I recently read a rhetorical Q&A paper on Promise Zones dated December 5, 2013 with the intent of researching and writing about the entire program, but on the very first page, the 2nd posed question, and its fairy tale answer caught my attention and I couldn’t stop thinking about it.
And here it is.
2. How does the Promise Zones initiative relate to Ladders of Opportunity?
“The Promise Zones initiative is part of President Obama’s Ladders of Opportunity agenda, which holds that there’s a basic bargain in America. It says that no matter who you are or where you’re from, if you’re willing to work hard and play by the rules, you should be able to find a good job, feel secure in your community, and support a family. President Obama has fought for the middle class, and has made historic investments in making sure that there are ladders of opportunity for those working hard to make it to the middle class.”
President Obama has never written, compiled, or composed any piece of legislation, much less anything original, and this program is no exception. Even the name Ladders of Opportunity is stolen. Ladder of Opportunity was the coined catchphrase used to describe a social advancement process by former Opposition Leader Mark Latham from Australia, who was, and is a socialist. Mark Latham’s program is socialistic, and so is Obama’s.
How does it relate? The Promise Zone Initiative allows the Obama Administration to multiply government expenditures by combining initiatives and overlapping others, just under a different name.
There are 6 programs mentioned in this paper alone, all promising pie in the sky, delivering little other than more handouts, all at great expense to the taxpayer.
The Ladders of opportunity plan
Promise Zones (this program)
Empowerment Zones tax incentives
Byrne Criminal Justice Innovation
Are all part of this initiative, but the core, is The Ladders of opportunity. Agenda is the key word; the ultimate goal of this initiative is to further government dependence. The promises, the rhetoric, and the handouts are just the cost of making this agenda a reality.
“President Obama has fought for the middle class, and has made historic investments in making sure that there are ladders of opportunity for those working hard to make it to the middle class.”
No he hasn’t. The middle class has shrunk every year under the Obama Administration, while the lower class has expanded– that is not fighting hard for the middle class.
But this initiative has nothing to do with helping the middle class.
How is Obama’s Ladders of Opportunity initiative supposed to make sure there are ladders of opportunity for those working hard to get to the middle class?
Rewards hard work by raising the minimum wage to $9.00: “Right now, a full-time minimum wage worker makes $14,500 a year. That means too many Americans who are putting in an honest, hard day’s work are living in poverty. That’s unacceptable. The President’s plan raises the minimum wage from $7.25 to $9.00, which would directly boost wages for 15 million workers and reduce poverty and inequality.”
“Rewards hard work by raising the minimum wage to $9.00.”
A reward is something you earn. If you increase the minimum wage for any reason other than being earned, it becomes an entitlement, a gift.
You could accurately say many who are paid $7.25 per hour (minimum wage) are not hard-working at all, and since the government cannot determine who works hard and who doesn’t, how can you claim you are going to reward them by giving them something they neither earned nor deserve?
“That means too many Americans who are putting in an honest, hard day’s work are living in poverty.”
Why, because they are making $7.25 an hour? Even a little casual research will show the majority of honest, hard-working Americans make more than minimum wage. In fact they already make more than the proposed $9.00 per hour. Middle class Americans may be forced to work for minimum wages for a time, but not for long. The spirit that drives middle class Americans pushes them to make their own way, not wait for a government handout, just as they always have.
According to the government, the low end earnings of those classified as middle class is $25,500 per year. So if you bumped the minimum wage to $9.00 that only puts you at $18,000 per year, which is not going to catapult anyone to middle-class.
The middle-class cannot be defined by earnings, yet the brainiacs in Washington keep trying to do so. The progressives who support the implementation of this plan have no concept of what middle-class America really is, have no idea of who comprises the middle-class, and don’t understand what makes the greatest class of people in this country tick.
The second rung on Obama’s Ladder of success causes me grave concern:
Provides high-quality preschool for every child: “Let’s give every child the fair shot he or she deserves. For America to succeed in the 21st century, we must have the most dynamic, educated workforce in the world, and that education has to start early in life.”
Just exactly how does the president propose to do that? Provides High-Quality preschool according to whom? According to what standard? Using what curriculum?
“But today, most four-year-olds aren’t in a high-quality public preschool program.”
This statement is almost an admission of failure. The current public preschool program, known as Head Start, is not a high-quality preschool program? Or is he referring to any four-year-old who is not in Head Start?
Research indicates children entering 1st grade who participated in Head Start were no further along in learning than those children who do not participate in Head Start, and are behind those who participate in private preschools.
Head Start was acknowledged as a failure as early as 1969 by members of the by-partisan cabinet of President Richard Nixon. The running commentary was – you could get your teeth fixed in Head Start but little else.
So what has changed?
Are the teachers held to higher standards now than current public preschool programs?
What are the new requirements for teachers manning the positions in this new high-quality preschool program?
Or is Head Start now as it was; a glorified baby-sitting service.
“the President is proposing to make a significant investment in early learning opportunities for our youngest children—birth through age three—by expanding Early Head Start, child care, and other health and education programs.”
