Replies

"As U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) put it, "The problem is us," adding, "We're not going to change anything till we change the motivation that the next election is more important than anything else.""

So, whats the solution? How about:

Just as we require our elected rep's and gov't officials to recuse themselves from any vote where they can personally gains, should we not require voters to "recuse" themselves from voting in any election from which they also can gain some unearned gov't largess?

I say that if we truly want to remove the profit motive from gov't (and thus truly break the addiction from O.P.M.(other peoples money)) we must restrict voting only to those who DO NOT receive any unearned benefit from the public coffers.

This would mean recipients of welfare, food stamps, farm subsidies, corporate welfare (I.e. advertising for "american products, etc.) would not be allowed to vote in any election until such time as they were free of the "taint" of receiving "aid" for a period of 6 months prior to the election.

Congress, as it exists now, is similar to a bunch of drug pushers, addicting the american people to that most addictive substance known to any self regulating society; O.P.M. Until such time as we break this addiciton, corruption will always have a fertile ground upon which to thrive.

I think your on track. I know some people don't like term limits, though I feel that when some people are in congress for thirty and forty years they start to be working more for themselves than us. My feelings are that if when elected and spend two terms then if you have a good resume then run for another office. J.C, Watts and John Kasich left the House of Representatives after a couple terms and if they would decide that they wanted to come back and run for the Senate, President, or Vice President. I would be for them.