99%ers Too Inept For Politics?

[johnhannibalsmith]

Always enjoy reading Sowell's articles and check for his latest at least once a day. Not always someone I agree with, but I generally enjoy his directness - a blend of strong opinion usually supported with some facts, and brief and entertaining enough that you don't get bogged down in paragraph thirty.

His contribution today - "Cheap Politicians" - poses the idea of raising substantially what we pay our elected officials, the premise being that we get total losers for the most part that are easily corruptible because the most educated, talented folks would likely have to take a pay cut to engage in public service.

A top student from a top law school can get a starting salary that is more than we pay a Supreme Court justice.

No doubt many, if not most, government officials are already paid more than they are worth. But the whole point of higher pay is to get better people to replace them.

We may say that we want people in Congress, the courts or the White House who have some serious knowledge and experience in the real world, not just glib tricksters who know how to pander for votes. But we don't put our money where our mouth is...

...

There are always going to be warm bodies available to fill the jobs in government. We have lots of warm bodies there now. There will also always be some people who are willing to sacrifice their family's economic security and standard of living, in order to get their hands on the levers of power.

These are precisely the kinds of people whom it is dangerous to have holding the levers of power.

Can we afford to pay members of Congress, the President of the United States, and federal judges the kinds of money that would enable us to tap a far wider pool of far more knowledgeable people with successful real world experience? We can't afford not to. Cheap politicians are expensive in their reckless spending of tax money. It is the ultimate in being penny-wise and pound-foolish.

He segues into the topic from the failed NFL "replacement ref" hubbaloo and details in terms of comparatives to existing budget items what it would cost to pay elected officials much, much more.

There's some interesting stuff in this borderline satire guised as a suggestion - any opinions on the idea?... and of course, opinions of Sowell himself... :D

Edited to add:

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell100312.php3

OOPS forgot the link... laf

[boxcar]

Always enjoy reading Sowell's articles and check for his latest at least once a day. Not always someone I agree with, but I generally enjoy his directness - a blend of strong opinion usually supported with some facts, and brief and entertaining enough that you don't get bogged down in paragraph thirty.

His contribution today - "Cheap Politicians" - poses the idea of raising substantially what we pay our elected officials, the premise being that we get total losers for the most part that are easily corruptible because the most educated, talented folks would likely have to take a pay cut to engage in public service.

A top student from a top law school can get a starting salary that is more than we pay a Supreme Court justice.

No doubt many, if not most, government officials are already paid more than they are worth. But the whole point of higher pay is to get better people to replace them.

We may say that we want people in Congress, the courts or the White House who have some serious knowledge and experience in the real world, not just glib tricksters who know how to pander for votes. But we don't put our money where our mouth is...

...

There are always going to be warm bodies available to fill the jobs in government. We have lots of warm bodies there now. There will also always be some people who are willing to sacrifice their family's economic security and standard of living, in order to get their hands on the levers of power.

These are precisely the kinds of people whom it is dangerous to have holding the levers of power.

Can we afford to pay members of Congress, the President of the United States, and federal judges the kinds of money that would enable us to tap a far wider pool of far more knowledgeable people with successful real world experience? We can't afford not to. Cheap politicians are expensive in their reckless spending of tax money. It is the ultimate in being penny-wise and pound-foolish.

He segues into the topic from the failed NFL "replacement ref" hubbaloo and details in terms of comparatives to existing budget items what it would cost to pay elected officials much, much more.

There's some interesting stuff in this borderline satire guised as a suggestion - any opinions on the idea?... and of course, opinions of Sowell himself... :D

Edited to add:

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell100312.php3

OOPS forgot the link... laf

Yeah, here's an idea: You can't buy integrity.

Even smart people don't always come up with good ideas.

Boxcar
P.S. No satire intended.

[Overlay]

Will some of that trickle down to us "overpaid" Federal civil servants, who are the ever-convenient whipping boys of partisan demagogues, but who must ourselves rise above partisan politics; who do the bulk of day-to-day work of the government; and who have gone three years (and possibly more to come) without a cost-of-living increase (coincidentally, in my case, the three years that will be used to calculate the average salary on which my pension will be based) at the hands of the same legislators whose compensation is being proposed for increase?

I am proud to serve my country's government, and willing to do my share to contribute to the solution of the budgetary mess we are in, but where is the equity?

[TJDave]

It would be much easier for the 1% running the country if the 99% couldn't vote.

[rastajenk]

I've never been a big fan of term limits. Sowell says, "They would be a lot harder for special interests to bribe with campaign contributions, when high officials would face no more campaigns after getting elected." That part may be true, but there are plenty of other effective bribes out there for those with a more narrow window of opportunity to take advantage of them. I don't have a suitable alternative at hand, I just think term limiting is a knee-jerk type reaction without any appreciable benefits.

[Tom]

I can think of one - no more professional politicians.
Harry Reid would have been out there years ago.
And Frank, and Dodd, and all the others who destroyed our economy.

[Dave Schwartz]

Yeah, here's an idea: You can't buy integrity

Very wise words.

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[Actor]

It would be much easier for the 1% running the country if the 99% couldn't vote.Absolutely true. The most efficient form of government is a benign dictatorship. The problem is finding a benign dictator. Adolph Hitler believed that he qualified.

Of course you are espousing a benign oligarchy, not a dictatorship, but it's basically the same principle.

[Actor]

It would be much easier for the 1% running the country if the 99% couldn't vote.The whole idea of democracy is that it should not be easy to govern. The purpose of the 99% is to keep the 1% in check. The 1% must regularly get the 99%'s approval or be replaced by a new 1%.

Look at the first eight amendments in the Bill of Rights. They all say "You can't."

You can't tell me which church to go to. You can't keep me from speaking my mind.
You can't take my gun away.
You can't use my house for an army barracks.
You can't search my house without a warrant.
You can't make me testify against myself. You can't try me twice for the same crime.
You can't deny me a trial. You can't deny me a lawyer at that trial, even it you have to pay that lawyer.
You can't set aside the findings of a jury.
You can't torture me.

All designed to keep the government in check.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I posted this to be a bit inflammatory, obviously, considering the title I used. Admittedly, I was hoping to get a few more liberal leaners to chime in and see just how aligned both sides would be on this article. Nobody really let me down and I was happy to see that, what I considered to be a wild departure for Mr. Sowell, was met with objections from even his supporters and those that I would consider in agreement with him for the most part.

Having read damn near everything he's written, I instinctively re-read it looking for where he was letting on that it was a joke. The way it is written, crazy solution first, problem implied - I'm still not sure if it is intended to be taken entirely at face value as he will often use this approach in some of the lighter looks at things. But this just sent me into recoil - and then I also saw a few applications of ideas that we (those that tend to agree with his economics) take as gospel in the non-public side of things. Does high pay REALLY mitigate corruption? Does it really imply a level of performance? Is it a knock on bottom earners or on top earners? Knowing how he feels about mandated wages in the case of minimum wages, is this really a sarcastic extension of the what he perceives as the fallacy that mandated wages lead to happier, more productive workers? Is he looking for people to shoot holes in this to make those points? Is he trying for a level of hypocrisy? Bearing in mind Sowell is a smart man that tends to choose words and ideas carefully, I almost began to wonder if he wasn't offering up some of his long stated beliefs in general as fodder for criticism. Or, is it just a really ill-conceived premise and he blew it?

By the way, the prior day's lambasting of those that don't understand capital gains is phenomonal. :D