one of the fundamental assumptions of economics, that people are motivated in a predictable way by money, and driven to maximize their income based on the information available to them, i feel is not borne out by empirical evidence to the degree claimed by said economists (i.e. it is claimed to be absolute).

Pay for quality has certainly worked out well in the marketplace -- witness the excellent work of all the highly paid CEOs.

one of the fundamental assumptions of economics, that people are motivated in a predictable way by money, and driven to maximize their income based on the information available to them, i feel is not borne out by empirical evidence to the degree claimed by said economists (i.e. it is claimed to be absolute).

Sowell is pandering to the "you get what you pay for" dimension of the corporatist mythology.

Of course, "you get what you paid for" does not apply to:

teachers
federal government workers
civil servants
blue collar workers
white collar wage slaves

This "CEO president" has turned our federal government into a new corporation that is wholly owned by corporate lobbyists. Of course, it's been trending that way for years, so he only gets credit due to attribution bias.

Lots of authority, no accountability to shareholders (taxpayers). That's the corporate way. Why should the government they bought and paid for be any different?

Politicians in Singapore are very well paid compared to private sector salaries there. For example, I think the Prime Minister is paid almost SGD 2m and ministers are paid over SGD 1m. I do think that, as a result, smart people who have been earmarked for political careers are not lost to the private sector. And thus, in a narrow sense, Singapore has been better governed. However, that's in the context of a one-party system that doesn't leave much space for progressive ideas. I don't find it very appealing myself.

Many years ago, when the price of DC-area real estate was about 1/3 of what it is today, circumstances forced a special election in my district. Now, there is no chance I would have won, but I seriously considered filing. As a 32 year old technogeek with a long history of community volunteering, and with a lot of community connections, there was an outside chance I might have been competitive.

Now, let's say I had won. 32 years old. 3 young children. Modest mortgage in my home district taking up most of my midrange professional salary. No law firm or consulting partnership payouts to draw on. No big campaign warchest to draw on for "expenses". How the hell would I have afforded to maintain some sort of household in my home district and DC, have some contact with my family, and save for my childrens' education?

Answer: I wouldn't have. That didn't enter into my decision, but had I run and won I would have been bankrupt within a year. And as I said, DC real estate was 1/3 the price in those days.

So who do you end up with as congresspeople? Community organization presidents? People with ordinary jobs? At-home parents? Civil liberties attorneys? The extremely knowledgable guy who owns the computer shop on Main Street?

No, you end up with lawyers. Lawyers, ex-high-dollar consultants, lawyers, rich people, lawyers, highly connected lawyers, and lawyers. Is that really what is best for the US?

I would say $1,000,000 is too high, but $400,000 is probably a lot more reasaonable than 165k.

Cranky

It wouldn't hurt the talent pool if Congressional salaries were raised. But my guess is the single most likely outcome is that incumbents would hang on to their seats even more vigorously, and eschew retirement. In other words, reelection rates would increase to even higer levels and open seats would become even more rare. I can't imagine such a state of affairs would be in the best interests of the republic.

A hint of a point, yes.

But most congressmen do it for prestige and power, not just money.

Giving them $1 million a year would enable just about every single House member to self-fund their own campaigns. It would also encourage them to stay in congress only for the money.

I have a better idea - instead of going through this nonsense every few years where safe incumbents vote themselves a pay raise and the rest look self-righteous by opposing it. Instead of that, tie congressional pay to the per capita income. It could be the exact median, or the 40th percentile, or whatever. I'm not saying pay them that much, but pay them a fixed ratio of that. 2 times, 3 times, 4.51 times - whatever.

Congress would never again have to vote itself a raise. If per cpaita income rose, their's would rise. If it fell, their's would fall - and in absolute sync.

If over-paying for Congressional representation would attract better talent to that position, couldn't we extrapolate to the minimum wage problem?

Increasing the minimum wage would cause all those at the bottom of the earnings heap to compete for those plum jobs and thereby increase overall productivity by more than what was lost in the wage hike.

Hmmm... It boggles the mind.

I'm going to have to agree with Cranky. While $1 million would attract people who were interested in $1 million salaries-- corporate lawyers, CEOs, and the other host of people one would rather avoid, a salary in the mid-six-digits would be geared towards professionals and small businessmen, which we (supposedly) want more of. It seems to me that offering congressional salaries in the $150k range is about par with middle management-- which is to say control freaks who believe they are more important than they actually are.

First of all, I love how respect & dignity = worthy of being a millionaire in the mind of a conservative. (rolling eyes)

I'm all for giving a "fair" salary to congresscritters-- especially since they have to keep 2 homes. But this could be addressed in a myriad of ways. For instance the salary should be split into two parts, everyone should get the same "DC salary"-- say $75,000/year. (I live in DC, that is more than enough to rent a nice apartment. Keep in mind they also have expense accounts.) But they should get a region-based salary for wherever their district is located?

Congress positions should neither be a hardship nor a cash cow. Also, since this is my fantasy world, elections would be publicly financed, people couldn't use their own money, and if someone comes from a wealthy background they aren't allowed access to their old money while they are serving as members of congress.

Perhaps if they were FORCED to survive on a middle class wage they'd have a better understanding of how the little people live and public policy would follow according to reality, not just their perception of what its like to be middle class. (For starters, tax cuts for the uber rich would suddenly lose a lot of their luster!)

the only argument i see that makes sense in giving an enormous pay raise is that it would almost certainly have a positive effect on curbing corruption. if youve got a lot, don't really need that much more...

