Comments on: To Tax or Not to Tax, That is the Question

By: Cammylynn

Cammylynn — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 04:42:48 +0000

The Texas Congress only meets for a limited amount of days every 2 years and they seem to get a lot done. I agree with setting term limits and eliminating the special and eternal benefits package. Representing people SHOULD be a part time position and would be easier to do if bills were not allowed to have unrelated items attached to them. It would also eliminate the need for taxpayer paid trips back and forth across the country on private jets every weekend. You fly coach to go to work for 3-4 months and then fly back home. Millions saved right there . . .

By: Michael Boldin

Michael Boldin — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:24:55 +0000

Rich – can you be more specific when you say “handle that” How about an actionable plan that you’ve come up with?

By: Rich

Rich — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 04:49:14 +0000

Usury is criminal! The fractional reserve banking system is FRAUD! Handle that and you have made great strides. Then go after the “leaders’ who went along with it.

By: The Right Side of Life » States’ Rights Update: FL and AK on Sovereignty; Firearms and the ATF

Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:57:35 +0000

[...] To Tax or Not to Tax, That is the Question [...]

By: larry

larry — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 17:57:07 +0000

Considering that Congress is only in session an average of 150 days a year,( a little over 4 months ) It’s entirely plausible that leaders could be supplemented during this time. Instead of the $165,200 that they enjoy now for those few months. okay, so scratch the volunteer part..but
I’m not so sure that our founding Fathers had in mind the full time career political leaders that we have allowed. Washington has morphed into a friggin albatross and the only way to control it is to make it uncomfortable to stay.

By: Terry Morris

Terry Morris — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 17:23:30 +0000

…the founding fathers would have put other stipulations in.

This is what public office should be.

I’ve read the founders enough to know they didn’t hold to that argument, Larry. Sorry, it just doesn’t fly. But even if they had made such an argument, it wouldn’t make it any less false.

Do you, Larry, have the monetary resources to volunteer, without pay or at a cut in pay, to serve as a U.S. representative? Neither do most … simpletons. I can do local volunteer work, and yes it’s rewarding, but that doesn’t require that I give up my living to do so.

By: larry

larry — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 15:17:22 +0000

Terry,
That is exactly my point, to make holding public office LESS attractive. Look, The job of politician isn’t rocket science, and it shouldn’t be propped up as such. The Qualifications to become president only require you to be older then 35, naturally born in the US and have been here for 14 yrs… A senator must be at least 30, a nine year resident and live in the state he is running in… if the job was as technical as we make it out to be, the founding fathers would have put other stipulations in.

We have been programmed to think elected positions are only for a select few with highly qualified credentials.. Total BS in my book, a simpleton with character can be more effective at serving the public then a slick crafty BS’r is.

people who volunteer don’t ask how much does the job pay, because they aren’t there for the money,or a career. This is what public office should be.

By: Terry Morris

Terry Morris — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 12:08:20 +0000

Well, I can hardly see how removing the incentives for serving in public office can be attractive to anyone, particularly the kinds of people you’re presumably trying to attract — people with altruistic motives. I’ve hired a lot of people in my day, and the first thing they want to know, almost invariably, is “how much will I be paid?” Besides, any workman is “worthy of his hire.” But anyway, irregardless of what kind of pay scheme is set, limitations on terms of service, etc., if we don’t get back to Balanced Constitutional Government, none of it is going to matter in any event.

By: larry

larry — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 20:45:30 +0000

Michael says:

“so how do we get them to be more responsible?”

We take the profit out of being a politician and you impose term limits. If Public service is redefined as something someone does out of conviction instead of a lucrative career, then Holding public office would attract people of Character. As it is now, the primary motivating factors behind running for an elected office is Power and Money. Financially, the problem can be solved by setting salaries and Perks to emphasis public servitude. And an Oversight committee put in place to guard against abuse.
power will be limited by eliminating the ability to run for re election.
Once the term has expired, the politician is barred from running for public office again. His service to the American people will be on record, and if he served honorably, it will make a nice addition to his resume. If not, it will reflect on him much Like a Dishonorable discharge, But either way he will be judged on his merits.

Politicians will be encouraged to work for the people because public Office will no longer be a destination, But rather a springboard into private life, it can be redefined much like a hitch in the Military, you will be admired for serving your country and your discharge from public office will be made public.

Retired folks may also want to run for public office, sharing their much needed experience.

Running for public office will have consequences, it will require personal self sacrifice, Much like volunteering, But anyone who has volunteered knows the personal satisfaction you get when you volunteer your time, you walk away with a great sense of accomplishment in knowing you made a difference. Holding an Elected office can be redefined much the same way.

By: DON MURPHY

DON MURPHY — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:43:02 +0000

OKLAHOMA OK GO SOONERS, ALRIGHT COME ON DOWN TO OK. THIS OKIE HAS LAND FOR SALE OR TRADE. MAYBE WE COULD INTICE TEXAS TO JOIN US AND MAKE ONE BIG REPUBLIC.