Cheap? They seem awfully darned expensive to me!
On one hand, he is 100% correct that superstars in the private sector can earn a LOT more than their counterparts in government.
On the other, those in the private sector are expected to produce real, actual, tangible results, whether it be base hits, touchdown passes or enhanced shareholder value.
Most politicians, meanwhile, gear their appeal to the lowest common denominator of idiot voters, whom they promise free sh*t paid for by somebody else.
Yeah, we occasionally get lucky and elect a Ronald Reagan, Ted Cruz or Mike Lee. More often we elect a worthless (or worse) celebrity like an Obama, Clinton or post-JFK Kennedy whose main talent is bamboozling lowest common denominator idiot voters.
Paying them more isn't going to attract real talent, just those even more talented at bamboozling lowest common denominator idiot voters.
The only long-term solution lies in educating their constituents to demand more real performance and less free sh*t paid for by somebody else.
Cheap? They seem awfully darned expensive to me!
Exactly his point - we need much better people, and to have better candidates you would have to attract people who can command serious money. And term limit them.If - I, and Sowell, do say if - we can get the quality of elected official we pay for, it would be well worth it to pay elected officials well. Instead of electing a Bill Clinton, who as governor of Arkansas was reputedly eager to tell people what a lousy salary he had. Meanwhile, his wife was engaged in Cattlegate and Whitewater.
Well, for a few pieces of silver they can be bought to sell the whole industry.