They *should* raise congressional salaries - not just for the members, but for the staff, too. It's not that the best and brightest can't live on 165K, it's that they can make ten times that in the private sector. Given the realities of life as a congressman (fundraising 24/7), why would you want to do it? What they really should do is pay the congressmen 500K or a mil, double the staff pay (when the entry level people are making 20-25K and living in DC, you're not getting the best and the brightest, you're getting rich kids whose parents can afford to subsidize), and then implement public financing of campaigns to the tune of, well, a lot. There should be tons more money in politics than there is now. How much was spent on political ads in 2004 compared to, say, car ads? Shouldn't we be spending more on the thing that actually matters?

Recycling Sowell's drivel on precious Internet real estate like this Washington Monthly site is a poor use of scarce resources.

Pay for quality has certainly worked out well in the marketplace -- witness the excellent work of all the highly paid CEOs.

Most of them are turning out excellent work. That doesn't make the papers as often as the screwups, unless you read financial news.

Personally, I think our government would work a lot better if people were drafted for political office for limited terms, much like jury duty.

Right now, the system selects for people who want power very badly.

I think Steve Benen misses Sowell's point, which (by a Christmas miracle) is actually a good one: it's not that the existing bunch would work harder for $1,000,000, it's that you might get some other people interested in the position.

I agree with a lot of what Cranky Observer has to say, except as follows:

Graduates of top law schools that go to big law firms and big corporate legal departments are criticized for all sorts of things, but it is generally true that they get some very good training in terms of understanding complicated legal and business problems and how to marshal a team of people to deal with those problems in an intelligent way. Those lawyers are generally *not* the lawyers who you will find running for Congress.

The lawyers who you find running for Congress generally left law school and went straight into a local prosecutor's office. That can be emotionally and physically demanding work, but it is not particularly intellectually demanding work: a first year ADA might be responsible for, say, a ton of DUI cases. They work there for a couple years, and once they get their first promotion start looking for an open electoral office (city council, state rep, etc.), which they run for on the basis of their record in the prosecutor's office. (This is pretty much what John Kerry did, and what JFK Jr. was on his way to doing before his untimely death.)

I don't think that there's anything wrong per se with there being lots of lawyers in Congress -- they are there to write the laws, after all -- but it's important to understand that at this point in the history of things, we seem to have an awful lot of a particular kind of lawyer.

If Congresspeople received $1m per year, they'd self-finance their campaigns. You would remove the need to be at the beck and call of special interests - not bad. But Sowell creates a different problem: incumbents would automatically accrue vast warchests and become unbeatable by challengers.

But since incumbents are already unbeatable, I suppose it doesn't matter much...

I've always wondered what it would be like to employ a conservative-style idea as far as pork barrel projects go. We all know that the number of represenatives from each state is determined by population, in that every 365,000 people (or some number around there) allows the state an additional representative. Well, why not say that for X number of people, each congressional district can have X number of dollars? The numbers wouldn't rise to absurd levels each year, and perhaps the money might be spent a little more wisely.

Of course, we could always hope that pork barrel projects go away, but that looks to be more and more like a dream.

What an asinine suggestion. The real answer of course is publically funded campaigns, not a pay raise for individual members of Congress. The corruption is largely in the service of being re-elected, in order to pay for expensive campaigning. If all campaigns were equally subsized with spending caps, the candidate with the best ideas, not the best fundraising, would be more likely to win.

I think the cost and time commitment of a 12-18 month political campaign discourages high-paid, risk-averse individuals from considering public office. A three-week campaign would do more to attract talented candidates than a higher salary, especially if challengers were allowed free postage during this period.

if youve got a lot, don't really need that much more...

Breathtaking naivete,or perhaps a joke?

Power corrupts, and greed is practically a religion with some people. I haven't personally observed that making more money has made me any less greedy. Perhaps I'm just a black hearted monster. I assumed I was an average American.

We've got a professional "class" of politicians and corporate leaders. Some are competent, some aren't. Some are corrupt, some aren't. Just like the rest of us. We'd like to believe that Mr. Smith goes to Washington, but that just isn't the case. I'm not sure it ever was. Most of our efforts should be directed at increasing the power of the voting public and increasing oversight into campaign funding, voting practices and lobbying. Increased transparency and a more level playing field is the best we can hope for.

The members of congress don't need or deserve a raise at this point.

Besides, I doubt it's the salary that is the big attraction - it's the LUCRATIE CONNECTIONS that these guys enjoy long after they've left the congress. I don't have any data, but I'll be the % of people who take a decrease in salary when they get elected to congress is much greater than the % who take a decrease when they leave.

agree with cranky and alkali:

as a historical note, I'll point out that one of the reasons why we pay our elected politicians is that the founders believed (there was a serious debate at the time over whether Congressional and Presidential positions should be paid) that it would increase diversity -- otherwise only the wealthy could afford it (indeed, John Adams' finances were in perpetual danger while he was in D.C.). I'll also note that in terms of correlation with median income, our politicians are underpaid in comparison with the past. there was a time when Babe Ruth was the only athlete making more than the President.

Steve L:

the only argument i see that makes sense in giving an enormous pay raise is that it would almost certainly have a positive effect on curbing corruption. if youve got a lot, don't really need that much more...
-------------------------------------------

Yeah, exactly. That's why we never hear of corruption amongst the highest paid CEOs and instead amongst mostly the lowly workers!
Oh, wait....

Actually it's mostly the rich who get caught with their hand in the cookie jar, not the middle-class white collar workers. And that's because once you got a taste of the money and the power, you want more.
So that would actually speak for lowering their salaries, right? Because then we would attract only people who actually are in office to help improve the country, not because they want the power and riches comming with the position!?

asignalstation:

alas, the data does not bear you out. what Leavitt demonstrated is that once incumbents are taken out of the equation, disparate fundraising and spending has little to no effect in terms of who wins a Congressional seat.

