GA-8: Meyers wants to cut congressional pay

Sorry to post all these press releases lately, but I’m clearing out my inbox.

Valerie Meyers, who is running for the Republican Party’s nomination in GA-8, sent out a press release yesterday pledging to vote to cut her own pay if elected to office:

Valerie Meyers, a candidate for the Republican nomination for Georgia’s 8th District Congressional seat, has announced that she will commit to a self-imposed pay cut if elected to replace Jim Marshall. Meyers, a Bonaire resident who announced her candidacy in November, says she believes a salary of $52,000 – roughly the median income of citizens of the 8th district – should be the salary of anyone willing to take the office.“Jim Marshall and his Congressional colleagues have displayed irresponsible spending habits; the most effective way to curb reckless spending is to start sweeping around one’s own doorstep. That means cutting salaries of elected officials, starting right here in middle Georgia.”

One of six announced Republicans contesting for the GOP nomination in July’s primary, Valerie Meyers is an information technology business analyst and technical writer. She recently completed coursework for her master’s degree in international business administration.

A long-time advocate for fiscal responsibility, Meyers believes the best way to stimulate the economy and spur job creation is to reduce government spending and cut taxes.“Small business owners and entrepreneurs in the private sector are being forced to cut costs and cut salaries. Why should leaders in elected office be exempt from the pinch of the economic recession?”

According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, House members are salaried $174,000 per year – more than four times the $36,300 the average citizen of the 8th district makes yearly.

Meyers says that such a pay scale is integral to maintaining a form of government by and for the common people: “As an elected official, I will be an employee of the citizens of Georgia’s eighth Congressional district. Why should an employee earn more money than her employer?”

Valerie Meyers is not alone in calling for a Congressional pay cut; Adam Kokesh, a Republican House candidate from New Mexico, is promising a similar cut if elected. Ms. Meyers pledges to caucus with Kokesh and other like-minded leaders to bring about across-the-board pay cuts among all members of Congress and slash operational budgets.

Meyers says she would like to see the money saved returned to taxpayers or used to pay off national debt.

A life-long Republican, Meyers has been endorsed by, which aims to elect non-incumbent Republicans to Congress. Valerie Meyers was ranked by LibertySlate as the top 2010 Congressional campaign in the nation.

Her campaign platform can be found at her website,


  1. ByteMe says:

    LOL!!! Clearly she doesn’t understand the relative cost of living/working in DC and having to travel back and forth on your own nickel to your home district.

    • polisavvy says:

      That’s a damn truth! $650 for a bedroom in D.C. The idea is great; but, unless she’s got a whole lot of money saved up, good luck living on that in D.C. Of course, she could do like that Congressman who sleeps in his office. That would work!

      • Mozart says:

        So, if it’s $650 a night for a bed in DC, all of a sudden, Elliot Spitzer’s $2500 “all-night escorted dates” seem darned reasonable, don’t they?

        • polisavvy says:

          ROFLMAO! You did it again. Seriously, my son rented a room for $650 a month. I kid you not. He didn’t use it in the same manner as old Elliot, though.

          • polisavvy,

            When did he get a room for that rate? Good deal up there. I had a friend who paid $800/month for an efficiency apt in DC back in the mid 1980s – and he was happy with the rate.

          • polisavvy says:

            January 2008. Not a very large room either. He could use the kitchen, but that’s it (well, and, of course, the bathroom).

    • To be fair though, she also says they meet way too many days per year. If you cut the amount of time they spent legislating / in session / whatever, you’d also cut the amount of their expenses quite a bit as well I would imagine.

      • polisavvy says:

        That is absolutely the truth. They do meet way too many days and waste way too much time on our dime. I think her idea is fantastic, I just meant it ain’t cheap to live anywhere in and around the Beltway. I truly wish her the best in her election. I wasn’t trying to be rude or snide and hope no one interpreted it that way.

      • Doug Deal says:

        A better idea might be to close the Capitol and have congressmen meet via the internet from their offices back home. This would serve a few purposes.

        1) Lobbyists would not be able to just sit up shop in Washington and pick off every member of Congress at will, they would actually have to fly around the country to meet them in their district.

        2) Congressmen would stay grounded in the realities of their own district instead of listening to the siren song of Washington. Make an unpopular vote and you will have to hear about it every day from everyone.

        3) Spreading Congress around the country would make it more difficult to bring down the government in a single act.

        4) Washington could go back to being just another city as power is again distributed around the country.

        Heck, I think something like this would be good for Atlanta as well.

    • ricstewart says:

      Valerie is not alone in calling for Congressional pay cuts; she’s one of many liberty-minded candidates making similar pledges. The majority of these candidates are also calling for Congress to convene less frequently. The Constitution only requires Congress to convene once a year. While I would imagine these candidates would prefer more than once a year, the general idea is that a large portion of the business can be done from their home districts via telecommuting. There’s a whole movement about de-centralizing Congress at
      While I’m not in favor of the plan exactly as it’s outlined on that site, the general idea is a good one.

  2. John Konop says:

    I have and idea, why not cutoff all lifetime benefits? The savings would be amazing and it would not encourage lifetime officeholders instead of working in the real world.

    • ricstewart says:

      Valerie’s plan includes joining with other like-minded members of the 112th Congress to do the same thing. There are other first-time candidates making similar pledges, so she’s not alone.
      She also plans to introduce legislation to order an audit of offices of Congress members to streamline offices and increase efficiency. For instance, Jim Marshall operates four fully-staffed offices: three in GA, one in Washington. John Barrow in GA-12 has five fully-staffed offices. There’s no need for this in an era of technology and telecommuting. She also plans to call for limitations on the Congressional franking privilege and would like to see Congress convene less often to reduce taxpayer-subsidized travel expenses.
      And, of course, she has a plan to cut wasteful and needless government spending on obsolete and pointless bureaucracies like the U.S. Department of Education, NASA, Department of Energy, etc.
      I’m not sure what her stance on lifetime benefits is, but I would imagine she aligns with your view.

      • Doug Deal says:

        Bucket meet drop.

        This is all well and good, but isn’t constituent services something you want to encourage, not defund?

        Marshall’s district is huge and three offices are not that much to expect from something that covers such a large geographical area. Do you expect everyone in Jackson to go all the way down to Tifton when they want to meet with his office, or Tifton to come to Jackson? You could split the difference in Macon, but we are still talking a “fer peace”.

        Instead of consulting the Populist playbook on ideas that might get cheers from crowds, how about addressing real issues.

        If you think this idea wins this district for the GOP, I will post back when I have finally stopped laughing.

        • drjay says:

          what about a congressman from wyoming? and telecommuting is all well and good for a consultant making a presentation but not really for trying to get your kid appointed to a service academy…

          • Doug Deal says:


            I don’t want you to come around to thinking it isn’t happening. I just want you to say it is possible that the methods used by the pro AGW side have serious flaws that need to be looked at.

            AGW is one of those issue that cause me to cringe and roll my eyes on both sides (abortion is another), but I come to the defense of the anti-AGW more often because they are the side that needs it more often. I see a lot of similarities in how we look at things, but for some reason your skeptical side seems to be taking a break on that issue.

            In any event, Valerie is a good, smart and capable person and we would not be in too bad of shape if she ended up in Congress, but issues like this make her look silly and quite frankly I am disappointed this is coming from her camp. Things like this should be vetted by more savvy political folks. However, having worked with multiple candidates in various capacities in the GOP side of the 8th, I must say there is a lot of that going around.

          • Doug Deal says:

            I take my comments back. Valerie is a not emotionally stable enough to run for dog catcher, much less congress.

            If you cannot help but take criticism personally, then you have no place in politics.

        • ricstewart says:

          Nobody’s talking about ELIMINATING the offices in Dublin, Tifton, and Macon. But having those offices fully-staffed from 9-5 from Monday-Friday is a little much. How many people actually drop by these offices on a day-to-day basis? Of course Valerie Meyers would keep these offices in existence, but she would assess how much staff and how many office hours are needed.

          • rugby says:

            At the very least it ensures our government is fully open and transparent.

