Re: Should Politicians be paid?

[Fred J]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Should Politicians be paid?
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 13:49:54 +1000
From: Sam Carana <sam.c...@gmail.com>
To: Right! <myopini...@cox.net>
References: <1117443767....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
<1140576075.8...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>

Hi, I note that you posted this message directly to me, instead of to
the group. Feel welcome to send it to human...@googlegroups.com
<mailto:human...@googlegroups.com> so that others can also participate
in discussions. I'm all for discussing things in the open, because these
are important issues that should be more openly discussed.

As discussed, I prefer people, rather than politicians, to take the
decisions. Your concern for the poor as opposed to the independently
wealthy is noted. The poor are currently in a poor position and my
suggestion to introduce vouchers is meant to change that, as part of my
broader proposal. To facilitate a shift towards more direct democracy,
reducing what politicians earn would also help, I believe, but feel free
to disagree and discuss it in more detail in the group.

Cheers!
Sam Carana

On 2/22/06, *Right!* <myopini...@cox.net
<mailto:myopini...@cox.net>> wrote:

Well, after reading the entire tree, I hesitate to engage as there
seems to be less civility than I prefer. I enjoy engaging in spirited
discussion, however not when participants are driven to making personal
attacks.

Sorry Sam. I have to weigh in with the folks who think that elected
representatives should be paid, compensated for their services. I
agree with those that suggest it would be difficult to make ends meet
if one were not independently wealthy. There are also requirements
placed on representatives that forced them to maintain two households,
one in Washington DC, or a State Capital, and another in a home
geographic region. Representatives are also required to spend time in
the geographic region they represent so they can meet with
constituents. Cost of travel is another expense that an elected
representative should not have to shoulder on their own.

The only politicians that I am aware of who enter politics in order to
get rich are those that run for Alderman in Chicago (note my tongue is
firmly in my cheek). However, one must seriously question someone who
can raise and will spend in excess of $10 million to get elected to a
position that only pays $27k per year (as Aldermen were when I left
Chicago in 1990).

OK, all kidding aside, I believe we already have a problem with too
many independently wealthy people representing the proletariat (us) in
Congress. The problem as I see it is not the amount of money paid to
our representatives, rather it is the amount of money required to get
elected - or re-elected. The fact that we have no hard rules governing
the amount of money that can be spent on elections is the problem. And
don't think for a second that the special interests that contribute to
campaigns want that to change. And lose all that access and influence?

The only logical way to change this is to eliminate all campaign
advertising. Establish some rules/standards for a fixed number of
debates that will take place, televise the debates and let the voters
decide based on that information. No more attack ads, no ads promising
what probably can't be delivered anyway, no getting one name out there
any more than any other name. Also, establish guidelines that state
the press need to provide EQUAL TIME to the other candidates for any
news article that is published about one of the candidates. Even if
that news story is about a traffic accident involving a candidate, the
other candidates get to have small meaningless stories about them as
well. Only human interest news stories are allowed....Period.

That will take the money out of the program, and virtually eliminate
the location where most politicians receive, hence hide contributions
from special interestss or constituents. But once you don't need money
- no need to have a campaign war chest.

In fact, a format like this will level the playing field allowing a
virtual nobody with excellent ideas to present those ideas on equal
footing with the millionaire candidate, and the same chance to get
elected.

That also will eliminate the current practice for retiring
representatives to convert the remaining funds in the campaign war
chest to .... Personal Assets! Didn't know about that one? I guess
representatives can get quite rich that way - but they don't get to
access it until they retire. This then is one of those ways a
representative can receive campaign contribution that actually will be
personal assets within a defined number of years. I suspect this is
one of the legal scams that virtually all representatives participate
in.

And that brings me back to my topic, ethics and morals in government

(http://groups.google.com/group/opinions/browse_thread/thread/79f30922e1ae6fc5).
Since we can't trust our representatives to have high ethics and a
good moral foundation, we need to take away those facilities that allow
the system to be scammed.

