Right to Vote Should Be an Incentive for Tax 'Consumers'

0 Comments | Insight on the News, July 22, 2003

Byline: INSIGHT

Right to Vote Should Be an Incentive for Tax 'Consumers'

Robert R. Eberle hit the nail on the head (well, sort of) with his fair comment article regarding taxpayers and the right to vote ["Should Americans Who Don't Pay Taxes Have a Say?" July 8-21]. When the United States reaches the point where the tax consumers outnumber the taxpayers, our system will have failed irreparably because the tax consumers will only vote for those who keep the gravy train flowing.

The only change I would make to Eberle's point is this: You cannot take away the right to vote from working Americans. Those who work and pay taxes, regardless of whether they get it all back in some form or another, should have the right to vote. It is the "tax consumers" those who chronically are on public assistance or other government programs because of their own actions (or inactions) who should not have the same right to choose our nation's leaders.

The surrender of their right to vote should be motivation for these people to make their residence in the welfare state a temporary one. Once they are off the welfare rolls and back in a productive role in society, they should get back their right to vote. This is a system with which I think most intellectually honest people would agree.

Jason L. Smith

Cinnaminson, N.J.

*

People who are tax consumers not taxpayers should not be allowed to vote, period! The right to vote was not universal when this country was begun, and it certainly shouldn't be now. Those folks who live off the productivity of others (those "others" include me) are parasites, and they can be relied upon to advocate having the government take more and more of what I make so that it can be given to them.

That is simple truth, folks. Is it "elitist"? If so, then let it be an incentive to become part of the "elite," if that is what we want to call those who are paying taxes. Not only should we take away the vote from the "leeching class," we should stop all redistribution of wealth, which is plain communism.

Does that mean no "rebates" for those folks who don't pay taxes? Indeed it does, and we should end that damnable earned-income-credit nonsense in the bargain. If you don't pay, you shouldn't get to play!

W.B. Heffernan Jr.

via the Internet

Determining True Worth of the Dollar Proves Disappointing

As I read Kelly Patricia O'Meara's "'Strong Dollar' Hides Weak Policy" [June 10-23], it brought to mind my mid-1940s student days and a class I took in economics. Most of us were engineering students benefiting from the GI Bill at Syracuse University.

The economics professor promised to tell us how to determine the value of the U.S. dollar. We were all poised, pencils in hand, to take down the numbers and a formula. Then he said, "The value of the U.S. dollar is exactly what the government says it is ... as long as they can make it stick."

The professor was right then and, apparently, he's still right today.

D.A. Florance

Binghamton, N.Y.

Blowing the Doors Off of The U.S. Service Economy

My compliments to Paula R. Kaufman for her picture profile interview [June 10-23] with Eamonn Fingleton. I have been quite concerned about U.S. manufacturing losses and the trade deficit, and I think that the so-called "service economy" is a house of cards that eventually will collapse. I would hope that these problems will receive notice within the halls of Congress so that we might establish a level playing field with our trading partners.

I was disappointed that in an otherwise impressive interview, Fingleton was not queried about his thoughts on what possible actions might correct the problems that he sees. I hope Insight will pursue this subject further and publish more articles on the keys to a healthy economy.

R.H. Haggard

Austin, Texas

Opposing Views on the Effects Of Employing Cheap Labor

Thank you for Kelly Patricia O'Meara's article about the offshoring of U.S. jobs ["Cheap Labor at America's Expense," May 27-June 9]. Being in the information-technology industry, I have witnessed not only the offshoring of these jobs but also the layoff of U.S. workers because of the H-1B and L-1 visa programs. It is my opinion that these programs are being abused by U.S. corporations and that they are trying to keep their involvement in these programs out of public view.

Glen Goeke

St. Louis

*

As a longtime reader of Insight, I was particularly disappointed at the one-sided and fallacious article about international outsourcing. Every conceivable way of producing at lower costs whether by machinery, management, outsourcing or a thousand other ways, and whether domestically or internationally hurts those that produce at higher costs. But the greater prosperity that higher efficiency creates means the creation of other jobs.

The argument that "cheap labor" abroad takes jobs from Americans on net balance has been refuted both by history and economics. In the years after NAFTA was passed, jobs increased by the millions in the United States and unemployment rates among Americans declined sharply. But the very idea of a net balance appears nowhere in this tendentious article.