Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

Poll: Americans Support Super-majority Vote In Congress To Create Entitlement Programs

October 12, 2010 by  

Poll: Americans support super-majority vote in Congress to create entitlement programs A recent survey revealed that a majority of Americans would like to make it harder for Congress to enact entitlement programs.

According to a poll by, a nonpartisan public welfare organization, approximately 70 percent of those surveyed support the requirement of a two-thirds super-majority vote in Congress to create such programs. Nearly 60 percent believe that Congress should pass a Constitutional amendment that necessitates the two-thirds vote.

The organization's founder, David Manns, said that the overwhelming support for a Constitutional amendment reflects these programs' detrimental impact on taxpayers during tough economic times.

Several Republican candidates for Senate have presented their ideas for reducing Social Security costs for Americans. During a recent debate on Fox News, Rand Paul of Kentucky suggested changes in the prerequisites for government services.

"You're going to have to have eligibility changes for the younger people," Paul said.

Marco Rubio of Florida told the news provider that he does not support privatizing Social Security benefits, which some Republicans have suggested, but he does believe the retirement age should be raised.

"That's got to be part of the solution, the retirement age gradually increases for people of my generation," said Rubio, who is 39 years old. 

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Poll: Americans Support Super-majority Vote In Congress To Create Entitlement Programs”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • s c

    Entitlements let politicians buy votes at America’s expense. While people seem to benefit from this practice, politicians benefit much more than those who are seduced by this immoral scheme.
    Basically, people are led to believe that they deserve an entitlement because they exist. It is not a matter of having done anything to earn that entitlement. It amounts to pork that should not exist, and it has a corrupting effect that is inherently anti-American.

    • Fed Up Gal in NM

      Aye Aye, sc….very well put!

    • Craig

      Not only anti-American, but is unconstitutional. The constitution does not give the gov the authority to have nanny state/entitlement programs.

    • 45caliber

      And that is why many people support SS payments to the retired people. They feel that they have earned that money since it was promised for that reason. Now the government wants to keep all that money instead of giving it as promised.

      • Loboetal

        The politicians are masters at using Semantics to confuse issues. When created, Social Security was NOT an entitlement program – nor is it now, no matter what the politicians say. It was and IS a government enforced minimum benefit retirement program. The money paid into SS is NOT a tax. It is a government enforced savings program. (Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Food Stamps, etc. ARE entitlement programs.) The problem with SS is that – even though the politicians promised, cross their hearts and hope to die, that they would NEVER EVER touch America’s retirement funds – they have spent every penny of that money, first to finance WWII – then for every other reason (or no reason) under the sun. They should be made to reinstate it, with interest, but no one has the guts to make it happen.

        • Dee

          After the first five to six years of collecting Social Security the retiree/recipient is on WELFARE! At that point every dime put into the system has been exhausted and this person becomes a DRAIN on the Social Security system. Thus the term entitlement program is a valid description of Social Security payouts in the 5th/6th year.

  • David Manns

    I encourage everyone interested in making it more difficult to create new entitlement programs to sign our petition to Congress: We have an opportunity to enact meaningful reform as voters become increasingly aware of the financial wreck both political parties have created; however, pushing this measure over the top will require a groundswell of support. Sign the petition, volunteer, and ‘like’ us on Facebook. Spread the word!

    • Warrior

      Thanks -done.

    • Fed Up Gal in NM

      David Manns,

      Thanks for the info; I did my part and forwarded the link to about 25 friends and family members.

  • TIME

    Folks the way our government was set up – was so that YOUR Congressman, or Senate person before a vote on any laws or bills were taken.
    That YOUR reps come to you and ask your opinions on these issues to gather a Yea, or Nay as to should they support such bills / laws.
    In many states it was law that such needed to be voted on by the states population, others were a tad differant.
    There has been no law nor bill passed that required really fast movment, when that the case that bill or law is “flawed” and in {99.999% of the cases has money dropping into your reps pockets falling from that money tree, called Special interest.}

    What has happened is that your state Reps felt they should not give notice of their Town Hall meetings in some cases, and in others only a days notice at best.
    The people let them get away with this off color behavior over the years to where this has become standard behavior now.

    Now YOUR Congress persons and Senate persons don’t care what YOU may want or feel, they just do what they want. (please not all but most,) and if they are a Progressive they will be sure to only to inform Progressives in their Hoods to show up so they get the right imput.

    Now do you get how they get away with the crap they have?


    IF any bill was worth the money,or really had the peoples interest,the count should be 400 to pass any spending.IF someone claims a bill to be so fricking good,and cost effective,or so called will pay for itself,400 out of 435 is no big deal.

  • Howard Roark

    The only reason that the fed Govt is involved in intitlements is follows:

    the progressive slugs finally got their liar for hire whores on SCOTUS to rule (completely opposite of the intentions of the framers)that the sentance in Article one Section eight ” Provide for the general welfare” means that Congress can expend money to actually provide for the welfare of the people. “US V. Butler

    The court did rule that the general welfare means that any money expended must benifit all or nearly all of the people and not individuals or special groups of individuals. (Totllly in error of course.)

