Let the children vote

Our politics are polarizing, to the point that, at least in Washington, D. C., little kids are getting into fights on the playground over politics.  Washington Post columnist Petula Dvorak quotes a letter to parents sent by a school and cites her own 5-year-old’s political dilemma:

“A gentle reminder: As a Quaker school and as an inclusive community, I am reaching out to you, the adults, to talk to your child about respecting others’ views and seeing the Light in each classmate and colleague despite differences of opinion. We in Lower School have found our students at times judging one another harshly for each other’s political views or party preferences.

“This is relevant, of course, in relation to many issues in school life, not just the election. Our children do mimic our adult behavior, and this is an excellent opportunity for each of us to express our views in a manner that is not insulting or demeaning of others.”

Or you could just label it: “Stop Teasing the Republicans!”

My 5-year-old is all in pieces because some of his playground friends like Mitt Romney and others like President Obama. He is torn.

“I just don’t know who to vote for,” he said.

Meanwhile, an idea is being floated that would let children vote!  Actually, their parents would vote for them until they gradually transition into maturity.  Semyon Dukach explains:

Three major extensions of voting rights have been implemented since our republic was founded. The 15th Amendment extended suffrage to former slaves after the Civil War. The 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote in 1920. And the 26th Amendment lowered the voting age from 21 to 18, to match the draft age during the Vietnam War.

There is one clear path for our nation to navigate today’s crisis of political deadlock, growing debt, and under-investment in infrastructure, core science and education. We must lead the world by expanding our democracy and amending our Constitution. We should include those who remain unrepresented in our democratic process: children.

The most straightforward solution to reasonably represent the interests of children younger than 13 is known as “Demeny voting,” after the demographer who raised the issue in the 1980s. Under the Demeny system, the parents or guardians of these children split the vote of each child. In cases in which legal custody is shared between a father and mother, both would control an additional half-vote at the polls for each of their children age 13 and younger.

For example, if a couple has two children, each parent would wield two votes (one each for themselves and a half-vote for each child). A family of four would have four votes. In a family of five, with two adults and three children, each parent would have 2.5 votes (one for themselves and 1.5 for the three children). Again, this adds up to the total number of people in the family. If a single parent had sole custody, he or she would get the entire extra vote.

For adolescents, a simple variation of the Demeny voting scheme could allow them to be gradually emancipated. They could cast 20 percent of their vote at age 14, 40 percent at 15, 60 percent at 16, 80 percent at 17 and 100 percent at 18 (as they may today). The remaining diminishing percentage of their vote would be split each year between their parents or legal guardians, just as in Demeny voting, so that the total number of votes eligible to be cast in the nation will always be equal to the total number of citizens of all ages.

This voting scheme has drawbacks, including that it gives excessive power to parents of large families. And some parents might vote to protect their own interests instead of their children’s. But it would still be a crucial improvement over the status quo. Giving people younger than 18 indirect political representation will result in a more forward-looking balance of power among Americans. It would enable more political investment in our children’s future. Most important, by completing our national journey from a country ruled by landowning white men to one run on the principle of “one person, one vote,” we would lead the world in securing the inalienable universal human right to democratic representation.

via Giving children the right to vote – The Washington Post.

Well, this would give families greater clout.  Counting chads for fractions of votes would be rather challenging.  This would make universal suffrage more universal.  And it would indeed encourage large families and give them a bigger say in the body politic.  It still, though, strikes me as insane.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • http://theoldadam.com/ Steve Martin

    Why not?

    Letting 18 year olds vote isn’t much different. They don’t know beans about this country, or our constitution, or real life, anyway.

    Maybe they can teach our pets how to punch a chad, too.

  • http://theoldadam.com/ Steve Martin

    Why not?

    Letting 18 year olds vote isn’t much different. They don’t know beans about this country, or our constitution, or real life, anyway.

    Maybe they can teach our pets how to punch a chad, too.

  • Pete

    “Maybe they can teach our pets how to punch a chad…”

    Or Floridians.

  • Pete

    “Maybe they can teach our pets how to punch a chad…”

    Or Floridians.

  • http://theoldadam.com/ Steve Martin

    Oh yeah…forgot ’bout dem Floridians…

  • http://theoldadam.com/ Steve Martin

    Oh yeah…forgot ’bout dem Floridians…

  • Michael B.

