The States: Mad Scientist Laboratories of Democracy

[St. Clown]

Re: The States: Mad Scientist Laboratories of Democracy

Didn't know. But I assumed it was a partisan issue and voted for congress to retain rights. Regardless, I have no problem rewarding congress...its an extremely valuable role in society and we could use top talent there.

The MN State Legislature is not Congress. Congress meets in Washington, DC, not in St. Paul, MN.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The States: Mad Scientist Laboratories of Democracy

The MN State Legislature is not Congress. Congress meets in Washington, DC, not in St. Paul, MN.

Thanks. One of your more valuable posts.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The States: Mad Scientist Laboratories of Democracy

Thanks. One of your more valuable posts.

You're welcome. You seem to be in need of the civics lesson when the discussion is of the MN referendum and Gov. Dayton but then you start going on about Congress.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The States: Mad Scientist Laboratories of Democracy

I like for it to be politically tricky for the legislature to give themselves a raise. If it's put in the hands of an "independent commission" (i.e., appointees who themselves will play politics with it), I think we will see an escalation in legislative pay. Between the salary and the per diem, personally I think the compensation level is appropriate. I don't want "legislator" to become an actual profession. I'm in favor of citizen legislators who come from all walks of life, whether it be teaching, farming, law, or whatever.

You and I agree heartily about the "citizen legislator" part.

My ideal concept for legislator pay is two-fold:
-- no defined benefit pension hidden away somewhere in the fine print (403(b) is fine)
-- each legislator gets pro-rata per diem pay based on whatever their earned income was before they were elected (might need to refine a bit; e.g., two-year rolling average, etc). They neither profit from serving in the legislature, nor do they suffer a pay cut. and a per diem encourages shorter, more focused legislative sessions; there is no need for most legislatures to be in session nearly as long as they are; then you get "silly season" stuff with symbolic votes.



In some states, any legislator pay raise voted by one session of the legislature cannot take place until after the subsequent election.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The States: Mad Scientist Laboratories of Democracy

In some states, any legislator pay raise voted by one session of the legislature cannot take place until after the subsequent election.

Nationally, that's the 27th amendment. However, unless you get rid of the "career politician" (i.e. term limits), it doesn't really do you much good.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The States: Mad Scientist Laboratories of Democracy

Nationally, that's the 27th amendment. However, unless you get rid of the "career politician" (i.e. term limits), it doesn't really do you much good.

And if you do impose term limits, there will be no way to stop lobbyists from running our government directly.

Just another case where throwing a Molotov Cocktail feels great but winds up hurting only you.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The States: Mad Scientist Laboratories of Democracy

And if you do impose term limits, there will be no way to stop lobbyists from running our government directly.

Just another case where throwing a Molotov Cocktail feels great but winds up hurting only you.

ah, we agree again. I do not think mandatory term limits are a good idea. First of all, it seems contrary to the First Amendment; and with decent people in the legislature, it allows people to develop significant technical expertise in a niche area (e.g., Jon Kyl). My only objection to long-term service in the legislature is the defined benefit pension; that is just too much for me. It's like getting paid twice for less than one full-time job.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The States: Mad Scientist Laboratories of Democracy

ah, we agree again. I do not think mandatory term limits are a good idea. First of all, it seems contrary to the First Amendment; and with decent people in the legislature, it allows people to develop significant technical expertise in a niche area (e.g., Jon Kyl). My only objection to long-term service in the legislature is the defined benefit pension; that is just too much for me. It's like getting paid twice for less than one full-time job.

You need to separate members of Congress with state-level legislators. Congress is a profession now because it requires so much travel. Maybe that's always been the case. But state-level legislators (executive and judicial branches are different) shouldn't be career politicians.

 

[E.J. Smith]

Re: The States: Mad Scientist Laboratories of Democracy

You and I agree heartily about the "citizen legislator" part.

My ideal concept for legislator pay is two-fold:
-- no defined benefit pension hidden away somewhere in the fine print (403(b) is fine)
-- each legislator gets pro-rata per diem pay based on whatever their earned income was before they were elected (might need to refine a bit; e.g., two-year rolling average, etc). They neither profit from serving in the legislature, nor do they suffer a pay cut. and a per diem encourages shorter, more focused legislative sessions; there is no need for most legislatures to be in session nearly as long as they are; then you get "silly season" stuff with symbolic votes.

Not saying this is a bad idea, just maybe not ideal.

A stay-at home spouse who runs for office after the kids leave the house has to serve for no pay?
A retired teacher and a retired executive both get elected to do the same job and the executive gets paid 10X, at least, to do it. Talk about adding insult to injury for the teacher.
A retired athlete decides to run and we pay him $15M/year to serve in the state legislature?

Not to mention this becomes a campaign issue. "My opponent is going to cost you $500,000 a year to do the job that I'll do for $90,000."

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The States: Mad Scientist Laboratories of Democracy

Not saying this is a bad idea, just maybe not ideal.

A stay-at home spouse who runs for office after the kids leave the house has to serve for no pay?
A retired teacher and a retired executive both get elected to do the same job and the executive gets paid 10X, at least, to do it. Talk about adding insult to injury for the teacher.
A retired athlete decides to run and we pay him $15M/year to serve in the state legislature?

Not to mention this becomes a campaign issue. "My opponent is going to cost you $500,000 a year to do the job that I'll do for $90,000."

Here is the way I look at it. I think we should treat it like volunteering our time to do work for Habitat for Humanity or the Red Cross or the local PTA or whatever it is you do, recognizing that this endeavor will cost you more time than most public service activities. Thus, it shouldn't be completely without compensation, but it shouldn't be treated like a job or profession either.

