Comments on: The Government Hammer http://www.davidjmiller.org/2007/the-government-hammer/ Recording Bits and Pieces of Heaven in Theory and Practice Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:53:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: David Miller » Blog Archive » So Long HCT http://www.davidjmiller.org/2007/the-government-hammer/comment-page-1/#comment-4429 David Miller » Blog Archive » So Long HCT Sun, 11 Nov 2007 05:47:21 +0000 http://www.davidjmiller.org/the-government-hammer/#comment-4429 [...] HCT is a perfect example of what happens when the government hammer gets overused. [...] [...] HCT is a perfect example of what happens when the government hammer gets overused. [...]

]]> By: David http://www.davidjmiller.org/2007/the-government-hammer/comment-page-1/#comment-4308 David Fri, 09 Nov 2007 17:07:36 +0000 http://www.davidjmiller.org/the-government-hammer/#comment-4308 I agree with you that we need to make sure that we avoid any effort to extend the legislative session. One argument that you did not list is that a full-time legislature would attract more qualified candidates. I don't believe that it is true, but I am sure that anyone proposing such a move would make the argument that it is. Personally I would bet that a full-time legislature would attract the same mix of qualified vs. under-qualified candidates that the part-time legislature attracts. The argument that it is difficult to be a member of a part-time legislature is a good thing as far as I am concerned for two reasons - it encourages people to run because of a great desire to serve, and I have never found anything in life to be easy that was truly worthwhile. A full-time legislature would be much easier on the legislators, but it would also encourage a disconnect from the lives of everyday constituents as they become insulated from the economy of life that every other voter is subject to. I agree with you that we need to make sure that we avoid any effort to extend the legislative session. One argument that you did not list is that a full-time legislature would attract more qualified candidates.

I don’t believe that it is true, but I am sure that anyone proposing such a move would make the argument that it is. Personally I would bet that a full-time legislature would attract the same mix of qualified vs. under-qualified candidates that the part-time legislature attracts.

The argument that it is difficult to be a member of a part-time legislature is a good thing as far as I am concerned for two reasons – it encourages people to run because of a great desire to serve, and I have never found anything in life to be easy that was truly worthwhile. A full-time legislature would be much easier on the legislators, but it would also encourage a disconnect from the lives of everyday constituents as they become insulated from the economy of life that every other voter is subject to.

]]> By: Reach Upward http://www.davidjmiller.org/2007/the-government-hammer/comment-page-1/#comment-4305 Reach Upward Fri, 09 Nov 2007 16:17:21 +0000 http://www.davidjmiller.org/the-government-hammer/#comment-4305 There is constant whining by legislators about how much work they have to do, how little they get paid for it, and how much unpaid time they put in outside of the legislative session. They note the number of special sessions that get called and suggest (rather naively) that these would go away if we increased our legislative session a month or two. Others think that having a part-time legislature makes it difficult for most people to consider running for office. I mean, how many people can afford to keep their day job AND spend time at the legislature? How many can take three months off to attend the legislative session? They say that this warrants a full-time legislature. While all of these concerns are real and valid, I do not believe they outweigh the value of a limited, part-time legislature. The simple answer to those that want a full-time legislature because most people can't take time away from their regular jobs is that most people can't consider a career shift to become a professional politician either. Either way, most people are excluded from the process. But legislative races for part-time positions are far less expensive than they would become if we went to full-time positions. And if you think lobbyists have lots of pull with our current part-time legislators, it's nothing compared to what it would be like if we had a full-time legislature. Also, if people find putting in the time to to the job too burdensome, the easy answer is simply not to run for the position. Do we have a significant shortage of qualified candidates? If somebody doesn't want to put in the time it takes to be a legislator, somebody else will invariably step up to the plate. There are currently no significant proposals out there to extend the legislative session. I think we should make sure that none materialize. There is constant whining by legislators about how much work they have to do, how little they get paid for it, and how much unpaid time they put in outside of the legislative session. They note the number of special sessions that get called and suggest (rather naively) that these would go away if we increased our legislative session a month or two.

Others think that having a part-time legislature makes it difficult for most people to consider running for office. I mean, how many people can afford to keep their day job AND spend time at the legislature? How many can take three months off to attend the legislative session? They say that this warrants a full-time legislature.

While all of these concerns are real and valid, I do not believe they outweigh the value of a limited, part-time legislature. The simple answer to those that want a full-time legislature because most people can’t take time away from their regular jobs is that most people can’t consider a career shift to become a professional politician either. Either way, most people are excluded from the process. But legislative races for part-time positions are far less expensive than they would become if we went to full-time positions. And if you think lobbyists have lots of pull with our current part-time legislators, it’s nothing compared to what it would be like if we had a full-time legislature.

Also, if people find putting in the time to to the job too burdensome, the easy answer is simply not to run for the position. Do we have a significant shortage of qualified candidates? If somebody doesn’t want to put in the time it takes to be a legislator, somebody else will invariably step up to the plate.

There are currently no significant proposals out there to extend the legislative session. I think we should make sure that none materialize.

]]> By: David http://www.davidjmiller.org/2007/the-government-hammer/comment-page-1/#comment-4232 David Thu, 08 Nov 2007 21:43:46 +0000 http://www.davidjmiller.org/the-government-hammer/#comment-4232 I was not aware that Utah was considering increasing the legislative term for the state. I agree that having a full time legislature just gives our representatives at the state level more opportunity to pound some extra screws with the hammer of government. I was not aware that Utah was considering increasing the legislative term for the state. I agree that having a full time legislature just gives our representatives at the state level more opportunity to pound some extra screws with the hammer of government.

