4 ms·

I agree with you so much that it's difficult for me to convey. The magnitude of both the upside of good governance as well as the downside of bad governance is

I agree with you so much that it's difficult for me to convey. The magnitude of both the upside of good governance as well as the downside of bad governance is so great that it amazes me that we have so few pro-society incentives for competent and well intentioned individuals to serve on the highest governing bodies. If I could wave a magic wand and change things, here's what I would do: 1. Increase pay for senators by 10x, and for congresspeople by 5x. 2. Institute term limits, maximum of 4 consecutive terms. 3. After leaving office, total ban on direct employment of any kind for a period of time equal to the time spent in office. During this 'freeze' period, give them a pension equal to their pay while in office. 4. Strict limits on the nature of employment allowed for spouses/children/close relatives. 5. Strict limits on volunteer/nonprofit work, board positions, and anything else that isn't direct employment. 6. Lifetime ban on political lobbying. 7. Ban on any investing outside of a blind trust for the duration of their time in office plus the duration of the 'freeze'. Overall, my thesis is that we should take away as much as possible of the opportunity and the incentive for corruption for the purpose of financial gain. We do that by paying officials gobs of money and preventing them from participating in the system outside of their defined role as a government official.

nradov 4y ago
You can't reasonably impose employment limits on adult relatives of elected politicians. That would legally be considered a punishment without legal due process. If my sister gets elected to Congress, that's not my problem.
- jdpedrie 4y ago
  You could with a constitutional amendment, which would absolutely be a requirement for much of the GP proposal.
techdragon 4y ago
I'd cut those numbers in half, 5x and 2.5x and the pension at half pay... Over a Million a year for a few years is a great way to bank up a "set for life if I'm smart with my money" stockpile (at least it has been until now, and may continue to be for a little while) and so you want it a little lower to avoid a constant churn of people charging at the gates for a shot at that money. Otherwise totally agree. I'd even go so far as to say permanent ban on any employment with a step down salary/pension for life, halving with each multiple of the time in office.
- julienb_sea 4y ago
  This is a great way to ensure politicians are utterly disconnected from the private economy. I don't think we want this scenario to play out. Politicians need to have skin in the game and a real understanding of the consequences of their decisions.
- drdaeman 4y ago
  I don't think even this would work, unless, you know, we start exiling politicians to Mars or something like that, where they'd be completely out of touch with the society that they were in. Sure one can (theoretically, this is just not going to fly in practice because those who are already in power won't let it happen) prohibit direct employment and other official forms of affiliation, but it would be hard to prohibit receiving gifts, talking with good friends, getting invitations and so on. Yes, you can list such things, and let judges review it, but humans are creative and there always will be loopholes.
lolsal 4y ago
I'd propose the increase be tied to minimum wage, even if the multiplier is huge: salary = 200,000 x 7.25, or whatever the math and numbers work out to be.

nradov 4y ago

You can't reasonably impose employment limits on adult relatives of elected politicians. That would legally be considered a punishment without legal due process. If my sister gets elected to Congress, that's not my problem.

jdpedrie 4y ago
You could with a constitutional amendment, which would absolutely be a requirement for much of the GP proposal.

techdragon 4y ago

I'd cut those numbers in half, 5x and 2.5x and the pension at half pay... Over a Million a year for a few years is a great way to bank up a "set for life if I'm smart with my money" stockpile (at least it has been until now, and may continue to be for a little while) and so you want it a little lower to avoid a constant churn of people charging at the gates for a shot at that money. Otherwise totally agree. I'd even go so far as to say permanent ban on any employment with a step down salary/pension for life, halving with each multiple of the time in office.

julienb_sea 4y ago
This is a great way to ensure politicians are utterly disconnected from the private economy. I don't think we want this scenario to play out. Politicians need to have skin in the game and a real understanding of the consequences of their decisions.
drdaeman 4y ago
I don't think even this would work, unless, you know, we start exiling politicians to Mars or something like that, where they'd be completely out of touch with the society that they were in. Sure one can (theoretically, this is just not going to fly in practice because those who are already in power won't let it happen) prohibit direct employment and other official forms of affiliation, but it would be hard to prohibit receiving gifts, talking with good friends, getting invitations and so on. Yes, you can list such things, and let judges review it, but humans are creative and there always will be loopholes.

lolsal 4y ago

I'd propose the increase be tied to minimum wage, even if the multiplier is huge: salary = 200,000 x 7.25, or whatever the math and numbers work out to be.