Election 2014: A Message to The Voters [249*9]

Dear Editor - It Bears Repeating

The Nov 2014 election is fast approaching and is one of the most critical mid-terms America has faced in a very long time, for the control of Congress hangs in the balance. You have heard this mantra many times before; but history shows it bears saying it again because of the unfortunate American tendency to turn our collective back on those who gave their lives to create and maintain this great country and our right to peacefully change our government. On Nov 4, 2014, Americans have two tough choices to make, 1) whether to turn Congress over to Republicans, leave it in gridlock, or give it to the Democrats and 2) whether to keep or dump the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).

As everybody is well aware, Congress is in gridlock … by design. All propaganda aside, prior to President Obama’s inauguration, plans were made, well documented now (see Robert Draper's book "Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives", by top Republican leadership to totally obstruct President Obama’s policy objectives. As it played out, their strategy was implemented without regard to the harm it did to America. Did Democrats play hardball? Of course they did, Democrats weren’t going to roll over and play dead. Further, Democrats rarely compromised ... because there was nobody to compromise with for Conservatives publicly stated many times they were not interested in compromise, it was a dirty word to them. This is simple fact, not spin, there is too much video out there to prove what I assert to be true.

2014 SENATE ELECTION MAP

Source

The Choice is Clear, Democrats or Gridlock

So, the choice for voters is clear, stay the course and leave the House in Republican hands who are controlled by very hard-Right conservatives and keep the Senate Democratic, barely where both Majority Leader Reed and Minority Leader McConnell have the power to decide what gets through the Senate. Or have a one Party Congress by letting the Democrats pick up 17 seats in the House and barely keep the Senate. Alternatively, keep the House in Republican hands and switching control of the Senate to the Republicans, again barely.

In the first case, gridlock is certain and President Obama will continue doing what he can by Executive Order. In the latter two cases, more law will get out of Congress, but not much more because either McConnell or Reed, sitting the Senate Minority Leader role will stop any legislation they don’t like from going through. Further, if the Republicans take control, I can see President Obama’s veto pen coming out a lot; again leading to gridlock and more government shutdowns.

It should be obvious then; the only scenario where government can get moving again is if the Democrats can somehow gain control of Congress. This is not a very likely outcome UNLESS Democratic minority (blacks (especially in Georgia, Arkansas, Louisiana, and North Carolina) and Latinos [especially in Texas!]) and women (again especially in Texas) come out in a BIG way. (I mention Texas because I feel Conyers is vulnerable if enough Texas women and Latinos register and vote for the Democratic candidate.)


TO VOTE or NOT TO VOTE

Are You Going To Vote on November 4th?

  • 78% Democrat - Yes
  • 0% Democrat - No
  • 11% Republican - Yes
  • 0% Republican - No
  • 11% Independent - Yes
  • 0% Independent - No
  • 0% Other - Yes
  • 0% Other - No
9 people have voted in this poll.

This poll is now closed to voting.

What Happens To Your Health Insurance Depends On You Voting Or Not.

In addition, millions of people’s health lies in the balance as well. How so? If Republicans gain control, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), aka Obamacare, will be unfunded in major ways. I doubt it can be repealed, which a vast majority of Americans do not want, but they will figure out how to take the teeth out of it. Why is this important, since everybody hates it? Because many of you reading this probably signed up for it or will be starting in November. Even though, when you are asked by a pollster if you like ACA and, as a good Republican, you answer no, and then you go to the voting booth, please understand that when you vote for your favorite Republican candidate, you are voting to have him or her cancel your health insurance. Is that what you really want? It will happen, you know.

And Democratic politicians, you shouldn't be running away from Obamacare, it’s like running away from Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. ACA is the best thing to happen to America since sliced bread and you should be drum beating that message harder than Conservatives are falsely saying it is going to fail. Further, you should be ashamed for letting your President down by ignoring his signature, your signature achievement which will go down in history alongside Social Security and Medicare.

Democratic voters, you too should be extremely worried, especially blacks and Latinos. If America does not end up with a Democratic Congress, it is a certainty that 1) Congress will not act on restoring Voting Rights, 2) Immigration reform will be left to Executive active, 3) 60% of all gun sales will still have no background checks, 4) Women’s rights in the workplace will continue to deteriorate, and 5) the assault on unions will increase. If this is what you want for yourselves, stay home and forsake your civic duty. If you want government to work, then go out and register and vote.

#RegisterAndVote #RegistreseParaVotar.

Scott Belford

www.myesoteric.hubpages.com

GOVERNOR RACES

Source

© 2014 My Esoteric

More by this Author


44 comments

HSchneider 2 years ago from Parsippany, New Jersey

Well said, My Esoteric. Apathy has destroyed Democratic and liberal interests during the mid-terms for years. The Republican party is now run by the Far Right so not voting will have draconian consequences.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thank for your comment, HS. I don't know if an conservative take-over will be too much worse than it is now, other than the damage that will be done to ACA, than what it is now because of the Democratic use of filibuster and Obama's veto power. After that chances are high that Ds will keep the presidency and take back the Senate in 2016.


PaigePixel profile image

PaigePixel 2 years ago from New Orleans, LA

I live in New Orleans- a small blue island in a deep red sea, and sometimes it seems pointless to vote in state-wide elections, but you've got to keep waiving the flag, so we vote religiously. Mary Landrieu carries a "D" behind her name, but because of the constituency, she votes like an "R" a depressing amount of the time. Still, I'll hold my nose and vote for her, since the other options are truly terrifying.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

I understand you dilemma and plight, @PaigePixel. I am almost an island onto myself here in Bradford County, FL. You might consider Mary might be holding her nose as well in order keep her seat Blue, although I do suspect she is, save for social issues, more center Right than what's left of the Democratic Party would like.

What made the Ds so much better than the Rs, so much more vibrant and robust was its inclusiveness of conservative, moderate, and liberal views. What held all of them together, save the southern Democrats, was a streak of progressivism that ran through all of them. At least that is what I think.


bradmaster 2 years ago

I don't advocate either the democrats or the republicans, but I believe that the democrats do more damage to the country.

The democrats have created a trilogy of taxes in the form of SS, Medicare, and Obamacare. At the same time the federal workers are not negatively affected nor do they depend on these pathetic systems.

The federal workers have Federal Employee Retirement System, that is privately managed, and has a defined benefit. Once retired they never have to pay into the retirement. Compare that with SS.

The federal workers have Federal Employee Health Benefits, even after they retire, so they don't need Medicare, and their health plans by definition meet the standards of Obamacare.

The healthcare in the US may be better than most in the world, but it is still pathetic. Obamacare or PPACA is not going to improve the quality of medical care. The FDA, medical patents, and for profit pharmaceutical companies alone have prevented major medical cures from happening. What they have developed is very expensive long term drugs, that deal more often with symptoms and not the source of the disease.

The area where the medical industry has made breakthroughs is in using new technology for surgeries, and diagnostics. But this doesn't amount to curing a disease. The last major disease that was cured happened before congress gave the FDA control over the drug industry. The FDA doesn't do independent testing, they just review the data given to the them by the pharmaceutical companies, and yet it still costs over 800 million dollars to get FDA approval. Then after FDA approval of a drug, the legal firms wait for them to fail and make their money suing the Pharmaceutical Companies for putting out a bad drug.

The democrats move the country to the left, and the republicans move it to the right, and the best that can happen is finding the middle, but there is no forward movement, and sometimes steps backwards.

