Dr. Evil Unmasked !!

To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln: Liberals must love the poor; they make so many of them. By which I mean, liberals "make" the poor, or perpetuate poverty, in any number of ways, including: (1) "Poverty programs" that only perpetuate the habits that lead to poverty, and thus multiply and expand the poverty demographic, especially in urban areas; (2) Taxation, which has now reached all the way down to what are called "poverty-level" households. In other words, people who qualify for welfare and other entitlements are also taxed. Makes a lot of sense -- right? -- since the income-redistribution payments come from the government and the tax payments go to the government; (3) Supporting and perpetuating dismal and failing public schools, which also contribute to building in the things that readily lead to poverty, such as negative attitudes toward achievement, the "entitlement mentality", and all-around ignorance. This is all, of course, contrary to the liberal political line, which is they want nothing more than to "lift" people out of poverty. Well, for what has been spent on poverty programs since "The Great Society" got underway, they could have all been lifted into the ranks of millionaires -- but the programs didn't do this because, frankly, they were never meant to. Liberals and Democrats (assuming there is even a distinction) know that the "poor" (who, in any other society on earth, would be considered moderately well off) and -- note this next phrase -- people who _think_ they're poor, or who consider themselves poor, constitute the largest and most reliable -- and most vocal -- component of their political base. So expecting the Democrats to "solve" the poverty "problem" -- i.e., to eliminate poor people -- would be like expecting Republicans to, well, close down all the golf courses. It just ain't gonna happen.

Now, once you understand all this, you're ready for the next revelation, which is that, according to a recent study, "making people feel poor will prompt them to spend more money on a chance to become rich" -- like, in this case, buying lottery tickets. Yes! It turns out that people who buy lottery tickets aren't necessarily actually poor by any reasonable standard, and that's not what counts anyway. The point is, they _think_ they're poor, and that's what makes all the difference -- in lottery ticket buying as well as voting (which, when you think about it, is not all that much different from lottery ticket buying -- you vote for whoever you think is going to take the most money out of someone else's pocket and put it into your own).

So, what conclusion are we to draw from all this? Obviously, that liberals, and liberal politicians in particular, are in cahoots with the lottery industry. Playing the lottery helps make people poor, which is good for the Democrats. And Democrat programs help keep them poor, which is good for the lotteries! It's a match made in Heaven (or wherever). Skeptical? Think about it. They both promise sudden riches... unearned success... manna from above (e.g. from Washington)... and they very seldom deliver! And a big part of their message, in both cases, is that you're "entitled" -- that it's "your turn" to get "your piece of the pie", etc. The only distinction, as far as I can tell, is that playing the lottery seems to be a lot more fun than just sitting around and waiting for an entitlement check. But that could be fixed as well. Imagine, if for every round of entitlement checks there was, broadcast on prime-time TV, a clip of some boring middle-class white family being forced to sell their home in the suburbs -- you know, the one with the two-car garage, built-in barbeque, swimming pool, etc. -- and move into public housing because their taxes had gotten so high they couldn't afford to live there anymore. That would add a little pizzazz to things now, wouldn't it? I guess I'd better write the IRS about this -- if they like my idea they might shave a bit off my next tax bill.