In response to:

Should Congress Slash Their Six Figure Salaries?

scrow Wrote: Feb 10, 2013 7:22 PM
How would publicly funded elections reducing public expenses, and the government/public deficit?
Rebecca239 Wrote: Feb 11, 2013 3:00 AM
It would reduce the CORRUPTION involved. I have long advocated for this. Each station - TV and Radio - using public airwaves (those would be ours) should give EVERY candidate 2 - 3 hours of air time to present their platform. Everyone in the same election cycle should be given the SAME amount of time. If a candidate can't say what they stand for in that time, they are too stupid to serve us. No other politic-ting allowed. So they are forced to hone their message and keep it to the truth. It that gives them time to lie, cut it further. This cuts out unions, lobbyists, foreign criminals, and LOCAL criminals. It would return politics to the people actually ELECTING them.

It’s a well-established fact that members of Congress more often than not leave Washington far richer than when they arrived. (Just look at how Harry Reid made his money, for example). But at a time of such high unemployment and trillion dollar-plus deficits, should members of Congress really be making $174,000 a year? Perhaps they should. But while this never-ending debate rages on, it’s comforting to know that at least some Congressional lawmakers (mostly Republicans, it seems) recognize the glaring disconnect between Washington’s rich and famous and the average working American. And, to their credit, they are trying to...