361
McConnell and Feinstein episodes raise age concerns about US leaders
(www.washingtonexaminer.com)
this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2023
361 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10176 readers
9 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
We need age and term limits
And to pay politicians! Doctors, lawyers, bottom -rung programmers, and ambitious plumbers all make more than the people who run the county--and aren't expected to constantly fly themselves across the country and maintain multiple residences--at least one of them in one of the priciest markets in the country.
The only people who want that job are already rich, or are great at schmoozing and finding donors.
Pay them so well, all your best and brightest want to grow up to be legislators, and have no urgent need to start accepting graft. At least make it competitive with writing python scripts.
Politicians don't get rich from their salaries. They get rich from the connections they make.
I would accept paying them more if they weren't allowed to actively trade stocks while in office
Yes, that is the status quo. If you want to change it, you need to accept higher pay so that more average Joes seek election and then vote to restrict trades by sitting politics.
Constricting pay only cements the status quo by making it so that only rich people or cheaters can make a living as a politician.
Is they pay not being high enough really the barrier to entry for most people? I would imagine the barrier is upfront cost more than eventual salary. Paying the politicians more just encourages them to stay longer.
Give them free food, housing, and health care, and a stipend for recreational spending. They are serving the people, I'm cool to foot the bill for that much. Use the rest of our money to help less rich and powerful people run for office in the first place.
Yeah, it's a barrier. Factoring in cost of living, getting elected to congress would be a significant pay drop for just about any middle class person (unless, of course, they were willing to accept the legally-grey 'benefits' that come from the position, like early info on stock market movement along with freedom from prosecution).
It's just weird to watch Americans complain that "All our politicians are old retirees and lifers, rich assholes, or thoroughly corrupt! Why is that? I don't get it! Also, why are they getting paid a halfway-decent middle class salary (before factoring in cost of living), we should be paying them minimum wage--if that!"
Like...duh, guys.
You're right that upfront costs are a problem, but that's a hard problem to solve. Also, in the age of crowdfunding, it's a less significant problem than it's ever been before.