For whatever it's worth (not much!) that's my opinion.

Regards Right!

[Sam Carana]

Good topic, which has been discussed here before, at:
http://groups.google.com/group/humanities/browse_frm/thread/e266af8214ff8425/

I raised the question: "Should Politicians be paid?"

Should politicians get a salary for participating in the political
system? I say NO! Do not pay politicians at all!

Politicians go into politics to advocate certain ideas. They do this
because they believe in those ideas. If they didn't believe in these
ideas, then they shouldn't advocate them. Also, if they do not support
specific ideas, they shouldn't be in politics.

Politics is about ideas. It's not a profession where one gets paid for
sitting in an office all day. If one truly believes in an idea, one is
glad to share this idea, discuss it with others in order to advocate
it.

True politicians will gladly spend time on promoting their ideas, even
if that means that it will cost them some money to travel to a venue
where they're invited to speak. In these days of the Internet, they can
put their ideas on websites, communicate with people by email, send out
mailing lists and post at groups like this one. So, advocating
something doesn't have to cost much money at all - if you truly believe
in something, then surely you'll be willing to spend the time to write
the idea down, which may be all it takes to spread the idea.

But do you ever see a politician posting here at groups like this one?
Do you get many emails from politicians with good ideas? I don't! Yet,
all these people who have been elected, sit there in their posh offices
and they get paid for doing what? Showing up in parliament to vote for
something that's often already decided, fixed or rigged in the first
place? Do you know in advance how your chosen member will vote? They do
ask for your views by email?

And why should those parliamentarians convene in archaic buildings that
look like palaces? Why could people who are supposed to represent a
community not stay in that community and, for that rare occasion that a
matter requires their vote, why couldn't they vote by email? If they
stay in their community, they could stay in touch with what is
important there, rather than to sit in an office or being driven around
in car that costs a fortune. What's more, let's put a stop to all those
trips by first-class airtravel, staying in expensive restaurants and
hotels, and the practices of handing out gifts and perks to staff, all
of which has to be paid by the taxpayer, under the pretence that this
was part of the parliamentarian's employment package. Parliamentarians
should not be regarded as employees, there are thousands who would do
the job for free, this is something different cattle of fish!

Well, here I am and I do ask for your views on this. I say politicians,
counsellors, parliamentarians and all those who have been elected into
office through some democratic voting procedure, should not be paid at
all! They have been elected because of the ideas they were supposed to
have.

Parliamentarians and their entourage of secretaries, body-guards and
other staff should not get cars to drive around in, they should not get
travel tickets to go on trips, they should not get any money from
taxpayers for their ideas, because if they don't give their ideas for
free, they're not worth receiving. If politicians turn out to sell some
kind of scheme, then we cannot trust them to stand behind whatever
their ideas were supposed to be when it comes to a vote. A politician
who is for sale doesn't deserve any vote! Indeed, NOT paying
politicians will make them honest! That way, only people who truly
believe in ideas will make the effort to promote such ideas.

Politicians shouldn't compromise on principle. People who have no ideas
and no principles to start with shouldn't go into politics. Not paying
politicians will come a long way to weed out the ones who are in it for
the money.

Public servants implement the political ideas of the parliamentarians
who are in government. Public servant who do the opposite and follow
personal views should expect to be reprimanded, if not sacked. That
doesn't always mean that public servants should follow the instructions
of their superior offices. An obvious exception is whistleblowers,
where people ring the bell because they spot corruption, etc, which
should not be tolerated by government anyway.

More generally, we should question the need for public servants in the
first place. We should allow markets to operate in a way that people
can decide more directly what they want, instead of letting politicians
and public servants take the decisions for them. It takes some vision
to see the whole picture, but stopping to pay politicians is a good
step in the right direction.

I am Sam, I gave you this idea for free!
Sam Carana

[Bobby K.]

