A Radical Solution to our Fiscal Crisis

I have been writing for decades, but I have probably used the word "crisis" more in the last two years in my articles than in all the other years combined. There is a reason for that, the use of such hyperbole gets old. I think such words should be used with restraint or they will eventually fall upon deaf ears. Unfortunately, any word short of "crisis" simply does not make the grade in the times we live in today. The government is doing more (poorly) and spending more (than ever) and it is bankrupting our futures and the futures of those who will not even be born for several generations to come.

Currently the national debt is now growing at a rate annually that originally took almost 200 years for our country to reach for the first time. We are a nation in financial ruin and we continue to spend as if money grew on trees. Desperate times call for desperate measures. It is time for Americans to seriously consider the damage that comes from mob rule.

According to the government's own statistics, less than half of all Americans even pay taxes. This is significant because we now have a country where the majority is lulled into sleep as the minority is essentially oppressed by those who have "no skin" in the political process. They have absolutely no problem with spending growing out of control because whatever they receive is with minimum burden on them.

Meanwhile USA Today reports that well over half of the population receives direct assistance of various types from the federal government. This includes perennial welfare moms and the super rich who enjoy government bailouts.

The terrible situation we are in begs for radical change. The Constitutional type. In the early days of the Republic, people had to be property owners and even taxpayers before they were allowed to vote. Furthermore, the federal government was very limited in what it could do. With only seventeen enumerated powers and those voting having a vested interest, frugal government was much easier to achieve and maintain.

The principles of frugal government can be found on the micro level. If a board of directors of an organization or business has a vote on an item that directly benefits one of those decision makers, that person is expected to abstain. It only makes sense. If that did not happen there would be cries of impropriety and would plant the seeds of financial ruin for any group or company.

The United States is going to have to take a similar approach to solve its financial problems. The classical economist John Stuart Mill advocated the bold proposition that, if people received any government assistance, they would have to turn in their right to vote until they were no longer on the government dole. This policy would apply to the mega rich, the very poor and everyone in between who were getting direct government assistance. People seem to be concerned about "influence peddling." They warn about lobbyists and political action committees throwing money at politicians in order to get their vote on key issues. Yet, influence peddling runs both ways -- it is a two sided coin. Politicians who want to get reelected make all sorts of promises of money, goods, or services in order to buy votes. If the voter became disenfranchised while on the government's budget, politicians would have to find other ways of getting our votes. Maybe they would boast about how frugal they are in the way they represent the voters. A radical approach to government? Maybe, but it seems to me it could be long overdue.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is also host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN radio). Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

When It Comes to Voting, It is Quality and not Quantity

We hold the right to vote in such high regard that we now allow anyone, even Mickey Mouse, to vote in our elections. The attraction of voting is so powerful that untold numbers of dead people suspend their resting in peace to show up and make their choice for President. Yes, elections are very important.

I don't know about you, but the above references to scandals related to ACORN actually shows that voting is becoming a sham. It is not revered, but a vehicle to purely promote political agendas and not preserve our freedoms. Yet virtually everyone extols the beauty of the vote and the more voters the merrier. I think it is time to defend the quality of the vote.

Every state has limits on the campaigning that can be done during elections. For example, there is a distance that has to be maintained between where people vote and signs promoting specific candidates. You have seen this when you pulled up at your neighborhood elementary school with signs being displayed for virtually every candidate all the way up to the magical line where no more campaigning is allowed. After that, voters are protected from further external political influence. Or are they?

The reality is, the single most important political information is in the room where they vote. Not, it isn't on the wall or in fliers handed out on the instructions used for the machines. The most important political information is on the ballot itself. Every office has the party affiliation clearly labeled on each candidate. Furthermore, you can typically press one button and vote straight party ticket.

Removing party affiliation would be a very significant step that the government could take to reduce voter fraud and abuse. With the elimination of straight ticket voting, there is no longer "press seven and go to heaven" or "press nine and all is fine." People would actually have to know who they are voting for before casting a vote. What a novel idea!

This idea will have any of its proponents seen as elitists and anti-democratic by the media, I am sure. The truth is, there is nothing about it that should make voters feel disenfranchised. Are there those who are saying that voters are casting ballots, but they do not know for whom? Are those the ones that will be punished by a system that requires a little knowledge and accountability before they actually cast a vote? In my view, if they don't know a candidate by anything but party affiliation, they are not qualified to vote.

A few candidates for major offices will not be affected by this simple reform, but the quality of voting in general would be much higher in a system such as this and would lead to a decided increase in the quality of voting. That is exactly what our country needs.

Kevin Price articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.