voting is a privilege as well as a right

Voting is a privilege. It is not an inalienable right, nor should it be. Pure democracy is rule by the mob.

In the USA, originally only property-owners were allowed to vote. This represented the educated class with a real, financial stake in the country.

That is too elistest for today. However, if you want to vote, you have to have skin in the game. In a nutshell: f you don't contribute to the costs of government, you don't get a voice in how that money is spent.

This is easy to implement. If your federal tax return shows that you paid some amount of income tax in the previous year, then you can vote in federal elections in the coming Fall. If you pay no tax (or, worse, receive the EIC) you cannot vote. States and municipalities should be encouraged to apply similar rules.

The biggest tragedy in american history(outside of the genocide, and slavery, and politically condoned murders of citizens by corperations) is the haphazard, drunken meandering, way the right to vote has been expanded and contracted over the years.

> The biggest tragedy in american
> history(outside of the genocide, and
> slavery, and politically condoned
> murders of citizens by corperations)
> is the....

Do you socialize much? What's it like?

> "One person can make a difference, but
> most of the time they probably shouldn't."

Not like anyone's looking to cartoons for guidance anyway, but the sentiment doesn't seem that special. No single person knows how the world is supposed to work.... That's what democracy means. And there are plenty of judgment calls that are really, really close. A lot of people are going to die without knowing how history will feel about their best judgments. Finding safety in numbers only means your own judgment isn't that great.

It's always felt stupid when people imply, during an argument, that while they and I may disagree, the truth is probably somewhere in between.

No. I think I'm 100% right about everything all the time... At least those things I claim to be certain about. If you think so little of your own position, maybe you should leave the floor to others.

Here's an example of my certainty: Cartoon voices are almost universally repellent. Marge Simpson is the crystalline example: No one in real life sounds like that. It's not a "funny" voice, it's just a dumb one. What dramatic space comes from talking like that, and pretending a cartoon woman sounds like that? The show's been beloved for 20 years, and I'll never understand it. That screech is unwatchable. It's CERTAINLY not entertaining, something to listen to for amusement.

@Crid - "It's always felt stupid when people imply, during an argument, that while they and I may disagree, the truth is probably somewhere in between.

No. I think I'm 100% right about everything all the time... At least those things I claim to be certain about. If you think so little of your own position, maybe you should leave the floor to others."

Amen, Crid. I really, really hate when I'm having a debate or discussion or an argument and the other person "defends" their position with, "Well it's only my opinion" or "I've got a right to my opinion."

That's all well and good, but it doesn't make your opinion less completely and utterly wrong. People these days seem to believe that if something is their opinion, no one can challenge it or them. False. You can hold that opinion all you want, but it can still be idiotic and incorrect.

About that tunnel project: when are we going to notice that actual transportation is wasteful for a significant percentage of workers?

If you shuffle paperwork, you don't need to leave the house. Period.

Much less commute an hour each way, packing trains and buses merely to be counted by some fathead who has to see you in person to think you're doing any work.

Chris Christie for President!

Let's start with something really simple (one of my pet peaves). Stop putting placks with school board members names on new school buildings. And, take all the existing ones down. If something needs to be put up, make it a thank you to taxpayers.

Money is fungible. The CBO scores bills as written, thus allowing some idiotic Democrat shill to claim, in a letter to the editor, that the CBO says Obamacare is going to save money. Ten years of paying for eight years of benefits will do that.

Christie gets it. If you borrow money, you need to know how you are going to pay it back. I have no idea how my granddaughter is going to pay back what we owe already, and that's without making it worse.

I fully expect a Constitutional Convention, because our political class will not stop until we make Zimbabwe look parsimonious.

I fully expect a Constitutional Convention

Stop. Right there. If that doesn't frighten the ever-loving bejeebers out of you, nothing will.

The 1787 Constitutional Convention was initially convened to fix the issues with the Articles of Confederation, not replace them. Do you honestly believe that the current politcial class will be able to cook up something better than the Constitution?

