Of course they should be allowed to vote. But they should not be allowed to join unions.

There should be a test for voting. If you can’t name your 2 Senators or Representative you should not be allowed to vote.

Dave Richards said:
There should be a test for voting. If you can’t name your 2 Senators or Representative you should not be allowed to vote.

Obama would’ve never been elected , seriously.

Nice headline Ray, you have learned well. Who the hell pays attention to “I’m not suggesting that public employees should be denied the right to vote, but that there are certain cases in which their stake in the matter may be too great.” when ya lead with a headline like that.

You fit right in.

I’m not suggesting that public employees should be denied the right to vote…”

Lol , That headline is spot on !

Azarkhan said:
Of course they should be allowed to vote. But they should not be allowed to join unions.

YES . No unions for those paid with public money .

Hey, they can’t count or read, why should they vote?

notsofast said:
Hey, they can’t count or read, why should they vote?

What if their grandfather had been eligible to vote?

Dave Richards said:
There should be a test for voting. If you can’t name your 2 Senators or Representative you should not be allowed to vote.

How American of you.

Ray Rahman said:
Sajak seems to thinks his show is at least as important as the government.

Actually, his show is a lot like the government. People come on, do nearly nothing for half an hour, and he gives them free money.

Of course public employees should be allowed to vote. But a stickier issue is government employees using money they get from the government to lobby the government for more money….which in turn they use to do more lobbying, etc. etc. You might call this the California Syndrome. It always has an unhappy ending for taxpayers.

@felixw: Federal agencies can not legally lobby. They can work with non-profit groups that might exist only to support the agency, they can host events to which politicians may be invited and they can answer questions, but federal employees or agencies can not explicitly lobby.

Magister said:
@felixw: Federal agencies can not legally lobby. They can work with non-profit groups that might exist only to support the agency, they can host events to which politicians may be invited and they can answer questions, but federal employees or agencies can not explicitly lobby.

I’m not talking about federal agencies lobbying. I am referring to state government employee unions, which have more influence on the Democrat party in California (and other places as well) than any other group, hands down. They use their influence to promote more big, bloated government, and the end result is a state tottering on the brink of bankruptcy.

Magister said:
What if their grandfather had been eligible to vote?

Yes, what this country needs is more ignoramus like you.

John Stuart Mill was correct:

He’s no Alex Trebek

Dave Richards said:
There should be a test for voting. If you can’t name your 2 Senators or Representative you should not be allowed to vote.

Such a process would mean the end of the GOP and the entire Tealiban would show up to vote on last Tuesday in December.

Bill Adkins said:
Such a process would mean the end of the GOP and the entire Tealiban would show up to vote on last Tuesday in December.

Bill you seriously don’t want that debate ..Republican base vs Democratic base , and who is more informed , do you ?

The largely brainwashed minority base , is the only reason your party has had so much power in the past 40 years.

notsofast said:
Yes, what this country needs is more ignoramus like you.

Thank you for your support. There’s punch and cookies in the lobby.
—

@felixw: As happened earlier today, I agree with the broad parameters of your concept.

The problem that we see with State and Federal employees is that government has gotten so big (largest employer in the USA) public employees literally have the ability to vote themselves guarantees that no one else gets.

If it is true that people tend to act in their own interest, then the danger we face is that one part of the population (federal and state govt employees) can compel the rest of the country to guarantee them jobs, wages, security, and benefits that ignore traditional market forces. It has become very apparent that President Obama recognizes the power base that are the federal and state employees and the largest chunks of the Federal Stimulus package went to projects that benefited them.

So while on the face of it Sajaks musings seem self evidently absurd since we all are guaranteed the right to vote, we now see that while the private sector floundered these past 2 years, there was no belt tightening happening among govt workers or any pretense that there would be any as they are perhaps the most powerful voting bloc there is.

M Colins said:
If it is true that people tend to act in their own interest, then the danger we face is that one part of the population (federal and state govt employees) can compel the rest of the country to guarantee them jobs, wages, security, and benefits that ignore traditional market forces. It has become very apparent that President Obama recognizes the power base that are the federal and state employees and the largest chunks of the Federal Stimulus package went to projects that benefited them.

But see. all but possibly a few states with oil income have had to implement drastic budget cuts duing the recent downturn. In fact, the state (poorly managed) state in which I currently live has had so much trouble paying their bills that some vendors have stopped doing business with them; the doctor’s office has a sign that says since the state self-insures, employees will have to pre-pay for all services and wait for theor reimbursement checks on their own and the college up the street has implemented a voluntary unpaide furlough program for those wanting to protect their department’s budget..

