Thoughts Regarding Gvmt Salaries

[I_luv_saber]

Just a few thoughts here...

What if, as a blanket law, all elected officials automatically received the average salary that the people they represent make... no more, no less. For example, if a city's populace had an average income of $40,000, then the mayor would make $40,000. The City Council (or it's equivalent) Members would receive salaries based upon the people in each district they represent. The President would receive the national average income. Basically, whoever you are directly representing dictates how much money you make.

I can see two advantages here:

1) It would prevent officials from being overpaid.

2) It would encourage officials to raise the standard of living for the people they represent.

Now, I can see a few problems with this as well. The ones that come most readily to mind would be possible corruption in reporting average incomes or representatives willing to do anything to raise the average income in their area. Then there is the issue of "you get what you pay for", though this is a case in which I think we are wanting to find people that are not in this for the money.

I bring this up, because in certain areas, elected officials make a ridiculous amount of money and are notorious for giving themselves raises even as their own districts are collapsing (without any way to lower their salaries aside from electing officials that would choose to give themselves a pay cut.... yeah, right).

What are your thoughts on this? Good idea, or ban idea? Why or why not? What problems and advantages could you see with this system? Are there already some places in the States that do this? Successful or failure?

Just wondering aloud...

[Bayou Bum]

Interesting idea, sort of like paying CEO's based on how much profit their company makes. But do you think it is fair that a representative from an affluent upper class neighborhood would make a lot more than one representing a poor low income neighborhood?

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Congresspeople usually have some sort of dwelling in the place where they were elected from, as well as in DC-- At least if you're from somewhere too far to drive or take the train home every night, like most of them. In most places, the average salary is not enough to maintain two households. They're required to vote in DC as the whole point of their job, but it's a good thing for Congresspeople to stay in touch with the issues ongoing in their homestates/districts, so we really want them not only to have two places to live, but also have the money to fly back and forth almost at will.

And then there's the problem of talent. If you know you can make 200K a year doing something in the private sector, or you can make 50K a year in public service, most people are going to pick the private sector. So you'll often get less qualified people than if the salary was a bit more generous.

But a smart person might sign up anyway. Why? Because giving a public official with some reasonable amount of power a salary where half of the constituants make more than you is a really great way to promote all sorts of bribery schemes, some more legal than others.

Michelle Obama would not be able to afford dresses for state dinners on a joint income of 50K a year. Srsly.

[lindajdunn]

Originally Posted by I_luv_saber

Just a few thoughts here...

What if, as a blanket law, all elected officials automatically received the average salary that the people they represent make... no more, no less.

I think it would result in very uneven representation and compensation and strange things could happen.

The elected officials of small but exclusive wealthy communities would be well compensated and they could easily afford to hire people to do all the real work. The elected officials of a mostly rural community aren't going to earn minimum wage unless a strange thing happens like ONE member of the community willing a $100 million dollar lottery. If that happens, the elected officials' wages should skyrocket.

[I_luv_saber]

Originally Posted by Bayou Bum

But do you think it is fair that a representative from an affluent upper class neighborhood would make a lot more than one representing a poor low income neighborhood?

I could also ask if you think it is fair for a representative who is doing nothing can vote to give himself a raise, regardless of how his community is doing? I've never worked at a place where I could give myself a raise...

At any rate, I'm not sure (which is why I presented the idea here). I think that representatives, as public officials, should not be making significantly more money than those they represent. I think perhaps that the "for profit" attitude may cause more problems than it's supposed to address (such as securing good talent for the position). And, truthfully, I think it would result in more accurate representation. Really, how accurate is it that a low income minority district is represented by a rich white guy?

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

In most places, the average salary is not enough to maintain two households. They're required to vote in DC as the whole point of their job, but it's a good thing for Congresspeople to stay in touch with the issues ongoing in their homestates/districts, so we really want them not only to have two places to live, but also have the money to fly back and forth almost at will.

