-
Wimps Versus Barbarians
May 21, 2013 | 18 comments
-
Looking Back — And Forward
May 15, 2013 | 19 comments
-
Lies About Libya
May 14, 2013 | 80 comments
-
Bouncing Ball Politics
May 8, 2013 | 16 comments
-
Words That Replace Thought
May 7, 2013 | 57 comments
The Public Policy
Cheap Politicians
You’re not likely to get the cream of the crop to go into the government when they would have to accept a big drop in income to do so.
Now that the National Football League has apparently learned that it can be costly to hire cheap officials, perhaps the rest of us should learn the same lesson when it comes to government officials, whose bad calls can do a lot more damage.
What do we do when we want a better car, a better home or a better bottle of wine? We pay more for it. We definitely need a lot better crop of public officials. Yet we insist on paying flea market prices for people who will be spending trillions of tax dollars, not to mention making foreign policy that can either safeguard or jeopardize the lives of millions of Americans.
Any successful engineer, surgeon, or financier would have to take a big pay cut to serve in Congress. A top student from a top law school can get a starting salary that is more than we pay a Supreme Court justice.
No doubt many, if not most, government officials are already paid more than they are worth. But the whole point of higher pay is to get better people to replace them.
We may say that we want people in Congress, the courts or the White House who have some serious knowledge and experience in the real world, not just glib tricksters who know how to pander for votes. But we don’t put our money where our mouth is.
Let’s face it. You’re not likely to get a good suit of clothes at a flea market. And you’re not likely to get the cream of the crop to go into the government when they would have to accept a big drop in income to do so.
There are always going to be warm bodies available to fill the jobs in government. We have lots of warm bodies there now. There will also always be some people who are willing to sacrifice their family’s economic security and standard of living, in order to get their hands on the levers of power.
These are precisely the kinds of people whom it is dangerous to have holding the levers of power.
Can we afford to pay members of Congress, the President of the United States, and federal judges the kinds of money that would enable us to tap a far wider pool of far more knowledgeable people with successful real world experience? We can’t afford not to. Cheap politicians are expensive in their reckless spending of tax money. It is the ultimate in being penny-wise and pound-foolish.
To get some idea of the cost, ask yourself: How much would it cost to pay every member of Congress, the president, and every federal judge a million dollars a year?
There are 535 members of Congress, so a salary of a million dollars a year would cost $535 million, or just over half a billion dollars. There are 188 federal appellate judges and one President of the United States. That’s 189 more people, bringing the total number of people to 724, and the total cost to $724 million, at a time when people in Washington are talking trillions.
That is less than one percent of the annual cost of the Department of Agriculture. Put differently, we could pay all of these 724 officials a million dollars a year each — for an entire century — for less than it costs to run the Department of Agriculture for one year.
If we limited how long any given individual could hold office in the government — preferably one term — we could have highly knowledgeable people with real world experience in charge of taking care of the nation’s business, instead of spending their time doing things to get reelected.
They would be a lot harder for special interests to bribe with campaign contributions, when high officials would face no more campaigns after getting elected. We don’t need career politicians.
The best crop of public officials this country has ever had were in the generation that founded the United States of America. Most of the Founders had careers outside of politics.
About the Author
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is www.tsowell.com. To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
TLP| 10.2.12 @ 6:46AM
I disagree.
We had George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Harry Truman, IKE, JFK, and Ronald Reagan.
We have Doctors who leave their Practices to serve, all the time. Successful Businesspeople, and Billionaire Widow Chasers from Mass. who have their Yachts built in New Zealand, while accusing "The other guy" of "Outsourcing Jobs Overseas".
It's not about the Money. It's about Serving the Country.
Or, at least it used to be.
We need Term Limits.
Period.
Von Mises Jr| 10.2.12 @ 7:13AM
While I am also for term limits, what we need is for crooks in government to be prosecuted just like crooks in the private sector.
