Take Money, Lose Voting Rights?

[The Rabbi]

I am reading Friedmans "Free To Choose" now.  He gives some history of social welfare programs in the US, England, and Germany.  In one quotation from the start of the British experience in the 1900s someone suggests that taking government hand-outs and having the ability to vote are not compatible.  I recall one of the political philosophers making the same point that if people with no stake had the vote they would simply vote themselves larger and larger entitlements, bankrupting society.  This is why virtually every state originally had a landowner/freehold requirement for voting.
So what about the idea that if anyone is taking direct government subsidies he should lose his voting rights for that time.  This would include welfare, SSI, WIC, student loans (not in repayment), farm subsidies, etc.

[Strings]

I'd be strangely comfortable with that idea, personally. If nothing else, it stops the left from pandering to the welfare peopl...

[InfidelSerf]

You should look up both Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams views on that.  I have heard both of them suggest it.
Personally I would be in favor.  
I've never received one dime from the state or federal government.
I'd rather die a slow painful death than get a handout from the state.

[Zundfolge]

I like the idea in theory.

In reality the government would probably find some way to establish that most everyone is somehow receiving some sort of "benefit" from the government and therefore do away with voting all together.

[K Frame]

Absolutely NOT.

Where do you draw the line?

You and I pay taxes into the government to support SSI, welfare, student loans, VA Loans, the GI Bill, unemployement, the whole schmear.

Why should I, or anyone else for that matter, lose the CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT to vote simply because we might at one point in time be drawing out of the system what we put into it?

[El Tejon]

Because of the conflict of interest.  He who takes the king's gold is the king's man.

Mills was exactly right.  The franchise is way overbroad and the couch sitters are voting themselves more and more freebies.

[matis]

I'm all for it.

But it has two very serious drawbacks:

1) It's fair and equitable.

2) It's logical.

And it goes against the prevailing egalitarian ethos -- it's so un-PC.

Anyway, how would you remove the franchise from all the suckers at the public teat when they presently have it?

So, of course, it has a snowball's chance in hell, doesn't it?


matis

[Zundfolge]

So how many lazy welfare recipients actually get out and vote now anyway?

I too would like to see welfare recipients and other slackers/looters not allowed to vote, but I just don't trust the government not to find a way to use such a change in the law to exclude me ... and I've never taken a dime of government money. But if they can declare that anyone who receives a "benefit" from the government can't vote ...well I drive on government roads, I went to public schools ... I'm sure you could spin it to where everyone receives some sort of "benefit" from .gov.

[The Rabbi]

This is why I specified a "direct benefit."  A researcher or lab worker who gets a government grant is not getting a direct benefit--that goes to the university.
It would not be limited to "slackers" and "welfare cheats" but would include farmers getting government subsidies, seniors collecting SS benefits, etc.  If they howl they could always not get the benefits.  It would also put pressure on the gov't to change the system to a true insurance scheme rather than the shell game it is now.  If people had private accounts then  they would not be getting gov't money but their own.

[Standing Wolf]

The Democratic (sic) party would suddenly find itself with slightly more votes than the Lesbian Vegetarian Jews for Jesus party.

[The Rabbi]

Probably why it would never pass.  Remember the mantra:
Tax and tax.  Spend and Spend.  Elect elect.

[Guest]

I actually like the idea in principle but i can see it being BADLY abused. Tax rate bumps to 90%, everyone gets a handout, no more voters save the very select few, instant dictatorship AND socialism all in one neat sweep.

If you want to see this in action check out the financial aid system for PUBLIC colleges. Your taxes pay for the school, yet the cost is prohibitive to the point where one very nearly needs a government handout to attend.

Excellent notion, unfortunatly it requires the presence of a government that is truly representative of the people and trustworthy enough to be expected not to abuse such a simple means of denying votes, no such animal.

[K Frame]

"Because of the conflict of interest.  He who takes the king's gold is the king's man."

You're joking, right?

It's a conflict of interested to get BACK what you've already contributed?

By that "logic" if you get a tax refund you can't vote the following year because you *GASP* took something from the government.

There's also absolutely no conflict of interest attached. I'm not even remotely sure where that's rising.

[El Tejon]

Mike, not joking.  Don't think a tax refund is a direct subsidy as Rabbi states.  However, if you define as such, then I agree with you.

However, it is a conflict of interest to have a financial stake in the welfare state trough and then get to decide that your pipe into the trough increases.

[RevDisk]

I think it's a great idea, depending on which company gets the contract to maintain the servers, of course.

What do I mean?  With a click here, a script there, one could eliminate anyone vote and leave no audit log.  Don't believe me?  Ask Jim March about Diebold's voting machines.  I suspect this system would have even less security, so that pols could blacklist whomever they want.

It would be easy to look up the ATF's databases of gun owners, and blacklist them.   Want to vote?  You'd have to prove you never took a dime from the govt.   Such records could be forged incredibly easily.


Ok, enough of the sarcasm.

It's a good idea in theory.   But our current politicians cannot be trusted with the right to nearly arbitrarily blacklist voters.

[griz]

I like the idea. It does bring up some close calls though. Are state and federal different? Does a paycheck count? If so then even congresscritters couldn't vote.

My criteria would be a simple look at how much you pay in taxes. If it's more than zero, you vote. If you get more back than you paid, no vote. Retired folks vote too.

[roo_ster]

I've always been in favor of limiting the franchise to those who pay the costs.

To be blunt:  if you are getting a gov't handout, you are demonstrating that you can not take care of yourself.  In effect, you are a ward of the state.  As such, those who pay the costs get to make many of your decisions for you, since you have demonstrated you can't handle the responsibility on your own.

"I pay the cost to be the boss"
----BB King

[The Rabbi]

Griz,
As I said, it has to be direct subsidy.  Working is not a direct subsidy but an exchange of goods for services.
I'll reiterate that the biggest reason was given by one of the early political philosophers: those with no stake in the system would continue to vote themselves bigger and bigger benefits until they bankrupted the system.
We see this going on now.  Pres Bush's ill-conceived prescription drug benefit for Medicare was direct pandering to the seniors in order to win the election. (and I like Bush and voted for him btw).  But the costs for that program will be astronomical.  Who will pay for it 10, 15 years down the road?  I dunno.  Some other guy I guess.

[griz]

The drug benifit is a good example of the line being blurred. The people getting the handout are, or were by and large taxpayers. But their votes count and they got sort of an off the books benifit. As far as paychecks go I agree they aren't subsidies. I brought it up because some people view all government work as pork.

I still think it's a good idea, and it still has a slim chance of happening.

[The Rabbi]

I still think it's a good idea, and it still has a slim chance of happening.

Slim?  Try none.  Try, pigs will fly first.  Try compacted shaved ice in spherical form in very hot place.