How to fix the budget deficit!

[mmi]

I expect we can all agree that economic growth is the only real answer to our budget deficit problem. We can raise maybe one hundred billion annually in additional revenue and cut perhaps three hundred billion a year from spending without creating another recession. But that erases only about a third of the $1.1 trillion deficit forecast for this year by the Congressional Budget Office. We need to add millions of new jobs to expand the economy and close the budget gap.

So how has the US labour market fared under President Obama? The administration claims that nearly five million new private-sector jobs have been created in that past three years. But the Right keeps saying that fewer Americans are working that when Obama took office. Who should we believe? Well, as is often the case in these debates, both sides are factually correct. Here are the numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics: In the first nine months of 2009, 5,242,000 private-sector jobs were lost. So despite the continual growth in jobs since October 2009, the country is still in the red. But it seems clear we're moving in the right direction. And other economic data reinforce this claim.

• New Home Sales Show 28% Y/Y Increase in August, While Prices Hit 5-Year High
  
  Consumer Confidence Hits Four-Year High, RBC Reports
  
  Nearly 400,000 More Jobs Added Than First Thought

And what effect has Obama's "socialist" economic policy had on public-sector employment? Down by well over 600,000, a drop of nearly three percent.

At the same point in President Bush’s term, public sector employment was up 3.7 percent. If, over the past 40 months, public sector employment had grown at the same pace as it did in President Bush’s first term, there would be 1.4 million additional people at work right now. That’d be enough to bring the unemployment rate down by nearly a full percentage point. — Bush Vs. Obama On Private And Public Sector Job Creation

Finally, I suggest that those who wish to promote tax cuts for well-heeled "job creators" as the way to spur economic growth might want to reconsider: The Truth About The Bush Tax Cuts And Job Growth.

[vbironchef]

mmi, Do you really believe the numbers? The US economy is in the toilet. Just look what is going on with US Postal Service. http://money.msn.com/business-news/arti ... d=15611621. IMHO, all the numbers are fake and the real numbers won't come out til after the election, doesn't matter who wins.

Edit: My gun safe will be delivered Monday. As soon as I get it bolted down to the floor it will have many friends to keep it company, thanks to Mr. Browning.

[mmi]

> IMHO, all the numbers are fake and the real numbers won't come out til after the election

I'd say none of the numbers coming out of BLS are "fake." That said, there are a few caveats I would point to:

1. You definitely need to look at a broad variety of statistics to get an idea of what's going on in the economy.
2. Even then, it can take years of historical perspective and revisions to get an accurate read on what was happening.
3. You can safely assume that most commentators will have a bias, political or otherwise, that will influence their interpretation.

I've worked for the US Department of Commerce since 2004 collecting data on our economy. That doesn't provide me with any special knowledge or insight, but I can say that everyone I work with has a professional attitude and would never allow personal bias to play a role in the process. We're some of the horrible "career bureaucrats" you hear about. Now I'll admit that political appointees will, to varying degrees, apply "spin" to make "the boss" look good. But I think the public expects that and discounts it appropriately. The numbers are the numbers and nobody messes with them. Deciding what they mean, and what should be done in response to trends and events, is another matter.

I'd say the most important thing I've learned in doing this work is that the US economy is almost unimaginably large and powerful. It's a fifteen-trillion-dollar leviathan that can raise up or crush entire communities. No one — not the president and his Administration, not the Congress, and not the Fortune 500 — can dictate outcomes. And importantly, it's often impossible to have any certainty about the effect an event or a shift in policy will have. Much of the country experienced a severe drought this summer. the worst in fifty years. That disaster, combined with ongoing weakness in the world economy (Europe, China) has seriously threatened our recovery. And we're not recovering from a normal business cycle recession — this is more or less a worldwide depression brought on by the near collapse of the financial markets. Who the hell can really say what's going to happen or what we should do about it? Where's the historical model? The circumstances of the 1929 crash and its aftermath are arguably not very useful in drawing comparisons given the dramatic changes that have taken place since that time.

Anyway, I'm starting to ramble. If I can say anything useful regarding "how to fix the budget deficit," it's two things:

1. We absolutely need to avoid situations like the housing bubble that grew out of an improperly and inadequately regulated financial sector.
2. We must seek to maintain public sector fiscal discipline. With all due respect to those on the other side of the aisle, that includes overseas adventures (Iraq War) and generous social programs that just happen to provide large benefits to the pharmaceutical industry (Medicare Part D), both of which were not only completely unaccounted for on the revenue side of the federal budget, but also occurred at a time when we had again adopted a supply side tax policy that shifted huge amounts of wealth away from the Treasury and into the hands of wealthy individuals (Bush tax cuts), an experiment that had very dubious results in terms of national employment and GDP.

The road to prosperity lies before us, but we need to stop pointing fingers and shouting at each other (guns certainly won't help either ) . Last night's PBS NewsHour had a segment on the economy that included an informative interview with Mohamed El-Erian, a highly respected business executive, and Kenneth Rogoff, a Harvard economist and public policy analyst. Those guys explain things much better than I could ever hope to. Here are a couple of excerpts from Mr El-Erian's comments:

It's going to take what Ken said. And, critically, it's about a number of items that have to be addressed simultaneously. You know, we like this notion maybe there's a shortcut, maybe there is a killer app, maybe there is this one thing. Well, there isn't. It's taken us years to get into this mess. It's going to take us years to get out. And we only get out through simultaneous progress on a number of areas. So, Ken spoke to fiscal reform. He spoke to infrastructure. He spoke to education. I would add labor retraining and retooling. And I would also add fixing the credit pipes of this economy. So it's a long list. It requires simultaneous progress. And the longer we wait, Judy, the harder it gets.

So, the first thing is, I tell the politicians, please remove the fiscal cliff, because if the fiscal cliff occurs, and we get 4 percent of GDP disorderly cuts in spending and then across-the-board increase in taxes, the U.S. will go into recession. So, the first thing is, do no harm. Second is, if we can get over that, I see an economy gradually picking up momentum. It's not going to be great. We're going to -- we're going to create jobs, not enough to really lower the unemployment issue. And, hopefully, we're going to start dealing with these longer-term issues. So, like Ken, the thing I find most frustrating, Judy, is this is not a complicated issue. We can handle this. We can unleash the innovation, the entrepreneurship, the cash that is on the sideline. But it requires a political will and political coordination.

Here's a link to an eleven-minute audio file of the whole segment and one to the video (that sadly includes a thirty-second ad) and a full transcript.

[vbironchef]

mmi, you kind of made my point. I do think we think the same so we have the same views. The only thing I see going up next year is crime. The guns I am talking about are hunting guns. I want to start a collection. I believe that is my right. If it so happens that some poor fool tries to break in to my house. Well I believe I have the right to defend myself.

[mmi]

>>The guns I am talking about are hunting guns. I want to start a collection.

I didn't really think you see firearms as a valid means of settling political disagreements. Let's hope things don't get to that point.

>>The only thing I see going up next year is crime.

I sure hope not. As I expect you know, that would reverse a longstanding trend. Violent crime rates in 2011 continued a thirty-year decline, although burglary (perhaps your major concern) did increase slightly.

The topic at hand (federal budget deficit) is related to the crime problem. A move toward balance will allow for adequate funding of programs that diminish crime rates and strengthen the economy, lowering unemployment. That's probably the best way to fight crime, as the experience of the 1990s indicates.



Other public policies may have a significant impact, and some of these are quite controversial.

• A recent study found that community policing, credited by many for recent improvements, is really only effective in smaller communities, while it pointed to "problem-solving partnerships" as the proper approach in cities.
• Some claim that recent revisions to and increases in federal support to local communities are both wasteful and counterproductive.
• Others believe that the increased number of legally armed citizens deters crime.
• Recent changes in immigration policy are credited in a recent study, and further reform may have positive results.
• The authors of Freakonomics suggested that increased access to birth control in recent decades led to a decrease in crime.

DOJ's website has a useful table-generating tool that allows you to view crime rate statistics both nationally and by state over the past fifty years.

[KnightRid]

[*]Recent changes in immigration policy are credited in a recent study, and further reform may have positive results.

Main thing wrong with that article and the way some people think is the fact that those same immigrants ALREADY BROKE THE LAW when they decided it was their right to come into this country.

