Article review

Should the Texas Legislature continue to serve as a part-time law making body, only meeting in regular session for 140 days every two years, or should it change to a full-time body meeting in regular session each year? The Texas Legislature should continue to serve as a part-time law making body. It would allow the most important matters to be addressed and taken care of first. The only downfall would be the less important matters may be overlooked. I believe that if the Texas Legislature were to meet in regular sessions each year there would be many changes in the law. I think that only meeting for 140 days every two years allows issues that occur a chance to resolve itself and allows the most important matters to be taken care of. Although having regular sessions would allow the small issues to be brought to the Texas Legislature’s attention it could harm the process of law making because the more crucial problems could be overrun by the many smaller ones, because of the increased time to resolve certain matters. Should the $7,200 annual salary for Texas legislators be lowered, maintained, or increased? I believe that the salary should be raised to that of a reasonable pay to which a person could live off of. Texas Legislatures deserve to get paid more than minimum wage for the work that they do not just for themselves, but for the state. They make decisions that effect Texan’s lives and with that reason I believe we should raise their salary to an amount that can accommodate their duties as a Texas Legislature. Texas Legislatures do get compensation which is about 168,000, according to The Book of the States, 2010 Edition, vol.42 (Lexington, Ky. : Council of State Governments, 2010), 113-116. This may be the reason many Texans do not want to raise their salary, but this allowance is only for regular and special sessions. The least that we voters can do is increase the pay for Legislatures of Texas because they serve an important role as a part of our state law making. The Texas governor is elected to a four-year term and there are no term limits on how many terms or yearâ₠¬â„¢s one person can serve as the state’s chief executive. Should term limits be implemented to restrict the total number of terms or years one person can serve as Texas governor? There should be term limits to restrict the total number of terms or years a person can serve as a Texas Governor, because it allows a Governor who may be better suited for the job a better chance to take office. Just as there is a limit for President, the same rules should apply, when it comes to limitations for serving. If a Governor is allowed to run for as long as he/she is elected than there is no chance for a change of certain policies that can benefit the state. Another candidate may have new and fresh ideas for the state, but have less of chance of being able to implement them because certain voters may favor the Governor already in office. People are also scared of change and tend to stick with what they are comfortable with. Having a new Governor may not be appealing to them. Without a term limit the Governor can be in office for longer than he/she should be.