Political Animal
Blog
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said he was only making “a historical observation” during a House Judiciary Committee hearing, but what an observation it was.
“[T]here was a time in American history when you had to be a male property owner in order to vote. The reason for that was, because they wanted the people who voted — that set the public policy, that decided on the taxes and the spending — to have some skin in the game.
“Now we have data out there that shows that 47 percent of American households don’t pay taxes, 51 percent of American wage-earners don’t have an income tax liability. And it’s pretty clear that there are a lot of people who are not in the workforce at all…. I don’t think they’re paying taxes. But many of them are voting. And when they vote, they vote for more government benefits. […]
“What if that were transferred into a society like today and it were [only] taxpayers that were voting?”
When elected officials look back longingly at 18th century voting laws, there’s a problem.
Actually, there’s more than one problem. Just at the surface, King is lying. When he says, for example, that “47 percent of American households don’t pay taxes,” that’s just demonstrably wrong. In case anyone’s forgotten, the relevant details matter: millions of Americans may be exempt from income taxes, but they still pay sales taxes, state taxes, local taxes, Social Security taxes, Medicare/Medicaid taxes, and in many instances, property taxes. It’s not as if these folks are getting away with something — the existing tax structure leaves them out of the income tax system because they don’t make enough money to qualify. Indeed, many are retirees who can’t earn an income because they’re no longer in the workforce.
Even putting that aside, isn’t the notion of basing voting rights on the size of one’s tax bill the kind of thing Americans should find offensive in the 21st century?
But it’s this “skin in the game” line that seems to have the most political salience. A growing number of Republican officials — including, by the way, Mitt Romney — believe that those who can afford to pay the least should be taxed more.
It seems like the sort of debate the parties should take to the nation. I imagine a lot of voters would be fascinated by the fact that the Republican mainstream maintains that those with the least ought to shoulder more of the tax burden.
Facebook
Twitter
mass on October 05, 2011 1:28 PM:
How about a 19-year-old Army Specialist in Iraq, with a wife and kid back home? Unlikely that he's paying income taxes on his meager earnings.
Does he have any fucking skin in the game?
cmdicely on October 05, 2011 1:28 PM:
Everyone who is subject to the authority of a government has skin in the game when it comes to voting. The "skin in the game" argument is ludicrous on its face, and only can be maintained because people argue about whether or not its a good idea, rather than challenging the basic premise as to whether or not the "skin in the game" description even makes any kind of sense in the first place.
martin on October 05, 2011 1:34 PM:
Of course, the "skin in the game" in the 18th century was also all white.
Sounds like King has been listening to Neal Boortz, as this only property owners should vote crap has been his hobby horse forever.
And it's not as if rich folks don't vote for more benefits for themselves.
c u n d gulag on October 05, 2011 1:35 PM:
Here's who would vote in King Steve Kings America:
Free
White
Over 21 (preferably over 51)
Male
Land/Home owning
Danp on October 05, 2011 1:40 PM:
By skin in the game, I assume he means something to lose, and therefore, by creating a pharaoh state, we merely eliminate the inconvenience of democracy. There is nothing 18th century about Steve King. He far precedes the Age of Enlightenment.
Objective Dem on October 05, 2011 1:41 PM:
Of course King's comments won't be considered "class warfare."
Josef K on October 05, 2011 1:45 PM:
Disgusting.
No other words required (or adequate).
Ron Mexico on October 05, 2011 1:45 PM:
King is also wrong about the origin of property requirements, in addition to being wrong all the time about everything else. Property requirements were not intended to keep poor people of color from "wasteful" spending, they were to prevent poor people from using political power to level the class system...
Cynthia on October 05, 2011 1:46 PM:
The beauty of his utopia is that it would guarantee a permanently expanding divide between the rich and the poor. Oh wait, we're already doing that.
R Johnston on October 05, 2011 1:47 PM:
"and in many instances, property taxes."
In pretty much all cases, property taxes. People who rent pay property taxes; they're just incorporated into the rent. Unless you're homeless or the property you live on is tax exempt you're paying property taxes, be it directly or indirectly.
kevo on October 05, 2011 1:48 PM:
Forrest Gump has more intellectual capability than the Representative who goes by the name Steve King!
The voters who elected that man should be fully ashamed of themselves as he is not worthy to hold such power in our society!
What about the social compact? What about small "d"democracy and its legacy? What about your capacity, Mr. King, to fully embrace the purpose of your job - representing the needs of your district and its constituents?
Hey King Dude, stop worrying about the 1% and start doing your job representing all your constituents whether they make 1 million dollars, or a meager $10,000 a year!
Oh, and quit crying about how good the olden days were because you are obviously wearing a color of glasses that has made you blind, Mr. King! -Kevo
RP on October 05, 2011 1:48 PM:
"No other words required (or adequate)."
