Why changing demographics mean more Democrats
By Michael R Shannon
web posted November 4, 2013
They always shoot the messenger. Even when he's being optimistic.
And Mitt Romney was optimistic when he said only 47 percent of the potential electorate wouldn't vote for him because they were dependent on the government. The actual Census Bureau figures are much worse.
The bureau reports 49.2 percent of your fellow citizens received some type of benefit from one or more government programs. A more accurate term would be ‘residents' since when bureaucrats display their compassion by distributing your money, a lack of documentation is seldom an obstacle. These particular recipients are not conservative, small government voters. They constitute a large portion of the Democrat base.
People in the US that receive means–tested government benefits actually outnumber the people who worked fulltime in 2011. In the fourth quarter of 2011, 108,592,000 individuals were on the receiving end of federal goodies compared with only 101,760,000 working fulltime.
This is a catastrophic situation for supporters of conservative, small government and it threatens to undermine the nation's social fabric. Possibly you feel sorry for these unfortunates, at least the ones that don't loot Walmart when the food stamp verification system crashes. But they don't return the favor.
Our current situation is the equivalent of enjoying a business dinner at a popular restaurant. At the conclusion of the meal other diners, waiters, valet parkers, kitchen staff and the hostess look at the remnants of your prime rib repast and vote to have you pay for everyone eating dinner that evening and add a 25 percent tip to the bill.
(I know some of you parents are thinking, "Hey! That's exactly what happened to me when my daughter got married!" But these are strangers sucking you dry, not relatives.)
Or you go to the doctor's office and while you sit in the waiting room, the other patients notice your elegant topcoat and they vote to have you foot the bill for everyone's treatment that day.
Farfetched? Unrealistic? A similar scenario takes place every Election Day when people who are essentially wards of the state vote for politicians who tell you to foot the bill for the ward's benefits. Please don't bore me with "but these people pay taxes, too." Paying sales tax with taxpayer's money is hardly "paying taxes." It's closer to an inefficient form of recycling.
Although these recipients are the vast bulk of the Democrat base, they are not alone. The big government base (BGB) also includes federal, state and local government employees; government contractors, grant recipients and the non–profit sector.
Here's how the numbers break out:
20,269,000 total government workers
13,700,000 non–profit workers
4,400,000 government contractors
100,000,000 enrolled in one of 80 different and overlapping "means–tested" welfare programs (this figure does not include Social Security or Medicare recipients)
TOTAL BGB: 138,369,000 individuals
In fact the federal government alone employs more people than the top ten private sector employers combined! Federal: 18,000,000 (not counting military) Vs. 5,677,046 for General Electric, Hewlett–Packard, Home Depot, Kroger, Target, UPS, IBM, McDonald's, Yum! Brands and Walmart.
Factor in another 9,000,000 or so formerly illegal voters after "immigration reform" and we are well on our way to Argentina.
This goes a long way toward explaining Obama's re–election.
Of course not all the 100,000,000 welfare recipients are voting age and not all government workers and contractors pull the Democrat lever. I know of patriotic government employees and contractors that put the good of the country before their own economic interests and I say God bless them.
Unfortunately, those stalwart individuals are more than offset by working Americans under the delusion Democrats favor the middle class. And don't forget the workforce also includes moles that work for MSNBC and other propaganda arms of the BGB, along with private university professors and other assorted leftists.
This is why it doesn't matter that the Obamacare website cost $500 million in hard–earned tax dollars and Chinese renminbi. That's more than Facebook spent in six full years according to reporter Andrew Couts.
But aside from the embarrassment, no one in the BGB cares. Their criteria for success is not does the website work, is the program efficient or are we using tax dollars wisely. The BGB measure of success is: Did I get my check and did it cash?
Voters living on Uncle Sam's dime are not going to be voting to downsize government. BGB economics are based on the existence of a money tree, possibly growing in China.
The Chinese and our other creditors would be the greatest gift to conservatives since Ronald Reagan if they simply refused to lend the Uncle Sam any more money. Limiting federal borrowing will limit the size of the federal government. Even our rapacious leftists couldn't tax their way out of that hole.
Unless the size of the government shrinks — and that includes benefits — there is no hope for avoiding soft socialism in our future. And — judging by the number of government agencies that have their own SWAT teams — maybe not so soft at that.
There are principled conservatives in office who refuse to vote to increase spending without a corresponding cut to balance the total. That's fine, but it's not enough. They must also refuse to add to the number of government employees or contractors without a corresponding reduction in force in another part of government.
Otherwise potential death spirals won't be limited to Obamacare.
Michael R. Shannon is a public relations and advertising consultant with corporate, government and political experience around the globe. He is a dynamic and entertaining keynote speaker. He can be reached at mandate.mmpr (at) gmail.com. He is also the author of the forthcoming book: "Funny Conservative" Is Not an Oxymoron. (Or any other type of moron).