Published: Friday, July 12 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
If we want to hold any hope for saving our republic from self destruction, we
must enact legislation that prohibits those running for office from receiving
unlimited anonymous donations. It is a total conflict of interest to
allow those who make laws not disclose that those laws benefit their wealthy
campaign contributors. This doesn't work.All the unscrupulous
politicians have to do is give the tiny, but very wealthy, slice of the
population entitlements and/or tax exemptions, and they are guaranteed power
forever. Unfortunately, we are already there. Anyone can see this is an
irreversible situation, which will ultimately collapse. We must call on our
legislators to use a common-sense approach to this very serious problem and
change campaign finance laws.
I was amazed when I read this exact same letter in the Salt Lake Tribune. I
continue to be amazed at the Dnews publishing it. It's just
amazing to me on so many levels. More trampling all over the Constitution by the
Maybe we could give each of them 3/5 of a vote?Seriously, would this
mean no one receiving Social Security could vote? Students receiving student
loans or Pell grants? That seems like a bad idea.
Can I assume that Mr. Green would also include CEOs of businesses that receive
corporate welfare from the taxpayers? Probably not...individuals are so much
easier to single out. Seems like I remember this commentator quoting the
Constitution in the past, but now seems to forget it. Voting is the most
fundamental right of a citizen. The idea of removing such a basic guarantee when
the person could have been forced to ask for assistance by illness or loss of
job, is abhorrent. He probably would be willing though to volunteer his time to
decide which recipients are "worthy" to vote and those in the slacker
I'm frustrated too James! I find it really disgusting how many people fail
to accept the will of the American people and self-righteously claim to know
better! I voted for an amazing leader who tried to include a bipartisan
approach to governing. He ran into no-good, do-nothing obstructionists who got
our country into the messes in the first place.
Only in America can someone seriously be jealous of someone on welfare.
Ezra Taft Benson did mention people that elect someone to vote for what is not
theres to give I read.
Be careful. The last published information I saw indicated 25% of military
families are on food stamps. Also, that $100 million worth of food stamps were
redeemed at military commissaries (which includes veterans as well as active
military).The poor or struggling are not always who we imagine they
Thank you, Mr. Green, for demonstrating so beautifully why most of America
regards the Tea Party as a sad joke.To my friends in the GOP - pay
attention. These guys have become your base, and it's why you're
I see your logic James, but in a Democracy EVERY Citizen needs to have a vote.
So what you suggest is never going to happen (and probably shouldn't).But your logic is correct. Many scholars when studying democracy point
out the exact flaw you have touched on. That the downfall of every democracy
will be when the majority discovers it can use it's vote to TAKE what they
want from the minority (the proverbial 99% taking from the 1% in America's
case).Scottish Lawyer Alexander Fraser Tyler is the one most famous
for pointing this out (in the early 1700s). But I'm sure Aristotle,
Socrates, etc, who studied human nature also understood and talked and wrote
about it. Tyler's jist is..."A democracy cannot exist
as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority
discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the
majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the
result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing,
always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy" But
IMO this is a human character flaw. Not a Democracy flaw.
With over 100 million on food stamps alone I think it's safe to say the
economic collapse is here. It's hard however to put the blame on those
trying to feed their families. Policy decisions in Washington are the
foundational cause of all the entitlement i.e. high unemployment,
O'bamacare cause and effect,etc. Unfortunately, it 's also true, the
longer people remain on entitlement programs the more comfortable they become
with it. How sad it is to watch a once great nation slide into such mediocrity.
Tyler's exact quote is..."It is not, perhaps, unreasonable to
conclude, that a pure and perfect democracy is a thing not attainable by man,
constituted as he is of contending elements of vice and virtue, and ever mainly
influenced by the predominant principle of self-interest. It may, indeed, be
confidently asserted, that there never was that government called a republic,
which was not ultimately ruled by a single will, and, therefore, (however bold
may seem the paradox,) virtually and substantially a monarchy." So some wise people agree with you. And history agrees with you. But
I'm pretty sure SOME people are going to just cover their eyes and ears and
be willingly blind to reality and just hammer you.
So I'm guessing that farm subsidies would also count as "welfare"?
How would telling a sizable portion of the West that they could no longer vote
play? Or are Mitt Romney and his friends the only people
"self-sufficient" enough to vote?Obama won. Twice. Get
...because it ALWAYS a good idea to disenfranchise whole segments or classes of
the citizenry...In terms of addressing an admittedly serious issue
that calls for discussion, debate, collaboration, and our brightest and most
innovative minds to engage in finding a solution, Mr. Green's proposal is
roughly the equivalent of swatting a fly with a sledgehammer.
Why does the Left always go after Farmers?Farmers seem like good
people to me. And I'm glad they are out there. I like eating food.
I'd rather have one farmer around than a hundred pimple-faced desk workers
(or Mitt Romneys).I don't know how many farmers get supsidies.
I don't follow that closely. But Farming should be self sufficient. I
mean we have very few people providing the food for millions of people. You
would think we could pay them enough to live on... right? I mean we DIE
without them... right?I don't know if doing away with
farm-subsidies would mean a sizable portion of the west couldnt vote. I live in
the West and just looking around... I don't think everybody out here's
a farmer. I would guess maybe 5% of the population in Western States are
farmers.I don't know that IF we did away with farm subsidies...
most of the west couldn't vote. But I'm pretty sure if we put farmers
out of business... most of the East wouldn't be able to eat or survive very
Seems to me that the founding fathers of this nation were guided by the notion
that the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness belong to a person
by the mere fact of being born. That no one had to earn those rights. If a person is deprived of being able to influence his government, those
rights have been erased. There is no one in America that does not
in some way, large or small, benefit our nation. It doesn’t matter if we
are old or young, black, white, red or brown or any other color. We are all
consumers of the products and services of other Americans.
This letter is just another ridiculous twist on Romney's infamous 47
percent faux pas (or was it a faux pas?). The conservative approach to saving
our country is to allow wealth to accumulate at the top so that an increasing
percentage of the population can't make ends meet without government
assistance or charity. Then pass laws to punish people for not being wealthy.Of course, the letter writer's theory breaks down when exposed to
the light of reality (which is something the conservatives have only a distant
acquaintance with). In Utah, many people who receive government assistance voted
for Romney. Apparently, they didn't get the memo.
It is encouraging to see that James stands alone on his vindictive,
short-sighted proposal. There were dozens of responses to this letter in the
other paper. And like 100 percent of those responding here, every single person
thought this was the worst idea anyone ever had.
I'm sure the writer thinks an exception is medicare/social security
recipients since the elderly are Republicans most reliable voters after all.
"(the proverbial 99% taking from the 1% in America's case)."When adjusted for inflation over the past 30 years middle class income
has been stagnant while the top 1% has skyrocketed. We had the most unequal
wealth distribution in 2007 we've had since 1928 (interesting that both of
these years were just before massive recessions/Great Depression).
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments