Things I ponder. Sideless political content

"PartyPooper2012" (PartyPooper2012)
10/21/2019 at 10:14 • Filed to: None

Things I ponder - why do politicians get to make up rules for themselves? Isn’t that the very definition of conflict of interest?

Wouldn’t it be better if ... say...voters got to dictate the terms of their politicians?

For instance - Voters can make up laws that say things like - term limits, salary, ... that’s pretty much the bulk of it. Immunity to insider trading is there but I can see why that would apply

I think all politicians should have term limits and get paid national average and have to buy their own health insurance. I think it would put them on track to make things better in America.

******** PLEASE NOTE - No Political party has been mentioned here*****

I don’t want it to be this party is for that but that party is for this.

DISCUSSION (22)

Arrivederci > PartyPooper2012
10/21/2019 at 10:28

We just need to get rid of career politicians - every position needs term limits. Even if those were limited to two terms each, you could still make a pretty nice career out of it:

House - 2 year term (4 years)
Senate - 6 year term (12 years)
VP - 4 year term (8 years)
President - 4 year term (8 years)

That’s 32 years right there. So if you were elected to the House at 26, you could finish your second term as President when you were 58 and then enjoy all those sweet, sweet paid speaking gigs.

jimz > PartyPooper2012
10/21/2019 at 10:34

maybe we should re-set everything and instead of voting, “draft” our representatives. Once you’re above a certain age, you may be conscripted to serve in office for one term.

PartyPooper2012 > Arrivederci
10/21/2019 at 10:35

Agreed. Don’t forget governors and mayors. Some mayors serve decades.

I can see if you are a politician and are asked to vote on this, you would vote against it. Naturally. Why would you vote yourself out of office and out of a job and salary. This is why I am saying politicians should not be tasked with it. Voters should decide these things.

PartyPooper2012 > jimz
10/21/2019 at 10:37

I kind of like that idea. Serve the country. Get paid shit. You aren’t supposed to enjoy it. Get your ideas heard. If they are liked, pass em. If not, well, at least your ideas were heard.

facw > PartyPooper2012
10/21/2019 at 10:37

Problem is direct democracy tends to produce some pretty bad laws.

And I think you just demonstrated that. There’s an argument for term limits (there’s also an argument that term limits mean you have a constant stream of people who don’t know what they are doing), but paying the national average (especially without health benefits) means the only people who will run are horribly unqualified (because if you are qualified to be a congress person, you almost certainly should be able to make a lot more than the average salary) , independently wealthy (bringing in a whole bunch of conflicting interests), or just corrupt. We should not want regular people representing us, we should want exceptional people. This is of course not always the case, but you are going to have a really hard time finding competent people who want to live and work in DC on $32,000/year.

You’re not wrong that there is a conflict of interest, but in theory if they vote for anything too egregious they can be voted out (there are limits on this due to how districts are set up, but I’d say going after gerrymandering and reforming primaries would be a better approach to make representatives more accountable). In any event, most high-level politicians wouldn’t be taking a significant pay cut to work in the private sector, so it’s hard to say they are lavishly overpaying themselves.

Arrivederci > PartyPooper2012
10/21/2019 at 10:41

Absolutely - I was just considering the federal level instead of local and state.

Arrivederci > jimz
10/21/2019 at 10:42

I like it, but there are so many idiots in the country. Have you ever served jury duty? It’s frightening that some of those people procreate.

PartyPooper2012 > facw
10/21/2019 at 10:43

I can’t recall any politician getting voted out because they passed some law people did not like. Usually, the things people would buck against are hidden inside bills that are sugar coated.

We are gonna tax the shit out of people for healthcare, but we are gonna wrap this bill around saving puppies bill and who would dare not vote to save puppies.

I am going on a hyperbole here, but more or less that’s how it’s done now.

Also there are tons of special interests that support politicians in office to get their agenda passed and in turn, the special interests donate to have those politicians re-elected. It turns to vicious circle and never ends

jimz > Arrivederci
10/21/2019 at 10:45

I’d rather have someone ignorant than someone malicious. I’d gladly take your average juror over, say, Moscow Mitch.

PartyPooper2012 > Arrivederci
10/21/2019 at 10:45

Politicians like to throw word precedent around. Well if there was precedent, we could... but if it’s unprecedented, then we probably can’t or shouldn’t. So if there is a mayor without terms, maybe we can have a governor without terms. And then senator and representa tive. Before you know if, we have a king/queen for all of eternity.

jimz > PartyPooper2012
10/21/2019 at 10:45

politics was never intended to be a full time job. but, here we are.

PartyPooper2012 > jimz
10/21/2019 at 10:48

We are here...because at some point, people decided that lawmakers know better and so people should let them decide whatever is best... boy...did they decide.

Future next gen S2000 owner > PartyPooper2012
10/21/2019 at 10:55

The why is pretty self explanatory. In a representative democracy, we elect people to make the rules. As citizens, those representatives are, by definition, making up rules for themselves.

