Who would have thought that our president and the Founding Fathers have so much in common? Barack Obama’s call to elevate the wealthiest Americans above the herd by asking them to do more than their fair share reeks of elitism and demands that the rich receive something extra in return for shouldering the country’s burdens. Should their votes count for more? Should Congress deny voting rights to welfare recipients and others who contribute less than their fair share?
Do Americans vote for themselves or the common good?
What are we thinking when we cast our votes? If the purpose of a career in politics is to advocate for the good of the country, then our role as voters is to select leaders who will do exactly that. How many Americans confuse the common good with their own wants and needs, inviting government to step in and take control?
Politicians can be masters at twisting the common good. The president is demanding a greater share of higher incomes to support government spending, a tax plan that is most saleable to voters who contribute the least. Does the common good require us to take money from the top and redistribute it as giveaways and entitlements for the have nots who vote for promises made by Democrats?
Obama tax plan demands wealthiest Americans be held to a higher standard.
The White House has done an exemplary job of misinforming the public about the ethics of the Obama tax plan. In the president’s vision of America the wealthiest Americans have abdicated their responsibility to the middle class:
Unfortunately, it appears that Republicans in Congress have decided that instead of compromising – instead of asking anything of the wealthiest Americans – they would rather let these cuts fall squarely on the middle class.¹
The Obama tax plan expects the rich to do more:
It’s got tough cuts, tough reforms, and asks more of the wealthiest Americans.²
The Founding Fathers also expected more from the wealthy. They chose to deny voting rights to those who didn’t own property.
Did the Founding Fathers get it right by restricting voting rights?
The vote was once restricted to male property owners. Women cast their votes for the first time in 1920 after a fight in which the loudest voices demanding we deny voting rights to women belonged to Democrats.
If earning more means accepting the responsibility to rescue the poor and raise the middle class then your vote should count for more. This begs the question of the value of votes cast by welfare recipients. Are their voting rights a conflict of interest that is injurious to the common good when we can least afford to foot the bill for social insurance?
Is voting or holding political office the worst conflict of interest?
The common good is incompatible with a tax plan sold to the public with promises of continued federal giveaways and the lure of dependence on big government. The recession gave Democrats the opportunity to try to turn the country away from free market capitalism to an economy where government determines our needs and redistributes incomes and tax dollars accordingly, an America where those most in need vote for giveaways, not leaders.
Is voting against the common good in hopes of personal gain a worse conflict of interest than holding political office and backing a tax plan that will further injure the economy, but represents the Democratic Party’s best chances for longevity?
Is denying voting rights to welfare recipients the answer?
It is if it keeps Democrats out of office. They are unable to say no to giveaways and social spending and are currently focused on a plan to hand citizenship to illegal immigrants, a foolhardy scheme that will lead to all manner of irresponsible spending in hopes of a groundswell of support.
Were the Founding Fathers on to something when they made sure that only those with property and money to lose could vote? They tried to ensure that our government did not fall into the trap we find ourselves in now, with a president who throws cake to the masses in exchange for popular support that helps ensure Democrats will lead long, damaging careers in public office.
Is denying voting rights to welfare recipients or weighting ballots based on income the answer? Welfare recipients are a small percentage of eligible voters, but as demands for relief expand a growing portion of the electorate will be given a reason to elect politicians who will continue to forsake the common good in exchange for votes.
Leave a Reply