Wow, Big Brother on Big Brother! Cool, you have the basis for a neat storyline! (BTW, I don't mean the show big brother, duh!)
2007-09-21 08:46:31
·
answer #1
·
answered by fairly smart 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
No. That's what got Nixon finally pushed out (secret tapes). These days it doesn't matter since many cell phones can record embarrassing moments. But free speech still applies to out elected officials, remember. They need to be more circumspect.
In NJ, our politicians are lining up for extra pension and health benefits that most of the state's taxpayers will never enjoy. Aside from that, they are jacking up taxes to spend more billions on schools and administration without any progress in learning. Ah to be a custodian in Newark!
2007-09-21 08:46:25
·
answer #2
·
answered by Goethe's Ghostwriter 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
"Yes, but only on his $400,000 salary and any unearned income from past investments (which are put into an independently managed blind trust during his tenure to avoid conflict of interest). He does, however, get to live in and/or use The White House, Camp David, Air Force 1, the Presidential limos, etc. etc. etc., and have ALL the living expenses for himself (including all food, tailor made clothing, gasoline, transportation, utilities, medical care, security, golf outings, vacations, grand parties and banquets, theatre performances seated in the Presidential box, private showings of new release movies, command performances by the greatest musical artists, personal servants, private secretaries, master chefs, and personal trainers) and his family paid for, TAX FREE -- that is, these benefits and perqs don't add to his taxable income. So basically, he is provided one of the most lavish life-styles in the world free of charge, and then paid $400k per year on top of that, on which he pays the standard tax rate -- though he can't claim any "uncompensated business expenses" as a deduction. " Jack Wallace
2016-05-20 03:09:09
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
No -- there are valid reasons to have specific conversations and activities confidential. And their personal life -- when they are not at work -- is really nobody else's business.
That being said -- with few exceptions, the remainder of their professional activities should be recorded -- even if that record is kept sealed until and unless there is a specific reason to access it.
And the voting records of all politicians is already public -- most people just don't bother to check. See C-Span as one example.
2007-09-21 08:43:19
·
answer #4
·
answered by coragryph 7
·
6⤊
0⤋
No, but you have the right to have all of your telephone conversations recorded by the NSA. And you have the right to carry a Nazi-American National ID Card as 100 US Senators unanimously agreed you be required to do so.
Yes, I do believe they should be recorded. Sarcasm. Can you taste it?
2007-09-21 08:45:51
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Not a bad idea, but I think there would still have to be an allowance for secrecy DURING their terms. Taping and recording for the historical record would be a good idea, though, I think.
2007-09-21 08:42:05
·
answer #6
·
answered by ? 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
NO. When you do this, then the back room deals become history, and sometimes it takes those to get things moving.
CSPAN has done much to dampen the "wheeling and dealing" that used to go on in Congress.
2007-09-21 09:48:47
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Didn't Nixon get into trouble for all those tapes in the White House?
2007-09-21 08:44:57
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
They are keeping track of what is said, just in case someone calls them a lire.
2007-09-21 08:47:00
·
answer #9
·
answered by Steve B 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
They pretty much do, it's called C-Span, the internet, and the 6 o'clock news.
2007-09-21 08:47:09
·
answer #10
·
answered by Beardog 7
·
3⤊
1⤋