Charlie Rangel didn't pay his taxes and will probably be re-elected. Geithner didn't pay his taxes and he is in one of the most important Offices in the land. Chris Dodd got a sweetheart loan and then got to write the reform Bill for Wall Street banks. Maxine Waters funneled money to her husband's favorite bank while Pelosi got her husband's fish canning company tax breaks.
Bankrupt a few of this government crooks and put them in the pokey for a while and you will get better public servants.
chuck| 10.2.12 @ 7:28AM
How about taking them out back and shooting them? That would put an end to government corruption.
TLP| 10.2.12 @ 4:19PM
I'm telling.
TLP| 10.2.12 @ 9:02AM
If we had the Term Limits?
All the rest of it would work itself out.
Remember. "It has been said that Democracy is the worst form of Government, except for all the other ones that have been tried." Winston Churchill.
"There's always gonna be Foxes in the Hen House. The trick is, to get them out of there as quick as you can." TLP.
TLP| 10.2.12 @ 9:04AM
And, thanks again, for gracing us Mere Mortals with your Prescence, last Friday.
Better late than never.
Von Mises Jr| 10.2.12 @ 11:38AM
I don't often gamble or compete for fun unless it is in the market and it pays.
When you know liberals, it is almost obscene making money so easily. I bought SQM at $32 as soon as Obama announced he was buying GM, and sold half at $64.They needed lithium for the $5,000 batteries. Ben "The Bank" Bernanke announced QE3 and my gold and silver are necessarily skyrocketing again. Oil drilling ban has paid handsomely especially if you don't have to drive much. Sure beats being a freaking troll, Perp.
Now let’s get rid of this late-term abortion of a President before it all turns to shit.
TLP| 10.2.12 @ 4:24PM
Wow.
That's quite the Portfolio.
In keeping with the times - This Friday's Contest comes with a $500 Entry Fee.
Lucky for you (And Me) that you're Filthy Rich.
tankrtrash| 10.2.12 @ 8:31PM
I would also submit that we need to re-institute the draft. Establishing (at an early age) a sense of duty and service to the country.
All able body 19 and 20 yr old's serving 2 or 3 years (i.e. Israel), after which, applying that experience to the private sector for 25 or 30 years, then entering politics, not for a career, but to serve a term or two and apply the common sense that they've acquired to the nations business.....that and having an yearly season on lawyers and lobbyist (5 per day bag-limit for a least a month).
I'm convinced the future would "sparkle"
benny havens| 10.2.12 @ 7:05AM
As long as politicians are allowed to legally steal money from the general working public, things will not change. Collecting taxes for national defense, interstate highways and other infrastructure are necessary and are the definition of “the common good”.
But when the system morphs into taking money from a productive worker and gives it to Sandra so she can purchase contraceptives, is ridiculous.
Limiting the terms of politicians is a good thing but somehow limiting the amount of money that they can spend during that term also needs to be implemented.
chuck| 10.2.12 @ 7:31AM
They already have limits, it's called the Constitution. But when politicians routinely ignore it, and are allowed to by the Supreme Court, then reelected time and again, the system falls apart.
And here we are, wondering how shit got so broken.
PolishKnight| 10.2.12 @ 10:02AM
Sorry, but as Robert's decision so aptly showed us, the Holy Constitution isn't protecting us anymore. Pray to it all you like, but He's not listening anymore.
As the Democrats know, if you elect enough officials, pack enough bureaucrats, and appoint enough judges, the Constitution will say whatever they want it to say. Think differently? Good luck with telling your local cop the "Constitution" says he can't do that and appeal to the Supreme Court. Get in line for the next thousand years or so while you wait and if you're lucky, you have a 1 in 10 chance of winning.
