| Author | Message | ||
     Gregtonn |
From rasmussenreports.com. If Congress wants to change Social Security, 71% believe that any proposed changed should be submitted to a vote of the American people. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 21% disagree and 9% are not sure. Sixty-one percent (61%) say Congress should be required to get voter approval before raising taxes. On this topic, 33% disagree and 6% are not sure. Republicans and unaffiliated voters overwhelmingly support requiring voter approval for both entitlement changes and tax hikes. Seventy percent (70%) of Democrats favor the concept for changes in Social Security, but only 52% of Democrats want voters to have the final say on tax hikes. However, as is true on many topics, the gap between Mainstream Americans and the Political Class is bigger than the partisan divide. Seventy-eight percent (78%) of Mainstream voters say that voter approval should be required for changes in Social Security. Seventy-two percent (72%) favor the requirement for tax hikes. Among the Political Class, 60% oppose the requirement for approval of entitlement changes and 73% oppose it for tax hikes. (see more on the Political Class—Mainstream classification.) The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on August 29-30, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology. The gap between the Political Class and Mainstream Americans is deep. Most in the Political Class believe that increases in government spending and deficits are good for the economy. Mainstream voters have the opposite view. Data released earlier shows that 78% support having Congressional pay raises approved by voters. Seventy-five percent (75%) want Congress to cut its pay until the federal budget is balanced. Requiring voter approval might be one way of restoring the consent of the governed to our federal government. Currently, just 23% believe the government has such consent. According to the Declaration of Independence, consent of the governed is the only legitimate source of authority for any government. What do you think? G | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Voter approval would be unnecessary if the Federal Government didn't exceed its mandate and stuck to the 18 enumerated powers. The Federal Government would be a fraction of its current size. That said, I would love to see any entitlement program and any tax hike be put to a state by state vote. My guess, though is that it would take a Constitutional Amendment. Obamacare may just provide the catalyst to make that happen. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
give me a red pen and some authority; I will go alphabetical and make the govt bleed red... up until it is back in the black. Congress/senators should be paid on scale of military rankings; their health care should be at the VA; strict term limits at 3 consecutive. Make the lobbyist bribe a new guy every 4th time... see the swamp still has some sludge opt outs for medicare, medicaid, social security, I never plan to be eligible for any of them, I shouldnt have to contribute to them. And discretionary tax direction/nomination ie none of my taxes go to NEA (either one of them) the social programs are bankrupt anyways, quit the lies, unplug the programs. what did people do in 1961 ? yep, bring it back. | ||
| Rocketsprink |
I'd like to see tax cuts for the wealthy and tax breaks for companies shipping jobs overseas voted on as well. Wonder how that would turn out? | ||
| Crusty |
 | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
I'd like to see everyone keeping more of what they earn. Including the rich. I'd like to see companies incented to locate jobs domestically. | ||
| Aptbldr |
Subject post opens describing putting specific legislation "to vote of the American people". Wouldn't direct democracy lead to bad things quickly? Similar to a problematic system in-place now in California? | ||
| Ratbuell |
Unfortunately, the argument they'll use if it comes to "needing voter opinion" is..."the voters already voted us in, that's permission right there, they knew our stance when they voted for us". The whole system is corrupt, and has been for decades. Maybe paying them like public servants - on scale with a mailman, perhaps? - instead of paying them like rockstars would help the situation. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
I'd support some sort of direct tax referendum as long as tax increases are across the board. No getting to vote taxes on other people with no impact on yourself. Any top tax rate above 35% requires a one to one increase at the bottom tax rate. Wanna raise the top rate to 40%? Great. That'll be 5% at the bottom. | ||
| Hr_puffinstuff |
I'd settle for this: The 28th Amendment "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or the Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States." | ||
| Sifo |
We give them permission when we elect them into office. Vote carefully folks. | ||
| Paint_shaker |
I'd like to see no politician serve more than 4 years in any one office. Pay them a max of $70,000 per year. Make them use the same health care system as the citizens. Place them in the social security system. |
