Monday, July 23, 2012

Buying Votes

Some of my Conservative friends were frustrated that a DFL Senator in their state wrote often in his newsletter of the benefits (ie pork) that he had helped to obtain for the State's citizens. They felt that this should be a time for tightening the belts and controlling spending, even if it meant passing on Federal funds for their state. I simply said that this is what people want from the Senator, therefore he is buying votes.

The irony hit me later that the GOP candidates are working to buy votes in a very similar manner. They simply do it by promising to cuts taxes.

So is there a difference between a politician that buys votes spending money on citizens vs not collecting money from citizens. All the while ignoring the growing debt? Is it important? Why?

Remember: I am looking for an honest politician that wants to raise revenues (ie taxes) and decrease benefits (ie spending) until the National Debt is significantly lower.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Maybe "buying votes" is the sort of loaded term that when accepted, decides the argument before the argument is actually engaged in.

When the President promises not to cut Social Security, is he buying my vote even though I don't receive Social Security? Is it fair to say that Mitt Romney buying some Republican voter's vote when he is promising tax cuts and benefits which could not possibly benefit that voter?

--Hiram

R-Five said...

Apples and Oranges. Right and Wrong. Promising to let voters keep their own money and promising to give voters someone else's money.

John said...

Or is it wrong, wrong? I mean both are selling something that is putting our society deeper in debt. Thereby putting their personal ambitions ahead of the good of the country. It seems like a sure path to failure.

Zfacts Chart

Unknown said...

about- looking for an honest politician that wants to raise revenues (ie taxes) and decrease benefits (ie spending) until the National Debt is significantly lower- Looks to me that Obama has stated policy preferences that come closer to this goal than Romney.

about buying votes - at least liberals campaign on and vote for policies that involve more government spending compared to conservatives who vote against infrastructure spending and then show up at the ribbon cutting.

I think what should concern voters most is The SuperPAC Superdonors and our transition from a democracy to an oligarchy.

What does Sheldon Adelson,The biggest donor to Romney and the GOP want in return? Might he be trying to influence the outcome of investigations into his business practices and connections to the Chinese mob. I am concerned about the influence of the Koch brothers on energy and environmental policy as well.

John said...

I'll try to keep an open mind, however Obamacare definitely seemed a large step away from my "pay down the debt" preference.

Anonymous said...

Shouldn't voters vote in their interest? And what's the alternative? Would would a disinterested candidate even look like? When has there ever been a disinterested candidate or political leader in history?

--Hiram

John said...

I guess I am interested in intent and character.

Is the candidate spending or cutting taxes because they believe it is the right and responsible thing to do? (ie convictions, will of constituents, good of country, etc) Or are they doing it to get into office for their own personal gain? (ie money, power, fame, etc)

There is "interest" in both of these motives. One is on the country and the other is on themselves.

"Shouldn't voters vote in their interest?"... I guess my answer would be it depends.

When one votes to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs for their immediate gain, it does not work out so well. Maybe it would be better to vote for fiscally responsible government and not vote for our personal short term self interests.

Since people are focused on and voting for their personal self interests, we have the mess and debt we do.

John said...

Somewhat related reading. NYT Tragedy of the Commons

This is long and painful. The summary is that if everyone optimizes their situation, sometimes everyone starves... Go figure.

Anonymous said...

I think it's a matter of the math. If more is collected in taxes, even a LOT more, from EVERYBODY, the debt continues to soar under Obamanomics. If Spending is curtailed until it matches federal revenue, the debt will cease to increase, economic activity will increase and revenues will go up, thus paying down the debt through economic growth.

You have to play the ball from where it lies. The deficit was coming down in the last Bush budget. Obama immediately added a Trillion dollars to federal spending, and has continued that every year. Where did it go? It certainly didn't go to growing the economy, so what's the harm to just going back to the Bush budget of four years ago, for starters?

To me, any politician that wants to raise taxes, for any reason, is a dishonest politician or a fool, because they refuse to recognize that we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Anybody that refuses to cut taxes is a dishonest politician because they claim to respect individual freedom while seeking less of it.

J. Ewing

Anonymous said...

I think the "tragedy of the commons" "fable," as the author calls it, is actually true in this context. People will vote to raise taxes on the rich because they have been promised that this will give them a bigger share of goodies (a political lie of the first rank), not realizing that every dime of taxes comes out of the total economy, of which we are all a part. Every dollar of taxes paid that does not benefit us all impoverishes us all.

A "commons" in which we know all of the other participants will be managed effectively. A dinner party among friends will find horse doovers left over, because no one wants to take the last one. Among strangers (particularly political events, it seems to me), people gladly take as many as they can without being seen as greedy, and expecting more to magically appear. "I got mine" seems to be the attitude. It's why "vote buying" works, I guess.

J. Ewing

Anonymous said...

The basic thing you have to understand about Obamacare and health care spending is that we will spend money on health care whether we have Obamacare or not. The government isn't the reason people get old, it simply responds to that phenomenon.

--Hiram

John said...

Fed Budget History

That was a sizeable jump in 2009. Details?

John said...

Try again

Fed Budget History

John said...

Fact Check Explanation

Here is a good bit of detail.