I don't see why this couldn't be addressed with a government stipend for a local household (In DC, that is) as well as for flights to and fro from their districts to DC. Theoretically, there's less room for corruption there since everything is publicly funded and watched over (although there could then be the problem of lawmakers simply granting themselves larger and larger budgets, though I would think this could be addressed as well).

Basically, I believe elected officials should be provided for, but I can't see any reason they should be making more money. As I said, theoretically, they are simply citizens doing their civic duty.

And then there's the problem of talent. If you know you can make 200K a year doing something in the private sector, or you can make 50K a year in public service, most people are going to pick the private sector. So you'll often get less qualified people than if the salary was a bit more generous.

True, this is one of the problems I had already thought of. However, I can't help but wonder if this wouldn't be a good thing to some degree? Maybe we need more people elected with no motivation (or little motivation) other than wanting to improve their community? This may (strike that, is) probably just a pipe dream, but it's still a fun idea to entertain . Perhaps a more modest salary would be a way to weed out those who are in it for ulterior motives?

But a smart person might sign up anyway. Why? Because giving a public official with some reasonable amount of power a salary where half of the constituants make more than you is a really great way to promote all sorts of bribery schemes, some more legal than others.

This is true as well, but again I can't help but wonder if it would in reality be any worse than it is now? I see your theoretical point, and I don't know if I have a good theoretical answer to it. Let me think this one out.

Michelle Obama would not be able to afford dresses for state dinners on a joint income of 50K a year. Srsly.

Oh, I don't know, the rest of us seem to be doing OK . As an aside, I've always wondered how on Earth someone could spend thousands of dollars on a dress, or suit, when I've seen some that look just as nice for less than a few hundred. Oh well...

Originally Posted by lindajdunn

I think it would result in very uneven representation and compensation

I see it as a reward/punishment system of sorts. If you do nothing or take action that causes your district to drop in standard of living, you take a pay cut. If you start taking action that could improve your community, you will be rewarded by making more money as well as your fellow citizens.

As I said above, I think it would actually result in more accurate representation.

But, even this is a lesser effect. The main purpose would be to put citizens who actually want to accomplish things for their respective communities in positions where they can do just that.

and strange things could happen.

I definitely agree with that. It would turn a lot of previous notions on their heads and I don't doubt have some effects that we don't want. However, the question is not whether it would be perfect, but would it be better than it is now?

The elected officials of small but exclusive wealthy communities would be well compensated and they could easily afford to hire people to do all the real work. The elected officials of a mostly rural community aren't going to earn minimum wage unless a strange thing happens like ONE member of the community willing a $100 million dollar lottery. If that happens, the elected officials' wages should skyrocket.

Well, they would have to at least make minimum, obviously. But, I'm talking about the average income here (I hadn't thought about lottery, but again could be easily excluded), not the poverty line. If all of their constituents are making it by, I'm sure they can do just fine as well.

Basically, the goal here is to curb government spending and the attitude that they need to spend that much money. Especially my money. Now, I don't really care how they spend their private funds... but it's quite silly for my representative to make at least twice the average income and then go spending it on expensive suits/dresses or other things of that nature. Why can't representatives too live more within their means and more modestly? Again, in theory, they are no different than I... simply a citizen fulfilling a service to their country, which they should be provided for. But it should not be a for profit business.

Again, just some rough thoughts here...

[lindajdunn]

Quote:
Originally Posted by lindajdunn
I think it would result in very uneven representation and compensation

I see it as a reward/punishment system of sorts. If you do nothing or take action that causes your district to drop in standard of living, you take a pay cut. If you start taking action that could improve your community, you will be rewarded by making more money as well as your fellow citizens.

I note this method has not worked well in the education system. The problem is that there is not a level playing field and after a few months/years under the system, those that were achieving continue to achieve while those that were not lose funding, some of their best students, and the reputation. Since school reputations affect property value, the value of property then declines and the downward spiral continues.

I predict that the result of such action would be that the haves would have even more and the have nots would be destitute. Note I'm not referring to the elected officials. I'm referring to the areas themselves. Those that can pay will get the best talent. People WILL relocate. All the poor areas will have is volunteers and that means they'll be doing it part-time. [Unless they're independently wealthy.

