Here, where cattle could graze in vast swaths of this depopulated city, democracy ratified a double delusion: Magic would rescue the city (consult the Bible, the bit about the multiplication of the loaves and fishes), or Washington would deem Detroit, as it recently did some banks and two of the three Detroit-based automobile companies, “too big to fail.” But Detroit failed long ago. And not even Washington, whose recklessness is almost limitless, is oblivious to the minefield of moral hazard it would stride into if it rescued this city and, then inevitably, others that are buckling beneath the weight of their cumulative follies. It is axiomatic: When there is no penalty for failure, failures proliferate. This bedraggled city’s decay poses no theological conundrum of the sort that troubled Darwin, but it does pose worrisome questions about the viability of democracy in jurisdictions where big government and its unionized employees collaborate in pillaging taxpayers. Self-government has failed in what once was America’s fourth-largest city and now is smaller than Charlotte, N.C.
This is why the Founders gave us a republic, not a democracy.
Steven Rattner, who administered the bailout of part of the Detroit-based portion of America’s automobile industry, says, “Apart from voting in elections, the 700,000 remaining residents of the Motor City are no more responsible for Detroit’s problems than were the victims of Hurricane Sandy for theirs.” Congress, he says, should bail out Detroit because “America is just as much about aiding those less fortunate as it is about personal responsibility.”
It’s said that elections have consequences. For decades, Detroit voters empowered the people responsible for the city’s ultimate decline and decay. If we bail out Detroit, we’ll have to bail out every other failed city and state that has done the same stupid things as Detroit. Sorry, but no. Stupidy should be painful.
Stupidy should be painful
That could be the new GOP slogan.
Pithy! Applying your logic to this story, since the Democrat party has been in charge in Detroit for at least a couple of generations their slogan must be “Stupidity IS painful”
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…
Yes, Jim. Somehow Detroit is the fault of the Republicans. Wake me up when you see that Republicans have been nowhere near Detroit for 50 years.
The Democrats own this one. Not even you can pin this to Bush.
Don’t be silly. All the evil Republicans left Detroit and took their taxes with them, so the Democrats had no money left to spend.
So it clearly is the Republicans’ fault.
The saddest thing is that the silly twit probably believes exactly that….
Let’s say that it’s completely true that Republicans took all of their money with them.
So, the people that didn’t leave Detriot couldn’t start their own businesses? No one?
This is the problem I have with the whole White Flight theory. It basically says that white people are the only ones that can make money. Once all of the white people leave, the blacks are completely helpless. Really? Not one black person could have hired other black people?
No, I don’t buy it. What makes more sense is that some people, both black and white, got essentially paid by the government to not work, and so they didn’t. But, getting paid by the government means others were forced at gunpoint to hand that money over. Those people getting hit up decided to leave because they got sick of getting hit up at government gunpoint when their was just being used to pay other just because they existed, not because of any work they did. Fast forward 50 years, and you have Detroit.
Republicans had nothing to do with this.
(It’s not a reply to you specifically Edward, just to the people who say that).
Correction..
..when their money* was just being used to pay others* just because they existed…
If stupidity were truly painful, the Democrats would be extinct.
And Detroit is merely the beginning.
Look at most large cities. Their Mayor’s are Democrats and the vast majority of city councils are as well. The folks there keep voting them in because the Dems give money, housing, and other benefits to the locals who stay. Watch as others go down with it.
That’s a good point. Most big American cities are run by Democrats, and have been for decades, but only Detroit is bankrupt. There isn’t another big city with problems that come close to Detroit’s. Detroit is shrinking and broke, Houston is growing and prosperous, but both have Democratic mayors. If Detroit’s problem was democracy, or Democrats, you’d expect shrinking, bankrupt cities all over.
That is only because many of them are being artificially propped up by the rest of their states (and one main city, being propped up almost completely by the Federal Government).
If you really think that the major American cities are doing well and are swell places to live, then you need to go and visit them. Baltimore, Chicago, LA, NYC, Washington DC are all in major problems, their public schools are a joke, jobless rates are sky-rocketing, and the rate at which the residents kill one another is way above the national average. Yes, this is what Liberals to do when elected.
jobless rates are sky-rocketing
Google has a neat tool that lets you graph BLS data on metropolitan unemployment rates, and guess what? You are completely wrong. Unemployment is not “sky-rocketing” in Baltimore, Chicago, LA, NYC and Washington DC — it’s falling in all of those places, just as it’s falling nationwide.
But your ill-informed comment is representative of the Republican disdain for cities, despite the fact that 80% of Americans now live in urban areas.
Decided to check NYC unemployment numbers. Yes, they are falling as unemployment is falling nationwide as the business cycle changes despite the spike caused by the “stimulus”. But, NYC has 8.7% unemployment, which is higher than the national average of 7.4% and state average of 7.5%. Yet, the suburban counties surrounding NYC have a 6.1% unemployment rate. In fact, within the State of NY; the highest unemployment is in NYC. The Bronx unemployment rate is 11.8%, and guess which party has held that county since 1966?
Apparently you are the one ill-informed, Jim. Also, its not that Republican disdain cities; it is that they disdain bailing out cities run by Democrats for decades.
Houston’s mayor is not selected by party vote. Further, when most people speak of Houston’s prosperity, they really mean the Greater Houston region. The City of Houston has not performed nearly as well as outlying municipalities. Most job growth is occurring outside Houston city-limits, but typically remain in or near Harris County; which has been Republican run for a long time. For example, all the oil refining jobs are outside Houston, and ExxonMobil is moving its headquarters out of downtown Houston and up to the Woodlands.
Just checked, Wayne County has also been Democrat run for decades. In fact, all the Congressional seats surrounding Detroit on Democrat run. So Baghdad Jim; your comparison of Houston to Detroit is invalid. Nice try, but you are ignorance of the actual political situation has shown through again.
It is quite common for large cities to be dominated by the left and that is not an event unique to the US. Their policies are simply more well adjusted for people living in the city. Take unemployment benefits for example. In a rural economy where most people own land they make little sense. In the city if you do not have a source of income you are liable to end up starving, you have no land so no crops either, and indigent than in the countryside.
Only if you believe that there are no such things as churches and charities.
Look, you can’t give charity at gunpoint, which is what all of these government programs are. If my pastor walked up to your house with a collection plate and asked you for money, and then stuck a gun in your face demanding you give to the church, is that OK with you? He’s going to help the poor after all.
So I keep hearing. But in practice charities are neither well run (I should know I used to volunteer at one), nor corruption free (some of the most corrupt places I have ever seen), nor do they solve the problem for everybody. In fact even the people who do go there for food, etc, often find that they can only get enough food to cover part of their daily nutrition requirements if they can get food there to eat once a day at all.
Whether or not charities are well run is irrelevant. I’m taking about the basic morality of government “charity”.
You didn’t answer my question. Is it OK for my pastor to expect you to donate to the church at gunpoint?
And you think charities are not well run, but somehow the government is? The government has no incentive to even try to be well run. All they have to do is ask Congress for more money next year. Money that is taken at gunpoint.
Chicago isn’t looking too good and there have already been a lot of cities go bankrupt, you just don’t read much about them in Obama’s media. But if the standard of health for a city is whether they go bankrupt or not, you ignore a lot of serious problems that lead to bankruptcy. You can’t say that everything is great if they haven’t declared bankruptcy.