You know who knows that? Politicians. And, being the masters of judo they are, they use our own stupidity against us. As a matter of fact, they've been doing it for decades with nobody noticing because the voting public consists almost entirely of ignorant assholes.
Toronto has a mayor whose only real claim to fame was that he was wealthy enough to pay his own office expenses when his ideological opponents weren't. Inherent in that argument is that only the layabout scions of rich daddies should be public servants, as opposed to "regular people," but populist stupidity is such that it was a winning argument for Rob Ford.
Populists - no, strike that, everybody - on both the Left and the Right are outraged that politicians make as much money as they do. Never mind that anyone even remotely talented enough to get tens or hundreds of thousands of people of people to vote for them would make far more money in the public sector. When that isn't enough, we decide to go after "gold-plated pensions."
If you believe that, the overwhelming likelihood is that you're an asshole, haven't been paying attention, are part of the problem, or all three.
I'm going to make a wildly controversial statement here. It'll make almost everyone across the ideological spectrum absolutely insane, so get ready for it ....
Our politicians aren't being paid enough. Also, I don't give a shit about their pensions. And I say that as someone who has probably argued more strongly for realistically balanced budgets than anyone reading this.
If it were up to me, politicians would be paid a whole lot more and not only would their pensions be platinum-plated, they would take effect the second they left office.
On the other hand, I would strip a whole lot of supposed "rights" from our elected representatives.
Before I go any further, I should point out that you don't have a "right" to be a member of a parliamentary body, even if you were elected. Most Western constitutions give their legislatures self-regulating powers, which include who may or may more not be expelled from their chamber. You need not even be convicted of crime to be refused your seat or expelled from it, and no Court in the land is going to argue with that.
I'll start with the carrots that I'd hand out if I were in charge.
If you're a state or provincial representative, congratulations! You just got your pay raised to $500,000 a year. If you're a governor (or Canadian premier) or a member of the federal legislative branch, you're now making a million dollars a year. Presidents (and Prime Ministers,) along with Supreme Court Justices hit the goddamn jackpot with me. They make $3 million!
And all of you get to pay NO taxes on your government income! Pretty sweet, huh? Oh, and the same applies to political appointees, campaign operatives and the senior civil service. You win in a big, bad way under my plan.
But here's the stick.
None of you gets to own any holdings other the real estate that you personally occupy. No stocks, no bonds, no nothing. The potential for conflict of interest is way to high to be tolerated. No longer will will you be able to vote on matters that affect your net worth. After the huge pay raise I give you, your salary only goes up at the rate of inflation.
Moreover, none of you ever gets to register as a lobbyist. Ever. If you haven't followed the horrid tale of Jack Abramoff, you really should.
As for campaign staff, they're easy enough to take care of. Political campaigns are subsidized, in one way or another, by the government. The campaigns themselves are tax-free when they aren't directly subsidized and the donations are tax-refundable. If a campaign is found to have knowingly allowed a lobbyist to work for it - even as a volunteer - the campaign loses those subsidies and the politician is prohibited from being seated. If a campaign operative - even as a volunteer - attempts to later register as lobbyist, he or she is criminally charged.
Under my regime, lobbying transparency would be a lot tougher. Any meeting meeting between a lobbyist and a politician, a political staffer, or a member of the civil service, would be reported on the Internet within 30 days. That would include the type of activity, any money spent, and where it came from. The receipts would also be submitted,
Oh, and any and all violations of anything I've mentioned above would result in jail time. Let's say that political corruption is at least as serious as a drug offense. Well, you do exactly the same amount of time as a drug offender.
That brings me to campaign money itself, which I really don't care about. While I agree that money is speech and speech can be anonymous, it doesn't follow that this allows for anonymous money. Nor is there any judicial precedent to suggest otherwise. If one assumes that money buys influence, it seems only natural that the public know where the money comes from.
Nor would I inhibit independent groups from election spending. However, they wouldn't enjoy any tax exemption (as neither the parties or their contributors would) and they would be required to disclose the identities of their donors.
There is absolutely no logical reason that everyone should pay higher taxes because political campaigns, "issue advocacy groups" and their contributors get loopholes. Cute loopholes, such as "legal defense funds" will also no longer be tax exempt and donor disclosure will also be required. If you want to give to charity, give to charity. If you want to play politics, do it on your own dime!
Other than that, campaign spending would be wide open. Anyone could give as much as they want to whoever they want. It just has to be disclosed and you don't get it subsidized by anyone else.
Now, you may like what I think about this matter, but I think we can all agree that none of it is likely to get passed. At that point, it's your job to go to your local politician and ask them why they don't.
0 comments:
Post a Comment