While that isn’t your point, it is a funny little thought.

Anyway, they do it because we don’t hold them accountable or if we try the other half thinks they didn’t do anything wrong. Conflicts of interest always exist, it is just being up front and minimizing them. I don’t see creating their own rules as a conflict of interest though. They generally still have to abide by the rules.

Except for the ACA. They exempted themselves from that, which is shady as hell, while their staffers aren’t.

facw > PartyPooper2012
10/21/2019 at 11:00

And yet, as I say, i f you lower politician pay you make them more beholden to special interests, not less .

And there are a bunch of “common sense” solution is often wrong, which is why you want intelligent, well-educated people making decisions.

I’m pretty sure if you want to improve the problem, the way to go is to make it easier to hold politicians accountable, rather than trying to push decision making onto people who mostly don’t have the time and/or interest to dive into policy.

PartyPooper2012 > facw
10/21/2019 at 11:20

If we said... politician must hold at least a bachelor’s degree. At least this many years old and be living in country at least this many years, I think we can eliminate idiot problem. We can add few more constraints - business owner or home owner. etc. That way they have some skin in the game.

There would be less special interest involved since their term is limited and they wouldn’t be re-elected.

We could also implement some sort of contribution/donation limits.

As some here said maybe a political draft would be better- you don’t need campaign contributions. You are drafted. Come serve if you meet these criteria. We want to hear your ideas and your peer politicians will vote on them. If they pass. great. If not, sorry. Once term is over, thank you for your service. good bye.

PartyPooper2012 > Future next gen S2000 owner
10/21/2019 at 11:27

So making rules for your own job seems fair? I don’t understand.

I elect politicians so they can decide on what to spend my tax money on - roads, schools, cops, borders. I do not elect politicians so they can decide how to split my tax money among themselves.

facw > Future next gen S2000 owner
10/21/2019 at 11:34

C ongress did not exempt themselves from the ACA!

Please stop repeating this lie. The ACA applies to Congressional healthcare. See this:

https://www.verywellhealth.com/is-congress-exempt-from-obamacare-4107197

But basically, Congress had employer insurance which like most people’s insurance wouldn’t really be touched. Except, an amendment specifically required them to buy insurance from the exchanges instead of their normal employer benefit. So they are pretty much the opposite of exempt.

This is a really tired talking point, it sounds good to those who think Obama care is bad (it’s really a big improvement), but it’s not at all true.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > PartyPooper2012
10/21/2019 at 11:36

Because we gave them the power to do so.

PartyPooper2012 > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com
10/21/2019 at 12:14

I don’t ever recall giving them this power. I bet a dollar, you didn’t explicitly either.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > PartyPooper2012
10/21/2019 at 12:18

We pretty explicitly give them the power to make the laws of the land. Fairly all-inclusive.

I agree with you, though. A simple ballot measure should be able to supersede whatever they decide, when it comes to this.

Inertia’s a bitch.

Snuze: Needs another Swede > Arrivederci
10/21/2019 at 12:44

I’m not convinced we *need* term limits, that’s what voting is for. If we think someone is getting too comfortable, we vote them out. That said, most people don’t seem to get this, so maybe we need term limited to protect us from ourselves.

That issue aside, I do agree with what you’re saying. Holding office should be treated just like any other federal position in terms of retirement. There should be no automatic retirement just for serving in office, but the years served should count towards a federal retirement.

Snuze: Needs another Swede > jimz
10/21/2019 at 12:57

Interesting idea but there need to be some minimum qualifications. I’m thinking things like be a citizen (for X number of years if not natural born), minimum of high school diploma or equivalent, minimum score on some kind of compreshensive standardized test, etc. They should undergo a comprehensive background check, no prior felonies, etc. And also submit personal finances - I haven’t thought this through exactly but I feel like there should be some minimum requirement here, not necessarily for how much money they make or have, but just to make sure they aren’t in like $50k of credit card debt and dodging creditors left and right, or something outrageous like that .

I also wonder what other “protections” we would need because I still forsee issues with this model. In some ways I see people elected under this model as being *more* susceptible to special interests. For example, a company or group could approach an official and say “hey, we’d really like to recommend you hire Mr. Smith as your political advisor. He’s really smart and will help you navigate office. And if he likes working with you, we may have a job for you when your term is up.” It may not be that direct, but you see where I’m coming from.

Also, I’d be worried that a gaggle of “ common folks” would be hasty to make irrational decisions in the heat of the moment that would have drastic consequences. For example, someone comes in with environmental data, and they go “quick, pass a law to ban all cars, and factories, and everything else that produces emissions! ” Don’t get me wrong, we do need to do these things, but it needs to be a phase out - simply banning everything outright, instantly, would turn industry and economy on it’s head. This is probably an extreme example, but again, I think you can see my point.