Martin K.:

"Actually it's mostly the rich who get caught with their hand in the cookie jar, not the middle-class white collar workers. And that's because once you got a taste of the money and the power, you want more."

Actually, probably not. Embezzlement and the like are indeed almost certainly more prevalent (for obvious reasons) among middle management. It is certainly more NEWSWORTHY when upper management is charged.

Nathan: Interesting... but once the massive data constellation of incumbency is taken out of the equation, you are dealing with a situation so far from actual reality that any conclusions drawn from it seem purely theoretical.

well, from where I sit, $162,500 a year looks pretty damned good. Really, that's more money than i've made in any 5 years of my life put together. the idea that someone can't LIVE on that seems laughable to me. but, given the two households thing & the expenses of raising kids things, a higher salary seems a little more reasonable. But, what if, instead of throwing more money at them we provided for those things? Subsidize a house in DC for however long, set up a college fund, finance campaigns publicly, etc. take away all of the reasonable incentives for them to be chasing extra money, and make the difference between greed and trying to get by all the more visible.

I'm also with tbrosz to some extent here-it's a duty & should be approached as such in its practical execution, not just in sanctimonious speeches.

You'd assume that corruption will happen anyway, I agree. The only thing I'd say is it makes the reasoning less necessary? I don't know, that was my first thought. If they make an enormous amount compared to what they make now, maybe decisions will be based on merits and not on supplemental income...

Nathan:

Depends on what kind of impact and the degree you're looking at. I'm sure there is more minor "corruption" e.g. taking a minor gift from someone you're doing business with, but simply because of the position, the impact of corruption at the highest levels is bigger and so is the impact and magnitude of the corruption.

I guess what I'm saying is that I get your point and rephrasing, what I mean: The magnitude of the corruption increases with the level of power, it doesn't decrease.

Subsidize a house in DC for however long

Give them a voucher for a D.C. housing project. Keep them close to the people.

asignalstation:

the problem is that incumbency has to be taken out to reach any sort of valid conclusion. even when the incumbent and the challenger have roughly equal financing, the incumbent almost always wins. thus, the only meaningful data is that concerning open seats.

let me put it differently, maybe we don't have enough data to prove that financing doesn't matter. but, we certainly don't have proof that it does matter. specifically, every previous study showing that financing mattered did not account for the effect of incumbency.

Martin K.:

"The magnitude of the corruption increases with the level of power, it doesn't decrease."

fair enough. I'll buy that. I think the prevalence of the corruption almost certainly decreases...but when it does exist it's probably less likely to be petty.

with that said, I think that tbrosz is right that there generally is a correspondence between CEO job performance and their salaries. its when there's not that it becomes newsworthy.

one economic point that a lot of critics miss is that if CEO A could be hired for 1M a year and is expected to keep a company's earnings stagnant while CEO B could be hired for 10M a year but he/she is expected to increase the company's earnings by 100M a year...the company would be foolish not to take CEO B. its when CEOs don't provide added value commensurate with their salaries that they are overpaid.

There is no point complaining about the ineptness, deception or corruption of government while refusing to do anything to change the incentives and constraints which lead to ineptness, deception and corruption.

Like give them CEO pay? That'll sure stop corruption, ineptness and deception.

I'm sorta with URK and Alan here:

A) we provide housing for the President, why don't we do it for congress? We provide them offices, which old members move out of and new move into. Why not housing?

B) I think the salaries of many elected officials should be indexed to per capita income, just as minimum wage probably should be as well - although I suppose indexing minimum wage to a number derived from all wages would be a bit self-referencing and difficult to calculate... No need to readjust over time, no need for these officials to vote their own pay raises ever again.

Nathan:

You're certainly right with your last statement and I don't mind paying CEOs a lot, if they're worth it.
In the free market that is.
However, I don't think we can apply this in government.
Do we really want people governing us, who are only in it for the money?
Someone who is a good public servant is in it to create a better future for the country.
Sure, they're not supposed to land in the poor-house doing it, but I think it's hard to argue that this is the case.

As somebody mentioned before, look at professions like teachers. Most of them are in it, because they love teaching, not because the pay is great (which it usually isn't). Wouldn't we want a similar attitude from our Congress?
If we pay them in the millions, how many (more) unqualified morons will run, just to earn a nice living?

Sowell could just as easily have said:

There is no point complaining about the violence, criminality or nihilism plaguing inner city youth while refusing to do anything to change the incentives and constraints which lead to violence, criminality or nihilism

Instead, we usually hear that gangsta rap or low ride jeans are to blame.

Why can't we apply the same logic to Congress?

It's not the lack of a decent "living wage" that creates the culture of corruption - it's expense accounts, rep ties and adult contemporary music that are to blame.

The more I think about it, the more I like tbrosz's lottery idea. You might complain that a randomly selected citizen lacks the learning or experience that the typical D.C. politician has, but if that informed judgement is subordinate to their greed, what's the difference?

And - I'm sure several folks here will challenge the statement that our congress critters have skill or experience.

I completely disagree with Mr. Sowell. I think we should pay our Congressmen and women, less not more. Like so many conservatives, Sowell has a feeble understanding of the historical roots of Congress and how the Founding Fathers envisioned a congress composed of "citizen legislators" who would leave their farms and serve a short term as public servants (possibly at their own expense) and return to their civilian lives in short order. Vermin like Duke Cunningham are the antithesis of the citizen legislator.

Mr. Sowell would do well to also note that the Constitution does not even mention the word "capitalism". How can these people be so wrong so often??? Sheesh...