You sir are brilliant. Being a politician, certainly a leader is a full
time job. If politicians were not paid, only the wealthy could afford
to have a say in national affairs. Who do you suppose this would
benefit?

[Sam Carana]

On 2/28/06, Bobby K. <thepo...@hotmail.com> wrote:

You sir are brilliant. Being a politician, certainly a leader is a full time job.

 

 

There is a big difference between the people who have political views (politicians) and people who are employed to implement those ideas (public servants). Public servants choose a profession in which they are supposed to implement the will of the people. Public servant who do the opposite and follow personal agendas, should expect to get reprimanded, if not sacked. That doesn't always mean that public servants should follow the instructions of their superior offices. An obvious exception is whistleblowers, where people ring the bell because they spot corruption, etc, which should not be tolerated by
government anyway. 
 

More generally, we should also question the need for public servants. By implementing more direct democracy, people can more directly decide what they want, without much need for public servants to take control.

 

Politicians, on the other hand, should not be sitting in an office, getting paid by the hour. Politicians are the ones with the political views, which is why people for for one and not for another politician. Principles do not emerge simply when someone sits in an office for a certain amount of hours. You do have principles to start with, otherwise you shouldn't be in politics. Typically, politicians will and should have principles resulting in a political stand on a specific issue. Politicians should not expect to get paid for simply having certain principles either, at least not if they do have principles and believe in them. The more you believe in your political view, the more you'll like to share it with others. The reward for politicians is to get elected and to have an opportunity to make change things. A politician who is in it for the money, is by definition corrupt, both pollitically and morally. Nobody should compromise on principle, and that goes even more for politicians who after all not just express a personal view, but who are also supposed to carry out the will of all the people who voted for them. Politicians who lack views and principles to start with, or who lack the backbone to stick with them, shouldn't be in politics. Not paying politicians will go a long way to weed out the ones who are in it for the money.

 

 

If politicians were not paid, only the wealthy could afford
to have a say in national affairs. Who do you suppose this would benefit?

 

 

It doesn't take money to have a view. It helps if you have dedication, character and a conscience. But quite often, it's harder for someone from a wealthy background to get votes from the poor, compared to someone who shares more background with voters.

 

Paying politicians attracts greedy people who go into politics for the money. Paying politicians effectively turns them into public servants who don't follow principles, but who instead execute the instructions of the bureaucracy. In fact, paying politicians doesn't make them into public servants, but it makes them into servants not of the public but of the bureaucracy.
 

Not paying politicians encourages people to go into politics for the principles they believe in, for the views based on those principle and for the resulting political stand they take on issues.

 

Just ask yourself, why are politicians not seen as trustworthy persons in the public eye? Politicians are widely seen as being dishonest, as people who promise one thing and then do the opposite. This distrust can be remedied with one simple move, i.e. stop paying politcians.

 

I am Sam Carana, I gave you my view for free!
 

[Right!]

[Sam Carana]

Yes, it typically takes a lot of money to get elected. But not all
money that goes into a campaign comes from the private funds of the
individual candiate. Typically, political parties will raise funding
for views shared by the entire party. Also, as I said before, it's
often harder for someone from a wealthy background to get votes from
the poor, compared to someone who shares more background with voters.

But I do acknowledge the concern that wealthy candidates have an
advantage in the current system. So, what can we do about it? Allocate
government funding to electoral campaigns, on the basis of electoral
results? That would make it hard for new candidates to emerge. Also, it
would encourage the very thing I argue against in this thread, the
career politician. If politicians are in it for thge money, then how
can we accept them to resist temptation, when bribes are offered, when
friends ask for favors, etc? It makes more sense to decide not to pay
politicians at all!