How about we throw every last one of them out and then allow some of them to come back in by using the DAfCA stated above. Or how about letting them follow the law and re-enter the country that way *shocking*

I still think illegal immigration is a major, if not THE major cause for a lot of fiscal problems. Look at California. How many millions of illegal people are living there, not paying taxes, stealing money through welfare programs and the EIC from the IRS? Throw them out. How many millions of people did we send to Iraq and it was considered an "invasion"? How about WW1, WW2? Hmmm...yet in this country laws are allowed to be broken just because you are from a poor country and wont stop having kids. It is ridiculous.

Second on the list is the horrible amount of government spending. I bet we could keep all government jobs but cut the spending on grants, loans, stupid studies, etc and save billions of dollars. No more putting in requests to get tablets for your workers because they already have laptops, deal with it. This would also include the idea that the President of the United States can take vacations while in office. You want to lead us, then lead. Don't take vacations that cost taxpayers millions of dollars to get away because there are a lot of Americans that cant afford to do it. Also on this list would be to take away all of the benefits congress gets and make them pay for it.

Third is to cut the tax breaks for companies. Deal with it. How can any government official sit there and give a tax break to a company that is sitting on billions of dollars of cash in the bank? Oh, it's to make jobs in that area...I say BS. Make the tax breaks like that illegal and I bet the companies would still build because they have to.

Fourth is to bring our men and women home to defend our own borders (see the first item). Do you people really feel safe knowing that MILLIONS of people scurry across our border like mice finding free cheese? Do you really think the terrorists have not noticed? How many drugs are brought into this country daily? All of this goes unnoticed and yet people feel safe? It would be a lot cheaper to defend and patrol our own borders than trying to do it in other countries. NATO is around for a reason, it is time they step up and take over rather than the US doing it.

Let the USA worry about the USA for a change. Feed our hungry people. Create jobs here (add an extra tax for any company who headquarters outside the US to evade taxes that would be MORE than the tax if they reported actual income. No more tax holiday, pay up!). Fix our tax code to create a flat tax with no loopholes (how about, every purchase you make requires XX% tax with all online companies having to collect it and anything bought overseas and brought back to the US would pay that same rate PLUS an added tax for not buying it in the US.

Nobody ever tackles the tough decisions. Everybody thinks that doing a little of this or a little of that will just solve the problems. Make someone who has already broken the law, legal. Let companies stockpile billions offshore and then let them cry about having to pay tax if they bring it back. Fight other countries battles while we let our own country go to hell.

There was a time the world would look to the US as a guide for their own countries, now they look and laugh. We are such a corrupt and greedy country that most people from outside the US have agreed, we will defeat ourselves internally. You want to fix the budget you have to fix the country. I just dont see it happening.

[vbironchef]

I didn't really think you see firearms as a valid means of settling political disagreements. Let's hope things don't get to that point.

Of course not. Just starting a new hobby.

I sure hope not. As I expect you know, that would reverse a longstanding trend. Violent crime rates in 2011 continued a thirty-year decline, although burglary (perhaps your major concern) did increase slightly.

What about Identity thief. What about fake/stolen I.R.S returns, how about fake Social Security Numbers? and all the drugs on the streets, come on, get real. Crime is going up. Just look at the amount shop lifting going on these days. What about credit card/atm skimming. The list of crimes goes on and on and up! Let's not forget hacking. Cheap knock offs that are killing our economy. Just go outside and/or turn on your tv set and watch the news.

Edit: Postal Service defaults on $5.6B retiree pre-payment

[mmi]

>>I still think illegal immigration is a major, if not THE major cause for a lot of fiscal problems. Look at California. How many millions of illegal people are living there, not paying taxes, stealing money through welfare programs and the EIC from the IRS?

I think this issue is more complicated than your statement indicates.

According to Social Security Administration data, undocumented workers pay between $6 billion and $7 billion into the Social Security trust fund each year. That comes on top of Medicare and unemployment insurance taxes the illegal workers pay …

Undocumented immigrants also pay federal, state, and local sales and excise taxes on food, clothing, gasoline, cigarettes and alcohol as well as state and local property taxes.

Because they are breaking the law and have no legitimate social security numbers, illegal immigrants are barred from collecting much of the tax support afforded to other U.S. families, namely the Earned Income Tax Credit, worth up to $6,000 for low-income working families. They also were not eligible for the 2008 stimulus package credit worth up to $600 after members of Congress faced a backlash for initially proposing they receive the credit. (emphasis added) — How Illegals Pay Billions in Taxes and Reap Rewards

On the other hand:

Tax payments aside, illegal immigrants are getting those funds back many times over in the form of free education for their children, medical and social services and … [by] collecting the Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC), which reduces taxes owed by certain individuals with children.

