To: hubbubhubbub
I recall in Mass the State House passed through yet another salary raise in the dead of night some years back. Some Dem was being interviewed about it, and he said something to the effect of "By giving ourselves a pay raise, certain politicians will be less likely to accept smaller bribes while in office." Which also means the costs of bribes would have to increase?
Somehow, this article reminded me of that.
2 posted on
12/27/2005 6:16:50 AM PST by
theDentist
(Qwerty ergo typo : I type, therefore I misspelll.)
To: hubbubhubbub
Instead of term limits, couldn't we just insist that members of Congress have no limits, but they cannot serve any terms consecutively?
To: hubbubhubbub
As usual Dr. Sowell nails it. The Congress of the United States is one of the two most corrupt organizations in the United States.
The other being the United Nations.
We need term limits as described by Dr. Sowell, but how in God's name can we do it.
Unlike many of the states, we cannot amend the Constitution by a referendum. It has to start in the Congress. And that bunch is not going to do it.
To: hubbubhubbub
The idea of paying the Congress a million dollars has a hole in it. They would take the Million and still steal all they could.
To: hubbubhubbub
I'd be happy paying them 10 million a year as long as they didn't show up for work. Would be much cheaperin the long run.
Jack
6 posted on
12/27/2005 6:49:22 AM PST by
btcusn
(Giving up the right to arms is a mistake a free people get to make only once.)
To: hubbubhubbub
Two possible solutions to politics:
1) Pick people for congress the way we pick juries. Sure, we'd have a number of dunces in the bunch. But without motivation for corruption, I trust the general honesty and character of the average American more than members of Congress.
2) Copy the legislature of New Hampshire, which has a huge number of members, and increase the number of Congress members by an order of magnitude, or more. The reason is that members would be elected from very small areas, where it's almost guaranteed you will personally know your Congressman. It would be much harder for interest groups to use influence, because they would have to influence so many people. Lobbying would become more like spam, and ignored by members. Any corruption big enough to work, would have so many co-conspirators as to be guaranteed to be exposed.
8 posted on
12/27/2005 7:21:36 AM PST by
narby
(Hillary! The Wicked Witch of the Left)
To: hubbubhubbub
Excellent article. Always excellent technique cutting to the heart of the matter. Whether you agree or disagree he always makes you think. More Comments at same Thread at:
Thomas Sowell: Cheap Politicians [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1547456/posts]
9 posted on
12/27/2005 7:26:07 AM PST by
K-oneTexas
(I'm not a judge and there ain't enough of me to be a jury. (Zell Miller, A National Party No More))
To: hubbubhubbub
If our misrepresentatives only wanted money, the idea might fly. Few of them go to office with the idea of becoming rich; they enjoy the power and the ego gratification.
To: hubbubhubbub
no, we need to go back to the days where being a politician was not a full time job and was not a career.
is there a single member of congress that would actually be hurt finacially by not having been in politics? i doubt it.
12 posted on
12/27/2005 9:10:31 AM PST by
absolootezer0
("My God, why have you forsaken us.. no wait, its the liberals that have forsaken you... my bad")
To: hubbubhubbub
While sitting around one evening between football games one of my friends came up with a novel idea to solve the "term limits" dilemma. After 2 terms in office for Senators and 3 terms for Representatives, the candidate in question can continue to run for office, but his name can't be on the ballot. He/she can only run as a write-in candidate, the logic being that if the incumbent was such a success in the previous terms then his name should be well known positively by his constituents. If, on the other hand, his performance was so lackluster that the voters can't remember his name unless it's printed in front of them, then it's definitely time for a change.
This discussion didn't get too deep as the next ball game was just starting...
13 posted on
12/27/2005 9:20:52 AM PST by
Exeter
(If Life gives you lemons, just shut up and eat the damn lemons!)
To: hubbubhubbub
Cheap politicians are expensive politicians The best politicians are also the best paid politicians. Unfortunately they don't work for us and they are called lobbyists.
The puppets that "work" for us are only politicians in the most generic sense.
I suppose that many of the puppets went to Washington with good intentions only to be co-opted. I suspect that only about 30 are still working for their constituents.
IMHO, Sowell is correct, trying to get hired help on the cheap is costing us a trillions.
15 posted on
12/27/2005 7:09:59 PM PST by
oldbrowser
(Release the Barrett Report)
To: RipSawyer
18 posted on
02/19/2006 1:27:32 PM PST by
RipSawyer
(Acceptance of irrational thinking is expanding exponentiallly.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson