This missing paper was written in a state of pique, taking Congress to task when it raised its compensation to $135,000 a few years ago, including a sneaky provision that they'd get a raise every year unless they specifically passed legislation to forego this benefit. The argument was that this made Congressional service the best job most of these politicos had ever had, creating a powerful incentive for them to try to keep the job indefinitely, unlike the Roman general Cincinnatus who, immediately he'd won his war, put his weapons down, returning to his plow. Or Washington, who refused any salary for his service as Revolutionary War leader, accepting only reimbursement for personal expenses (I made this promise to my potential constituents when I ran for Congress in 1996, with no discernible effect on voters in the Utah Second District).
The paper went on tp express the view that service in the
legislative body of any true republic should be open only to those who had
demonstrated themselves sufficiently successful in life to be able to
serve without personal salary and with reimbursement only for out-of-pocket
expenses, living on the competence they've acquired during an otherwise
successful life. Only this kind of public servant will be immune from the
temptation to spend to attract the votes of those tempted to vote for them
for personal benefit. And that's the only way to achieve economy in
government. And that service in Congress should be deliberately limited to
the same period of time as the maximum term for Presidents -- i.e. eight
years -- to avoid making elected public service a career.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |