Sowell: Political Corruption: Part II

The over-riding quest for re-election is at the heart of the corruption of public officials who betray the public trust in order to get the money needed to pay for their political campaigns. It is hard to see how that corruption can be ended, except by ending re-elections with a limit of one term and a ban on running for another office for several years.

That way, the one term can be spent taking care of the duties of the office instead of taking care of promoting a political career in that office or other offices.

There are, of course, other sources of corruption. Members of Congress whose work puts them in the rarefied company of movers and shakers in the private sector, who make ten or a hundred times what Congressmen are paid, may find it tempting to accept perks like free flights on corporate jets or weekends at expensive watering holes. Some may hope for lucrative jobs after leaving politics.

Part of wanting to be an elected official is serving your country for patriotic reasons. I think we should be paying politicians less money and instituting term limits as well.

I would prefer to have someone in office that is serving for the love of their country, than serving to benefit themselves.

Treat Congress and other elected offices like we do the military ( in a sense ).

People should serve for/with pride, personal gain should never come into play.

You want politicians who care more for this country than themselves, then make them prove its not about themselves.

This

'Some may hope for lucrative jobs after leaving politics.'

is the elephant in the room when talking about term limits alone as a cure for political corruption.

I think Sowell may have a point about paying for top talent in Congress. The two problems I see are:

1) Politics may be too special a skillset to master and make use of during a single term. It would be like investing millions in training somebody and then firing them.

2) For some people, no amount of money is enough. Not even a $60M Senate term.

Used in conjunction with a complete elimination of lobbyist gifts, and removing some of the incentive for lobbying in the first place, we could end up with a much cleaner political environment.

A NRST replacement of all income and payroll taxes would remove the incentive that many groups (especially business) have for lobbying. Congress currently has far too much discretion in who and what gets taxed. Without that discretion, they would not be in a position to grant so many favors.

The key excerpts:

If we paid every member of Congress $10 million a year, that would not increase the federal budget by one percent.

Chances are that it would reduce the federal budget considerably, when members of the Senate or the House of Representatives no longer needed campaign contributions or the personal favors of special interest groups and their lobbyists.

...

Money is not the only thing that corrupts. Power also corrupts and some people go into politics for power.

Nothing can be done about such people -- except force them to compete with other people, drawn from a far larger pool, including top people in highly paid professions who today can seldom afford to serve in Congress at the expense of their family's standard of living and financial security.

...
The idea of paying the kind of money that would attract the kind of people we need in government runs against many prejudices. Just plain envy is one. Some people feel that those they elect should not make so much more than they do.

But think about it: If your child had some life-threatening condition that required some very demanding surgery, would you worry about whether the surgeon who saves your child's life had an annual income that was several times what you make?

Members of Congress have not only trillions of dollars of our tax money in their hands, they also have in their hands our lives and the lives of our children and our nation. Are you going to worry about their incomes or about what caliber of people we can attract to make the momentous decisions that have to be made?
...

1) Constitutional Amendment to say you can only serve one term which would be 6 years long. No reelections. This would be for all Reps, Senators, and the President. Elections would be rotated in 2 year cycles; reps on 2006, Senators in 2008, President in 2010 ... then repeat.

Ridiculous. The reason the Founders put the two year term for the members of the US House of Representative was so that body WOULD be responsive to the will of the People who directly elected them. The House of Representatives was the only body in which the People directly elected a Federal Officer in the Constitution, until the ratification of the 17th Amendment. Your laughable proposal would turn the House of Representatives into another Senate, where members represent themselves, not their constituents.

The US Senate, with six year terms for its members was supposed to have the longer view than the House AND represent the interests of their respective States. Upon the ratification of the 17th Amendment the Senators have become a smaller version of the House representing themselves or their select special interests. Since the State Legislatures no longer choose the State's US Senators they have taken leave of service to their States in the US Senate.

The four year Presidential term (with a potential one term renewal) is key in giving a Chief Executive time to influence Federal government direction and policy, while still making him accountable to the States. This every four years term also makes sure that the Legislative Branch just does not try to 'run out' the clock on Presidential policies.

If you wish reform, Amend the US Constitution to limit both Representatives and Senators to 12 consecutive years - that is six consecutive terms for a Representative and two consecutive terms for a Senator. That would enforce member change in a district or State every twelve years but would get around the old saw about all the experience that would be lost to 'the people' if this hyper-skilled legislator was lost to 'public service'. The super-valuable Legislator could 're-up' if the voters so desired after sitting on the bench for a quarter. After all, wouldn't their experience still be valid?

The real reason the Representatives and Senator would object is that seniority would not count as much and leadership posts would change more often. The 12 consecutive year limits would allow a Representative to run for Senate (or vice-versa) without an intervening out-of-office period and would encourage an 'up-or-out' survival of the fittest...

dvwjr

I think congress should just not allow consecutive terms. If the politician was that good, then after a one-term layoff they should win an election. But, if they run for the same office a second time and lose, then they should forfeit their lifetime pension. Then go get job as a lobbyist. And that when serving as an elected official, they may not attend any event that raises money for political purposes, as that would cause a "conflict of interest".

Once any politician has won an election, it is their job to represent and/or look out for ALL their 'constituency', which means that a democrat takes that hat off upon entering office and does not favor democratic organizations or functions, but instead looks out for the entire group of people they are beholding to. Vice-versa for the republicans.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.