    “Well, this would give families greater clout. And it would indeed encourage large families”

    Yes, but what kind of families? Nuclear families? Or would be it single mothers with 5 kids with 3 different “baby daddies”? Or something else?

    Also, what percentage of American parents have both the means and the will to financially support large families? And if they don’t, their children become dependent upon the government. We shouldn’t be surprised then if they aren’t exactly fiscally conservative.

  • Michael B.

    “Well, this would give families greater clout. And it would indeed encourage large families”

    Yes, but what kind of families? Nuclear families? Or would be it single mothers with 5 kids with 3 different “baby daddies”? Or something else?

    Also, what percentage of American parents have both the means and the will to financially support large families? And if they don’t, their children become dependent upon the government. We shouldn’t be surprised then if they aren’t exactly fiscally conservative.

  • JenSny

    It would just be another area where parental right would be questioned ” Did you ‘REALLY ‘vote with your child’s intentions in mind?”

  • JenSny

    It would just be another area where parental right would be questioned ” Did you ‘REALLY ‘vote with your child’s intentions in mind?”

  • Patrick kyle

    Wow, that is an extremely unwise idea. We don’t even have sane laws concerning voter ID’s and people want to open voting to a whole new class of easily exploited citizens.

  • Patrick kyle

    Wow, that is an extremely unwise idea. We don’t even have sane laws concerning voter ID’s and people want to open voting to a whole new class of easily exploited citizens.

  • Random Lutheran

    The best, simplest rule to apply when attempting to explain human behavior and/or opinions: most people are stupid.

    That, and I’m pretty sure that Chad deserved that punch.

  • Random Lutheran

    The best, simplest rule to apply when attempting to explain human behavior and/or opinions: most people are stupid.

    That, and I’m pretty sure that Chad deserved that punch.

  • Tom Hering

    @ 1 and @ 6, I know the title of the Post piece is “Giving children the right to vote,” but that’s not what the author is actually proposing.

  • Tom Hering

    @ 1 and @ 6, I know the title of the Post piece is “Giving children the right to vote,” but that’s not what the author is actually proposing.

  • Cincinnatus

    If this is a step back in the direction of the household vote, then I’m all for it.

  • Cincinnatus

    If this is a step back in the direction of the household vote, then I’m all for it.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @ 9

    That was kind of my gut reaction as well. Most kids are in two parent homes. Married people have more kids. Conservatives have more kids. Religious people have more kids. And people who have only one partner in their entire life have the most kids. Pragmatists among us might go for such a proposal, but on principle, it is a mess.

    Every story is different, but when you examine the figures, actual single parent statistics may surprise you. According to Custodial Mothers and Fathers and Their Child Support: 2007, released by the U.S. Census Bureau in November, 2009, there are approximately 13.7 million single parents in the United States today, and those parents are responsible for raising 21.8 million children (approximately 26% of children under 21 in the U.S. today).

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @ 9

    That was kind of my gut reaction as well. Most kids are in two parent homes. Married people have more kids. Conservatives have more kids. Religious people have more kids. And people who have only one partner in their entire life have the most kids. Pragmatists among us might go for such a proposal, but on principle, it is a mess.

    Every story is different, but when you examine the figures, actual single parent statistics may surprise you. According to Custodial Mothers and Fathers and Their Child Support: 2007, released by the U.S. Census Bureau in November, 2009, there are approximately 13.7 million single parents in the United States today, and those parents are responsible for raising 21.8 million children (approximately 26% of children under 21 in the U.S. today).

  • SKPeterson

    Voting is so simple a four year-old could do it. Somebody get me a four year-old.

    Apologies to Marx.

  • SKPeterson

    Voting is so simple a four year-old could do it. Somebody get me a four year-old.

    Apologies to Marx.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com tODD

    I don’t know about the rest of you, but I believe the children are our future. Teach them well, and let them lead the way.

    Besides, letting them vote would give them a sense of pride, to make it easier — you know, let the children’s laughter remind us how we used to be.

    Everybody’s searching for a hero these days. People need someone to look up to. But politically speaking, I never found anyone who fulfilled my needs. A lonely place to be, indeed. So I learned to depend on me.

    And that has made all the difference.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com tODD

    I don’t know about the rest of you, but I believe the children are our future. Teach them well, and let them lead the way.

    Besides, letting them vote would give them a sense of pride, to make it easier — you know, let the children’s laughter remind us how we used to be.