The existing paradigm for the founders concept of the government has reached its valued limits. The fact that congress can be gridlocked, and the president becomes the de facto legislative branch is evidence to my assertion.

The problem of the system from my viewpoint is the power of the political parties, and their control over their loyal party voters. Once these voters register with the party, the party cashes in on their votes. Then it is what the party wants, and what their financial backers want them to do versus that of the voters.

In any case the voters of the party that lost, are now not represented in the government.

my opinion


bradmaster 2 years ago

another one hit the dust


bradmaster 2 years ago

At least let me know that my comments are getting through and you are making a decision not to approve it.

Thanks


bradmaster 2 years ago

As long as this country is picking their congress and president based on their party the country will continue to decline. The party immediately cashes in on the party registered voter. The party will then woo the independents and the non committed voters for this rest of the election. They ignore the voters of the other party because they are not going to convert.

The party puts up the pathetic choices for the election, so in the last several decades the voters are voting for the lesser of two evils.

The party loyal voter, is a vote Row A or Row B, that is just wrong. History has shown that neither party has the solutions to moving the country forward. There have been numerous changes in control by a party, and that causes the country to move to the side of the party. Control changing to the other party just moves the country to the other side. Neither of these scenarios moves the country forward, and sometimes moves the country backward. That is where the country is today.

Gridlock by congress has been the result of either party during the last several decades. It just means that the minority party doesn't think that the other party has a good solution, or even a good idea.

The trilogy of social taxation created by the democrats discriminates against the average wage earner, while the Internal Revenue Code allows billionaires to avoid, defer, diminish or otherwise get preferential treatment no available to the middle class worker.

PPACA is another TAX that could have been avoided by using a congressional scalpel to take care of bad acts in the system. The pre-existing condition was unfair, but it only needed a regulation to change it, and not a complete overhaul of a bad system, making is an even worse system.

Neither party in congress will get rid of SS, Medicare, and the Personal Income Tax System.

SS should have been administered the same way that the Federal Employee Retirement system does it. The inequities of SS include no defined permanent benefits, the system is at the whim of congress. The retirement age is more than twelve years higher for SS than FERS. SS contributions are not stopped even when the person retires. The death benefit for SS is $255, is that what it is under FERS?

The Income Tax System and SS are being used as a de factor personal information tracking system. All this paper work, and bureaucracy to simply make revenue for the US. A National Sales Tax to completely replace the 1040 system would provide immediate simplified revenue. It could use the same system developed for state sales tax. It would return much of the privacy, and criminality of the current 1040 system.

Yes it would force the loss of jobs for many CPAs, Tax Attorneys, and IRS workers. CPAs were never intended to specialize in Income Tax, their function is to audit business.

The loyal party voter is the core of the problem of the decline in the US.

Neither party has the complete solution, and the voters need to demand results from their incumbents, not just new party promises.

I don't support either party, but I do recognize that the democrats are NOT the lesser of the two evils.

Thanks

bradmaster


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Sorry, Hubpages just did notify me you had left A message, although it looks like there are four, all together. Unlike most I get, I first have to certify yours isn't spam, then I have to approve; normally all I have to do is approve. The only responses I don't approve are those full of profanity and filth.


bradmaster 2 years ago

My Esoteric

Thanks for the feedback.

I will just have to be more patient.

I hope that you find my comments interesting, even if you might not agree with them.

I didn't mean to be repetitive in my comments, but once I post them I can no longer see them until you approve it.

Bradmaster


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Let me start by correcting you on a few things about the Federal workforce, from which I am retired.

1) the military has always paid into both SS and Medicare.

2) while the civil servants didn't contribute, until 1985, into the SS system, we contributed 7% of our salary into our pension; unlike most large corporation who provided a pension free-of-charge back then. Therefore, those workers got both the pension AND SS. Civil servants have always contributed to Medicare.

3) Since 1985, the FERS system to which you refer, requires full participation in SS, as well as Medicare. It also has a contributory pension system which takes 3%, I think, of your paycheck. You can, like with most large companies, contribute to a 401K-type retirement plan with matching contributions up to some limit.

Further, I am not sure what you mean by "Once retired they never have to pay into the retirement. Compare that with SS.". But if that means if a retired federal worker goes to work somewhere else, you bet your boopee they pay into SS, and if they have been a federal worker most of their life prior to 1985 and have built up no SS credits, "they get nothing for their SS contributions after retirement."

Wrong again on the health care. Once a federal worker hits 65, like me, they switch to Medicare, period. They can keep FEHB as a secondary if they want (I didn't because I am also retired military and have Tricare.); but federal workers are no different that non-federal workers regarding health care benefits. There is one difference of course, our employer gives a damn about us, while most large private employers could care less whether their employees live or die; ALL they care about is making a buck to line their executive pockets.

Our heath care is actually worse than most developed nations now and costs a lot more.

Obamacare, and Medicare a few years before that, has already improved the delivery of health care. Because that now the paperless requirement is starting to take hold, noticeable improvements, such as less counter-indicated drugs being given, are happening. Also, Medicare costs are coming down in the waste and fraud arena thereby reducing overall cost growth.

When Rs pushed for an got quick FDA approval of drugs, many people died as a result because long-term effects were not studied. Where FDA is failing is considering foreign studies to speed up approvals.

I would have to research your assertion regarding no new cures, but you are certain correct about new techniques being developed.

A French economist recently addressed whether the SS methodology or the Federal Retirement-type system would ultimately work better given we have now had enough demographic changes to test both concepts. I need to reread it again, because I am no longer sure which side he came down on, if he came down on one at all. Prior to reading his thoughts, I wasn't particularly impressed with the construct of the current SS system, but now I not 100% sure anymore.

I think I can point directly at the problem leading to the gridlock you talk about ... gerrymandering. The founders didn't ban it because 1) they were hoping factional politics would not raise its ugly heads and 2) they wanted to leave as much discretion to the States as possible without denigrating the central government too much. In any event, they did leave the mechanism in the Constitution for Congress to ban gerrymandering "if they so choose". THEY REALLY NEED TO Choose to pass an Amendment banning it. Without gerrymandering, you will get back to a good mix of conservatives, moderates, and liberals in each Party.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

I'll get to your next post in a bit; I need to move on to some other things.

BTW, do you see any edits needed, because I really am going to submit this to some papers.


bradmaster 2 years ago

#1 Since 1957, if you had military service earnings for active duty (including active duty for training), you paid Social Security taxes on those earnings and they are on your record. Inactive duty service in the Armed Forces reserves (such as weekend drills) has been covered by Social Security since 1988.

People who served in the military from 1940 through 1956 did not pay into Social Security directly, but when they apply for benefits, their records are credited with special earnings for Social Security purposes that count toward any benefits that might be payable.

To me the military is in a special class, and I didn't include them in federal workers. The military deserves all they can get from the system.

bradmaster

Thanks


bradmaster 2 years ago

#3

Non-military federal retirees (FEHBP):

If you have retiree health insurance from the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and Medicare, Medicare pays first. Your FEHBP coverage picks up the difference, or in some cases, pays for services not covered by Medicare.

Even if you turn down Medicare, your federal insurance will continue to cover you in the same way it did while you were working. Because of this, many people with FEHBP choose not to take Medicare when they first become eligible for Medicare.


bradmaster 2 years ago

#3 FERS

FERS is a Defined Benefit Pension, that means it can never pay out less than the defined benefit, and then there is COLA on top of it.

FERS and SS are double the retirement benefits, but unlike people that just have SS, you don't need SS.

