Remake of the American Political Scene

[slickdawg]

I'll toss this one out for discussion.

Instead of paying all politicans, particularly those in Washington, the same
across the board, why not let thier salaries be equal to the mean income for
the district that they represent?

For example:

Each state has two senators. They make about $165,000 annually.
That kind of money plus the incentives (lobbyists, PAC's, power, insurance,
retirement, etc) certainly makes the person want to be a senator for reasons
other than representing their district.

The new plan:

In 2004, Oklahoma's three-year median income was $38,281, so that's what
each Oklahoma senator should make. Keeping incomes relative to each
state would foster an environment where each politican is truly in tune
with their respective districts.

[IronSooner]

Or just let their districts decide their salary rather than allowing them to vote on their own. Does your supervisor ever let you vote yourself a pay raise?

[Tear Down This Wall]

In Texas, the State Reps are only paid $7,000. Plus, they only neet every other year. I like that.

I what Texas does for two reasons. First, it ensures that no one can derive a living from being a legislator alone. Every other year they must go and live under the laws they created, just like the rest of us. Second, it prevents the blind legislating that occurs at the federal level. That is, having so many bills that no one really knows what's going on.

[slickdawg]

Or just let their districts decide their salary rather than allowing them to vote on their own. Does your supervisor ever let you vote yourself a pay raise?

That is one of my biggest complaints with the system as it stands today.

Under my plan, if they are doing thier jobs right, the mean income in their
state will rise, and their salaries will rise.

[mdklatt]

In 2004, Oklahoma's three-year median income was $38,281, so that's what
each Oklahoma senator should make. Keeping incomes relative to each
state would foster an environment where each politican is truly in tune
with their respective districts.

If you do that only the wealthy will be able to afford to become politicians.

Politicians are already almost universally wealthy; their government salary is chump change to them. With the small fortune they're already sitting on plus all the money and perks they get from lobbyists, decreasing their salary isn't going to persuade them to do anything different.

[slickdawg]

If you do that only the wealthy will be able to afford to become politicians.

Politicians are already almost universally wealthy; their government salary is chump change to them. With the small fortune they're already sitting on plus all the money and perks they get from lobbyists, decreasing their salary isn't going to persuade them to do anything different.

Excellent point. Ideally, PAC's would be eliminated and campaign spending
would be capped at a very low level to help even the playing field.

I know, I've got better chances at winning the powerball.

[Tear Down This Wall]

If I could change D.C., it'd be like this:

(1) Repeal the 22nd Amendment or put the Congress under some term limit. If the executive branch has to be limited, so should the legislative. Or, have no limits at all for any branch, they way it used to be. Either all branches are limited or all or not.

I'd have a 12 year maximum for any elected position - three Presidential terms, two Senate terms, and/or six House terms. I'd also limit the appointed judiciary to 24 years.

(2) Make the salary of the Congress and President whatever the median income for the American population is. Stick 'em at a level more like what your everyday Joe earns, and the politician will think twice about how he or she taxes and regulates.

(3) Make the Congress live together in some sort of housing thing - apartments, condos, townhomes. Whatever. Make the bastards live together. Pack 'em in like the cockroaches they are.

(4) Make each Congress person vote for each bill. For every vote a Congress person missed, they'd be docked one vote on another bill. As much as these brownie hounds preen for our money and votes, and as much as they're paid, they ought to damn well be able to walk over and vote on the legislation that we have to then obey as law. Lazy chiseling hamster fleas.

[slickdawg]

If I could change D.C., it'd be like this:

(1) Repeal the 22nd Amendment or put the Congress under some term limit. If the executive branch has to be limited, so should the legislative. Or, have no limits at all for any branch, they way it used to be. Either all branches are limited or all or not.

I'd have a 12 year maximum for any elected position - three Presidential terms, two Senate terms, and/or six House terms. I'd also limit the appointed judiciary to 24 years.

(2) Make the salary of the Congress and President whatever the median income for the American population is. Stick 'em at a level more like what your everyday Joe earns, and the politician will think twice about how he or she taxes and regulates.

