Better idea still -- take the prestige, fame, and wealth away from every level of political office. Make it a regular job, not a celebrity gig.
Enough so that competent people will take the job even with a Constitutional Amendment banning ex-Congressmen from working as lobbyists or for federal contractors.
Because their job is to represent the people of their state, of course. Do you think Bill Gates accurately represents the interests of the average resident of Washington state? Or that Steve Jobs accurately represented the interests and concerns of the average Californian? Wealth shouldn't be a perk of public office. It's a job, not the lottery.
District, actually. So they should get the median income of their district, and Senators should get the median state income? Interesting idea, not sure how it would work in practice.
That's interesting. Usually, the US isn't considered an iconic representative democracy, in which the various groups among the population are supposed to be depicted by their legislators; but one of delegated representation, by which the representatives stand for their constituencies by the intentions of their actions and words. What you're suggesting would look at the office less as a job different from other jobs as they are from each other, but as a kind of lens to those other jobs and stations of life, for which transparency is a greater virtue than its own visibility.
The idea, for me, is to prevent the rock star mindset. People would pursue the job for the job, not for the lifestyle.
Continuing this thought, what level of education would we expect from a member of Congress? What general and specific competence? Should a member of Congress be better than their district neighbours at public speaking, political rhetoric, understanding financial markets, learning about internal and foreign affairs, and at negotiating? Or should we hope that they do not excel in any of these regards?
It is not my understanding that the salaries of political offcies in the US are all that good. It's the perks that Liet mentioned, i.e. various degrees of corruption, that make it so, but we want less rather than more of that, and decreasing the legal payment isn't going to make bribes less attractive.
Some very cursory information. $193.400 a year seems a touch high. I haven't yet seen on that page what it says the rank-and-file salary is -- it only says that leadership's salary is "higher", but not by how much. Keep in mind, this is only the finding of an initial search. One answer to Liet's objection -- and that is a valid objection, of course -- is quick and severe discovery, investigation, and (where warranted) dismissal for bribe taking in any form. There certainly is corruption tied in with lobbying, but corruption only gets as severe or widespread as it is allowed to get. No denying, though; right now it is absolutely systemic.
Ok, yes, that does seem high. I apologize if I'm not going out to research this myself, but chances are some Americans on the board already know more about this: What kinds of expenses does the 193k need to cover? Offices in DC and in their home district, basic staff, travel, research? Or is it really just plain salary?
My understanding is that none of what they use in the performance of their government functions comes out of their own pockets. Now, bear in mind that I'm excluding things like campaigning, speaking engagements, things like that. But actually doing the job, and expenses related to actually doing the job -- again I'm assuming here -- those services are taxpayer-funded. Cars to and from wherever, security details, accommodations, all that stuff. Some of that I can't -- and won't -- begrudge them. Security details are a function of national security, since we can't have goons knocking off our legislators. But only to a certain extent. Do we need an army detachment to follow Senators around to photo ops? Are the photo ops a legitimate function of government? That's where things get a little iffy, in my opinion, because that's where these people are acting like celebrities instead of public servants. On the other hand, what about necessities like food? Clothing? Haircuts? That sort of thing I'm a little less sure about. I'd need to research that.
I do know that most congresscritters need to maintain two residences - one in the home district and one in DC, and IIRC that comes out of pocket.
There are some expences that are particularly high for Congressmen--travel, maintaining two homes, in some cases the political necessity for spouses not to be gainfully employed, etc.--but mostly congressional salaries--which are at $174,000/yr + benefits for almost all members--are what they are because that's the salary range for highly educated people with multiple areas of relevant policy expertise. And, since there are no salary increases for seniority, just for a handful of leadership positions, many or most long serving members are probably significantly underpaid given what they could make even non-corruptly elsewhere.
Then maybe some sort of sliding scale should be instituted. But let's take Harry Reid as an example: Is it at all likely that his lifestyle -- even if we dismiss what his political position would afford him and go on his private holdings alone -- allow him to accurately represent the needs of 1st District Nevadans? There's some merit to statements that the 1% are out of touch with the concerns of the 99% -- so why allow the 1% to hold office, much less allow them to join that percentile as a consequence of holding office?
The fact is, the vast and overwhelming majority of Congressman are, if not wealthy, at least well-off before they enter politics. The fairy tale of the local man running for Dog Catcher, then City Council, then State Legislature, and so forth is just that, a fairy tale. I've been personally involved with a few campaigns and it takes money, mountains and mountains of money, to run just a Statewide campaign. What isn't or can't be funded by the candidate themselves is either coming from the parties or the dreaded "special interest." That's old-fashioned favor buying and it is not breaking the system. It is the foundation of the system. They obviously take it more than a little far for dramatic purposes, but the small truths in the Netflix series House of Cards really put things in perspective.
Then busting them back to "not wealthy" (adjusted for expenses directly related to their job as representing the people) is even better. That way, the only people who would do it are those who are genuinely driven to represent the wishes of their constituents. The avaricious sociopath would no longer find those positions so magnetic.
And the independently wealthy, and anyone who can see another way of profitting from that position beyond their legal salary. By the way, are you sure you would rather be governed by idealists? Think about that for a minute, really visualize it. That's Ancalagon and me and possibly John. You like?
About one third of U.S. Congressman live in their offices IIRC. Something like 150 members. It is free plus they eat for free in one of the three congressional cafeterias. The offices all have space for a comfortable bed and fully equipped bathroom and show. Paying members of Congress less than a Walmart store manager might sound good to so many in the public, but I think is is a prescription for disaster.
That's something of an assumption, don't you think? That only idealists would want the job under those circumstances, I mean. There are more than just sociopaths and idealists in the world, y'know. You wouldn't be eligible because you're a Chuhhhmun. Ancalagon wouldn't be eligible 'cause he's not a person. John would probably do okay, except I'm not sure how the electorate would feel about the possibility of a First Plastic Pony.
Why not? Reforming and strictly enforcing anti-corruption laws would bar against them being bought off (as if they aren't already bought off now), and again it would keep the wealth-seeking psychos from being so widely attracted to the occupation.
Look at it this way. About the ONLY people who will be willing to run for Congress will the the mega millionaires and billionaires. Far worse than today. Do you really want our entire legislative branch a club for the mega rich? Next, if members of Congress can't make serious money at the federal level they will do so at the state level. You will have members of Congress going even more overboard to channel money to their individual states on the "understanding" that they are well taken care of when they leave office. And there is nothing that could be done about this as federal laws against working as lobbyists and such would have no effect on say a former member of Congress getting a job as a "consultant" or something for his own state govt. after he has worked for years channeling billions in federal aide there way.
I suspect the actual result would be that even fewer do it who aren't already wealthy. Most of us wouldn't be able to afford being in Congress.
I've yet to vote in an election, where I haven't felt like taking a Crying Game shower afterword. Politics in America is horrifying on far too many levels.
So institute net worth caps on eligibility. The idea is to get "regular folks" into office, rather than out of touch elitists. That was one of the charges leveled against Romney during the 2012 campaign, wasn't it? Well, I happen to agree with it. Of course, I also agree with it when it comes to Hillary Clinton, but that's almost a by-the-by. Pick any candidate ya like -- 1%er? Should be ineligible. And achieving office shouldn't be an expressway to the 1%.