Yes, it is true that when you start another job when you retire with FERS, you have to pay SS contributions. But you don't pay anymore into your first retirement. People that just have SS, need to work after retirement, and when they do they can get penalized for making more money. The government will take one out of every two dollars earned over fifteen thousand one hundred and twenty dollars. You don't ever have to do that for your FERS pension. In addition, the SS retiree is losing the money contributed for the entire earnings, that is from 1 dollar to the 15120 dollars and anything above that. It is a double hit. FERS pension can retire as early as fifty five years old.

My point on Obamacare is that the few things that needed to be done could have been accomplished sooner and better by a few laws. Like a law preventing preexisting conditions from rejecting you for medical insurance. The paperless system has yet to be proved. BTW, any of the health insurance options in FEHB meet the Obamacare standards, but that is not true for millions of people in the private sector.

The bottom line for you is would you give up FERS, and FEHB and go with what is available in the private sector. 401K are too small to grow into a real pension, and they are subject to the economy wiping them out, whereas this cannot happen with FERS.

Obamacare took hundreds of billions of Medicare funds like seven hundred billion. Adding thirty two million people to the healthcare system doesn't improve the quality of service. Most of the treatments in the medical industry a long term and expensive treatments, not cures. In many cases these treatments, drugs, only deal with treating the symptoms of the disease, and not the root cause of the disease.

The FDA as I said, doesn't do have any laboratories, and it relies on whatever data it gets from the drug company. Many of the FDA approved drugs are being litigated by the piranha lawyers because they are dangerous. Both of them.

You call it gerrymandering, I call it a bad system. As long as these two parties go in different directions the country cannot move forward. History shows that we didn't go forward.

Thanks

bradmaster


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

FERS people pay SS like everybody else and deserve the same benefit.

If you don't think a Federal employee should get the FERA pension they pay into, then neither should the private sector who generally don't pay a dime; at least those who get it.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

I assume you do know Federal retirees pay for their health insurance. An employee would be a fool, even if he were allowed to, to keep the FEHBP over the free part A Medicare and cheap part B.


bradmaster 2 years ago

My Esoteric

I have completely read the FERS and FEHB and I know that the way they handle SS and Medicare is more beneficial than those in the private sector.

Yes, you pay in to them, but you get more out of it, because of FERS and FEHB. My point is that public servants have always received preferred benefits than in the private sector.

FERS is a defined benefits pension, privately managed. I could go into all of the details but this is just a comment section.

FEHB health insurance plans have better benefits than those in the private sector.

In addition, most people that are non union in the private sector, work under an At Will Employment Contract, which means they can be let go without any reason, while it is very difficult to remove a civil servant. This is a benefit that is not available to the majority in the private sector.

Wouldn't it be more fair, for pensions and health insurance if there was a level playing field. When congress enacts laws for the people like SS, Medicare and Obamacare why don't they make it universal, instead of having their own special plans, like FERS, and FEHB. Yes, you pay into SS and Medicare but that is a bonus. Government workers can retire with pensions from several companies before they even reach SS retirement age.

Who but government workers get the full number of holidays, and vacation time of up to six weeks in the private sector.

Shouldn't this time of equal protection claims by various groups also include the difference between government workers and the wage earners in the private sector.

I didn't understand your last comment?

"If you don't think a Federal employee should get the FERA pension they pay into, then neither should the private sector who generally don't pay a dime; at least those who get it."

What I think is that a Federal Pension should be replaced by pensions that are available in the private sector. SS and 401ks should be the only one available to everyone. You may pay into these pensions and health insurance, but the people are paying the employer part, while not having any worthwhile programs in the private sector.

I don't know who these people are that are not paying a dime. I know this is a sensitive issue for government workers, but there shouldn't be a preference for the servant over the master.

In the private sector, the master gets more benefits, more money and more everything, while the workers get a lot less, and sometimes not enough. People in the private sector would jump at the chance of paying into both FERS and SS, and Medicare and FEHB. But they don't have that opportunity. That was not even addressed by Obamacare.

Again, my comment doesn't include the military as they are on the short end of the government stick.

Finally, do you really think the divide between the taxpayer supported government worker programs, and the private sector which doesn't even give benefits to many workers by making them part time, FAIR?

Thanks

bradmaster


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

@bradmaster, unfortunately, you have to be misunderstanding something, if fact, feds under the CSRS get screwed a little bit with a couple spousal rules. Keep in mind, I am a beneficiary of it all, CSRS, FERS, FEHB, SS, and Medicare.

No, FERS is NOT a defined benefit plan. FERS has three parts 1) a SMALL pension (less than 1/3 that of the CSRS program which replaces SS), 2) SS, and 3) an employer/employee participation 401K-type retirement plan. They patterned it on private plans of many of the contractors that work for the Federal government.

Yes, we have received better benefits in the past because, especially in the past, we earned MUCH less than the private sector; this was true until about 1990. Today, GAO studies show (I have used their figures both in my work with the Air Force and in a Hub or two somewhere) low grade federal workers earn a little more than there private counter-parts consider both wages and benefits, middle-grade workers are on par with the private sector, and high-graded employees earn less, in total ... I was one of the latter at the end of my career and did earn much more once I retired.

The fact that the private sector screws everyone below the executive level is not the fault of the federal and some state governments; they have chosen to treat people fairly. Unfortunately, many people on the Right somehow find treating people fairly is wrong, when the government does it.

As to the private sector NOT paying into FERS, SS, Medicare, and FEHB; millions of private sector workers do just that! They work for unions, and large companies like Boeing, IBM, Caterpillar, Walmart senior management, etc. In fact, ALL workers pay into SS and Medicare. Now, because of Obamacare, all workers pay into plans like FEHB (which Obama wanted to emulate but the Right wouldn't let him). Millions of workers, like my employees, have access to FERS 401K-type programs which the employer contributes to. My company doesn't provide insurance after retirement because we can't afford it, but now, because of Obamacare we don't need to. Nor do we have a pension, for the same reason, cost; but many large corporations still give certain employees FERS-type pensions.

So, to summarize that long paragraph, the ONLY difference between the benefits my company gives and what FERS provides is we don't have a pension. My company's health benefits are much better than what federal workers get and cost the employee less to boot! But, their retirement 401K is better than ours. Sick and annual leave are the same.

Why should government lower itself into the gutter with the private sector regarding the regular worker? Shouldn't at least ONE sector of society do it ethically?


bradmaster 2 years ago

My Esoteric

My research shows differently than yours, but I am not making this an argument, I am just discussing my research.

........

Your Basic FERS Pension

Sometimes people will call your FERS pension a FERS annuity. Even OPM calls it an annuity. But to avoid confusion with other annuities (ex: an annuity from TSP, or annuities from insurance companies) we’re going to be using the term pension when we talk about your FERS retirement.

Every pay period, the government takes out a small portion of your pay to put towards your FERS pension. For most FERS, it is 0.8% of your basic pay. But your pension is not based on this amount.

Your FERS pension is a defined benefit program. "Defined Benefit" means the amount you *get* is defined or fixed. It doesn't matter how much money you contributed - the monthly income from your pension will be a fixed amount based on certain factors.

Once you retire, you can receive a basic monthly pension for the rest of your life.

My ref: http://www.plan-your-federal-retirement.com/fers-r...

As for the other items in your comment, I think we are at crossed purposes here.