    Everybody’s searching for a hero these days. People need someone to look up to. But politically speaking, I never found anyone who fulfilled my needs. A lonely place to be, indeed. So I learned to depend on me.

    And that has made all the difference.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    Sure why not let the kids vote, here in Chicago the dead vote twice.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    Sure why not let the kids vote, here in Chicago the dead vote twice.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com tODD

    DLit2C (@13), and the living tell the same tired jokes more than twice!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com tODD

    DLit2C (@13), and the living tell the same tired jokes more than twice!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com tODD

    Okay, but seriously, the first article excerpt reminded me of when I was in kindergarten, back in 1980. Our class held a straw poll — something I kind of doubt they’d do today — and I was quite honestly shocked to find myself the only child in my class who supported John Anderson. That’s right, I was an independent all the way back in kindergarten.

    I remember trying to persuade my best friend right before the poll that Carter was a bad choice because, as I understood it, he’d somehow made milk more expensive, and I liked to drink milk.

    I can’t remember who the other candidate was in that race.

    Anyhow, I don’t remember the whole exercise being all that acrimonious. But I’m sure that, even back then, I knew how to hold my own ground, no matter how lonely that position was.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com tODD

    Okay, but seriously, the first article excerpt reminded me of when I was in kindergarten, back in 1980. Our class held a straw poll — something I kind of doubt they’d do today — and I was quite honestly shocked to find myself the only child in my class who supported John Anderson. That’s right, I was an independent all the way back in kindergarten.

    I remember trying to persuade my best friend right before the poll that Carter was a bad choice because, as I understood it, he’d somehow made milk more expensive, and I liked to drink milk.

    I can’t remember who the other candidate was in that race.

    Anyhow, I don’t remember the whole exercise being all that acrimonious. But I’m sure that, even back then, I knew how to hold my own ground, no matter how lonely that position was.

  • SKPeterson

    Well, based on Todd’s lucid observations @ 12, I’m voting for Whitney Houston. Again.

  • SKPeterson

    Well, based on Todd’s lucid observations @ 12, I’m voting for Whitney Houston. Again.

  • Cincinnatus

    I like to think that I would have been an Anderson supporter in 1980, but, alas, I was not politically cognizant at the time.

  • Cincinnatus

    I like to think that I would have been an Anderson supporter in 1980, but, alas, I was not politically cognizant at the time.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com tODD

    SK (@16), with Robert Frost as the VP, right? I can just see the bumper stickers now: “Houston / Frost : A snowball’s chance in hell”.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com tODD

    SK (@16), with Robert Frost as the VP, right? I can just see the bumper stickers now: “Houston / Frost : A snowball’s chance in hell”.

  • SKPeterson

    Perhaps having the VP also be the Poet Laureate would actually make the position worthwhile. And if the President should be unable to fulfill his term of office, having a poet in place would be an ironic commentary on Plato’s Republic.

  • SKPeterson

    Perhaps having the VP also be the Poet Laureate would actually make the position worthwhile. And if the President should be unable to fulfill his term of office, having a poet in place would be an ironic commentary on Plato’s Republic.

  • Tom Hering

    Speaking of third parties, the presidential debate is tonight.

    http://www.webpronews.com/watch-the-third-party-candidates-debate-live-on-youtube-2012-10

  • Tom Hering

    Speaking of third parties, the presidential debate is tonight.

    http://www.webpronews.com/watch-the-third-party-candidates-debate-live-on-youtube-2012-10

  • http://www.oldsolar.com/currentblog.php Rick Ritchie

    “Most important, by completing our national journey from a country ruled by landowning white men to one run on the principle of “one person, one vote,” we would lead the world in securing the inalienable universal human right to democratic representation.”

    If democratic representation is an inalienable right, then how does this plan move in that direction? An alienable right is a right that has been moved from one party to another. In this case, the right seems to be alienated from the child and given to the parent. If this does not constitute alienation as somehow parent and child are connected biologically, then we could as easily argue that when husbands voted and wives did not, the situation could have been remedied by giving the husband two votes. We can’t have it both ways. If someone else voting on your behalf is not alienating your right, then these rights were quite as well secured in the past as in the present.

  • http://www.oldsolar.com/currentblog.php Rick Ritchie

    “Most important, by completing our national journey from a country ruled by landowning white men to one run on the principle of “one person, one vote,” we would lead the world in securing the inalienable universal human right to democratic representation.”

