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’m in Singapore right now, and it’s amazing how many freedoms people have in this “authoritarian” state that Americans haven’t enjoyed since the Sixties. The USA is beyond repair, and government corruption is the major reason. Obama is just more open about it than his predecessors.
>>Easy answer: if you are not paying taxes of some kind (income, FICA or taxes on investments), you don’t vote.
See my tag line.
Re: What’s the answer?
See my tag line.
Ummmm, your link is to *this* thread!
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.