Just pointing out some possible pitfalls.

But, even this is a lesser effect. The main purpose would be to put citizens who actually want to accomplish things for their respective communities in positions where they can do just that.

Our mayor is part-time because the community cannot afford a full-time mayor. A previous mayor was a sales clerk at L.S. Ayres and performed the duties of mayor as time allowed. This is what happens when you cannot adequately compensate people who like having a roof over their heads and food on the table.

[/quote]However, the question is not whether it would be perfect, but would it be better than it is now?[/quote]

Not in my opinion because it doesn't address the biggest problem: Graft. Politicians run for office because they want to do good -- and most of them do very well indeed.

Cynical? Who me?

[pigeonmeister]

We have a brilliant system here- the way it works is that our politicians don't think we pay them enough so they developed a mechanism and a rationale to steal a 'top up'. Then, when the extent of this theft is revealed, the entire population loses faith in their political representatives and turn to fringe or extremist parties (or just refuse to vote).

So there you go...pay them a minimum of £63,000 (approx $100,000) and then allow them to spend millions on parliamentary expenses for draining their duck pond, or for mortages that don't exist, or to pay family members to do unspecified tasks, buy flat screen tvs etc...

On average each MP claimed a further £134,500 top up a year.

[Gav]

Originally Posted by pigeonmeister

We have a brilliant system here- the way it works is that our politicians don't think we pay them enough so they developed a mechanism and a rationale to steal a 'top up'. Then, when the extent of this theft is revealed, the entire population loses faith in their political representatives and turn to fringe or extremist parties (or just refuse to vote).

So there you go...pay them a minimum of £63,000 (approx $100,000) and then allow them to spend millions on parliamentary expenses for draining their duck pond, or for mortages that don't exist, or to pay family members to do unspecified tasks, buy flat screen tvs etc...

On average each MP claimed a further £134,500 top up a year.

Not that I disagree with your point but I don't think that part I've highlighted is as obviously going to happen as some people are saying. I sense the fear card being played whenever I see this being mentioned. it's almost as though the political classes and their hangers-on (vis the commentators) are saying, "yeah, we're bad but it could be worse..." I think most people are more savvy than they are given credit. I think that the those who may vote BNP or UKIP would have that inclination already floating in the back of their minds anyway.

Having said that, yes I do agree that it's likely that voter turnout will be down. With the Europeans coming up I bet that the Media will feed the general malaise by obsessing over the expected poor turnout.

What I find actually disgusting is the tacit assertion that the salary they are being paid is somehow not good enough. That's double (or even triple depending on location) the average wage. Many people would dearly loved to be paid that well - and they manage.

This particular debacle is a clear example of self regulation not working.

I thought this was quite a good* article: If they break the law why can't we? which summarises a more obvious sort of cynicism that's creeping in over here.

* The caveat being that I disagree on several points, but not the overall message.

[I_luv_saber]

Originally Posted by lindajdunn

I predict that the result of such action would be that the haves would have even more and the have nots would be destitute.

Note I'm not referring to the elected officials. I'm referring to the areas themselves. Those that can pay will get the best talent. People WILL relocate. All the poor areas will have is volunteers and that means they'll be doing it part-time. [Unless they're independently wealthy.

I think that's what's happening now. A system where the officials would have no direct voice in their salaries would do more in keeping things fair, I think. Poor areas will still generally make an average salary large enough to support an official and his family unless his entire district is homeless. Again, if those he represents are making it by, he can to. The official now becomes a true representative, and would more truly represent his community.

Never would it be (nor should it be) a voluntary service... but I do put forth that under our current system, it can be profitable to be a politician and that their "compensation" is sometimes pretty ridiculous. This is simply an attempt to alleviate that.

Our mayor is part-time because the community cannot afford a full-time mayor. A previous mayor was a sales clerk at L.S. Ayres and performed the duties of mayor as time allowed. This is what happens when you cannot adequately compensate people who like having a roof over their heads and food on the table.

