From Grouchy Old Cripple‘s friend Ron:
“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency. It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to an electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.”
Considering the real-world incompetence, blind dogmatic insistence on a particular ideology, and refusal to face reality that the President and his allies have demonstrated during his term of office thus far, I’m forced to agree.
More and more I find myself in agreement with Robert A. Heinlein, who postulated in one of his books (I forget which one) that those reliant on handouts from the government for their survival should lose their right to vote unless and until they’re standing on their own two feet once more, and no longer ‘sucking at the government teat’. That would instantly remove a whole bunch of people from the electoral rolls who are almost guaranteed to vote for the person or party promising them the most money (i.e. “what’s in it for me?”) rather than voting for the good of the country.
*Sigh*
Peter
Well said.
What constitutes a handout? Certainly welfare does. Food stamps would seem to, except that there are working poor who receive them. I'm on unemployment–do I lose my vote during that time? And since UI is Federal, do I lose my state and local vote as well?
I'm in agreement with you and Heinlein, FWIW. I just want to see how this would play out.
Antibubba
Heinlein also had commented that in his book "Starship Troopers" that the only people that could vote were citizens and the only way to become a citizen was to do a hitch in the service. he believed that since those people were interested in serving society and willing to lay their life if necessary to save society. those people are willing to look beyond their own interest to what is actually best for society as a whole. Kinda wish that would apply today.
Amen….
Antibubba,
Michael Z. Williamson postulated a society where the franchise was restricted to people who pay more (no matter how much or little more) in taxes than they collect in subsidy benefits.
I believe this was calcualted as "over the last calendar year" or some such rather than "real time" (which would keep people just over the threshold on an annual basis, but who happen to end up needed temporary assistance shortly before the election from being disenfranchised based solely on timing — I knew a lot of people in teh tourist area I grew up who ALWAYS were laid off for a brief period at the same time every year, and then rehired a few weeks later, due to the nature of the job. A decent "living wage", on an annual basis, for them — but it would put them technically "in the hole" on the tax/benefit ratio for about 6 weeks every year at the same time.)
That seems fair — anyone who is a net producer is AT LEAST pulling their share (even if in previous years they were a net consumer, they've apparantly gotten something right this time around). Therefore, they can presumeably be trusted with a voice in how public funds are spent.
People who have been net consumers over the last year (even if in years past they were net producers) are likely to have made judgement errors that got them there (there are ALWAYS exceptions– but in enfranchisement, it's best to keep the rules simple and straightforward, even if they result in occaisional situations like this, to avoid prejudicial gaming of the system by corrupt officials).
Plus, net consumers have an OBVIOUS conflict of interest. Whereas, a net producer who votes for changes that will benefit him the next year when he intentionally becomes a net consumer has paid for his error in that he will not be able to vote to keep his bread and circuses around the next cycle.