You are saying that people in the private sector get up to six weeks of vacation, and get the same number of holidays. I worked in the defense industry for Rockwell, Northrop, and Hughes as an independent contractor.

I also worked at many non defense companies, and I have seen the private sector salaries, benefits, and job security take a nose dive, and at the same time government workers didn't.

You didn't comment on the At Will Employment Contract? This is the major difference between government workers and workers in non union private sectors. While Boeing, IBM, Caterpillar, Walmart senior management you mentioned had huge layoffs over the years, or in the case of Walmart the workers don't get the benefits just the senior executives, and government workers don't get laid off in that fashion. Does your company use the AWC Employment Contract. The majority of the workers in the private sector are not union.

It is the fault of congress, to give government workers their own plan, while sticking us with only SS, Medicare, and now Obamacare.

SS is a tax with a promise, and no one knows what that promise is anymore.

Medicare had $700 billion dollars taken away from it and put into Obamacare. That is yours, mine and everybody that was forced to contribute into it. How does Medicare contributions get stolen by the government for Obamacare?

I don't care about the right or the left, I do care about right and wrong.

The 16th Amendment as applied is wrong.

SS is a Ponzi Scheme, and it is at the whim of the government. Why should they be able to change the retirement age. They had to because there wasn't any real investing of the contributions to anticipate the benefit end of the system.

Medicare is another tax tagged on to the SS law, and it has been the tool for fraud for the last forty years. All the money that was fraudulently paid out didn't go to the right people.

SS, Medicare and Obamacare taxes are the creation of the democratic presidents, and now congress is blaming the retirees and the sick people as the reason why they can't balance the budget.

We the people would have been better off if we would have been able to invest the FICA contributions in a private fund, and not put into a government trust fund that earned little interest, and is used as a congressional piggy bank.

All three of these are bad systems, that should have never been passed or implemented.

my opinion

bradmaster


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

You don't need to refer me to a FERS website, I have been there and done that more than ten years ago when I 1) planned my conversion from CSRS and 2) retired from civil service.

Yes, you are correct for the "pension" portion of FERS, which stands for the Federal Employment Retirement System, emphasis on "system". Since I converted to FRS from CSRS, I have a hybrid retirement, but the FERS part, without getting too complicated, was 1% times the number of years of FERS service times the average of my top 3-years pay. So if I worked 10 years under FERS and my average was $100K/tr, then I would get $10K annually.

"That is exactly the way private pensions work except that many don't require the employee contribute the 0.8%." Prior to 1980, private pensions were quite common. With the advent of 401Ks and short job tenures, not so much anymore.

I didn't see the "At Will" comment, but you are right, that is a huge difference since Conservatives have been so successful at beating down unions. One of the great benefits of government employment was job stability, but then that goes with the job, it isn't as subject to the ups and downs of the economy. But it is not immune either. President Reagan had at least two Christmas day massacres where he fired tens of thousands federal workers during downsizings ... and then there was the FAA strike, which I actually supported him on, until he didn't hire most of them back. I am positive the same thing would have happened from 1993 - 2000 when Clinton decimated the federal workforce had it been a conservative administration. Instead, VP Gore was able to make severe reductions without too many people actually getting fired. Of course, the end result was a much more expensive government when they hired private contractors to replace us.

But, again, don't put the existence of the "At Will" contracts on the government worker, you didn't have to sign them, you could have unionized, you could have voted in Federal, State, and Local politicians to make "At Will" provisions illegal like they were in most states until the conservative revolution. It is not the government workers fault it is this way, it is your fault. I vote for people who would change it, do you?

I am a small company, about $6M in sales annually with 40 employees. If I can give my employees a benefit package that almost mimics the federal package, then why can't Walmart? Yes, I give my long-term employees 2 hours sick leave per pp and 5 or 6 weeks vacation after 10 years; so can EVERY other business out there, if they wanted to. I also give 8 holidays, I think I cut out some of the birthdays. There is absolutely no reason others in the private sector could do that if they simply stopped playing Scrooge.

I have absolutely NO sympathy for the private sector or for employees who won't unionize when they have the opportunity or don't fight/vote for their rights as human beings when they can't organize.

One of these days, hehe, you will figure out that in 1985, when the feds went to FERS, we became like the private sector in the structure of out pay. To restate:

- Private Sector has Pensions -- FERS has a pension

- Private Sector has 401K -- FERS has a 401K

- Private Sector has SS -- FERS has SS

- Private Sector has Medicare -- FERS has Medicare

- Private Sector has health plans -- Federal gov't has health plans

- Private Sector has leave -- Federal gov't has leave.

The fact that not all of the Private Sector chooses to offer the same things the gov't does is not governments problem; the government has done its job in providing the environment where the Private Sector COULD offer these benefits if it wants, most don't want to for what ever reason.

I'll say one thing about FICA and private investment. If FICA were set up the way conservatives want it, most Americans would have zero income at 65 (if they stopped working), rather than what SS will provide. If you have learned one thing from your days being alive, its that the vast majority of people in America don't have a clue as to how to prepare for retirement. And if nothing was done about it, then the cost of doing nothing would bankrupt the rest of us.

Not Congress blaming retirees and sick, conservative Congressmen and women.


bradmaster 2 years ago

My Esoteric

In 1905 unions were needed, as the government didn't protect the workers. But after WWII the unions became the problem. Unions are like the government they want continued employment, not productivity.

As I said, I worked in defense, and I know how the unions work. If you want to move your computer, or even plug in a computer, you need a union person from the department to do it. If you want a part to be transported from LA to San Diego, you need a union member, even if you are going to San Diego to test that part.

I also grew up in NY, and I know how unions work, or actually don't work. Any building project in NY, needs grease, otherwise it doesn't get done.

The ironic thing about government unions, is that unions are made to protect the workers against the owners. Why are government workers afraid to trust their owners?

I was also in a couple of unions, because I was forced to when I worked for Rockwell. I saw how totally incompetent grade 17 workers could be saved from termination by the union, in spite of their incompetent behavior.

You really sidestepped the Defined Benefits for FERS.

There is no equivalence in the non union private sector for FERS or FEHB. And the FERS handles SS contributions differently than in the private sector. I won't argue the point, but it is there on the government websites.

I am not blaming the government workers for the inequities, I am blaming the congress for having different rules that taxpayers must pay for. The congress isn't even bound to work under their own laws. It is do as I say, and not as I do.

Joining a union is not the solution for the private sector, and it is the fault of congress not to make these forced ATW employment contract unconscionable, and unenforceable. As the UCC did with standard forms contracts in the 1970s.

Look at how many people are unemployed because of the 2008 economic meltdown, and how many jobs were lost in the last several decades by mergers, and acquisitions that would have been deemed anti-trust forty years ago.

Yet, the economy, nor these mergers and acquisitions have impacted the government work force. We paid trillions of dollars over the years to support NORAD, NSA, FBI, FAA, CIA, National Guard, and other government agencies that were part of our national defense, and they all failed us in 2001.

A national sales tax to replace the 1040 personal income tax system which is very unfair, would get the same revenue, quicker and without invasion of privacy and without needing CPAs. It would also enable the IRS to downsize, or at least refocus to something more useful.

These are just a few examples of a bloated, gridlocked, failure to move the country forward government. Don't blame the right, there is enough blame to go around for everyone. When the Democrats controlled congress and the presidency they didn't move the country forward When they were in the minority they did the same thing that the Republicans are being blamed for doing.

Neither party has a solution, and neither party will move the country forward.

