When the United States of America was first formed, the Founding Fathers decided on a bicameral legislative body, the Congress. As is done in England, two houses were created: The upper house (senate) and the lower house (house of representatives).
Until the 17th Amendment was passed, members of the senate were elected by state legislatures, the moneyed classes. From the start, members of the house were elected by the people and served shorter -- two year -- terms. One of the primary reasons for the shorter terms of house members was so they could keep in closer touch with their constituents, the common people.
Understanding this basic history, we can now see that this founding idea has gone off the rails. According to OpenSecrets.org, the two wealthiest current members of congress -- Darrell Issa and Jane Harman -- are both members of the lower house. In fact, 5 of the 8 wealthiest sitting members of congress hail from the House of Representatives!
How can such individuals represent the common people when their personal wealth places them in altogether different circles? An individual like Issa or Harman -- both worth more than $250 million each -- cannot identify adequately with constituents that live hand-to-mouth or even an average middle class family. No, representatives of exaggerated means are far more likely to understand and represent the small minority of citizens whose wealth is on par with their own.
So, to get back to the original idea that members of the lower house -- the "People's House -- are representatives of the common citizens of their district, I propose we place a limit on how much personal wealth a person may possess in order to run for a seat in the House of Representatives!
For the sake of discussion, let's say the upper limit is $100,000. If an individual wanted to run for a seat in the US House, then they would need to have assets (excluding their primary residence) of $99,999.99 or less. If an individual possessed wealth greater than $100,000, all the excess would need to be placed in a blind trust for the duration of their campaign and, if elected, their term in office.
If such an individual did not want to place their excessive assets in a blind trust, they can run for the senate!
Once elected, to keep the representative more in touch with his/her constituents, the salary for house members would be lowered significantly. Right now, house members are paid $174,000 per year. Instead of a fixed amount, house members would be paid equal to the median household income which currently is around $50,000 per year. The government would pay for their health insurance, but it would be a plan with high deductibles and co-pays (just like what many of their constituents face).
So, what do you think? Sound like a workable plan?
Until the 17th Amendment was passed, members of the senate were elected by state legislatures, the moneyed classes. From the start, members of the house were elected by the people and served shorter -- two year -- terms. One of the primary reasons for the shorter terms of house members was so they could keep in closer touch with their constituents, the common people.
Understanding this basic history, we can now see that this founding idea has gone off the rails. According to OpenSecrets.org, the two wealthiest current members of congress -- Darrell Issa and Jane Harman -- are both members of the lower house. In fact, 5 of the 8 wealthiest sitting members of congress hail from the House of Representatives!
How can such individuals represent the common people when their personal wealth places them in altogether different circles? An individual like Issa or Harman -- both worth more than $250 million each -- cannot identify adequately with constituents that live hand-to-mouth or even an average middle class family. No, representatives of exaggerated means are far more likely to understand and represent the small minority of citizens whose wealth is on par with their own.
So, to get back to the original idea that members of the lower house -- the "People's House -- are representatives of the common citizens of their district, I propose we place a limit on how much personal wealth a person may possess in order to run for a seat in the House of Representatives!
For the sake of discussion, let's say the upper limit is $100,000. If an individual wanted to run for a seat in the US House, then they would need to have assets (excluding their primary residence) of $99,999.99 or less. If an individual possessed wealth greater than $100,000, all the excess would need to be placed in a blind trust for the duration of their campaign and, if elected, their term in office.
If such an individual did not want to place their excessive assets in a blind trust, they can run for the senate!
Once elected, to keep the representative more in touch with his/her constituents, the salary for house members would be lowered significantly. Right now, house members are paid $174,000 per year. Instead of a fixed amount, house members would be paid equal to the median household income which currently is around $50,000 per year. The government would pay for their health insurance, but it would be a plan with high deductibles and co-pays (just like what many of their constituents face).
So, what do you think? Sound like a workable plan?
No, I wouldn't support that. Wealth doesn't inherently make you a greedy scumbag. Also, while I know it's basically true already, it would probably end up with a defacto split, where "the people" would be priced out of running for senate. We don't need income caps, we just need better ways of preventing corruption.
ReplyDeleteOne point to ponder: There's really no way for anyone to be "in the same circles" as every class. A middle class guy won't really understand the working class poor, nor the wealthy interests.
You'd still criticize someone by saying, "Well, you know, he has a blind trust worth a bajillion bucks waiting for him when he retires from office..." It would just turn people into Imelda Marcos puppets, "destitute" but with rich friends buying cosmetics for her at the mall. (I actually witnessed this once!)
ReplyDelete