Yes, Pay good salaries and benefits. Dont make it so only the rich can afford to be in Office.
That’s what we’re doing when you pay peanuts to Politicians- you make it so only Million & Billionairse can run. :rolleyes:
I am not sure I understand.
Only the rich can run, now, because only the rich are connected and are able to spend the time and money required to campaign.
But the rich should be taking a pretty good pay cut to get into office, wile a poorer person (not necessarily poor, but middle class or so) would be getting a job that pays as well or better than they currently have. It seems it would be the opposite, in that only the middle class or lower should be able to “afford” the salary that comes with the office.
Ask that of your proposal. Honestly. Is it actually effective against corruption, or focused on the wrong thing?
…Yes? Obviously? Being an elected official means you need to know the law, its practical application, know how to craft legislature, forge compromises, know what’s going on in your local constituencies…
Now, I mean, sure, you could hire someone who doesn’t know this stuff. But then this happens:
This is how we get legislatures that are essentially run by lobbyists. Because if you don’t know how to draft a bill well, but the good folks at the American Enterprise Institute save you the trouble by offering you a bill pre-written, and are nice enough to explain why the bill is needed, say, over dinner and wine at a fancy restaurant, well, there’s most of your job done.
A politician needs countless skills, often skills which are hard to find without, you guessed it, political experience.
And with that, we hand the actual reins of power over the bureaucrats working under them, pushing the issue down a level and away from the checks and balances of democracy.
No, not at all. Look, yes, you do see some Rich dudes like Trump make a big move into higher office. But usually it’s Local, then state, then federal, each time accumulating contributions. Many career politicos arent that rich and started out just upper middle class.
I’m struggling to find a cite (I’m terrible at googling), but in the UK it used to be almost what you propose. MPs (Members of Parliament) were paid mostly in expenses with a very small actual income. This meant that, in order to become an MP*, you had to give up whatever other ways you had of earning a living - and people who can become MPs are usually well able to earn money elsewhere, via law or simple business; there is a limited amount of time in the day to do both jobs, even if you suppose an incorruptible MP.
In effect, only rich layabouts with no way of making money otherwise could become MPs. Everyone else had prior concerns about living costs. They’d just write newspaper columns or something instead.
This all came up when current MPs’ salaries were increased a few years back, and a few Tory numbnuts claimed that they couldn’t live on that salary. It was bollocks because the salary is actually really good, especially when you consider expenses (even without fraudulent claims). It makes being an MP something you can do without being corrupt. It means that a top-flight lawyer who really knows his stuff can be a PM (many PMs), and it means an MP who is possibly capable of being PM can subsist on MP wages for many years and still not have to consider his mortgage bills (Corbyn - and although I do like him, I’m taking it as read that he is “possibly capable” in the sense of being leader of the Opposition).
*The Prime Minister is an MP with extra responsibilities that he’s paid for in addition to his MP wage. A sitting PM can become an MP almost overnight, as happened last year, and revert to the MP wage. You can’t - usually - be PM without being an MP first for several years, hence me using that wage range.
As stated in my proposal, they would not be allowed to accept donations or gifts over $5 without reporting them to the ethics committee, and most likely not being allowed to receive them. That helps with corruption. Having a non-compete for 4 years prevents the revolving door corruption.
There are other forms of corruption, I am sure, but start somewhere.
I am talking about highly qualified individuals, that are well paid for their work. Scientists, engineers, lawyers, whatever trades are relevant to their bailiwick. Just as corporate executives do not do all the research and legwork on making decisions for their company, rather trusting their subordinates to compile the information they need to make a decision that weighs the opportunity costs of different options.
This does not require expertise skill. Simple critical thinking, while being responsible and accountable to your constituency is much more important than understanding the minutia.
And, keep in mind, we are not talking about just appointing some random person. This person will still be vetted and chosen by the voters. The voters can decide how much quality and experience their candidate needs to have for their comfort, without running into the problem that we run into now, where the voters elect someone who has no understanding of the function of govt, and there is no one there to assist them in learning.
I would ban lobbyists as entirely as I could word a bill against their influence.
Now, you are pointing out how we get legislatures run by lobbyists, but the difference is who is paying them? If the AEI is paying a lobbyist, then you can assume that they are lobbying in favor of the AEI’s position.
If the govt is paying advisers to elected officials, it would be an entirely different thing. It would still require vigilance against personal biases amonst your advisers, but it would not be starting from the point that you are complaining about.
And, once again, you missed my point in my original proposal, what with your comment about taking them out to a fancy dinner. If it’s more than a $5 value meal, then it would need to be reported, and most likely not accepted.
The checks and balances of democracy elect bureaucrats that don’t know how to do their job now. Would it not be better if there was an under layer of govt that was competent to at least understand the basic functioning of govt when we elect these know nothings now?
Upper middle class is a bit rich to me. It is making much more than the median. It is certainly not experiencing any of the things it is like to be poor, or even just lower middle class. This leads to rich (or very well off) people deciding what is best for those less fortunate than themselves, without ever bothering to actually ask. Without actually understanding the struggles and obstacles that exist for populations that are not born into wealth.
As I grew up in a household barely breaking into the middle class dream, how can I feel as if these representatives represent me, when not a single one of them has a life experience anything like that of myself, or that of 90% of my peers and their constituency?