            The level of activity also depends on the congressman and what else is going on in the world. Considering as well that Congress performs more duties than ever could have been imagined by the founders and we have far more people in each district than the founders wanted, it is safe to assume they are busy folks.

        • Doug,

          I think the percentage of matters that need to be discussed face-to-face is small. I also believe that it’s less expensive to send a Congressman’s representatives to visit county seats and larger towns in the district. It also forces the Representative’s representatives to move about in the district and get an idea of what people are thinking.

          Just my two cents worth.

      • macho says:

        “She also plans to call for limitations on the Congressional franking privilege ”

        Paul Broun will be against this.

        • rugby says:

          It is probably also one of the stupidest one of her proposals that is proposed only to shore up some of her conservative credentials.

      • Publius says:

        Marshall has one fully staffed office in Macon and a constituent office in Dublin, that I believe is hardly ever used. The constituent workers primarily work out of the Macon Office.

    • John Konop says:

      Good point!

      I would add an officeholder should have to pay what the average person pays for the same type of plan. And if they want more coverage they should pay for it.

      • polisavvy says:

        Absolutely. And, while we’re talking about Congress and their fringe benefits, I don’t think we should be supplying their alcohol on their “chartered” planes either. They should try to tighten their belts just like the rest of us.

  3. Doug Deal says:

    Demonizing income is not exactly a fiscally conservative idea. Members of Congress should make more than the average person, as their responsibilities are clearly greater than what the average person has to deal with. Not to mention the need to maintain two households. Unless one only wants the very wealthy in Washington, this is a horrible idea. No one should get rich by simply going to Congress, but 170K a year is not all that much money.

    Term limits, however, are something I would support, as well as strict term limits. Money is not the problem in Washington, it’s power and the corrupting influence of Washington culture.

        • drjay says:

          not to be a contrarian, but if some dude does spend even 20 years in congress, which could be doable even w/ term limits in place, how is that different from 20 years as a cop or a postal worker?

          • If I work 20 years for my current employer, I will receive no pension. I would think that members of congress could probably figure out how to manage their finances somehow enough to save for retirement through an IRA or something or suffer the consequences like the rest of us non-government workers.

          • Doug Deal says:

            Firemen, cops or postal workers are actual career jobs. Congressman was never meant to be. The problem with Congress is that people spend 20 years or more there when they should be spending more time at home.

            For short termers, the pension is not really all that much (the minimum for a member who served 5 years and retires at age 62 is ~$35,000 a year) but it sends the wrong message. Congress should not be thought of as a job for life.

        • polisavvy says:

          Agreed. Don’t most come out wealthier than they were when they went in office? If so, they can save for their golden years and pick up the tab for the remainder of their lives and support themselves, just like the rest of us.

          • ByteMe says:

            Most do not unless they were a career state/local politician before going to DC. It’s too expensive to live/work in DC and commute back to your district to live on $175K.

            Only way to make any real money is to do it for a little while, then come back home to the well-paying job at the law firm or corporate board who wants to put you on the letterhead for doing a little rainmaking.

    • ricstewart says:

      I don’t think demonizing income is what’s going on here. But as she’s said, if she’s elected she’ll be the employee of the voters of GA-8. Why should the employee be paid more than the employer? Valerie has certainly thought this through and understands the sacrifices she’ll have to make in order for this to work. You’re right, $174,000 is not an exorbitant amount, but it’s more than 4 times the national average and 4 times the average in GA-8. Millions of Americans right now are tightening their belts, and so is she; that gives her an advantage when it comes to tightening the belt on bloated federal budgets.
      Most importantly, this is only a small step that is representative of Ms. Meyers’s larger plan to cut bureaucracy, slash wasteful government spending, and return the power to the voters. Her plan also includes auditing offices of legislators to streamline efficiency, limit Congressional franking privelege, and cut spending on wasteful, pointless agencies like the Dept. of Ed., FDA, Dept. of Energy, and NASA.

      • ByteMe says:

        LOL!! Wow, this press release is just the gift of laughter that keeps on giving.

        If you’re one of Ms. Meyer’s sock puppets, you might want to find out what the Dept of Energy and FDA actually do before you call them “pointless”.

