Our politicians just can't seem to resist throwing tax payer's dollars away and increasing the national debt. You are not going to believe this. They can't seem to get much else right, either.

Stephen Barr writes about the President's advisory board on federal employees pay having recommended a 2.5% across the board pay raise for the coming year. So, what do you think Pres. Bush and Congress do with that information? Reject it, of course, and propose a 3% and 3.5% raise respectively, instead.

What part of the two words 'fiscal responsibility' do these politicians not understand? Does our national debt surpassing 9 trillion dollars ($9,000,000,000,000.) mean nothing to these politicians? Is this some kind of competition between the White House and the Congress for government employee loyalty bought and paid for with unwarranted pay raises and higher future taxes? It is very difficult to come up with some other rational explanation. Do you voters really have to wait until they bankrupt our government and society before you stop voting these incumbent politicians back into office again, and again?

It is truly incredible how these politicians reward loyalty even for breaking the laws of our nation. J. Scott Jennings, the deputy White House political director, left his job Friday to become a high paid lobbyist for Peritus Public Relations. The man should be going to jail instead of through the 'public office to lobbyist revolving door'. This is the man who delivered private political PowerPoint briefings on Congressional elections to agencies in our government including the Peace Corps which is an illegal use of tax payer dollars, as the Wash. Post reports. How long are you voters going to tolerate these incumbent politicians willful disregard of our laws?

Despite a host of laws to prevent nepotism from invading our federal government, WaPo writer Christopher Lee writes:

In the most recent report, released in May 2006, investigators found that 23 agencies hired 144 political appointees into career positions from May 2001 to April 2005. In at least 18 cases the agencies did not follow proper procedures, the GAO found, citing problems such as hiring appointees with limited qualifications, creating positions for specific individuals, and disregarding veterans' preference laws.

incumbent who is responsible for these reprehensible actions which undermine the good intents of our constitutional government design?

Are voters going to vote based on what they see in political advertising? Yes, for the most part. Ironic isn't it? The one source of information about candidates which absolutely cannot be trusted is the primary source of information upon which voters will vote. Let break down how this works. Let's take Hillary Clinton for example, though its true for all candidates. She and her operatives have raised $75 million dollars to spend on advertising her for President. Much of that money will go to public relations and advertising / marketing firms, who will design and test various messages and images on small numbers of potential voters to see which is most convincing. Having crunched the numbers, they will recommend the most convincing advertisements for Clinton's campaign to purchase and promote on TV, radio, and print media.

Will that advertising tell the public what her weaknesses are? Will it tell voters about where she stands on issues they aren't focused on at this time? Will these ads reveal Clinton's position on issues the majority of the public won't agree with her on? The answers to these questions are no, No, and NO! Is it any wonder then, that voters end up so disapproving and discouraged by the politicians they elect? Then why reelect them if the government they produce is not what voters expected? Answer: all those millions of dollars of advertising. Isn't it time voters refused to make their voting decisions based on paid advertising?

How long will Americans turn a blind eye to the hypocrisy of incumbent politicians? Congress this last week passed a Bill that would stop the IRS from including the write off of a defaulted mortgage in bankruptcy court in the defaulter's gross income for that year. Can you believe this? These are mostly the same politicians who previously approved the IRS sticking it to folks who went bankrupt, lost their homes, and got hit by the addition of as much, or more, than $100,000 in their IRS gross income for the year, as if defaulting on their mortgage constituted income in the first place.

Was it right to stick it to mortgage defaulters before this year and wrong to stop the practice this year, just because there are more of them? Or, was it wrong to stick it to defaulters before, and right to stop the practice now? In either case, most of those voting this week were responsible for sticking it to bankrupt taxpayers before. Should they be reelected? If you think not, you may be a Vote Out Incumbents Democracy supporter and not know it.