this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2023
146 points (98.7% liked)
USpolitics
689 readers
2 users here now
founded 2 years ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Sounds like a great way to ensure only the wealthy hold office. Also, the government salary is hardly breaking the bank. These people get their money from the wealthy, not from our taxes.
Good point. I guess a wealth limit that bars you from running if your net worth were too high might work... hmmm.
What would you do, if you had the power to change it?
I'm not sure a wealth limit would be the right solution, but it is an interesting idea. Honestly, I'm not nearly smart enough to have a detailed solution to something like this, but in general, eliminating the methods and loopholes government officials use to enrich themselves with their position - insider trading, campaign financing, lobbying, etc. All the things that corrupt the purpose of government.
You might be able to work with that. Cap the salary at twice minimum wage. There are far more poor people than wealthy people, and running for office would be both attractive for them financially, while making it unattractive for the wealthier of society. It wouldn't solve the problem of Bush Jrs or D. Trumps (the wealthy who inherited, but have proven incapable of making money themselves), but those people will always be a pestilence.
A concern might be that poor people will be easier to bribe, but I've seen no evidence in my life that being rich is a prophylactic against being crooked, so maybe it'd be OK.
There isn't really actually anything in particular wrong with career politicians. It's a hard job if done well, and I don't think we want an entirely rookie congress every few years.
The problem is that it's supposed to be a representative democracy, and it never has been because the whole design of the system is to ensure wealthy white supremacy. The existence of the senate at all, the existence of the electoral college, etc. And then you start looking at the senate make up for example, and there are all kinds of questions like do we really need two fucking Dakotas/Virginias/Carolinas? Then sprinkle in some gerrymandering and we get to a situation where you can poll basically lefty/progressive policy (raise min wage, m4a, gun restrictions, wealth taxes, tuition forgiveness and other programs, etc) and get 70% agreeing and congress doing fucking nothing with that, and instead continuing to have a 70% disapproval rating (not coincidence.)
Which brings us to the real problem which is money in politics. If we want to reform congress, the answer isn't really pay them less, it's probably based around ethics reforms. The modern concept of lobbying is insane. They should get a good salary, but it doesn't make sense that these people are voting on laws that impact stock prices and they're still allowed to own stock. It doesn't make sense that they have a salary of less than $200k, but still manage to often end up multi-millionaires. But because the ethics are so fucked, the system basically incentivize congress to work for big business and the wealthy. I'd much rather pay congress $1m/yr and cut off all of the other sources of revenue (including "gifts" a la Clarence Thomas/Harlan Crowe) and make it so they are incentivized to work for the actual people. There are quite a few other reforms needed along with this.