        • ricstewart says:

          Nobody’s talking about completely eliminating the Department of Energy or the FDA, but many of the functions they perform can be done in the private sector. A lot of the FDA’s job is already done by insurance companies and underwriters.

        • ByteMe,

          While the Dept of Energy has some important regulatory tasks, its primary purpose was to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. Please forgive me if I’m less than impressed with the results.

          As for the Department of Education, that money would be better spent at the local government level to actually help educate people.

          What we need is a sunset law on these agencies where their “achievements” are compared to their original purpose. Then we grade them pass/fail and if you fail you disappear.

          • ByteMe says:

            The DoEn’s origins were indeed in the oil crisis of the early ’70’s, but it’s also responsible for building/testing and dismantling nuclear weapons, and SDI. Not a small thing. As for our issues with foreign oil, blame it on you-kn0w-who who decided that oil was more important as an energy source than anything else and dismantled any contrary energy policies.

            Without the DoEd, Georgia would have to raise property taxes a HUGE amount in order to fund education. That’s what happens in poor states, they complain about redistribution of wealth, not recognizing that they are the primary benefactors. Georgia schools are severely underfunded relative to schools in wealthier states. We make up for it with our accents.

            The FDA’s job, Ric, is NOT done by insurance companies and underwriters. Please go do some homework.

          • ByteMe,

            Yep. The nuclear stuff is part of the important regulatory tasks I was talking about.

            As for the Dept of Education, my thought was that the individuals could retain that money thus being able to pay more for local education. Georgia is a net donor state to the federal government. The important thing being that people would be able to see how their tax dollars are spent and we would not have to pay the federal government’s cost of administering this money.

            And I’m sure you could probably find a few agencies that do duplicate (or triplicate) work of other agencies. There is room to cut the federal budget, don’t you think?

          • ByteMe says:

            Of course, there’s always going to be slop in a $3 Trillion enterprise. But even if you eliminated all discretionary spending (except for military and VA), you don’t balance the budget. And, of course, getting rid of the FDA is just laughable.

            No, GA is not a net donor state; it’s a break-even state at last check, but considering that taxes need to go up in order to fund the Fed budget, you don’t really think that getting rid of the one place where Fed dollars come back into the state (it ain’t coming so much for the DOT, right?) is going to help (and it’s only a few billion anyway, a rounding error on the Fed budget).

            As for DoEn: that’s not regulating nuclear stuff, they were actually building the bombs and they are now helping other countries dismantle the old ones. Not so regulatory; very hands-on.

        • Mozart says:

          If it wasn’t for the FDA, we wouldn’t have to read those notification labels on vitamins and health-food stuff like “WARNING: The FDA has not yet determined whether this reconstituted squirrel feces will stop dandruff. Check with your own medical professional. Or, witch doctor.”

    • ricstewart says:

      In the free market, if a business is trillions of dollars in debt (disregarding the fact that said business wouldn’t be in existence), would its employees’ salaries go up or down?


          • griftdrift says:

            Instead of giving them a traffic boost, let me give you a quote from the fine group Ms. Meyers said she enjoyed meeting.

            “Things are already being set in place in order to quell civil unrest among law abiding citizens like you and I, who will resist tyranny. Get to know your local sheriff; he is the law of the land in your county; not the FBI or any federal agent. This is according to the US constitution. State sovereignty is also still constitutional, for how long I don’t know; but it is illegally being usurped by the Federal government. We will take our country back if we join together, but we have to get involved in the process. We have a gubernatorial candidate that has come out strong for state’s sovereignty, let’s make sure he succeeds. Folks, we are not breaking the law, they’re the lawless ones.”

            Then my absolute favorite part. This is the height of awesomeness:

            “You may want to get a bicycle; this is not meant to be funny. Maybe an older model vehicle that doesn’t run on computer, and some stored fuel. There is already technology and it’s in the possession of small militant countries that can use a small, innocent looking ocean vessel; detonate a small warhead a hundred miles off shore and nullify ALL electronic impulses for a year. No telephone, no generators, no electricity, no fighter planes or other defense machines; or anyway to coordinate a defense against an enemy. We’d be defenseless. Anything electronic will be ineffective.”