Actually, there's nothing wrong with the Constitution[*] as it is. It is just that at least two of the three branches of the Federal Government see it more of a guideline than hard and fast limitations on their powers. And I'm not 100% sure of the third branch. Wearing a black robe does not make you a legislator.

[*] I could go for an amendment that specifically prohibits Congress from exempting themselves from their own legislation. As the saying goes, you need to eat your own dog food.

And I could go for requiring the Federal finances be subject to the Sarbanes-Oxley law, and the GAAP standards of accounting.

I'm with Bradley on voting only being a right for those that are net tax payers. Could help avoid th current setup where nearly 1/2 the population pays no tax, yet cqn keep voting themselves more breaks or hand outs. Might possibly help push to a fair flat tax.

I'd also love to see new limits that disallow riders on bills as well as limiting the length and scope of bills. That right there would solve a _lot_ of problems as many things are obfuscated in huge bills or tacked on as riders since many pols know they could never get most things passed on their own merits. For the ultimate burn... Get that law in there via a rider or hidden in another bill then spring it after passage.

Governor Christie has made a number of smart decisions as governor. This was not one of them. Closing the tunnel project has an immediate effect of costing many people their jobs, and ensures that the money spent thus far is wasted. At the same time, it will hurt property values and cost some New Jersey citizens the opportunity for lucrative employment in Manhattan. Unlike most of the country, rail is necessary for commuters in the greater Manhattan area. Ending the tunnel project is a perfect example of a "penny wise and pound foolish" decision.

Is anyone else surprised to see "OMG" used in the WSJ?

I am lovin' Mr. Christie for sure.

See sunk cost theory Christopher.

I'm aware of the way that sunk costs affect people's economic decision making.

The rest of your response doesn't seem on point, unless you think that government should not be responsible for basic infrastructure?

"...unless you think that government should not be responsible for basic infrastructure?"

Hate to butt in here, but it would be a dream come true if government was left out of everything but what they are constitutionally limited to in the three branches of government and our national defense...

I'd love it if the government limited military spending to national defense. Then we'd have money for trains.

I'm going to disagree that poor people shouldn't have the right to vote. These are people that it would be very easy to trample on... I'd hate to see people voting to exploit or abuse them, and they not having the option to vote against it.

Everyone has a stake in govt, even poor people.

...and ensures that the money spent thus far is wasted.

However, the taxpayer money that was to be spent but wasn't won't be wasted.

And, knowing there is a governor who is watching how the taxpayers' money is being spent, perhaps the next company that is hired to build road or rail project in New Jersey will be a little more watchful of cost over-runs and do a better job husbanding the taxpayers' money.

And the New Jersey taxpayers' money now not being spent on a ridiculously expensive tunnel to another state can be spent on improving roads and bridges that are actually in New Jersey.

At the same time, it will hurt property values and cost some New Jersey citizens the opportunity for lucrative employment in Manhattan.

Perhaps those companies that depend upon New Jersey labor will relocate to New Jersey, thus helping property values and giving New Jersey citizens opportunities for lucrative employment in New Jersey.

Ending the tunnel project is a perfect example of a "penny wise and pound foolish" decision.

And continuing to throw money down a black hole because "we've already spent so much on it" or doing it despite knowing inefficiency and corruption is going to cause endless cost over-runs and quality/safety issues isn't?

Putting companies (and unions) on notice that there are consequences to endless cost overruns on taxpayer-financed projects sounds to me like a "pound wise" decision.

C: "Closing the tunnel project has an immediate effect of costing many people their jobs, and ensures that the money spent thus far is wasted."

A: "See sunk cost [fallacy]".

C:" I'm aware of the way that sunk costs affect people's economic decision making. The rest of your response doesn't seem on point, unless you think that government should not be responsible for basic infrastructure?"

Spartee: There are multiple issues here, Christopher.

The first is whether spending the money on this project is the best use of the limited funds the state has. Perhaps it really is a relatively valuable investment, as compared to other spending priorities. ("Pareto superior" is the term, IIRC.)

