Voter ID Law - What's the Problem?

As a Libertarian with strong conservative values, it is easy to identify the viewpoint of the far-left extremist.  And the dogged opposition from the left towards adopting a Voter ID law is a perfect example.


Photo ID is required to cash a check, to rent a car, to buy alcohol, to use a credit card, to board a plane - yet those on the left claim any photo ID law is simply a "ploy to disenfranchise" voters.  Talk about your conspiracy theories...

If fraud is so small as to make no difference in an election, then why such staunch opposition to a voter ID law?  What is there to hide?  And convictions for voter fraud are difficult to obtain, which yields ammunition to the argument that "actual"voter fraud is non-existent.

Of course, using this logic, I feel all warm and fuzzy to know that only 1055 people cheated on their taxes in 2010.  Or at least that's how many people were actually convicted by the IRS - and those guys have some serious stroke!

In truth, voter fraud during presidential elections is extremely small by percentage.  But where it truly makes a difference is during state and county elections, the local governmental positions which most directly effect the citizens who vote.

When you claim that a voter ID law is a Republican ploy, are you implying that Democrats are the only ones who attempt to commit voter fraud?  Or is it that Democrats are the party incapable of obtaining photo IDs?  What exactly are Democrats so afraid of when it comes to protecting the voting rights of the citizens of this country?  And why do you never hear of Democrats complaining about Republican voter fraud?

Voting is a right, but it is a "qualified" right, subject to citizenship, residency, age, etc.  You have a right to withdraw money from your own bank account at any time, but you must be "qualified" through proper identification to exercise that right.  In the same manner, you should be made to prove that you are indeed a resident of the county in which you wish to cast your ballot.

As to that 80-year old "people" you know who will be unable to vote if Texas enacts a photo ID law, perhaps she should make it a priority to obtain a photo ID if she wishes to continue to exercise her right to vote.  What is disgraceful is how Democrats always use Grandma to defend their continued quest to allow non-citizens to vote, or to pay voters to cast multiple ballots as they are bused around the counties on election night.

If the government were to establish a "national photo ID" and provide it at a minimal cost to all citizens, would this make Democrats happy?  It certainly should, if the disenfranchisement of legal voters was the true root of their opposition.

Finally, the US has a voter turnout averaging 48% over the last fifty years (55% for general, 40% off-year).  If anyone feels "disenfranchised" during any election, you still have two years in which to obtain the proper identification.

What does it take to vote in an election?  Before you can vote in any election, you must first register.  In order to register to vote, you must prove:

you are a United States citizen;

you are 18 years old by December 31 of the year in which you file this form (note: you must be 18 years old by the date of the general, primary or other election in which you want to vote);

you live at your present address at least 30 days before an election;

you are not in jail or on parole for a felony conviction and;

you cannot claim the right to vote elsewhere.

If you meet these requirements, you are then issued a Voter Registration card.  What's the problem with adding a photo to that card?

Cost prohibitive?  Oh, please - with the $14 trillion that Obama will have added to our debt before he's run out of office, not counting the next decade of Obamacare taxes, don't tell me that it will cost the taxpayers too much.  If there is one thing Washington is NOT opposed to, it's the spending our money.

Another Christmas Miracle

In a grand display of self-sacrifice, Obama sent his wife and kids off to Hawaii without his glorious presence, so that he might save Christmas for 160 million Americans.  And, by remaining on the job, he's managed another in an unending series of historic accomplishments:  a two month extension of his Payroll Tax Holiday!  Once again, America is saved - praise be to Obama!  Hallelujah!

You see, Democrats are all about fairness and social justice. And they display a bulldog-like tenacity when protecting the Holiest of Holies, Social Security and Medicare.  Woe to unto any evil Republican who might taketh away thine rightful benefits, especially in this season of giving.

Would it be that we mere commoners were intelligent enough to divine the great and powerful Obama's master plan, we would see that the best way to preserve Social Security is to have everyone who still earns a paycheck pay less into it.  This stroke of genius falls right into line with the Democrat's idea that unemployment checks are the fastest way to stimulate our economy.  Who are we to dare argue with the great minds of Washington?