    In actuality, the framers explained that the opening paragraph in Art one Sec eight does not give Congress any authority to expend money on the general welfare. instead the enumerated powers found below the openinmg paragraph would be used to accomplish the goals found in the opening paragraph.

    James Madison (Father of the Constitution) said.

    James Madison Quote

    “If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
    and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
    they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
    they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
    and pay them out of their public treasury;
    they may take into their own hands the education of children,
    establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
    they may assume the provision of the poor;
    they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
    in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
    down to the most minute object of police,
    would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power
    of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
    it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
    of the limited Government established by the people of America.”


    Heres another:

    “With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” –James Madison

    Heres a few from Thomas Jefferson:

    Limited vs. Universal Powers
    “I say… to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty-making power as boundless: If it is, then we have no Constitution. If it has bounds, they can be no others than the definitions of the powers which that instrument gives.” –Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Nicholas, 1803. ME 10:419

    “The construction applied… to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States,” and “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof,” goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to [the General Government's] power by the Constitution… Words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers ought not to be construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument.” –Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:385

    “To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, “to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.” For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union.” –Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:147

    “Aided by a little sophistry on the words “general welfare,” [the federal branch claim] a right to do not only the acts to effect that which are specifically enumerated and permitted, but whatsoever they shall think or pretend will be for the general welfare.” –Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1825. ME 16:147

    “They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please… Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.” –Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148

    As soon as the true patriots take back the country we need to strictly inforce the US v. Butler eronious ruling (only for all or nearly all the people) while we work to have the dercision overturned

    “The duty of the patriot is to PROTECT HIS COUNTRY FROM ITS GOVERNMENT” Thomas Paine

  • Howard Roark

    The obvious reason that the Federal Govt. should not be providing anything to the States is as follows:


    Explanation: Real wealth is created in one of three basic ways: 1. Agriculture 2. Mining (includes oil) 3. Manufacturing.

    Lets use Nevada as an example: Nevada has all three of these wealth producing activities. enough wealth is created that allows the Citizens of Nevada to pay their bills, pay theit taxes,(city, county, state and enough left over to pay their Federal taxes. (for the masjority of Nevada Citizens)

    Now lets look at the Federal Govt.: All around the country you see military bases, ship yards, ammunition depots etc.. These are all liabilities. (THEY CONSUME WEALTH) then you look at Washington D.D. (ten miles square. Their main product is Politicians and Govt. workers. Also liabilities (THEY CONSUME WEALTH)

    When a Fed. Govt. Politician says that the Fed. Govt. is going to help the states, what he or she is saying is that they are going to take the money sent to the Fed. Govt. by the states; skim off some of that money for their own use; and send a portion of the money back to the States.

    It should be obvious at this point that the Federal Government can not help anyone. hell they can not even help themselves as they DO NOT PRODUCE REAL WEALTH IN ANY FORM.

    If you can remember these two things the Government will never be able to hoodwink you again

    1. no Government produces wealth. GOVERNMENTS CONSUME WEALTH.

    2. Government can not give any one any thing because GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING.

    • 45caliber

      I agree. The only wealth comes from producing something of value. The ONLY government agency that has done this is the space program. It has produced a lot of things through its research that is then given to the private sector. Things such as EKG, 20 year house paint, modern photography, etc. If we never got another ship off the ground it is still worth the money spent there. No so with the other parts of government – including state and local.

      • LocalYokel

        No argument here about a hoard of info discovered by the the space program but there is no form of technology developed by or under the oversight of any appointed government agency that is offered for sale to highest bidders. Insiders arrange for or diversify existing operations to take advantage of their treasured sources long before the public is made aware except by science fiction leaks. All their investments then become monopolized by patent protection and protective legislation and set hard in “national security” cement. Independent discoveries that are clearly a direct competitive threat to such investment are merely seized by the military under a”national security” blanket to maintain price control. Elimination of competition by any means has always been the accepted rule.
        Your concern should be “Who in the private sector benefits the most from research financed by tax payers” and just what information is being withheld from the public that could be real and free benefit ? There is no question about “Who continues to pay for the use of said research” even when whitewashed with a “general welfare” clause. Priority benefactors of information only need donate to campaign funds and chosen “charitable” causes such as WHO population control.

        Thomas Jefferson said,”My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government. “

        • 45caliber

          I agree.

    • Warrior


  • 45caliber

    There is a lot of talk about revising SS … but I don’t see a single call to eliminate that tax.

    What Congress wants to do is eliminate all SS payments to retirees – to give themselves more money to spend on other things that will buy votes for them.

  • Robin from Arcadia, IN

    Entitlements do not serve all. They serve those who refuse to do for themselves. And SC is right. They buy votes. I think a law should be passed that a super majority would be needed to pass any pork or entitlement. And… Pork in any bill should be outlawed as well. Bills should be limited to an issue. We need these changes to be put into place faster than we needed to have the stimulus bill passed!

    • 45caliber

      I agree. No admendments to add pork to anything. Every item should stand or fall on its own merits. And if it is bad, then it falls.

