Let's say there are ten people in a room and they each give five dollars to an "elected" member who gets to redistribute that money, after which all the members

Let's say there are ten people in a room and they each give five dollars to an "elected" member who gets to redistribute that money, after which all the members re-vote on the next elected member. A savvy elected member would redistribute the money to five members, plus himself, thus perpetually stay in power and continue to receive the majority of votes. I use this illustration to show that as long as one official or group gets to continue in power, they don't have incentive to do right by everyone; rather, they are incentivized to do well to only a slim majority. The short-term problem this article presents is that our country's budget crisis demands a surplus contribution from the wealthy. For argument's sake, I'll admit it does. The understated, long-term problem is that elected officials are personally motivated to spend their political power on getting re-elected, which only requires making a little more than half of their constituents satisfied. My suggestion would be to stop allowing anyone to be re-elected. Once they know that their decisions don't have to be popular, they're free to make decisions that help long-term, even at short-term discomfort or dissatisfaction. There are obvious problems (how this reflects on their party, for example), but I think that there's a solution embedded in this line of reasoning.