Adam:

I agree that those are good ideas.
But, realisticly, it'll never happen, because to change the whole structure, our "great" Congress would have to vote against their own interest.
You know that'll never happen.

> one economic point that a lot of critics miss is
>that if CEO A could be hired for 1M a year and is
> expected to keep a company's earnings stagnant
> while CEO B could be hired for 10M a year but
> he/she is expected to increase the company's
> earnings by 100M a year...the company would be
> foolish not to take CEO B.

What proponents of that theory miss is that in any good-sized organization (at least any that haven't been gutted by outsourcing to India), there are hundreds of people who could perform the top jobs if, say, the 30 guys at the top of the pyramid were blown off to the "Survivor" island while corporate-jetting to The Masters. It simply isn't true that there is pool of only 15 people who can handle the president (don't get me started on "CEO") job; experience from 1928 (the end of the last 'celebrity CEO' era) to 1980 shows that modest people with reasonable ambition and appetites can do quite well with just about any organization. Experience from 1980-2005 shows that such people often can't possibly do WORSE than the celeb-Cs.

Yes, there was only one Michael Jordan. And sure, every once in a while a Thomas Edison, George Westinghouse, or Larry Elison comes along. But often? No. Odds of getting one even if you troll with $1 million bills? Low.

Cranky

A million dollars would certainly buy a lot more conceit. I was not aware that there was a conceit deficit in our House of Representatives.

i do have some sympathy with the argument that you get what you pay for, and cranky's observation that present pay makes it difficult for most, other than lawyers and a few other professionals, to make a living. however, i don't think pay is the problem keeping good people from running for congress. the problem is high campaign costs and constant fundraising. the minute you get elected, you've got to be out begging for contributions for your next election.

For that matter, a massive pay raise would seem to undermine the notion that political service should appeal to the most honorable among us.

You know, I suspect that notion has been disabused by, for instance, the quality of representation we've gotten for the past 200+ years.

The GAO calculates that each active duty service member costs the government $103K per yr in salary and benefits. Congress must cost a lot more per person. And the job comes with quite a good retirement package for limited service (6-8 years for the House?)
I agree the first issue is campaign financing;it's ludicrous for a Senate seat, or Governor office or NYC Mayor should see a multimillion $ campaign to attain an office paying $175k a yr.

Various conservatives' gut feelings aside, CEO compensation and CEO performance have
generally been found to correlate positively in smaller firms and those with more watchful owners, and correlate negatively in larger firms.

In other words, in smaller companies a highly-paid CEO is likely to be a high performer, and in larger companies a highly-paid CEO is likely to be a dud. This is, of course, because in smaller companies the shareholders are actually watching what the CEO is doing.

The moral of the story, of course, is transparency. Since you don't know what your congressperson is doing, it doesn't make a bit of difference how much you pay them. If they were publically monitored 24/7, then a pay raise would probably net better people.

Mudwall:

I think you're right, at least partly.

IMO the biggest reason why good people don't run for government positions is that they don't want to compromise their ideals.
And that they feel they have to is partly our fault.
When is the last time somebody actually won, who told people the truth and not hat they wanted to hear?!
Truth is, most problems have difficult solutions and often require some sacrifice. People don't want to hear that. They want nice promises, even if they know that none or few of them will be kept.

Today, in our sound-bite culture, good people can't get elected. Only people who are ready to lie and offer simple solutions.
If that doesn't change, no amount of money will get you good people in government.

I'm not sure about this whole "Do we really want people governing us, who are only in it for the money?" thing.

Do we really want CEOs working for X Corporation that are only in it for the money? Of course you do. Whether they're "in it for the money" is not the salient point. Whether they're doing their job is. The important thing is being able to remove them, and having good reporters and other institutions working on keeping them in line - same as with CEOs. Corruption needs to be uncovered and deterred, and that doesn't happen just because you keep their pay low.

As for teachers and others, I can say as a teacher-to-be that salary is definitely a consideration that has made me procrastinate on entering the profession. I'm not saying I'd make a good teacher, but there are definitely plenty of people who would make good teachers but stay away because of the salary. Instead of raising the salary and making it worthwhile, we have tons of programs to attract less capable newbies to the profession. When you lower the bar for entry because you're not willing to pay for more educated, better trained people to do the job, well, you get what you pay for.

That said, I'm not sure how "lower the bar for entry" applies to congress. Anyone should be able to become a congressperson, and the judgement of capability rests with the electorate. Still, the idea "well, if they're only in it for the money they won't do a good job" seems wrong to me. The idea that "more capable people are dissuaded from the job because the cost is too high and the salary too low" makes more sense.

If cronyism and corruption arise, or elections are fierce and deceptive, it seems that salaries would have little effect there. The real antidote to that is only more diligence from citizens.

Martin K - you're probably right. If only there were some way for citizens to revise the rules themselves sometimes.

mudwall - I think you're right about campaign costs being the biggest problem. If only there were some way to remove money as an issue in elections without abridging speech in some way.

It is amusing to bash CEOs just for sport, and it is surely arguable that CEOs as a group are overpaid (certainly some individual CEOs are). That said, at the end of the day, it is a lot easier to sneer at the guy who rolls out a new brand of toothpaste than it is to actually roll out a new brand of toothpaste. In my view, we'd be better off with more ex-CEOs in Congress (not heirs of family businesses, actual came-up-through-the-ranks types) instead of so many lifelong politicians.

