Jesse Jackson plays politics with poverty

The Illinois Leader ^ | 11/18/04 | Scott Thomas

[wagglebee]

In his recent op-ed column in the Chicago Sun Times, Rev. Jesse Jackson claimed, “Republicans have no monopoly on religion or faith”. I agree. No social ideology has a “monopoly” on religion or faith. No political party can claim to be the voice of God. Rev. Jackson, you’re absolutely right.

He goes on to make a point that, during the presidency of George W. Bush, “poverty...including childhood poverty...is up.” To tell you the truth, I don’t know if he’s right, or not on this. He didn’t site any statistics. He didn’t quote any figures. He just said, “under this president, poverty...is up”.

But, even without looking up the data, I’ll give him the point. I think it’s probably true that poverty has risen over the last 4 years, depending on how you measure it.

Rev. Jackson also makes this if/then connection: “Republican policies often seem divorced from the teachings of the Bible.”

So, let’s connect Rev. Jackson’s theological dots. There are poor people in this country because of anti-Biblical Republican policies.

Rev. Jackson, you had me, then you lost me.

For as long as I’ve had political/social consciousness, Rev. Jackson has been a Democrat. During all that time, he has been representing Democrat policies as those that will bring an end to poverty. In addition to championing those Democrat policies that will bring an end to poverty, he has formed and led Operation Push as a kind of faith based, para-political organization that, among other things, holds out the promise of ending poverty.

For 40 years, Rev. Jackson has been a key sociopolitical player, vowing to support and implement policies that will end poverty.

Over the last 40 years, or about the time Jackson has been securing his influential place among the poor by promising an end to poverty, there have been 3 Democratic presidents, and many years of Democratic majorities in Congress.

Yet, over the last 40 years, to use Rev. Jackson’s words, “poverty is up”. In particular, “poverty is up” in Illinois. Even more particularly, “poverty is up” in Rev. Jackson’s back yard of Chicago.

Since he brought God into the discussion, if I had the opportunity to actually speak with Rev. Jackson (his people have turned down several invitations to be on my Chicago based radio show), I’d have to ask him if it is somehow Biblical to promise, or even simply imply, that government will solve the problem of poverty in this country?

That’s what’s been purported to the poor for as long as I can remember. Democrats, chief among them, right out front, Rev. Jackson, implying they hold the solution to poverty through government entitlement programs.

Yet, despite all the words Rev. Jackson has spoken and written about solving the problem of poverty, and despite all of the inefficient, misguided (however well meaning) entitlement programs that Rev. Jackson and his fellow Democrats have initiated, by his own admission, “poverty is up.”

Without some much as glance in his own mirror, he blames only Republicans and this president.

Well, unlike Rev. Jackson and the Democrats, I don’t pretend to have a government solution to poverty. Unlike Rev. Jackson and the Democrats, I don’t use poverty as a political issue to keep me entrenched as an entitlement power broker. I, and most Republicans (at least the conservative ones) are honest enough with ourselves, and with the poor, to tell the political truth.

Government has not, will not, cannot solve the problem of poverty…not across the country, not in Illinois, not in Chicago. I don’t ask government to do what it cannot do.

This does not mean that I do not care that “poverty is up”. I care enough to tell the truth and not hold the Democratic Party or the U.S. government up as the savior to the impoverished. That’s not Biblical, Rev. Jackson.

As I read the Bible, Jesus tells me, “the poor will always be with you” (Matthew 26:11, Mark 14:10). As I further read it, Jesus admonishes me, and you, to take care of the poor ourselves. Jesus told Peter, not the congress, to “feed my sheep”. God’s word admonishes the church to take care of widows and orphans, not the Democrat or Republican party.

So, which is more, as you say, “divorced from the teachings of the Bible”, Rev. Jackson? Promising government solutions, even after 40 years of government failures, or lowering taxes, including taxes on the wealthy, so that we might all have more money with which to “feed sheep”?

You might ask how we can ensure people, paying less in taxes, will take care of the poor. Maybe the place to start would be to act more like a Reverend and less like politician.

How about preaching the Biblical truth of personal responsibility for feeding the poor, rather than the political heresy of abdicating that responsibility to the government?

C’mon Rev. Jackson. It’s time to preach Biblical truth instead of misusing the Bible to protect your place in the Democratic Party.

[wagglebee]

Jackson is a hypocritical adulterer who runs a corrupt organization that is probably the envy of organized crime everywhere.

[Recovering_Democrat]

In other news:

Yasser Arafat Linked With Terrorism.

New York Times has Liberal Bias.

Tax Cuts Encourage Economic Growth.

Abortion Kills Innocent Life.

Water is Wet.

Circles Are Round.

Bachelors Are Men Who Have Never Married.

[ward_of_the_state]

Awwww..poor Jesse is feeling neglected and it's time for him to get an ego boost from the press. He needs a pity party.

