Yeah, I mean,IF you’re going to want to attract non-wealthy, smart, able, motivated people, AND you’re going to say they can’t expect outside remuneration NOR remuneration after they leave office, you’re going to have to pay them VERY well indeed.
Frankly, if anything, it’s the relatively low pay of politicians that makes corruption more likely.
Yeah, I mean,IF you’re going to want to attract non-wealthy, smart, able, motivated people, AND you’re going to say they can’t expect outside remuneration NOR remuneration after they leave office, you’re going to have to pay them VERY well indeed.
Frankly, if anything, it’s the relatively low pay of politicians that makes corruption more likely.
That plus type A s are naturally attracted to positions of power and as Lord Acton said, “power corrupts” hence the sexual indiscretions, religious hypocrisy and susceptibility to bribes. However that doesn’t mean that every politician is a depraved power monger. Many go on the hustings hoping to make progressive reforms that benefit everyone. It’s what happens to them after they get there that needs watching! There’s temptations aplenty in DC. Even Clinton temporarily fell from grace and was wrongly impeached for it. Ironically he may end up back in the Whitehouse as the first first gentleman.
M-A, you may feel the politicians are incompetent but they didn’t get there by themselves - the voters elected them. The basic problem is that the voters in general are fairly uneducated about government, rational examination, and critical thinking. Before you complain about the quality of the politicians you should look at the capabilities of the voters in your area and ask what you can do to improve them.
Ordinarily pay tends to be based on the amount of responsibility one has in an organization: those with more responsibility are paid more. Politicians have responsibility over public schooling, so one would expect them to be relatively better paid.
Yes, but what if the people in high responsibility positions show themselves to be inadequate for those positions? This is often the case with politicians. Why put up with that BS?
If they break the law, they should be prosecuted. If convicted, they should be kicked out of office and serve their time. Just like anyone else. But one doesn’t become a villain simply by being a politician.
No, but the potential to be villainous is greatly increased.
I wasn’t really talking about breaking the law here, just being irresponsible, or inept at serving the public; it should be more meritocratic, IMO.
However, when politicians do break the law they are often given special treatment. And of course we must pay for it.
However, when politicians do break the law they are often given special treatment.
True, and that should not happen. Nor, IMO, should they be hounded out of office because of personal peccadillos that bear no relation to the performance of their actual job ...
Yeah, I mean,IF you’re going to want to attract non-wealthy, smart, able, motivated people, AND you’re going to say they can’t expect outside remuneration NOR remuneration after they leave office, you’re going to have to pay them VERY well indeed.
Frankly, if anything, it’s the relatively low pay of politicians that makes corruption more likely.
So, we pay them better and prepare for utopia! I think just being in a position to be corrupt, makes corruption more likely.
However, when politicians do break the law they are often given special treatment.
True, and that should not happen. Nor, IMO, should they be hounded out of office because of personal peccadillos that bear no relation to the performance of their actual job ...
M-A, you may feel the politicians are incompetent but they didn’t get there by themselves - the voters elected them. The basic problem is that the voters in general are fairly uneducated about government, rational examination, and critical thinking. Before you complain about the quality of the politicians you should look at the capabilities of the voters in your area and ask what you can do to improve them.
Yeah, I mean,IF you’re going to want to attract non-wealthy, smart, able, motivated people, AND you’re going to say they can’t expect outside remuneration NOR remuneration after they leave office, you’re going to have to pay them VERY well indeed.
Frankly, if anything, it’s the relatively low pay of politicians that makes corruption more likely.
So, we pay them better and prepare for utopia! I think just being in a position to be corrupt, makes corruption more likely.
Absolutely it does. As was noted before in this thread, power corrupts. But that is a general tendency; one can’t assume it in every case.
My point about raising pay was somewhat tongue in cheek, but not entirely. When it comes to business, the adage is that you expect to pay up for the best; you don’t expect the best people to show up otherwise. Yet for some reason when it comes to politics we assume the reverse.
Given the talk in thread of how much politicians (can) make, I thought this might interest everyone. It’s on the US presidents and how much they are (were) worth.
Richest old bastard = George Washington (~$525 million)
Poorest old bastard = Harry S Truman (<$1 million)
Richest old bastard still alive = Bill Clinton (~$55 million)
Poorest old bastard still alive = Barack Obama (~$7 million)
Kennedy is undetermined.
EDIT
Stuff and fixes
[ Edited: 19 February 2013 09:14 AM by Dead Monky ]
I think just being in a position to be corrupt, makes corruption more likely.