I know, I know...saving Social Security by diverting funds from it does seem rather contradictory, even hypocritical.  Some say this is because Democrats fail to see the difference between FICA, which is arguably not a tax, but collected and tied to benefits such as Social Security and Medicare, and all other taxes meant to fund the out-of-control federal bureaucracy.

We must remember not to lose our faith; we must remember to not question our rulers, for they have the knowledge of things we mortals cannot possibly comprehend.  We must truly believe that diverting funds away from the two signature programs of Democrats is not an obvious attempt to purchase votes from those in this country still ignorant enough to believe in that most ethereal of promises, Hope and Change.

Even though the irony of this promise is becoming more obvious each day, as most have lost hope of ever seeing any change, we must not forget the fact that the true mystery of Obama's holy mantra may be beyond our comprehension as lowly taxpayers.

Yet, even after all of this, you would begrudge Dear Leader his well-earned time of rest?  Blasphemer!  You are not fit to remain in the collective.

Quote of the Day:

Do not blame Caesar, blame the people of Rome who have so enthusiastically acclaimed and adored him and rejoiced in their loss of freedom and danced in his path and gave him triumphal processions.  Blame the people who hail him when he speaks in the Forum of the "new, wonderful, good society" which shall now be Rome's, interpreted to mean "more money, more ease, more security, more living fatly at the expense of the industrious."

Marcus Tillius Cicero (106 - 40 B.C.)

Take The Quiz!

Damn - I only scored 3 out of 9.  What this shows is that, in spite of the myriad of insane demands by this Flea Bagger "movement," there is common ground between all Americans when it comes to the failure of our government and its migration to corporatism.

There are major divides, however, when it comes to solutions.  The Flea Baggers want more government and more spending, a $20 minimum wage, a waiver of all debt, free health care, free college education, or any of the other bits of equine excreta espoused by the "Occupy Wall Street" cretins that I noticed the "quiz" failed to touch upon.

This "quiz" was a weak attempt to give some shred of credibility to the senseless protests of these spoiled group of societal freeloaders, angry that they may just have to work for a living.  A fine example of the manipulation by the media.  As you should understand by watching Fox News, it is easy to get the answers you're looking for, if you simply ask the right questions.

Quote of the day:  "Just when the protest seemed to turn violent, the police managed to disperse the crowd by firing job applications at them."

As for the true problems we face, we can all agree that for too long, politicians have bowed to corporate interests.   The problem has gotten completely out of hand, so much so that Obama doesn't even try to hide it anymore.  He has made up his mind that his administration will decide which businesses, industries, and institutions will succeed and which will fail.  As we have seen, our government has an extremely poor track record in picking winners and losers.

It comes as no surprise that this administration's choices have favored his biggest campaign contributors, which receive favorable legislation as repayment for their continued support.  But, as both the Tea Party and the Flea Baggers have implied, America has the best form of government that money can buy.

Word of advice:  watch what Obama does over the next few months, and notice the complete abandonment of his 2008 theme of uniting America.  Knowing he has almost no chance of re-election, he is like a wounded animal that has been cornered by his own undeniable record of failure.

Now that numerous scandals of his failed and corrupt administration are coming to light, I wonder how much longer he will continue to blame everyone else for his own shortcomings.  Any person of character would accept responsibility of his office and either change course, as Clinton did, or resign, as Nixon did.  Unfortunately, Obama does not possess such character, as we have seen by his arrogant yet incompetent leadership.

His rhetoric will be become exponentially more divisive as the elections grow near, and his frustration with what he sees as "GOP opposition" to his socialist agenda may yet bring out the radical leftist he has tried to so hard, and spent so much, to conceal from the public.

But, as long as Team Obama keeps driving the wedge deeper, we will continue to fight each other instead of facing our common enemy.  And because of voter ignorance and gullibility, a slick campaign and a billion dollars is apparently all that is required these days to rent a room at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Running a campaign and running a country are not the same thing, and it has become painfully obvious that a two years as a Senator from Illinois did nothing to prepare Obama for the most difficult job on the planet.  And a bunch of entitled college students selfishly whining about the burden of their self-inflicted student loans cannot possibly be compared to a genuine political movement such as the Tea Party.

