Liberals and the collection of them that more or less form the Democrat Party frequently express their support for the poor and their intention to fight for them in the form of higher pay, better benefits, and redistribution schemes designed to punish the rich and, therefore, somehow make the poor feel better about themselves. Unfortunately, for the poor, the Democrats also care about a lot of other issues (social justice, environmental justice, pretty much any justice except criminal justice). Caring about all these other issues translates into actions that help those causes, but hurt the poor. When we look at the big picture, the demonstrated actions of the Democrats and liberals, in general, almost always seem to make life harder, not easier, for the poor.
Right now climate change is at the top of many Democrats’ priority lists. President Obama has called it a more important issue than terrorism. Unfortunately for the poor, all the actions Democrats have taken to combat climate change (and want to take going forward in order to make further progress on that issue) lead to higher energy prices. No matter what they try to promise you, green energy is still on average much more expensive than using fossil fuels. The poor spend more of their income on energy than the rich do, so higher energy costs are hard on the poor.
Environmentalism is another top priority for most Democrats. There is certainly nothing wrong with wanting to protect the environment, reduce pollution, and have clean air to breathe, but when we impose these things on ourselves, we make everything in life more expensive. Factories cannot reduce pollution for free, electric utilities spend billions of dollars reducing air pollution, and keeping our waters clean and safe costs additional billions beyond that. This may all be worth it (ask anyone in Beijing), but we should not forget that these environmental amenities are expensive. They make prices higher, which makes the poor poorer.
Environmental restrictions on building and land preservation movements also have admirable principles behind them. Most of us like the opportunity to occasionally enjoy nature, take a hike, be able to escape civilization for a few hours. Yet, making large areas of land off-limits for building and other housing restrictions that liberals have put in place for the benefit of the environment raise the cost of building new housing by restricting the available places housing can be built. Big parks and nature areas are great, but part of the cost is the poor paying more for housing or having long (and expensive) commutes to work thanks to environmental restrictions on new construction.
Environmental justice is a combination of environmentalism and social justice which means we should make sure that what pollution is left (landfills, dirty factories, etc.) are spread evenly throughout our communities rather than concentrated into poor neighborhoods. While this seems eminently fair and noble, land is cheaper in poorer areas, so when we move factories and landfills to higher-priced neighborhoods, we raise their costs, meaning we all must pay higher prices or higher taxes (or both).
The left also loves locally grown and organic food. Personally, I generally support local food because I like economically supporting local farmers. However, my small-scale, local farmers are terribly inefficient compared to larger-scale farmers located farther away. Similarly, organic food is generally much more expensive to produce than food grown by conventional methods. I can choose on a case-by-case basis whether I want to pay extra to support a local farmer, but when we push local or organic foods on everyone (say through school lunches or misguided labeling campaigns), we are raising the cost of food. Poor people spend a higher percentage of their income on food, so higher food prices hit them especially hard.
Democrats also typically favor improved labor standards, both here and abroad, meaning higher minimum wages (and wages overall), paid sick, vacation, and parental leave, and safer working conditions. These sound good for the poor since the poor are likely to disproportionately benefit when these standards are raised. However, there is a cost to the poor, as well. Higher labor costs mean that everything the poor buys must cost more. Further, when we push for improved labor standards abroad as part of free trade agreements, the prices of imports go up and no poor workers in the U.S. get any benefits. Higher labor costs also mean fewer jobs; thus, the poor who keep their jobs face some gains (better work conditions) and some losses (higher prices), but the poor who lose or now cannot find a job only get the higher prices.
Saving the world may seem like a noble cause, and sometimes it is. However, as liberals go around saving the world they seem not to have noticed that all the actions they are supporting are essentially luxuries that make living more expensive. If you live in Marin County (CA) or Manhattan (NY), paying a bit extra on your electric or grocery bill in order to feel good about yourself may be well worth it and no particular strain on your budget. However, not everyone is wealthy enough to place the environment or today’s social cause above the simple reality of trying to get to their next paycheck before their money runs out. Those of us who can afford to pay extra to do good in the world should be welcome to do so, but we should be much more careful about imposing those costs on the poor without given them a say in the matter. I like saving the world just fine, but I would rather help a poor person afford to feed her family than reduce the global temperature one hundred years from now by a miniscule amount.
Somehow, when liberals put their money where the mouth is, it always seems to cost the poor more, too.
Follow me on Twitter @DorfmanJeffrey
