Significant problems cannot be solved with the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.

--Albert Einstein

There's been a lot of talk recently about campaign finance and lobbying reform. And for good reason. To the silent majority of voters in this country it seems an ever increasing number of our Washington politicians all too often appear to take their oath of office with one hand, while simultaneously hanging a "for sale" sign on their backsides with the other. I'm not saying they're all taking money for political favors. And I'm sure those who end up on such a slippery slope had no such intentions in the beginning. It's just that with all the conflicting issues and political agendas, and all the money flying around within the Washington beltway it has to be extremely difficult for many of our national politicians to constantly remember why they wanted to get elected in the first place. And I doubt, frankly, that very few of the rest of us woud fare any better.

So what are we going to do about it? Some are currently arguing that we need to pass laws limiting campaign and lobbying contributions. Stop most of this truly odorous money flow, they say, and the politicians will get back to the business of the people. But how? In the first place, constitutional lawyers tell us we can't limit campaign contributions; that because of freedom of speech issues the Supreme Court will strike down any law that tries to do so. As well they should. In the second place, there's no way Congress is ever going to agree on any laws that are going to do any real good; for such laws would almost certainly impair their chances for reelection. And, in the third place, they'd just find ways around the laws in any event.

And term limits, or, worse yet, simply voting everyone out of office every time, is certainly not the answer. Many of these politicians really are trying to take care of the people's business. So it's not in our best interests to keep changing all the players.

What we need to do, it seems to me, is take Einstein's advice and change the rules by which we play the game. Specifically, we can begin by paying the elected offices of Congress, and the Presidency as well, what those positions are worth to us. Let's face it, we voters would like to think we're getting the cream of the crop when we elect our politicians. But, even though many of them are actually very bright and, at least in the beginning, earnest and hardworking on our behalf, don't forget we're competing with other professions for the people to fill what are to all of us enormously powerful positions of national trust. And these professions are willing to pay many times more than we pay our politicians. Now some might argue that one is not supposed to go into politics just for the salary, and I'm sure that was the general consensus in 1776. Remember, however, that in the beginning, even at the national level, politics was not a full time job. It was assumed that duly elected representatives of the thirteen colonies, men presumably already of considerable economic substance, would only need to meet from time to time, perhaps once a year, to take care of the people's business. After all, hadn't the Continental Congress seen to it our Democracy would for the most part hum on its own like a well-oiled machine? Thus it might very well have been that salary was really not an important issue in the beginning. But those days are gone forever. Most of us, even the most well-meaning, would not, I think, stand up for long under the constant work load and long hours endured on our behalf by our Washington politicians.

The first thing we need to do, then, partly as a matter of fairness, but also out of good common sense, is increase their salary--and substantially--if we want to maintain a steady supply of the very smartest, hard working, and most principled candidates for national political office. But that's not all I had in mind. Certainly, more money will attract more and better qualified candidates, and, as well, level the playing field enough for some members of Congress so that they won't be so quick to sell their vote to the highest bidder. But what's to keep others, you might well argue, from just taking the extra money and continuing on with business as usual?

I'll tell you what will stop them. Increased accountability. A level of accountability which is impossible to achieve with current salary levels. My thought on this, you see, is that we don't just give them a big increase in salary and leave it at that. Instead, let's pay them half the total amount as an annual salary, and put the rest in an interest bearing account to be distributed as a bonus at the end of their term; with the final percentage of this bonus to be determined by the voters at election time. Whether they are up for reelection or not, then, the names of all current office holders will appear in a separate column on the ballot. Thus the voters will get a chance to determine how much of this bonus we think they're entitled to. In this way, you see, the voters can hold them accountable for their actions during their entire term of office.

If you think about it, this is similar to what happens in private industry. CEOs and other top managers are generally awarded large bonuses depending upon how well they run their corporations. In our case, however, the award is made at the end of an elected term of office rather than annually. And the size of it is determined by the voters.