Harry's Got it Handled

I'm not sure what upsets me the most about all this, Reid's insistence of a new "millionaire tax" or the fact that Washington would even consider passing this "Stimulus, Jr" spending bill.  Considering the failure of it's predecessor, it is fairly easy to understand why Obama is shying away from using the term "Stimulus."

Knowing full well this "jobs" bill will do nothing but bail-out another round of public employees, the goal is to fund this politically-motivated spending bill by adding a half-trillion to our debt.

To claim this latest bail-out will be "paid for" by a decade of yet-unrealized revenue is an insult to the taxpayer's intelligence.  How do these Congressional cretins think they amassed a $14 trillion debt in the first place?

Even if this new "millionaire's tax" actually meets the revenue expectations of what we spend today, don't expect this tax to disappear after 10 years.

Clown Prince Harry may fool some of the idiots out there, but this is not a method to finance Obama's already-doomed "Jobs Act."  It's just the progressive's method of raising taxes on everyone, slowly, surely, and permanently, so that the size of our government and it's out of control spending can grow forever.

You Call That a Plan?

Obama most recent teleprompter recital simply served up another turd sandwich. This whole budget thing is nothing but smoke and mirrors. Obama's goal is to continuously increase the size of the government and the number of people forced to rely on government handouts to survive.

For all the pretense of fiscal responsibility, this year's deficit will be another record year, equal to roughly $1.6 trillion. Obama's master plan deals with a minute fraction of symbolic cuts, then punts on the spending at the heart of the deficit - entitlements. Filtering out all the scare tactics and ever-present campaign rhetoric, Obama simply wants to resort to the century-old Democratic formula of "tax the wealthy".

It is hard to imagine that Obama, or any other sane person for that matter, truly believes that raising the tax rates on incomes above $250,000 will fix our problem. I think he just wants to appease those Democrats on the far left, while pretending to be the leader everyone expected him to be. Especially wonderful was Obama's decision not to implement any real cuts until 2013 - right after his (hopefully unsuccessful) reelection.

According to IRS data, the entire taxable incomes of everyone making $100,000 or above in 2008 amounted to a bit less than $1.58 trillion. Even if every one of these people (of which I am one, and am far from wealthy) were taxed at 100%, it would not even cover Obama's deficit for this year alone.

Don't let this charlatan fool you. He lives in some weird liberal Twilight Zone, where everyone believes that the money you earn actually belongs to the government, and anyone who wants to lie on the sofa, only getting up to cash government checks, has a right to do so.

Our problem exists because each and every government program is important to someone, and all the squabbling and in-fighting between political parties will not allow any substantial cuts to take place. Cutting spending across the board, leaving no program untouched, is the only way to eliminate the partisan deadlock. But this will never happen. Our only hope is that the Republicans will win a 60-seat majority in the Senate in 2012, but only if we can get rid of the old guard GOP RINO's along with it.

Keeping in mind the magnitude of our current deficit, $1.6 trillion in spending cuts is required just to balance this year's budget. Both Obama and Boehner are trying to take credit for the "historic" levels of spending cuts recently agreed upon in order to prevent the government from shutting down. My calculator shows that $38.5 billion in cuts (a figure that is now in question) makes a very tiny dent, barely one cent on the dollar, in the $3.8 trillion our government will spend in fy2011.

-----------

How much is a trillion dollars? Numbers this size are difficult for most people to comprehend. Maybe this will help:  take one thousand dollar bills and put them in a pile. After you make one thousand piles, you would have $1 million.  Do this every day for 1,000 years, you would have piled up $365 billion.  This is a lot of money, roughly equal to what the US spent on oil imports in 2008.

After 2,000 years, you would have stacked up $730 billion, or a bit less than Obama's 2009 "Stimulus Bill" squandered on bailing out state governments and repaying unions for his election.

Finally, after nearly 3,000 years (2,739 you would have made a pile equalling $1 trillion. That is a really, really big pile of dollars. And currently our national debt is over 14 piles of this size...and growing by the second.