How Liberalism Really Does Screw The Rich

This recent story in the Left Angeles Times may not seem like a big deal for it is a time-honored complaint about any given city and the seeming inability to fill in those potholes.
But what is really interesting is where this takes place and that the reaction of the local residents is to find a way to Escape From L. A.
The posh Los Angeles district of Holmby Hills is where this tale takes place. This is pretty much part of the fru-fru areas such as Brentwood and Bel Air. In other words where the rich residents of Los Angeles live.
And yet surprisingly, the potholes are pretty bad. According to the article, the tow-truck folks from AAA think the area is a gold mine for them based on their calls. And the highlight was on a Paul Kanin who blew out a front tire on his Audi A6.
A brief interlude.
Audis are pretty much a car that SWLPL*, so take that for what it is worth.
Back to point.
The lack of action to take care of the said potholes has so riled some members of the community that they are seriously looking to leave the city of Los Angeles and ask the equally snooty, yet seperate city of Beverly Hills to annex them.
The drive is being led by an attorney, of course, named William Fleischman.
Now, read this quote so that you are illuminated as to the headline:

"Holmby Hills pays millions of dollars to Los Angeles in property taxes, and we're getting back thousands of dollars in services,"

And Mr. Fleischman, welcome to the wonderful world of liberalism.
Ironically, today the Dear Leader, President Obama, referred to the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, as Romney Hood. Taking from the poor to give to the rich.
But the reality is that in Los Angeles, it is the real Robin Hood that happens.
And Holmby Hills is not alone in their frustration with a city hall that caters to every fringe group in every fringe area leaving a lot of taxpayers, rich and middle class, hung out to dry.
For years, a portion of the San Fernando Valley, which is essentially Los Angeles with a bunch of names like Sherman Oaks, Van Nuys, West Hills, Granada Hills, Canoga Park and several others had wanted to seceed from Los Angeles and form their own city.
And guess why they wanted to?
Because they were getting screwed in how the public services were distritbuted in a city that is over 300 square miles and as diverse as Holmby Hills and South Central Los Angeles.
While the people in the poorer neighborhoods would disagree, the reality is that because they are more dependent on government services of all kinds, they get most of it.
And they get it from the San Fernando Valley and the wealthy neighborhoods that are mentioned above.
Only now that they have an issue, the lack of road maintanence, do they realize how screwed they are in the environs as Holmby Hills.
And the reason that their neighborhood is not being taken care of in a timely manner is rich.
Here is Richard Lee, spokestool for the Los Angeles Department of Public Works:

The city plans repairs years in advance.
"The Bureau of Street Services recognizes the need for street resurfacing in Holmby Hills and in neighborhoods across Los Angeles. While we sympathize with the concerns of neighbors .... the city wants to make sure it is spending taxpayer money wisely."

OK, sure Richard.
I would like to see the planned repairs for 2017, just for the hell of it, Richard. Will these residents get taken care of then? Or do they have to keep getting blown tires for, oh I don't know, whenever they come under the plan?
Well my wealthy friends, you are seeing what the liberals that are in charge at city hall in downtown Los Angeles really think of you.
As Mr. Fleischman said, they paid boatloads to all kinds of government and all they are aksing is for a little road repair and they are given the "We'll get back to you" from the city.
But if they are late on any of the said taxes, well they would probably THEN hear from the city. To pay up.
But all the poor folks have to do is stir up a little trouble and BOOM! All the liberal pols and their hanger-ons will crawl over each other to talk about how we need to give more money to stop whatever grievence, real and or imagined, they bellow about. And the problem never gets solved while some mid-level schmuck gets his or her hands on taxpayer money and only the good Lord knows what they do with the money.
Eventually, people start to wise up. But it maybe too late.
As an eternal optimist, I hope that it is not too late for the city of Los Angeles to maybe get some of their public works people over to Holmby Hills and at the very least do something temporarily until the permanent solution can be done. You know. Because they plan these years ahead.
The lesson here is that yes, liberal governance does take from the rich. Yes it does give to the poor. And when the rich ask for a little measly road maintanence, they are told they have to wait until the city is good and ready to fix their real problems.

*-SWLPL-Stuff While Liberal People Like, aka Stuff White People Like.

HT: An Unmarried Man

Is It Fair To Blame The Poor For Cost Of Depravity?

An interesting debate over at National Review online at The Corner between David French and Kathryn Jean Lopez about the cost of depravity among the poor.
In this post, Mr French pretty much lays a huge blame of depravity on the poor. And, I do agree that there is a problem among many who are in the lower economic classes.
And a part of it is a welfare state that to a huge extent rewards such behavior. In Mr. French's post, he cites an article by the great Walter Russell Mead in which some research seems to indicate that the poor are no longer rooted in religion. That according to research, it is the educated and financially well off that are more adherents to faith.
Again, I tend to question that research and the conclusions.
But if that is true, I would like Mr. French, Mr. Mead and the researchers to explain the depravity of popular culture? Explain how that emulates the poor and or underclass.
Kathryn Jean Lopez had this rejoinder to Mr. French in a later post. Although much shorter, but I think is on to something.
I kind of alluded to it above. That there is a helluva lot of depravity among the upper classes.
But, to go to he point that Mr. French is making is that depravity is not costly to the taxpaying American. And he is right. But what he missed and what Miss Lopez said and here is what I think is the tail wagging the dog.
Look at the celubtard culture. That it is OK to have children out of wedlock (Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt come to mind). It is OK to have multiple sexual partners. That it is OK to be a stoner, a hardcore druggie or an alcoholic with no consequence. That it is OK to, oh kill your ex-wife and her companion and not be convicted of the crime. The list goes on and on.
Here is what I am getting at.
Because of the depravity from the elites, the poor feel a sense of entitlement. Because of the elites behavior essentially telling all that it is A-OK. And why, because more than likely it will not be behavior that taxpayers have to foot the bill. If people see that there is no shame in abhorrent behavior, they will come to believe that they can do it too.
And the larger cost is that to society as a whole. And until we find a way to return shame for depravity for all and not just some, you will see the result that we have today.
In a later post, Mr. French cites scary statistics. Here is an eye-opener:

36.5 percent of female-led single-parent families are poor compared with 6.4 percent of married two-parent families, according to this Heritage study.

And no doubt those poor unmarried women are on some form of government assistance. And that is a huge problem. But again, would that be the case if we had to so-called stigma of shame attached to bad behavior?
I think that is what Mr. French was alluding to. But by implying that people with means can go right ahead and be depraved because they can afford it is a kind of form of class warfare.
I treat all equally. I do not care if one is of means, but it is not good to be a single parent. It is not good to be a druggie, a stoner or akly because you can go into some so-called rehab facility.
I think that Mr. French would make a devastating argument if he included the overall depravity of the elites as well as the poor. And how both are costly and devastating to society as a whole. And Miss Lopez was trying to nudge him in that direction.
And this is the crux of the debate over the size and scope of government. Which is why all aspects need to be included in this debate as well as the debate over government.