As to how much we should pay them, I recently put that question at dinner one night to an old friend, a highly successful business man, now retired. I asked him what the going rate is--salary and bonuses and so forth--for the CEO of a fairly large, say a billion dollar, company or corporation. When I suggested it might be around a million dollars he was quick to say it would be more than that. Indeed, he said, there never seems to be enough of these people to go around, thus the competition in the business world for really good managers at that level is particularly fierce. Furthermore, he pointed out, since such a manager can make a difference of tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in company profits, multi-million dollar compensation packages are standard in today's business world.

I then pointed out to him that we currently pay our U.S. Representatives and Senators around $150,000 a year each, and the President $200,000, to manage a 2 trillion dollar budget. Since $2 trillion works out to be about $4 billion for each of the 500+ members of Congress plus the President and Vice President, this seemed to me to be but a fraction of what we should be paying them. Continuing on with this line of reasoning, I suggested that if we were to pay them each, say, $2 million per year, with half as an annual salary and the other half placed in an escrow account to be distributed as a bonus according to the voters wishes at the end of each politician's term in office, it seemed to me that this, for a number of good solid reasons, would be in the best interests of our country and its voters.

Following are the reasons we discussed that night.

1. By paying our national politicians a better salary, they don't have to be so dependent on campaign contributors and lobbyists for money which most of them legitimately need. After all, even with outside funding, running for office is expensive, as is moving back and forth to Washington D.C. , or trying to maintain households both in Washington and in their home state, which some would like to do for family reasons. That's why running for national office is getting to be more and more for the rich, and not necessarily for the most talented. This is not to say there won't be those still taking money for political favors. It's not a perfect world out there. But there shouldn't be as many of them doing it, so the big contributors and lobbyists are bound to lose much of their control over the political process.
2. By approving their bonuses after their term of office is completed, the voters maintain considerable accountability while the politicians are in office.
3. By paying them more along the lines of what they're worth, and by changing the rules of the game for the better, such that the good guys are rewarded and not the other way around, our politicians are bound to approach their jobs with a more positive outlook.
4. For all these same reasons more high quality people should be attracted to political office.
5. Even if every politician managed to get the entire $2 million a year, which probably wouldn't happen, we're only paying the entire U. S. Congress plus the President and Vice President a total of a little more than $1 billion. Which is about 1/20th of 1percent of the total U.S. annual budget. If you think about it, corporate welfare alone is thought to be around $100 billion every year. A Congress with a better attitude could easily cut one or two percent off of that. More than enough to pay their salaries. Considering the fact that they might easily save us many more billions of dollars in other parts of the budget as well, this is a winning situation all around.
6. The percentage of eligible voters actually voting is continually dropping. Worse yet, the argument can be made that it is the middle-of-the-road voters who are dropping out in the greatest numbers. Thus we see a continual decrease in those members of Congress who practice the art of compromise, with their places taken by those who practice instead the politics of polarization and paralysis. With this new method of greatly increased accountability, keeping track of what our politicians are doing in Washington--and voting itself--should be a lot more interesting. And more satisfying as well.
7. And all this without any more laws.

As an example, let's say a U.S. Representative completes a 4-year term of office and his or her name comes up on the ballot (whether running for office again or not) so that the voters can determine how much bonus money should be awarded. Which, by the way, I suggest should be tax free. After all, we can let that money draw interest to partly offset the tax loss. And, besides, that way we would all know after each election just how much each vote was worth. Over a four year period, then, $4 million would be sitting in the kitty for that particular Representative. Let's say that in one case the voters really liked the politician such that 75% of the voters approve the bonus. That's $3 million. Then take the opposite case where the politician was not very popular by the end of the term. Maybe he or she was caught giving out special tax breaks to their pals. Or just partying too much. So that only 25% voted for the bonus. In that case the politician would get only $1 million. That's a cool $2 million down the drain for voter aggravation. A lot more than that individual politician is likely to get from a lobbyist. And it's all his or her personal income, with no strings attached.

What do you think?