Really? Because I think "f**king scumbag" also works pretty well.
Adamee on October 05, 2011 1:52 PM:
only taxpayers should get to vote? i strongly agree!
because not all taxpayers get right to vote.
Everyone including illegal residents and foreign tourists pay sales taxes, fees to public parks, roads and etc. Everyone contribute to the country.
but ok, let's just define "tax" as social security and payroll tax.
US permanent residents pay the exact same amount of tax as citizens but they don't get to vote. shouldn't they have easy pass to citizenship as they used to be?
while we are talking about this, if you want illegals to pay "tax", make them legal so they have to.
g on October 05, 2011 1:53 PM:
This argument plays well with the party of Resentment Politics.
It's all based on their resentement that someone else, somewhere, might be getting something they aren't. Might be.
g on October 05, 2011 1:57 PM:
following on Adamee's point - US permanent residents and even foreign residents can own property in the United States, and as such pay property tax.
Maybe those people should be allowed to vote, according to King?
Peter C on October 05, 2011 1:59 PM:
Well, the rich people certainly have a skin in the game and they've bought themselves a representative in Steve King. He has shown he will represent their interests above all else. There's no real reason for any other thinking being to support him, though.
Mudge on October 05, 2011 1:59 PM:
He said, "And when they vote, they vote for more government benefits." I missed that national referendumon that. The code, of course, is that they vote for Democrats. His buddies in the Republican controlled state legislatures are trying to help Rep. King solve his problem.
Citizen Alan on October 05, 2011 2:05 PM:
What gets me most of all is the bone-dead stupidity of people who make this argument! Most of the 47% that King is bitching about are people who have incomes that are less than their available deductions -- the Earned Income Tax Credit, the standard deduction, the mortgage interest deduction, etc. The only way these "moochers" can be forced to pay more in taxes is if all these deductions and credits are eliminated WHICH WILL ALSO INCREASE THE TAX BURDEN ON PEOPLE OUTSIDE THE 47% since they also benefit from the same deductions and credits!! Are these Tea Bagger freaks so consumed with hatred for the lower classes that they are willing to see THEIR OWN TAX BURDENS GO UP if doing so will force some poor slob without a pot to piss in give back some more of his pitiful salary to the government.
SecularAnimist on October 05, 2011 2:08 PM:
Steve Benen wrote: "millions of Americans may be exempt from income taxes"
No, millions of Americans are NOT "exempt" from income taxes.
Not making enough money to pay income tax does not make one "exempt" from income taxes, any more than it makes one "exempt" from buying food or medicine or paying rent or other things that people who can't afford to make ends meet can't do.
In the 18th century, people like Steve King were hauled in irons to the guillotine. So maybe there is something to be learned from that century.
ComradeAnon on October 05, 2011 2:09 PM:
When politicians are openly racist in Washington and on the record about it and outside of progressive blogs and a few people currently and formerly on MSNBC, no one else will talk, hear AND/OR care about it, I have no option but to think things are gonna get much, much worse. And I'm not even sure about the "before they will get better" part.
Amos Anan on October 05, 2011 2:36 PM:
Consider how "skin in the game" is being used.
In fact it's the wealthy that rarely, if ever have any real skin in any life task - and it's not a game. Of course the people that had the most skin in the "game" with the least "voice" were the slaves. But even today the wealthy almost never put real skin on the line. Who makes up the vast majority of military personnel? Not the wealthy and even when they do join for some long term career PR they usually get positions where their skin is at minimal risk. Who has skin on the line based on work conditions? Who has to wear hard hats? Who had to carry canaries with them as indicators of skin at risk?
Another point - as I read the percentage stats I got a sense of deja vu. They seemed very similar to the rates at which corporations in America pay taxes. Isn't there a regular majority of businesses in America that pay no taxes? Aren't some of the largest corporations in the world actually receiving billion dollar rebates from the U.S. government instead of paying any taxes?
For the wealthiest there's no real "skin" or skin in this American game.
The "Occupy Wall Street" group is misnamed. They're on Liberty Street, which is probably more fitting. Wall Street has been occupied for years. It's barricaded and guarded by men walking the street openly carrying assault rifles. For the wealthy, if there's any hint of their skin at risk, they take extreme precautions.
ottercliff on October 05, 2011 2:42 PM:
Steve King has more of a 14th century world view, so on this issue his 18th century frame of reference is downright progressive.
ET on October 05, 2011 2:47 PM:
Wow. I always thought that all those restrictions on who couldn't vote were more about making sure "undesirables" couldn't vote and only those deemed worthy were the ones voting. My bad.
jjm on October 05, 2011 2:48 PM:
One look into his eyes tells you he is psychotic.