In 1975, the liberal commentator James Fallows revisited the Ayn Rand novels he admired as a teen-for-Goldwater, and suggested that liberals should at least take away this lesson from her books:

Ayn Rand's race of philosopher-kings is an imprecise portrait of the business world, to say the least, but inside all this overblown heroism there is a small reminder of a neglected point. It is that some people are in business for the joy, even the nobility, of bringing men and materials together, taking risks and staving off disasters, and finally producing something good that other people can use or enjoy. As the contemporary versions of the Two Cultures, government and business, gyre farther apart, those of us on the "public service" side of the fence often forget that the man who invented the calculator, or simply found a more efficient way to manufacture it, feels proud and worthy for reasons other than the profit he's made. [...]

If the grotesquely archetypical figure of Ayn Rand's world is the industrialist sneering at the inferior, starving masses, his equally grotesque counterpart on the left is the New York City bureaucrat who lives in a rent-controlled apartment, berates the landord for letting the building fall apart, and, sitting in his vaguely-defined job, imagining that he is still fighting the battles of the '30s, feels vastly superior to the businessmen, because he can conceive of no motive for them other than vulgar acquisitiveness and cannot understand the joy some of them feel in what they have created.

Ayn Rand has no heart for those who stumble, and a good part of the left has no heart for those whose accomplishments happen to earn them a profit, rather than being foundation-supported.

Adam:

Government is NOT a company. It's NOT the free market.
When a CEO is only in it for the money, he is motivated to do a good job by monetary incentives.
But a government employees salary will be the same no matter if he's doing a good job or not.
If a Senator does a good job representing his people, he will be reelected,
but so is his colleague who does a bad job, but spends enough money on campaining.
Only someone who actually believes in what he's doing will be motivated to actually work FOR US, no matter how much he's paid.

while CEO B could be hired for 10M a year but he/she is expected to increase the company's earnings by 100M a year

That assumes a couple of things that don't always happen in the real world:

a) That the goals for increasing revenue are based on actual market research indicating the size of the market and the relative difficulty of achieving the increase in the face of competitive pressure. My experience as a consultant over the last decade leads me to believe that most of these numbers are pulled out of someone's ass during a golf retreat.

b) That the CEO has a fucking clue on what the strategy will be for achieving that increase, how it will be operationalized, and what tough choices will be required in order to get there. Most "strategies" I've seen amount to "work harder and make our customers happy" expressed as any number of Powerpoint bullets. Some companies are very good at this, but those companies realize that it's not the cult of personality surrounding a charismatic CEO that matters - it's a detailed and frequently BORING plan that has metrics and accountability built in for all levels of management.

There are great managers and great leaders out there. However, there are also a great number of welfare cases whose only skill is looking intimidating in a suit and being able to yell effectively. Any idiot can do that. A firm's shareholders should be allowed to vote every quarter on salaries and bonuses based on their holdings - ending the typical compensation committee antics. That would change the accountability equation in a hurry.

Maybe we could do the same with Congress. Why not give them a base salary that is the same as the median income of D.C. residents, with up to a 500% bonus based on averaging the suggested amounts offered by their constituents (51%) and their colleagues (49%)? Voting would occur quarterly.

It would be great feedback on their performance.

Steve Benen wrote:

I suppose there's a hint of a point in there somewhere.

Considering that it is Thomas Sowell trying to make the point, no wonder the point is hard to define...Overall, his writing is simplistic, his logic not very well thought-out, and, well, he's a shill for conservative interests.

Anyway, when Sowell writes "There is no point complaining about the ineptness, deception or corruption of government while refusing to do anything to change the incentives and constraints which lead to ineptness, deception and corruption", I somehow keep thinking 'Enron' or any number of other corporations where management has proven to be inept, deceptive, or corrupt...

Couldn't we just give them titles, estates, and large tracts of fox hunting land in perpetuity? Maybe we could give them the right to pass their seats down to their eldest son? Especially if the son was trained in the fine art of politics and diplomacy from a young age.

S Ra: Thanks for the link -- the moneyquote:
"A portfolio that holds onto the stocks of firms with highly paid CEOs—and sells the stocks of companies run by poorly paid CEOs—generates an annual rate of return of 8 percent above the market and other portfolios that control for risk characteristics."

lobbygow: good points. but as the study linked to by S Ra indicates: the market gets it right enough of the time to make a measurable difference.

the subject of teacher pay is an interesting one -- personally, I would be in favor of doubling teacher salaries in return for the removal of seniority benefits and termination protections. I doubt the NEA would go for that.
its no secret that sterling students are generally not attracted to education majors and that education graduate students have far lower credentials than graduate students in other fields (GRE scores of more than a 100 points below average in every area). in other words, smart people generally don't become teachers.
some will disagree, but I would rather have my kids taught by someone smart and articulate who was "in it for the money" than the well-meaning, not-too-bright idealists that they're actually likely to get.

If the grotesquely archetypical figure of Ayn Rand's world is the industrialist sneering at the inferior, starving masses

It's not the sneering that pisses me off, it's the lack of accountability. Shareholders and employees have very little direct influence on the behavior of the executive class until it's too late. We aren't talking about industrialists that have built their business from the ground up. For every Bill Gates, there are a hundred CEOs who hop from position to position, failing to meet objectives but still receiving handsome salaries for doing so. They are no different than your hypothetical bureaucrat with the vaguely-defined job.

Some liberals have an unwarranted faith in centralized government - completely ignoring the iefficiency and lack of adaptiveness that is often associated with complex bureaucracy. They talk about "empowerment" and buy bumper stickers that say "think globally, act locally," but when you start talking about state's rights or the principal of subsidiarity, they act as if their entire belief system is under attack. I say this as a proud liberal who just happens to be very skeptical about the effectiveness of centralized control.