[Time is now]

Jesse needs an a**-whippin for not coming out to support Condi Rice. Regardless of political opinion, what has happened to her requires decent people to speak up.

[ward_of_the_state]

Jesse is not decent. He only helps those who will help Jesse's cause and bank account.

[CaliRepublican97]

Amen! Jesse is only looking out for him and his entourage. More money for his pockets...As long as he keeps minorities voting democrat, he knows he will have millions. When minorites start voting Republican--he is losing his millions...
I hope to see Jesse and Al Sharpton bankrupt soon...

[Taggart_D]

[Jackson is a hypocritical adulterer who runs a corrupt organization that is probably the envy of organized crime everywhere.]

Amen!

[Kenny Bunk]

Poverty IS up?

i.e., Poverty BE up. or "The povertitious be increasing magnitudinally under the present KKK administration, which represents the slave-holders."

The author of your otherwise interesting post needs many lessons in politically correct prose. Furthermore, asking Jesse for statisical back-up is simply not done. Whenever Jesse say something, you all say "Amen ... that be all right."

[wagglebee]

Poverty is DOWN!

For that matter, "poverty," as defined by the US government is an arbitrary income level that has absolutely nothing to do with being "poor." "Poor" people in America have a higher standard of living than most of the world (and live better than the average western European).

[FITZ]

Jackson is not a Christian, he's a Marxist. He worships Karl Marx --- "from those according to their ability, to those according to their needs" --- Jesus Christ never demanded that Peter be robbed to pay Paul if Paul didn't want to work.

[the_rightside]

All I can say is .... BT

[SunnySide]

He goes on to make a point that, during the presidency of George W. Bush, “poverty...including childhood poverty...is up.”

Of course only Jesses illegitimet brats are exempt from being impoverished since his Rainbo coalition is his own personal slut fund.

[risk]

I think we need to be willing to talk about poverty. In fact, talking about and taking real steps toward eliminating it is a continual responsibility for a free, democratic Republic. The best defense against communist or other revolutionary takeover is to maintain vigilance toward the shortcomings of capitalism.

But the New Deal should have expired in 1945, and the Great Society "war on poverty" eventually failed. I prefer a modest amount of help only to the most poverty-stricken and infirm combined with a program for economic stimulus. President Bush's "Ownership" initiatives have done more to increase the wellbeing of less fortunate than anything else, IMHO.

Tax cuts, cutting through government red tape, and encouraging industries to thrive by keeping our government hands off of them is the best thing we can do for the vast majority of poor people. I would add that ending illegal and excessive immigration would help, as well. Ask a construction worker, construction contractor, or laid off programmer what they think of cheap immigrant labor.

I also believe we need to encourage affordable education, but not at the expense of home-taught morals. I also think higher public education has to be totally reformed before our tax dollars continue to feed the flames of anti-Americanism. From Aztlan to a million Mogadishus, from Derrida to Alice Walker, our state college campuses are hives of irrelevant "dissent" and Sadistic rage. Your tax dollars at work!

[William of Orange]

true, but cost of living is also higher in the USA

[wagglebee]

No it isn't. And I was talking about standard of living, not income levels. The "poor" in America earn more AND live better than the average European.
http://www.finfacts.com/costofliving.htm

[outofhere2]

Adding to the black illegitimacy rate. What a fine example.

[traviskicks]

    Here is a picture of Jesse Jackson marching with N.O.W. (National Organization of Women, a liberal feminist group) members against Welfare Reform, along with the results of the reforms they opposed. State Reform took effect around 1992-1994 and the National Bill was passed in 1996. The Republicans swept the house in 1994 promising a ‘Contract with America’. People are the same the world over. It is the political structure and governmental interference that make all the difference. Get Government out of people’s lives and they will succeed. To believe people cannot succeed without government ‘help’ is to subscribe to what President Bush calls, ‘the soft bigotry of low expectations’. The reason they aren’t succeeding is BECAUSE of the government help, which only serves to subsidize poverty and single motherhood! For some reason, saying these things and passing bills that help millions of people out of poverty is said by the left to be ‘cruel’, ‘hardnosed’ and ‘racist’.

[traviskicks]

-snip- Despite what we've seen so far, if millions of poorer (especially minorities) were thrown into poverty following Welfare Reform we could not declare it a success. In the same sense if the spending in the late 60s early 70s lifted people out of poverty then we might declare President Johnson's war on poverty a success. But, everywhere we look we find the opposite of what we might expect. In fact, the following graphs suggests that the poverty rates stopped dropping as government programs to combat poverty kicked in!

(all numbers in this chart drop dramatically (following welfare reform [state reform 1992-94, national reform 1996]).

[tom paine 2]

One of Jesses sons was given a Budweiser distributorship on the near west side of Chicago. I don't thinks he's poor anymore.

[ChadGore]