But also, we need to move away from the very practice of politicians
making decisions that people can make for themselves. What we need is
more direct democracy. For more on that, see:
http://groups.google.com/group/humanities/browse_thread/thread/75248c39d19c42d5

Cheers!
Sam Carana

[yossarian]

Sam! Get real!
The fact of the matter is that no capitalist human is going to do
something for free, full time. We're just like that. We have to be
rewarded. And for most, spiritual reward just isn't enough.
You always have such ideals... Maybe you should come back down to earth.

[Sam Carana]

A politician who acts for personal financial gain is by definition corrupt. Honest politicians, who do put time and effort into accomplishing changes that they believe in, will do so gladly. In fact, there are plenty of people who are willing to pay for such an opportunity, if not financially, then in terms of time and effort. Politicians who are unwilling to put in the effort to cast a vote, do not deserve to be elected. 

 

One problem is that it currently does take a lot of time and effort to be a politician. It shouldn't! Firstly, the time and effort it takes to indicate what politicians want, could be as minimal as casting a vote by email, i.e. typing in yes or no in response to an invitation to vote one way or the other. The problem is the way decisions are made in parliament. Members of parliament vote, following archaic procedures, i.e. someone has to read out the proposal, then there must be time for debate, then the final proposal is read out and finally voting will take place. Because parliamentarians have to be physically there to vote, they have to have offices nearby, they need to travel to and from their home back in their electorate, etc. When someone reads out proposals, it's hard to stop the person because you want to think things over for a while, to compare alternatives. That cannot be done when a large group of people is present, since each may have different concerns at different times. Also, it's hard to check some facts. So, because of the way proceedings are structured, all this has to be prepared in advance.

 

Because it's all prepared, there is no real debate. It's a farce, staged for the media. Any deals are typically made in advance, to ensure that proposals will be accepted. Instead of this charade, things could be improved simply by allowing members of parliament to vote by by email and by making the relevant position papers available on the web, preferably publicly. That would allow politicians to stay home or work like other people to earn a living.

 

Should it take much time for politicians to make an informed decision? The sad truth is that most of them will simply vote along party lines. But even if they do put a lot of effort into making decisions on behalf of people, should they? Should they make decisions on behalf of people in the first place? It makes much more sense for politicians to NOT take decisions on behalf of people, but to instead let people decide for themselves, more directly.

 

An example is school vouchers. Instead of having politicians decide in detail how students are to be educated, it makes more sense to give vouchers to the poor, so that families can decide for themselves what schools they prefer. Instead of taxing people and then let politicians decide how that money is to be spent on education, it makes more sense to let people decide on what educational items they want to spend money, and give people tax deductions for spending money on worthwhile (in this case educational) purposes.   

 

As you know, I advocate more direct democracy, which will gradually move the making of decisions towards people, as opposed to having politicians go over every little detail and take decisions on their behalf. So, direct democracy will take the burden away from politicians to go into detail. Politicians will and should take decisions on the basis of principle. As said, that can take as little as a few seconds if votes could be casted by email, and it could be done at times that suit the politicians and from anywhere. But, more importantly, a lot of decisions should NOT be made by politicians in the first place, they should be made by the people.

 

Cheers!

Sam Carana

[Michael]

I can certainly understand the sentiment of not wanting to pay
politicians and it would be interesting - if anything just as an
experiment to see what would happen - without pay.

But let's consider for a moment just the opposite, at least for the
presidency. If we offered 250million $ a year, so that the 4yr term
would pay out a billion $ total, would we not get some of the most
qualified CEOs that America has to offer? I mean are we really so needy
that we need that kind of charity? Look at who we have in office now,
considering his past business dealings; is he really that qualified for
the job? - At least compared to some of the CEOs that have turned
failing monolithic businesses around.

Just as a four year experiment wouldn't it be interesting to see who
all stepped up to run - with such an offer?

[Sam Carana]

Who is "most qualified" in the eyes of one person, is incompetent in
the eyes of others. That's why there are elections.