The problem with many conservatives is that they fail to recognize that there is nothing "magic" about private sector bureaucracy that immunizes it from the same problems as big government. The recent immigrant who manages to open a few dry cleaning stores and then expand to several stores is a businessman (or woman). The corporate executive, by contrast, is a hired hand who has no real accountability to his employers. In fact, most of the shareholders are probably not even aware of what he does. The fact that they aren't goofing off or acting purely in their personal interests is an article of faith for most shareholders.

Why anyone would be mistrustful of federal government but NOT mistrustful of multi-national corporations is beyond me.

> Only someone who actually believes in what he's
> doing will be motivated to actually work FOR US,
> no matter how much he's paid.

Except that the realities of mortgage payments and collge tuitions don't go away due to political callings. Nor do most capable people have the desire to leave their children less well situated than themselves. Which leaves you with the stupid (soon to be bankrupt), the idealistic (soon to be bankrupt), and the rich lawyers as candidates - and then representatives.

Cranky

I would be in favor of doubling teacher salaries in return for the removal of seniority benefits and termination protections

Wow. I completely agree with this position. Does that mean I'm not a liberal anymore, or have you just violated conservative orthodoxy and admitted that those who educate our youngsters are contributing an invaluable service in trying circumstances?

Two points - first why does anyone pay the least bit of attention to Thomas Sowell, another of Stanford and Hoover Institute's Affirmative Action clowns. If Sowell went to Congress and was paid TWO Cents, he would be vastly overpaid.

Secondly, about the lawyers in Congress writing laws. When Slade Gorton of Washington went to Congress, he had vast experience as a prosecutor and Attorney General in the state of WA. When cornered by the Seattle newspapers about lobbyists writing his bills, he exclaimed that he had neither the time nor expertise to write the language contained in the bills. Therefore, he said the lobbyists were the only ones who could write them.
Has anyone read about the latest budget bill being presented to the Senators? - some 800 pages and very little time to even scan the index. That is why Sen Norm Turncoat in Minnesota was able to vote against the first version because of "empathy" for the poor, but voted for the second version which was more draconian in cutting money for the poor because he had talked with Rove and protections for sugar beet farmers in Minnesota were reinstated.
And who had time to pay attention to the switch.

You could pay them all a Million and the lobbyists would still write the bills and pork would prevail over the needs of the public.

How about we build a big dormatory for political eunuchs around the tidal pool? No mortgage, no children, no college tuitions . . .

Cranky:

Word. I'll throw in that if I had a legal matter that needed attention -- I'll take a financially incentivized experienced attorney over a passionate idealistic kid any day of the week.

When I interned at a family law firm during grad school I saw this every day -- clients that wanted attorneys who "believed" in their "side" instead of simply looking for results.

I am told that Asian commentator on American politics are amazed at how cheaply American politicians can be bribed.

"Wow. I completely agree with this position. Does that mean I'm not a liberal anymore, or have you just violated conservative orthodoxy and admitted that those who educate our youngsters are contributing an invaluable service in trying circumstances?"

no doubt some here would make you turn in your "liberal" card...but the usual suspects aren't present. as for me, I'm not orthodox anything...I happen to believe that a. people generally respond to economic incentives (a "conservative" position I guess) and b. that teachers are generally well-meaning people in a difficult job but that as salaries now stand -- we're generally not attracting the most competent people available.

I do think that education orthodoxy needs to be turned on its head. I'd throw out certification requirements for teachers with graduate or professional degrees in almost any field. the NY teacher's fellow program does this -- it hires professionals to teach in inner city schools. my brother decided to do this after law school (he's more of a card-carrying Republican than me so it'd probably shock people that he's teaching special ed in the south Bronx)...and he never would have chosen this career if he had to have been an education major and gone through the certification requirements...but they'd get more people like my brother if they paid better (he was also a theater major -- which quite frankly is probably more useful for teaching special ed than any coursework in the field).

Nathan, what I think you mean is that smart people generally don't major in education. There are plenty of smart people that become teachers.

(on another note, this thread consistently returns us to the great divide of liberals vs. conservatives, where liberals believe that the best talent is that which will do the job for free and the conservatives believe that the best talent is that which is paid the most for it-- the latter mentality reaches its mental nadir with the expression, "if you're so smart, why aren't you rich?")

This conversation could go off into a tangent regarding the performance of companies whose employees "believe" in what they do vs. those for whom the company is just a means towards providing profits/shareholder value, but I'll save it for another thread.

What hasn't been mentioned yet is what I suspeect is the single biggest -- and if not THE biggest, then certainly way up there -- sources of the "culture of corruption" -- which is a lot older than the current run of Reukes (though they have refined it to a fine art):
the rotary-door relationship of pol / bureaucrat / business.
I agree we should raise the pay of Congress -- and I like the various suggestions to link increases to per-capita incomes (median would be better than mean) in their districts.
I agree that further regulation of campaign expenditures -- preferably including forcing the airwave media to give free time as part of their licensing requirements. But these are separate issues.
A necessary adjunct to increasing congress-critters' pay is an ironclad, LIFETIME block -- for the individuals AND their immediate families -- from EVER, in any way, pursuing employment in any field over which they ever had regulatory authority (which is to say, almsot any profession, business, etc.) With the pensions and helath care they enjoy, they could afford this trade-off -- and the polity would be infinitely better off.

To what extent are potential congressional candidates discouraged by the low salaries, and to what extent are they discouraged by the prospects of a long, bitter, and expensive campaign? I think that the quality of Congressmen would be improved more by public funding of campaigns than by increasing salaries.

"Nathan, what I think you mean is that smart people generally don't major in education. There are plenty of smart people that become teachers."

