Underserved actually means overserved by government

What Democrats and their bureaucracy call "underserved" means under the heavy thumb of government programs. They are so "overserved" by the various 120+ wealth transfer programs, they can't afford to work, buy or rent in a better neighborhood, or take a promotion at work in fear of losing their "benefits." That word "underserved" may be one of the most deceptive in government-speak.

Here are the "underserved" amounts: Federal spending programs that are "designed to transfer income ... to individuals or families" are set to hit a record $3,223,943,000,000 in fiscal 2020, according to projections published by the Office of Management and Budget.

These so-called "payments for individuals" (as the OMB calls them) are projected to account for 67.9% of all federal spending  [fiscal year 2020] and consume 14.4% of the nation's gross domestic product.

$3.22 Trillion: Federal Programs That 'Transfer Income' Projected to Hit Record in FY20 | CNSNews

"More government benefits result in less private wealth, especially for the non‐​rich. It is not just Social Security and Medicare that displaces private saving, but also unemployment insurance, welfare, and other social spending. Some social programs have “asset tests” that deliberately discourage saving.

Total federal and state social spending as a share of gross domestic product soared from 6.8 percent in 1970 to 14.3 percent in 2018. That increase in handouts occurred over the same period that wealth inequality appears to have increased. Generations of Americans have grown up assuming that the government will take care of them when they are sick, unemployed, and retired, so they put too little money aside for future expenses." How the Government Creates Wealth Inequality | Cato Institute

The myth of food desserts

Yesterday I blogged about dollar stores and how the woke blokes are sounding the alarm that they target poor and minorities (Google/FB blocked my link when I tried to post it to Facebook). But while watching the show on Cheddar, I noticed again how often the food nannies complain and alarm us about "food desserts." That was disproven about a decade ago, when it was a common myth. I think it was a hobby horse ridden by Michelle Obama. Too many fast food and convenience store businesses was the complaint. Here's a recap by Rod Dreher, from 2012.

"But two new studies have found something unexpected. Such neighborhoods not only have more fast food restaurants and convenience stores than more affluent ones, but more grocery stores, supermarkets and full-service restaurants, too. And there is no relationship between the type of food being sold in a neighborhood and obesity among its children and adolescents.

Within a couple of miles of almost any urban neighborhood, “you can get basically any type of food,” said Roland Sturm of the RAND Corporation, lead author of one of the studies. “Maybe we should call it a food swamp rather than a desert,” he said."

Obesity is a growing (no pun) problem for all Americans, but particularly in "underserved neighborhoods." Thousands of academics have earned promotion and tenure by siphoning off our tax supported grants from the federal government to try to change the food culture of minorities. They develop exercise programs, food plans and diets. We get fatter and they get richer. Meanwhile they want more and more women to leave their homes and children, and sit behind a desk with a computer. Go figure. I know several of my inches belong to Blogger (Google) and Facebook.

The good news is I passed the 11,000 mile mark on my exercycle (since January 2015).  The bad news is that it makes little difference in how my clothes fit, so I'm hoping its good for the heart and lungs.