Posted on 08/09/2009 3:46:07 PM PDT by Indy Pendance
Lost in the vigorous national debate over health care reform is the potentially transformative effect any major legislation will have on the nature of American democracy. The deeper question we should be debating is this: What happens to our democracy when a majority of American voters depend on the government for a paycheck?
Our nation's founding generation was profoundly aware of the relationship between economic independence and democratic participation. In classical Athens, Aristotle had argued that political participation required property ownership, since those who did not own property "have no share in the state." Likewise, our founders largely restricted voting rights to those who owned property, believing that a voter's independence of judgment and desire for liberal self-government was found only in those not economically dependent on others.
Political philosopher Isabel Paterson expressed similar concerns during World War II, as government grew to unprecedented size. Dividing society into three categories - economic producers, those who depend on government and redistributors - she asked, as Aristotle and our founders had, what happens to democratic society when non-producers can vote themselves benefits at the expense of the producing class?
We're about to find out.
In 2008, just under half of all voters were either receiving Social Security; drawing a paycheck from federal, state or local government; or dependent on state assistance such as food stamps. Last year, about 210 million Americans were eligible to vote. Of those, at least 42 million were adults on Social Security (primarily retirees and disabled workers). Add to that almost 15 million federal government employees, 16 million state and local employees and 30 million recipients of food stamps, and just over 100 million Americans - just under half of all eligible voters - are directly dependent on government.
Even before the debate over national health care, that ratio of independent-to-dependent, or private vs. public sector voters, was about to change. The Social Security Administration projects that within 25 years, the number of retirees will almost double, from today's 39 million to 75 million. The number of disabled recipients of Social Security is also expected to soar to nearly one in four working-age Americans.
Based on Social Security Administration projections, there will be as many as 100 million Americans drawing a Social Security check by 2034. Even if the number of federal and state employees and recipients of food stamps remains static over the next 25 years (hardly likely), the proportion of government-dependent Americans to the overall voting-age population will reach nearly 70% by 2034, or 161 million out of 233 million eligible voters.
Government-dependent voters are much less likely than private-sector voters to favor cost-cutting reforms. Although older voters (baby boomers and above) split evenly in the 2008 presidential election, precious few favor reforming Social Security - or even acknowledge that it is headed toward insolvency.
An April 2009 survey found that most baby boomers - Republican, Democrat and independent - favor raising taxes to keep Social Security benefits unchanged, instead of reducing benefits.
In layman's terms, when they are retired and no longer paying taxes, government-dependent retirees favor raising everyone else's taxes to pay for their benefits.
We already know that federal employees tend to favor bigger government since their livelihoods are directly affected by federal spending. The Association of Federal Government Employees, which already has over 700,000 employees, promotes higher federal employee pay, lower federal employee health insurance premiums and bigger government - at the expense of a rapidly shrinking private sector.
The health care reform proposal making its way through the House of Representatives threatens to dramatically aggravate that imbalance by driving insurance companies into extinction and federalizing the nation's health care system, transforming 14.5 million private sector health industry workers into federal employees. Such a dramatic shift would move the ratio of public-sector voters to over 75% - and that doesn't even include farmers dependent on agricultural subsidies.
Before we reach this demographic tipping point, we need a national discussion about the consequences of having such a historically high ratio of dependent voters.
Like it or not, over the next two decades America will become a true welfare state. In the debate over national health care we need to decide what that will mean for our democracy.
I know. I was speaking in, shall we say, fantastical terms. Of course it would never happen. But I wish it would.
I have an even simpler idea - restrict the vote to those who have served in the military or civil service for a term of time and left under honorable terms. One hitch in the military or 20 years civil service.
Heinlein had the right idea; the vote should only be given to those who have proved that they are willing to put the good of others above their own interests.
Ok, got ya. I’m for that. What I meant was based on your question........it could have been hide, keep a low profile, try to get our statesmen in office in 2010, violent revolution.
This country has already been there and done that.
I'm retired, not "government dependent", do indeed pay taxes out the yazoo and am not in favor of raising anyone's taxes.
Wanna see this econmy take off? Lower taxes. Liberals just don't get that.
War.
Wasn’t our founding based on “no taxation, without representation”? They had no problem being taxed as long as their interests were being represented in government. Wouldn’t that beg to say then that it would also be “no representation, without taxation”?
Ah, but there’s the rub: Are you ready to vote all of your benefits away?
The largest portion of our current government funding goes to pay entitlements ... social security and medicare / medicaid. Are you willing to do without that?
As you may proudly proclaim that we should cut “other things”, so is everyone else. The bottom line is that we all think we should cut the “other person’s program” —that’s politics.
I find that as I get older and closer to social security, I , too, want to “keep mine” even though I know full-well that the “Social Security Trust Fund” has always been a con. Social Security has been a Ponzi scheme from Day 1, and the money taxed today pays for today’s retirees.
I don’t get any. Social Security will be gone by the time I get there. Medicare/Medicaid will be gone. I have a 401(K). Never been on any form of welfare. Provide for myself. Not judging though, just stating facts. I just don’t see why the government should be involved in affairs of personal responsibility.
I don’t get any. Social Security will be gone by the time I get there. Medicare/Medicaid will be gone. I have a 401(K). Never been on any form of welfare. Provide for myself. Not judging though, just stating facts. I just don’t see why the government should be involved in affairs of personal responsibility.
Dang, why is it double posting? Thats the third time today.
One of the largest entitlements is government K=12 education.
I’m so over the GOP. Last year, and I’m a life long rep, I told the GOP to take a hike, WE ARE IN CHARGE! WE MAKE THE CALL! WE DONATE THE MONEY! Us citizens have to take back our country using the GOP as the means. Just get rid of the RINOS and the Libs. TELL THE GOP, NO MORE, TELL MICHAEL STEELE, LOL! We aren’t invited to their cocktail parties, WE ARE THE PEOPLE! Remove the RINOS! DON’T LET POWELL DEFINE WHO YOU ARE. LET THEM KNOW.
NO MORE RINO REPS!
I know of several people in the 30 - 40 age bracket who are rearranging their affairs to get off the salary treadmill where taxes and FICA are deducted in advance.
They are incorporating so gains can be treated as corporate profits, working on plans to generate income that can be treated as capital gains or they are looking for other ways to protect their income.
Wealthy people have been doing this for years but these are middle class people who are P.O.’d to the breaking point.
They and are determined to minimize the amount they are forced to contribute to the moocher economy Obama is building.
No, actually, I tend to vote against my interests almost always... I vote as if I was voting for the Constitution! It is much easier that way...
The problem is that both parties seem to be against the Constitution in so many ways that it makes it impossible to pick a candidate. Of course the Democrats have never won that battle, but the Republicans have only won by default.
So...what’s a voter to do...
WE ARE NOT THE ENEMY
Yes, we really do. Been doing alot of preparing myself.
It’s great to know you know people in the 30-40 year old bracket pissed off!
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.