At that point, your defense should be not "look what we spent!", but rather, "look what we will make!" The prior spending is unimportant in deciding whether to go forward. That is Ms. Alkon's point--a very apt point, I think.

But I would add that even if the tunnel is the best use--I have no idea or opinion on that--the Governor may not be able to cut funds from other "inferior" (i.e., less economically advantageous) uses, for political or legal reasons. For example, the state constitution requires spending in certain areas at certain levels, like education, leaving only this large project as one that can be cut if budgets must be balanced.

In that case, your defense of forward-looking economic advantages should dictate the project continuing is moot: political realities have tied the governer's hands. Until more tax revenue is available or other spending priorities are pushed down the priority list, this is what can be cut. And must be.

That political reality would be apart from whether the money is best spent here or somewhere else.

Oh, and folks, don't forget that even people who don't pay *income* tax do still pay FICA and other payroll taxes along with sales and "sin" taxes on products.

Perhaps those payroll and non-income taxes are still not enough to make certain EITC recipients taxpyers on a net basis, but it is not their fault if we shovel money at them via EITC, is it? At least not enough their fault to disenfranchise them.

@Miss Alkon: "See the sunk cost fallacy Christopher."

It's not even necessarily the sunk cost fallacy in action here. As the article quoted above states, "... the reason New Jersey and so many other states can't afford new 'infrastructure' is because the politicians who've been running the state have blown the budget on everything else." The tunnel may be the most laudable project any state government ever undertook, but New Jersey can't afford it, because they've spent too much money on other things. Every child learns, or should learn, that if you blow all your money now, you can't afford to buy something you want later. Every young adult learns, or should learn, that if you're overextended on your debt, nobody will loan you any more money.

"In a nutshell: f you don't contribute to the costs of government, you don't get a voice in how that money is spent."

Oh, no no no. While I agree with you on the notion that people who receive gov. bennies who vote those bennies in are hypocrites and jerks, fed income taxes are not the only taxes one pays.

You drive? You pay fed, state and local gas taxes. A lot of fed taxes trickle down to you in purchase prices. You have a "landline" phone? You pay federal taxes monthly in the "universal service fee". On the local/state side you pay taxes and fees along with base rates for various services like water/sewer/power.

I paid no federal taxes this past year (going galt as it were) but I also took in no federal bennies. Should I not be able to vote? Owning property would be a better metric than taxes. Problem with that is, in most if not all states, property/real estate is taxed. You don't really own it, the local/state does or now the Fed will via Fanny/Freddie owning so many mortgages.

Fight the "there outta be a law!" mentality. You work to change the social mindset on taxes. You promote self-responsibility. You promote private charity and not state run welfare.

There should be a poll test - if you cant pass the test used to grant immigrants citizeship - you dont deserve a vote

If you're on welfare yoru vote should be denied until you can support yourself - those dependant on governmnt benifits should not be able to vote on the continuation of their benifits

Not sure where to put this, but it is related to government and a prior posting.

Insurance company that quit offering kids insurance ordered by government to start doing it again:

http://www.bizjournals.com/birmingham/othercities/seattle/stories/2010/10/11/daily32.html

Luj - In my younger years I would have thought that excluding some citizens from the right/privilege to vote was mean-spirited, unconstitutional, heartless - even downright un-American.

Since then, I have now come to understand that many of these freeloaders are sell-outs and more than willing to exchange my personal freedoms (along with theirs) for a pittance - now, I am A.O.K being grouped with those mean-spirited people I once derided as heartless.

Not everyone in this country deserves the right to vote.

NicoleK writes: "I'm going to disagree that poor people shouldn't have the right to vote. These are people that it would be very easy to trample on..."

The problem is, the numbers don't add up. Half of all Americans paid no income tax last year. Is half of the American population poor? Even under the ever-expanding definition of what constitutes "poverty", I doubt it.

Sio asks: "I paid no federal taxes this past year (going galt as it were) but I also took in no federal bennies. Should I not be able to vote?" The interesting thing is, we had a long go-around over at Villainous Company about this a couple of months ago. As others have pointed out, even people who pay no federal income taxes are probably paying other taxes. (Although perhaps not as many as you'd think, if they are getting paid under the table and driving without a license.)

