No. Not the Hippocratic Oath. But "Do no harm" would certainly be a great oath for denizens of both sides of the House and Senate.

I have no doubt that going back to the Johnson years and the great "War on Poverty" that there was no hypocrisy involved in attempting to "eliminate" poverty through government programs. Five trillion dollars have been spent and government agencies by the dozens have been created. Yet the poverty level remains the same as when the great noble war was launched. Not only that, government programs have created a permanent dependency class or, actually, culture, in which the children born into the dependency culture of their parents have little hope of escape. Nor do I doubt the sincerity of the compassion that motivated the great war.

But there it is. It doesn't work.

The NYT has just published the heartrending story of a plucky, determined young girl living in a homeless shelter with her parents and four siblings. They live in a fair sized room with three mattresses on the floor and the sanitary conditions are appalling. Yet the young girl, besides dressing and caring for her younger siblings, manages to go off to school, maintain her grades and keep a positive attitude. If ever there was an admirable young girl who needs at least a fair shot at breaking out of the dependency culture, she does. It is not right that the cards are stacked against her when privileged children with seemingly little of her spunk, grit and determination are handed their future on a platter.

But now?

Well, as Reagan said, "There he goes again". The president is up on his income inequality podium proclaiming that redressing income inequality is the mission of the century, the"defining challenge of out time."

Now when liberals decry income inequality and propose more government support programs ("income distribution") what are we supposed to believe? More of the same? They know that income distribution and more government handout agencies don't work. The Democrats also know that they need the vote of the dependency culture as their voting base. They rail against the unfairness of the hurdles that children born into poverty face yet propose programs with a history of creating a permanent dependency culture. If the dependency culture were really attritted, the party of compassion would lose its power base. Meanwhile, more of the same?

Is grow-your-power-base at work behind all the angst and compassion? If not, what is it that Einstein quipped about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?