Posted on 12/11/2014 7:36:11 PM PST by CharlesOConnell
During fifteen years in civil service, I only found out after being laid off from a government jurisdiction whose tax base collapsed, that it was an unreal world.
"Civil Servants" aren't servants at all, they are de facto superiors of the citizenry whose lives they regulate.
Their government union representatives feel free to hijack compulsory union dues, promote socially destructive, sexually-radical policies, in the meantime, corrupting the political process that is supposed to regulate government employment.
The only solution is to politically disenfranchise public employees–deny them the vote.
Let's set up the brouhaha this invites, by contrasting some of the disadvantages with the advantages.
A large proportion of the electorate is in government employment. Arbitrarily denying political representation to such a large group, would invite its own set of abuses.
Why not emulate the French system, La Legion Etrangere, the French Foreign Legion, which gives elite privileges to foreigners–many with criminal backgrounds֫–but denies them any say in political decision making?
Sound somewhat familiar? We're already at that stage. Legions of non-citizens, many of them grievously criminal, already tip the balance in national, Presidential elections.
Why not merely institutionalize the present status quo?
Guarantee civil servants yearly "cost-of-living" pay increases well beyond the rates granted to private sector workers.
Make it impossible for them to be fired; give them lifetime employment security.
Enhance their already considerable reputation for high-handed treatment of the powerless citizenry–the very definition of officious.
But to counterbalance those exorbitant benefits, deny them any say in political decision making, and take back your country.
Brought before a House inquisition, MIT professor and Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber burbled a recantation of his beliefs about how that triumph of liberalism had been achieved.
Yet, something needs to be said in defense of Gruber.
For while he groveled and confessed to the sin of arrogance, what this Ivy League con artist boasted about rings true.
Here, Gruber explained, is how we got Obamacare passed:
“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure [the Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. OK? …
“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever … that was really, really critical to get the thing to pass. Look, I wish … we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not. …
“[I]f you had a law which explicitly said that healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed.”
Call it the new candor. Yet, is Gruber not right on almost all counts?
The “tortured way” the bill was written led a narrowly divided Supreme Court to uphold the act.
As for the “lack of transparency,” did not Speaker Pelosi, midwife to Obamacare, say, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it”?
Under Obamacare, “healthy people pay in and sick people get money.” Is that not true? Is it not true that had Obama and his party been honest like Gruber – that this was another rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul wealth transfer scheme – Democrats could not have passed it?
“Look, I wish … we could make it all transparent,” said Gruber, “but I’d rather have this law than not.”
Gruber is saying that, though the selling of Obamacare required obfuscation and deceit, it was worth it! We got Obamacare!
Liberals are beating up on Gruber for spilling state secrets.
And what did Gruber do that Obama himself did not do?
Order Pat Buchanan’s brilliant and prescient books at WND’s Superstore.
For the most persuasive lie in selling Obamacare was the one Obama told again and again: “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health-care plan, you can keep your health-care plan.”
Indispensable to running the Big Con, said Jonathan, was “the stupidity of the American voter.”
Here Gruber was wrong. The American people are not lacking in intelligence, but they are trusting, often lacking in knowledge, and they do rely on elected representatives to read and understand those thousand-page bills in Congress. And their faith is often misplaced.
Bottom line: Gruber & Co. won; America lost. Though the nation did not discover how badly it had been swindled until Obamacare began to be implemented.
The victory of Obamacare raises a question addressed by this writer 40 years ago in “Conservative Votes, Liberal Victories.”
Why, even when conservatives win elections, does the nation continue to move inexorably leftward? As a friend from that era wrote me recently, other than our victory in the Cold War, what do we conservatives have to show for all of our political victories?
In the half century since 1964, the GOP won the White House in seven of 12 elections. Since 1994, the GOP has won more off-year elections than it has lost, including the major wins in 2010 and 2014.
Republican strength on Capitol Hill today rivals that of the 80th Congress of 1946, and the dominance the party enjoyed in the 1920s.
Yet, from past disappointments, current hopes and expectations are not high.
What is it that pushes the nation leftward even when conservatives win at the ballot box? The permanent powers and the deep state.
While there are conservative enclaves within the major media, they are few. Our mammoth bureaucracy – 22 million municipal, county, state and federal employees – has a vital interest in the preservation and growth of government.
Add up the beneficiaries of all social programs, and the number now approaches 100 million. They don’t tend to stay committed to folks who will take away what they have come to depend upon.
