sworn that the most coveted and costly War ever to be fought by America would result in prosperity for "the least, the last and the lost".  U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs since their inception under President Lyndon Johnson's Administration.  That is three (3x) times more than the amount spent on all US Wars since the American Revolution.  Since we have combated poverty, the American family, especially those East of the Anacostia River, have suffered the greatest collateral damage: the Father.

Governments, since Johnson's 1964 State of the Union Address where he announced “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America”, have sought to manage the cultural loss of the Father from the Home.  Gone is the Pro creator responsible for grooming the spiritual, social and familial well-being of the household.  Gone is the upward mobility of the second income that is tied to wealth creation rather than poverty maintenance.  Gone is the disciplinarian whose success kept many a testosterone laden teen from succumbing to the discipline of America's police forces, mercy of our judicial system and grace of our gender bending correctional facilities.  It was Father who set the pace for the family while imparting Biblical standards of respect and reverence for Mother, duty to family and God and responsibility to serve one's neighbors.  Governments have raced to keep families together with variant subsidy types.  However, no amount of subsidy fully rectifies the poverty experienced with the loss of a Father.

In eradicating myths about Fatherhood, Nick Chiles, 7 Ways the War on Poverty Destroyed Black Fatherhood author, advises, "Over 60 percent of fathers who have children outside of marriage earned enough at the time of their child’s birth to support their potential family with an income above the poverty level even if the mother did not work at all."  But Nick, the liberal, feminist narrative is "I can do bad by myself"!  Don't you know that Black Fathers don't care!  Chiles writes, "Opinion leaders and policy makers tend to treat Black unwed fathers as socially marginal deadbeats — an unmarriageable residue of little social or economic significance. To the extent that the fathers are remembered at all, they are seen as largely useless, capable of little more than modest child-support payments. This does little to encourage them to become more involved in their children’s lives."  Is this not the most important goal of reducing poverty?  Keeping families together?  Without adjusting our approach to poverty, those we seek to lift out will only succumb to the perils of treading economic lack.

There is a need for a new P.R.I.M.E. Directive in Urban America.  One not seeking the economic edge of social justice through regimented outcomes for all but initiatives that seek essential economic opportunities for all balanced on the firm foundation of strong families and strong neighborhoods.  The acronym P.R.I.M.E. stands for "PEOPLE REINVESTING IN MARRIAGE AND ECONOMICS".  I pray that some in Urban America will use these ideas to legislate economic freedom and familial reconciliation that will boost prosperity, reduce civic costs and produce law-abiding citizenry that seeks to defend themselves and the City.  Over the next few weeks, we will explore how a commitment to strengthening marriages in Urban America will improve economic outcomes for all.  As well, how economic "strategeries" that deregulate entrepreneurial efforts and reduce dependence of healthcare services on major urban hospitals, reduce overall taxes and allows for urgent capitalization through securing more banks and credit unions in impoverished neighborhoods.

There is a narrative that even some hearty conservatives have accepted as truth.  It is "Without government, people will remain in poverty."  This has been the mostly costly inadvertent attack on the family in American history.  Accepting a New P.R.I.M.E. Directive will allow families to shine as they escape poverty.  It will release government from indulging in efforts that keep people in poverty.  It will give Glory to the Living God by bringing the person most missed in Urban families back home: The Father.