Preferably not a conspiracy cite, but if that's what you've got, I'll take it.

My colleague Dave Schuler has proposed that no one whose livelihood comes from the government ought be allowed to vote, given the conflict of interest inherent in their employment and the tendency towards rent seeking it encourages. While I don’t endorse that — military personnel and other civil servants should certainly have a say in how they’re governed just like everyone else — I share his concern about the status quo.

OK James and Dave, add me to the ones who are adamently opposed to the very idea...

Are YOU willing to give up your vote because you benefit from the "status quo"? We all benefit from the Fed Gov't and it's largesse... Are we all precluded from voting then? The Fed Gov't has it's fingers in way too many pies. Let's see... how many get a tax break because they pay a mortage? Should they be unable to vote?

As a Union Carpenter, I work where I work. I don't often think about where the money comes from when I take the job. I think, "I gotta make the payments this month."

I'd say the ban should effect everyone who has their hand out for government dole, including contractors, state and local government employees, welfare, Medicare recipients

To truly extend it to everyone who benefits from the government dole, we would need to add people who have children, people who are paying off student loans and anyone with a mortgage of less than $1,000,000.

The thought process behind not letting government employees vote is typically (I've never seen Dave's argument, so I can't say whether he fits this case or not) "People who don't vote like me shouldn't vote". I heard the same thing from Ron Paul supporters during the primary regarding anyone who didn't favor the gold standard, anyone who didn't want to complete the wall at our southern border, anyone who wasn't alarmed about the Amero, etc....

The only thing likely to slow or stop this march to the left is a near or complete bankruptcy of the system. A sort of national chapter 11 reorganization that would wake up leadership and allow a renegotiation of obligations. The outlook is dim.

With this many at the trough and so few filling it some expect Atlas to shrug. It won't happen. While it's an interesting novel and full of lessons we will never see people give up in such a manner. The world is not built that way.

There is, however, something disquieting about mobilizing the massive federal workforce with promises of goodies from the public till.

J-Dawg- Did you actually read the letters? What "goodies from the public till" did Obama promise?

Also, it is important to qualify what was going on when he "sent letters to federal employees." Phrasing it like that makes it sound like he was using intra-office direct mail to conduct his campaign.

The letters were addressed not to federal employees, but to John Gage of the AFL-CIO. They were clearly responses to issues and questions brought up by the union. The union then circulated copies of the letters to its members.

Only 35% of the federal workforce is represented by Gage's union so I am not sure how these letters are indicative of "mobilizing the massive federal workforce." Assuming copies of the letter went to all members, the information was only sent to a little more than a third of the workforce.

Furthermore, why can't unions "mobilize" their members? That's their job, for crissakes.

Further, I point out that those social ills just never quite seem to get 'fixed," since politicians seem to have been able to run on fixing them decade after decade after decade.

Now, smooth talking pols and an army of government workers surely benefit from those govt program expenditures. But, then, who really cares for the poor??

Anyone want to bet that 20 years from now a fresh faced, say, Hispanic American will come along, run on "change, hope and helping the poor"..........everyone will call it "historic."......the government will be bigger.....and the less well off will be just as less well off as today.

Cynical? Perhaps. Empirically true as well.

Remember we talked about the Bog three bailout being just a UAW bailout instead? This is just more of the same.

Roll back contracting out non-inherently governmental tasks, slap upside the face of Al Gore.

Not sure where the "tougher industry regulation to protect workers and the environment" helps government employees. Might be better to champion holding the federal agencies to the regulations and standards industry is held to. Chemical plants, refineries and nuclear facilities are far safer for the average worker on the average day than most federal office buildings. The whole budget constraints and internal compliance conflict.

Obama's list of promises: no censorship, fewer private contracts, more flexibility and responsibilty are what we in the business call plans for "change".

You might remember the idea from every speech Obama made during the primary and campaign.

The knock had been Obama promises "change" as generic, this is "change" in the specific, and good change at that.