The new defense for lies,
"Though you believe
That I deceive,
I merely clintonize!"
I have spent a lot of time considering what exactly is wrong with our democratic republic. What has caused government to spin out of control and has allowed intelligent, hard-working people to be subjugated to the will of a growing body of ne'er-do-wells.
I have come to the conclusion that the problems we face are the result of the voting structure that has evolved in the Republic. Simply anyone is allowed to vote. I know this sounds elitist, but consider the fact that those dependent upon government subsidies are allowed to vote themselves more at the expense of the productive elements of society. This causes a disincentive to be productive, while at the same time encouraging demagoguery from politicians of every stripe.
Consider the effect on our republic if those financially dependent upon the government were NOT allowed to vote. I refer not merely to those on welfare or food stamps, but stock holders in huge corporations and farmers that receive subsidies from the government.
The effect would be two-fold. First, those more concerned with voting rights than receiving money from the government would relinquish their portion of the government dole. Second those who vote and run for office would be more inclined to keep government expenditures to a minimum.
This proposal can be justified on the grounds that those who pay for a service or a government should be the ones to dictate how it shall operate. I believe that a safety net for the poor, the incompetent and the disabled would remain in place, while efficiency, effectiveness and liberty would become the order of the day.
As a realist, I see the impossibility of disenfranchising a whole segment of the population, but I also see that the founding fathers were correct in their estimation that the franchise should be limited to those who have a stake in society. Frankly, I have devised no method for implementation of this notion. I only air it for public comment.
There are those who would label this idea racist, elitist or heartless. I say that it is none of these. Racism, like the quota systems we call affirmative action, is based on the color of a man's skin. It is not elitist in that any person can vote as long as he does not take money from the government - that includes wealthy stock holders as well as the most dependent welfare mother. It is not heartless in that it relies on the good will of the most honest and generous people on the face of the Earth, the American people, to do what is right for society.
W. J. Rayment
