Comments by ljordan
Posted on September 25 at 5:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
George Putman, you "hit the nail on the head".
Posted on September 19 at 1:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey Bob Lindinger,
Why not vote for Gary Johnson. He is eminently more qualified than Trump, more likely to keep the US out of a war, speaks like an adult and displays a modicum of intelligence. Frankly, I think your disdain for HRC may be unwarranted, but to subject our country to ridicule at best or destruction from within or without at worst, is too high a price to pay for hating Hillary. Larry Jordan
Posted on January 22 at 11:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well done Jim. The city needs more good ideas and folks like you to push them through.
Posted on April 17 at 7:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It is extremely hard for career politicians not to eventually become corrupted. Three things need to change:
1 A one term limit, e.g. 6 years. This keeps them engaged in the people's work, not campaigning for re-election.
2 Pay very well, perhaps $300k - $500k per year. This attracts top talent.
3 Prohibit the receipt of anything of value from anyone. Include the politicians family, and make the penalty for failure severe.
Also, politicians should be subject to a yearly performance review by a citizens committee. Failure to meet objectives could result in early termination and a special election for replacement.
Those seeking to serve the people leave their jobs for a term as representative. They continue to pay social security and continue to contribute to their retirement savings. After their term they return to their job. There is no additional pension or retirement benefit.
Posted on March 28 at 8:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Could have chosen a more flattering photo than one with a rusty auto in the foreground.
Posted on May 20 at 7:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What can one expect from career politicians unconstrained from lining their pockets at the expense of the people they "serve"? It's hard to imagine how this broken system ever gets fixed as long as those in a position to affect remedy are those on the "take".
Posted on October 11 at 10:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Tom Williams - nice job looking behind the opinion pieces for motivation. Add wmarincic to the unbalanced.
Posted on September 3 at 9:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well done Angela - articulate and level headed!
Posted on June 30 at 6:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well done Daniel
Posted on December 7 at 11:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There's no question that the cost of our social safety net must be reduced, but exempting anyone, especially the rich, from paying a fair share simply because it doesn't fully solve the problem is silly. Our situation will only be solved through shared sacrifice. The Bush tax cuts and two wars put us in a hole, and everyone needs to do their part to get us out. Unfortunately, there are many who are simply unable to do more. They live hand-to-mouth. So for them I would say they're already doing all they can. But, there are many who could do much more without any adverse impact. And an even larger group that could do a little more with some belt tightening. This problem needs to be attacked from both the revenue side (shared sacrifice) and the cost side, and no one should get a free ride.