The only problem I have with this analogy is that I don't want my reps and senators thinking of their term as employment. I think that is part of the problem. The only experience I would require is learning what the constitution actually means and abiding by the oath taken to protect it.
Interesting idea. Would their great benefits package be reduced or limited as well? I'd go for that. And I would make it mandatory that they are not immune from any laws they foist upon us.
One thing to remember is that government has to compete for good people just like business. You may dislike government on principle, but if you cut their pay too low you're going to get people who... well, you're going to like government even less. But yeah, overall compensation, including counting benefits, is best practice. The immunity problem you mention would be somewhat addressed, presumably, by means of this effort to sift out the self-oriented candidates.
They do have to eat, so that part can't be ignored. I like your idea re knowledge of the Constitution--we'll make some interview questions on that. ; )
Yes, Precisely. If we were to go down this path, we would definitely need staggered terms. This business of having term limits written into the constitution for House and Senate members, solves only one of two bad problems. Problem 1: Congress will not make hard choices, even when they know it's the right choice, if their vote would be unpopular. They may be insecure about their ability to articulate the reason for their vote. Congress spends too much time away from Washington campaigning for re-election. Cause: Concern over being re-elected. Solution: Term Limits. There is no re-election. Possible downside: Congress may become less responsive to their constituents, because everyone is a lame duck. Loss of institutional memory unless terms are long enough and staggered. Problem 2: Congress supports legislation that is good for campaign donors but not in the best interest of the country or their constituents. Limiting political campaign money and its sources violates the First Amendment. Cause: Political campaigns in the U.S. are exceedingly long and expensive. Solution: Spell out in the Constitution 1. how one qualifies for federal elections. 2. How much money can be spent. 3. Where the money comes from. 4. What will happen if so much as a penny from an unconstitutional source is spent on campaigning . 5. A strict time window for campaigning and the election. 6. Limits on the types of venues candidates may use in campaigning. 7. How equal public and media exposure for all qualified candidates is to be assured. 8. A strict prohibition, during the campaign time window, of all political advertising of any type, including issue ads, whether or not a candidates name is mentioned. 8. A monitoring and enforcement mechanism outside the political process. Downside: none, unless you are a defense contractor or major corporation! Issue ads would have to be aired prior to the start of the official campaign time window, giving candidates ample time to address these issues in their campaigns. Practically all the other known problems of government have effective solutions, but few of these are implementable in the best way until the above problems are solved. P.S. Lucrum. A balanced budget amendment is a TERRIBLE IDEA!
In has more to do with common sense, then with the size of government. To help you understand what an idiotic idea it is, payoff all your debt immediately and hence forth never borrow so much as a dime no matter what. If disaster strikes and you need more money, just get a second job pressure washing chicken coops on the weekends.
Precisely! Now if only you could acquire some. What part of our nearly $17 TRILLION debt is/was absolutely critical to the salvation of our country?
He's part of the AARP crowd. The government has to keep spending to make certain that he gets his monthly deposit. Screw the upcoming generations, just make sure Piezoe has a comfortable retirement.