Elderly and Homeless and Poor, Oh My!

October is upon us, and as is the case each October, the month promises to provide an assortment of ghouls, goblins, and ghastly specters that incite dread and fear in young and old alike. October brings with it not only ghosts and Jack-O-Lanterns, but also a new session of the Supreme Court. This Halloween season, politicians and liberal lawyers are making it a point to frighten three groups in particular: the elderly, the homeless, and the poor, into thinking they are in danger of losing their right to vote. Such notions are as fictional as the Headless Horseman, but that fact is easily obscured through scare tactics worthy of the most chilling spook alley.

One of the cases the court will review involves the constitutionality of Indiana's state law requiring voters to present a form of photo identification to prove their identities at local polling stations. The law was challenged by the ACLU and the Indiana Democratic Party immediately after its passage in 2005. Both moved quickly to stir up fear by declaring that the law would limit the right to vote among the elderly, the homeless or disabled, and of course the poor. The tactics used by the ACLU and the Indiana Democratic Party were simple and stolen directly from the Democratic playbook for fighting Social Security reform: scare the elderly into believing their benefits will disappear at the hands of nasty conservatives and then sit back and watch them flood Congress and newsrooms with angry letters and voice mail. The "right" to Social Security is perhaps the most cherished American "right," second only to the right to vote. Most of the time the two are related, as elections that promise to have the most impact on Social Security are also the elections with the greatest voter turnout.

The irony is that the ACLU and Democrats who oppose the voter identification laws are remarkably ignorant of the host of government services that already require that the elderly, homeless, and poor possess a form of government-issued identification before they can obtain them. A visit to a Social Security Office for any kind of service, even for registering a newborn baby for a Social Security number, requires government-issued photo identification, and in some cases multiple forms of identification.

As for the homeless, a group that one would expect not to consistently carry any form of identification, most cities issue benefit cards that require at least some identifying information. For example, Santa Monica, California, an affluent and intensely liberal city with miles of beautiful beachfront properties, is a Mecca for the homeless. Mild coastal weather and generous available services have swelled the ranks of the homeless in Santa Monica, resulting in large gatherings and lines at city buildings. Yet even liberal Santa Monica issues public service identification cards to its homeless population. This identification serves three purposes: one, it allows workers at shelters to distinguish between those who have registered with the city as homeless and those who have not; second, it allows Santa Monica's Police Department to have a means for identifying homeless residents in the event they violate laws or if they are victimized by crime themselves; third, it allows homeless residents to obtain other city services, such as libraries.

In exchange for city services, the homeless agree to register for free for a Santa Monica identification card. Those who do not wish to do so simply move on to a city without such a requirement. Yet most stay and enjoy the benefits offered to them. As Santa Monica is their official place of "residence" established by their city-issued card, they can obtain a Post Office box or similar service which further establishes that they have a local mailing address and reside in the city. At California polling locations, that combination is usually already sufficient to allow them to vote. What then is the hardship for the homeless in making the city-issued card they already willingly obtain at no cost into a free photo identification they can take to the polls?

Opponents argue that requiring the elderly, homeless, and poor to obtain government-issued photo identification presents a hardship because people in these voter classifications have difficulty navigating bureaucracy. These groups should be insulted by such a claim. The Social Security bureaucracy is considerably challenging, yet millions of elderly Americans somehow obtain the services they need despite the daunting bureaucracy. State and federal welfare programs surely contain the most complex requirement and eligibility rules known to man and endless bureaucracies to administer them, yet millions of needy families have applied for and obtained public assistance services far more challenging than filling out one form and getting a picture taken for a free voter identification card.

The low opinion liberals have of the elderly, homeless, and poor is as evident in this fight as it is in affirmative action and other liberal entitlement programs. They consistently underestimate the abilities and intellectual capacities of entire segments of the population while claiming their actions are for the "good" of these groups.

The key factor is that if something is sufficiently important to someone, he or she will find a way to navigate endless layers of bureaucracy to obtain it.

Opponents of Indiana's voter identification law would have us believe that the elderly, homeless, and poor are incapable of filling out a form for a free card, sitting for a picture, and taking the card home with them for use at their polling stations. The Indiana law even includes provisions that would exempt the disabled or those living in rest homes or assisted care facilities from the photo identification requirement. Let's be clear then that the ACLU and Indiana Democrats do not consider mobile, self-sufficient elderly residents, homeless people, or poor people smart enough to obtain a free identification card.

These opponents also set forth the claim that requiring photo identification places an undue financial burden on poor voters, because driver's licenses and state identification cards involve fees ranging in some states from $10 to $30. They raise the racial specter of the old Southern poll taxes and accuse conservatives who support the identification law of attempting to "disenfranchise" minority voters. To refute such a claim, most of the 26 states requiring photo identification at polling stations offer free voter identification cards. Where then is the financial hardship on the poor in obtaining a free card to take to the polls?

It is impossible to honestly identify any classification of legal voters who would be "disenfranchised" by being required to show photo identification. Certainly the elderly, homeless, and poor have already obtained far more complex services, all of which required some form of government-issued identification. Yet the media continues to portray voter identification as "a move that can limit participation of the elderly and poor in elections." The NAACP refers to identification requirements as "undue burdens" on voters, but offers no convincing evidence of that claim. States requiring voter identification have already made accommodations for the disabled, have made the cards available at no cost, and have made it no more difficult to obtain than any of the other public services these "disenfranchised" groups already have applied for successfully.

To claim otherwise is a political scare tactic in this season of sinister spooks.

Technorati Tags:
Indiana, Voter Photo Identification, Disenfranchisement, Supreme Court, Voter Registration Laws, Constitutionality, Entitlement Programs, Liberals

Robin Hood Was No Socialist!

Social Security; Medicare; Medicaid; low income housing subsidies; food stamps; government welfare; all of these could be discontinued and the needs of former recipients of government largess will still be met, if research conducted at a California university is put into practice. Of course, that is not the conclusion that the academicians involved in the study reached, but the researchers may have inadvertently provided support to conservatives who favor lower taxes and more involvement by private and religious charitable organizations in caring for America’s poor.

CNN (Reuters) reported last night that a computer lab research project involving 120 students at UC-Davis demonstrated a “Robin Hood” impulse shared by the majority of participants that produced interesting results. According to the CNN piece:

The experiment was carried out last year using 120 paid student volunteers at a computer lab on the campus of the University of California at Davis.

The volunteers sat at computer terminals, and a computer would assign them into groups of four. Once placed into a group, each person was assigned an amount of money and was told how much money the other three members were given.

The players then had the chance to spend some of their own money in order to increase or decrease the amount the others possessed, but their actions provided no financial gain for themselves.

They played the game five times, but never with anyone from a previous group. This was to eliminate the possibility of players trying to establish a reputation for themselves or taking revenge on others who might have taken money from them.

Equalizing income
About 70 percent of participants at some point reduced or added to another person's money, most often by taking from the richest players or by donating to the poorest players, the study found.

These actions had the collective effect of equalizing income among the players -- with participants spending their own money to achieve the goal.
The researchers said even players whose own loot had been pilfered in previous rounds were willing to take steps to redistribute the money in an egalitarian manner.

The term “Robin Hood impulse”, used by Professor James Fowler to describe his findings, is only partially correct. When the players took money from the wealthiest players and gave it to the poorest players, they were exhibiting “Robin Hood” tendencies. However, when players spent their own money to equalize resources among the other players, they were acting charitably. The difference between the two motives is significant and should not be excluded from the reported findings.

The key aspect of these findings is that the players voluntarily spent their own money to help strangers who were struggling financially, out of a sense of egalitarianism. The game, designed to test egalitarianism and its role in human interaction, demonstrated that players consistently sought to share resources even when they did not stand to benefit from that action. There is another term for that, charity, but given the religious implications of that word, academia apparently shied away from applying it to the behavior exhibited by these students.

