Thursday, February 28, 2008
I've been meaning to address my other outrage from last month, an article posted on Powerline.
Titled "The Congress We Pay For", in it, Paul Mirengoff suggests we need to raise the pay of Congress to reduce corruption, in agreement in spirit if not degree with an opinion piece he found at CBS news. In his logic, because these men and women could make more money in private business, we should not be surprised when they accept bribes and gifts to supplement their meager incomes.
Oddly enough, Mirengoff's lead-in is a link to a story about corruption at the D.C. Department of Motor Vehicles.
For a logical person, this would lead to the question: how many people will need to be included in these pay raises that are ostensibly necessary to stem corruption? Raising congressional pay won't prevent DMV shenanigans. And if $170,000 a year isn't enough to stem corruption for a person sitting in an air-conditioned office with private parking and a staff of ten writing laws that indirectly affect all of us, how much more will we need to pay a police officer who's life is at risk out among the hoi poloi, cruising the streets with a side-arm and the power to put people in jail for up to 48 hours uncharged?
Seems to me, $170,000 is enough pay to stem corruption in all those who are not born corrupt. Like Bill Gates, the corrupt do not have some target dollar amount at which they have pre-decided they will stop their over-the-top effort. Ambition has no natural bound.
The argument Mirengoff could have made but didn't is that for a million dollars, you can attract much better candidates away from their private sector jobs. Which is to say, he thinks we'd get better congress people if they were in it for the money, which oddly cycles back on the corruption issue.
I have a better solution to Mirengoff's dilemma: cut the pay of D.C. lawyers and lobbyists (apparently the only people suited to a job in congress in some folk's view).
Or how about a constitutional amendment precluding anyone in a profession paying more than congress from becoming a congressperson. This would increase the professions represented in congress from the current mix of primarily doctors and lawyers, although it wouldn't affect the number of political science and history double majors that worked their way up from officeboy through various levels of political office. Is that any more outlandish an idea than a $1 million salary for congresspeople?
Titled "The Congress We Pay For", in it, Paul Mirengoff suggests we need to raise the pay of Congress to reduce corruption, in agreement in spirit if not degree with an opinion piece he found at CBS news. In his logic, because these men and women could make more money in private business, we should not be surprised when they accept bribes and gifts to supplement their meager incomes.
Oddly enough, Mirengoff's lead-in is a link to a story about corruption at the D.C. Department of Motor Vehicles.
For a logical person, this would lead to the question: how many people will need to be included in these pay raises that are ostensibly necessary to stem corruption? Raising congressional pay won't prevent DMV shenanigans. And if $170,000 a year isn't enough to stem corruption for a person sitting in an air-conditioned office with private parking and a staff of ten writing laws that indirectly affect all of us, how much more will we need to pay a police officer who's life is at risk out among the hoi poloi, cruising the streets with a side-arm and the power to put people in jail for up to 48 hours uncharged?
Seems to me, $170,000 is enough pay to stem corruption in all those who are not born corrupt. Like Bill Gates, the corrupt do not have some target dollar amount at which they have pre-decided they will stop their over-the-top effort. Ambition has no natural bound.
The argument Mirengoff could have made but didn't is that for a million dollars, you can attract much better candidates away from their private sector jobs. Which is to say, he thinks we'd get better congress people if they were in it for the money, which oddly cycles back on the corruption issue.
I have a better solution to Mirengoff's dilemma: cut the pay of D.C. lawyers and lobbyists (apparently the only people suited to a job in congress in some folk's view).
Or how about a constitutional amendment precluding anyone in a profession paying more than congress from becoming a congressperson. This would increase the professions represented in congress from the current mix of primarily doctors and lawyers, although it wouldn't affect the number of political science and history double majors that worked their way up from officeboy through various levels of political office. Is that any more outlandish an idea than a $1 million salary for congresspeople?
From google news I got a link to "Portman vs. Johannson", I fluffy feature comparing the two lead actresses of "The Other Boleyn Sister". In summary, the photo-spread compares the actresses for exprerience, education, awards, and finally political causes, the last of which pressed one of my trigger points.
First, some quotes. On Portman's causes, the article states:
On Johansson's causes, it states
So to be clear, Portman is dedicated to relieving animal cruelty, and Johansson is interested in reducing third-world poverty and suffering. I would think that would give a clear win to Johannson, but I guess to some folks, people are a pestilence (nothing personal against third-world people in particular).
The conclusion of the article:
First, some quotes. On Portman's causes, the article states:
A vegetarian since she was a child, Portman has been a lifelong advocate for animal rights and won’t eat animal products or wear fur, feathers or leather.
On Johansson's causes, it states
She’s a global ambassador for the aid and development confederation Oxfam and a supporter of Barack Obama.
So to be clear, Portman is dedicated to relieving animal cruelty, and Johansson is interested in reducing third-world poverty and suffering. I would think that would give a clear win to Johannson, but I guess to some folks, people are a pestilence (nothing personal against third-world people in particular).
The conclusion of the article:
A tie, but anyone who loves animals has a slight edge.