Deal with this reality: We live in a representational Democracy, for now. Until the left fully takes over and then they get rid of that and we simply live in an oligarchal dictatorship. Work with that reality.
cicero| 10.2.12 @ 7:56AM
Sorry to part company with you, Dr. Tom. but while money may be the problem, it isn't because these folks are not paid enough. Clinton was paid "only " $400 k per, but has amassed a fortune of over $100 mil. Not bad for someone who has never w orked in the real world. Obama has never held a real job, but is shopping for a $37 mil estate in Oahu. Not bad. No wonder Michelle counsels college kids to forego work in the private sector so they can cash in on a government job. The problem is not pay, but character. But this is a democracy, so we have to ask for what we get. If the majority of the voting public is of such low character that they see fit to vote themselves their neighbors' earnings, they will vote in what we have now. In that case, let the George Washingtons and John Adams and Thomas Jeffersons rest in peace. They gave it to us, and we could not keep it.
fmm| 10.2.12 @ 8:24AM
If one couples higher pay with both term limits and strict rules of engagement, then this could work. I would be wlling to pay congressional members more than a million a year with an expense account if that would cement term limits in place. Make it unlawful for any politician to accept any money other than their salary. No paid speaking engagements, no free haircuts or parking arrangements, no chauffeured automobiles or government paid plane trips, no contributions to campaigns, etc. In other words, treat them like private sector workers instead of something special, which they definitely are not. The fortunes amassed by Clinton and others based on them being able to hand out favors without oversight in return for monetary support would be unlawful and shortcircuited.
TLP| 10.2.12 @ 4:28PM
This is NOT supposed to be about MONEY.
It's all about SERVING YOUR COUNTRY.
I served in the Military, in the 70's.
I got $600 a Month.
Are you telling me that these MFers deserve MORE MONEY than our Troops, who put their lives on the line, everyday?
Is that what you're saying?
Give me a Fckng Break.
Pecos Pete| 10.2.12 @ 8:21AM
If we paid all of Congress and the judges $1 million a year they would still rape us for more. With term limits the rape would just be faster.
Heck, Jessie Jackson, Jr. is going to be reelected and he ain't even half-way sane, or serving.
TLP| 10.2.12 @ 9:10AM
Exactly.
It doesn't matter how much you pay them.
How many Trillion$ have they STOLEN from Social Security?
"What does it profit a man, to Gain the whole World, and Lose his Immortal Soul." JESUS CHRIST.
The real one. Not the Black one we've got, now.
PolishKnight| 10.2.12 @ 10:05AM
I'm surprised to see something like this written by an intellect by someone such as Sowell. It's laughable. The left rarely leaves a profitable entrepreneurial job in the private sector to go into the public sector as a congressman or president. So raising the salaries of bureaucrats and politicians just lines their pockets. When they leave, they take kickbacks in the forms of "speaking fees" and nepotism jobs for their relatives and offspring. That's how the game has worked since royalist times.
RFisher66| 10.2.12 @ 10:12AM
I would wager that no matter what you paid the truth is that the majority of politicians and judges would still be in it for the power. Did the Kennedy's need the money? FDR? John Kerry? Jimmy Carter? Lyndon Johnson? No they didn't. They were in it for the power. There are some simple solutions to career politicians. First, there are no pensions or benefits once leaving office. Second, all laws they pass they are subject to. Third, legislative sessions last no more than 6 months a year and there is no pay or benefits for the months you are gone. Fourth, any member running for reelection is docked a full days pay for any day he spend campaigning. Fifth, a member is docked a day's pay for every day he misses a vote. Sixth, no member can serve consecutive terms. Seventh, no member can serve in any other government position of any kind for two years after his term of office is up, nor can he participate in any activity for pay that involves lobbying of any kind. Those seven rules would get us back to what was intended in the first place. Citizen legislators. While I consider Thomas Sowell a near genius I resent the implication that one would only serve the country in politics for the money. We current and former service members served for a lot of reasons but none of them were for the money. Are we the ignorant, stupid and lazy? I don't think so. We found a higher purpose and served. Government work should be no different.
TLP| 10.2.12 @ 4:30PM
Maybe it SHOULDN'T.
But it DOES.
It's called: A Roman Senate.
