Sowell: Throw the Rascals Out?: Part II

Creators Syndicate ^ | October 29, 2013 | Thomas Sowell

[jazusamo]

The public's opinion of politicians of both parties seems to have reached a new low. But no matter how much the voters detest Congress — or how justifiably — that does not mean that there will be radical changes at the next election.

For one thing, "Congress" is not on the ballot. Only individual members of Congress are. Most voters like their own Senator or Representative, often because of special favors that these incumbents have done for their own constituency — at the taxpayers' expense.

Add to this the so-called "campaign reform" laws that restrict the raising of money that challengers need, in order to counter the millions of dollars' worth of free advertising that incumbents get through ordinary media coverage, enhanced by the incumbents' sponsoring of ever more legislation, expanding the role of government.

The very longevity of incumbents in Congress makes it expedient for them to treat each other as "facts of life" — people with whom you have to "go along to get along." One of their common interests as incumbents is reelection. This can lead to all sorts of bipartisan log-rolling legislation to hand out the taxpayers' money in ways that benefit incumbents of both parties.

In short, longevity in office can create more longevity in office. Moreover, this longevity can attract campaign contributions from special interests who expect something in return — if only a lightening up on government restrictions and red tape.

Many among the intelligentsia prefer to think of special interests as corrupting our dedicated public servants with campaign contributions. But Peter Schweizer's new book, "Extortion," shows what happens as the extorting of tribute by politicians in a position to do a lot of harm to businesses that do not pay them protection money.

[jazusamo]

Throw the Rascals Out?: Part I

[gattaca]

As usual Sowell nails it.

[RKBA Democrat]

Well Mr. Sowell is certainly correct in his premises, but where is the solution, other than jacking up the pay for congresscritters?

Said another way, why does Mr. Sowell assume that this is even correctable?

[WilliamofCarmichael]

Void the bowels of Washington! November, 2014

In short, longevity in office can create more longevity in office [and create the tradition of the] extorting of tribute by politicians in a position to do a lot of harm to [all who] do not pay them protection [with money or votes].

"It's good being a kommissar."

Here the 1960s Marxist-Alinsky campus radical, psycho spoiled brats are as utes

and here they and their ideological issue are as Establishment guffawing goofballs responding to a citizen complaint about government..

.. and people wonder why we have no respect to the pukes?

[jazusamo]

Every one of those pukes in the pics deserve each other, in the slammer.

[jazusamo]

Please bump the Freepathon or click above and donate or become a monthly donor!

[Fledermaus]

Term limits.

[Valpal1]

Repeal the 17th amendment for starters. Direct election of Senators kick started the progressive era.

Senators that are chose and can be recalled by their state legislature are beholden to that legislature and state legislatures are far more responsive and beholden to the districts that elect them.

US Senators would be all about state’s rights and state interests and not growing fed-gov if we had remained true to the original design.

[Luke21]

Term limits just creates a pecking order for the next group of statists.

[okie01]

How much would it cost to make Congressional salaries high enough to let successful professionals serve in Congress without financial sacrifice?

If we paid every member of Congress a million dollars a year — for an entire century — that would add up to less than the cost of running the Department of Agriculture for one year....

Without a financial sacrifice being required to serve a term in Congress, and no need for campaign contributions to get reelected, such a Congress might well get rid of the Department of Agriculture, among other counterproductive government agencies, repaying their own Congressional salaries many times over.

It's radical.

But it would work.

Certainly, it's better than what we've got...

[okie01]

Well Mr. Sowell is certainly correct in his premises, but where is the solution, other than jacking up the pay for congresscritters?

"Jacking up the pay"...and limiting them to a single term.

[jazusamo]

I agree, what we have now is not only not working, it’s a train wreck about to happen.

[GOPBiker]

It is not enough to term limit the actual politician although that must be done.

Much of the damage is done by the permanent staff pukes who actually run the politician.

They schedule, suggest, whisper, format summaries, meet to decide meetings between their respective politicians and it goes on and on.

Term limits must be there too. It is something that a staffer knows who to call.

Frankly too many of the actual politicians are entirely too dumb for the job. You can know this by observing them talk without a teleprompter.

Sometimes just listening to them try to express a position on a topic reveals their inability to do perform rational or critical thinking. These people depend on their staff to tell them what to think.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Term limits doesn’t really begin to address the problem. You have the armies of (Democrat/RINO) bureaucrats whose sole mission is to continued to expand government. Until you rid that cancer, the rest isn’t going to matter.

[rockinqsranch]

Seems to me we need fresh faces in the Congress to achieve the goal of ridding the Executive of those departments that require all of those bureaucrats.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Frankly too many of the actual politicians are entirely too dumb for the job. You can know this by observing them talk without a teleprompter.

There is IMHO no possibility that there are as many as ten Congressmen in all of the House who are the most able at representing their districts. Few if any of them are even "the fairest of ten thousand” - and each “represents” a district containing hundreds of thousands of voters. So it only makes sense that we should pay more for our representatives - and insist that they do what they see as necessary, and go back home and live under their own rules.

Congressmen should work in the “private sector” for a decade before they serve in Congress, and should go back to the “private sector” afterward.

But of course, it would require a carefully crafted constitutional amendment to make that work.

Meanwhile, the actual problem is the influence of the conspiracy against the public known as “liberalism” - and the conspirators themselves, who are journalists claiming to be objective but actually working for their own interests at the expense of the public interest.