The only way to alter the declining standards of our government is to get rid of liars, spendthrifts and redistributionists we keep putting there. All else pales by comparison to the damage these people are doing to America and the Rule of Law – and our future.
I don’t think it’s hyperbole to note that every honest voter has no use for any of these. Maybe I’m wrong and maybe Gruber is right, that if you have to lie to pass a policy the public rejects, then go for it and lie. I mean, what do you want – your way? Or good government of, by and for the people?
As for spendthrifts, well, no question exists that the majority of voters – an increasing majority based on the increased GOP majority from 2010 to 2014 that American voters put into office – hate those spending our future for frills & thrills today. (Not that the GOP stops spending, they just campaign on doing so and so are elected by increasing margins by voters who still actually believe them.)
Redistributionists? Since the spendthrift in Congress redistribute from the Middle Class to everyone but the Middle Class who earns all the money, then, yeah, we hate them, too.
Obama talks a lot in the gun control debate about “common sense.” Fine. Good. Let’s use some, shall we?
Accept first that it is “common sense” that the problems created by the voters cannot be fixed without changing the voters and how they vote. Here are three “common sense” changes. (Spoiler Alert: Only the 3rd has any chance of being implemented.)
- The Feds project they will take in about $2.2T in income taxes in 2015, then spend / redistribute more. What is voting about? Picking the redistributor you like. Because that is what government is about. If you aren’t paying income taxes, why are you allowed to vote on how to redistribute that money? No one not paying income taxes should be allowed to vote, period. I know all about gas taxes – if you drive, why should you not pay them? And sales taxes – if you want cops & streets maintained, why should you not pay them? But neither funds federal redistributive programs, and that is where our future is being destroyed.
- Voting is about the future – infrastructure, spending, education, defense, all are about the future. Our future is what Congresspersons decide based on the votes they make. If you don’t care enough about the future to populate it – and flat fertility is 2.1 kids per woman – why should we care what you think about that future? Why should you get to vote on it? Why should you get to vote to take money from that future to play with today? Not replenishing resources has consequences. For example: Social Security – a $9.6T debt hole since Congressional Democrats moved it out of the Trust Fund and into the General Fund in 1968 – is a Ponzi scheme based on redistribution from today’s earners to yesterday’s earners. (Ponzi Scheme: “The Ponzi scheme generates returns for older investors by acquiring new investors. This scam actually yields the promised returns to earlier investors, as long as there are more new investors. These schemes usually collapse on themselves when the new investments stop.”[emphasis mine]) Social Security relies on steady or improving demographics; it will “collapse … when the new investments [new kids/workers] stop [being born].” If you aren’t replenishing the resource putting money in – if you aren’t having at least 2 kids putting resource in to SS – you should not be voting for those deciding how much to take out of SS or, frankly, receiving any money from it. If you want SS to be solvent when you retire, have a couple of kids. Why should my kids pay your retirement? (And, no, SS is not a pension, and it’s not “your” money. It’s a system designed to keep Granny out of the cat food. The money you put in today is spent next week on Granny; and if there are no kids when you need it – there will be no money when you need it. Your choice, but you shouldn’t get to choose what to do with my money. Voting is about what we agree to do with our money; that’s a not-insubstantial difference.) If you aren’t replenishing the resources required for a future, why should you vote on that future? “Common sense” says you should not.
Both of these, however, would rely on Constitutional amendments and would never pass. (I’ve even been told they are draconian, if you can believe that.) So, what’s left?
Here’s another “common sense” proposal, and it is completely supported by the Constitution. In fact, it’s written in to the Constitution:
3. Voter ID
How can that be written-in to the Constitution when DoJ keeps getting in the way?
Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution states: “The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.”
(That last clause required an Amendment – the 17th – to change. And, with that change, went any semblance of the rights of each State that created the inferior Federal government by ratifying the Constitution to begin with. More than any other Amendment, the 17th gave rise to the all-powerful federal government ruling State vassals. Has any Amendment granted to the Feds the authority to prohibit Voter ID? No. Has “Congress … at any time by law ma[de] or alter[ed] such regulations” to prohibit VoterID? No.)
Rulings by DoJ and SCOTUS against a State defining “the manner of holding elections” by requiring Voter ID are based on the 14th Amendment protections for voters. The 24th Amendment prohibits a poll tax, which is a “manner” of election – and required an Amendment to the Constitution to grant to the Feds this power to alter Article 1, Section 4. But the 14th? Nada.
But let’s pretend that requiring a Voter ID is a violation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Then what? Then the 14th Amendment enumerates the penalties for altering “the manner of holding elections,” but does not prohibit an altered “manner.”
And what are the 14th Amendment remedies / penalties for altering “the manner of elections” (for President and VP alone, remember…)? “… [T]he basis of representation shall be reduced.”
Great – so – if, entirely within their – sole – Constitutional authority, a “state legislature” “prescribes” that the “manner of holding elections” for Senators and Representatives includes the possession and display of a government-issued photo ID, then the State is entirely within its Right in so doing. No State granted to the Feds any authority to abridge that Right and, if they go ahead and do it anyway and the Feds hold over them the 14th Amendment, then the only Constitutional penalty available to the Feds is to “reduce” the representation of that State.
The Feds have zero authority to tell the States that they cannot require Voter ID; they only can reduce their representation for doing so. Any other remedy – such as outlawing how a State legislature sets “the manner of holding elections” – is a lawless and unconstitutional overreach by the Federal government.
I don’t know about you, but if I were given the choice I’d take fewer numbers of honest legislators over larger numbers of dishonest ones.
(A fourth way to alter the voter franchise would be to educate it, but that is a bridge too far in today’s union-dominated, lowest-SAT-result “educator” cohort. (Remember when they were called “teachers” – and did?) Even a Constitutional Amendment couldn’t fix that…)
There exist, then, three ways to change the voter franchise, a voter franchise that must be changed to effect a return to the Rule of Law, to have honest legislators, and to stop spending our future today. Two of those ways are problematic and have no probability of implementation.
The third method, however, not only is within the text of the Constitution itself and requires no Amendment, no Constitutional way to challenge it exists.
All we need are State politicians with the balls to enforce their – superior – rights over the – inferior – federal government created by the States, and to which the States granted specific rights and no more.
And telling the States how to run their elections wasn’t – and isn’t – one of them.