Mike G| 10.2.12 @ 11:20AM
Twain said it best:
"We have the best congress money can buy. "
No point in throwing good money after bad. The Constitution gives us the power to limit terms, but we obviously don't have the will to exercise that power. I doubt we'll ever have the will to do so.
JP| 10.2.12 @ 11:42AM
So, does society bribe politicians with high pay in order to encourage them to look after our national interests? Some centuries ago, members of the British Aristocracy argued that the best people to govern a democracy was members of the Upper Class. Most if not all were wealthy beyond belief (for the times). Thier sons were educated in the classics, and were brought up to serve. The Upper Class, they argued, had such disdain for the "common man", that they were beyond the petty graft and corruption one sees in the lower classes. Being bribed was considered declassee. And the aristocracy turned out great public servants such as Marlborough and Wellington.
The US once produced a class of civil servants that was built upon tradition (more than wealth). Beginning with the Adams and ending with the Tafts, one could argue that this era has been long gone. On the otherhand, the idea of a "governing" class is anethema to the American mindset.
aware| 10.2.12 @ 12:03PM
It's not money that draws the kind of criminal scum that is the Ruling Class. It's power. And the real money is not the "pay" but the payoff.
What kind of "conservative" says half a billion is no big deal when trillions are bandied about? Every flood starts with a couple of drops.
TLP| 10.2.12 @ 4:33PM
Absolutely Correct.
There's a REASON that Multi-Millionaires spend tens of Millions of their Own Money, to get a job that pays $170,000.
JFGalt| 10.2.12 @ 12:45PM
Can we really believe that paying them more will give us better people? It seems like this profession simply attracts opportunists and scum. While paying them more may make sense I would make it contingent on that if they are caught stealing or gorging themselves or their benefactors at the public trough that they be subject to a public stoning.
Nick| 10.2.12 @ 12:48PM
I think some of you are misunderstanding the point that Dr. Sowell is trying to make.
He is arguing that by paying these people what we do, we are guaranteeing that a whole swathe of extremely competent people will never consider running for office, or consider a presidential appointment. That severely limits the talent pool.
How many career military members contemplate staying in the public sector when they retire? Especially, the experts in logistics & organization? Will they not instead look for jobs in private security & big corporations who will pay them what they are worth?
There are currently around 115 military vets serving in Congress. Or, around 20%, i.e., one in five.
What if half of Congress was filled with representatives like Allen West?
By limiting the recruiting pool, we guarantee that people like Maxine Waters, Dick Lugar, and Arlen Specter will look at public office as a career, instead of as a vocation. Like it once was.
PolishKnight| 10.2.12 @ 1:13PM
I see his point, but disagree with his premise. The money, even for an honest congressman or senator, is there in a variety of forms: The fantastic pension, the cadillac healthcare, the travel privileges, and the prestige you enjoy when you leave (even if you don't take kickbacks, you can use this as a springboard for your private sector career.) Bottom line: No former senator or congressman is starving or on foodstamps.
Nick| 10.2.12 @ 1:51PM
Dr. Sowell never claimed they were starving, PolishKnight. Straw man.
You're letting your disdain for politicians cloud your assessment of the argument, I'm afraid.
Do you think that a Colonel or Brigadier General, who has put in 20-30 years of service, is going to even consider a job that pays $160K/yr., a "fantastic pension," health plan, travel?, and all the fundraising you have to do, over jobs that pay $500K/yr. managing a division for a Fortune 500 company?
Obviously, the answer is NO. Since, there are so few veterans serving in Congress. Even fewer when you only consider career military.
Did you know that many of the staffers for members of Congress are 25-year-old's, a couple of years out of college? They are the ones making the deals, writing the legislation, and controlling the committees. Twenty Five Year-Old's!!!
If I was ever president, I would recruit former regimental, brigade, and division commanders for the top spots at all the departments. And, I would offer bonuses contingent on how much they cut their budget & spending.
What we call sweet pension plans and Cadillac health insurance is only enticing to hacks who can't make it in the private sector, e.g. Waters, algore, Bwawny Fwank, Pelosi, et al.
