Should Thes Folks Open Their Lands To The Public??

[FarmerDave]

Maurice wrote:

FarmerDave wrote:
I'd didn't say it can't be fixed. It would just be hard to fix. How would you determine who gets what, and in such a way that it totally eliminates abuse?

Easy to fix and eliminates abuse.

Make all public employees exempt from applying for government subsidies. In other words, you cannot benefit from something you legislate at the expense of the taxpayer.

That goes for pay raises too.


Maurice

I have to disagree. Politicians are not the only ones who abuse this kind of thing. And even if they were, what about after they leave office? What about their friends and relatives. As long as there are entitlement programs, there will be abuse of entitlement programs. The only easy way to eliminate this abuse is take it all away, and that aint gonna happen (IMHO).

As far as their pay goes... I look at this the same way i look at teachers. If you want good ones, you gotta pay them accordingly, otherwise they will go to a profession that pays better. The congressional pay is so low, it attracts crooks. I'm not saying they are all crooks, but how many honest people would spend millions of dollars to land a $165,200 job? A temporary job at that. Many are after the power and the perks. It's a catch 22.

 

[JackM]

Maurice, you didn't stop at the specific but tried to hone a general rule that didn't seem to be reasonable. But I'm glad we got to pay raises, which was one of your specifics:

In Pennsylvania, the rule is designed so that after a pay raise is passed, the legislators must first face re-election before they can benefit from it. Now I know they found a way around that with unvouchered expenditures, but many of them refused to take the backdoor raise in that form, even a rare few who actually voted for the raise refuse the expense work-around. This is the way to control legislators self-dealing. Require them to face re-election before they can benefit from a government program. There are already ethics disclosure requirements. But the problem is that people would rather lump all "politicians" into a group and refer to them as "excrement" because they are too lazy to find out whether their own representatives are one of the good ones or one of the bad ones. Instead of spending time educating themselves about politics, government and candidates and volunteering to help promote candidacies of dedicated public servants, they'd rather spend that extra time fishing or rolling boulders into the stream, or helping stock trout-- you know, something that benefits themselves more directly. :-o

 

[Wulff-Man]

JackM wrote:

So how far do we take this? If our legislature decides to reenact the motorcycle helmet law, do all legislators who ride a motorcycle have to do so without a helmet, because if they wore a helmet, thus increasing their crash safety factor, they would be benefitting from legislation they passed. Or, if you don't like that one, should Federal legislators be prohibitted from collecting social security? Maybe they and their families shouldn't get to take any tax deductions either.

In one of the first links that littlejuniata posted, it discussed how the executive and judicial branches were prohibited from benefitting from their actions, while the legislative branch had no such restrictions. I don't know the details, but it may be in the link to some extent.

As far as your comment on social security, I believe that the legislators don't get social security - they have their own pension fund which is taxpayer-funded (of course) and much more lucrative than social security. Now, this is one case where I think they should get the same benefits as the rest of us, that way maybe they would be more concerned about the future health of social security!

 

[littlejuniata]

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/21891.html

 

[FarmerDave]

littlejuniata wrote:
Public access and farm subsidies. If we pay we should be allowed access, the landowner has a choice either take public subsidies and allow access or don't takt the money? Isn't is sort of like if you would go the theater, pay your money then be denied access to the movie??

No, it isn't even remotely like that.

****, do you collect social security, Medicare or Medicaid? If so, I should be allowed access to your pile of bamboo fly rods. :-D

There are several reasons why public access should not be tied to this. For one thing, there are safety reasons. Another is the impact the public would cause to the farmer's land and livelihood, resulting in a need for even more subsidies. Do I need to think of more? That's it! If a farmer receives a subsidy, they should be driven off their land!!! (sarcasm)
;-)

 

[JackM]

Legislators get SSI if they qualify like anyone else and they pay into the system like anyone else. They have pension plans just like private individuals. What they don't have is unemployment compensation and they have to compete for their job every 2 years (in PA). How many of us have to ask the general public to re-employ us every two years? What of the legislator who gets in for 2 years and in that time votes to increase SSI benefits. When he's out on his butt in two years, how big is his legislative pension going to be for working 2 years? Should he get SSI? The matter is not as simple as it may seem.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/pensions.asp

 

[FarmerDave]

JackM wrote:
Legislators get SSI if they qualify like anyone else and they pay into the system like anyone else. They have pension plans just like private individuals. ...