This is a pitfall of the current system though, not my proposed system. Under a system similar to what I proposed the mayor would be provided for, as he'd be making the average salary of those he represents. Unless the average person can't even keep a roof over his head in which case I suppose minimum wage should still apply (but I think this situation would be very rare). He'd be able to work full-time as mayor, and make a full-time average salary

It's under the current system that compensation can vary so widely from place to place, without there necessarily being a standard of living difference.

Not in my opinion because it doesn't address the biggest problem: Graft. Politicians run for office because they want to do good -- and most of them do very well indeed.

Honestly I'm not sure what the effect here would be. I see what you're saying... they are getting paid less hence more motivation to get their money (or other gains) under the table. However, I make the point that they would have to be accepting either a much larger volume of bribes, or much larger bribes in the first place to make up the difference. It would highly increase the risk of getting caught.

However, I will agree that such a system would be much more prone to this fault if we don't tighten the loopholes in this department to begin with (which needs to be done either way, IMO).

[lindajdunn]

With a tip of the hat to Arthur C. Clarke, who is best known for 2001, but wrote several other novels. One of his novels was SONGS FROM DISTANT EARTH and in that one, they had a supposably foolproof method of government that guarded against corruption.

Only those who didn't want the job were eligible for it and they were selected by an advanced computer program.

Of course, it had the predictable problem but until the planet was visited by other spacegoing people from Earth, it was working well.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

It seems to me that you have a number of goals:

You would like to save money. Great idea. Not necessarily the best place for it, as I'm not sure it would even work, but I think we'll get there later.

You would like to bring the behavior of elected officials more in line with your values. You have a way of doing that already, it's called elections. People who don't highly value money don't tend to get elected, because getting elected costs a lot of money. Perhaps campaign finance reform is a better way for you to attain this one.

You would like to more closely tie the fate of the people and the fate of the representative of the people. I think a better way to do that is to figure out the salary that represents the worth of the job and the amount of money needed to be able to live while doing the job, and then have a bonus that's tied to the well-being of the constituents. I'm not exactly sure how monetizing this kind of incentive would work. You see, you're trying to say that we should ideally bring in the people who want to serve the public despite the average salary, and then say that they'll value the money enough to work harder to raise the average level of compensation of their constituents, which seems..... an unlikely pair. But at least the bonus solution allows to see if this would work to get better candidates/get better work from officials without changing the system too much immediately (and possibly having very negative consequences.

And now for some responses to other things:

Originally Posted by I_luv_saber

I don't see why this couldn't be addressed with a government stipend for a local household (In DC, that is) as well as for flights to and fro from their districts to DC. Theoretically, there's less room for corruption there since everything is publicly funded and watched over (although there could then be the problem of lawmakers simply granting themselves larger and larger budgets, though I would think this could be addressed as well).

Basically, I believe elected officials should be provided for, but I can't see any reason they should be making more money. As I said, theoretically, they are simply citizens doing their civic duty.

Well, having second home stipends is what the situation is in Britain, and you can see the total ****storm that's going on now. Sure, we can watch over it more publically than they were doing, but you still have to decide what's reasonable and what's not, and that's always difficult. We can either set aside a total cost of living allowance, or set aside individual allowances for specific things. We currently have a cost of living based increase. Congress currently gets a raise when cost of living goes up, if they vote to accept it. Seems reasonable. Britain specifies how much money is allowed for individual categories, like mirrors, for second homes. Sure, having a full length mirror is a useful thing to have, but deciding how much each MP is allowed to spend on mirrors in a year seems........ ludicrous. As the media has made it seem in the past few weeks.

Originally Posted by I_luv_saber

True, this is one of the problems I had already thought of. However, I can't help but wonder if this wouldn't be a good thing to some degree? Maybe we need more people elected with no motivation (or little motivation) other than wanting to improve their community? This may (strike that, is) probably just a pipe dream, but it's still a fun idea to entertain . Perhaps a more modest salary would be a way to weed out those who are in it for ulterior motives?

