Governor Beverly Perdue plays hypocritical politics with no real logic sometimes. I have come to the conclusion that she is not looking out for the best interests of the citizens of North Carolina but is rather looking out for the interests of herself and those who may keep her in power. I realize that this is not exactly a newsflash, but though I disagree with Old Bev on a good number of things, I have been trying to give her the benefit of the doubt. There were a few things that she did that gave me a glimmer of hope that she may be better than I originally feared, but she has been choking off the hope I was holding.
When 75% of your electorate support something, you had better take notice. Three quarters of North Carolinians (so I have read) were fully in support of the idea of having to prove your identity when casting a ballot in the state. The last I checked, we were still a sovereign state (at least the last time I read the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution we were, anyway). As a free state, we can decide how we wish to run elections.
Governor Perdue has vetoed a bill requiring people to show official photo identification at the polls. She said, “North Carolinians who are eligible to vote have a constitutionally guaranteed right to cast their ballots, and no one should put up obstacles to citizens exercising that right...This bill, as written, will unnecessarily and unfairly disenfranchise many eligible and legitimate voters. The legislature should pass a less extreme bill that allows for other forms of identification, such as those permitted under federal law.”
You see, that is the problem. People who are eligible to vote should have to prove that they are eligible. I have to show a photo ID when I cash a check, use a credit card, purchase alcohol, apply for a passport, open a bank account, request government documents, get stopped by a police officer for speeding, apply for a job, or any host of different activities. Why should voting be any different?
The argument that we would unnecessarily and unfairly disenfranchise eligible and legitimate voters is a specious one and quite frankly, you can use that argument to fertilize your garden, if you know what I mean. I do not buy the idea for one minute that a legitimate voter would have any problem producing a valid photo ID, whether it is a passport, driver’s license, or a state issued ID card. The only possible reason to not want a photo ID requirement is that you actually support election fraud, non-citizens voting, and are hoping that people who have no business voting for your overly liberal ideals will cast multiple ballots for you under fictitious, fraudulent, multiple, illegitimate, or unverifiable names.
As to the argument that we should scale back any proposed law to meet federal law requirements, I again point to the fact that this is North Carolina, not the federal government. We set up our own laws and are not required to merely duplicate some other guidelines. Anybody who thinks that federal government regulation should trump our own autonomy has either lost touch with how our government should and can operate or is completely ignorant thereof.
The hypocritical part is that at the same time, Old Bev did sign into law a bunch of bills that make her appear to protect North Carolina residents. Bills signed include tougher DWI penalties, the creation of a task force on fraud perpetrated against the elderly (not that a task force actually does anything but have meetings), mental illness care provision, new building code requirements, and the like. She just does not want to protect us against financial crisis and election fraud.
I mentioned that she sometimes does things with which I agree and that occasionally give me a ray of hope. Gov. Perdue signed a bill that improves existing gun laws (not that I am a fan of gun laws, but these provisions are at least providing more freedoms) and establishes the castle doctrine for home defense. That is a huge positive in my opinion. She also signed “The Founding Principles Act” requiring the teaching of US history in high school, and the “Government Reduction Act” which is intended to reduce state government by abolishing certain state boards, commissions and committees.
The blatant contradiction and hypocrisy here is hard for me, since I see the good, the bad, and the ugly in the decisions taken by our governor. I recognize the good decisions and want to have hope. But I have also seen the stupidity in action and that sort of cancels out the hope I had.
Showing posts with label voting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label voting. Show all posts
Friday, July 01, 2011
Friday, November 13, 2009
Column for Nov. 12, 2009
Congratulations, Selma. I just watched the town's municipal election returns on News 14 (an exclusive service of Time Warner Cable. Yes, I work for that company. I am the engineer who brings you all of their advertising. I install and maintain their advertising automation systems for a living. Now the newspaper can send them a bill for the mention) and on the county web site. You just voted for at least another two years of the same old status quo. This little town in which I keep hearing about wanting a change in leadership has just refused the change.