And would that his world view was actually eighteenth century, when enlightenment, rationalism, liberty, equality and fraternity were formulated to the great benefit of humanity.
Kevin (not the famous one) on October 05, 2011 3:17 PM:
I was going to reintroduce the idea of 3/5ths but I'll go with what c u n d gulag @ 13:35 said and add Corporations.
Danie Kim on October 05, 2011 3:23 PM:
One of the things that amaze me about his is how there will be almost no consequence for his making that statement. If a congressman directly states that he is in favor of disenfranchising the poor or non-property-holders, there should be an audible howl of protest from the people, if not the media. Instead, it's just another press release.
I wonder if such statements as these, along with M. Bachmann's crazy assertions or R. Perry's plan to invade Mexico are part of a plan to test the waters and see just how much honesty the Republicans can show before there is some pushback. At some point, we'll have candidates or sitting officials openly calling for explicit religious requirements for public office, statements about the inherent right of the wealthy to govern, and calls for the suspension of essential laws and regulations.
Oh . . . wait.
Janet on October 05, 2011 3:30 PM:
Skin in the game? Yeah. You had to be born with white skin and foreskin.
RT on October 05, 2011 3:32 PM:
"How about a 19-year-old Army Specialist in Iraq, with a wife and kid back home? Unlikely that he's paying income taxes on his meager earnings. Does he have any fucking skin in the game?"
In the society of Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers, you put some skin in the game (and got the vote) not by paying taxes but by serving your country. It doesn't have to be the military, by the way.
Anonymous on October 05, 2011 3:57 PM:
Great points here. Who has "skin in the game"? Those serving in the military, almost all from poor or middle/lower classes? Teachers? Social workers? Medical professionals? Emergency personnel (police, fire)? Construction workers? Service workers? Manufacturing workers? Farmers? Miners? Transportation workers (truck drivers, pilots, train personnel) that deliver goods to market or take people where they need to go? All workers that support companies (admin, etc.)? You know, people that actually contribute to society. No matter how much they make, how much in taxes they pay.
Somehow I doubt that's who King is referring to. Someone should ask him who he is talking about specifically and does he include people mentioned above.
Reference Librarian on October 05, 2011 4:01 PM:
Ben Franklin had something to say about this back in 1789:
"The Combinations of Civil Society are not like those of a Set of Merchants, who club their Property in different Proportions for Building and Freighting a Ship, and may therefore have some Right to vote in the Disposition of the Voyage in a greater or less Degree according to their respective Contributions; but the important ends of Civil Society, and the personal Securities of Life and Liberty, these remain the same in every Member of the society; and the poorest continues to have an equal Claim to them with the most opulent, whatever Difference Time, Chance, or Industry may occasion in their Circumstances. On these Considerations, I am sorry to see the Signs this Paper I have been considering affords, of a Disposition among some of our People to commence an Aristocracy, by giving the Rich a predominancy in Government, a Choice peculiar to themselves in one half the Legislature to be proudly called the UPPER House, and the other Branch, chosen by the Majority of the People, degraded by the Denomination of the LOWER; and giving to this upper House a Permanency of four Years, and but two to the lower. I hope, therefore, that our Representatives in the Convention will not hastily go into these Innovations, but take the Advice of the Prophet, "Stand in the old ways, view the ancient Paths, consider them well, and be not among those that are given to Change."
Ohioan on October 05, 2011 4:25 PM:
This isn't a fringe line of thought - a colleague recently quipped, "Those welfare folks mooching off my tax dollars should not get to vote."
I should have responded, but was quite speechless.
Neil B on October 05, 2011 9:22 PM:
Steve, you give them too much credit. FICA etc. *are* income taxes, they are charged to your income and they mostly pay for other people's retirement, even if it warrants you getting some later too.
Polaris on October 06, 2011 8:27 AM:
Taxpayers and Citizens. Something out of a Jerry Pournelle novel - The CoDominium era before the Spartan Empire of Man.
The United States divided into two classes: Citizens and Taxpayers. Citizens are welfare dependents who are required to live in cities called Welfare Islands. They're uneducated and illiterate.
Taxpayers are the working, educated, and privileged upper class.
sceptic on October 06, 2011 10:44 AM:
Steve just hinted around at what is the unofficial Republican party position.....Not "One person, one vote", but rather "one dollar, one vote".
Perspecticus on October 06, 2011 12:00 PM:
"Even putting that aside, isn’t the notion of basing voting rights on the size of one’s tax bill the kind of thing Americans should find offensive in the 21st century?"
Yes. But the real question is: why do so many Americans not find it offensive? Most will never know what Steve King said. Some, primarily liberals, will be offended by what Steve King said. And far too many will agree word for word with everything Steve King said.