I’ve been thinking about it, and I actually think legislators are underpaid. I think they should get a million dollars a year while in office, plus a very generous pension starting when they’re no longer in office, plus full healthcare for life for them and their family. I want them to be extremely well compensated so they can focus on their extremely important work.
The catch is that they must divest themselves from everything when they enter office (fully, they can’t just put it in a trust), and they’re considered a public servant from that point until they die. They can’t go work a “regular” job again, they can’t own a business, they can’t go do consulting after they leave. Any money from book deals or speaking engagements goes to the U.S. Treasury. Any “favors in kind”/“you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” deals are considered to be a form of payment, as is conducting business through a family member or associate. They are allowed to work in governmental positions, to volunteer, or to do other work for the public good but not for any additional compensation.
If they break the rules, they must repay every penny ever paid to them, with interest. This debt can’t be discharged with bankruptcy, and passes to family members upon the death of the legislator if it can be shown that they were aware of the rules being broken and didn’t report it.
50% of the repayment goes to a whistleblower as a reward for their honesty, so there’s an extremely strong incentive for everyone around them to closely watch everything they’re doing to make sure they’re not skirting the rules.
Basically, pay them enough that they have no rational need for corruption, and then an extremely punitive penalty to try to ensure their incentives remain aligned in the correct direction. It certainly wouldn’t solve everything, but I think it’d at least be better than what we have now. And if we capped their wage at the federal minimum, they’d either increase it to a point where they’re getting what they get now (causing severe inflation), only rich people could ever have a hope of being a legislator, or we’d get even more corruption.
Because you also need to spend time and money trying to get elected, and that isn’t quick or cheap. And then if you lose the election, then you’ve just gambled months of your time and however much money you spent on the campaign and lost it all.
So I guess it isn’t realistic for someone living paycheck to paycheck to run for office either way, but they definitely wouldn’t try if the job barely helped their financial situation.
I’ve been thinking about it, and I actually think legislators are underpaid. I think they should get a million dollars a year while in office, plus a very generous pension starting when they’re no longer in office, plus full healthcare for life for them and their family. I want them to be extremely well compensated so they can focus on their extremely important work.
The catch is that they must divest themselves from everything when they enter office (fully, they can’t just put it in a trust), and they’re considered a public servant from that point until they die. They can’t go work a “regular” job again, they can’t own a business, they can’t go do consulting after they leave. Any money from book deals or speaking engagements goes to the U.S. Treasury. Any “favors in kind”/“you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” deals are considered to be a form of payment, as is conducting business through a family member or associate. They are allowed to work in governmental positions, to volunteer, or to do other work for the public good but not for any additional compensation.
If they break the rules, they must repay every penny ever paid to them, with interest. This debt can’t be discharged with bankruptcy, and passes to family members upon the death of the legislator if it can be shown that they were aware of the rules being broken and didn’t report it.
50% of the repayment goes to a whistleblower as a reward for their honesty, so there’s an extremely strong incentive for everyone around them to closely watch everything they’re doing to make sure they’re not skirting the rules.
Basically, pay them enough that they have no rational need for corruption, and then an extremely punitive penalty to try to ensure their incentives remain aligned in the correct direction. It certainly wouldn’t solve everything, but I think it’d at least be better than what we have now. And if we capped their wage at the federal minimum, they’d either increase it to a point where they’re getting what they get now (causing severe inflation), only rich people could ever have a hope of being a legislator, or we’d get even more corruption.
All the stipulations you added, but still median pay. And harsher punishments.
If you don’t pay the legislators well, the only people that would be able to afford to take the job are the already-wealthy.
Why? I wouldn’t mind a median wage for the rest of my life in exchange for thinking about how to make people’s lives better
Because you also need to spend time and money trying to get elected, and that isn’t quick or cheap. And then if you lose the election, then you’ve just gambled months of your time and however much money you spent on the campaign and lost it all.
So I guess it isn’t realistic for someone living paycheck to paycheck to run for office either way, but they definitely wouldn’t try if the job barely helped their financial situation.
True. Personally I’d prefer a lottery system over elections.