(3) Make the Congress live together in some sort of housing thing - apartments, condos, townhomes. Whatever. Make the bastards live together. Pack 'em in like the cockroaches they are.

(4) Make each Congress person vote for each bill. For every vote a Congress person missed, they'd be docked one vote on another bill. As much as these brownie hounds preen for our money and votes, and as much as they're paid, they ought to damn well be able to walk over and vote on the legislation that we have to then obey as law. Lazy chiseling hamster fleas.

Excellent.

We need the Czar to take this one and run with it.

[mdklatt]

Excellent point. Ideally, PAC's would be eliminated and campaign spending
would be capped at a very low level to help even the playing field.

I know, I've got better chances at winning the powerball.

That still doesn't solve the problem that salary does not motivate politicians. Or else why would some hot-shot $500k/year lawyer spend millions of dollars just to get elected to a $165k/year job with double the living expenses?

The only thing polticians understand is elections. We already have the power to punish and reward job performance. Unfortunately, most voters don't do that. The incumbent wins 90% of US elections; do you think the government has a 90% approval rating? All polticians are no-good crooks--except for the guy I voted for.

I think my new political strategy is going to be to always vote against the incumbent party in every race.

[slickdawg]

Does Kinky Friedman stand a chance?

[NormanPride]

Honestly, I'd be happy if lobbyists were restricted more.

[soonerscuba]

Before we pour gas on the Constitution and burn it, it should be noted that elected officials are citizens of the United States, generally highly educated, rich citizens at that. It is all well and good to poke fun at them, but they are public servants and do A LOT of work, ask anybody who has ever been on a staff. Sure, old ones that are entrenched don't sleep in their office, but it is pretty common for freshmen and committee leaders to do so. Some are bastards, most are just doing what they think is best and see themselves as doing public good, and I respect that.

Also, technically Congress doesn't vote on their salary, they vote on the next Congress, which 90% of them will return to.

[yermom]

Before we pour gas on the Constitution and burn it, it should be noted that elected officials are citizens of the United States, generally highly educated, rich citizens at that. It is all well and good to poke fun at them, but they are public servants and do A LOT of work, ask anybody who has ever been on a staff. Sure, old ones that are entrenched don't sleep in their office, but it is pretty common for freshmen and committee leaders to do so. Some are bastards, most are just doing what they think is best and see themselves as doing public good, and I respect that.

Also, technically Congress doesn't vote on their salary, they vote on the next Congress, which 90% of them will return to.

BWAHAHAHA

[yermom]

it's not everyday that i agree with TDTW and not 'Cuba

[KaiserSooner]

If you do that only the wealthy will be able to afford to become politicians.

An important point.

In fact, this very issue (an unpaid legislature) was used by the political elite in Imperial Germany to prevent working class representatives from entering parliament. More specifically, it was one of several tricks used by Bismarck to prevent Social Democrats from running for a seat in the Reichstag.

[KaiserSooner]

If I could change D.C., it'd be like this:

(1) Repeal the 22nd Amendment or put the Congress under some term limit. If the executive branch has to be limited, so should the legislative. Or, have no limits at all for any branch, they way it used to be. Either all branches are limited or all or not.

I'd have a 12 year maximum for any elected position - three Presidential terms, two Senate terms, and/or six House terms. I'd also limit the appointed judiciary to 24 years.

I don't know. I don't have a problem with term limits on an executive (ie, the prez), but I do have a philosophical problem with limiting elected representatives. The voters of any given district have the right to elect who they see fit and, to me, placing a term limit on representatives is aking to limiting the choices of voters.

At the same time, I see the need for term limits, so who knows.

[mdklatt]

At the same time, I see the need for term limits, so who knows.

We don't need term limits, we need smarter voters.

[yermom]

We don't need term limits, we need smarter voters.

the former is more doable than the latter i think

[KaiserSooner]

We don't need term limits, we need smarter voters.

Smarter and more informed. I couldn't agree more.

[C&CDean]

Smarter and more informed. I couldn't agree more.

Well then your people oughta quit registering voters out of the soup kitchen lines, college campuses, and other places where ****ing morons hang out.