My proposal is that they would be paid based on the pay of their constituency. If their constituency does well, they do well. They want a raise, they can improve the standard of living of those they represent.
The advantage of term limits is that it addresses the issue that Congress has tweeked the system so that incumbents have a significant advantage in elections. However I think those laws should be addressed before term limits.
Who will address those laws?
Assuming that said laws are addressed and changed, who will protect those laws from being changed by the next congress for their own benefit?
You could do it with a constitutional amendment via Article 5. For example one law I would love to see changed would be requiring election of representatives by district. Think of all of the problems this could solve if a state chooses to use it. No more gerrymandering, proportional representation, possible third party Reps and a popular Representative would have a better chance to be re-elected than one that narrowly fits the wackadoodleness of their neighborhood (e.g. Bachmann and Waters)
There is precedent for it in the 22nd Amendment. And thank OG we had it, because it got rid of Obama.
I support term limits on Congress. We definitely need fresh blood flowing in on a regular basis, and we don’t need fossils like Thurmond and Byrd.
Don’t say “they”. We never do.
Don’t blame politicians for getting elected; we’re the ones who elected them. They’re giving us what we want - not what we say we want, what we really want.
You want to improve politics? Work on improving voters.
You would have, or could have, gotten rid of Obama anyway, given the geographical advantages favoring Republicans. Almost three million fewer votes, and you won anyway.
I hope to God the amendment is never submitted for ratification, given those same geographical advantages. If the term limit amendment passes the legislature, and if its proponents can persuade a very few of the more traditionally liberal states to go along, ratification will take about forty-five minutes.
This.
Does anyone really think it’s a problem that, say, Ted Kennedy served for close to 50 years? Well, okay, maybe a minority of Massachusetts republicans, but… I don’t. Kennedy was a really, really good politician. He did right by his constituents and did right by America. Why should he be forced out the door after two terms if he’s clearly good at his job?
The problem is not “people have their jobs too long”, the problem is “there are structural issues in place which give incumbents a major advantage”. Fix that, and what you’re left with is a system where you’re not going to have an unpopular incumbent holding a seat forever because his opposition can’t win due to gerrymandering or the like, but a man like Ted Kennedy can almost certainly win the election again and again because they do a damn fine job.
I only get to vote on the people in my district. I have little control over other districts. I have even less control over their voters.
It seems most people like to say they don’t like congress, but they do like their congress critters.
Was he the best for the job? Was he really the very best that an entire state had to offer for half a century?
Was there absolutely no room for anyone else? You say that it only would have annoyed republicans, but what about democrats who may have had ideas they wanted to run with, but were blocked out by this man who was destined by name and by birth to not give up his seat until his last breath.
Not saying he wasn’t a pretty good guy and politician, just saying that I am not convinced that he was the best man for that seat for the entire time he had it.
I am pretty sure that the problem is that “there are structural issues in place which give incumbents a major advantage”, which causes “people have their jobs too long”.
If we saw reelection rates of 50%, then you’d think that only those who do their job well are getting re elected. 75%, and there is some winnowing, at least. We are well over 90% reelection in most elections. I do consider this a problem. The voters are the bosses, and they aren’t taking their job seriously enough.
If you were an employee, and you know that pretty much no matter what you did, there was a 90%+ chance you would get to keep it, (and that losing it usually meant a shift in national politics above your control) how long would you bother to do your job well?
About 20 years ago, term limits were all the rage. I should point out it was the cornerstone of the Republican platform, but still. Actually, though, that was part of the point.
“Throw the bums outta office!” they all cried. 20 years ago, the “bums” (read: incumbents) were all Democrats. Now, they’re all Republicans. And perhaps, not surprisingly, no one wants to throw the bums out anymore.
Anyways, I was against term limits, at first. I mean, as an article I read at the time said, it just leads to more younger, radical and, yes, unqualified/uninformed elected officials.
But I have had time to think about it. And now I don’t know.
Is there any benefit to term limits? Or let me rephrase that. What are the benefits? And what are the drawbacks?
As I said, we have had over 20 years to think about it. What have we learned since then?
:):):):)
BTW, I just realized I posted this in General Questions. I was actually aiming for GD, but somehow hit the wrong link.
I also was thinking, it might go well in IMHO. I am honestly not sure.
Moderator, please move it wherever you wish. And kindly give an explanation why you did (so I don’t make this mistake again:)).
There is an active thread on term limits right now in GD: Let’s Talk Term Limits.
Democracy is not easy. You don’t have it if you don’t let the people vote for representatives they want. People fail to recognize that terms are limited by the constitution, we don’t elect our representatives for life. What is called ‘term limits’ is just a way to take away your right to choose. You may think that’s a good idea because so many voters are idiots who make bad choices but the result is to create lame ducks who have even less reason to serve their constituencies.
Yeah, about that. I did a forum search, and I immediate got an error page. What is wrong with the forum search engine?
Anyway, I think my question is a little different. You will notice, my question goes into the history of the phenomenon, and what we have learned. That is not in the OP of that thread, in any event. But hey, Moderator/s, if you want to meld my thread with theirs, go ahead.
BTW, I am getting a new internet service, probably tomorrow. And I may lose connection to the internet for a little while. So if I don’t respond to some of your posts for a while, it won’t be because I am ignoring. Please all be patient in this matter, for however long it lasts:).