Slashdot Mirror

Sorry, hit the submit button instead of preview. Didn't edit out the excess or add my own 2 cents.

So here it is:

As you can read, Ted was quite a guy back in his younger days. He probably was quite knowledgable about whatever the hottest tech of the 30's was. Unfortunately, he was old before most of us were born, and was well behind in his reading before I learned to read.

Also unfortunately, our system rewards senority more than any other qualification. Most incumbents have no trouble getting reelected. The longer they are in, the more powerful they become, and the more likely their constituents vote for them because they hold leadership positions. It is more important to be a leader than to be knowledgeable, and ye get to be a leader simply by working within the party system.

The Republican party and many whites are still rascist, either overtly or with a thin veil.

And that's exactly why some of them are still racist. Why should someone respect another person (or group) that degrades them by calling them a racist when they don't know if they really ARE a racist or not? It's really easy to walk down the street and judge every individuals moral character without even talking to them. I see the type of people that do that as the real problem.

Oh, and NEITHER party has been squeaky clean on the major civil rights laws in the past, so stop acting like the Democratic party was there 100% of the time, because they weren't. Please have a look at vote counts here:

http://www.congresslink.org/print_basics_histmats_ civilrights64text.htm

Notice the Democratic party cast a hell of alot of no votes on the bill. Also note that there were members of the Democratic party serving them that had been in the KKK. I'm not saying the Republican party is squeaky clean either, just saying they take most of the blame when they really shouldn't be.

CNN did a study earlier this year, to check the personal finances of American Senators. The reason behind this is, due to new campaign finance laws, if you decide to privately fund your campaign, you are not held to the free speach restrictions telling you when you may broadcast your commercials... but I digress.

At the time (Jun 13), only 40 out of 100 were millionaires, with 22 of those Republican and 18 of those Democrat. Of the same group of 40, 6 were Women and 34 were Men. The top 3 wealthiest are all Democrat.

From a blurb at the bottom, there are at least a few "common" people in the Senate... "at least 10 senators reported net worths of less than $100,000." Still a substantial salary in my opinion.

Not surprisingly, the founding fathers had a more "ogliarch" view of government. Benjamin Franklin believed that if the Senators were not given a salary, then only the wealthy could afford to spend their free time governing the nation. He was voted down, and congress instituted a salary of $6 per day.

They don't give a damn, because we never hold them to account. What, really, should we expect?

> Sure, I'll pay their salary. Six dollars per day, and not a penny more.

1) Be realistic.
$6 per day is a 1789 figure. Adjusted for inflation we get $120/day.

2) Be generous.
Let's assume those representative work 365 days/year. That gives us $43,800/year.

3) Be critical.
For comparison, a programmer with zero experience who "Relies on instructions and pre-established guidelines to perform the functions of the job. Works under immediate supervision. Primary job functions do not typically require exercising independent judgment" gets a base salary around $46K.

You do not want the job to be so unattractive to people with half a brain that nobody would want it.

> Then the rest of the year, Congressmen can hold jobs where they produce something other than red tape.

Can you say "conflicts of interests"?

Sure, I'll pay their salary. Six dollars per day, and not a penny more. That will save me 86 cents on the dollar. And if that's not enough, then I question whether their motives are to serve or be served. You'll also note that this will prevent most lawyers from having a financial interest in Congress, because the position's compensation is lousy, and with special interests spread 1/10 as thin, for $5640 in contributions (on average); that's a lot less profit there. Then the rest of the year, Congressmen can hold jobs where they produce something other than red tape.

Yes, this is a great idea, that is certain to be implemented in the near future, in Fantasyland.