Skip to main content


In many ways, local politicians make a greater impact on our daily lives than those more layers of government away. In addition, many political environments create single party dominated markets, making some communities testing ground for ideological policies aimed for future scale out. For instance, the anti-poverty policy started in Seattle is catching attention in other Democratic dominated cities.

In physics, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Similarly, policies enacted create some predictable and unpredictable reactions, which policymakers need to account for in crafting the verbiage. Also, policymakers need to determine whether the enacted ordinances meet the core objective of reducing poverty and providing livable wages. In this case, it might not be as effective as the liberal base may want you to believe.

Reducing poverty is not a partisan issue, but one all those that enter public policy want to achieve. Those on the left of center believe redistribution and regulation can eliminate poverty. Others on the right believe opportunity and income mobility are greater tools for uplifting those in need. Realistically, the re is need for wage regulation to some degree, but income mobility is essential. Also, the goal should not be expanding low wage employment and capping those workers potential.

There will always be some level of poverty. But, the focus should be ensuring a path is available to elevate one out of it. The problem with many so called anti-poverty programs is that they essential serve as poverty creators and institutionalize poverty. Instead, people need a channel to push themselves forward. Opportunities to increase skills in order attain greater income. The focus should be reducing bias and standardizing hiring processes to expand opportunities for all. 

This week's reality check....