If you are a government who wants to ensure its voting base, how do you do it? You give money to everyone or at least a majority so they will vote for you! That is the situation in Greece and yes, in the good ole' USA.
We have thought that was the case but now we have information from the Heritage Foundation which confirms our feelings. Could it get worse?
When over 50% of the population pays NO income tax and now those in power want to increase the tax on those who do pay, this is getting insane. Ironically, the "tax free 50%"
use the system to a greater extent than those "rich" Americans. Everyone uses the roads, the national defense and the government (IRS, FDA for examples) but the services are used by the lower income earners to a much greater extent.
Since the 1950's we have seen a government grow like topsy. New departments such as EPA and Energy have not met their goals, however, the spending on these agencies has grown in excess of inflation. Where is going to stop?
It will stop only when we run out of money. We are not talking about some distant future date, rather it is just around the corner especially if the current occupant of the White House is re-elected. It could happen in the next year or in five but probably not longer than that, if nothing is changed.
Moreover as the attached article demonstrates, roughly one third of the population of dependent upon the government aid of some type. If you add into that number the census of government employees and their families, you come close to half of the population gets their livelihood from the government! No wonder we have problems!
So what are we going to do. First of all, we must elect a Republican President, House and Senate and then insist that they do the right thing and cut spending, programs, agencies cap all inflation increases to the remaining government agencies. If we can accomplish this, we have a chance. If not, the Republic is doomed to a Greece like intervention.
What do you think? We are interested.
Conservative Tom
Government Issues
December 16, 2011
The Welfare State Neutralizes Opponents by Making Them Dependent on Government
Political analysts have noted that because the number of those in the ruling elite amounts to only a small fraction of the number in the ruled masses, every regime lives or dies in accordance with public opinion. No matter how powerful or pervasive a regime is, it can still be overrun by the sheer superior numbers of the people it governs. However, this traditional political framework has been undermined by the development of the modern welfare state, says Robert Higgs, a senior fellow with the Independent Institute.
While the original framework would dissect the country into two populations, the gladly ruling and the reluctantly ruled, the welfare state has created a third group: dependents. Though they are most certainly ruled, they are often fierce defenders of the regime and its advocated status quo, thereby breaking ranks with the rest of the ruled who only tolerate it. They do this because the welfare state allows the current regime to be the primary provider for an ever-growing body of dependents, and this dependency engenders loyalty.
- An index of dependency developed by the Heritage Foundation found that the metric increased from 19 in fiscal year 1962 to 272 in fiscal year 2009.
- The Heritage researchers found that in 1962, 21.7 million persons depended on the government-run programs included in their index, yet this same figure for 2009 had grown to 64.3 million.
- Adding dependents not included in the Heritage study might easily increase the number to more than 100 million people, or to more than a third of the entire population.
The handouts of the welfare state exploit this large swathe of the population and earn their repeated and unwavering votes by perpetuating the status quo. As greater portions of the population come to rely on the government for their livelihood, the more clout it will inherently have as its number of detractors dwindles.
An additional symptom of this growing trend, which can be seen in the current political sphere, is that the creation of a status quo-supporting population inherently causes increased resistance to change. This conservativeness manifests itself in a lack of radical policy and in the loss of personnel turnover in Washington.
Source: Robert Higgs, "The Welfare State Neutralizes Opponents by Making Them Dependent on Government," Independent Institute, December 8, 2011.
For text:
For more on Government Issues:
"Controlling for factors like race, gender, educational level and geography, it's simple: the less money one has, the less likely he is to vote; the less likely he is to participate in our political system; the less likely he is to have his voice heard. Those with a family income below $25,000 (which, staggeringly, can still be above the federal poverty level) are 1.5 times less likely to vote than those with family incomes between $25,000 and $75,000 and two times less likely to vote than those in families earning more than $75,000 per year."
ReplyDeletehttp://news.change.org/stories/why-poor-people-dont-vote
So, you have it backwards. There is an inverse relationship between income and voting. If you are a politician worried about getting voted out of office, you should be more worried about taking care of the rich people in your district/state, not the poor. That is why you hear both Obama and his Republican opponents CONSTANTLY voicing their concerns for the "middle class" and rarely a word about the working poor (49 million people).
My solution to the deficit is to enact something along the lines of Simpson-Bowles to get spending and revenue balanced at around 20% of GDP. You just cut spending by 3-4% (with a lot of it coming from defense -- vote Ron Paul) and increase tax revenue by about 3-4% (thanks to the Wall Street bankers, the U.S. has -- by a country mile -- the highest concentration of income share and wealth in the top 1% of any country in the world, while close to 100 million Americans now in poverty or close to it). It doesn't take a genius in economics to figure this out. It is simple math.
--David
I thought you would like this.