....... I hate to break it to you, but when it comes to national office, that's pretty much already the case. Generally, if you can raise enough money to get elected, you could have some other jobs somewhere that pays more.

Obviously if salary is too low, no one we want to do the job will volunteer (unless tremendously personally wealthy already, i suppose), and if the salary is too high, we'll get people not interested in public service as much as money. I'm not sure if we're at exactly the ideal level right now-- we might want to go up *or* down a bit, but I'm not even sure how we'd go about figuring it out. But going down a lot very suddenly is probably not the best way to go about this.

Originally Posted by I_luv_saber

Oh, I don't know, the rest of us seem to be doing OK . As an aside, I've always wondered how on Earth someone could spend thousands of dollars on a dress, or suit, when I've seen some that look just as nice for less than a few hundred. Oh well...

And Michelle has been documented as wearing identifiable off-the-rack clothing, lesser known designers, etc. This is great. But as First Lady, one is expected to host foreign dignitaries and go overseas to visit foreign dignitaries. There are certain expectations. Some are reasonable, some are kind of dumb, but they're still there. You can only expect to be able to break a certain number of societal expectations and still retain respect, and we're still having a national running joke about Michelle Obama wearing things that are sleeveless. Economic power signals can be really subtle. I'm open to playing around with them with mayors or city council members, especially in places that value non-traditional norms already, but let's not screw with the executive branch too much immediately.

Originally Posted by I_luv_saber

Basically, the goal here is to curb government spending and the attitude that they need to spend that much money. Especially my money. Now, I don't really care how they spend their private funds... but it's quite silly for my representative to make at least twice the average income and then go spending it on expensive suits/dresses or other things of that nature. Why can't representatives too live more within their means and more modestly? Again, in theory, they are no different than I... simply a citizen fulfilling a service to their country, which they should be provided for. But it should not be a for profit business.

Why do people ever buy a watch that costs more than $25 dollars? Watches have only one obvious purpose: telling time. A $10 watch does it fine. A $25 watch will do it a bit more accurately (as well as not look horrible, have a stop watch, light up in the dark, and tell you what day it is as well). If you spend maybe $50, you've got a watch that'll last basically for the rest of your life and be incredibly accurate. But instead, some people spend thousands of dollars on watches. Why?

Long stem roses are significantly more popular as romantic gifts than other flowers, including roses with more than one flower per stem, even though those roses contain more pretty flower part, and stems aren't nearly as pretty as flowers. So why long stem roses??

Money, and power. A watch is the ultimate power statement. Spending more on a car usually does get you a faster, sleeker, better designed car with more luxuries. After the first $500K, you may not be getting THAT much more, but you're often still getting something. But after the first $200-$500, you're often not getting ANY additional utility out of a watch. It's just a more expensive watch. Which signals you can dump money into a status symbol. Long stem roses are popular because they're, again, spending money for no additional utility. Of course, this one isn't as smart as the watches, since many women don't really get that part of the value is the stem and then cut them down to put in a vase.

In order to get stuff done, government officials need power. Not just official power, but also real power. Too much real power is bad (see corrupt government), but if you've ever had a mayor or governor or the like that has to fight with councils or congresses to get anything done, not having enough power is also a problem. Having a certain amount of money that allows them to signal power makes them more than a figurehead. How much money they need for that is highly dependent on any number of factors- their community, the expectations for them, governing style..... but using money for seemingly frivolous things that you or I don't really need is not necessarily bad.

[I_luv_saber]

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

It seems to me that you have a number of goals:

You would like to save money. Great idea. Not necessarily the best place for it, as I'm not sure it would even work, but I think we'll get there later.

Not so much. An added benefit, maybe, but hardly a goal of the system. Except for on the very local level, I would think this would be just a drop in the bucket.

You would like to bring the behavior of elected officials more in line with your values. You have a way of doing that already, it's called elections. People who don't highly value money don't tend to get elected, because getting elected costs a lot of money.

We could say the same of the current system... "If you don't want the government to be corrupted, elect someone else". I think this only holds water so far. Ideally, a system should be in place where corruption is very hard to seed in the first place. Obviously, elections serve as a way to boot out people who do nothing and to find fresh people, but it's not an excuse for loopholes. By this reasoning, we could simply get rid of all laws regarding how politicians may get money because if we feel there is corruption, we can simply elect someone else.

Perhaps campaign finance reform is a better way for you to attain this one.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Both need to be done, and indeed, this may need to be done before such a system could truly work.

You would like to more closely tie the fate of the people and the fate of the representative of the people.

Basically, yes. I would like the representative to truly be just that... a representative of his people.

I think a better way to do that is to figure out the salary that represents the worth of the job and the amount of money needed to be able to live while doing the job, and then have a bonus that's tied to the well-being of the constituents.

I'm not sure how this would be done. Would you have a third party (perhaps a panel of citizens?) decide this?

Basically, I want to remove the ability for politicians to give themselves raises. This idea to me is mind-bogglingly ridiculous.

I'm not exactly sure how monetizing this kind of incentive would work. You see, you're trying to say that we should ideally bring in the people who want to serve the public despite the average salary, and then say that they'll value the money enough to work harder to raise the average level of compensation of their constituents, which seems..... an unlikely pair.

I think it's more likely that you are now going to get people running for office that have lived/worked in the environment they are representing, which I would think would provide much more accurate representation of the people. People who make around the average anyway (give or take) and want to serve the public.

But at least the bonus solution allows to see if this would work to get better candidates/get better work from officials without changing the system too much immediately (and possibly having very negative consequences.

If you were talking about theoretically implementing such a system, then I'd agree. This is sort of just thinking out loud for me though. Purely theoretically, would it work better.

Well, having second home stipends is what the situation is in Britain, and you can see the total ****storm that's going on now. Sure, we can watch over it more publically than they were doing, but you still have to decide what's reasonable and what's not, and that's always difficult

Why should it be? Are the numbers in Britain's case decided by the politicians themselves, or by non-partisan reports of average cost of living? I would think if you take the average income, the average cost of living and such from third party reports (that report on these numbers anyway), then you would come out with something fairly reasonable in the end.

We can either set aside a total cost of living allowance, or set aside individual allowances for specific things. We currently have a cost of living based increase. Congress currently gets a raise when cost of living goes up, if they vote to accept it. Seems reasonable.

However, it doesn't work like this everywhere. Many places, such as here, they can vote to give themselves a raise. That, IMHO, is not right, as it's just about impossible to vote objectively.

....... I hate to break it to you, but when it comes to national office, that's pretty much already the case. Generally, if you can raise enough money to get elected, you could have some other jobs somewhere that pays more.

Again, the idea is to be drawing in people more truly representative of those they are meant to represent. Again, I don't see a rich white guy as truly representative of a poor minority district.

I do think that many politicians start out wanting to do good... but I do think many if not most become jaded as they must sometimes compromise their beliefs and principles in order to accomplish their goals. In the end getting an "end justifies the means" attitude, and degrading from there.

Obviously if salary is too low, no one we want to do the job will volunteer (unless tremendously personally wealthy already, i suppose), and if the salary is too high, we'll get people not interested in public service as much as money. I'm not sure if we're at exactly the ideal level right now-- we might want to go up *or* down a bit, but I'm not even sure how we'd go about figuring it out. But going down a lot very suddenly is probably not the best way to go about this.

Again, this is just a theoretical proposition of an ideal system. It's a few thoughts I had, nothing more.

And Michelle has been documented as wearing identifiable off-the-rack clothing, lesser known designers, etc. This is great. But as First Lady, one is expected to host foreign dignitaries and go overseas to visit foreign dignitaries. There are certain expectations. Some are reasonable, some are kind of dumb, but they're still there.

But catering to that expectation seems even more dumb. The expectation is there only because we live up to it. This seems similar to the saying of "if everyone jumped off of a cliff...".

