The Reformation Of Voting Rights
No I'm not a Republican nor am I a Democrat. I consider myself an American and an Independent who can think for himself. It seems I've been doing that for decades without a politician having to do that for me. Occasionally I broach this subject and love to watch the low information crowd either squirm or go berserk all the while knowing that I'm a student of history and like to use facts as the basis for my reaching certain conclusions.
I'm just as sure that many may think I'm cruel and insensitive when I make contentions about who should have the right to vote and who should not. Back when this nation was established our Founding Fathers actually placed restrictions on who was given the right to vote. Deny it if you care to and then go look it up. One of those restrictions required you to be a property owner in order to elect your fellow man to make policies that affected your community and nation.
There seem to be tipping points in most facets of life and living in a civilized society. I contend that we have reached one of those points. As society in this country has progressed there have been a few wrong turns made along the way in the way people see things. That's normal but rather than correct any wrong turns the present day politician seems to just barrel ahead like there will be no tomorrow. I'm thinking "tomorrow" has arrived.
Historically there was a time when you had to not only be a property owner but also a male. The rationale behind that centered on the Founders wanting the citizens of the nation who voted to outline public policies, decide on which taxes to levy and on whom and the amount of spending that was appropriate to keep the treasury in balance. It's called having some skin in the game in many circles. You have a vested interest. At that time women were the home makers and rarely involved in the inner workings of the republic but over time that changed and somehow the property ownership part of the deal went by the wayside too.
Along came the advent of the personal income tax via the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913. Interesting to note that the taxing of incomes over certain amounts occurred shortly after the Civil War by levying a 3% flat tax on incomes over $800 which evolved into a graduated tax which was abolished in 1872. In 1894 Congress passed a 2% income tax on amounts over $4,000 but that was quickly struck down as unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court.
Then in 1909 the progressives in Congress attached a provision for an income tax to a tariff bill. That caused the conservatives to propose a constitutional amendment in an attempt to kill the idea permanently. Their thinking was that never would 3/4ths of the states chomp on that concept. State legislature after legislature approved the amendment and they were off to the races.
Now let me interject a few more facts into this equation. Even in 1913 there were generous exemptions and deductions that caused less than 1 percent of the population to pay an income tax amounting to 1 percent of their net income. That 1% deal sound familiar? The tax code now is an almost impossible maze to navigate and we also have some hard data that shows that 47% of American households don't pay any income tax into the Treasury to help keep spending in a balance. Instead our career politicians play, and prey, upon that percentage for garnering more votes by offering more freebies without requiring a resulting contribution to the betterment of the nation. Does a $17 trillion national debt ring a bell?
How to correct the problem? It sounds cruel but fix the system so that every household either pays some form of flat tax, which means abolishing the 16th Amendment, or disallowing those who don't contribute any income tax to the Treassure from casting a ballot. Ben Franklin was onto something when he said, "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the Republic.
Many of the wolves are voting and when they vote they often are voting for more government bennies offered by our illustrious career politicians. The Founding Fathers obviously never saw that concept coming down the turnpike either. It was never meant to be a pick pocketing profession as it is now.
Then there is the anti-ID law crowd that says making someone prove who they are at the polls is disenfranchisement. Not even close. Those laws are intended to make sure anyone wanting to cast a ballot, regardless of being rich or poor, has the RIGHT to vote. Using the old driving privilege analogy further illustrates my point. Does requiring ID and car insurance disenfranchise a poor person from driving a car? Which should be more strenuous? The requirements set forth for driving an automobile or voting? Think before you answer please. We'll prohibit you from steering a car illegally but allow you to steer an entire country? Ben Franklin was obviously onto something.
Something To Think About...
I think it's perfectly reasonable and logical to allow those who have some skin in the game to make the rules for participating in the game. That's a nice way of saying there is no free lunch. To allow the non-skinners to structure society and the republic so that the skinners give them money they have never earned, and in many cases don't want to make an effort to earn, is out of whack. But looking at the way things are going that is exactly what has been happening and has gotten worse during the reign of King Obama and his merry band of progressive crooks.
Food for thought as you mull over that $17 trillion national debt. It's much higher than that but the smoke and mirrors are hard to see through. The last thing this nation ever needs again is another Obama figure.
Do I mind if you share this with your friends and followers? Not in the least.
The Frog Prince