 

[E.J. Smith]

Re: The States: Mad Scientist Laboratories of Democracy

Here is the way I look at it. I think we should treat it like volunteering our time to do work for Habitat for Humanity or the Red Cross or the local PTA or whatever it is you do, recognizing that this endeavor will cost you more time than most public service activities. Thus, it shouldn't be completely without compensation, but it shouldn't be treated like a job or profession either.

That I completely disagree with.

When you don't pay people to serve you get people who don't need to be paid. The wealthy and the elderly primarily. I'd just as soon not be governed primarily by either of those groups.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The States: Mad Scientist Laboratories of Democracy

In classical republics, elected officials paid for the privilege, and financed the duties of the office. This led to minimum wealth requirements for offices that required large outlays -- the equivalent of picking your Fire Chief who then has to provide the vehicles, equipment, and storage as well as recruit and train the firefighters.

They also applied wealth requirements the other way around. You had to have a certain net worth or own certain property and/or possessions to vote. The Equestrian order in Greece was literally people who could afford to keep their own horses. One of the reasons Rome fell was that tax collectors who fell short of their quota had to supply the balance out of their own fortunes. They even passed laws tying people to their own land because they were running off so they couldn't be forced to serve, which would bankrupt them.

Finally, with the extension of the franchise and the concomitant extension of the right to serve in office to poorer people, salaries for officials came in so that non-wealthy people could afford to be elected. It was an extension of democracy. It is a job and it should be paid. The ideal of Cincinnatus is unfortunately a bygone impractical idea, and it assumes a population of aristocrats who are raised to seek public service for its own sake. We probably haven't had any of those since GW Himself died.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The States: Mad Scientist Laboratories of Democracy

Assuming GW is George Washington, he actually made a ton of money during his public service, especially during the Revolutionary War. While he took no cash as payment, he did take in-kind payments. The value of those payments, when adjusted for inflation, made him the most highly paid public official to have ever served the American public.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The States: Mad Scientist Laboratories of Democracy

In classical republics, elected officials paid for the privilege, and financed the duties of the office. This led to minimum wealth requirements for offices that required large outlays -- the equivalent of picking your Fire Chief who then has to provide the vehicles, equipment, and storage as well as recruit and train the firefighters.

They also applied wealth requirements the other way around. You had to have a certain net worth or own certain property and/or possessions to vote. The Equestrian order in Greece was literally people who could afford to keep their own horses. One of the reasons Rome fell was that tax collectors who fell short of their quota had to supply the balance out of their own fortunes. They even passed laws tying people to their own land because they were running off so they couldn't be forced to serve, which would bankrupt them.

Finally, with the extension of the franchise and the concomitant extension of the right to serve in office to poorer people, salaries for officials came in so that non-wealthy people could afford to be elected. It was an extension of democracy. It is a job and it should be paid. The ideal of Cincinnatus is unfortunately a bygone impractical idea, and it assumes a population of aristocrats who are raised to seek public service for its own sake. We probably haven't had any of those since GW Himself died.

Some day, I'm going to go through all of these kinds of posts of yours, copy them down, organize them, and publish them. Kepler's Musings

 

[Kepler]

Re: The States: Mad Scientist Laboratories of Democracy

Assuming GW is George Washington, he actually made a ton of money during his public service, especially during the Revolutionary War. While he took no cash as payment, he did take in-kind payments. The value of those payments, when adjusted for inflation, made him the most highly paid public official to have ever served the American public.

Oh, he was ambitious as heck. He spread it around that he'd be just fine with being the first president -- he wanted it.

Plus he was the richest man in the richest colony after his marriage (to a widow, yet), so he was no "man of the people."

But he's the closest we've ever had to Cincinnatus, and stepping down after two terms (not even two full terms!) remains the greatest single act in the protection of American republican values.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The States: Mad Scientist Laboratories of Democracy

Oh, he was ambitious as heck. He spread it around that he'd be just fine with being the first president -- he wanted it.

But he's the closest we've ever had to Cincinnatus, and stepping down after two terms (not even two full terms!) remains the greatest single act in the protection of American republican values.

The self-imposed limit of two terms was truly genius on his part, and an act of ultimate sacrifice. How many people could willingly walk away from that much power? He could have made himself into all but a monarch.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The States: Mad Scientist Laboratories of Democracy

Some day, I'm going to go through all of these kinds of posts of yours, copy them down, organize them, and publish them. Kepler's Musings

I'd like a cut of that. I suspect we could gross at least thirty cents.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The States: Mad Scientist Laboratories of Democracy

The self-imposed limit of two terms was truly genius on his part, and an act of ultimate sacrifice. How many people could willingly walk away from that much power? He could have made himself into all but a monarch.

He could have, but I think we all know that he probably despised that idea to his core.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The States: Mad Scientist Laboratories of Democracy

I'd like a cut of that. I suspect we could gross at least thirty cents.

Where'd the 30 cents come from!?

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The States: Mad Scientist Laboratories of Democracy

Not saying this is a bad idea, just maybe not ideal.

yes, it could use a little tweaking, perhaps a minimum per diem for those situations you outlined.

to me, two issues are more important:
-- no defined benefit pension
-- instead of term limits, shorten the amount of time the legislature spends in session. Many state legislatures could meet a few months every two years and be far more productive than they are now; I'd really want them to focus on the important stuff and eliminate all the symbolic posturing. The nonsense that our state legislature dabbles in is beyond ridiculous.

One other item I'd add, both at state and federal level: every law automatically contains a sunset provision. Technological change basically requires that; laws written for one era may not be very effective in another.

Also, ideally, I'd like to see some rule that no new law could be passed unless an existing law also were revised or repealed, but I don't really feel very strongly about this one. It is more like the rule used to keep your closet/dresser organized; for every new item of clothing you buy, you donate or discard an existing item.