Democrat controlled and run government for the last thirty years, will show evidence of how one party in control can take down a state. And it is the same mechanism that is taking down the country.

The government spent over one and a half trillion dollars to stop the economic bleeding of 2008, and we the people didn't benefit from it. The benefactors of this dole out of taxpayer money went to the same people and companies that brought the economy to its knees.

It sounds like you are doing a great job for your workers, and I wish that your lead was the rule in the private sector, but sadly it is not.

The people in the defense industry have been hit hard over the years, but it didn't affect the government workers. That is my point.

Just like the phrase, no one should be above the law, I think that government workers shouldn't be protected from the same conditions that drastically affect the wage earners in the private sector.

Thanks again for the dialogue.

We see the country from a different perspective, so it is reasonable that we don't seem to agree much. But, it is not personal on my part, I am just opining based on my experience, and what I have researched.

Thanks

Bradmaster


Shyron E Shenko profile image

Shyron E Shenko 2 years ago

Wow! This is the best. I hope your letter gets to everone who even for a second thinks they are not going to vote. I saw a sign that said "Vote like you life depends on it, because it does."

I have voted in every election since I could.

I am so proud that you are my friend.

God bless you for telling it like it is.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thanks Shyron, I appreciate it.


DealForALiving profile image

DealForALiving 2 years ago from Earth

I'm all about stirring up the vote across the board. More people have to become invested and involved in our governing process. Three cheers for this hub!


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thanks for reading @DealForALiving


bradmaster from Orange County CA 2 years ago

My Esoteric

There is an interesting race for governor in Colorado.

bm


bradmaster from orange county ca 2 years ago

My Esoteric

Perhaps, this hub is a good place to ask you a question on democrat versus republican control of the country.

What would be the benefit and detriment of the following.

The democrats control the congress, and the presidency.

The republicans control the congress and the presidency.

What would you expect to happen to or for the country under each of those scenarios? Now eliminating the gridlock scenario from the minority, assume that the minority is non existent.

This answer would help me understand how one party or the other would benefit, or burden the country today?

Thanks

bradmaster


bradmaster from orange county ca 2 years ago

My Esoteric

On the issue of voting, also comes the issue of who is voting in the elections.

We have over ten million Illegal Aliens, and millions of foreign people on visa, but only US citizens of legal age are allowed to vote. The problem is that like the US Borders, anyone can get into to country, and anyone can vote.

The question of requiring a valid photo ID to vote in an American Election has been answered by the courts as unconstitutional. The democrats, who would gain from these illegal voters, have claimed that it would disenfranchise the poor voters. The courts have likened it to a Poll Tax.

The fact is that the courts aren't doing there job, because basically any person trying to get benefits from a government welfare program needs to have a valid photo ID. The reasoning for that is to prevent fraud. Yet, that is the same reason why we need to require valid photo IDs for voting.

There is no valid legal reason why that would be unconstitutional. It appears that the court system has been compromised by politics. Although when precedent is set by a president that doesn't think it is important to prove citizenship for meeting one of the main requirements for the presidency, one can see no proof is needed for voting. Even though voting also has requirements like age and citizenship.

Thanks

bradmaster


bradmaster from orange county ca 2 years ago

My Esoteric

You didn't answer my last comment.

From your hub

Democratic voters, you too should be extremely worried, especially blacks and Latinos. If America does not end up with a Democratic Congress, it is a certainty that

1) Congress will not act on restoring Voting Rights,

bm:

What voting rights are you referring to here?

If it is requiring valid proof of citizenship to vote, that shouldn't be a problem. Check the Real Id act of 2005.

---------

From your hub

2) Immigration reform will be left to Executive active,

bm:

All the EO have adversely affected all of those immigrants from around the world that apply for entry to the country legally. While benefiting the illegal aliens who mere cross the border into the US. This the result of congress over many decades not securing our border, and making some sort of work program for the illegals that don't include de facto US Citizenship.

------

From your hub

3) 60% of all gun sales will still have no background checks,

bm:

That is most likely tied to congress not providing enough money to fund those background searches.

--------

From your hub

4) Women’s rights in the workplace will continue to deteriorate, and

bm:

Senator Obama, and then president Obama chose an elderly white male, over a qualified Senator Hillary Clinton.

The democrats ridiculed Sara Palin and the Republicans for submitting a female VP candidate.

------------

From your hub

5) the assault on unions will increase.

bm:

What assault are you referring to here.

------------------

From your hub

If this is what you want for yourselves, stay home and forsake your civic duty. If you want government to work, then go out and register and vote

bm:

I don't understand how the first president Obama democratic control of congress worked any better than the congress that followed it.

The agenda for president Obama's first two years should have been to restore the economy, monitor and control the financial industry that caused the economic meltdown, help the victims of the financial industry.

Take action to offset the damage done by the Federal Reserve Board.

What didn't need to be the main focus was the ACA. First it wouldn't take effect for at least six years. At the same time, the economy was already in real trouble.

The 10,000 pages of the ACA were not read or understood by most of congress, and that is no different than the Internal Revenue Code.

The other thing that would have been really helpful is to change the piggy backing onto to bills with non related programs.

The less bills that congress produces the better off will be the country.

Now that the voters have given control to the Republicans what should the Democrats do in congress.

Will they emulate the way the Republicans worked against the Democrats, or will they try to be un Republican and compromise?

Look at what the Democrats have accomplished at the state level for California. Nothing good. They have been in control of the state congress for many decades, and they are in the top states for everything bad, and in none of the top states for something good.

The reason is that California is the handout supremo of all the states.

This means votes by those getting the handouts.

Thanks

bradmasterOC


bradmaster from orange county ca 2 years ago

My Esoteric

My 3rd comment

You wrote

1) the military has always paid into both SS and Medicare

bm:

#1 Since 1957, if you had military service earnings for active duty (including active duty for training), you paid Social Security taxes on those earnings and they are on your record. Inactive duty service in the Armed Forces reserves (such as weekend drills) has been covered by Social Security since 1988.

People who served in the military from 1940 through 1956 did not pay into Social Security directly, but when they apply for benefits, their records are credited with special earnings for Social Security purposes that count toward any benefits that might be payable.

To me the military is in a special class, and I didn't include them in federal workers. The military deserves all they can get from the system.

bradmasterOC


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

I stand corrected on the military, I broke my rule about using absolutes.

The agenda for Obama in the first two years WAS to restore the economy regardless of how hard the opposition tried to stop him. The problem is, the People, at the urging of the Right-wing propaganda machine, bought into the belief that a major recession that was many years in the making can be magically repaired and brought back to normal in six months, or even two years. Financially based recessions have historically taken a long time to get back to just where they started.

- The financially based Panics beginning in 1892 and ended in 1894 never fully recovered until 1897.

- The financially based 1907 Panic, which ended in 1908 (but slipped back in 1910) didn't fully recover until 1911

- The 1929 Depression, which ended in 1933, never recovered to pre-1929 levels before the non-financially based 1937 recession hit.

- The financially based Great Recession of 2008, ending in 2009, recovered economically by Q3 of 2011; Employment recovered two years later.