    • Kate8

      Congress has proven over the past 2 years that they will use whatever underhanded and strong-arm tactics necessary to garner the votes of dissenters.

      There already is a supermajority requirement in the Senate, but they simply decided to dispense with it in order to ram unpopular legislation through.

      And, as someone else said, once the Supreme Court is stacked, they can do whatever they want.

    • s c

      Please realize that there are at least two types of entitlements. The normal variety involves seduction by a politician in an attempt to “buy” loyalty. The other side of that counterfeit coin involves
      elected officials who use their position to prostitute their influence and bypass voters.
      Every politician who passes new legislation without reading or understanding it is guilty of sheer incompetence (or a felony). You’d think we have retards who think they can do anything they want once they get to Washington.
      Normal entitlements are immoral. Couple that with the criminal behavior of losers in the Senate, the House and the Ho House, and we’re screwed until or unless we FREE ourselves from their evil influence.
      Remember, there are entitlements, and there are
      ‘entitlements.’ Both are unconstitutional and immoral, and both are killing America.

      • Kate8

        s c Michelle Bachmann says she is for requiring those coming into Congress to take a course in understanding the Constitution. She is putting this together.

        We have incoming legislators who REALLY DON’T HAVE A CLUE WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS. Like one dem said, they leave that to the lawyers. Except that lawyers specialize in twisting, contorting and circumventing it in order to justify bad laws.

        Yes, requiring a Constitution course should be mandated, not just for Congresspeople, but for everyone elected to office. Perhaps even before they are allowed to run.

        • http://?? Joe H.

          most of the ones coming in now say “Constitution? Constitution? what’s a constitution??” Somebody needs to carve it in wood and beat them over the head with it telling them to read it!!!

  • http://Verizon Bud G.

    Howard: Exactly. There is also the problem of money going to the Federal Government and not being returned in accordance with the population of that state. I live in Florida and we give a lot more than we receive back.

    The other problem is the Federal Government just doles out the money without confirming whether it is legitimate or not. Social Security to dead people, people on welfare roles that make more money than we do and food stamps and Medicare and Medicaid fraud. We are talking about billions in fraud and the main reason why our Federal deficit keeps rising. A few departments of the Federal Government could be eliminated entirely simply because they are part of the problem. Health and Human Services at this point is giving billions to support abortion on your dime. The Department of Education has become the indoctrination department and has caused more problems than it has solved. How many advisors and servants does the President have. The answer is far too many and are using our money like their personal bank account. It has to stop.

    • Warrior

      Remember, HC had to be passed to obtain all the purported waste in the system. Pretzel Logic. What’s even a bigger joke is that when these entitlements are created, there has to be a bureaucratic nightmare assembled to manage it. Produces Nothing; Just Consumes!

      • 45caliber

        I saw a comment once that said that only 3% of the money authorized to be spent by the Welfare Department gets to any of the recipients. The Welfare Dept. uses the rest for things like wages, rent, etc. So why bother with it at all?

        • Warrior

          Yes, short of like the cash for clunkers. A $4,500 tax credit actually costs $19,000 after all the implementation and handling costs were included.

          • http://?? Joe H.

            wouldn’t it be nice to have a product that you can price at 4500 dollars and actually charge 19,000 for it???

  • alpha-lemming

    Good idea on the new entitlements, but too little too late. The existing ones are doing a more than adequate job of breaking the bank. And futzin’ around with the retirement age is the political equivalent of a punt. It does nothing to solve the problem other than increasing the number of recipiants who will never collect because they passed away. The gigantic pile of cash is still there for congress to abuse and I’ve heard no plans to return it to its’ rightful owner… the US tax payer. Unconstitutional at its’ inception, SSI collection age was what?? ~60?? Life expectancy was 50 something. What does that tell you about their concern for you??

    • 45caliber

      Exactly. Some have even stated that very thing. They want the people to die before collecting. In fact, from some of the comments about the Oblamacare package, they want the people no longer producing wealth and paying taxes to simply accept euthnasia as soon as they no longer can work.

      And … to my amusement … those people who don’t produce wealth and taxes in the first place – those on welfare – should do the same.


    What Americans are looking for is integrity, responsibility and morality in the functions of government, our congress and many of those elected all across the country have lost sight as to why they were elected to office and far to many have litle or no real world experience and cannot relate to what they are being told, many feel that the office they hold is theirs in perpetuity, we need to set all this staight.

    We have to have citizens who want to serve the country, who are limited by terms and succeeding positions of government they serve, their service needs to be looked at as accumulative and their compensation based on years of service, they need to be subjected to yearly public audits to show good faith to the public and there must be a penalty for abuse of office and not following the law.

    We have before us now a case of insider trading by members of congress and their staffs, they are immune from prosecution, a crime for the ordinary civilian but not for a government official, this cannot stand. In our system “all men are equal in the eyes of the law” there are not laws for them and then for everyone else, this kind of discrimiation and selectivity is what a communist government would use, this is America not N. Korea.

    If you want a government that represents you then get off your butts and make it so, do not depend on someone to do it for you.


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.