I do think you're out of touch with my post in not reading it fully. A point I brought up was that if there are abuses in the benefit plans of legislators, it should be discussed, or did you miss that part? I admitted that I don't yet know what the benefit plans are, but to make the point, I didn't need to look it up to put out an opinion on Bouchard's post.

I have no sense of entitlement, just a sense for how the government ought to take a cue from private business in running the People's business in a responsible way, which includes fair salaries and benefit packages for their employees, which includes the legislature; that means operating within a viable labor market to attract good people. What I spoke out against is how a candidate for governor would use public frustration with Congress and class warfare to somehow gain votes, which is the aim of all political press releases. I think we ought to elect people based on substance, not misrepresentation or marketing fluff.

What is out of line with Conservative values is that all-or-nothing are our prospects. In today's government, we have too many RINOs running around claiming to be Republicans. In order to understand Republican core values, you need to understand Conservative core values, which stand as a higher priority, and something our party has not upheld very well. I am offering the People a chance to elect a person who, among others, will be the cure to the RINO virus infecting the GOP!

Perhaps you should get your facts about my opinion straight or ask questions, instead of making claims. You don't even know me.... yet. I am the first person to stand against entitlements, or did you miss my point about standing against subsidizing the unproductive?

Cheers! And remember, debate within the party is good!

Yet, to say Peterson is out of touch is overstating your concern.

I agreed with Peterson's post on the Bouchard silliness. I don't see that Peterson has a sense of entitlement.

Also, if we want interest to public office from our best...we must be willing to compensate them...then hold their feet to the fire, like we haven't been doing for decades. We need to take our schools back so we can produce something other then a Socialist tweaking Commy. Perhaps politicians need to be more considerate during difficult times and not stick it to us with higher utilities and other fees and taxes. If all our politicians actually worked for us rather then themselves and their Marxist comrades, I'd want to reward them handsomely. We wouldn't be having this conversation if they weren't trying to ruin us at every opportunity.

So there ya go.

I responded to these claims. I agree with much of Mr. Peterson wrote. But this was the lead-off in his post.

Mr. Peterson, did you not mean "pension?" Also, do you think that $80K/yr with an expense account, exceptional benefits (for life), and a pension plan (all for being elected for ONE term) is about par for the course?

I responded to these claims. I agree with much of Mr. Peterson wrote. But this was the lead-off in his post.

Mr. Peterson, did you not mean "pension?" Also, do you think that $80K/yr with an expense account, exceptional benefits (for life), and a pension plan (all for being elected for ONE term) is about par for the course?

"SIDE-NOTE: How is it fair that we ask people to lay down their private lives, serve in government, yet as an employer of these folks, not provide health and pension plans that attract and keep good people in most other professional jobs, not to mention state jobs? If there is abuses with the state's plan on this, let's talk about that instead of preying on the public's frustration with the golden parachutes of Congress. That's them, not us. Perhaps what he deems good for the legislature, he'll deem good for himself as well, but I doubt it."

Never in any of this do I define any pension plan, whether it be for a legislator, another state employee, or a private professional. I merely make the point that retirement plans should exist as a part of overall compensation to be competitive in an active job market seeking the best candidates, which went to the point Bouchard made about "pensions" in his press release. Reading anything more into what was written is simply dishonest. As to the vernacular of "pension", in the general sense (when not specified) it may mean any retirement plan, including 401(k)'s.

Meantime, you erroneously claim that there are "lifetime" benefits for legislators after only one term, which you recant later; and this is after claiming that I'm out of touch or having some great sense of entitlement. You would be hard pressed to find a more conservative person than I in today's politics, but you don't know that and assume too much. As for Republicans, they need to move back right from their run left and get back to historic Republican values.

If you want to discuss what I think of actual details of legislator benefits, perhaps you should ask what my views would be. Wouldn't this be much more reasonable and civil than trying to read something into my words that they do not say? You still haven't stated your motivation for jumping to such conclusions, and you still haven't provided any citation for your claims about pseudo-facts about what legislators receive that taxpayers pay for. And you're not even in my district. Perhaps you should have less loyalty to the Detroit political machine and actually evaluate criticism for Bouchard's policies, especially when your critique mirrors my own, except for your erroneous claim about my points on prudent competitive compensation.

Are you agreeing with Bouchard in that we should not offer a benefit package to our legislators? Why would anyone ever leave their job to go to Lansing then? I think you need to wrap your mind around how labor markets work. Conservatives are free-market thinkers, and this exchange is very much applicable as the issue to be examined is the interaction between the public and private sectors as to attracting candidates from the private labor pool.