Higher education is dominated by tenured leftists and radicals. The Ivy League is “No Conservative Need Apply” country.
Our popular culture, from movies to music to TV, is dominated by the left. Conservatives in Hollywood meet in catacombs.
There are conservative judges and justices on the courts, but few counter-revolutionaries. The decisions that come down either advance or confirm decisions handed down half a century ago by the Warren Court.
Yet, as Herb Stein observed, “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.” From Illinois to Puerto Rico to France, Italy and Greece, debt-ridden Western social welfare states seem to be coming to the end of the line.
Like the shepherd boy in Aesop’s fable, the right has often cried, “Wolf!” This time, the kid may be right.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/12/jonathan-gruber-honest-liberal/#rKmKQyY8gz22WLmR.99
First, if you pay no federal income taxes, you don't get to vote. If you have nothing in the game, why should you vote?
Second, I'd have a current events test for all voters on the candidates. I'd personally volunteer to write the test, but am willing to have one representative from each party join me.
Third, in the year where the deficit exceeds 3% of total spending, no currently-sitting Congressman can run for reelection.
Finally, Congress shall not be exempt from any laws it passes.
I agree, deny our servants the right to vote on how to take advantage of us.
People go nuts when I point out this direct conflict of interest. It is currently like the auto worker's union voting for the appointment of management at Ford, GM, and Chrysler.
I used to own a little rental property, and since it was in Seattle, my renters were mostly young Liberals. When a new tenant would move in, I would give them my standard Landlord lecture, finishing up with "and be very careful how you vote!" "What does that have to do with us renting from you?" they would ask. "Because," I would answer. If you vote for any issue that costs money, and the taxes go up, I pass them back on to you by means of a rent increase." Boy would that yield the howls. Usually they would be something like "You can't do that" To which I would say "well I'm not a Seattle resident, but somebody has to pay them, so I pass it on to those who had the chance to make the decision on raising the taxes."
For most of them it was their first lesson that voting has consequences.
Oh come now...The government is now the largest employer in America...All the conservatives on the gov payroll are a huge political force...They are our friends....
And I’m sure all the biggov employ conservatives want to dramatically reduce the size of government and are screaming and begging for pay cuts, retirement pension cuts and benefit cuts...
Go team!
Excellent proposal! GTMA.
Military veterans with honorable discharges have their vote count 10X the “normal” citizen’s vote.
How about votes allowed based on contribution?
Vote(s) allowed in the Federal election = (individual Federal tax contribution / total US Federal revenue) * total citizen population
The math turns out to be 1 vote per $10k in federal contribution.
That formula allows hard working 16 year olds to vote, while disallow useless people on gubmint benefits.
Also, everything is scaled. For example, if you pay $10,000 yearly, you clearly have half as stake in the country than those who pay $20k per year.
AFSME arranged for County workers to leave “work” for one paid hour in order to vote. (In Miami, FL).
HaHaHaHa.
The author here thinks he can kill the beast by attacking his tail.
Of all the threats to our republic by public employee unions, their right to vote is the very least of them.
The author apparently believes that elections have consequences. Yeah, right. The GOP shellacking of the Rats just last month, so far has proven that an election means nothing to politicians & bureaucrats, with Boehner & Co. quick to return to big government business as usual. Truth is, elections are a mere inconvenience to the ruling class, which is heavily backed by the public employee unions.
Taking these voting rights away will not stop the partisan collusion within the bureaucracy. It wont stop the use of government funds for partisan purposes. It wont do anything to fire incompetent, corrupt bureaucrats. It wont have the slightest effect on waste, fraud, & abuse.
And if that doesn’t change things for the better (it wont), then let’s consider taking away their right to have a lemonade stand in their yard. That will have a greater impact, I suspect.
The author need only read his own post to see that it is the UNION that is the problem, not their right to vote. I’m afraid 15 years of exposure to bureaucracy has left this poster with an inability to see the real problem, even as he cites it repeatedly in his post. He’s like Liberals who sense a problem but completely fail at a solution.
BTW, losing/not having voting privileges stop few people who are determined to vote early & often.
Neal Boortz had a similar idea, but capped it at 5 votes, which makes sense.
No sale, and if the government got shut down for a month, they'd get additional time off, all paid by the tax payers.....Just like last time...
What a deal huh?
Try that in the real work world.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.