Digby rebuts the argument (made here) that members of Congress should be paid more, so that they can keep up with their “peers” and won't feel tempted to cash out for even more than their enhanced (above the present $172,000 per year) salaries by turning to a career in crime lobbying:
But they're not supposed to be “elites.” They're supposed to be representatives of the people who voted for them, which means they should not think of their “peers” as bankers, entertainers, executives etc. (at least not most of them.) Perhaps if they spent more time among the former instead of the latter they wouldn't feel so cheated and would have a better idea of who it is they should be identifying with. In fact, the problem may be that they actually make too much money which explains why they no longer understand the needs and wants of 95% of America.
via Hullabaloo
This leads me once again to a modest proposal that I have made in the past. There was once a need for a national capital, but that time has long since passed. Washington is now an artificial world, a bubble nation insulated from the effects of the policies it inflicts on the rest of us, and our “representatives” increasingly have no idea how we live. Even many who start with the best intentions are eventually infected with Inside-the-Beltway syndrome.
The Capitol should be used for ceremonial purposes only; a place the average Congressman or Senator visits only rarely. The rest of their time should be spent in their offices in their districts or states. They can participate in committees via the internet, and can cast their votes the same way. Not only would they be spending more time with their constituents, it would become about 435 times harder for lobbyists to effectively run the country. It would be easy to list disadvantages to this system, but they are trivial in comparison to the advantages.
Post a Comment