But there are two questions here. Firstly, who should be appointed to a
specific position and how (democracy, aristocracy, monarchy, etc). In
our society, we prefer democracy, as this is more in line with our
rights.

Secondly, the question is what power should be given to a person in
that position. On that question, as you know, my answer is that we
should have more direct democracy. The more direct democracy we have,
the less "work" such an appointed person will have, so the less need to
pay them for their time and effort.

Cheers!
Sam Carana

Michael wrote:
> ... If we offered 250million $ a year, so that the 4yr term

[yossarian]

"Who is "most qualified" in the eyes of one person, is incompetent in
the eyes of others. That's why there are elections. "

Not necessarily... One can easily be objectively more qualified than
another. A physicist is more qualified in his field than a sailor... A
politician is (we all hope) more qualified in his job than another when
he is re-elected. If we have no faith in our system all these speeches
will simply amount to anarchy. We must at least believe in our current
democracy if we are to improve it. We can't start from scratch. So I
don't think we can simply bash politicians because it is easy and
because we are not ourselves politicians.
Alas, we are perfectly sane, and educated people. Hence, the
politicians must be getting it wrong if our world is so imperfect. This
is the argumentation that is being pushed here. But as I mentioned in a
previous post, politicians aren't all aliens, blood-sucking
capitalists, and evil geniuses (I don't remember my latin to decline
genius to the plural :P). Have some faith. Or become a politician.
Those are the alternatives.

[Sam Carana]

On 3/2/06, yossarian <buttn...@gmail.com> wrote:

"Who is "most qualified" in the eyes of one person, is incompetent in the eyes of others. That's why there are elections. "

Not necessarily... One can easily be objectively more qualified than another. A physicist is more qualified in his field than a sailor... A politician is (we all hope) more qualified in his job than another when he is re-elected.

 

Who qualifies the politicians? Are you seriously suggesting that some dictator is to be appointed to select which politicians he sees fit to rule? That simply violates the most basic rights of people to make to decide.

 

A decent politician will agree that politicians shouldn't be pre-selected and approved for their position. That goes for monarchy, aristocracy or whatever form of dictatorship you're advocating.

 

Politicians cannot and shouldn't be in politics to make money. Politicians who seek money effectively sell out the people they were supposed to represent. Politicians should instead have and seek to accomplish political views, based on principles. 

 

Yes, you may have a different view. You may falsely believe in monarchy, aristocracy, tyranny or whatever. You may falsely believe that dictatorship worked best. But experience shows it doesn't and fortunately the more educated people will agree that democracy works better. It's nonsense to suggest that more education would result in a less democratic view. Your view is but a personal view. People will generally agree that people have rights and as people get more educated, they will become more convinced of the benefits of democracy, especially direct democracy.  

 

If we have no faith in our system all these speeches will simply amount to anarchy. We must at least believe in our current democracy if we are to improve it. We can't start from scratch. So I don't think we can simply bash politicians because it is easy and because we are not ourselves politicians.

 

 

We should NOT start from scratch! We should gradually change things. We have a great legacy in terms of respect for people's rights. The direction is good, but we shouldn't stop improving things and we certainly shouldn't reverse back into dictatorship. What politicians get paid could be reduced quite quickly, it will make the system more honest and will facilitate further change in the right direction.

 

Alas, we are perfectly sane, and educated people. Hence, the politicians must be getting it wrong if our world is so imperfect. This is the argumentation that is being pushed here. But as I mentioned in a previous post, politicians aren't all aliens, blood-sucking capitalists, and evil geniuses (I don't remember my latin to decline genius to the plural :P). Have some faith. Or become a politician. Those are the alternatives.

 

 

Sure, some politicians are better than others. But faith in politicians is not something that many people have. We need to work on that issue. Offering politicians more money is no guarantee for a better political outcome. Instead of putting your trust and money into a politician, it's better to have faith in yourself and in other people around you. In regard to politicians who seek to get rich by going into politics, the choice is simple: they should leave politics and hopefully they will do so as their payments stop. But politicians who advocate more direct democracy should get the support they deserve, since they are unlikely to demand payments for their view, but instead they will share them gladly, for free, because they believe in what they say. 