I would agree with you if it wasn't for the roadblocks put up by the education establishment. it's not easy for non-education majors to become teachers...even the NY program requires the fellows to take evening education classes -- which are a joke -- time which could be spent lesson planning or with their families.

to be more exact, let's double education salaries, make it a lot easier to get rid of poor teachers, and remove the regulatory roadblocks for non-education majors.

Offer them one million plus a one time bonus of 10 million on their first term.

Then you have both incentive, and a greater willingness to risk money. If a political group is serious and can attract the voters to some good ideas, then risking a few million on a campaign would be more appealing.

I'm skeptical of public funding of campaigns. It was the Howard Dean campaign that made me think that public funding of campaigns isn't an idea worth pursuing. I mean, if you can't convince a 1% of your potential constituents to donate $25-$100 to your campaign, what business do you have running for office, anyway?

And while paying congressmen $1 million/yr won't necessarily eliminate corruption-- corrupt people are corrupt, no matter how large their salaries are -- it certainly raises the bar required to bribe a congressman. The reason politicians in the USA can be bought for so little is because Congress at the moment attracts people form whom the $150,000 salary is considered pretty good. No doubt Duke Cunningham considered the $2.5 million he took over however many years to be "a lot of money," whereas to a guy who's pulling down $1 million/yr, $2.5 million just isn't worth the risk of losing your job over.

Personally, I think our government would work a lot better if people were drafted for political office for limited terms, much like jury duty.

Right now, the system selects for people who want power very badly.

Posted by: tbrosz on December 27, 2005 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK

I nearly fell off my chair when I realized that tbrosz posted something sensible.

Nathan, yup, I'd pretty much agree with that proposal. However, all professions require some kind of professional development/continuing education to stay in the profession, and I don't think teaching should be any different.

It's entirely possible that Education departments have something valuable. I'd simply argue that they should not be giving out bachelor's degrees, since they appear to attract the least qualified undergraduates.

Representatives should receive a salary equal to the mean gross income of their constituents. This would create an incentive for representatives to increase the economic welfare of their base (thereby moving policy away from the rich) and it would solve pay rate issues.

Simply put, the pay should be what it takes to attract intelligent, educated people to a job that requires lots of sacrifices to do.

$1 million? Balderdash. $200,000? Maybe. We're not looking for a figure that will be attractive to anyone who might run for office. Just to enough people who are well qualified. And the idea that we have to pay congressmen twice as much - so they can maintain two estates - is also nonsense. They should be paid enough to maintain one house and one apartment. Their job - officially at least, is temporary. Maybe we can buy a few residences around DC - sort of like HUD homes or miltary housing, and provide it to them for free. Most of the other extra costs of being a congressman - travel and such - are already covered through expense accounts.

Constantine:

Fair enough. I guess what I've noticed is that education departments tend to be more faddish than most...seems like every 5-10 years there's a new panacea that inevitably fails (look-say--holistic reading/self-esteem education/class sizes)...I would think that actual teachers taking professional development classes would be be more astute in picking the wheat from the b.s....

It strikes me that another problem is that the only people who have the time to run for office are other politicians. Who else can take the election season off to campaign? Maybe independent consultants and private practice lawyers...

I didn't read all the comments yet, but I've been in favor of something like this for awhile now. Congress critters do need enough money to maintain two households and not be tempted to get their money from lobbyists. In return for enough money to run two households and pay for their own campaigns, we want them to make it illegal to take money from a lobbyist. Lobbyists can talk, that's all. No more junkets, dinners, fund-raisers, contributions. We cap election spending at whatever we pay the congresscritters to afford. We then match that money for competing candidates. It should see a big reduction in corruption, which we should make an extremely tough crime with say 20 years in the federal pokey. They should know that in return for the largesse of the public, we'll be watching and will put them in prison for probably the rest of their lives if they are corrupt. Take care of the revolving door between corporations, lobbyists, and government along with this and we might have the makings of honest governance. Or maybe not.

Constantine wrote: I'm skeptical of public funding of campaigns.

I am more skeptical that what we've got in place now. The amount of time, money and energy spent on campaigns is quite beyond ridiculous.

30 years ago, my mother suggested that all political TV, radio, and print ads be abolished and replaced with what would amount to position papers by candidates.

Could something like this possibly work? What if candidates published positions on various topics to a/their website (only viably accessible option I could come up with), and the public voted based upon this information only?

I am sure there are plenty of problems with this, but in a blue sky way, can you imagine eliminating the mudslinging and constant barrage of politicians in your face during campaigns? The voting public would have to do some reading or research. Hmmm. That kind of appeals to me.

I may be reading more in to it than I should, but I think he may be considering how the electorate would feel about hiring a person to represent them who is worth that magical amount. It's never the shareholders who think CEOs are worth millions.

I suggest that each congressperson be paid exactly the median wage of all the residents of his/her district, factoring in those adults with no income or limited income. Furthermore, the person to serve should be chosen by lottery. A one-term limit with a requirement that employers re-employ would help.
Why not try Democracy for a change? We do love to talk it up around town, don't we.

>it certainly raises the bar required to bribe a congressman

Actually, it would just increase the amount of money an individual Congressional Rep would have available to bribe the judiciary, investigators, the police, etc. Oh, and the legal problems that kind of yearly income can get a Rep out of once things do reach a court. Yeah, that million dollars could sure come in handy. Although handy to whom?

"Representatives should receive a salary equal to the mean gross income of their constituents. This would create an incentive for representatives to increase the economic welfare of their base (thereby moving policy away from the rich) and it would solve pay rate issues."