The taxes paid/benefits received ratio of undocumented immigrants seems to largely mirror the experience of other low-income residents. In general, as you might expect, accurate estimates of the cost of illegal immigration are difficult to calculate because records are often incomplete or unavailable.

>>No more putting in requests to get tablets for your workers because they already have laptops, deal with it.

The government-issued laptop computers I've used over the years are OK, but they don't seem like anything special to me (not that I know anything about it). I recently got what I figure is a nice upgrade to a HP EliteBook 2530p, replacing a pretty much beat-up old Dell. I'll let you know when they give me a tablet. And by the way, like many federal employees, I've been on a two-year pay freeze since January 2011.

[vbironchef]

Need to ask a question to anyone that has a possible answer?

Why does it take a fire truck, paramedic vehicles, ambulance, and a pumper fire truck just to respond to a nursing home? Seems like a big waste of money to me. I see this all the time where I live. You get all the sirens going and moving through traffic like it's life or death. What I see is a big waste of money spent in fuel and man power just because the nursing home as a sick patient. Yea, maybe they are critical, but really do you really need all the vehicles?

[mmi]

Your view may well be warranted. Here's some material I came across in a quick search:

While the 9-1-1 systems in the United States talk-the-talk of too many “non-emergency” calls, they do virtually nothing to really provide any alternative, much less a safe and reliable alternate care path, for these myriad of people who have a real need, even though it is not ultimately life threatening nor requiring an ambulance transport to the most expensive healthcare place on earth-the Emergency Room. Most 9-1-1 system administrators still believe it is “un-American” not to respond, and, more than not, continue to over respond (too many vehicles and personnel). Most still respond lights-and-siren to even clearly minor cases, placing the driving public (and tragically themselves) at great risk (15,000 to 20,000 emergency medical vehicle accidents each year in the United States). Now that’s not exactly helping healthcare in America today. — from an editorial written by Jeff Clawson, M.D., described by the National Academies of Emergency Dispatch as "the creator of the police, fire, and medical emergency dispatch protocols used throughout the world."

Dr. Clawson appears to be an informed source on this issue:

Running "Hot" and the case of Sharron Rose

The Wake Effect: Emergency Vehicle-Related Collisions

Here are some other views:

Emergency Response

Why so many vehicles?

[vbironchef]

mmi, Thank you for your reply. I thought I was the only one that was thinking it was excessive. Almost word for word about my question. Wow!

[mmi]

>>Thank you for your reply.

You're more than welcome. I used to be able to earn money as a researcher, but with the miracle of Google, nobody needs to purchase my services in that area. Well, they think they don't need to. And I don't seem to be persuasive enough to convince them otherwise. As is often the case, you techie types give with one hand and take away with the other.

On another federal budget deficit issue, in the debate last night, Rombot stated:

"You [Obama] said you get a deduction for taking a plant overseas. Look, I’ve been in business for 25 years. I have no idea what you’re talking about. I maybe need to get a new accountant."

(As an aside, I'll bet his accountants do a marvelous job for him.) I attempted to respond to a thread on this topic in a RedState member diary, but it looks like "Frederick" might not have liked mmy contribution and won't post it. May just be a technical glitch, though, cuz I know how much conservatives support free speech and appreciate an honest and unfettered debate. So I'll reprint it here. You might note that I save my sarcastic tone for more hostile audiences.


>>that article went to the AFL-CIO instead of an accountant - which means they are either dishonest or incompetent - either way works for me.

The PolitiFact article includes a quote from "Scott A. Hodge, president of The Tax Foundation, a business-backed group that studies tax policy," who argued that:

the problem … isn't as big as people imagine

So the tax benefit DOES exist. It's just that Democrats are somehow misrepresenting the situation and exaggerating its importance. Well, an article published in today's edition of Bloomberg BusinesWeek notes that:

"(eliminating these deductions) would raise $168 million over the next decade, according to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation."

>>this isn't really an important incentive
>>Whether or not the moving expenses are taxed is not a factor in the decision.