          • griftdrift,

            At the risk of sounding like a “secessionist theocrat”, I’ll point out that the dangers of an EMP are real, especially a non-nuclear EMP.

            Many folks have pointed out that we are very vulnerable to such an attack. It’s not up to me to determine if they took the threat too seriously. This threat does, though, exist.

          • griftdrift says:

            Well Ken, then you should probably get a bike. One without a computer.


            Just to be clear. Those aren’t Meyers comment. They are from a blog of an organization she said she “enjoyed meeting”.

          • polisavvy says:

            I knew that Grift. I’m just amazed at the rhetoric, that’s what I meant by wow (and her enjoying meeting that group). Perhaps I worded myself incorrectly and for that I apologize.

          • Mozart says:

            So, if one meets a group of folks who happen to have strange-sounding ideas to Grift, paint the whole group and the meet-ee with a broad brush, eh?

            Cuba is still waiting for you Grifty. It’s a paradise for you already set-up so you won’t need to think about who to elect for el Presidente, el Secretary of State, el Agricultural of Commisare, and el Minister of Propagandes. In fact, if you hurry-up and start rowing now, you could possibly get the appointment for el Minister of Propagandes. Si?

          • polisavvy says:

            Mozart, I read it and thought it a tad extreme. I didn’t need Grift to point that out to me. You are really after me for some reason. Wish I knew why? 🙂

  4. I believe the point of the pay reduction legislation is to help persuade Congressmen to spend more time in their home districts.

    I think Congressmen spending a little more time with the masses and less in the Potomac-fever filled air is a good thing. Will the pay reductions alone accomplish this? Probably not, but I believe it might help.

    • drjay says:

      that would be fine if they were going to go to a model like our state ledge has, but i’m not sure how doable, or even practical that really is…a friend of mine was seriously considering running for congress but one of the things that made him hesitate (he ultimately decided against it) was being told he would basically have to give up his business if he was elected–and considering the whole thing w/ deal and his salvage business–it’s probably not ideal to have congressmen moonlighting anyway…

  5. Some Other Valerie says:

    Hi, Everyone. It’s Valerie here.

    I’m not sure why the idea of wanting members of Congress to make salaries more in line with the national average is that strange to you all. The founding fathers never envisioned career politicians and I’ve never seen anyone on here defend career politicians until today. Does anyone doubt that votes are often made to prolong a politician’s career at the expense of our country?

    If you doubt that, please explain how people doing their very best have run our economy into a $12 trillion hole; and you wonder why I believe they’re really not worth their pay.

    Grift, you didn’t make me mad, but you did make assumptions about me. It’s funny, too, because I’m friends with several people you’re friends with. The least you could’ve done is asked me what I said at that meeting. I’m expecting too much, aren’t I?

    As for the Tiftarea Patriots, I’m happy to name them and stick up for them. If I’m elected, these will be my constituents. I have met these people, Grift, have you? These are good, patriotic people and I love the fact that they love this country. These were veterans and businessmen and housewives and hourly wage-earners who spend their own money and their own time studying the history of this country and especially the US Constitution. They asked hard questions they felt needed asking. I didn’t agree with them on some things, and said so, but I did enjoy meeting them.

    Thanks to you, Doug, for your (sort of) endorsement up there. I am beginning to think the Republican Party could really care less about challenging Jim Marshall. They only want to APPEAR to challenge him. Choosing comfort over freedom is not a good thing.

    Thank you, Ric, for allowing yourself to be referred to as a sock puppet. I know better, but now some of the real sock puppets think I’m important enough to have one of my own.

    Anyway, I’m not like some folks who would discourage others from coming and reading Peach Pundit. Even though the commenters here can be brutal and merciless, I’m not scared. I enjoyed posting here before I was a candidate. I enjoy it now. I will say, though, that it gets a little old when people publicly castigate me, then send me text messages saying how you ‘have to’ be hard on me here. Please, don’t do me any favors.

    • Doug Deal says:

      Valerie, I was going to leave it alone, but since you opened this line of discussion up, here is what the Tweet from me actually said.

      Sorry for being so harsh on PP, but I think the salary proposal makes you look bad. There are much bigger issues and it’s not THAT much.