To all those who live outside the town limits, you can look forward to an increase in regulation without representation. The same people who brought you town ordinance control extended to the extra-territorial jurisdiction are still in office. The same people who tried to annex your land and raise your taxes are again in office and will most likely assault your property rights again.
To those who live within the town limits, you can look for an increasingly stringent set of laws and regulations. The same people who brought you tax increases three out of four years in a row and higher utility bills than those on a privately owned electrical grid are still in power (pun intended).
The same town council members who need to have each and every issue explained, re-explained, and then rephrased to be comprehensible to them will again sit in the seat of power. Those with questionable eligibility for even holding municipal public office are still holding on to it. Way to go, Selma. The same mayor who brought news crews, the NAACP, lawsuits, and just plain negative attention to our sleepy little town will have control of the town gavel.
To all of you readers who keep telling me you want change but did not vote for it or even failed to vote at all, please refrain from telling me you want change in this town. For the past three municipal election cycles, I have made an effort to spread the message of conservative, proven, and decisive leadership. Instead, people apparently would prefer an existing clique.
Sitting at a local restaurant or barbershop, I have heard several people either postulate or assent to the idea of candidate X being a nice "airhead" or indecisive, and yet the same candidate has been returned to office yet again.
I was personally hoping for a changing of the guard, since I am tired of the status quo. We had status quo four years ago, but I do believe that perhaps some of that status quo was better than our existing status quo. When liberties are marred, taxes are raised, town public relations and perceptions worsened, volunteer advisory boards repeatedly ignored, and hand picked cronies empowered, I question the legitimate progress therein.
To be fair, there have been some positive results over the past four years of the tenure of our incumbent town "govering [sic] body". The town did indeed trim some of its budget. Though from what I have been informed by those who would know, the town was never in as bad shape economically as was claimed.
The town did reorganize its fire department and hired a full time fire chief, regardless of the questionable methodology in doing so. The town leadership did hire two different town managers, though again, its methodology and end result are still in great question. The town council and mayor did adopt clearer planning and zoning ordinances, though they were brought about by the diligent work of a new Planning Director and the few accepted recommendations by a frustrated Planning Board. Just ask them and you will find that most on that board are very frustrated.
Here is the saving grace. The phrase, "the devil that you know is better than the one you don't" may be appropriate in this case. At least the incumbents are a known quantity, though I was looking forward to something different. I figured that the race for mayor could have been an upset, and it was even closer than two years ago, with just a twenty-seven vote difference. That means that just 14 voters could have changed the outcome of that election. I figured (and wrote some time ago in this very column) that the two incumbents for the town council would return handily, and they did. In all honesty, there was little in the way of opposition to worry about. There were some write-in votes, but those were not reported.
Oh, well. It's time to simply pick up my pickaxe and keep swinging. In the meantime, I am going to spend less time involved in public affairs in this town and more time with my family, my church, and in my cozy home sanctuary.
To all those who live outside the town limits, you can look forward to an increase in regulation without representation. The same people who brought you town ordinance control extended to the extra-territorial jurisdiction are still in office. The same people who tried to annex your land and raise your taxes are again in office and will most likely assault your property rights again.
To those who live within the town limits, you can look for an increasingly stringent set of laws and regulations. The same people who brought you tax increases three out of four years in a row and higher utility bills than those on a privately owned electrical grid are still in power (pun intended).
The same town council members who need to have each and every issue explained, re-explained, and then rephrased to be comprehensible to them will again sit in the seat of power. Those with questionable eligibility for even holding municipal public office are still holding on to it. Way to go, Selma. The same mayor who brought news crews, the NAACP, lawsuits, and just plain negative attention to our sleepy little town will have control of the town gavel.
To all of you readers who keep telling me you want change but did not vote for it or even failed to vote at all, please refrain from telling me you want change in this town. For the past three municipal election cycles, I have made an effort to spread the message of conservative, proven, and decisive leadership. Instead, people apparently would prefer an existing clique.