I'm glad to hear that. So your company wouldn't at all mind forgoing their tax benefit on this as it won't have any significant impact on their business decisions. This is certainly a welcome outcome in these difficult fiscal times for the nation.

[mmi]

Hey again

I thought you guys might enjoy this comment on a blog post addressing Romney's $25K "deduction bucket," published in Wednesday's NY Times:

When I first went to work for IBM in 1966 as a computer sales trainee, the company had just designed and announced for sale a new line of mainframe computers called the System 360. While on paper they looked fantastic, IBM was unable to build or provide systems and software support for what was being sold to customers. When I asked my manager what the company was going to do about this problem, he told me to "never confuse selling with installing." I think Mitt must have known my manager.

Romney and his allies love to say that Obama promised to cut the deficit in half and instead doubled it. And right-wing pundits mock the President for continuing to "blame Bush" after nearly four years in office. But again, let's look at the numbers, as displayed in Table 15.6 of Historical Tables — Budget of the U.S. Government — Fiscal Year 2103 — Office of Management and Budget:

US federal budget deficits (in billions of current dollars)

2008 — 458
2009 — 1412
2010 — 1283
2011 — 1299
2012 — 1101 (projected)

Obama took the oath of office in January 2009, so it looks bad for ol' Barack, doesn't it? But it's very important to remember that:

The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office. — "Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?," Forbes, 5/24/12

So it is indeed true that Obama has failed to cut the deficit in half, down to $706 billion. He's only cut it by $311 billion, or about 22%. But that's not quite doubling it, is it? And note that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the so-called "Stimulus Bill"), legislation that arguably was absolutely required to stop a decline into depression, and nearly half of which was tax cuts, was by far the largest component of Obama's new spending, as shown in this chart. That sure wasn't money he wanted to spend — more like had to. And now he's assailed for his unprecedented and destructive "big spending." Did he create the fiscal collapse that occurred in 2008 or launch a war in Iraq and enact a Medicare prescription drug benefit without doing anything about finding revenues to cover those outlays?

Obama is attacked for advocating/implementing a socialist redistribution of wealth that blocks economic growth and recovery. I'd argue that the economic policies of recent Republican administrations created an imbalance in the US economy that requires a substantial redistribution to lay a foundation for effective expansion. These charts map the relationship between the dramatic upward flow of national wealth to the top few percent that has occurred in the past thirty years and the tax policies that have contributed to it.

It seems to me that working hard creates wealth, not jobs. A maldistribution of wealth retards job creation. Will individuals who have accumulated tens of millions, even billions, of dollars of personal wealth create jobs? There are trillions of dollars "on the sideline" right now. Romney argues that it's "uncertainty" about regulation and taxes that holds back investment in enterprises that will spur an increase in employment. Middle-class demand creates jobs in the near future; investments in education, research, and infrastructure will create many more down the road.

You guys make decisions based on technical information. Don't fall for a slick sales pitch.

[Kaos Kid]

7b. No more automatic raises for politicians, have a 2-tier system--they have to vote themselves raises that don't take effect until the next term, and the PEOPLE have to vote yes on those raises in a special proposition. If the people don't vote the raises in, the pols don't get them. Make all the pols have the same benefits (or lack thereof pertaining to medical, retirement, and vacation pay) that average citizens do, and have to pay extra out of their own pockets if they want to go above and beyond. Lengthen the legislative sessions so the pols actually have to work instead of getting paid for a few months of actual work and the rest "play". Base pols pay on the average that their "duties" would bring in a real-world setting in the workforce. Why should a pol that works a few months per year and gets all sorts of perks and STILL get paid more than police or firefighters that risk their lives to protect others? Why should the pols be paid more than teachers who devote more of their time than just the school day (grading papers at night, having after-school tutoring sessions for students that are following behind, sponsoring after-school clubs, etc.) and are building up and molding our children to be productive citizens?

[mmi]

The cost of running the Congress is widely estimated at about five billion dollars annually, which is approximately thirteen one-hundredths of one percent of the total federal budget ($3.8 trillion). There's not much savings available there.