      Compare that with your quote “saying how you ‘have to’ be hard on me here”

      At no point did I say what you claim above. I will not go into the rest of our conversation, since it is private and unlike you, I will not make public personal correspondence, like you tried above.

        • Doug Deal says:

          Absolutely nothing, but she chose to lie about what was said and it was pretty clear who she was referring to.

          It is clear that her campaign is not ready for prime time but really I am not sure any of the current campaigns are.

          Although I attacked this proposal, I have said nothing but positive things about her and to her. This was a rather amateurish and silly populist proposal, and deserved to be criticized. I sent her a Tweet to remind her that I did not mean anything personally, I just thought it made her look bad. I even said what I thought of her overall at the top of this thread.

          It a sign she should not be in the race and I retract those positive things.

          There was a reason that she is a McBerry (nutcase) supporter but I gavce her the benefit of the doubt.

          • Mozart says:

            Good grief. So, Valerie misstating the actual Tweet you wrote her (“Sorry for being so harsh on PP”) as “saying how you ‘have to’ be hard on me here” constitutes a big “lie” in your mind, Doug?

            Not to my mind. Valerie may have taken your apology for being “harsh on PP” to mean you feel the “need” to be harsh on PP.

            Again, good grief. Much ado about absolutely nothing.

          • Doug Deal says:

            It was not just misquoting, it was completely changing the intent and meaning of the tweet, twisting reality. If she has that much of a persecution complex, perhaps politics is not the best career field.

          • Mozart says:

            Hmm…checking my manual on what it takes to be in politics. Here it is:

            #1) An ego
            #2) Balls
            #3) A persecution complex
            #4) A thick skin
            #5) The ability to ignore common sense in favor of listening to some 25-year-old twit whom you’ve chosen to be your “chief of staff.”

            See? It says so right there in the official politics manual!

          • polisavvy says:

            Mozart, on your checklist above, I agree with you on numbers 1 through 4; however, not all who are 25 are twits. Nick Ayers was quite capable at the age of 23. Apparently, you’ve run into a twit or two who may be on the campaign trails for some candidates; however, not all younger adults are twits. Some have some very good ideas and ideals.

    • griftdrift says:


      I could use your descriptions to describe members of my own family. Doesn’t mean I want them influencing policy. And I do understand that you feel the need to listen to all constituents. But does that mean you need to attend every kook meeting in the land and then praise them? I would just exhibit caution. Look what happened to Medina in Texas.


      A Former (and still sometimes) 8th District Resident.

  6. Ida Claire says:

    Valerie’s pay reduction commitment will appeal to voters who are disgusted with our current government officials who continue with their bloated overspending and legislative failures. Her statement certainly will gain attention from angry Americans who have been touched by the current recession. People who have had their income greatly reduced who have had to tighten their belts, perhaps even lost their income completely, lost their home and are struggling to take care of their families are not going to be concerned with whether or not politicians are getting the proper amount of money to live comfortably or to travel frequently to Washington to continue with business as usual.

    • Doug Deal says:

      And her support of that secessionist governor candidate with garner the hard earned support of the white hooded demographic of an organization that need not be named.

      • Ida Claire says:

        White-hooded demographic? Thats so 1950s. Seriously, do the Kluckers really have any kind of organized movement that can draw any real power? If so, where are they?

  7. slyram says:

    I will put in like this: when I worked in the Georgia congressional delegation, a staffer with Shelby of Alabama (I can’t remember if Shelby was in the House or Senate, Democrat or Republican at the time) was murdered in the same N.E. Washington I had just exited for Southwest D.C. I did not know the young man personally but people said good things about him and we were all southerners. Staff salaries were low back then and getting a place with cheaper rent could be dangerous.

    My three congressional bosses always paid people decently because without money only young people from rich families could work on the Hill and the legislation would reflect it. Paralegals on K Street make 80K and bus drivers are not far behind them. I bet Coke interns make more than 52K these days. (Coke being the Georgia-producted beverage and not the drug.)

