For those that knew her from her city council days, this'll be interesting....

Quote :

"Cowell plans to run for treasurer By Rob Christensen, Staff Writer State Sen. Janet Cowell of Raleigh says she plans to run for state treasurer next year. Cowell, who will turn 39 this month, had considered running for Democratic nomination for treasurer in January, but had put off a decision until the end the legislative session. “I am going to run,” Cowell said. Cowell said she has been talking with major groups — state employees and teachers — that have a particular interest in the state pension fund which is managed by the state treasurer’s office. “It’s an awe inspiring office,” Cowell said. “More than any office I’ve considered, its been a long process of reflection.” Cowell was first elected to the Raleigh City Council in 2001 and was elected to the state Senate in 2004, winning the seat held by Sen. Eric Reeves, who was retiring. She has an MBA from Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania, and started her career working as a security analyst in Hong Kong for three years. In the Triangle, she worked as a marketing manager for SJF Ventures, a small venture capital firm. The treasurer’s office will be come open next year, because the incumbent, Richard Moore, is running for governor. Chris Mintz, a Raleigh businessman, has already announced his plans to seek the Democratic nomination. Michael Weisel, a Raleigh attorney and former investment executive, is looking at the race. "

7/5/2007 1:55:22 PM

Damn, I thought that this was about the American Idol dude.

7/5/2007 2:03:24 PM

Weisel is running too.

7/5/2007 2:35:11 PM

lol @ Chris Mintz. I'm so glad Ty Harrell stomped the shit out of him in the NC41 primary in '06...

I like Sen. Cowell a lot -- she's a flaming Commie lib, but at least she's an intelligent flaming Commie lib

7/5/2007 3:19:43 PM

^ I agree. And--not to get personal--did they outlaw makeup at the GA? Cowell could use an Extreme Makeover.

7/5/2007 10:13:36 PM

good for her, i hope she does well.

7/5/2007 10:59:01 PM

Quote :

"We need to pay politicians living wages to make our government more representative of the people. Being paid $10,000 a year to serve as a city councilor means only individuals who own their own business or who are retired, wealthy, or supported by a spouse can serve. --Janet Cowell"

Politicians need a living wage? Next!

7/6/2007 12:02:24 AM

do you think a farmer can serve in government if it costs him more money to serve than it would for him to farm his land? NC has already lost many fine individuals in government because they cannot afford the time off to serve the people.

I hate libertarians, especially the stupid ones, such as ^

7/6/2007 1:37:55 AM

How many days does the legislature "work"?

7/6/2007 1:52:51 AM

Quote :

"do you think a farmer can serve in government... "

The assumption that paying more for state politicians will get you better quality candidates is flawed.

California pays their state legislators around $100,000 per year compared to NC's $10,000. Which state has better gov't? Seems like at least we're not paying our politicians as much to screw up our state.

And if state gov't restricted itself to basic responsibilities and avoided all of the social engineering, and tax/spending temptations, we wouldn't have to pay politicians to sit in Raleigh all year long. They could all get back to their farms.

7/6/2007 9:58:14 AM

How can a guy named Weisel try to run for any public office?

7/6/2007 11:26:56 AM

Quote :

"California pays their state legislators around $100,000 per year compared to NC's $10,000. Which state has better gov't?"

The counterpoint is that paying so little prevents the regular people from serving. You have to be self-employed to serve. Granted, there is a happy medium. You could pay them based on their total income. So a rich lawyer wouldn't get paid much but someone who has to take a paycut to serve will have their lifestyle preserved.

7/6/2007 11:29:12 AM

Quote :

"And if state gov't restricted itself to basic responsibilities and avoided all of the social engineering, and tax/spending temptations, we wouldn't have to pay politicians to sit in Raleigh all year long. They could all get back to their farms."

lucky for me and the people of this state, the legislature and the electorate does not buy into your flawed juvenile political thought.

7/6/2007 11:41:53 AM

Quote :

"How many days does the legislature "work"?"

depends on the year. The legislative sessions run two years at at time....one "long session" for the first year and one "short session" on the second year. This year is long session so it started back in January and will probably go on until the end of July. Next year, it will start sometime in May and go on until maybe August or whenever they feel like stopping...

also depends on how many controversial bills may be introduced such as when we passed the lottery...

7/6/2007 12:29:04 PM

Quote :

"The counterpoint is that paying so little prevents the regular people from serving. "

California is paying $100,000 per year!!!! Any regular person could live off that quite well...and still their state gov't leaves much to be desired. More money doesn't mean better candidates. In fact it probably would attract a lot more undesirable candidates who just want the money.

7/6/2007 8:52:41 PM

All I'm saying is there has to be a happy medium between what NC pays and what CA pays.

7/6/2007 11:39:02 PM

$100K in many parts of CA will afford you a comfortable middle-class lifestyle. its not an unreasonable amount of money, relatively speaking.

paying state legislators (or any full-time political office) a reasonable salary is the least of our various governments' problems.

7/7/2007 12:07:12 AM

^ Brace for impact! I. . .A-G-R-E-E.

7/9/2007 1:17:24 AM

Quote :

"paying state legislators (or any full-time political office) a reasonable salary is the least of our various governments' problems."

Sadly true... but who gets to decide what is "reasonable" when it comes to their pay?

Currently, the politicians themselves get to decide how much we pay them. What kind of sweet deal is that?

7/9/2007 1:34:25 AM

typically, legislators vote for a pay raise that does not become effective until the next legislative session. voters could (and have) vote them out of office if it was ridiculous. also, voters could challenge the pay raise in court, i suppose, if it was out of line from what the private sector pays similar.

look, many of these people are educated and experienced professionals. many have advanced degrees in Law and Business. the job description is not trivial. and 100K on the west coast is not outrageous.

if you dont pay them anything (or if you only pay them a pittance), you will necessarily exclude many people who would be qualified and willing to serve the public. you would skew the pool of people willing to legislate to either those who are financially independent or financially beholden to some outside interest. in either case, they are less likely to reflect or represent the will of the people who elected them.

conversely, if the public pays their servants, then the servants are beholden to the public.

7/9/2007 3:00:35 AM

Can she just do a little something with herself? I mean, I'm pretty sure that this is an official photo.

Looks count. Sorry, I didn't make the rules.

7/9/2007 11:57:14 PM

7/10/2007 1:16:31 AM