You can only expect to be able to break a certain number of societal expectations and still retain respect, and we're still having a national running joke about Michelle Obama wearing things that are sleeveless

And we should care that they are cracking jokes? Let them crack jokes when their government is corrupted beyond repair and ours is living up to a high standard. This seems a very silly reason to be against change for the better...

Why do people ever buy a watch that costs more than $25 dollars? Watches have only one obvious purpose: telling time. A $10 watch does it fine. A $25 watch will do it a bit more accurately (as well as not look horrible, have a stop watch, light up in the dark, and tell you what day it is as well). If you spend maybe $50, you've got a watch that'll last basically for the rest of your life and be incredibly accurate. But instead, some people spend thousands of dollars on watches. Why?

I don't care how people spend their money. I think it's silly, obviously, but I don't care. I DO care if I'm paying somebody for the purpose of them doing that.

Gah... out of time for tonight. People checking out...

[jeff]

Originally Posted by pigeonmeister

We have a brilliant system here- the way it works is that our politicians don't think we pay them enough so they developed a mechanism and a rationale to steal a 'top up'. Then, when the extent of this theft is revealed, the entire population loses faith in their political representatives and turn to fringe or extremist parties (or just refuse to vote).

So there you go...pay them a minimum of £63,000 (approx $100,000) and then allow them to spend millions on parliamentary expenses for draining their duck pond, or for mortages that don't exist, or to pay family members to do unspecified tasks, buy flat screen tvs etc...

On average each MP claimed a further £134,500 top up a year.

I'm kinda surprised this hasn't gotten more play here. Oh well, it is mostly a USA-populated board.

I've been watching this unfold over the last few weeks - it's a tremendous meltdown at the Mother of Parliaments. The greed and cluelessness are spectacular - with some members having their tennis courts and castle moats repaired, or claiming a second home in order to get to Westminster when their actual home is a short commute away. Or the husband of the MP watching porn and billing that to the taxpayer. Then, the responses from some of the MPs that it's none of the public's business to interfere in their private matters. Fabulous!

I think Cameron is one of the big losers in this. Until this scandal, the story line is "Labour and Brown stink, throw the bums out!". With MPs of each party dipping their snouts in the trough, that story is replaced by "they're all pigs". Gordon may still go, but this reduces the contrast Cameron wanted.

[Gav]

The porn incident was hilarious.

This particular scandal is equal parts serious and ridiculous. Where you have a married couple each claiming the other's "2nd home" or defrauding the tax man (and using taxpayer's cash to do it!) you've got people complaining about trouser presses. If it wasn't serious it would actually be funny. If you want to see how bad it is check out the episode of Question Time where the panellists are booed and heckled constantly by the audience. It is actually an unprecendented event.

It actually disgusts me that the MPs keep trotting out the "we've done nothing wrong" line... they just don't get it.

[pigeonmeister]

Originally Posted by jeff

I'm kinda surprised this hasn't gotten more play here. Oh well, it is mostly a USA-populated board.

I've been watching this unfold over the last few weeks - it's a tremendous meltdown at the Mother of Parliaments. The greed and cluelessness are spectacular - with some members having their tennis courts and castle moats repaired, or claiming a second home in order to get to Westminster when their actual home is a short commute away. Or the husband of the MP watching porn and billing that to the taxpayer. Then, the responses from some of the MPs that it's none of the public's business to interfere in their private matters. Fabulous!

I think Cameron is one of the big losers in this. Until this scandal, the story line is "Labour and Brown stink, throw the bums out!". With MPs of each party dipping their snouts in the trough, that story is replaced by "they're all pigs". Gordon may still go, but this reduces the contrast Cameron wanted.

As Gav says, we are living in unprecedented times over here. My own feeling is that what started as an act of public service has now become much more about selling the Daily Telegraph. Hence, the paper crucifies a new victim everyday...simply dragging out the story to sustain what I understand has been a remarkable increase in its circulation.

