Yes. People in it for the money wouldn’t take a job that only pays $200 a year in the first place.
:rolleyes:
You got a cite?
I can post endless cites of corruption in MA, from the massive scale like the Big Dig to the small scale of $1,000 bribes.
There isn’t nearly as much corruption in NH. This is a simple fact. We might disagree as to the reasons, but there can be no disagreement about the facts.
Here’s the problem with that logic: I want a good doctor/police officer/lawyer/plumber or whatever. They have to be in their profession because they love it and they’re good at it, not just in it for the money. Therefore, doctors/cops/lawyers/plumbers should make only minimum wage. What’s the flaw in this logic?
Those are professions and careers. Legislating isn’t.
You don’t take a few years and try out being a doctor. You do it for a living your whole life in most cases.
Plenty of people serve in the NH house for a short time and then go back to their day job.
But to pick one of your examples: Police officer. I don’t see any problem with NH police officers. Or NY police officers. They both get paid a reasonable salary. I think state troopers in NH get about $40K to start before overtime.
In MA police unions are so pandered to that on the turnpike the median salary of police officers is now $120 a year. When you get more than half of cops on that racket making $120 plus you’re no longer attracting people who always wanted to be cops. You’re attracting people just for the money, which isn’t necessarily a good thing.
Of course legislating is a profession. The only question is whether someone is being paid by the public (like politicians and their staffs) or by private entities. Don’t even try to pretend that lobbyists aren’t their own brand of legislators.
Why don’t you just point out where I’ve said anything about lobbyists in this thread. Go ahead. We’ll wait.
You said that legislators aren’t a profession. Lobbyists are obviously in the business of legislation, and lobbying is obviously a profession. So, legislating is a profession regardless of how much you want to pay politicians.
And guess who benefits when politicians don’t know how to do their job?
Nah, you win. No one ever uses their position to get considerations after their term is over.
This is a perfect encapsulation of the insidious principle behind term limits, the notion that somehow politics isn’t a vocation. Legislating and governing are absolutely jobs where experience matters, and experienced legislators are much more effective than inexperienced ones. Laws are not exactly simple, and figuring out the right way to tackle a problem requires not just understanding the law, but also understanding all of the intricacies of the political and legislative mechanisms and conventions that must be managed to get the right laws passed.
Are there bad legislators? Sure. But there are bad doctors and lawyers, too.
One of the principles of paying a salary to representatives at all is to entice people who’d otherwise be precluded from public office due to costs. Those inclined to legislate for free would presumably be independently wealthy. They may well be motivated out of a sense of civic duty, but chances are that systemic bias would prevent them from representing the median income earners. In fact, nine cases of bribery were levelled against the senate before direct elections.
How effective such measures have been in actuality is questionable, given that 40 US Senators are millionaires, along with 23 of Cameron’s cabinet.
We’ve always had term limits. Every legislator is limited to one term, unless the voters think he’s worth giving another term to.
Lobbyists are not legislators.
Oh yeah?
State governments are in the business of regulating business. This affects corporate profits. Go along with increasing those profits and you get the golden parachute: a soft job with a comfortable salary once you finish your public career. And by “comfortable” I mean much more than $80K a year. The money to be made from a legislating career comes after you leave office. So yes, people will take $200 a year in the meantime. The difference between $200 and $80K a year is only that only people who don’t have to earn a living can afford to take the lower salary. The comment on Texas was to make exceptions for the benighted states that try to get by with legislatures with extremely limited sessions.
This.
Don’t ignore the incumbency-advantage. A challenger and an incumbent are never on a level playing field.
Yes they are.
The voters simply like incumbents more.
Yeah.
Nuh-uh.
Okay, I’m done with this game, are you?
Lobbyists and legislators are different jobs. Go look in a dictionary.
If you need me to explain, I’ll be glad to.