The two years of the Obama presidency accomplished more than the next four combined. The three signature programs that come to mind, although you certainly don't like at least two of them, is 1) the completing the TARP and implementing the Stimulus, thereby saving the country from a major depression as worse and some say more worse than the 1929 Depression, 2) finaling getting ACA past where all Americans have an opportunity of getting health insurance instead of being arbitrarily denied it by insurance companies or lack of wealth, and 3) removing genetic-based sexual orientation as a criteria to fire somebody from our military. There are many more, of course, as listed in my hub on it.


bradmaster from orange county ca 2 years ago

My Esoteric

You wrote

The agenda for Obama in the first two years WAS to restore the economy regardless of how hard the opposition tried to stop him. The problem is, the People, at the urging of the Right-wing propaganda machine, bought into the belief that a major recession that was many years in the making can be magically repaired and brought back to normal in six months, or even two years. Financially based recessions have historically taken a long time to get back to just where they started.

bm:

My point is that PPACA was the real focus and that zapped the power of the democratic control. Especially, when even six years later the infamous Obamacare is barely rooted, or useful to the people.

Obama did nothing to protect the victims of the financial industry, which were handsomely rewarded for their greed, and corruption.

The stimulus package should have been devoted to the victims.

The Federal Reserve Board tried to hide the devastation caused from the derivative bundles by investing several hundred billions of dollars in them after the meltdown. Their alleged justification for doing that was preferred due to the stagnancy of the economy.

------------------------------

You wrote

- The financially based Panics beginning in 1892 and ended in 1894 never fully recovered until 1897.

bm:

So my conclusion is that the government has not learned from history.

----------------------

You wrote

- The financially based 1907 Panic, which ended in 1908 (but slipped back in 1910) didn't fully recover until 1911

bm:

It is now almost 2015, and the economy is far from being recovered.

-----------

You wrote

- The 1929 Depression, which ended in 1933, never recovered to pre-1929 levels before the non-financially based 1937 recession hit.

bm:

That is an indication that the government failed to help the recovery through any of its actions. It was only the heavy spending from WWII that really recovered the economy.

FDR was good intentioned, but failed horribly. His PPACA was SS. Neither of these was necessary to help recover the economy. Taxes, which these are don't really help the economy.

---------------

You wrote

- The financially based Great Recession of 2008, ending in 2009, recovered economically by Q3 of 2011; Employment recovered two years later.

bm:

You can't really be serious that the economy is even recovered today.

It is no better than we were in 1937. Government spending included in the GDP is not an indication of the health of the economy. In fact, I would contend that the more the government spends the unhealthier is the economy.

-------------

You wrote

The two years of the Obama presidency accomplished more than the next four combined. The three signature programs that come to mind, although you certainly don't like at least two of them, is 1) the completing the TARP and implementing the Stimulus, thereby saving the country from a major depression as worse and some say more worse than the 1929 Depression,

bm:

That was one and half trillion dollars that was unwisely spent to give the illusion that the government had a plan. A Hail Mary play is not a plan. As I mentioned before, the fact that the FRB spent hundreds of billions of dollars investing into the catalyst of the economic meltdown is an indication that neither TARP nor the Stimulus was working well.

Once again, none of these programs was helping the victims of the financial industry. Considering the way that these programs barely changed the financial industry, they are still too big to fail, a great depression might have helped more than it hurt.

Incompetent and corrupt executives in the financial industry, including their government helpers should have been fired, and been replaced by more honest and responsible leadership. The GS act should have been reinstated. The Credit Card industry needed to be freed of its usurious rates, which the Credit Card Act of 2009 didn't address.

Today our biggest industry is healthcare, and that is so pathetic on many levels. The FDA and Patent Law along with the main mantra of the corporate world, make a profit has doomed us into a paradigm that doesn't even seek cures for major diseases.

The one spark of hope was the newly restored oil production from within the borders of the US. And whoever is responsible for that in congress or elsewhere did something to help the country.

-------------------

You wrote

2) finaling getting ACA past where all Americans have an opportunity of getting health insurance instead of being arbitrarily denied it by insurance companies or lack of wealth, and

bm:

The economy was in trouble in 2008, and the first baby steps of the PPACA have yet to be taken as an advantage. Adding 10,000 pages of bureaucracy is hardly a plus. I doubt that congress has read these pages, much less understands them.

There are still some many loopholes in PPACA that renders any immediate benefit from it useless. The pre-existing condition clause has been given to the states for implementation. I contend that in 2009, a specific law addressing a solution to the harm caused by the insurance companies on that issue would have been more successful, more immediate and more beneficial. How many people were stuck with this clause for the last six years, and how many people could have been helped with a specific law on these conditions.

The workers in the private sector don't have the same benefits as FEHB, as do the government workers. For example, the work life at private companies is more dynamic than the public sector. This means more changes in insurance, and more periods of Cobra, and when people are out of work, they really can't afford Cobra.

PPACA is not the solution for National Healthcare as long as the government gives preferential treatment to its own kind.

There are different parameters and dynamics in the private sector versus the public sector, but PPACA doesn't even attempt to address these differences.

The workers in the low paying jobs need economical health insurance more than they need a higher minimum wage. As the increase in wage just goes to taxes, and insurance.

-----

You wrote

3) removing genetic-based sexual orientation as a criteria to fire somebody from our military. There are many more, of course, as listed in my hub on it.

bm:

There is no such thing as a genetic based sexual orientation.

Otherwise, there would be judicial notice for the courts to use that as a basis for same sex issues. Without this proof of judicial notice, sexual orientation is merely a choice.

Can you say with certainty that every same sex relationship is not based on choice. And what category would fit bisexuals, as they are clearly able to choose either gender as their choice, or even both at the same time.

This choice has been the water and weakening of the US Constitution which is already pretty stretched over the years.

As far as redefining heterosexual traditional living to fit the nontraditional homosexual living cannot be done in parts. The reason for many of the separations like gender separated public restrooms has to do with hormones, and repressing sex drive. Yet, there is no separation for sex drives by putting homosexuals in their preferred sexual arena.

The only real solution is to abandon the separation by gender entirely, making it coed instead. Any opposition to this solution only highlights the problems caused from the redefinition of traditional living.

The whole sexual orientation issue was due to the mommy is on the phone, and the kids will run a muck. There were more serious and compelling issues to be dealt with instead of the homo rendition as a top issues to be dealt with by the country.

You probably also believe that the blacks deserve 1.7 trillion dollars as payment for their slavery. In which case, how do we right the wrong we did with the Indians?

In addition, while there are discrimination laws to protect people that are old, and fat, they are virtually shallow toothless laws because they don't have the machines that exist for the blacks, and women.

-------

The country is not going to move forward from this election, just move to the right.

Thanks

bradmasterOC


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

I wrote for about a 45-minutes a couple of days ago and poof, up in smoke; and now I can't find what I was responding to. I am back to writing in pieces.

You said "he question of requiring a valid photo ID to vote in an American Election has been answered by the courts as unconstitutional. The democrats, who would gain from these illegal voters, have claimed that it would disenfranchise the poor voters. The courts have likened it to a Poll Tax." - My response is this:

There are many in this country who, for whatever reason don't have picture ID. It has been a standing principal of liberty that, unless there is reasonable cause, no citizen need identify themselves, which is one reason there is no universal picture ID card; its simply against the grain of our founding principals. Also, in the many surveys that have been done over the last several decades, the instances of voter fraud are infinitesimal and where it has been found to occur, it never even came close to affecting the outcome. We were founded on the idea that the People, in their contract with the government, allow the government to usurp personal liberty only in the event that it clearly serves the public welfare. The fact that voter ID has always caused more harm than good makes it clear why all but the most conservative courts rule against it.


bradmaster from orange county ca 2 years ago

My Esoteric

You wrote

I wrote for about a 45-minutes a couple of days ago and poof, up in smoke; and now I can't find what I was responding to. I am back to writing in pieces.

bm:

Been there and it is no fun.