In regard to Cameron, it does appear that more Tories have been caught with their snouts in the trough (certainly more have resigned than any other party). I suspect this is because the whistleblower had much closer access to conservative MPs. However, I don't see Cameron as a bigger loser than Brown. Firstly, it was a Labour speaker who attracted a lot of criticism. Secondly, it has been a Brown govt who has failed to reform parliament. Thirdly, Cameron has been far more visible and erudite in confronting the issue. Whilst Labour have only investigated MPs the public know have done wrong, the Tories have put all their MPs through the ringer.

I think the damage done to our democracy has yet to be fully seen. However, historically these events generally lead to reforms that in the long term strengthen the parliamentary system. I actually also think this is product of greed, not corruption, encouraged by a political culture in Westminister bitter about the amount of money MPS feel they could have made had they not entered public life. It is probably less likely to happen in the US because policians usually enter public life after making shed loads of money first. This is rarer in the UK.

Still, depressing times over here.

[pigeonmeister]

Actually, the more I look the more I am convinced that America has a superior political system. As a colleague said, the beauty of American democracy is that no one needs to trust anyone else. Checks and balances take care of that.

This expences row would simply not have happened in America. The cost of trips to Washington is defrayed from an expense account created from monies raised by the legislator, not taxpayers. Travel and rental of office space in the district is paid out of this account. All receipts and payments must be published and are scrutinized by both federal and state authorities.

Although American legislators have to travel far further, they have no second home allowance.

American politicians have to make a real effort to cheat (and they do sometimes...Blagojevich) whilst British ones have to have iron self control to resist an open system (which to be fair was devised by civil servants). Ok Congressmen get paid more ($174K) but this is still substanitally less than some of ours have been claiming after 'expenses'.

Plus we have too many politicians...do we need 640 MPs?

Basically, we have a lot to learn from our American cousins and the debate in the earlier part of this thread should bare this in mind.

[I_luv_saber]

Hmm... all very good points to consider, I suppose. Good stuff!

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

Obviously if salary is too low, no one we want to do the job will volunteer (unless tremendously personally wealthy already, i suppose

Saith the idealist: Or unless they have a true calling to public service.

Saith the realist: Or unless they believe that they will find some way to enrich themselves in office or after leaving it despite all attempts to curb this behavior.

Guess which one Inq saith.

Money, and power. A watch is the ultimate power statement.

Ultimate? Maybe not.

I recall reading somewhere of an even more flagrant method of display: To hire a flunky whose sole job was...to wear a watch and tell you what time it was whenever you felt like it.

after the first $200-$500, you're often not getting ANY additional utility out of a watch. It's just a more expensive watch. Which signals you can dump money into a status symbol.

Ooh, I feel an almost irresistible impulse to start spouting Veblen-esque catchphrases, like "invidious comparisons", "pecuniary emulation", "honorific waste" and "conspicuous consumption"...

Originally Posted by I_luv_saber

Basically, I want to remove the ability for politicians to give themselves raises. This idea to me is mind-bogglingly ridiculous.

Alas, alternatives are often no better.

My state requires that raises for legislators be put to a vote of the people.

Every year, there is an initiative intended to do this on the ballot. Every year, the power brokers, both public and business, weigh in urging that it be approved. Every year, the voters reject it.

Yet somehow or other, legislators are not starving, nor is there any dearth of candidates clamoring for their positions.

Funny, that...

You know the old saying about how no one can design a foolproof system because fools are so ingenious? I'm afraid that that is the case with systems designed to compensate politicians fairly as well.

[I_luv_saber]

If this is the case, do politicians in your region seem to suffer from higher levels of corruption than elsewhere (Basically, does the lower salary foster bribery and such?)? If it is not the case, it would seem to be a point showing that lower salaries may not be a bad thing. If so, then it would seem to be a point against.

Just wondering...

[Inquartata]

It's hard to judge, without knowing whether they are also better at concealing corruption than elsewhere...

But you could certainly Google "AZSCAM" for a partial, though dated, answer.

By the way, salary is not the only sort of ( lawful ) compensation. They can and have hiked and played games with their own travel allowances, per diem payments, and so forth. These are within their control, unlike salary.