Who's buying this election anyway?

Oct 8 19:36 UTC 2000

From the Chattanooga Times Free Press
http://www.timesfreepress.com/2000/oct/04oct00/webfreepresseditbought.html


Is this election 'bought' already?

With the obscenity of having special interests provide hundreds of
millions of dollars to help finance presidential campaigns, and with
scores of millions more going into Senate and House of Representatives
races, the American people should be gravely concerned that government
is being "bought" and "sold," instead of being selected by the
democratic process of honest voter choice.

But there is an even greater process of buying votes that may make the
final decisions in the presidential and other contests.  The practice is
not new, but in 2000 it seems to have reached its greatest corrupting
effect.  It is the buying of voters with government favors.

We have inquired editorially about what will happen to our country if
the people who "get" from government exceed in number the people who
"pay" for what the politicians hand out.

That's a serious question.  Have you noticed that the dominant feature
of the campaign of Vice President Al Gore Jr. has been what he --
government -- is going to "give" the voters if they elect him?  Have
you noticed how many favors and programs and benefits he has promised?

President Bill Clinton hypocritically promised years ago that "the era
of big government is over." Then he proceeded to increase government.
Mr. Gore's campaign is one gigantic announcement that his election will
mean "the era of big government is about to explode and become bigger."
He intends to use the people's tax money to favor those who support him.

Gov. George W. Bush has countered, somewhat too weakly, that government
is too big already, that the people need to be able to keep more of
their earnings that government is taking, and that personal freedom
rather than dependency upon big government should be the goal.

The Founding Fathers strictly limited the powers of federal government
by listing them in the Constitution and prohibiting all others.  But
usurpers have ignored the Constitution to the extent that about
two-thirds of what the federal government does today is unconstitutional.

The Founders thought they had guarded against such a situation by
requiring taxing and spending to begin in the House of Representatives,
believing that the people would not permit representatives, elected for
two years and thus close to them, to get away with excessive taxing
and excessive spending.

But politicians have discovered that they can buy votes by promising
goodies to the many while taking the money for them from the relatively
few.  Thus 1 percent of taxpayers today pay 33 percent of income taxes.
Half of the taxpayers pay 95.7 percent of taxes.

So how do you expect "the other half" to vote, as they pay only 4.3
percent of the taxes but are offered a wide array of political
promises of what government will "give" them?

Will this election be bought by checks from the government and promised
benefits from the government?

It is important to repeat the observation of Alexander Fraser Tytler,
an Englishman who lived from 1718 to 1813, and is appropriately
remembered for his book on "The Decline and Fall of the Athenian
Republic." Long before he could have suspected the rise of the United
States of America, he observed:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government.  It can
only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves
largess (money and benefits) from the public treasury.  From that moment
on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most
benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy
always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by dictatorship."

Has Mr. Gore's campaign of handout promises brought us to the brink of
fulfillment of that prophecy in the decline of the American Republic?

Has this election already been "bought" by Mr. Gore's promises?

response 2 of 9:

Oct 8 21:22 UTC 2000

Bush speaks of the importance of personal freedom while readily admitting that
he's anti-abortion, would use Federal funds to pay for Christian social
services, and continues the Republican heritage of being anti-drug, anti-sex,
and anti-gay.

Bush speaks out of his ass, I daresay.

response 4 of 9:

Oct 9 00:20 UTC 2000

If I photocopy a bunch of flyers endorsing Gail Lightfoot for Senate, paying
Kinko's with my own money, and then hand them out to my neighbors on my own
time, that's considered a "soft money campaign contribution."  Is that the
kind of political activity we wish to put an end to in this nation?

response 6 of 9:

Oct 9 12:03 UTC 2000

Shut up Raul.  They're just being difficult.  That's the job of politicians.
Don't read too much into it, or you'll astigmatize yourself right into glass.
Wouldn't you look ugly in those?

response 8 of 9:

Oct 11 04:15 UTC 2000

Europe is moving away from that model, even.  Trade gets very difficult, in
the modern world, if every 200 miles you hit a new nation with different
laws and currency.