A Voting Proposal

I have been following the health care issue with some interest. I think it’s clear that Obama and his corps (not “corpse,” regardless of what the Harvard educated may think) of allegedly bipartisan myrmidons will force the bill through under the rules of reconciliation. Aside from finding the wailing and gnashing of teeth by the republicans amusing, and finding the righteous hypocrisy of the democrats nauseating, it’s clear that bleating about reconciliation and filibusters is a tool of the out of power tools. Neither side refrains from using them; they only complain when they are used against their interests. Neither side really cares for compromise; they care only for victory, even if that requires the use of legislative WMDs.

Now, personally, I have no problems with ideologues. In fact, I believe them to be necessary. Obama claims to abhor them, yet he daily, by his actions, proclaims himself to be one. He demands that we solve the “health-care issue,” while decrying the ideological rigidity of those who oppose his plans. He imposes reconciliation on the process, while bemoaning the ability of congress to do meaningful work. But ideologues are the only ones, after all, who get anything done. Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, John Brown, Abraham Lincoln; ideologically driven all. JFK was driven by ideology when he made it a goal to put men on the moon.

The problem isn’t the true believers. The problem is the power-hungry who sell the appearance of ideals for the sake of their own beatitude. They are the ones who will give away the wealth of the nation to secure their own position. They are, indirectly, one of the reasons I follow the health care sideshow. I have friends and family members who claim to be un- or under- insured. They are big supporters of Obamacare; they know that it means that someone else will pay for their care. They try to convince anyone that will listen that they truly believe reduced cost or free insurance is a personal right. They are, in the lingo of my days in the Marine Corps, the sick, lame, and lazy who want something for nothing and cover it up with ideological rhetoric.

So I have thought, and thought, and thought some more, and have come up with a solution to the problems of the buyers and sellers of votes. Assume for a moment that you wish the Coca-Cola company would cease making products with Aspartame. You could write letters, organize demonstrations, and publicly remonstrate the company. All of which would be to no avail if Coca-Cola continued to deliver a profit to its shareholders. If, however, you wished a say in how the company were run, you would have to buy shares of stock in the company. That would entitle you to a voice in how the company was to be run.

Suppose we thought of the United States as a corporation of sorts. It requires investments of capital, whether it be cash, labor, intellect, or blood. It doesn’t necessarily provide a cash return on this investment, but it delivers instead roads, mail service, defense, etc. If we take the analogy a little further, who should have a voice in the management of the company? The shareholders, of course. And who are the shareholders? Quite simply, they are the people who pay taxes. I’m not talking about people who have money deducted from their paychecks but then get it all back and more. I mean the people who actually pay a part of their accumulated wealth into the federal coffers. Only investors should have a right to direct the running of the corporation.

Now, just like any other corporation, non-investors would be free to partake of the products of the company. They could send mail, drive on the interstate highways, etc. They just wouldn’t have a say in how the company was run. It would be considerably more difficult to buy votes if all one was doing was giving you back your own money. Now they buy the votes by giving your money to someone else. The details of such a plan would be fairly simple to work out; a constitutional amendment would be required, but easy enough to write. Of course the takers would be against such a plan, as would be the politicians who continually refill the troughs of their constituents. But in the end, it would restore a certain amount of sensibility to the economic processes of the country.