    If democratic representation is an inalienable right, then how does this plan move in that direction? An alienable right is a right that has been moved from one party to another. In this case, the right seems to be alienated from the child and given to the parent. If this does not constitute alienation as somehow parent and child are connected biologically, then we could as easily argue that when husbands voted and wives did not, the situation could have been remedied by giving the husband two votes. We can’t have it both ways. If someone else voting on your behalf is not alienating your right, then these rights were quite as well secured in the past as in the present.

  • dust

    let them drink alcohol (the first thing they’ll vote in anyway?) and fight in wars too :)

    cheers!

  • dust

    let them drink alcohol (the first thing they’ll vote in anyway?) and fight in wars too :)

    cheers!

  • Lou G.

    This is the most idiotic idea I’ve seen. And the idea that conservative idealogues would push for it thinking that some how it would BENEFIT the conservative position, PULEEZE.
    That is the most irrational response ever. Women/wives don’t vote the same way as their husbands, so why in the world would you think that a 15 year old/adolescent would follow vote lock step with their dad? Geez.
    If we open this up, Lady Gaga might run next time…

  • Lou G.

    This is the most idiotic idea I’ve seen. And the idea that conservative idealogues would push for it thinking that some how it would BENEFIT the conservative position, PULEEZE.
    That is the most irrational response ever. Women/wives don’t vote the same way as their husbands, so why in the world would you think that a 15 year old/adolescent would follow vote lock step with their dad? Geez.
    If we open this up, Lady Gaga might run next time…

  • dust

    Lou G….you think this is more idiotic than pets being able to sue in court for a violation of their rights?

    well, most likely, but if that’s true (am not really sure since heard it on fox news, most likely, ha) but perhaps pets should have the vote too :)

    cheers….or rather, bow wow and woof woof!

  • dust

    Lou G….you think this is more idiotic than pets being able to sue in court for a violation of their rights?

    well, most likely, but if that’s true (am not really sure since heard it on fox news, most likely, ha) but perhaps pets should have the vote too :)

    cheers….or rather, bow wow and woof woof!

  • Lou G.

    I voted in my first election in 1980 at age 19.
    And I barely remember Anderson :) . Blast from the past.

  • Tom Hering

    … why in the world would you think that a 15 year old/adolescent would follow vote lock step with their dad? (@ 23)

    Why in the world would you think that’s an issue when it’s the parents who receive and cast the extra votes?

  • Lou G.

    I voted in my first election in 1980 at age 19.
    And I barely remember Anderson :) . Blast from the past.

  • Tom Hering

    … why in the world would you think that a 15 year old/adolescent would follow vote lock step with their dad? (@ 23)

    Why in the world would you think that’s an issue when it’s the parents who receive and cast the extra votes?

  • Lou G.

    Dust: Okay. I was speaking hyperbolically. No, it’s not the MOST idiotic thing… But what is just as idiotic as liberals (like Peter Singer) who want pets to be able to sue is conservatives wanting their adolescent kids to vote. I don’t care if they were baptized as infants, they’re not going to vote lock step with you (just like your wives don’t).

  • Lou G.

    Dust: Okay. I was speaking hyperbolically. No, it’s not the MOST idiotic thing… But what is just as idiotic as liberals (like Peter Singer) who want pets to be able to sue is conservatives wanting their adolescent kids to vote. I don’t care if they were baptized as infants, they’re not going to vote lock step with you (just like your wives don’t).

  • Lou G.

    Tom, okay. I should have read the fine print. duh. They’re giving 1/2 the vote or something like that to the parent. You’re right, that does change things up… My apologies to the right wing idealogues…

  • Lou G.

    Tom, okay. I should have read the fine print. duh. They’re giving 1/2 the vote or something like that to the parent. You’re right, that does change things up… My apologies to the right wing idealogues…

  • fjsteve

    Glad to see you guys are giving this proposal all the serious consideration it deserves.

  • fjsteve

    Glad to see you guys are giving this proposal all the serious consideration it deserves.

  • Tom Hering

    What bugs me about Dukach’s idea is his assumption that aged voters will only vote their own interests, with no concern for the future of the country – for the generations to come. Hence the the idea that there’s a need to balance the supposed selfishness of seniors by making youngish parents an exceptionally powerful electorate, because they have a natural concern for the future generation they’ve birthed. As if aged voters haven’t been parents themselves, or aren’t now grandparents.

  • Tom Hering

    What bugs me about Dukach’s idea is his assumption that aged voters will only vote their own interests, with no concern for the future of the country – for the generations to come. Hence the the idea that there’s a need to balance the supposed selfishness of seniors by making youngish parents an exceptionally powerful electorate, because they have a natural concern for the future generation they’ve birthed. As if aged voters haven’t been parents themselves, or aren’t now grandparents.

  • dust

    Tom…sorry to burst your bubble, but most people do vote in their own best interests. that might even be one of the fundamental “philosophical” truths about the human condition that guided the foundation of our type of government?

    well, except for nice little kitty (other word illegal on this site!) cats such as yourself :)

    cheers!

  • dust

    Tom…sorry to burst your bubble, but most people do vote in their own best interests. that might even be one of the fundamental “philosophical” truths about the human condition that guided the foundation of our type of government?

    well, except for nice little kitty (other word illegal on this site!) cats such as yourself :)

    cheers!

  • Tom Hering

    dust @ 31, I’ve never imagined that people don’t vote their own best interests. But do you imagine that aged voters, with children and grandchildren, don’t also consider what’s best for the future of their offspring? Isn’t this ability to temper one’s own best interests with the interests of others the very thing that Dukach’s idea depends upon? My point is that he’s wrong in crediting only youngish parents with this ability.

  • Tom Hering

    dust @ 31, I’ve never imagined that people don’t vote their own best interests. But do you imagine that aged voters, with children and grandchildren, don’t also consider what’s best for the future of their offspring? Isn’t this ability to temper one’s own best interests with the interests of others the very thing that Dukach’s idea depends upon? My point is that he’s wrong in crediting only youngish parents with this ability.

  • Cincinnatus

    Tom@32:

    Actually, it seems what he ought to be doing is acknowledging that “youngish parents” also vote their own best interests in most cases. The distinction between the elderly AARP member and the late-twenty-something father, however, is that the temporal horizons of the latter’s self interests are expanded. The young parent will be thinking about whether Social Security will be around for him in forty years rather than just next year. He’ll be interested in long term viability for the program, or even alternatives to the program.

    Meanwhile, the AARP’s demagogic scare tactics work. The elderly are worried about losing their programs tomorrow. And they often vote like it.

  • Cincinnatus

    Tom@32:

    Actually, it seems what he ought to be doing is acknowledging that “youngish parents” also vote their own best interests in most cases. The distinction between the elderly AARP member and the late-twenty-something father, however, is that the temporal horizons of the latter’s self interests are expanded. The young parent will be thinking about whether Social Security will be around for him in forty years rather than just next year. He’ll be interested in long term viability for the program, or even alternatives to the program.

    Meanwhile, the AARP’s demagogic scare tactics work. The elderly are worried about losing their programs tomorrow. And they often vote like it.

  • dust

    Have heard some young people begin to question why they should pay for the large retirement and other pension like plans, including social security, since it will cut into the service they receive in the here and now, and plus creates a larger tax burden for them now, than they would have without it.

    Can only imagine it’s a matter of time until they start looking around for politicians who will enact the kind of legislation to help them out of these commitments..commitments they did not vote for, by the way.

    Hopefully, if the economy returns and folks are not so sensitive about budget issues, since we are enjoying the good life again, all this will blow over?

    It’s an exciting issue….just asks the Greeks :)

    cheers!

  • dust

    Have heard some young people begin to question why they should pay for the large retirement and other pension like plans, including social security, since it will cut into the service they receive in the here and now, and plus creates a larger tax burden for them now, than they would have without it.

    Can only imagine it’s a matter of time until they start looking around for politicians who will enact the kind of legislation to help them out of these commitments..commitments they did not vote for, by the way.

    Hopefully, if the economy returns and folks are not so sensitive about budget issues, since we are enjoying the good life again, all this will blow over?

    It’s an exciting issue….just asks the Greeks :)

    cheers!

  • Joe

    tODD @ 12– why’d you have to go and do that? Thanks for the ear worm.

  • Joe

    tODD @ 12– why’d you have to go and do that? Thanks for the ear worm.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Hence the the idea that there’s a need to balance the supposed selfishness of seniors by making youngish parents an exceptionally powerful electorate, because they have a natural concern for the future generation they’ve birthed. As if aged voters haven’t been parents themselves, or aren’t now grandparents.”

    Just to be clear, >20% of people over 40 have no children, and they do want other people’s children to keep paying them their benefits. Remember, Social Security and Medicare are just plain old taxes and benefits that exist in the present time and are wealth transfers from the young and less well to do to the older and more financially secure; literally a tax on the poorer to give to the richer. There is no contract of any kind nor any guarantee of future benefit because such stipulations were specifically ruled unconstitutional. Social Security and Medicare can be repealed tomorrow. As soon as there is the will to abolish them, they will be gone.
    Median net worth of a person aged 35-44 is $39k.
    Median net worth of a person aged 65+ is $170k.

    http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/median-net-worth-age.html

    You can certainly make the argument that the health care act is ethical inasmuch as it attempts to give more value to those who are working to pay for the health care of older people.

    As soon as the young decide they don’t want to pay for those benefits they can just end or reduce the programs. No legal construct is standing in their way. Only inertia and media cheerleading keeps it going. The constitution does not support it in any way. Rather the constitution unambiguously defends the rights of Congress to abolish it at any time and specifically rejects the public’s claim that there is any kind of contractual obligation.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Hence the the idea that there’s a need to balance the supposed selfishness of seniors by making youngish parents an exceptionally powerful electorate, because they have a natural concern for the future generation they’ve birthed. As if aged voters haven’t been parents themselves, or aren’t now grandparents.”

    Just to be clear, >20% of people over 40 have no children, and they do want other people’s children to keep paying them their benefits. Remember, Social Security and Medicare are just plain old taxes and benefits that exist in the present time and are wealth transfers from the young and less well to do to the older and more financially secure; literally a tax on the poorer to give to the richer. There is no contract of any kind nor any guarantee of future benefit because such stipulations were specifically ruled unconstitutional. Social Security and Medicare can be repealed tomorrow. As soon as there is the will to abolish them, they will be gone.
    Median net worth of a person aged 35-44 is $39k.
    Median net worth of a person aged 65+ is $170k.

    http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/median-net-worth-age.html

    You can certainly make the argument that the health care act is ethical inasmuch as it attempts to give more value to those who are working to pay for the health care of older people.

    As soon as the young decide they don’t want to pay for those benefits they can just end or reduce the programs. No legal construct is standing in their way. Only inertia and media cheerleading keeps it going. The constitution does not support it in any way. Rather the constitution unambiguously defends the rights of Congress to abolish it at any time and specifically rejects the public’s claim that there is any kind of contractual obligation.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @14 But tODD, I was only half joking. =P

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @14 But tODD, I was only half joking. =P

  • kerner

    John Anderson was the first presidential candidate to appear on Saturday Night Live; the real person, not as a parody. At least that I know of.

  • kerner

    John Anderson was the first presidential candidate to appear on Saturday Night Live; the real person, not as a parody. At least that I know of.

  • dust

    sg……very good points, right on! not to mention health care benefits, yikes…those can be taken away and/or significantly reduced with an act of congress or perhaps executive action?

    just like pension plans and health care in the private sector….it’s there, if we can afford it, and have the cash but otherwise sorry.

    so that’s another good reason for a strong economy? also why some folks consider all this debt being piled on to the next few generations to be not just bad economics, but a moral issue?

    well, it’s nothing another good, long world war can’t solve, just ask fdr and his groupies :)

    cheers!

  • dust

    sg……very good points, right on! not to mention health care benefits, yikes…those can be taken away and/or significantly reduced with an act of congress or perhaps executive action?

    just like pension plans and health care in the private sector….it’s there, if we can afford it, and have the cash but otherwise sorry.

    so that’s another good reason for a strong economy? also why some folks consider all this debt being piled on to the next few generations to be not just bad economics, but a moral issue?

    well, it’s nothing another good, long world war can’t solve, just ask fdr and his groupies :)

    cheers!

  • GEA

    The minimum age for a congressman is 35 years old. Why not raise the minimum voting age to 35 and make it consistant with Congress?

  • GEA

    The minimum age for a congressman is 35 years old. Why not raise the minimum voting age to 35 and make it consistant with Congress?

  • dust

    GEA…or lower the minimum age for a congressman to 18 :)

    cheers!

  • dust

    GEA…or lower the minimum age for a congressman to 18 :)

    cheers!

  • GEA

    That’s right. I forgot that we already have children in Congress…

  • GEA

    That’s right. I forgot that we already have children in Congress…


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X