--------

You wrote

You said "he question of requiring a valid photo ID to vote in an American Election has been answered by the courts as unconstitutional.

bm:

Really, what was the reason for the unconstitutionality.

The SCOTUS has become political and it is no longer anything but a political machine.

The SCOTUS and its 5-4 decisions are ridiculous. Yes, it still determines the law of the land, but it doesn't mean that it is doing a good job or the right thing for the country.

For deciding the supreme law of the land, shouldn't the opinion of the four dissenting judges be utilized. A percentage of the 9 justices should be closer to that required for an amendment rather than a simple majority.

But, what is your opinion on how a requirement of proving citizenship be held unconstitutional? Shouldn't voting in US elections be done by real live American Citizens?

-----------------

You wrote

The democrats, who would gain from these illegal voters, have claimed that it would disenfranchise the poor voters. The courts have likened it to a Poll Tax." - My response is this:

bm:

A poll tax didn't ask for proof of citizenship.

-------

You wrote

There are many in this country who, for whatever reason don't have picture ID. It has been a standing principal of liberty that, unless there is reasonable cause, no citizen need identify themselves, which is one reason there is no universal picture ID card; its simply against the grain of our founding principals. Also, in the many surveys that have been done over the last several decades, the instances of voter fraud are infinitesimal and where it has been found to occur, it never even came close to affecting the outcome.

bm:

How many poor people don't get state and federal aid?

We are asked to identify ourselves everyday by being forced to identify ourselves with a SS number.

The problem with SS references is that they don't really protect our privacy, as in the case where hackers can use this number against us. Yet, the courts feel no obligation to protect us in that case by not using a number that was created for SS purposes only to be expanded for as a national identity. This expansion was done to a base that existed long before the use of computers, and long before it was mutated to an alternate purpose.

-----------------

You wrote

We were founded on the idea that the People, in their contract with the government,

bm:

What contract is that? Certainly it is not the constitution, as that would make it a unilateral contract that was not participated by another party.

This is not a contract in a legal sense.

-------------------

You wrote

allow the government to usurp personal liberty only in the event that it clearly serves the public welfare.

bm:

What public welfare does the unknown, not negotiated, clandestine acts of the NSA, and the Patriot Act provide for the country.

The NSA has been doing this type of activity even before 911. And 911 is not a constitutional war. No war has been declared.

The Patriot Act should be held unconstitutional when there is no declared war, or Marshal Law.

-----------------

You wrote

The fact that voter ID has always caused more harm than good makes it clear why all but the most conservative courts rule against it.

bm:

What FACT?

What is the problem with keeping the constitution by proving the requirement of citizenship to vote in a US election.

What Harm? The good is protecting the constitution.

What is made clear? There has been no proof that providing a valid photo ID would be difficult for anyone to do.

Here is the requirement to get a library card in Anaheim Ca

Required field

* Name (Last): (First): (Middle):

* Driver's License or ID Number:

* Birthdate (mo/day/year): / /

* Phone:

* Email account:

* City: * State: * Zip:

By submitting this form I agree to abide by the library's policies for computer use.

--------------------

Here is what is required to get a California ID card.

Two types of identification

In California, there are two types of ID cards, a regular ID card valid for up to six years, and a senior citizen ID card valid for up to 10 years. (Must be 62 or older to apply.)

Obtaining a new ID card

To apply for an ID, first, you should plan a visit to your local driver's license office.

You will need to bring your Social Security card and $8 - free for a senior citizen ID ‐ (cash, ATM/debit, cashier's check or money are all acceptable) along with:

Certified U.S. birth certificate (or)

U.S. passport

Certificate of Naturalization

Certificate of Citizenship

U.S. Certificate of Birth Abroad

Resident Alien Card

Valid foreign passport with valid U.S. immigration document

You may also need an additional form of identification if one of the above documents does not contain a photo. For a list of these documents, click here.

What is a California state ID?

A state ID is an acceptable replacement for a drivers license typically used by minors, the elderly or by anyone who does not want a drivers license, but still needs identification in California. For more information on how to get an identification card in California

----------------

Requirements to get Welfare in the US

To be eligible for welfare, an applicant must be a U.S. citizen or lawfully admitted to the country for permanent residence. Some exceptions might apply to citizenship rules. When an individual applies for welfare, his or her citizenship status is reviewed, along with the status of each household member, before assistance is granted. Each state also has its own residency conditions that must be met. For example, to be eligible in Pennsylvania, an individual must be living in that state and have the intention of remaining there.

Social Security Number

A Social Security number is needed for someone to receive welfare benefits, even for a child. If someone in an applying household does not have a Social Security number, he or she must apply for one, provide proof of applying for a number and give the number to his or her caseworker after it is issued. The caseworker might also need to have a copy of the person’s Social Security card.

As of 2012, many states were considering additional eligibility requirements. For example, some states were debating whether applicants should have to be drug tested on a regular basis. Other states were considering requiring photo identification for someone to claim a welfare check. Some states also were discussing whether recipients should have to perform community service.

As for welfare

US Welfare System - Help for US Citizens

Federally funded and governed US welfare began in the 1930s during the Great Depression. The US government responded to the overwhelming number of families and individuals in need of aid by creating a welfare program that would give assistance to those who had little or no income.

======

So my point is that all of these programs require US Citizenship.

So they could technically provide the necessary voter id information that they are US Citizens.

The only step might be to get a photo.

Which the states already provide for people that don't have a driver's license.

If you are poor, you are probably already on welfare, so what is the problem?

-----

Thanks

bradmasterOC.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

OK, these were the comments I was responding to.

Maybe I won't be as long-winded this time around on this one; the make-up of gov't.

IMO, the political spectrum goes something like this from Right to Left: Ultra Conservative; Very Conservative; Moderate Conservative; Liberal Conservative; true Moderates; Conservative Liberals: Moderate Liberals; Very Liberal, and Ultra Liberal. At the moment, the virtually all of the power in the Republican Party is held by the Ultra and Very Conservatives, while on the Left it is concentrated in the hands of the Moderate and Very Liberals. There are very few moderate and liberal Rs or conservative Ds left anymore; the latter either switched Parties or the Ultra and Very conservatives beat them in elections. There never have been that many Ultra liberals like Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank in the D Party in the last several decades.

The government only works when it is made of mainly true moderates, moderate and liberal Rs and Northern-style conservative and moderate Ds. We had something that approached that in Eisenhower through Clinton's presidencies (except for the couple of years when very conservative Gingrich tried to get Clinton to kneel before King Gingrich). Under these circumstances, mixed government worked pretty well other than in the appointment of the conservative Rehnquist Court in the 1980s; that was a disaster.

But, with Utra and Very conservatives in charge of the Republican Party, we will be adopting the social conservative ideologies of the Democratic Party circa 1829 - 1908 plus James Monroe. Some, while not admitting to it, would even have opposed ratifying the Constitution as being too liberal had they lived in that period. We have gotten a taste of what's to come if government is once again taken over by this group by the debacle that was 2001 - 2009 when they successfully put the finishing touches on reverting back to the economic policies pre-1929. While the outcome was obvious to those of us who study economic history, it was ignored by those in a position to do anything about it.

