Now, a lot of this is campaign rhetoric, and needs to be read as such. I get that. Consider the end of Point 5, though:
We will also encourage small-business creation by allowing social
welfare workers to convert poverty assistance into repayable but
forgive-able micro-loans.
This got me to thinking. I have likely from time to time mentioned my fondness for the Kiva.org . approach to poverty. My personal view is that they should win the Nobel Prize. There is zero doubt in my mind that in their decade or two of existence they have done more concrete good in developing nations, than all the foreign aid offered by the West to developing nations from the end of World War 2 until the advent of Kiva.
Leaving that as a controversial point I might retract if I studied more, let it suffice to say it is a good cause.
Here is the thing: Kiva exists in the United States, too. You can look up people needing small loans to start or expand businesses here.
Here is my idea: why not focus on Kiva as a resource, build access to it exponentially through effort and funding at all levels of government, and why not set up some kind of matching program, where the local, State, or Federal governments match private funds? It’s win/win.
Such an idea would create self sustaining business enclaves everywhere, reward hard work, demonstrate the value of hard work and initiative, be self sustaining as a remedy–with most loans being repaid–, and operate after a time independently of any government aid at all. Such aid can come and go, like matching grants anywhere else.
Politically, this would be great for Republicans, particularly. The Democrats, in election after election, spend all their time telling blacks and other minorities that they should only elect Democrats because Republicans are horrible. This is the substance of their outreach. They don’t have ideas which work. Obviously. They have been saying the same shit every 2 or 4 or 6 years, at all levels of government, since 1970 or before. That is 48 years, if we use 1970 as a benchmark. And what has changed? Seriously. Look at Detroit, Philadelphia, New Orleans, Chicago, Washington D.C. If I want to make a list of the most dangerous cities in America, all I need to do is make a list of the cities where Democrats have been running things the longest. Can we not agree that is suspicious at the least, and CERTAINLY not the effect of good policy, oriented sincerely around the common good, executed vigorously over the long term? Of course not. To claim otherwise is to be an idiot, or gravy recipient.
But this policy SHOULD be embraced by Democrats, because it is a good idea. It really is. It is likely not a panacea, but certainly a solid palliative, and honest Democrats need to admit that a little good is a little good. And if the little good might turn into a great good–and that is certainly the case here–then they should support it.
But it seems emotionally obvious to me that they will uniformly oppose this idea, not because it is a bad idea, but because they DON’T WANT BLACKS TO SUCCEED. As long as they can blame Republicans, and get the electorate to buy it, they want blacks as miserable as possible.
So this idea creates a fantastic opportunity for Republicans to point to, to showcase, to highlight, to throw Klieg lights, on the horrific cynicism and hypocrisy of Democrats. They can ask, openly: what do you have against the success of black entrepreneurs? What do you have against poverty remediation programs which work, versus those you keep enacting, which make things worse, if they do anything at all?
If Democrats work with Republicans, great. The goal is to fix the problem, not win elections. And if they don’t, they they show themselves to be money-grubbing, unprincipled assholes, which in fact is what most of them are. To be sure, many Republicans are money-grubbing assholes too, but they are in general not raiding the public treasury to do it, and they are not claiming to be anyone’s savior, other than those who just want to be left alone.