It has been a while since I last posted. Unfortunately, I had a situation with a bite, an infection, some swelling, some more swelling, and the ER. I'm back now and am ready to talk about some ideas for reform of our government. I would really like to hear input about my ideas and other possible methods of reform that anyone that reads this can think of.
I.) So my first idea is an enormous raise in salary for candidates. Especially, the higher up candidates like Senators. I'm talking about a several thousand percent increase in salary. Instead of a six figure salary, maybe an eight figure salary. Accompanied with this would be a destruction of term limits. There are a few things this will accomplish.
Competition for these important, powerful jobs will explode. The best of the best will be going for these jobs. Corruption will be much harder to survive with a surge in competition. This will really give the voters some power back because winning an election will be a lot more important than losing a fundraising donor. Maybe we could throw bonuses in their for an annual decrease in taxing/spending. At the end of the day this makes lobbyists and special interests not as financially important as the people being represented because candidates can fund their campaigns themselves with their salary. Therefore, less time will be spent on campaigning, and more on doing the best job possible. This also makes candidates really not want to "get fired" (voted out). Sounds good to me. If we want better candidates-employees-let's just pay them more (sounds embarrassingly simple doesn't it?). The way the math currently works out is that a US Senator makes about $170,000 annually. To run a campaign is going to cost-in the past few years-between $2 million and $16 million. Where do you think that money is ultimately coming from? The donors? Where are the lobbyists and special interest groups really getting it from at the end of the day? So why don't we just pay them more to begin with?
II.) My next idea touches on the idea that we get rid of as much government bureaucracy as possible. Many government responsibilities are outsourced to contractors. Private sector contractors are able to do government work more efficiently than the government. So why don't we just eliminate as many government jobs as possible. We can still call them "government jobs," and they can still be classified under government responsibilities.
A lot of government work is currently being outsourced. Domestically we have garbage collection outsourced, and internationally we have Blackwater. If we do this then I think Democrats and Republicans can both win. We can have as much government as possible-Democrats-but it will not be run by the private sector-Republicans. This whole idea is very free market based; so the Libertarians win too.
III.) My last idea for this post is going to revolve around national finances. When we centralize our finances like we have there are advantages and disadvantages. Some benefits include easier manipulation/control and stability of currency. Some disadvantages are being experienced this week in the market. If something goes wrong, the whole ship goes down. Also see any other examples of depression past/present/future-there will be more; they're unavoidable with centralization. It is common sense really. If a bunch of blocks are leaning on one block that is standing up; once the upright block falls, they all fall. Booms and busts of markets-capitalism at its finest. I don't really like the booms and busts because many people lose everything. I'm thinking what if we have more than one financial set of controls-this idea should sound familiar.
Even in America, therefore, there would be more than one market. So there could be a American market depression without having an American depression. This would be a terrific way to hedge against a total depression. Even though the booms won't be as great (more steady), The current fed tries to do this same thing anyway by changing rates, increasing/decreasing money supply. It has been basically just allowing for different types of bubbles that eventually burst--only short-term steadiness. FYI, bubble bursts can be correlated to the creation of a new bubble.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Pagano, I enjoy your creativity, but there are many problems with your "reform".
First, your idea of paying the politicians is basically public financing for only the incumbent. Anyone who should try to unseat an incumbent will automatically be at an even worse advantage than usual. As we all know, incumbents get re-elected over 90% of the time in most years. I don't see a reason to give them more of an advantage. As for the incentive for getting "the best of the best", I can assure you that there are plenty of perks to go along with that $170,000 a year salary. Fame and power being the biggest two.
Your second idea is vague, but generally a good idea.
The third idea is hard to follow, but getting rid of boom and bust is impossible unless we take a direction towards a more stagnant economy (see Europe). The Financial corporations are struggling, but exports, healthcare, and some other parts of the market are booming. As of now, we aren't in a recession. The economy is still growing; bolstered by those exports.
About that first idea about raising the pay of these senators to get rid of lobbyist influence. The fact of the matter is anyone can become a lobbyist if they tried hard enough. A lot of us distrust lobbyists mainly because of bad memories of Jack Abramoff. Senators and congresspeople now get their raises through lobby money and private means. Why are we going to force the taxpayers' hand to paying our senators just to eliminate a problem that any one of us can become a part of?
Alright, I can understand your 2nd idea about getting rid of much of the government bureaucracy is a good thing, but honestly, raises to elected officials?
I know we discussed this in detail in person and I'm not going to hate again, but I'll be willing to give these folks a raise once they truly help propel our country into the future instead of letting it sit in limbo (if we're lucky) or see it face collapse and either bicker along partisan lines or sit idly claiming they can't do anything.
Both parties have had free reign over Congress for too long and it has caused corruption, ineptitude, very little bi-partisan efforts, and an overall terrible record. Fix the issues. Elect new leaders to Congress and then, once they prove it with even just a DECENT record, and perhaps we can give them a raise...just not nearly as large as you recommend.
Mostly, I am seeing an agreement with my second idea; so I won't touch that one. On my third point-Kevin-if we can't avoid booms and busts then why does the Fed try to do this? The Fed fixes rates to try to keep the economy growing or falling steadily. This creates an aggravated problem or a whole new one like the one we are experiencing now caused by government policy.
To my first point; if we wait for the politicians to improve before we give them a raise, we will be waiting for a while. They have been giving themselves raises in different ways anyway. That also sounds like "waiting for change."
If we want change we need to attempt to do something. These raises would also weaken the two-party system.
Post a Comment