The 28th Amendment

[MDS]

I’ve been thinking about this for some time. In short, I believe the 2A debate is the same as the fiscal cliff debate and everything that got us there. Folks not willing to pay the price of Liberty. Scared of making their own decisions, of taking their own actions, and absolutely terrified of abiding by the outcomes. If you don’t think that you should take your life in your own hands, then you necessarily think you should put your life in someone else’s hands. You might define Liberty as: the opposite of that.

So, without further ado, I propose to you at PFC: the 28th Amendment.


1. Every person shall be considered a citizen OTD that has received, at any time in the previous 8 years and since one year after the ratification of this article, any aid, support, or service from a person or organization that is partly or fully tax- or sovereign debt-funded, except when such aid, support, or service was received anonymously; or as compensation for employment; or by virtue of residence in or citizenship of a particular jurisdiction; or in exchange for any combination of non-tax fees, goods or services shown to be of a value equal to or greater than the total cost of delivering the aid, support or service received.

2. No person considered a citizen OTD shall enjoy the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof.

3. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the
provisions of this article.



I only see one interesting intra-constitutional interaction, in the 14th Amendment, second paragraph. I read it to imply that states with lots of citizens OTD will have reduced representation in Congress. This one’s weird, since the 14th mentions males 21 and over specifically, back when that was the standard. This amendment suddenly makes that matter....I think? I really like the effect this would have on federal representation of the various States. Ideally, though, we’d also amend the 14th to strike all occurrences of the word “male” and to replace all occurrences of the number 21 with the number 18.



Now, I am not a lawyer, nor much less a constitutional scholar. But here’s my thought process.

Democracies fail when people realize they can vote themselves money from the public treasury.
If you vote yourself money from the public treasury, you’re helping a democracy fail.
So...let’s disallow folks from voting, if they vote themselves money from the public treasury.


Folks who aren’t trying to abuse the system should be fine with this. Let’s look at possible ways this could screw such folks. In no particular order:


If you’re retired, your Medicaid and Social Security is just stuff that you’ve already paid for, hopefully! Especially with inflation and time value of money, you should be good unless you have a very long retirement...
If you truly do fall on hard times, in good faith, I think it should be a little bit like declaring bankruptcy. No worries, there’s a safety net for you to cushion the blow and keep you from totally ruining your life....but you can’t get a loan for a few years. This is how the banks protect themselves from people who would declare bankruptcy over and over, in bad faith. Likewise, if you truly need some unemployment or disability, no worries, here’s a safety net....but you can’t vote for a while, this is how democracy can protect itself from people who would dip into that well over and over, in bad faith.
It would take a while for the steady state to manifest, but things would evolve for a while, as people who pay 100% of their own way vote to make changes compatible with their world-view. I don’t think we’d see the end of all social safety nets. I do think we’d see these programs become a lot more financially viable, while providing some degree of relief in case of personal catastrophe.
Use of streets/parks/etc is anonymous, public schools and similar are by virtue of residence, and we leave the door open for services like USPS, as long as it’s not subsidized with government money. I can imagine some room for bad-faith abuse of these, but I don’t think it would be enough to change the overall outcomes. The question is, what non-dole government services fall outside these parameters? I can't think of any, but I'm not particularly creative...
Farmers. This sucks, but the subsidy situation is ridiculous. After giving this some thought, I’ve come to the deep insight that I don’t know nearly enough about the business, politics or market dynamics of farming to contribute here... help, please? :)
Folks counting on previous commitments in good faith. Since the electorate will tend to be folks who take previous commitments seriously, I expect these would have a better chance of actually being met even if it’s painful to do so. Similar future commitments would evolve to be more fiscally responsible.


Sweet, there you have it. Please tear it up, and tell me in excruciating detail why it wouldn't work. I'm developing some ideas about how such an amendment might actually get passed, so please let's assume that this amendment could be passed: would it work? Why or why not?

Thanks for reading.

ETA: Default.mp3 points out that this shouldn't apply retroactively, so I added the text in red. Not sure if that's the best way to phrase it, but it seem non-ambiguous and compact to me...

[RoyGBiv]

OTD? :o

[Zhurdan]

On The Dole?

[Dropkick]

I don't see a lot of incentive for people to "earn" their vote.
What I do foresee is mass violence if subsidies are voted away. Imagine no more SNAP card and Housing Vouchers. At that point it'd be nothing to lose and everything to gain.
And that's if it got that far. I'm sure there would be plenty of people in the voting populous that would rally to help the "poor souls who can't vote."

[MDS]

On The Dole?

Yep. Gotta have a little fun with these things... :p


I don't see a lot of incentive for people to "earn" their vote.

I agree - plenty of folks don't vote anyway, so why bother giving up the dole? The changes caused by this suffrage would come slowly - but imagine the campaign managers, they'll pretty much ignore a whole swath of people who are leaning on government assistance. And I don't see as earning your vote, so much as taking a break from voting if you need to dip into the well of government money. I think that accepting government aid should be a little bit like declaring bankruptcy. If, for whatever reason, you need to do so, then there are some protections for you to keep that from totally ruining your entire life; at the same time, it stays as a (very) black mark on your credit rating for a few years, as a protection for lenders to keep folks from declaring bankruptcy over and over in bad faith. Likewise, if for whatever reason you need to lean on government assistance, there should be some programs in place to help you through a personal catastrophe; at the same time, there should be some protection for the government to keep folks from leaning on government assistance over and over in bad faith. And if you're leaning on those safety nets in good faith, it shouldn't bother you too much not to vote - you should be much more worried about getting your life back together for the next few years!