No more automatic raises for politicians, have a 2-tier system--they have to vote themselves raises that don't take effect until the next term

Well, ya got one tier already. The Twenty-Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was passed by the Congress in 1789 and finally ratified in 1992 — how's that for persistence? It states that

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Of course, like everything in Washington, it's not that simple:

Since 1989, a cost of living adjustment raises pay automatically unless Congress votes not to implement it. The COLA is constitutional because it became law before the states ratified the 27th amendment. The Constitution prohibits Congress from passing ex post facto laws (Article I, Section 9, Clause 3). The law permits Congress to forgo its raise if the members choose to do so. Congress has not taken its raise since January, 2009. — Tales Exaggerate Congressional Pay and Pensions

Lengthen the legislative sessions so the pols actually have to work instead of getting paid for a few months of actual work and the rest "play".

It's hard to see how that would help. In the current session, the House voted 33 times to either repeal, defund, or otherwise dismantle the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) when they knew the Senate wouldn't agree. They seem to have plenty of time to play games while in session.

Make all the pols have the same benefits … that average citizens do.
Base pols pay on the average that their "duties" would bring in a real-world setting in the workforce. Why should a pol that works a few months per year and gets all sorts of perks …

The author of the article quoted above goes on to argue that:

The corollary to the outrageous pay canard is the delusion that members of Congress don't bother to work for a living. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have been a public policy advocate and lobbyist for nearly 30 years. I have worked with members of Congress, their staffs, and Congressional committees. Regardless of my opinion of their politics, I can tell you that the vast majority of both elected representatives and staff members work harder than just about any other category of worker.

Membership in Congress is not a nine-to-five job. Congress only meets in legislative session about 100 days each year, but members spend much more time than that in committee meetings, hearings, staff and constituent meetings; reading bills, briefing materials, and correspondence; and making endless phone calls. And when they return to their home districts, they add functions, events, and town hall meetings to that list. And no matter where they go, someone is always grabbing their arms asking for "just a minute" of their time.

As you know, getting elected to Congress can pay off big-time down the road because of connections made and influence acquired. To the extent those earnings and their societal consequences work against the national interest, they arguably represent the true cost of our national legislature.

Some more opinion:
Congressional Benefits
Salaries and Retirement Benefits of U.S. Presidents and Other Federal Government Employees

[Kaos Kid]

Add this to the list:

NO MORE lifetime pensions for just a term or two of service. This shouldn't be a career and gravy train for the rest of their lives.

[mmi]

NO MORE lifetime pensions for just a term or two of service.

The Congressional retirement system is very similar to that of federal civilians. It’s true that a member of Congress can become eligible for retirement benefits after a minimum of 5 years of service if they’re age 62 or older, but only for a partial pension. To qualify for a pension a member of Congress must meet one of the following service and age requirements:

• 5 years of service and age 62
• 20 years of service and age 50
• 25 years of service at any age

[M]embers of Congress contribute to their own retirement and pay Social Security taxes. Once retired their Cost of Living Adjustments (COLA) are sometimes held artificially below the Consumer Price Index (CPI) which measures inflation. Since the Congressional retirement system was overhauled in 1984 (to be less generous) the average annual pension is roughly $40,000. — Congressional Benefits

[Kaos Kid]

Since the Congressional retirement system was overhauled in 1984 (to be less generous) the average annual pension is roughly $40,000.

Which is more per year sitting on their butts than many people get for working their whole lives, and they only had to "work" for 5 years

[mmi]

I'd argue that someone who invests five or more years of his/her professional life in public service probably deserves a pension. After all, wouldn't their retirement earnings have been supplemented significantly during that period if they had remained in the private sector? And since the $40K figure is cited as an average, it may be an appropriate amount.

As I suggested, someone who pursues a congressional career and hopes to benefit financially after leaving the Congress only from a pension is an individual we can most often probably only hope for.

[Kaos Kid]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. I look at them as I feel they should be: as public servants that are there to look out for us, whereas with the current system they are more like public wishing-wells expecting to have money thrown at them (from both the taxpayer and the lobbyists/Corporations) and we can only hope that they are putting the public interest above their own. That is where I disagree with their outsized lifelong compensation at public expense since they get much more out of us via salary, perks, and political connections that last long after they leave office than we will ever get out of them, whether currently serving or parlaying aforesaid benefits into wealth in the private sector (and often still at public expense). All this is just my opinion, of course, as your post is reflecting yours. I think we have both gone as far as we can expressing our respective opinions on this.

Next bullet point, please...