Written by Walter Hecht   

The term "makers and takers" comes from Ayn Rand's book Atlas Shrugged. In that book, John Galt is a Renaissance man who leads a strike by society's makers to deny their services to all those he labels as takers, society's drones who can't create anything on their own. After the current, corrupt society in Washington, DC, and the rest of the country fails, the makers will end their strike and retake their rightful place as the leaders of America. No mention here of democracy. What happens to one man, one vote in Ayn Rand's version of America? Is the vote limited to only society's makers?

The argument over who can vote is as old as democracy itself, going back to ancient Greece. Some want to limit the franchise to men, not women, of property, while others support universal suffrage, as I do. The question always boils down to who is permitted to vote, once you start limiting the vote. Personally, I believe that taking the vote away from anyone, felons included, as is the case in some states is a mistake.

Mitt Romney treated 47% of the populace with disdain, but many of them voted for him. Mitt's vote total would have been much less if those who don't pay Federal income tax could not vote. Look at a map of the US divided into red and blue states. It is ironic that most red states voting GOP receive more in Federal "gifts" than they pay in taxes, while most blue states pay more in Federal taxes than they receive in Federal "gifts." If you judge who is a maker by how much they pay in taxes and who is a taker by how much they receive, then you must label blue, Democratic-leaning states as makers and red, GOP-leaning states as takers. That is just the reverse of what the 1% are telling us.