December 27, 2005
Pay members of Congress $1 million a year.
Says Thomas Sowell. He notes that the persons we should most want in Congress are the ones who will have to make the biggest financial sacrifice to leave their current careers. This means we end up with some combination of mediocrities and folks who are really interested in wielding power. I do think there are also at least a few public service types in Congress, the sort of people who wouldn't take high-paying jobs if they were not in politics. But I'm thinking Sowell doesn't trust these people to make decisions about our money.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
13 comments:
I still like the idea of term limits, and age limits - no more hauling them in on a hospital gurney to cast a vote - 10 years and out for Senators and Representatives, and the Supreme Court. And it's out to pasture for any of them upon their 75th birthday.
We should pay all members of the U.S. Congress in Iraqi dinars. Then members of Congress would say nothing but nice things about the country to keep the value of their paychecks up.
How does raising the direct compensation change the incentives for shady dealings to stay in office? Cynically, I might suggest that raising the price will just buy us smarter criminals.
While we're talking about pie-in-the-sky ideas (and Sowell's is proverbially a pie-in-the-sky idea) I say go precisely the other way. Either go back to a per diem allowance, or index their salary to the budget deficit.
In regards to goesh's comment, I would again tout my proffered 28th Amendment, which would, inter alia, enforce consecutive term limits. Term limits were the single most important part of the Contract with America, in my view, the one ting that had to pass, and the failure to pass it remains the emblem of the failure of the Republican Revolution, IMHO. That is the thing above all else that has to be fixed to fix our system of government: the end of entrenched career legislators.
What, you mean the value of all those lobbyist and industry paid junkets, free meals, plane rides and other 'gifts' isn't worth a million dollars a year? I'm shocked!
Considering that these paragons of fiscal 'restraint' manage to cut funding for healthcare while they themselves enjoy a miniature socialist utopia for themselves and their families-- an all expense paid first class healthcare system, with no need to worry about how much it will cost if someone gets sick,
and considering that there was a move afoot earlier this year to cut our Social Security benefits but they have the best retirement system in the country-- financed by Social Security taxes, at that, but much better than Social Security,
It seems that socialism works very well-- for United States Congressmen.
I would suggest this:
Let them have a raise, if you will, but make sure that they have an HMO, no different from the managed care plans that the rest of us have (complete with premiums, copays, deductibles and drug formularies), and get rid of their retirement system and put them on the same Social Security as the rest of us. Then if they want to make changes in these plans, I might trust them a bit more.
It's an interesting idea. One potential problem with it is the liklihood that large numbers of people would run for offices... for the money, not the desire or duty to help the nation. Weeding out all the lousy candidates would be a challenge; finding the right person would still be difficult.
Agreed 100%.
Haven't you ever wondered why politicians, cops, and judges around the world are so corrupt, and North Americans are not?
Well they are, obviously, but not to other nations' levels.
Part of that is the ethos each country has, with its attendant expectations and standards.
But another part is the generous but not exorbitant wage earned by each powerful person.
Whew, now that Ann has a new, faster Powerbook, she's gone nutso with the posts (hurrah!), but I think I can't read them all, let alone comment on them all...
So I'll stop here for tonight. :)
Cheers,
Victoria
Pay members of Congress $1 million a year..... or they`ll steal it
Vbspurs: "Haven't you ever wondered why politicians, cops, and judges around the world are so corrupt, and North Americans are not?"
I don't know where you got that idea, Victoria. According to Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index for 2005, here is how the U.S. and Canada rank:
Least corrupt countries:
Canada - Number 14
U.S. - Number 17
(On a personal note, I travel the world. I know a lot of countries with less corruption than I see in the U.S. and Canada.)
Victoria,
By the way, Mexico,which also is part of North America, ranks Number 65 on Transparency International's list of least corrupt countries.
Maybe because I am on the right, but my optimal politician does public service as just a part of a much broader career. In short, citizen legislators.
We have a history of this in our country. I remember the Davy Crockett song growing up, where he went to Congress for a term or two (ignoring that he left because of corruption).
We seem to see this ideal much more on the right than on the left. There is still some of this remaining with the Republicans in Congress, setting term limits for chairmanships, etc. But, not enough, as power corrupts...
Here in Colorado, our Republican Senators tend to serve one to two terms (with the exception of recently retired, former Democrat, Ben Campbell). And then they go and do something else, despite the probability of walk-away reelections. Hank Brown, interim CU president, is a good example - leaving the Senate with sky high approval ratings. So, you sometimes even see first term Senators as being the Senior senator from the state.
Contrast this with MA and WV. Both Jay Rockefeller and John Kerry have been in the Senate longer than any Colorado Senator of my memory, yet both are still, to this day, junior Senators in their respective states.
I frankly don't think that the caliber of Senator you get when they can buy their offices and then keep them for the rest of their lives to be very high. The Senate, esp. on the left side of the isle, is filled with people who have had no real life experience outside politics, and in, particular, outside the Senate. For many of them, the only thing in their favor is that they inherited or married a lot of money that can be squandered in buying a Senate seat.
My worry about the proposal is, as suggested above, that it will attract people who want to server primarily for the money. Fine for a CEO, but I would prefer that serving in Congress be onerous, in order to dissuade as many as possible from spending much of their lives there.
Looking at Transparancy International's site, their rankings are based on surveys of how corrupt people think their country is. I would think this would introduce a significant amount of potential error since public perception is often different than reality.
On dilettante's comment: Weeding out all the lousy candidates would be a challenge; finding the right person would still be difficult.
This would describe our current situation as well.
Goatwacker: "Looking at Transparancy International's site, their rankings are based on surveys of how corrupt people think their country is. I would think this would introduce a significant amount of potential error since public perception is often different than reality."
I have worked in international trade for more than 30 years. I was VP of export services at one of the world's largest banks. I have visited 62 countries, many of them 20 or 30 times. In all, I have traveled more than 2 million miles outside the U.S.
Transparency International's survey agrees with my experiences. In my view, the survey is pretty accurate.
I have worked in international trade for more than 30 years. I was VP of export services at one of the world's largest banks. I have visited 62 countries, many of them 20 or 30 times. In all, I have traveled more than 2 million miles outside the U.S.
I haven't done any of those things, but still think public opinion polls are a flawed way to find out how much corruption is in a country. Your points are well taken and you're probably right, it just bugs me to see shaky studies and statistics held up as the final word.
Post a Comment