3 ms·

Even when the outside interests don't write the legislation, it's the staff and not actually politicians that too: politicians are basically constantly in meeti

Even when the outside interests don't write the legislation, it's the staff and not actually politicians that too: politicians are basically constantly in meetings / at events and have no time for such work. :| Nothing prevents the staff from being retained from when legislator to the next.

thebradbain 6y ago
And that's partly how you end up with what many people would perceive as a "shadow government" -- obviously a group of people are writing the laws, and most likely they're experienced in doing so, but who _are_ they? And who are they accountable to? Kind of like the bureaucratic equivalent of external consultants coming into a private company.
- matthewmacleod 6y ago
  You’ve just the Civil Service.
dmitriid 6y ago
British series "Yes, Minister" / "Yes, Prime Minister" immediately come to mind.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Even when the outside interests don't write the legislation, it's the staff and not actually politicians that too: politicians are basically constantly in meetings / at events and have no time for such work. That's a little bit true but mostly misleading. As with any office with professional staff, most of the work of a legislative office is done by the staff, not the head of the office, true. OTOH, that doesn't mean the the skill, knowledge, and understanding of the head of the office is irrelevant, as the head directs the staff strategically, reviews, inquires, refines, and redirects work, etc. > Nothing prevents the staff from being retained from when legislator to the next. The new legislators not having the skill to select appropriate staff might, but a bigger problem isn't that the staff aren't retained but that they usually are; the less skilled the legislators are, the more the professional staff (who probably are shuttling back and forth between working for legislators and working for interest groups) do not only the detail work, but also control the agenda, and the less which faces the electorate sends to fill the nominally most important seats actually matter.
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  That's a better argument, but also note that's it's a preventable mistake of legislatures not to rehire and therefore force the conflict of interest revolving door issue. Also note that this sort of negligence is happening today despite a lack of fedral congressional term limits: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/05/24/vital-stats-congress-has-a-staffing-problem-too/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/05/24/vital-stats... . I can't find a source but I believe there is a similar issue with the per-congressperson researcher appropriations. So while perhaps less turnover helps make for stabler staffing jobs, it's not a cure-all. Ultimately the balance between Expertise and Democracy is a difficult one that we need to do a better job at (usually having not enough of both!) with or without term limits.

thebradbain 6y ago

And that's partly how you end up with what many people would perceive as a "shadow government" -- obviously a group of people are writing the laws, and most likely they're experienced in doing so, but who _are_ they? And who are they accountable to? Kind of like the bureaucratic equivalent of external consultants coming into a private company.

matthewmacleod 6y ago
You’ve just the Civil Service.

dmitriid 6y ago

British series "Yes, Minister" / "Yes, Prime Minister" immediately come to mind.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Even when the outside interests don't write the legislation, it's the staff and not actually politicians that too: politicians are basically constantly in meetings / at events and have no time for such work. That's a little bit true but mostly misleading. As with any office with professional staff, most of the work of a legislative office is done by the staff, not the head of the office, true. OTOH, that doesn't mean the the skill, knowledge, and understanding of the head of the office is irrelevant, as the head directs the staff strategically, reviews, inquires, refines, and redirects work, etc. > Nothing prevents the staff from being retained from when legislator to the next. The new legislators not having the skill to select appropriate staff might, but a bigger problem isn't that the staff aren't retained but that they usually are; the less skilled the legislators are, the more the professional staff (who probably are shuttling back and forth between working for legislators and working for interest groups) do not only the detail work, but also control the agenda, and the less which faces the electorate sends to fill the nominally most important seats actually matter.

Ericson2314 6y ago
That's a better argument, but also note that's it's a preventable mistake of legislatures not to rehire and therefore force the conflict of interest revolving door issue. Also note that this sort of negligence is happening today despite a lack of fedral congressional term limits: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/05/24/vital-stats-congress-has-a-staffing-problem-too/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/05/24/vital-stats... . I can't find a source but I believe there is a similar issue with the per-congressperson researcher appropriations. So while perhaps less turnover helps make for stabler staffing jobs, it's not a cure-all. Ultimately the balance between Expertise and Democracy is a difficult one that we need to do a better job at (usually having not enough of both!) with or without term limits.