Where's the tough dialogs?

When Holder because Secretary of the Justice Department, he said Americans were afraid to talk about race. I've mentioned this a few times... we're afraid to talk about it because if we - the white majority - point out the obvious facts of why black unemployment is still so high  - a vast segment of the black community can't speak recognizable English, can't do simple math - we are called racist. Instead, it's because black kids in schools are disciplined too much. They're kicked out of school when they shouldn't be, and Whitey is just keeping them down.

(Remember, that's why President Obama recently signed into law a directive that said that black kids couldn't be expelled for things that other kids could be expelled for.)

So Rush points out that it's paying illegal aliens low wages is why there's such an income disparity in certain parts of this country.

RUSH: Guess the two things that are proven to not help with income inequality. The two things that are proven to not help with income inequality... And, by the way, I'm not accepting the premise. I'm simply stating that the left is basing a lot of what they're doing in terms of shaping the minds and hearts of duped Americans on this premise that there should be equality. Obama, listen to him talk:

"Fair shot." "Fair shake." "Level playing field." "Equality." "Fairness."


All that, it appeals emotionally. The reality is, there is no such thing as equality or sameness, from person to person or thing to thing. Impossible! Likewise with income. There will not be income equality. Unless you're in a union. And even then, there are differences. So I'm not accepting the premise, simply utilizing it here. Two things that are proven not to help with it are high taxes and unions.

One thing that does contribute to income inequality is high numbers of illegal immigrants, and this is never discussed. And, as usual, we can never solve a problem 'cause we are forbidden from discussing it in reality. Now, Conn Caroll has a piece couple days ago in the Washington Examiner entitled, "The Income Inequality Factor Liberals Can't Talk About." In fact, not just liberals; nobody can talk about it and survive.

"President Obama has made it clear that he has one political goal this December: raise taxes on the rich. Last December, in Osawatomie, Kan., Obama explained why. 'In the last few decades, the average income of the top 1% has gone up by more than 250% to $1.2 million per year,' Obama said. 'Now, this kind of inequality -- a level that we haven't seen since the Great Depression -- hurts us all.'"

That's Obama a year ago. So the question: "But do higher taxes on the rich reduce income inequality?" No! They do not! And all you need to do is make a quick comparison of state inequality data and their corresponding tax codes. "Just take a look at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities' recently released report 'Pulling Apart: A State-by-State Analysis of Income Trends.' The CBPP used Census Bureau data to determine which states had the largest gap between the bottom fifth of income earners and the top 5% of earners. According to CBPP, the states with highest levels of income inequality are: 1) Arizona, 2) New Mexico, 3) California, 4) Georgia and 5) New York."

All of these states, by the way, are on the Forbes list of death-spiral states. Every one of these states is in a death spiral, Forbes magazine. They are the states with the highest level of income inequality. "The report identifies a 'more progressive' tax system as one way states can battle inequality, but it never tells us which states have the most progressive tax codes. As a matter of fact, California and New York have two of the most progressive tax systems in the country, according to a separate report by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy."

California now has a top marginal rate of 13%. California and New York tax the rich like nobody's business, and they are in the top five states with the greatest/highest levels of income inequality. Now, if raising taxes on the rich was fair -- if raising taxes on the rich somehow elevated the people at the bottom -- then California and New York would not be in the top five states with the highest level of income inequality.
"So if taxing the rich doesn't prevent income inequality, what does? Many on the Left ... believe that stronger unions can help reduce income inequality, but state-by-state comparisons don't help that case either. New York, California and New Mexico are all forced-unionization states, meaning if you take a job with a unionized firm, you must join the union." So New York, California, New Mexico must join the union.

They have the highest income inequality states in the country. So high taxes on the rich, and forced unionization do not matter a whit to reducing income inequality. "Meanwhile the three states with the least income inequality, 1) Iowa, 2) Utah and 3) Wyoming, are all right-to-work states, meaning where workers have the right to choose whether or not they want to join a union. So if low taxes and weak unions aren't causing income inequality, what is?"
Well, "The three states with the highest income inequality also all share a border with Mexico." All of those states have huge illegal immigration populations. "According to the Pew Hispanic Center, every one of the top five unequal states also is among the top 10 states with high illegal immigrant populations." Income inequality, according to the data, highest levels of it in states: High taxes, forced unionization, and huge immigration. So what's the solution? Ending all three, and you can't talk about it and survive.