 |
 |
A few weeks ago I wrote about a checklist containing the key principles that define an elected official as being one of the people, or as having been co-opted into the system and no longer representative of the people.
In that article I wrote about the importance of opening up access to government affairs using televised public meetings. I think that if we study history we will find that the common theme possessed by most totalitarian governments is secrecy. A closed government has the ability to deceive and trick their own people because there is no way for the people to discover the truth. As such, an important cornerstone of our Republic is openness and ease of access by the people to the affairs of government. Due to the prevalent availability of technology, this openness should be more prevalent than ever. There is a need for our elected officials to allow today’s technology to open up government in ways that have not been possible in the past. An important test for those seeking my vote is whether or not they support initiatives to further open up access to the government.
Another item that I believe is important when determining the motives of elected officials is the consideration of how they act regarding their own compensation. Read more…
Monday, August 11th, 2008 OK Legislator's Blog, Rep. Jason Murphey Trackback URL for this entry
Theme by Benedikt Rieke-Benninghaus Powered by Wordpress
4 Comments
1. Wayne Rohde replies at 12th August 2008, 6:46 am :
I applaude Rep Murphey’s actions to create a more open government for the citizens of Oklahoma. I want to add that our government should be open to “hear” the people’s business when brought before them instead of burying bills because of the party caucus pre-set agendas.
This practice alone is creating a lot of anger with the general public. People’s business not being heard in the “People’s House”.
During the last session alone, Cherokee Chief Smith was denied to be heard in committee and Nick’s Law was denied a vote of the House of Representatives. In both cases, the citizens of Oklahoma were denied representation.
2. Mr. Conservative replies at 13th August 2008, 4:47 pm :
“The People’s Business” as in not letting insurance companies decide what they will or will not cover? “The People’s Business” as in trying to turn a private enterprise — health insurance — into welfare for people who deem themselves too good to go get on the dole like the rest of the needy? Exactly which “The People’s Business” are we talking about? In what way is preventing silliness which has nothing to do with the legitimate role of government not doing “The People’s Business”?
3. Mr. Conservative replies at 13th August 2008, 9:39 pm :
Or perhaps a better question might be, “In what way is using the power of government to take money out of someone else’s pocket and putting it into your own, by whatever mechanism, ‘The People’s Business’?”
4. The_real_powerbroker replies at 14th August 2008, 3:03 pm :
Why is a pay raise a bad thing? Do we want citizen legislators or millionaires who can afford to not receive a paycheck.
Jason may have the financial means to live on less, but let’s be real, $40,000 is not that much for alot of citizen legislators. If that person has a family with 2 or 3 kids, can they be encouraged to quit their job and represent the people?
And don’t give me this B.S. about it being part time. Although session is 5 months,legislators are working throughout the year.
Plus, unless you’re a lawyer, own your own business, or have a sweetheart deal with a company who expects you to vote their way, most companies won’t employ someone 6 months out of the year.
And yes I know people live on less, but do leaders? Do I want Billy Ray who felt he’s “made it” when he gets to work the Drive-thru window at Taco Bueno to decide legislation that will affect us all? Or do i want the guy or gal who’s working middle management, or an account executive who has the aspiration to change the world for the better, but doesn’t want to downgrade their house, car, etc to represent the people.
So what does that leave us? People to whom 40,000 is plenty, have a union job that will pay them salary even when they are in session, or have enough money that they don’t need a salary in the first place?
And who does this leave out? Middle Class people making $50,000- $100,000 that usually bear the brunt of most of the tax hikes, insurance bills, and other useless laws that are passed by people either on the dole by a special interest, or enough money that it doesn’t affect them in the first place.
I’ve know several good leaders who went back into the private sector because they couldn’t afford to live on the salary
Leave a comment