Can you imagine a Republican saying the things that Nancy Pelosi says and still remain in office? Democrats don’t care how idiotic their elected official is as long as he or she votes the right way. Satan himself could be on the ticket and Democrats would vote for him if he supported bigger government, same-sex sexuality, and killing unborn babies. It’s that simple.

There are exceptions, but you don’t hear much about them. They’re usually in historically conservative districts. It used to be that way in the 7^th Congressional District in Georgia when Larry McDonald, the most conservative member of Congress, ran and won as a Democrat.

Here’s what Pelosi Tweeted:

“Over 50% of food stamp recipients are people of color. The #GOPbudget takes food out of their mouths.”

What is the difference between “people of color” and “colored people”? I have never understood this. Everybody has some color.

But we know what she means. She’s talking about black people.

This is worse than the race card. It’s a prime indication that she and the Democrats don’t care about people as people but people as voting blocks. Blacks vote nearly 95 percent Democrat. They overwhelmingly voted for Barack Obama in the last two presidential elections.

The Democrats count on their vote in every election since they are the saving grace of the Democrat Party. Since President Obama will not be on the ticket in 2014 and 2016, the black vote is even more crucial, especially if they don’t show up at the polls. They have to be incentivized to turn out.

Pelosi’s Tweet was demeaning. It fosters a stereotype that blacks are incapable of free thought and initiative.

Blacks better get wise to what the Democrat Party has been doing to them since the Great Society legislation of the LBJ years.

And it’s not just blacks. There has been a spillover effect where a nearly permanent underclass has been created through government programs that disproportionately votes for Democrats. These programs have decimated the family structure, not only with black families but with American families generally:

“Consider that in the early 1960s, about 20 percent of black children and just 2 to 3 percent of white children were born to unmarried mothers, while the rate of unwed Hispanic births was somewhere in between.

“By 2009, nearly 75 percent of black births, 53 percent of Hispanic births and 29 percent of white births were outside of marriage, according to the report.

“A decline in marriage rates has followed the same path. In 1960, more than half of all black women were married, along with more than 66 percent of Hispanic and white women. By 2010, just 25 percent of black women, 40 percent of Hispanic women and half of white women were married.”

These statistics can be linked to the growth of the welfare state that has made it easier for men to abandon a family when children are born. The State becomes the surrogate parent, and the political party of provision wants paid for the favor.

The incentive to break the welfare trap is made more difficult because of economic inequities that are exacerbated by our current tax structure. It’s easier to stay with welfare than to take a job that will pay less.

There are some people who are truly in need. Churches, volunteer agencies, ministries, and free clinics are the better options. But there is no political power in these avenues of help. Some years ago, American Vision published George Grant’s Bringing in the Sheaves: Transforming Poverty into Productivity. (You can get a free copy here.) Herbert Schlossberg writes the following in the Foreword:

“We’re indebted to George Grant for helping us see our way through this complex of issues. Rather than continuing to beat the dead carcass of the welfare system, he leaves the putrefying mess and heads for fresh air. He shows us our real responsibilities, quoting the same biblical passages as the defenders of public welfare. But he does it without the sense of helplessness and guilt that are the identifying features of humanist preachments, including those erroneously advanced by Christians.

“Moreover, he presents the problem to us in its proper historical context. We don’t face unprecedented problems; the poor have been with us from the beginning, and the Christian church has always been doing something about it. C. H. Spurgeon’s orphanages in nineteenth-century London were not as famous as his pulpit, but they were as fully a part of his ministry. We’re not isolated in either time or space, Grant shows us, but are part of a community of vigorous service to the poor as far back as the ancients and as near as our families and neighbors. The body of Christ is the ministering agent that accomplishes God’s commandments, and that includes the ministry to the poor.”

The welfare State is the main obstacle in creating long-term welfare reform that can transform poverty into productivity.