    • Mayo,

      We have six declared candidates and I would take any of them over Jim Marshall. Marshall votes with the most conservative GA congressman, Lynn Westmoreland less than 45% of the time. He votes with Barney Frank 85% of the time – and that’s with Marshall’s constituents calling him and emailing him to be more conservative and fiscally responsible.

        • Mayo,

          Ken DeLoach (Warner Robins), Angela Hicks (Macon), Bill Mauldin (Jackson), Valerie Meyers (Bonaire), Paul Rish (Macon) and Diane Vann (Macon) are the declared GOP candidates in Georgia’s 8th Congressional District.

          I have met with and had detailed conversations with three of these candidates and heard five of the six speak publicly and participate in Q&A sessions. I am convinced all six of these candidates for the GOP nomination would represent the views of the 8th Congressional District much better than incumbent Jim Marshall.

          The 8th district is rated +10 Republican by the Cook Report and went nearly 2:1 for McCain over Obama. The success of McCain, the weakest GOP candidate since Bob Dole, against Barack Obama shows the potential for a GOP candidate if Marshall’s voting record and lack of leadership are exploited.

          Marshall votes with Barney Frank 85% of the time while voting with conservative Georgia Congressman Lynn Westmoreland only 44% of the time. Marshall is usually allowed to vote with the district on high profile votes while following the Democrat line on other votes and the procedural votes that allow the very votes Marshall opposes to appear less liberal. If the voters become aware, Marshall is toast.

          I encourage you to become involved in this. Feel free to contact me about this by following my name link.

  8. brian.holcombe says:

    Valerie isn’t the only GOP candidate with this idea – Lee Ferrell in the 2nd district is touting the same thing

  9. Jane says:

    Part time elected officials should make the same salary as the lowest paid full time employee in their government. Full time elected officials should make no more than 4 times the lowest salary of a full time employee under them. If they want to increase their own pay they must increase the pay of all their employees. Further, the highest paid government worker should make less than the highest paid elected officials. No of these 300K paid to an unelected unapointed Czar who got his job by donating money to Obama.

  10. heyandrew says:

    As much as I disagree with Ms. Myers, on almost everything, I have never seen her decline a debate. Nor have I seen her take offensive about anything I have said.

    What I would say however, is that while I understand the platform she is running on, at some point and I am not sure when in her mind that is going to be, she needs to broaden her platform. Appealing to a certain section of a voter block is all well and good, but from what I can tell, the message is becoming a stuck record.

    For what is worth, I believe in campaign finance reform. That means, that only those people that are registered to vote in an district, should be allowed to contribute to the funding of a candidate in that district. Anyone else, whether they be an individual or corporation, outside those boundaries should be barred from donating.

  11. Dave Bearse says:

    It’s a proposal (as are proposals limiting the pay of staff) that in most all cases limit representation and government staff to those that are either rich or stupid. Which group does Ms. Meyers aspire to?

  12. GOPGeorgia says:

    I’d be in favor of paying congressmen a million dollars a year (or more), but they only would get paid if the budget balanced and the deficit was brought down by 3 to 5% a year.

      • ByteMe says:

        Only if you paid them $1 million and forbid campaigns from accepting outside cash payments of more than $100, then you have a chance to get their attention.

        • polisavvy says:

          Very true and good point. Too bad this is just a pipe dream! I like your suggestion of the $100 contribution limit.

        • How about: You can only raise $1 outside of your district for every $1 you raise inside your district?

          At least it’s homegrown folks influencing you. 🙂

          Actually, I’d like no limit on donations and 100% transparency on ALL donations, cash or in-kind posted on the internet within 72 hours of the time the donation is received or the donation must be returned.

          • ByteMe says:

            Is a foreign-owned corporation — let’s say a corporation whose stock is controlled by North Korea — located in your district going to be considered “homegrown”?

            The fun of a bad Supreme Court decision….

          • GOPGeorgia says:

            McCain -Feingold was a bad law and they should have struck down more (all) of it. I like the transparency proposition. Just disclose where the money came from inside of 72 to hours to a week. If voters want to elect someone funded by N. Korea or China, that would be their idiocy. Bad money can get in to candidates hands now as long as it’s listed as under $100 at a time.

Comments are closed.