What I do foresee is mass violence if subsidies are voted away. Imagine no more SNAP card and Housing Vouchers. At that point it'd be nothing to lose and everything to gain.
And that's if it got that far. I'm sure there would be plenty of people in the voting populous that would rally to help the "poor souls who can't vote."

I can see the violence argument. Here's the thing: we're headed there, anyway. If we don't change our fiscal behavior, when our bill becomes well and truly due the riots will be bigger than anything that might happen through a gradual voting away of subsidies. Especially if you've spiked the subsidies at first, as a fair trade to get this amendment passed in the first place. (Wanna trade freedom for freestuff? Easy deal!)

I'm also making the explicit assumption that our military and police services will be taken care of - the kind of folks who take care of their needs without leaning on handouts have a tendency to understand that the world isn't all rainbows and unicorns, and they appropriate spending accordingly. I.e., our M&P will have adequate funding and respect and etc. Given that most of the rioters will be OTD, and given that they can't vote and therefore their idea of legal vs. illegal is ever less relevant....I can see any riotous tendencies getting quieted quickly and efficiently. After all, these changes are all within the law of the land (assuming something like this amendment were in place...)

Finally, as for non-OTD folks who still want to save the poor souls, I think that's great. Take this analogy: I have no problem with your 2-person family voting 2-0 in favor of loaning me a few bucks out of your pocket to get me through a personal crisis. What I have a problem with is your 2-person family and my 5-person family voting 5-2 to loan me a few bucks out of your pocket....which is what's happening now at scale. Besides, I think it's important to have some liberals in the mix, lest we turn into a right-wing christian version of those countries who's extremely religious governments encourage such, ah, un-American cultural phenomena. I want a good melting pot mix of folks voting, where the only thing they have in common is a sense of fiscal responsibility and an understanding of what actually works in actual reality.

[Default.mp3]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the wording of what you've written deny suffrage to anyone that's taken a Federal student loan for quite some time? Could one even possibly interpret Federal agency grants/scholarships, and perhaps even fellowships (if one deems the research done to not be of equal or greater value of the fellowship awarded) as being aid/support/services?

[MDS]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the wording of what you've written deny suffrage to anyone that's taken a Federal student loan for quite some time? Could one even possibly interpret Federal agency grants/scholarships, and perhaps even fellowships (if one deems the research done to not be of equal or greater value of the fellowship awarded) as being
aid/support/services?

You know, that's a really good point. On the one hand, this shouldn't apply to aid received before the amendment is passed. I'll edit the original post to that effect.

On the other hand, though, it's a pretty black and white line I'm painting. Many good people would lose suffrage temporarily while they leaned on the social safety nets in perfectly good faith. At the same time, I can imagine private organizations that get set up specifically to collect and distribute funding for these kinds of loans without using any government money - receiving private aid/grant/loan/support wouldn't push the 8-year pause button on your suffrage.

[David Armstrong]

I guess we can start out right away with the fact that very few people pay their own way with Medicare and Social Security. Don't know the current numbers, but not that long ago yo burned through all your personal SS benefits with an average interest rate within 4 years of retirement. Second, if I read it right, I'd be unable to vote because I got $3,000 in temporary dislocation funds from FEMA following Hurrican Rita. I'm also not sure why, if my company lays me off and I have to draw uneployment for while that I shouldn't vote. I could go on, but I won't.
IMO the better method is two-fold. One, the Starship Trooper model, where you earn the right to vote through service to the country. Add in a rule that the only people who can vote to increase a tax are those who currently pay the tax. Those two should cover our biggest problems. My $.02.

[MDS]

Thanks for your thoughts, they've sparked debate in my household. =) Not that this is a rare accomplishment, we debate like, well, like a married couple....


I could go on, but I won't.

Fair points, I've been thinking and discussing similar kinks. First, I recently learned that medicare and ss benefits are received by virtue of citizenship of or residence in the US, so they're exempt. :)

But I get your point. Now, what if the relevant date isn't when you actually receive support, it's when you sign up our apply for it? All current aid would be grandfathered in. That would slow down the transformation a bit, but most programs require frequent replication today anyway, and this would help a lot of the problems you mention.

Also, how might you have modified your previous choices if this were in effect?

And here's another change I think would improve things. what if the voting hiatus were for 4 years instead of 8? 2 years? Much smaller cost if you make use of a program, while still keeping the leeches out of the polling booths. I threw 8 years out there because that's 2 potus terms...didn't really give that number much more thought than that...


IMO the better method is two-fold. One, the Starship Trooper model, where you earn the right to vote through service to the country. Add in a rule that the only people who can vote to increase a tax are those who currently pay the tax. Those two should cover our biggest problems. My $.02.

On the surface both ideas sound good, but I disagree on both counts. First, there's nothing magical about military service in general - there are plenty of moochers in every branch. The ST model worked because everyone who served went into actual combat against giant alien bugs who were trying to kill humanity - fitness to vote was implied through all that and more. The single characteristic I'd like to increase in the voting public is an ability to make it work despite the harsh truths of a cruel world. I don't think a background of service to your country, in the context of today's military or civil service, necessarily increases this characteristic. With plenty of exceptions, I'm sure, and I'm happy to hear why that's wrong...

As for the tax question, I assume you mean income tax only? I kind of like this idea, but in the end this is a subset of what this limited suffrage would achieve. The only kind of people who pay taxes, in the end, are producers - if only they vote, only they can change taxes.

Thanks again for the sounding board!