Switch that from "mean" to "median" and you would have a top quality half baked idea. :)

Last time I looked at some stats on the Congresscritters, a good 80 percent are all millionaires already. Why don't they donate their salary to the treasury.

$200,000? Maybe. We're not looking for a figure that will be attractive to anyone who might run for office. Just to enough people who are well qualified. And the idea that we have to pay congressmen twice as much - so they can maintain two estates - is also nonsense. They should be paid enough to maintain one house and one apartment. Their job - officially at least, is temporary. Maybe we can buy a few residences around DC - sort of like HUD homes or miltary housing, and provide it to them for free. Most of the other extra costs of being a congressman - travel and such - are already covered through expense accounts.

Good thoughts. Revising the Congressional pension to a 100% pension after 1 full term, retained in good behavior, but suspended during any period spent lobbying the federal government and reduced $1 for $1 by any other federal salary (but not pension) might produce some better incentives for what people should do once they are in Congress.

It's never the shareholders who think CEOs are worth millions.

So true.

I don't think most of us regular folk think that our representatives and senators would be worth hundreds of thousands.

The lobbyists on the other hand...

If any of you truly believes that these people in congres compete at all for the money, you're fools and you have no place in commenting on politics. They do this for the power, they either wish to be tyrants of protectors. They are either afraid or full of conviction.

1 mil or 100k, it won't make a bit of difference. I'd rather have someone in it for the power than the money any day.

I think the problem is in the process, more then the people. Congressional leadership serves as another form of executive point of focus. The purpose of the legislature is to filter the larger situation for executive decisions, not compete with it.
An example of how to make this work occurred to me some years ago, in trying to figure out how to make the line item veto work.
Break the budget bills into their items and have each legislator assign a percentage value to each one. Re-assemble them in order of preference and then have the president draw the line at what is to be funded.
This would open up the process of dispersing government money and provide a mechanism for setting broad priorities, rather then the secretive dealing currently consuming the finances of the country.
All the Mr. Smith's in the world are going to be corrupted by the current system of favorism granted to those with the most connections and money.

Self-finance their campaigns? On one million dollars??? Many congressional races run to the hundreds of thousands...a big chunk even if taken out of a $1m salary.

I don't believe that an extremely high salary would help the quality of congress - or that it helps any field. I do believe that congresspersons should make enough money to meet their obligations. I am far from convinced that the current salaries are insufficient. If they are, raise the salary - but not by $800,000 or more. They don't have to *buy* real estate in Washington, they just have to live there.

Ask people who work longer hours for fewer benefits and about the same salary their parents did if current CEOs are so great. They may make the company worth more on the stock market - but stockholders are only one set of stakeholders in a corporation.

At the risk of personal villification, I would like to quote a Robert Novak comment (from an episode of "Crossfire") regarding the idea of providing higher salaries to attract "better qualified" people to serve in Congress. I have saved it in my collection of personal favorites: "Nonsense!" Anybody who has been in this town (D.C.) for any length of time and watched how these people behave knows it isn't about money. It is about ego and power, pure and simple, and most of them would do the job for nothing."

特价机票
北京特价机票
特价机票
飞机票
飞机票查询
打折机票

国际机票
北京国际机票
国际航班
国际特价机票

杭州饭店
杭州饭店预定
杭州酒店住宿
携成网杭州旅馆价格
杭州香格里拉饭店
浙江世界贸易中心大酒店
杭州国际大厦雷迪森广场酒店
杭州五洲大酒店
杭州华美达广场杭州海华大酒店
杭州新侨饭店
杭州之江饭店
杭州华辰国际饭店
杭州海外海·西溪宾馆
杭州南线大酒店
杭州浙江梅地亚宾馆
杭州天鸿饭店
杭州黄龙饭店
杭州浙江文华大酒店
杭州香溢大酒店
杭州新世纪大酒店
杭州红星文化大厦酒店
杭州浙江大酒店
杭州皇冠大酒店
杭州中洲大酒店
杭州新新饭店
杭州西湖饭店
杭州中豪大酒店
杭州花家山庄
杭州大酒店
杭州天杭大酒店
杭州百合花饭店
浙江饭店
杭州五洋宾馆
杭州湾大酒店
杭州中山大酒店
杭州孔雀大厦
杭州如家客栈（体育场路店）
杭州如家快捷酒店（莫干山店）
杭州玉皇山庄

I agree with Steve Benen's point. For a supposedly bright and educated man, Sowell has an incredible ability to write ridicuous nonsense. His column appears frequently in my local newspaper and I often have to send a letter to the editor to point the flaws in Sowell's logic.

Call me crazy, but I'll do it for $75K and the use of a small home office space near DC. Where I live, that's more than adequate to thrive.
I'm a seventh generation american and I earned every penny I paid for my college education.
I read the Constitution and Bill of Rights frequently to keep it all fresh.
Some legislative issues are tougher than others to get one's mind around, but I'll read & research everything I'm expected to vote on and I'll call on people I respect and blog for expertise on the things I don't know.

杭州饭店
杭州饭店预定
杭州酒店住宿
携成网杭州旅馆价格
杭州香格里拉饭店
浙江世界贸易中心大酒店
杭州国际大厦雷迪森广场酒店
杭州五洲大酒店
杭州华美达广场杭州海华大酒店
杭州新侨饭店
杭州之江饭店
杭州华辰国际饭店
杭州海外海·西溪宾馆
杭州南线大酒店
杭州浙江梅地亚宾馆
杭州天鸿饭店
杭州黄龙饭店
杭州浙江文华大酒店
杭州香溢大酒店
杭州新世纪大酒店
杭州红星文化大厦酒店
杭州浙江大酒店
杭州皇&#