Finally, we have the Supreme Court. From the Waite Court of 1874 through the Taft Court ending in 1930, virtually all of the laws implemented be Congress from 1864 - 1874 to implement the 13th -15th Amendments providing real civil rights to blacks were reversed. It was until the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act were most of the original Rights restored and upheld by the Warren and Burger Courts. But, in 1986, the Court returned to 1874 with William Rehnquist and he began dismantling the 1964 Civil Rights Act while the Roberts Court is working on weakening the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

So, no, it would a terrible idea for the Republicans, as they are currently constituted, for them to control all of government; it would be a very big step backward, imo. Likewise, if the Very and Ultra liberals gained control of the Ds, then I have the same comment.


bradmaster from orange county ca 2 years ago

My Esoteric

That doesn't appear to be answers for my last two very detailed comments.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Haven't got there yet.


bradmaster from orange county ca 2 years ago

My Esoteric

Thanks for the clarification


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Au contraire when you say "There is no valid legal reason why that [requiring Voter ID] would be unconstitutional." The most often used reason used by the Court(s) is "to place undue burden on hundreds of thousands of already registered voters due to [fill in the reason]". In Purple State Pennsylvania's case it was "... a lack of infrastructure and state support for obtaining required IDs."

However, in:

- In Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008) ruled 6-3 in favor of Red State Indiana in part because the ID was free and there was an out if the voter;s circumstances were such they could not provide the required documentation after they voted on a provisional ballot. Neither side provided any evidence of voter fraud or harm from the law.

- On Oct 15, 2014, the Arkansas Supreme Court struck down the Red State Voter ID law because it violated the State's Constitution. It doesn't need to go to the Supreme Court.

- The Supreme Court stayed a Purple State Wisconsin Voter ID law but did not do the same for a Red State Texas Voter ID law for the Nov 4, 2014 election.

- Few cases have made it to the Supreme Court yet because until the 2013 gutting of the 1965 Voting Rights Act (which had been upheld in all previous challenges, including one in front of Roberts) which effectively all but eliminated Voter ID laws until Roberts ruling. Now most Red states have or are trying to implement them for no good public reason (there effectively is no fraud), but only for political reasons.


bradmaster from orange county ca 2 years ago

My Esoteric

You wrote

Au contraire when you say "There is no valid legal reason why that [requiring Voter ID] would be unconstitutional." The most often used reason used by the Court(s) is "to place undue burden on hundreds of thousands of already registered voters due to [fill in the reason]". In Purple State Pennsylvania's case it was "... a lack of infrastructure and state support for obtaining required IDs."

bm:

I have already given several examples about how the photo id has been required in many areas by the government, including getting welfare.

So what is this burden, and how is it proved other then in subjective minds?

Even if there is some burden, isn't it offset by the need to limit voting in US elections to US Citizens?

A few hundred thousand versus over one hundred million voters certainly doesn't constitute a burden for the voters. What could be the reason for a registered voter not already having a valid photo Id, or the ability to easily get one? For Penn and the like, the solution should be to generate the necessary infrastructure.

---------

You wrote

However, in:

- In Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008) ruled 6-3 in favor of Red State Indiana in part because the ID was free and there was an out if the voter;s circumstances were such they could not provide the required documentation after they voted on a provisional ballot. Neither side provided any evidence of voter fraud or harm from the law.

bm:

No one can prove the effectiveness of the TSA, and the burden upon hundreds of millions of travelers. But, certainly as this is a federal issue, it should be solved nationally. For state and local elections they can do whatever they want for the state, but federal requires uniformity.

BTW, I like a 6-3 decision better than a simple majority.

========

You wrote

- On Oct 15, 2014, the Arkansas Supreme Court struck down the Red State Voter ID law because it violated the State's Constitution. It doesn't need to go to the Supreme Court.

bm:

How can a federal issue, be adjudicated by a state?

Arkansas, really as an indicator of US adjudication of national issues.

-----------

You wrote

- The Supreme Court stayed a Purple State Wisconsin Voter ID law but did not do the same for a Red State Texas Voter ID law for the Nov 4, 2014 election.

bm:

These are all examples of why the SCOTUS is no longer doing its job, as it has become political rather than judicial. The whole purpose of the SCOTUS is to resolve national issues, rather than make them state issues.

--------

You wrote

- Few cases have made it to the Supreme Court yet because until the 2013 gutting of the 1965 Voting Rights Act (which had been upheld in all previous challenges, including one in front of Roberts) which effectively all but eliminated Voter ID laws until Roberts ruling. Now most Red states have or are trying to implement them for no good public reason (there effectively is no fraud), but only for political reasons.

bm:

How can you detect fraud if you don't allow it to be looked into by the government. In California, there can be no questions asked about the validity of the voter. And do you really believe that illegal aliens to some extent have not been voting in US elections.

I also object once more to red and blue, as that is not the concept of the UNITED STATES. This is no different than the schism that incited the Civil War. The issue might be different, but the concept is the same.

In the tight races of George W Bush, wouldn't you like to be very sure that only the validated voters participated in the election?

Not everyone in the US has the constitutional right to vote, so what is wrong in making it difficult for those that shouldn't be voting to vote.

We are burdened by a SS identification that is nothing more than big brother, yet you don't have a problem with that burden. Infants have to have a SS number, only because the government constructed a benefit in income tax. The real impact is creating a tracking device on the ruse of a tax benefit.

Why should the taxpayer have to prove their number of dependents, when voters don't have to prove their citizenship?

An invasion of privacy versus the capture of a few hundred tax dollars. This certainly sets a low value for personal privacy.

Thanks

bradmasterOC


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

A simple example is an 80 year old black female born in one state and is now voting in another. She has no proof she was born in the USA and her birth certificates are either lost or never existed. (That is something like a real example I read, but now don't remember the details .)

Or another that I recently read, which I think was used to strike down this states law, is the requirement for a birth certificate, which cost $3 most of the time. The court didn't find that particularly onerous. But what they did find onerous and discriminatory is the travel burden put on people who didn't have the wherewithal to get to the places where they had to get the documents.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

When I speak of "Voter ID", I am referring of the need for a citizen to prove they are a citizen in order to register to vote and get the photo ID necessary to vote at the polling station. (Many states require some sort of ID photo or non-photo to prove their identity, but not their citizenship.

And why should people have to prove citizenship when it has never really been a problem, at least in the last 50 years or better. Why reduce US citizens liberty one more notch by this unneeded requirement. In this country, liberty is only restricted only when the public good can be served. At this point in time, public good is ill-served by this requirement by Red States or Conservative governors.

Answer me this - If the requirement to prove citizenship isn't politically diriven, why is it then the vast majority, if any, of states that require proof of citizenship are run by Conservatives?


bradmaster from orange county ca 2 years ago

My Esoteric

I think that your arguments have turned unresponsive, and I feel very frustrated by having to repeat my detailed arguments that I made in previous comments.

If there is a partisan issue, then it is being created by the reluctance of the democratic party to make a simple requirement of proving citizenship as an issue of limiting liberty.

Homeland Security and the Patriot Act are blatant infringements on liberty, and there is no proof that it is for the good of the people.

The same is true of the TSA and the restrictions they employ in the guise of safeguarding the public. As it has been proven ineffective in the past, this TSA processing is only an illusion that this process works.

Why should the voting process be the only exclusion to proving citizenship? isn't the government, congress and the president already making a mockery of the foundation of our constitution that we also want our voting system to be breached because we don't enforce the rules and regulations that already exist?

We already give citizen status to illegal aliens, so the question begs why do we even need citizenship when residency seems more than adequate under the current guidelines of this failing government?

very disappointed

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working