There are two reasons that rich guys (i.e., Kerry, Kennedy, etc.) run for Congress. To get richer by getting inside information, and to get richer by influencing the legislation to help their business. Or, both.
Make that three: Power.
JP| 10.2.12 @ 2:06PM
"If I was ever president, I would recruit former regimental, brigade, and division commanders for the top spots at all the departments. And, I would offer bonuses contingent on how much they cut their budget & spending."
That would be nice if you were Fredrich the Great and you ran a military autocracy. He did just that, and Prussia was run like a well oiled machine (not much freedom. But, it was efficient). But, in the real world Congress would eat your executivre appointments alive.
PolishKnight| 10.2.12 @ 3:09PM
Hello Nick. You read my mind, kind of. I was thinking of making the point that many high level military men never leave the service at all. Does that make them losers because they didn't leave to go into a higher paying private sector job? Does the fact that the military pays little, not only to officers but also to enlisted men, imply that they're of lesser quality than the private sector? Do I dare even ask the question?
The same thing goes for teachers and policemen that we always hear are underpaid for the "hard" job that they do (and often it is truly hard) but still, they have a fantastic pension, healthcare, and pay package that is nothing to sneeze at in most cases. So I don't buy it.
In the meantime, the private sector isn't all cream and butter. Yes, sometimes it pays well especially if you're a CEO or lobbyist but the rest of us "99 percenters" to use the cheesy snot-nosed socialist term, are jealous of the package. And yes, I think a CEO can do quite well on a half million dollar a year salary too and lay off thousands of people and send jobs over to Asia. If they want me for that gig, please call and I'll do it for half of that!
TLP| 10.2.12 @ 4:36PM
This is NOT supposed to be about MONEY.
It's all about SERVING YOUR COUNTRY.
I served in the Military, in the 70's.
I got $600 a Month.
Are you telling me that these MFers deserve MORE MONEY than our Troops, who put their lives on the line, everyday?
I don't think so.
PolishKnight| 10.3.12 @ 9:30AM
I plan to tell my children that they should never serve in the military, especially as enlisted men because the military simply exploits them. Previously, both in the states and historically, such men were conscripted effectively as slaves because it's truly a thankless job. The officers get special privileges and the women are exempt from combat.
My brother-in-law, that my wife divorced (reason soon to be clear), was an officer in the navy and took pleasure in ordering sailors to go around the base picking up trash and then inspecting their work and if he found a cigarette butt, wrote them up.
Just to be clear: I think the combat eligible troops deserve MORE privileges than non-combat officers. They should get maximum pay and private industry opportunities.
JP| 10.2.12 @ 1:58PM
"What if half of Congress was filled with representatives like Allen West?"
So, you wouldn't mind a gaggle of Wesely Clark's Colin Powel's or General William Casey's running the House and/or Senate? I should remind you that one of the Senate's more famous pacifists these last 50 years was George McGovern - a highly decorated Army Air Corps pilot from WWII. Military service does not always guarentee that person will be the 2nd coming of George Patton. And Duke Cunningham, a highly decorated Navy comat aviator, and former Republican House member was convicted for bribery, wire and mail fraud in 2006.
PolishKnight| 10.2.12 @ 3:54PM
One of the contradictions of the conservative movement is their criticism of big government while simultaneously worshiping the military. Er, the military has been a part of big, dictatorial government since the age of the pyramids. It just happens to be the last institution of our society to fall to the left but, given time, it will fall as well. The teachers and even the police are now largely leftist either in day to day business or via their attachment to government unions.
Joe D.| 10.2.12 @ 4:29PM
Thomas, I love you man. But this time I think you are wrong. I do not think we would get any better people. However, term limits are appealing. Another thing would be to limit the time and pay they get for being in Washington. Have them get another job and stay out of Washington. Get rid of the Dept. of Ed, Dept. of Environment, etc. That is the trick.