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.
Maybe there could be some steps before we run headlong into one. Makers insisting on voters providing identification could be a first step to limiting some of the fraud. Of course when this idea is floated the proposer is immediately bombarded by racism charges. Before war should come a legitimate Tax Revolt where all earners claim 10 exemptions to evapoate all withholdings. Then no filing. Also rather than the makers being the attackers in the war the Government must be made to be the oppressors. There are off to a good start on that one.
bttt
You know...that is what I though a while ago... I had two nice 401K plans with lots of money (over a million total) and thought I had it made. Well, the abrupt downturn wiped me out not just figuratively, but realistically. Lost almost all of it except for about 60 thousand...geez.
Now I have to survive on Social Security and am glad it is still available - although maybe not for long. Not feeling all that secure about my son’s 401K at this time...and I doubt that Social Security will be viable in the future.
So...I live as I can, knowing that 401K plans are just as bogus as Social Security... You just have to be lucky and get out at the right time I guess...
Or give birth to one child that is being supported without state help.
What we need is a minimum income tax rate that EVERYONE must pay, say 5.00%, to do away with the huge number of people who pay no income taxes and therefore want tax rates on everyone else increased.
Maybe we should put that idea to a vote.
I’ve talked about the Baraqqi coalition for months.
Illegals
Welfare recipients
Union members
Minorities
Idiot libs
Add them up and you get scary close to a voting majority, I’m afraid.
I do hold out some hope for 010 when the Messiah is not on the ballot and we can go after individual Dems in Congress.
Pray for gridlock.
And what's your stance on military retirement checks?
--------------------------------------------------------
RESISTOR
Swear allegiance to the flag, whatever flag they offer;
Never hint at what you really feel.
Teach the children quietly for, someday, sons and daughters
Will rise up and fight while we stood still.
Der Elite Møøsënspåånkængrüppen ØberKømmändø (EMØØK)
Sorry, my response #48 should have been addressed to you.
We're all out of steps my friend. And we aren't the ones pushing it.
It is a bright spot - They're not all Obama-Zombies.
It is a bright spot - They're not all Obama-Zombies.
What we need is a minimum income tax rate that EVERYONE must pay, say 5.00%, to do away with the huge number of people who pay no income taxes and therefore want tax rates on everyone else increased.
______________________________________________________________
Did someone say flat tax ?
This has been happening, and growing, since the mid-sixties. My only real amazement is that it actually worked for so long without a murmur from the producers ("progressive" tax rates anyone?), but the greed of the parasites was somewhat checked by never having all three branches of government firmly on "their" side.
That is about to change and the conclusion can naively be called a big explosive surprise or, more realistically, the second, bloody civil war. The results can'r be pretty no matter what the outcome.
We live in interesting times.
Give us the simple liberties that Mexicans enjoy, to purchase safe, effective drugs without a doctor’s prescription. We are enslaved and painted as ignorant by our doctors. If you need a drug for the rest of your life, then why can’t your get a lifetime prescription?
In Mexico, you can get antibiotics, steroids, ED drugs, amphetamines, antihistamines and many other drugs with the knowledge of your pharmacist that your doctor ordered this a while back or it’s obvious you need it.
Just in my case alone, in the past two months,it has cost more than $1,000 to get drugs I knew that I needed, and could have gotten without an Rx in Mexico. We are enslaved and don’t even know it. Yes, lawyers need to be bitch-slapped but so do doctors.
I used to go to Mexico for business, A LOT, A Lot. I was ther for months at a time. It was amazing how many freedoms they had compared to the US.
Smoke where you want. We’re suckers. Our government pretends to be ‘for the people’, they’re just priming the pump. People, beware, they want to control the US, and obama is the key. He can’t fool everyone, and he’s falling apart! We need to keep highlighting his downfalls.
At least one FReeper I have seen sports the tagline, "Does anybody still believe this is a free country?" You don't realize how bad the nanny state is until you go somewhere that they don't have one.
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.