If you could fire anyone in the world....

[BigBallinStalin]

I can't believe this thread has gone on this long without one of the rapscallions like AoG starting an "if you could finger anyone" thread.

Anyway, as for term limits; say there were 8-year term limits, the new career trajectory of the now (term-limited) citizen politicians would be something like this -

• age 18-22: Joe Citizen goes to New Jersey A&M, majors in political science; volunteers/interns on XYZ campaign during the summers
  age 22-25: Joe goes to Hoboken School of Law (sorry, TGD, we can't all make it into an Ivy)
  age 25-27: Joe goes to work as a legislative aid to a member of the New Jersey congressional delegation
  age 27-31: Joe is elected to the Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders
  age 27-35: Joe is elected the New Jersey General Assembly
  age 35-43: Joe elected to U.S. Congress from New Jersey
  age 43-63: term limited out of Congress, Joe goes to work as a public affairs consultant / lobbyist

Term limits won't create a Mr. Smith Goes to Washington scenario where the Congress is filled with tinkers, tailors and soldiers. It'll just mean the backlog of entry-level career political positions will thin out slightly as people move from Congress to K-Street faster which will create a slight surplus of lobbyists. So all term limits will accomplish is to depress the salaries of lobbyists. They'll still be well paid, just not quite as well.

You could probably increase the transaction costs (e.g. switching from political to lobbying) by requiring x-amount of time before doing such a switch; it would be like the anti-competition clauses where if you work for a company, you can't compete against them until 2 years after quitting.

RE: underlined, that's not my goal. My goal is to increase the costs of crony capitalism. I want it to be more difficult to wheel and deal.

And hey, if the supply of lobbyists increases, then let them complain about falling wages. I don't see their demand for lobbyists increasing since the costs of coordinating with Congress would be much higher too. So, term-limits look good to me.

Maybe with term-limits so short, you'd get more politicians clamoring to be president, so they extend their career a little longer. That'll be good to. Adds more difficulties!

[saxitoxin]

I can't believe this thread has gone on this long without one of the rapscallions like AoG starting an "if you could finger anyone" thread.

Anyway, as for term limits; say there were 8-year term limits, the new career trajectory of the now (term-limited) citizen politicians would be something like this -

• age 18-22: Joe Citizen goes to New Jersey A&M, majors in political science; volunteers/interns on XYZ campaign during the summers
  age 22-25: Joe goes to Hoboken School of Law (sorry, TGD, we can't all make it into an Ivy)
  age 25-27: Joe goes to work as a legislative aid to a member of the New Jersey congressional delegation
  age 27-31: Joe is elected to the Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders
  age 27-35: Joe is elected the New Jersey General Assembly
  age 35-43: Joe elected to U.S. Congress from New Jersey
  age 43-63: term limited out of Congress, Joe goes to work as a public affairs consultant / lobbyist

Term limits won't create a Mr. Smith Goes to Washington scenario where the Congress is filled with tinkers, tailors and soldiers. It'll just mean the backlog of entry-level career political positions will thin out slightly as people move from Congress to K-Street faster which will create a slight surplus of lobbyists. So all term limits will accomplish is to depress the salaries of lobbyists. They'll still be well paid, just not quite as well.

You could probably increase the transaction costs (e.g. switching from political to lobbying) by requiring x-amount of time before doing such a switch; it would be like the anti-competition clauses where if you work for a company, you can't compete against them until 2 years after quitting.

RE: underlined, that's not my goal. My goal is to increase the costs of crony capitalism. I want it to be more difficult to wheel and deal.

And hey, if the supply of lobbyists increases, then let them complain about falling wages. I don't see their demand for lobbyists increasing since the costs of coordinating with Congress would be much higher too. So, term-limits look good to me.

Maybe with term-limits so short, you'd get more politicians clamoring to be president, so they extend their career a little longer. That'll be good to. Adds more difficulties!

IIRC, and this could be wrong, members of Congress are already prohibited from working as lobbyists for 2 years after leaving but what constitutes lobbying is so nebulous and hard to define they still work as lobbyists anyway, they just don't register until the 2 year window is up.

The only solution is to randomize the selection process for Congress so that it's impossible to plan a stable career around politics, which is necessary for cronyism. Elect 2,000 representatives but then have a lottery to select the 435 who actually get seated or something like that.

Also, who would you finger? Gillpig? 2dimes?

[BigBallinStalin]

Maybe. I'm not sure attempting to reinstate something like the ancient Greek democratic practices would fare well, but I like it!

Who would I finger? Which ones are clean? I always value integrity.

[jay_a2j]

Easy.


Barrak Obama/ Joe Bidden & the Congress with immediate 8 year term limits for all members of Congress.

Out of interest, why do you feel that 8 years in office should disbar a candidate from being elected by his/her peers?

Because if there was an 8 year term limit people would be less likely to become corrupt. Then maybe we would get people who actually wanted to help this country in office instead of pandering to special interests so they can "stay" in office..... forever.

Do you think that there's a good argument for citizens to be able to elect who they want?

They can elect who they want. They just will have a different choice after 8 years.

I'm having trouble reconciling these two sentences. Should voters be allowed to freely choose who they want in office or not?

Yes, for an 8 year term limit. Some of these people have been there for 30+ years! After that long you are no longer representing your constituents but your own self interests and what you can do to "stay in office".

[jay_a2j]

Look, Obama was for "traditional marriage" in '08 then time for re-election he switched his view pandering again to gain support. If this man was white he never would have got a second term, hell he'd never even got his first term... he is highly inexperienced and it shows.

[AndyDufresne]

Has anyone made a Thich Quang Duc reference yet? If so, that would be terrible.


--Andy

[BigBallinStalin]

Fire at will, Andy.

[Lootifer]

Easy.


Barrak Obama/ Joe Bidden & the Congress with immediate 8 year term limits for all members of Congress.

Out of interest, why do you feel that 8 years in office should disbar a candidate from being elected by his/her peers?

Because if there was an 8 year term limit people would be less likely to become corrupt. Then maybe we would get people who actually wanted to help this country in office instead of pandering to special interests so they can "stay" in office..... forever.

The flipside to this argument is that you get officials making very short term decisions, that may benefit them in the short term but could leave horrible long term effects. Theres no easy way around this (though again I propose we vote on policies not people). You can see a similar thing in the private sector where CEOs have generally accepted limited terms which result in some pretty negative effects.

I've never really known any career-politician who not only looked toward the long-term, but on net acted toward the long-term. Perhaps the main problem is that regardless of whether they aim for short- or long-term, they still attempt to benefit themselves and their constituents--at the expense of others, in that zero-sum game of governmental exchange. Also, voters are impatient and have short-term memories/don't care enough to consider the ramifications of political actions nor care enough about linking past political acts with current problems caused by politics.

Even if we admit that such a time-cap would gear the politicians more toward the short-term, I don't see the change being significant enough--considering the electorate's general behavior and the rules of the game with government.

Shorter terms would limit interest groups' ability to sway politicians and garner political clout over the decades with Senator X. If we increase the transaction costs of crony capitalism (ceteris paribus), crony capitalism would decrease.

Yeah you and the Gill make good points. But as I say, if I had my own way being a politician would be nothing more than a factor worker, but instead of making widgets (side note I fucking love both widgets and the word widget, god bless you economics) they implement policy impartially and transparently.

[BigBallinStalin]

Lootifer von New Zealand: I Dream of Widgets