]]> By: Reach Upward http://www.davidjmiller.org/2007/the-government-hammer/comment-page-1/#comment-4227 Reach Upward Thu, 08 Nov 2007 20:24:27 +0000 http://www.davidjmiller.org/the-government-hammer/#comment-4227 Jason also provides a great argument in favor of a part-time legislature. I am vehemently opposed to Utah increasing its legislative term. We can see from California and other states that this leads to overspending and mischievous legislation from politicians with too much time on their hands. Jason also provides a great argument in favor of a part-time legislature. I am vehemently opposed to Utah increasing its legislative term. We can see from California and other states that this leads to overspending and mischievous legislation from politicians with too much time on their hands.

]]> By: David http://www.davidjmiller.org/2007/the-government-hammer/comment-page-1/#comment-4142 David Wed, 07 Nov 2007 16:45:48 +0000 http://www.davidjmiller.org/the-government-hammer/#comment-4142 That sounds just about ideal. Hopefully it is primarily the best of them who move on to higher offices (I had no inkling that it would be all or even a majority who moved on) but having a system which encourages regular turnover is good. That sounds just about ideal. Hopefully it is primarily the best of them who move on to higher offices (I had no inkling that it would be all or even a majority who moved on) but having a system which encourages regular turnover is good.

]]> By: Jason Black http://www.davidjmiller.org/2007/the-government-hammer/comment-page-1/#comment-4141 Jason Black Wed, 07 Nov 2007 16:30:45 +0000 http://www.davidjmiller.org/the-government-hammer/#comment-4141 Missouri's General Assembly is incredibly large - 163 representatives and 34 senators - so most can't go on to higher elected office. Many representatives run for senate, and many senators run for statewide or federal office. But with 1999 seats opening up during any 8 year period, there just aren't enough higher offices for everyone. Some pick up lobbying jobs, some become political consultants. The great majority, however, simply disappear back into their private lives. This is aided by the fact that Missouri's general assembly is only in session 5 months of the year, and the pay is lousy ($33,000 annually for reps and senators), so most legislators in Missouri own, run, or work at private businesses concurrently with their legislative work, allowing them to smoothly fall back into life outside the public sector. Missouri’s General Assembly is incredibly large – 163 representatives and 34 senators – so most can’t go on to higher elected office. Many representatives run for senate, and many senators run for statewide or federal office. But with 1999 seats opening up during any 8 year period, there just aren’t enough higher offices for everyone. Some pick up lobbying jobs, some become political consultants. The great majority, however, simply disappear back into their private lives.

This is aided by the fact that Missouri’s general assembly is only in session 5 months of the year, and the pay is lousy ($33,000 annually for reps and senators), so most legislators in Missouri own, run, or work at private businesses concurrently with their legislative work, allowing them to smoothly fall back into life outside the public sector.

]]> By: David http://www.davidjmiller.org/2007/the-government-hammer/comment-page-1/#comment-4136 David Wed, 07 Nov 2007 15:12:18 +0000 http://www.davidjmiller.org/the-government-hammer/#comment-4136 I think it's time for more states to institute term limits in their legislatures. We also need to get term limits at the federal level. Jason, do you know what happens to legislators that complete their limit of terms, do they move on to other elective positions or just go back to private life? I think it’s time for more states to institute term limits in their legislatures. We also need to get term limits at the federal level.

Jason, do you know what happens to legislators that complete their limit of terms, do they move on to other elective positions or just go back to private life?

]]> By: Jason Black http://www.davidjmiller.org/2007/the-government-hammer/comment-page-1/#comment-4134 Jason Black Wed, 07 Nov 2007 13:52:39 +0000 http://www.davidjmiller.org/the-government-hammer/#comment-4134 Bingo! But it also illustrates why so many elected officials are unwilling to limit themselves - it irritates the constituents to have limited voice. In Missouri, our state legislature has term limits. Since everyone is held to the same limit, committee assignments abound, and turnover brings fresh, new, not so entrenched ideas every few years. What's more important, our legislators don't have decades of history working with the same lobbyists. The new guy on the block, when approached by lobbyists, is much more skeptical of his influence, and more likely to push his own (or his constituents') agenda. Bingo! But it also illustrates why so many elected officials are unwilling to limit themselves – it irritates the constituents to have limited voice.

In Missouri, our state legislature has term limits. Since everyone is held to the same limit, committee assignments abound, and turnover brings fresh, new, not so entrenched ideas every few years. What’s more important, our legislators don’t have decades of history working with the same lobbyists. The new guy on the block, when approached by lobbyists, is much more skeptical of his influence, and more likely to push his own (or his constituents’) agenda.

]]> By: David http://www.davidjmiller.org/2007/the-government-hammer/comment-page-1/#comment-4132 David Wed, 07 Nov 2007 12:33:04 +0000 http://www.davidjmiller.org/the-government-hammer/#comment-4132 This makes a very strong argument for legislated term limits. If every congressman were limited to 8 years then committee assignments would have to be given out a bit differently because 8 years would be the most seniority that anyone could have. Without legislated term limits those who self-impose a term limit are punished for their integrity. This makes a very strong argument for legislated term limits. If every congressman were limited to 8 years then committee assignments would have to be given out a bit differently because 8 years would be the most seniority that anyone could have. Without legislated term limits those who self-impose a term limit are punished for their integrity.

]]>