Who really does have a say?

Poor have no say in government

A Princeton University academic, a sociologist with a doctorate, says according to his research that the poor and the middle class have no say in government policy. No say? That is an interesting construct and a very interesting allegation.

First of all, I have not read his book; merely the above article about his book. Woe unto me, for I know I am venturing into unstable ground here, but it makes me wonder about what policies he is talking about.

According to the article, it quotes him as saying:

"If federal policy more equally reflected the preferences of all Americans we would see a more progressive tax structure, higher unemployment benefits, stronger regulation of business and industry, a more protectionist trade regime, more prayer in public life, and less access to abortion."

Ok, but my question would be is that what the federal policy should be? You see, the problem I have with that basically is that it looks on the government as not only a protector but as a purveyor of government largess to the benefit of this group or another. Is that what the federal government is supposed to be in the United States? Is it supposed to be protecting this group or that group or any group? Is that what government has come to mean to people?

The author of the study seems to think so. Obviously the wealthy have too much influence on federal policies, like the progressive tax structure? Is that true? I may be wrong but I have read somewhere in government documents that nearly half of Americans pay very little if anything in federal income taxes. The vast majority of these people, according to the demographics accompanying that statement are people who come from the lowest and lower levels of income (at or below the median income of somewhere around $45,000 a year. I don’t know about you, but that seems pretty progressive to me. It also seems to me that the “poor” benefit a lot more from the federal government than the wealthy seem to be, but I could be wrong.

You see, one of the things those really smart guys who framed the constitution that outlines what the federal government is supposed to be really, really feared was the “tyranny of the mob.” You see, being revolutionaries, they knew the power of mobs and how they can swing quickly into tyranny of the majority.

Since we all agree that there are a lot more poor people than there are rich people, it would seem that they do have a large influence on public policy. Is that not “representative democracy”? Well, I suspect it isn’t if you think that there should be no wealthy.

I am not arguing that “rich” people don’t have more influence than one person one vote, because obviously they do. But then that is what the founders wanted. They wanted “minorities” to be protected from the tyranny of the masses. Granted, we never really have done all that good of a job protecting all minorities all the time, but still it is what we should be trying to do.

The reason we want the “wealthy” to pay more is the same reason that bank robbers rob banks instead of stock brokers: That is where the money is. So, if you want to get the money and give it to someone else, then you have to take it from the people who have it. That seems to be a simple enough concept, but then you have to ask yourself is that really the right thing to do?

Well, there are those people who do think that it is. These people are those who honestly believe that a human society can function under the precept that you give to each according to their needs and you take from each according to their ability to give. It is a really utopian concept. However, if you look at history … it doesn’t work. It seems that people are just not made that way. I guess it is a fault in the human genome (something like the old religious concept of “original sin”) but I don’t know. However, I do know that it doesn’t work.

Behavioral specialists will tell you flat out that the best way to get people behind a project is to give them a personal stake in it. That is why democracy usually works, because the “people” have a stake in it, or at least think they do. I think that is because, deep down, each one of us thinks that we have a right to own our own labor. We have this funny belief that it belongs to us as individuals and not necessarily the group, or community or society or the state.

Those same behavioral specialists will tell you that individuals don’t always work just for the sake of working, In fact, very few people work just for the sake of working. Usually, they want a return of some sort on their investment, and if possible they want to maximize that return. In other words, we want a reward for our behavior.

Now, in this case, according to the academic, the reward people get from government is directly linked to their wealth. The more you have, the more you get from government, or so it would seem the argument would go. But is that really true? It seems that the social safety net that we have pays out considerably more to individuals who fall more into the “have not” category than the “have” category.

Which then leads to the interesting question of why is it in the society’s interest to rob from the rich to provide from the poor? Why is it that we allow government to do that?

Again, I thought the whole idea was that the government would be neutral and we all as individuals would be equal before the law. I know, it is a foolish utopian concept, but I find it much more appealing than the to-each/from-each utopian concept. I realize I may be in the minority here, but it is my humble opinion.

You see, the reason special interest groups (regardless of political bent) spend lots of money on political races is because they believe that there will be a large monetary benefit (or maybe just an ego boost) that they will get in return. The money is invested to influence the “government” to spend whatever largess it has to spend to that special interest group’s benefit. It doesn’t matter if it is a labor union or a corporation, or economic group or any of the plethora of other special interest groups that we can (and do) divide ourselves into, the point of the objective is how much money or benefit can we get for us.

You want to take the big bucks out of politics? It is really easy: Take away the power of government to give big bucks to special interest groups. It is just like drugs. You want to take the crime out of the war on drugs, then decriminalize drugs, legalize their use, tax them and regulate them. Guess what, there goes the biggest reason for crime.

You see, there are only two things that really motivate people: Power or rewards (usually in the form of money). Give individuals a feeling of power, and that helps make them happier. Give individuals rewards for the investment of their time and labor and they feel better.

Unfortunately, what we are seeing here in the U.S. is the subdividing of the culture into competing blocs for what always was and always will be a limited government pie. We have, as I have said before, done let the cat out of the bad and the people have realized they can vote themselves money out of the common treasury.

This a sad state of affairs.