Jack, The only thing common between my pension plan and theirs, is they are both pension plans. :roll:

And speaking of abuse, We could always talk about the congressional post office. :roll: :roll:

 

[littlejuniata]

Yes Dave I collect all the above, but I also paid into those funds for 50 years. It seems many folks here in Huntingdon county collect subsudies, but it seems only the selfsh ones post theiri lands? Many feel an obligation to leave their lands open to the public.

 

[Wulff-Man]

Well it looks like I was a victim of Urban Legend on the social security thing.

Here's an excerpt from the piece about the legislative branch lacking restrictions on benefitting from their legislation:

"Of the three branches of the federal government, Congress has the fewest prohibitions on conflicts of interest and acts of self-dealing. Officials in the execu­tive branch and judiciary are required to divest them­selves of any investment in or ownership of for-profit entities that may be within the purview of their agency or court. They are also under strict limits on the extent to which members of their immediate fami­lies may benefit directly from their position.

In contrast, Members of Congress are not required to divest themselves of any financial inter­est, even if that interest is subject to their official oversight and influence. Nor are they required to recuse themselves from voting on issues that may harm or benefit the personal investment interests of themselves or their relatives."

Here's the link: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Agriculture/bg2045.cfm

 

[littlejuniata]

Well the least we can do is email our reps and express our opinions, http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/26/business/farm.php why don't they just admit it is all about buying votes?

 

[FarmerDave]

****, I was joking with you about the social security thing. I know it is apples to oranges.

However, you did once say i could visit your bamboo pile if I ever make it over that way. :-D

 

[FarmerDave]

Wulff-Man wrote:
Well it looks like I was a victim of Urban Legend on the social security thing.

Here's an excerpt from the piece about the legislative branch lacking restrictions on benefitting from their legislation:

"Of the three branches of the federal government, Congress has the fewest prohibitions on conflicts of interest and acts of self-dealing. Officials in the execu­tive branch and judiciary are required to divest them­selves of any investment in or ownership of for-profit entities that may be within the purview of their agency or court. They are also under strict limits on the extent to which members of their immediate fami­lies may benefit directly from their position.

In contrast, Members of Congress are not required to divest themselves of any financial inter­est, even if that interest is subject to their official oversight and influence. Nor are they required to recuse themselves from voting on issues that may harm or benefit the personal investment interests of themselves or their relatives."

Here's the link: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Agriculture/bg2045.cfm

WM, you are right about that. I'd be fired or put in jail for most of what those guys pull off.

 

[littlejuniata]

I would think that if the landowners income is over $200,000.00 per year that they should not receive subsidies. Come on over Dave, it may be a little dangerous to enter that room though!! Too much junk in there, I just finished doing a little cleaning in the garage, the basement is next.

 

[littlejuniata]

http://farm.ewg.org/farm/persondetail.php?custnumber=001711819&summlevel=whois

 

[JackM]

The reason there are less restrictions on the legislative branch has a lot to do with the relative transparency with which they do business. All legislative votes are public roll calls. They don't have secret ballots for passing legislation. Also, they face re-election more frequently (typically) and they don't exercise a discretionary function (such as in the executive branch) or judicial function carried out in a private chamber. I'm not arguing against greater restriction so much as I am explaining why tighter controls have developed with respect to the other branches of government.

 

[Maurice]

JackM wrote:
.... Instead of spending time educating themselves about politics, government and candidates and volunteering to help promote candidacies of dedicated public servants, they'd rather spend that extra time fishing or rolling boulders into the stream, or helping stock trout-- you know, something that benefits themselves more directly. :-o

another ridiculous comparason. first of all, politicians (paid employees) considered as public servants (or any other paid government employee) is an oxymoron. We pay them and you just like everyone else to perform a task. The only difference is if you fail...it just goes on and on. If the private sector fails, we go out of business.

At least my public serving albiet also self-serving action is a volunteer effort and not a monitarily compensated effort. Whereas you feel "entitled" to all the benefits from volunteers above mentioned extra time spent.

 

[JackM]

Sorry Maurice, but you're mixing things up. The volunteers I was speaking about were not paid public servants, but the unpaid completely volunteer workers who spend their time educating themselves about the candidates and issues and then volunteer to help public servants to get elected that will use their influence to pass legislation for the betterment of society rather than to line their own pockets. Meanwhile, the boulder-rollers just criticise and stereotype and whatever good government they get, they get on the efforts of those completely unpaid volunteers who cared enough about good government to research and support honorable public servants.