It is interesting to note that President Bush’s Faith Based Initiatives, which allow the government to “outsource” charitable services to religious organizations already engaged in providing aid to their communities, are roundly criticized on the left for relying too heavily on human charity to care for the poor. These critics are averse to any diversion of taxpayer money away from established bureaucracies. The argument from these critics is that people are selfish and will not redistribute their resources voluntarily to help the poor in their communities, thus the government must take that money by force and give it to the needy or they will not survive. Private or religious charities are never given a fair chance to demonstrate that citizens, out of the same sense of egalitarianism displayed in the UC-Davis study, will rise to the occasion and ensure that the needy among them are cared for.

Instead, government demonstrates in impulse that is much more “Prince John” than “Robin Hood”, in that it forcibly takes an ever-increasing percentage of income from the “rich” and instead of immediately redistributing it to the poor, often hoards it, earns interest dividends from it, and eventually reassigns it to other pressing budgetary concerns. Americans generally are imbued with a sense of fair play, and in that regard possess a “Robin Hood” impulse: we want to voluntarily give our money to charities rather than to greedy government officials who hoard it like the Sheriff of Nottingham.

It should be remembered that Robin Hood was not a socialist. He was not stealing from the rich to give to the poor in a classic redistribution of wealth (at least in the wildly entertaining Disney version). He was actually recovering the people’s money from the government, which had overtaxed them so severely that they could no longer care for the needy among them through their own charitable acts. In essence he was putting taxpayer money back in taxpayer pockets, perhaps a medieval "compassionate conservative." Who among us has not looked at the amount of taxes withheld from a paycheck and felt as pained as Disney’s Robin Hood character whose leg cast was thumped and searched for hidden money by the Sheriff of Nottingham? In that sense, Robin Hood was an egalitarian motivated by charity, who clearly felt that the poor were better cared for by their neighbors and communities than by a distant government unfamiliar with local circumstances.

The fact that 70% of the college students in this study, who have not yet entered the real world of supporting a middle class family on a tight budget and have not yet learned to appreciate how wrong it is to forcibly take money from some to give to others, robbed from the rich to give to the poor, is not particularly surprising. Yet even these students dipped into their own pockets (figuratively) to help level the economic playing field. Private and religious charitable organizations should be given more opportunities to demonstrate that through citizen generosity the needy in local communities can be provided for with less government involvement and state controlled redistribution of income. Likewise, America’s workers should be allowed to keep more of their income, which, as this study illustrated, would result in more donations to local charities.

The “Robin Hood” impulse appears to manifest itself, if unimpeded by the government, in actions that look, to the discomfort of secular academia, like charity. Government assistance programs are the antithesis of charity, for the giver is forced and the recipient is deprived of recognizing the loving sacrifice behind a voluntary donation. Robin Hood risked his life to help the poor, and charitable Americans would willingly do likewise if government loosened its stranglehold on public assistance programs. After all, there is a little of Robin Hood and a divine spark in each of us.

Spy The News! Poll Results: "What Issue is Most Important to You?"

The results are in from last week's Spy the News! poll, which asked readers "What issue is Most Important to You?"

Here are the results of our poll:

War On Terror 59%
Illegal Immigration 24%
The Economy 17%

Receiving no votes:
The Environment 0%
Social Security Reform 0%
Education Reform 0%
Crime Reduction 0%


The results of this poll were illustrative of how concerns over the War on Terror, with its current focal point in Iraq, dominate all other issues in the current 2008 election cycle. Illegal immigration, which readers tended to consider as a key component of a successful terror war rather than a stand-alone issue, expanded the total percentage of readers considering security against terrorism their highest priority to 83%. Perhaps the 17% who chose the economy confirm the political adage that people tend to "vote with their pocketbooks." It is clear that candidates seeking election in 2008 will need to distinguish themselves as credible and consistent in their positions on these three key issues.

Visit Spy the News! to participate in this week's poll: "What American Media Outlet is Most Negative in its Coverage of the U.S. Military?"