So here's an idea: If you are eligible for the EIC, you have a choice: (1) Accept the EIC payment and forfeit your right to vote until after the next Congressional election, or (2) refuse the EIC (still without owing any taxes) and retain the right to vote. This way, there's a choice, and people who are willing to sell out can do so on the record. And those people are probably the people who we most need to be off the voter rolls.

I agree that Christie is a hero for taking on the tax-and-spend crowd.

About the rail projects - I think it's worth noting that the original train tunnels from New Jersey into Manhattan were built by the Pennsylvania Railroad over 100 years ago. These lines terminated at the magnificent original Penn Station, modeled on the Baths of Caracalla in Rome. No public funds were used.

In California, the Southern Pacific and Santa Fe Railroads operated splendid trains like the Coast Daylight, the Cascade, the all-Pullman Lark, and the fleet of Chief streamliners, again using only private investment.

The American passenger train lost a rigged game - private railroads competing with massively subsidized highways, airports, etc.

Only 7% of American railroads were ever built on land grants, and in any case all the railroads hauled government cargo at reduced rates till 1946.

If Christie ever becomes President, I hope he privatizes the whole transportation network - Interstates, airports, barge canals, the works. Then we'll see what's truly efficient. Maybe if taxes are cut enough a new Pennsylvania Railroad will arise to build those new tunnels into New York. We will need them.

Making voting dependent upon income is pretty gross, folks.

If someone has a bad year in their business, and they take losses for that year, I assume they get to vote until...when, their carryforwards run out? How about veterans, are they exempt from the rules?

Are you seriously saying we should treat the lower income people like we treat felons?

On the who gets to vote thing, how about a compromise - if you are living off of welfare this year and have been living off of welfare continuously for more than 2 years and you aren't working, then you can't vote.

Spartee, that's why I think it should be contingent on accepting the EIC, rather than just not owing tax. Nobody is forced to accept the EIC.

Robert: I think the situation with the railroads is more complicated than that. For one thing, roads are subsidized by gasoline taxes. In fact, these days, the gas taxes take in more revenue than is spent on roads; some percentage goes to subsidize various mass transit projects. The other big point is that, from what I've read, the railroads in America never at any time made money on passenger service; they did it for the prestige. The money was in cargo transport.

Earnest Gann wrote that, at the time airlines flying the Douglas DC-3 began offering coast-to-coast overnight nonstop service, it was still, at that late date, not possible to take a through train from New York to Los Angeles. You had to change trains somewhere in the Midwest (depending on what lines you were using), and this involved fetching your bags and getting a taxi to another station across town.

"Making voting dependent upon income is pretty gross, folks."
You're the only one saying income. Having nearly 1/2 the population not only not paying federal income tax but many getting a positive "refund" back is what's gross. Redistributing money is gross.

Cousin Dave's specifics on the EIC probably does what some of us are thinking.

I get a refund every year. (Yeah, I know.) But it boils down that if your income tax is $0.01 greater than your government benefits, regardless of credit -- you get to vote.

That is not cruel -- its reality. If you are working -- you should be able to get to the point you have income w/o the government teat.

I second KrisL.

In WA state, the voters have decreed that we will only have exactly two candidates on the ballot for any position in November. Typically neither of them is anyone I would vote for, so all I vote for or against in November is initiatives. Yeah, I suppose I should try for "lesser evil" but I don't see why I should subject myself to actively choosing anti-personal-freedom slimeball Republican or anti-gun-owner, pro-take-my-money slimeball Democrat. Bleh. I just leave it blank.

@Fritz -

First, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that the Republicans are the anti-freedom party.

Second, failure to vote for the Republican (especially when there are no third-party candidates) is failing to counteract one vote for the Democrat.

In this election, destroying the Democratic party and the progressive movement are too important to leave up to someone else. If we don't break the backs of the progressives, they'll come back and slag us harder.