TexasCHLforum.com

marksiwel wrote:is there a REAL reason that you need to be in DC to do your job as a congressman/woman in these high tech days?

Considering what those "hackers" did to East Anglia, any smart politician will never use the internet again. Much less cast a vote or hold a hearing via telecommute.

I would love to bring up some interesting tax statistics though if I may. Federal Taxes Paid vs. Federal Spending Received via Taxfoundation.org:

Texas
Year: 2005
Federal Taxes Paid to DC: $146,932,000,000
Federal Spending Received: $148,683,000,000
Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Tax Paid: $0.94
State Rank (1 is Highest): 35

Washington D.C.
Year: 2005
Federal Taxes Paid to DC: $6,735,000,000
Federal Spending Received: $37,859,000,000
Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Tax Paid: $5.55
State Rank (1 is Highest): NA - but it is the highest.

New Mexico comes in a distant second (and have since 1981) at $2.03/tax dollar paid. When criminals do this I believe it's called a "skim".

Great list Oldgringo!

As far as term limits go, I was at a Tea Party down in Seguin on Saturday and Debra Medina said something to the effect of:

"Many of you would not wish for your wife to go to the local saloon everynight, as it can be a corrupting influence on someone.
Likewise, many of the wives here would not let your husband do the same. We elect the best and brightest to represent our interests, but the environment we place them in is far more corrupting."

I hadn't really considered it from this angle before, but it's really something I took to heart.

She proposed that we make term limits a party priority as it's not likely to come to fruition on it's own. Given that the Republican party just announced it's "litmus" test for potential candidates, I don't see why a party term limit for campaign funding can't be drawn there. Got a lot more teeth than the "Contract With America" don'tcha think?