 

Cheers!

Sam Carana

[yossarian]

I don't know where you got the hare-brained idea that I am advocating
any kind of dictatorship... I clearly state in that post that we must
believe in our democracy?? Whatever. Anyway, :

"We should NOT start from scratch! We should gradually change things.
We have
a great legacy in terms of respect for people's rights. The direction
is
good, but we shouldn't stop improving things and we certainly shouldn't

reverse back into dictatorship. What politicians get paid could be
reduced
quite quickly, it will make the system more honest and will facilitate
further change in the right direction. "

I agree; that is what I wrote in my post. With one exception, the pay.
As it has already been mentioned here, by reducing pay, you are only
thining out the diversity of people in politics. The only people who
will have both the time and money to devote themselves to this ideal
will be rich CEOs and the like. Their policies would humanly be biased
toward their field, unless they are of the rare, benevole kind.

Perhaps this can be solved with your vouchers idea: politicians not
paid in money and options, but in vouchers (part of the cost of
housing, gas, etc). Their main source of income then burdened only by
"extras", "luxuries".

[Sam Carana]

On 3/3/06, yossarian <buttn...@gmail.com> wrote:

.. I agree; that is what I wrote in my post. With one exception, the pay. As it has already been mentioned here, by reducing pay, you are only thining out the diversity of people in politics. The only people who will have both the time and money to devote themselves to this ideal will be rich CEOs and the like. Their policies would humanly be biased toward their field, unless they are of the rare, benevole kind.

 

 

If it requires so much time and money to be a politician, then there's something seriously wrong with the system. So, the more reason to change things and support more direct democracy that will offer more diversity to people.

 

Perhaps this can be solved with your vouchers idea: ..

 

 

Just to set the record straight, vouchers isn't my idea, it's been suggested for a long time. What I propose is a package of reform measures, including most urgently some fundamental changes to the military. I advocate a firmer and expanded competition policy, introduction of vouchers and tax changes, all as part of a wide reform package. Not paying politicians is just another part of that package of reform measures.  

 

...politicians not paid in money and options, but in vouchers (part of the cost of housing, gas, etc). Their main source of income then burdened only by "extras", "luxuries".

 

 

Again, politicians shouldn't be paid at all, not in money, not in options, and not in vouchers either. The success of politicians shouldn't be measured in the money they get out of it - that would be a recipe for corruption! Politicians with good ideas will see their ideas promoted by supporters, not because the politicians were rich, but because their ideas are good. The reward for such politicians is their opportunity for to change things and accomplish the reform they propose and the associated recognition for and appreciation of their ideas and achievements.

 

Paying politicians attracts people who are in it for personal gain, the 'career' politicians who make vague promises without intending to deliver benefits to anyone but themselves. If a reduction of payments to politicians means that diversity became somewhat thinner, as those people will no longer go into politics, then good riddance and welcome to the world of better politics! 

 

Some people have argued that paying politicians does allow them to focus on ideas, without having to bother about fundraising. Well, has it worked? Apparently not! It has created a society in which one needs a lot of money to go into politics, while very few politicians seem to even bother to articulate ideas. We have ended up with puppets who shake hands and smile to the cameras, planning to  get themselves higher incomes. It's systematic plunder, institutionalised by media who seem interested not in political views, but merely in photo opportunities and rumours about the personal lives of candidates!

 

It's better to stop paying politicians altogether. That will actually increase the diversity in views, as it encourages politicians to have a view in the first place, instead of being faceless yet paying heaps to get a polished picture of their face displayed in the media. We don't want to see more faces of faceless politicians. We want to see more views from politicians who have views. That's the kind of diversity we want!

 

Sam Carana