5 ms·

> It’s a sobering realization that none of our elected legislators are competent to actually write laws. Occasionally you’ll see an example where they’ll have a

> It’s a sobering realization that none of our elected legislators are competent to actually write laws. Occasionally you’ll see an example where they’ll have a staff attorney draft something for the purpose of political grandstanding, but that’s a sideshow compared to the amount of legislation written by the people with the real power. Even if they wanted to, they couldn't. Their staff offices don't have the payroll budgets to pay a decent analyst a living wage so their offices are staffed by the rich children of donors who can afford to be paid a pittance while living in one of the highest cost-of-living metros in the country. Smart legislative analysts are expensive, but none of them can afford to pay off student loans and raise a family at the payscales available to them. So they end up going into advocacy, big law, or lobbying once they cut their teeth on the Hill.

User23 6y ago
That’s more strong evidence that the system really doesn’t work as advertised. If it did then the people that supposedly have the power of the purse and control trillions of dollars in spending might vote themselves enough budget to do their jobs.
- naravara 6y ago
  They might, but a significant chunk of that body (and of the electorate) is philosophically opposed to the idea of them doing their jobs. Also fundraising, public communications, and case-work are all bigger determinants of them getting reelected than legislative acumen or policy-making skill so big surprise what kinds of people the job selects for.
  - User23 6y ago
    Why do the people who control an organization that can vote trillions of dollars a year into existence need to fundraise? Philosophically opposed, whatever that means, is an obvious fig leaf. The system observably can’t actually be functioning as advertised. Whatever the conditions of the actual operationally descriptive system are, they select for people who vote as they’re told in exchange for a minuscule fraction of the loot.
- salawat 6y ago
  They certainly voted themselves out of the legislative work of actually understanding technology. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Technology_Assessment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Technology_Assessm...

User23 6y ago

That’s more strong evidence that the system really doesn’t work as advertised. If it did then the people that supposedly have the power of the purse and control trillions of dollars in spending might vote themselves enough budget to do their jobs.

naravara 6y ago
They might, but a significant chunk of that body (and of the electorate) is philosophically opposed to the idea of them doing their jobs. Also fundraising, public communications, and case-work are all bigger determinants of them getting reelected than legislative acumen or policy-making skill so big surprise what kinds of people the job selects for.
- User23 6y ago
  Why do the people who control an organization that can vote trillions of dollars a year into existence need to fundraise? Philosophically opposed, whatever that means, is an obvious fig leaf. The system observably can’t actually be functioning as advertised. Whatever the conditions of the actual operationally descriptive system are, they select for people who vote as they’re told in exchange for a minuscule fraction of the loot.
salawat 6y ago
They certainly voted themselves out of the legislative work of actually understanding technology. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Technology_Assessment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Technology_Assessm...