ReplyDeleteBetween a Barack and a Hard Place.
http://goanimate.com/movie/07WCzD1eAtH4/1
Al Gore in Global Horsesh#t.
Episode 1 - http://goanimate.com/movie/0oM8NpeWAq28/1
Episode 2 - http://goanimate.com/movie/0K63D5X0_FEg/1
Episode 3 - http://goanimate.com/movie/0VbtjXUIhyLk/1
Enjoy - Donald
David, when it comes to data, I would much rather depend upon the Heritage Foundation rather than Change.org.
ReplyDeleteThe other thing--people tend to act in their own best interests. If it was important to vote, they would. On the contrary, if they felt that their vote was meaningless, they would not.
If a conniving President (President Obama would never do this) wanted to get a number of poor people to vote, all he would have to say is that the opposing party would take away all their benefits. They would come out in droves!
Tom, do you also doubt the data from the U.S. Census Bureau?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p20-562.pdf
If you accept Census data, then here's more: the poverty rate is now back to 15.1%, which is where is was in 1993, after declining to 11.3 from 1993-2000. I know that some state legislatures -- worried about these numbers -- have been putting in new photo I.D. requirements to make it more difficult for poor people to vote on the pretense that we have a big voter fraud problem (we don't), but I think it is misplaced paranoia. We'll see.
--David
David, you can't go to the doctor without providing an ID. You cannot get your check cashed without an ID. Your concern about the ID requirements is misplaced. Are you really telling me that poor people don't drive? Or they don't have the $26 for a state ID? Yours is paranoia, not the state's.
ReplyDeleteVoting is a right and should be restricted to citizens and those who can prove they are who they say they are!
Come on, Tom. You have been around long enough to know that photo I.D. has never been required in this country for a long as we have been alive. It is unnecessary. Many poor people do not have photo I.D. The purpose of this move is to make it harder for them to vote. It is racist and may even be unconstitutional, since requiring people to pay $26 to vote is tantamount to a poll tax. We went through all this garbage back in the 1960s before the Voting Rights Act. Now they are bringing it back in a new guise. It is motivated by paranoia that poor people will start voting in large numbers. The pretended concern about voter fraud is baseless, as studies have proven that voter fraud in the U.S. is not a problem. Let's be honest about the purpose of this. You might take a clue from the fact that only Republican controlled state legislatures are doing this crap.
ReplyDelete--Davide
"Most citizens who take the time to vote offer their legitimate signatures and sworn oaths with the gravitas that this hard-won civic right deserves. Even for the few who view voting merely as a means to an end, however, voter fraud is a singularly foolish way to attempt to win an election. Each act of voter fraud risks five years in prison and a $10,000 fine - but yields at most one incremental vote. The single vote is simply not worth the price.
ReplyDeleteBecause voter fraud is essentially irrational, it is not surprising that no credible evidence suggests a voter fraud epidemic. There is no documented wave or trend of individuals voting multiple times, voting as someone else, or voting despite knowing that they are ineligible. Indeed, evidence from the microscopically scrutinized 2004 gubernatorial election in Washington State actually reveals just the opposite: though voter fraud does happen, it happens approximately 0.0009% of the time. The similarly closely-analyzed 2004 election in Ohio revealed a voter fraud rate of 0.00004%. National Weather Service data shows that Americans are struck and killed by lightning about as often."
http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/policy_brief_on_the_truth_about_voter_fraud/
-----------------
There are many more studies, in case you don't accept this data. Several million poor people will be affected by the photo ID laws. Many poor people do no have a driver's license, and many elderly poor were born at home, not in a hospital, and therefore have no birth certificate. Some have been voting for 50 years. Personally, I have been voting for decades in Illinois, Oregon, Washington and never showed a photo ID. At times, they have matched my signature, but not often. People who know the data understand that individual voter fraud is rare, and those who deny this fact are either ignorant or lying.
--David
Did you read about the Brennan Center--here is what they say on their website: "Living Constitution Project
ReplyDeleteThe Living Constitution Project is a comprehensive public education initiative designed to spark debate, shape conversation, and clear the path for policy. The conservative movement rose, in part, because it relies on a pinched and narrow view of the role of law, the Constitution, and government."
Iam uncomfortable to read that the conservative movement has a "pinched and narrow view" of law, the Constitution and government."
I have voted in Colorado, Virginia, Oklahoma and Michigan and have no problem proving who I am.
Additionally, even people who were born at home have birth certificates, that is a bogus argument. As far as poor people not having drivers license, that also is bogus. Even if they don't drive, every state has state IDs.
If there is one person who voted illegally, that is one too many.
Read this report which addresses the convicitons in Minnesota in 2008. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/minnesota-leads-the-nation-in-voter-fraud-convictions-131782928.html
ReplyDeleteMore on voter fraud: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/251108/left-s-voter-fraud-whitewash-michelle-malkin
ReplyDeleteYou are doing a fine job here proving my point. After two or three years, they came up with only 113 cases in Minnesota in the 2008 election. I checked it. A total of 2,921,147 people voted in Minnesota in the 2008 election. That is a percentage of .0000386 of Minnesota voters who committed voter fraud. And they call this "the largest in any state in the last 75 years". Case closed. As I said before, anybody who claims that individual voter fraud is not rare in U.S. elections is either ignorant or lying.
ReplyDeleteYes, it is possible for poor people to get a photo ID, after they pay to get a copy of their birth certificate (assuming they have one), and go through this process. The legislatures who passed these laws know that many of the millions of poor people affected will not do this. Their goal is not to address the .0000xx percentage of individual voter fraud cases (established by every study on the subject). It is to put an obstacle in front of poor people voting -- the kind of obstacle that we haven't had in this country since the era of poll taxes, literacy tests, etc. used to suppress blacks from voting before we got the Voting Rights Act. It is disgraceful. Even though it benefits Republican candidates, you should take off your "Republican hat" and put on your "constitutionalist hat" and write against it.
--David
Hee is what they have set up in Wisconsin to combat their 0.0002 voter fraud rate…
ReplyDelete"Not only do new birth certificates cost at least $20 each, but obtaining a new birth certificate in Wisconsin is no easy matter due to misleading form that suggests applicants need a “current valid photo ID” to get a birth certificate, which they need to get a photo ID. Worse, by charging any fee whatsoever for a document people need in order to exercise their right to vote, Wisconsin violates the Constitution’s ban on poll taxes."
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/12/12/387601/wisconsins-voter-id-law-forces-woman-to-pay-unconstitutional-birth-certificate-poll-tax-to-get-photo-id/
I wold be surprised if this isn't still held up in the courts at the time of the election.
--David
David, I am being a constitutionalist when I say that only citizens should be able to vote. When one vote is done fraudently, it hurts all legal voters.
ReplyDeleteBTW, a drivers license is NOT an impediment to voting. Anyone can get one or can get the state ID that is offerred by every state.
David, in your comments today, all your quotes are from left leaning or pure left blogs. Is Conservative Musings the only conservative site that you read?
ReplyDeleteYour site comments came from thinkprogress.org which is far from a balanced blog. I think you could find better information.
A poor person in Wisconsin can't get a state photo ID unless she can produce TWO of these:
ReplyDelete1. Government-issued employee ID card or badge with photo
2. US Passport
3. Check or bank book
4. Major Credit Card
5. Health Insurance Card
6. Recent dated, signed lease
7. Recent utility bill or traffic ticket
http://www.wrdaonline.org/VitalRecords/Birth.pdf
Requiring her to pay $20 for the birth certificate is a de facto poll tax. The intent of the 24th Amendment is that a person should not be required to spend money to vote.
When you compare the millions of poor people who will be affected by these laws to the 0.000xx% who commit individual voter fraud, the potential of these laws to change the outcome of elections via voter suppression far exceeds their potential to reduce (already nearly nonexistent) individual voter fraud. Your own Minnesota example of 113 fraudulent votes in 2,921,147 cast illustrates the point, and makes the real purpose of these laws obvious.
--David
p.s. the "thinkprogress.org" site simply came up on a Google search on the Wisconsin ID law. I have never looked at that site before, and probably won't again. I do fact-check everything I read that interests me, regardless whether it is on a "left", "right," or "center" site. As you may have surmised by now, my own political leanings are eclectic. I am a Libertarian on social and constitutional issues, a liberal on economics, and a Libertarian on foreign policy (vote Ron Paul). I read your blog every day.
David,
ReplyDeleteTo expect someone not to have a credit card, a lease or a utility bill, tells me they are living on the street without any visible means of support. Me thinks you are making way to big a deal over this!
As far as fraud goes, you do remember the Chicago mantra--vote early and often! One would wonder how an audit look like in Shy Town.
Additionally, in previous elections in Wisconsin, the vote was settled by a handful of votes. If any of those were illegal, the entire election process was fouled. One illegal vote could completely change history!
Another point, you point out that the number is insignificant. When does it become significant? 20,000 or 2,000,000? Any one should be significant!
Thanks for reading my blog and even though we might disagree on certain issues, I enjoy the back and forth!
>Any one should be significant!
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely NOT! There is a proportionality issue here. I come in contact with many very poor people in my work. Many are living with relatives, have no bank account, no credit card. They literally could not produce two of these 7 items. Individual voter fraud is not, and never has been, an issue in this country. When you look at real numbers, it is FAR more likely that the outcome of a very close election would be determined by voter suppression laws than individual voter fraud. That is precisely why they created these laws! It should be good enough to show any one of those 7 items and match your signature. That HAS been good enough all over the U.S. -- until now.
--David