And though some people may see a highway, an airport runway or a National Park visitor’s center as a perpetuation of government employment, but there are as many or more who believe that accountability rules, plus public scrutiny, guarantees that almost all of the funds are dedicated to the actual project which are built by private contractors, not overhead or administrative costs. Not to mention that federal laws limit direct Congressional appropriations to individuals and private corporations, so by having the funds distributed by an agency is pretty much the only way, the investments could be allocated.

All government unions should be made illegal.

Can we extend that restriction on voting to DEMOCRATS?

It’s two foxes and a chicken voting on what’s for dinner.

Absolutely yes and as Ben Franklin argued, only property owners should be allowed to vote. It makes no sense that someone who has no stake in the results of a government other than the handouts they get and the freedoms they enjoy should be allowed to influence it’s makeup.

We need to repeal the 17th amendment to return the Senator’s loyalties to the States rather the Federal Government as well.

“Absolutely yes and as Ben Franklin argued, only property owners should be allowed to vote”

Perhaps in order to vote, you might be required to show a copy of last years tax return. Personally, I know people just starting out who may not be able to afford property yet, but at least they’re working. If you’re not paying money into supporting the government, why should you be allowed to determine how the money is spent? And please, don’t throw “democracy” at me. Our government is not now, nor was it EVER a democracy. It is a representative republic. A democracy is nothing but the will of the mob.

fb100000558915248 said:
Perhaps in order to vote, you might be required to show a copy of last years tax return.

This is not a moot idea. To take this thought experiment one step farther one could ask if Government Employees actually pay taxes since they are paid from the Treasury.

This leads to another question, how much money is wasted taking taxes (to put right back into the Treasury) out of Gov’t Employees’ paycheck and then having them File tax returns?

There is certainly a difference between those that ‘Fill the Coffers’ via taxation, and those who just recycle what ‘we’ put in the Coffers via ‘taxation’.

I absolutely agree…no unions in government. The tax payer is being held hostage by them already. We as the public are unable to make necessary changes whether it be in education or street cleaning. Every citizen should have a right to vote but government employee unions should be eliminated. When they’re getting double the average salary and better benefits than the people who pay them than we have a huge problem. Government needs to be smaller and not unionized. Anyone who wants to start a petition with me, please let me know and let’s get it out to everyone in the country. Unfortunately, there are so many people in government jobs now that those of us in private businesses may lose but, at least we’d get the conversation started.

“Personally, I know people just starting out who may not be able to afford property yet, but at least they’re working.”

Agreed, but when they do get property – perhaps even a car, a 401K stock investment or other evidence that they are succeeding using their back instead of on the backs of others then let them vote.

I’m just dreaming. The unions aren’t the problem. It’s more basic than that.

The are approximately 2 million federal employees. Large yes, but only about 2 percent of the population and half per capita then there were 30 years ago (peaked under Nixon). For all the screams about growing government, the issue is not really with federal employees. The real issue is the 5 to 7 million “shadow government” of private contractors that have been growing exponentially, starting under Clinton and even more so under Bush. The problem is all this outsourcing has resulted in a less efficient government without seeing any substantial cost savings.

And while I generally don’t support unions, I think if anyone needs them it might be government workers. Imagine a workplace run by constantly turned over political appointees, a certain portion of have no long term interest or understanding of your organization. That doesn’t even mention the political hacks who get elected by demonize you but have negligible understanding of the your job or your mission (sorry anti-government people… most – not all, but most the jobs – in the government are actually pretty important.

BTW, federal employees unions have no say in employees pay or benefits. These are not negotiable items, only legislative. What can be negotiated (and need to be pulled back) are employee protections that make it too difficult to fire unproductive and problem employees once they have completed their one-year probationary period.

Gotta love those conservative solutions. Every single one to a T seems to be “thats no fair, why should they be doing better than me.” Everything is a race to the bottom

Public servants I guarantee work as hard if not harder than you and they benefit society, not some private guy and a handful of consumers. They are better educated by far, and whatever self pitying meme you have about “ohhh my tax dollars” is a joke. They pay taxes too, which you consume in services. Get over yourself.

I can’t believe conservatives actually unironically talk about reducing the franchise in the 21st century. Everything in their life comes down to taxes, and how their life would be so much better with that extra $6000-$8000, but forget about getting it another way. Can’t win elections? Propose real solutions, not endlessly giving yourself tax relief and then bitch about how everyone else is supported by you and only you while you in the same sentence advocate damaging programs that are a benefit to all of society

There is no danger in ignoring “traditional” market forces. You got what you wanted, the rich have more of your money, and we got what we wanted, more public services. Now you’re unhappy and want equanimity by terminating their jobs to recoup “your portion” of their wages. You’ll get what, $200 less of a burden if you fired them all, which would be eaten away as you paid it back to their private market replacements. What a joke