Democrats = Income Inequality - Granite Grok

Democrats = Income Inequality

Two-Faced-Nancy-Pelosi--78560

Bloomberg has a report online listing income inequality by Congressional District. Guess which party, based on this report, dominates the top spots for income inequality in the US?

Of the top 35 congressional districts with the most income inequality, 33 of them are seats held by Democrats. And not just any newly-elected left-wing back-benchers. We’re talking top-of-the line narrative spewing, members of party leadership. People who have had years to effect positive change in their districts but have failed to deliver on their rhetoric.

Democrat Sheila Jackson Lee’s district is the 33rd worst (out of 436, mind you) in the nation for income inequality. Jan Shakowski – 25th, Elijah Cummings – 24th worst, Debbie Wasserman Schultz’ district is 23rd. Charlie Rangel’s district is 20th worst. Barbara Lee – 19th, Henry Waxman-16th,  Nancy Pelosi’s is 14th worst. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (District of Columbia) ranks 10th worst.

(And remember trolls, this isn’t Fox News, it’s Bloomberg).

Civil rights leader John Lewis (D-Georgia), the Senior Democrat Deputy whip in the US House, has been in office since 1987. His district ranks 8th for the most income inequality in America. Danny K.Davis, Illinois District 7, was first elected in 1997 – 3rd most income inequality.

Number one goes to Democrat Jerrold Nadler, who has been in congress since 1992.

While we can make the case that people in these areas tend to vote Democrat more often, some of these reps have been in these seats for decades. Many of those followed House Democrats. They have had ample opportunity to encourage or discourage policies that allow for their own ideas about how to achieve greater income equality.

Meanwhile, on the opposite end, the 35 best districts for income equality (as reported by Bloomberg) include 14 Democrat and 21 Republican members of congress.

What does it mean? Do Democrats breed and sustain income inequality?  Francis Menton at City Journal thinks the answer is yes.

Could it be that progressive policies intended to reduce income inequality actually cause it to increase? Quite likely, yes. The reason has to do with the effect of these policies on the low end of the income distribution. The government doesn’t count the distribution of in-kind benefits as income—and means-tested handouts create incentives for recipients to keep their measured incomes low. Further, where higher minimum wages—another progressive agenda item—cause higher unemployment, we see even more zero-income earners. Having lots of low-earners or zero-earners doesn’t help reduce inequality. Meanwhile, at the high end of the income distribution, taking money from high earners through higher marginal tax rates is not counted in official statistics as a cut in income—which means that income inequality again doesn’t shrink.

So the best possible plan for improvement, any improvement, would be to elect someone other than a Democrat.

>