Sir, surely you jest. It takes money, and lots of it, to support a military, navy, FAA, social security , highway systems and thousands of other required functions. Neither this country nor the 50 states could exist, without tax revenue. In the past (and now the present administration) tried to "just print money". They tell a story of a shopper in Germany, after WW-I, took a wheelbarrow load of his country's money to a store to buy groceries. He left the load of money in a corner, went shopping and returned to get his money to pay he bill---the money was there but the wheelbarrow was gone. Sir, just how would you run a country without money?---you would not even have a sidewalk or a paved street to travel or a policeman, street cleaner----chaos or anarchy would prevail. The 16th Amendment (ratified by 3/4 of the states), clearly states, "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived.....". Keep in mind, the two mottos that have contributed to the success of this great country, "United We Stand, Divided We Fall", and "...Because, without America, there is no Free World". Again, what is your solution, in some detail? Please.

MrEd, good post. People can say what they want about cutting and pasting but to get it right, do as I do, cut and paste! There are 35 states presently pressing for a Constitutional Congress, I think that 3 or 4 more are necessary to force such a huge face off. The best thing is that the Constitution allows this confrontation and in fact suggests it, if the Fed. gets out of line, which it has been for years! The reluctant states are quailing because they are totally dependent upon Federal funding. The answer to that is SHIFT FOR YOURSELF OR FUSE WITH ANOTHER STATE, Stop the pussy stuff! The States are the basis and backbone of the Constitution and our Country, they need to exert their power, NOW!
BTW, there are some really good comments in this particular Forum, Congrats ya'all!

Any change will require an Amendment to the Constitution and we need to change more than just the term issue---it is proven that congresspersons and the President can get into a lot of trouble in 8 years. I suggest term limits of one 4-year term for the house, one 6-year term for the Senate and one 4-year term for the president. It was never intended that there would be such an animal as a "career politician" who could retire as a millionaire. Also, both house and senate members, if qualified, could run for the presidency, but first, they would have to resign their present elected office. Also a house member could run for the senate, but again only if they resigned their house seat. And, senators would be prohibited from running for a house seat. Pensions would be a government nation-wide plan, open to all local, state and federal elected or appointed officials and funded by the agency they represent. Their pension plan would be a fully portable, contributory, defined contribution plan that could be moved to any new contribution plan in the private or public sector. Individual pensions at retirement would be that amount the individuals fund would support. Also, all congressional salaries should be paid by the states that they represent, with a cap of 3-times the median annual salary of the citizens in their state---when their citizens make more, the congressperson can make more. The present method of the federal government paying for congressional services, generates a "loyalty" (or intimidation) issue for each member. We also need a simplified method of recalling congress persons, "for cause"---if we "can vote them in" we should be able to "vote them out" and not have to wait for their term to expire. There is much more, but time is of the essence.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Have you no idea how many functions the federal government has stolen from the states' right to legislate and hence adjudicate? It boggles the mind! No government has ANY money that it has earned. ALL governments exist by virtue of forcefully taking it from its citizens. The correct term for it is what government calls TAXES. When a citizen does the same thing, the government calls it CRIMINAL THEFT. So, it can be said the government rules us, not vice versa. We merely get to elect the people who rule us - if we can.

Sir, are you unable to read? I never mentioned using no money! I said, "The states will of course have to wring the money out of the citizens, but if logic reigned (perish the thought), each state has more right to tax than does the federal government. States are constitutionally responsible for its citizens' well being."

Wouldn't you rather the STATE in which you reside controlled you than someone sitting in DC who has never seen you and probably never will? I could easily visit my reps in my state - whereas visiting across the nation is less feasible. If things were done a bit more properly, laws related to people and businesses would be at state level. Laws pertaining to the nation would be at federal level. Hence all taxes would be collected at state level, then sent to the federal level. I think I have already explained this. The reason it will NEVER be done is that it involves getting our elected officials to give up even a smidgeon of power they work so hard to attain and which they then rub our faces in.

I agree that we need to get rid of lifers in Congress, I also think the more important thing we must do is make sure that we have PROPER representation in our states. They are after all the ones that should be keeping the federal government in check, but instead they are letting them run all over everyone. The feds could be controlled very easily if the state wanted to. They don't want to simply because the feds have bought them off. The states budget is made up of about 40% federal money. As long as the feds buy them off and they keep taking federal money, we will get nothing done. The states can get rid of any law they feel like as long as it is unconstitutional simply by nullifying it.

In Federalist No. 33 (5th para), Alexander Hamilton writes:

“… If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard [Constitution] they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify.”

James Madison writes in his Report on the Virginia Resolutions (1799-1800) under the 3rd resolution:

“It…[is]…a plain principle, founded in common sense…and essential to the nature of compacts, that, where resort can be had to no tribunal superior to the authority of the parties, the parties themselves must be the rightful judges, in the last resort, whether the bargain made has been pursued or violated. The Constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the states, given by each in its sovereign capacity. … The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal, above their authority, to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; … ”

"Hamilton, Jefferson, and Madison are saying that because the States alone are “the parties” to the compact, they are the final authority to decide whether their “creature”, the federal government, has violated the compact. THIS is why States have the natural right of nullification!"

In short, it is the people and the states that are the sole arbiters as to if the law is Constitutional or not. The federal government has no voice in the matter since they were not parties to the agreement. IF you can get the states to do what they are supposed to do and IF you can keep them under control, THEN you can get the federal government under control. How do we do this?? Simple, LEARN the Constitution and DEMAND the states use the Constitution just like the federal government should. They are, after all, controlled by it just like we are. They cannot pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution any more then the federal government can. Now I know they do, but what I am saying is, they are not supposed to. They are governed by the Constitution just like everything else. If a law is passed that is Constitutional, but unjust, we still have recourse, but most people don't know about that either.

Now I know there are going to be people here gripping about me using cut and past AGAIN, but I am trying to make a point and I want to make sure that point is correct, so I cut and past. I also give links to where I got my information so you can go read it yourself. This is the link and you will find this information and more if you care to read it. Personally I think you should start your learning process by reading every one of her papers and she also has some videos that you can watch. All of which is VERY interesting, or at least I think it is. If you need to learn our Constitution, then is a great place to start.

http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/nullification-by-states/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Welcome to 1PP, artrans26fe!

Your suggestion is a good one, but as another poster said, we should make every elected official's tenure no longer than 2 years, and retirement income should be eliminated. Pay them for the time they are there, then quit paying them altogether. They aren't worth much in office and are worth absolutely NOTHING out of office. They don't need retirement as they get wealthy on the speech circuit after office, and we cannot afford to pay it.

The degree of corruption that they can amass over a 20-30 year tenure is unspeakable and unforgivable. We need to cut 'em off at the pass!