Wait; “birth through age three”? The parents, not the government, are best suited to be the teachers in a young child’s life. A fascist government once sought to educate and oversee the health of populace from birth through adolescence.
Brainwashing –cradle to grave education – destruction of the traditional family – the end result – absolute dependence and loyalty to the government.
This program is far too similar to the program implemented in Germany in the 30’s to suit me based on what we have just reviewed as well as the following.
“by expanding Early Head Start, child care, and other health and education programs.”
Note – “and other health and education programs.” What Other health programs? What other education programs?
The government can never replace parents nor can they replace families, and we should never allow them to. Government is not family. Will you choose government over family? Will your children?
Partners with communities to help them rebuild and put people back to work:
And how does he plan to do this?
“the Administration will begin to partner with 20 communities that were hardest-hit by the recession to help get them back on their feet. Working with local leaders, the President’s plan targets resources at creating jobs, public safety, education, and housing.”
So the Ladders of opportunity will partner with 20 pre-selected communities, they have determined which communities were hardest hit by the recession: which wreaks of political favoritism and even racism.
In a nut-shell the Grow America Program, which will cost $72 Billion, will be used to provide better housing for the distressed neighborhoods, and public transportation to jobs and better schools outside of the distressed areas.
Think about that, $72 Billion invested in public housing and transportation. It seems almost like a contradiction between plan and execution. You want to improve the neighborhood, yet bus the inhabitants out to other places?
And what about the job providing industries that were supposed to move into these neighborhoods?
“A child’s zip code should never determine her destiny; but today, the community she grows up in impacts her odds of graduating high school, her health outcomes, and her lifetime economic opportunities.”
While there is a measure of truth in this statement, the fact remains one’s zip code does not determine one’s destiny. American was made great, not by destiny, but by effort. You can either help yourself or wait for the government allowing them to determine your destiny.
Two other things of note: HUD recently envisioned a plan of national redistricting by altering zip codes in an effort to change the racial makeup neighborhoods, so is this program really going to change these ‘hardest hit’ neighborhoods by doing actual improvements or are they just going to alter the zip codes?
Secondly, why the use of the word she? Why not they? It would seem a certain demographic is being targeted here – females – single mothers, who generate children and little else, life choices affecting their ‘destiny,’ creating another destiny for these single mothers, providing free cradle to graduation child care, and transportation out to a better school and a better job. Is that the desired destiny of these people? Or is it the governments?
“the President’s plan targets resources at creating jobs, public safety, education, and housing.”
Creating jobs in the distressed areas, or providing public transportation out of the area for potential employees?
Public safety is the one area which would have the greatest impact on the condition of a community. Communities having high crime rates are usually poor and run-down. And because crime is not sufficiently confronted communities spiral downward. Anyone who can, moves out. Those who can’t either fight crime, ignore it, or participate in it. The end result is the same; a thriving community collapses.
If you want communities to thrive then public safety should be priority number one. For without it no other effort, no matter how noble, will be in vain.
No law abiding citizen wants to live in a crime-riddled community. No one wants their children to attend school in a high crime community. And no business wants to locate in a high crime area. If this administration is serious, then this is the place to start. Alas it’s hard to enforce the law when the enforcers are lawless.
“Creates pathways to jobs for all Americans:”
No it doesn’t, it’s a targeted program, the specifics outlined of the program tell us this, so further comment would be superfluous.
“The President is proposing to remove financial deterrents to marriage for low-income couples;”
There is some merit here, but it will not be a viable option based on the current welfare system. It is common knowledge that some couples live together unwed, some choose to live separately because it’s financially advantageous. The unwed mother can collect far more benefits than a married one which creates the very family circumstance you are trying to avoid.
Do you consider creating financial breaks for low-income couples only, fair? Don’t middle class couples deserve the same incentive? Of course they do, but this is a targeted program.
“as well as continuing to support the critical role that fathers play in enhancing the well-being of their sons and daughters.”
“continuing to support the critical role”
And exactly what support is currently being offered to fathers? And are they supporting the fathers or are they supporting the role of the father by replacing him with government?
In reality this administration could have chosen a path that made more sense. They could have supported organizations that have a long track record of success in supporting the family unit and got far more bang-for-the-buck, but a progressive government is not concerned with efficiency or saving the taxpayers money.
Organizations like the YMCA, YWCA, Big Brothers, Big Sisters, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and neighborhood churches all bolster family values and assist in childhood development. It’s ridiculous to ignore these organizations and install something new unless your agenda is building government dependence.
When we consider the President’s Ladders of Opportunity agenda, what chance of success do you think the Promise Zone Initiative is going to really have – other than its designated purpose – increasing government dependence?
The progressive agenda is government first, family 2nd. Is that what made America exceptional? Not by a long shot. What made America great was God, Family, and country, in that order. That order commanded personal responsibility and accountability.
Now that order is being reversed by the progressive agenda. Government, family, responsibility and accountability only to the government, is the new order.