AUGUSTA, GA - I had a very interesting exchange the other day with a caller to my afternoon radio show. I had just made a pretty definitive statement, fairly straightforward, certainly with little wiggle room for interpretation. The caller asked whether I made the statement to get a laugh from the audience, to light up the phone lines or to outrage the population in general.

Here it is: When examining CSRA voter trends there is distinct and direct proof that "left of center" causes and candidates are overwhelmingly supported by voters in poor and depressed neighborhoods. Conversely, "right of center causes" and candidates are overwhelmingly supported by voters in affluent neighborhoods.

That is the statement suitable for textbook publication. Water-cooler conversationalists would likely put it this way: In our area, smart achievers vote conservative, poor dullards vote liberal.

Now, there are notable exceptions that make the above statement far from being absolute.

But we are not talking individual exceptions; we are talking neighborhood trends.

The caller was incredulous, and quite put off that I refused to back down from the assertion.

What troubled him more was my challenge. He stated doubt about my theory, and to show him my faith in the statement, I bet him $1,000 in cash that my statement was provable.

He didn't take the bet.

He then asked me why, in my mind, the trend was true. Very simple answer there: Achievers want someone who will look after their interests, underachievers want the same thing.

Conservatives believe achievers should keep as much of their hard-earned money as possible. Many underachievers participate in government benefits (food stamps, Medicaid, etc.) that are funded by the achievers dollars. Liberals seek to make access to those benefits as easy and painless as possible.

Conservatives want a tough justice system, because, often, it is their wealth and safety that is threatened by the criminal element. Liberals want a forgiving justice system because so many of their own end up being prosecuted by it.

While it is clear that the local voter trends run just as I describe them, there are pockets of "liberal achievers,” particularly in the West and Northeast that buck our backyard example.
But take a look at some of these areas — San Francisco, Boston, Washington, DC, etc. — and you will find confiscatory tax rates and crime problems that are quickly sending those who can afford to move, out of the "city proper.” Down South, the trend in the city of Atlanta has gone much the same direction.

The disturbing reality that many conservatives face is that those on the opposite end of the spectrum are beginning to outnumber us. "One man, one vote" means that the magna cum laude CEO of a Fortune 500 company has the same weight at the polls as an unemployed crack addict. As many in the aforementioned cities have learned, when the underachievers, and their misguided "limousine liberal" buddies, learn that they can assemble in numbers strong enough to control the local, state and federal governments, we are all in very deep trouble.

The central controlling document of this nation is the Constitution. Isn't it interesting that our forefathers, who seemed to be so brilliant in so many other capacities (free speech, separation of church and state, state's rights, etc.), initially only gave white male property owners the right to vote? While I will be the first to say that being white and male gives absolutely no advantage intellectually (as my wife often reminds me), back in the day when the Constitution was written, property ownership was a fairly decent litmus test of intellectual wherewithal.

These days, property ownership is not at all indicative of intelligence or work ethic. However, income certainly is. Perhaps the best way to ensure our country does make the right decisions for future and security is to award voting power based on the taxes we pay. Talk-show host Neal Boortz has been pushing this idea for years, and I gotta tell you, it sounds pretty damn good.

Everyone gets one vote, for state, local, federal elections, then you are awarded additional votes based on the amount of taxes you pay. The more money you surrender to the government, the more say you have in how it is run.

Stockholders who make the most investment have more say in the way a company is operated, conversely, those who make little financial contribution have little or nothing to lose if the company falters. Why should the people with nothing to lose be in a position to make decisions for the achievers? They shouldn't be in that position.

Until the breadwinners in this country take back the government and society in general, we are going to be at the mercy of leaders who can easily be compared to spoiled teenagers driving daddy's expensive car. They didn't pay for it, they don't have to take care of it, so who cares if they drive it into a tree?

*I wrote most of this for a Metro Spirit column five years ago. Since my deadline is 24 hours ahead of the political story of the young century, I share this with the thought that some good ideas never die!