Congressional Reform Act of 2010

I got this in an email today.. I have seen it before and wish our candidates would join in with these..

  Congressional Reform Act of 2010

1. Term Limits.

   12 years only, one of the possible options below..

   A. Two Six-year Senate terms
   B. Six Two-year House terms
   C. One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms

2.  No Tenure / No Pension. 

A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when
they are out of office.  

3.  Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social
Security system immediately.  All future funds flow into the Social
Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. 

4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all
Americans do.

5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise.  Congressional
pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in
the same health care system as the American people.

7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American
people.

8. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective
1/1/11.  

The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen.
Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career.  The Founding Fathers
envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and
back to work.

Posted via email from Musings, Ramblings and Other Assorted Rubbish

Free Texas Voters Guide

Download now or preview on posterous

FreeVotersGuide-TX.pdf (1489 KB)

Here is a free Texas Voters Guide from http://www.freevotersguide.com

Posted via email from Musings, Ramblings and Other Assorted Rubbish

WSJ Article Intellectually Dishonest

Democrats Pin Hopes on Obama

This story irritates me.   

While the facts in this article may be correct in and of themselves the writer is being a bit dishonest in the comparisons that are made. Take for example, in the 4th paragraph the writer says, "His job-approval rating stands at 46%, which isn't good, but is slightly above where President George W. Bush's approval stood at this point in 2006.."

Now I ask you, what is wrong with this comparison? Answer: 2006 marked Bush's 5th year in office (i.e. 1st yr into second term) and the writer is comparing that to Obama's less then 2 years of the first term? Conclusion: Obama irritates people almost twice as fast as Bush, but according to the mass media, Bush is Satan incarnate. 

In the 5th paragraph the writer says a "reasonably healthy 47% say they have positive feelings toward Mr. Obama.." So, why is 46% job approval rating "not good" but 47% is good for a "reasonably healthy" positive feeling? Answer: Intellectual dishonesty.

 At first reading, the writer is in effect saying is that because the Democrats have blown it for the past 4 years (Yes they have been in power and making policies for the past 4 years!) their only Hope for continued Change is a guy with about a 46% approval rating. In truth, I am surprised there are that many people that are gullible enough to "still believe" in this failed attempt at American Socialism.  

Posted via email from Musings, Ramblings and Other Assorted Rubbish