Sitting at a local restaurant or barbershop, I have heard several people either postulate or assent to the idea of candidate X being a nice "airhead" or indecisive, and yet the same candidate has been returned to office yet again.
I was personally hoping for a changing of the guard, since I am tired of the status quo. We had status quo four years ago, but I do believe that perhaps some of that status quo was better than our existing status quo. When liberties are marred, taxes are raised, town public relations and perceptions worsened, volunteer advisory boards repeatedly ignored, and hand picked cronies empowered, I question the legitimate progress therein.
To be fair, there have been some positive results over the past four years of the tenure of our incumbent town "govering [sic] body". The town did indeed trim some of its budget. Though from what I have been informed by those who would know, the town was never in as bad shape economically as was claimed.
The town did reorganize its fire department and hired a full time fire chief, regardless of the questionable methodology in doing so. The town leadership did hire two different town managers, though again, its methodology and end result are still in great question. The town council and mayor did adopt clearer planning and zoning ordinances, though they were brought about by the diligent work of a new Planning Director and the few accepted recommendations by a frustrated Planning Board. Just ask them and you will find that most on that board are very frustrated.
Here is the saving grace. The phrase, "the devil that you know is better than the one you don't" may be appropriate in this case. At least the incumbents are a known quantity, though I was looking forward to something different. I figured that the race for mayor could have been an upset, and it was even closer than two years ago, with just a twenty-seven vote difference. That means that just 14 voters could have changed the outcome of that election. I figured (and wrote some time ago in this very column) that the two incumbents for the town council would return handily, and they did. In all honesty, there was little in the way of opposition to worry about. There were some write-in votes, but those were not reported.
Oh, well. It's time to simply pick up my pickaxe and keep swinging. In the meantime, I am going to spend less time involved in public affairs in this town and more time with my family, my church, and in my cozy home sanctuary.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Column for May 28, 2009
Should you be required to own property in order to vote in this nation? "Preposterous", you say, "not in America! That is totally against the fabric of our nation's founding!" Believe it or not, this is a long debated subject that goes back over 200 years.
The Founding Fathers had heated debates about whether or not to include requirements such as property (land) ownership in order to be able to cast a vote. Personally, I believe that to be of great benefit and merit to a nation. I believe it would especially benefit us here in North Carolina, in Johnston County, and in little old Selma.
In August of 1787, the Philadelphia Convention was meeting to discuss their first outline of the revised constitution. It was the middle of summer 212 years ago in a building with no air conditioning. The doors and windows were all shut and the drapes drawn closed. Men were hot in their temperature as well as demeanor. And representatives of the several states were debating the merits of various proposals line upon line, precept upon precept.
One of the principal architects of the Constitution, Gouverneur Morris (that was his name, not his title) of Pennsylvania argued strongly for land ownership as a requisite for suffrage. Benjamin Franklin argued against the concept, lauding the common man and the responsibilities for the elected to not limit the freedoms of the electors (voters).
Which view is correct? Is it legal to restrict who can vote? In the Constitution, we presently have provisions that one can not be denied the right to vote based upon race, sex, and failure to pay a poll tax for anyone over the age of 18. However, there is no provision that says you must own property. Nor is there the provision that you can not be denied the right to vote if you do not own property.
Here is the wisdom and how it applies to us. Here in Selma, the last statistic I heard was that 61% of the residents are renters. That means that only 39% of the potential voters directly feel the bite of property taxes for the town and county. Why should someone who does actually pay taxes in this town be able to vote for someone who is going to determine the level of taxes the minority of us property owners pay? Is that fair? I say not, since they do not have a reasonable self-interest in how residents are taxed.
I also feel the same way about income taxes. Should anyone who does not actually pay income taxes be able to elect those who will set the income tax rates and determine how tax dollars are spent?
People who receive public tax money for their livelihood are dependent upon the entity from which they receive their stipend. Therefore, if these same people are eligible to vote, they will elect those who will most likely continue to support them financially. This is the insidious plan that has been in place since the 1960's. Enslave people financially and they will vote against the interest of the masses for their own benefit. A suckling pig will not voluntarily diminish its food source.
The term disfranchisement was used even in 1787. The term was not invented in 2000 when some falsely accused George W. Bush of "stealing an election". The term was then used in regards to placing qualifications on the right to vote. The term of "taxation without representation" was a long used battle cry in the young nation and part of the reason for the revolution. Just as bad, however, is "representation without taxation".
That last concept was not lost on some of the states in the 1700's. There were indeed such restrictions or qualifications for people to be able to cast a ballot. Their reason was much the same as mine; that people who pay taxes actually have an interest in how the government that extracts such taxation uses said monies.
I am under no illusion that we will ever see such qualifications for the right to vote in this nation, state, county, or town. I would settle for having all who would cast a ballot considering the good of the whole population rather than their own dependencies. That sort of thinking has gotten us career politicians, higher taxes, insane government spending, massive debt, and corruption. Some of our Founding Fathers had great wisdom...but that wisdom is lost unless we are willing to learn from them.
The Founding Fathers had heated debates about whether or not to include requirements such as property (land) ownership in order to be able to cast a vote. Personally, I believe that to be of great benefit and merit to a nation. I believe it would especially benefit us here in North Carolina, in Johnston County, and in little old Selma.
In August of 1787, the Philadelphia Convention was meeting to discuss their first outline of the revised constitution. It was the middle of summer 212 years ago in a building with no air conditioning. The doors and windows were all shut and the drapes drawn closed. Men were hot in their temperature as well as demeanor. And representatives of the several states were debating the merits of various proposals line upon line, precept upon precept.
One of the principal architects of the Constitution, Gouverneur Morris (that was his name, not his title) of Pennsylvania argued strongly for land ownership as a requisite for suffrage. Benjamin Franklin argued against the concept, lauding the common man and the responsibilities for the elected to not limit the freedoms of the electors (voters).
Which view is correct? Is it legal to restrict who can vote? In the Constitution, we presently have provisions that one can not be denied the right to vote based upon race, sex, and failure to pay a poll tax for anyone over the age of 18. However, there is no provision that says you must own property. Nor is there the provision that you can not be denied the right to vote if you do not own property.
Here is the wisdom and how it applies to us. Here in Selma, the last statistic I heard was that 61% of the residents are renters. That means that only 39% of the potential voters directly feel the bite of property taxes for the town and county. Why should someone who does actually pay taxes in this town be able to vote for someone who is going to determine the level of taxes the minority of us property owners pay? Is that fair? I say not, since they do not have a reasonable self-interest in how residents are taxed.
I also feel the same way about income taxes. Should anyone who does not actually pay income taxes be able to elect those who will set the income tax rates and determine how tax dollars are spent?
People who receive public tax money for their livelihood are dependent upon the entity from which they receive their stipend. Therefore, if these same people are eligible to vote, they will elect those who will most likely continue to support them financially. This is the insidious plan that has been in place since the 1960's. Enslave people financially and they will vote against the interest of the masses for their own benefit. A suckling pig will not voluntarily diminish its food source.
The term disfranchisement was used even in 1787. The term was not invented in 2000 when some falsely accused George W. Bush of "stealing an election". The term was then used in regards to placing qualifications on the right to vote. The term of "taxation without representation" was a long used battle cry in the young nation and part of the reason for the revolution. Just as bad, however, is "representation without taxation".
That last concept was not lost on some of the states in the 1700's. There were indeed such restrictions or qualifications for people to be able to cast a ballot. Their reason was much the same as mine; that people who pay taxes actually have an interest in how the government that extracts such taxation uses said monies.
I am under no illusion that we will ever see such qualifications for the right to vote in this nation, state, county, or town. I would settle for having all who would cast a ballot considering the good of the whole population rather than their own dependencies. That sort of thinking has gotten us career politicians, higher taxes, insane government spending, massive debt, and corruption. Some of our Founding Fathers had great wisdom...but that wisdom is lost unless we are willing to learn from them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
