Pay-for-Performance for Elected Officials?

[n_huffhines]

Economist Art Laffer briefly addresses this idea of pay-for-performance. I think it's a really interesting concept. Do you like the idea? How would you like to see it structured?

So I think it should mostly be budget related. That's the only way I foresee that you could design an objective program. So maybe your governor is entitled to a bonus if the state has a surplus. His bonus would be a % of that surplus. If he raises taxes, his bonus % will fall. If he lowers taxes it raises. He'll be driven by profit maximization. That doesn't mean he'll just cut spending everywhere, because profit maximization includes maintaining office, so he has to keep people happy.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI7-uoAagBI&feature=plcp&context=C4b0ec80VDvjVQa1PpcFMsXKQpaSUcD9RmUZtOETvQSjQDsgVQ4p4%3D[/youtube]

 

[Gramps]

Lobbiest have them on a-pay-for-performance system now.

 

[utvolpj]

problem with that is the people judging performance

I would prefer to treat them like a scholarship football player. Free room, meals, transportation and a small stipend. Everything else is on their own dime

 

[n_huffhines]

problem with that is the people judging performance

I would prefer to treat them like a scholarship football player. Free room, meals, transportation and a small stipend. Everything else is on their own dime

It sounds nice, but IMO that just encourages them to make shady deals with special interest groups. That likely produces a much worse result from the perspective of the tax payer. Even if I don't think the Governor might deserve a $1 million bonus, it's still better than spending the $50 million we ended up with in surplus (or whatever).

 

[utvolpj]

I don't necessarily view a surplus as a positive. It shows you took too much money from your citizens. Set a budget and learn to stick to it

as for the shady deal, we can just create an NCAA for the govt. Problem solved

 

[n_huffhines]

I don't necessarily view a surplus as a positive. It shows you took too much money from your citizens. Set a budget and learn to stick to it

as for the shady deal, we can just create an NCAA for the govt. Problem solved

Really? The solution to out of control government is a new government body?

 

[utvolpj]

ummm that was a joke.

however we can make their terms one year contracts that can be revoked (just like a scholly)

I'm still not sure how the solution of an out of control govt is to pay them more money. Sounds like our approach to education that has worked so well

 

[n_huffhines]

ummm that was a joke.

however we can make their terms one year contracts that can be revoked (just like a scholly)

I'm still not sure how the solution of an out of control govt is to pay them more money. Sounds like our approach to education that has worked so well

Do we elect principals and teachers? They have the best job security in the world. It's not the same.

 

[davethevol]

Unfortunately the political system is so corrupt at this point that the only real way to fix would be through creating a new system or firing everyone at nearly every level. The system is broken.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

Repealing the 17th amendment would be a good start.

 

[n_huffhines]

So nobody likes this idea? Am I the only person that believes an incentive system would create better results?

 

[utvolpj]

Do we elect principals and teachers? They have the best job security in the world. It's not the same.

ok.... what I meant was throwing money at a problem does nothing to fix it. Paying a person for running a "surplus" fixes almost nothing just like throwing money at education does nothing. They will still figure out a way to job the system

anyway I'm out since we seem to be having communication problems

 

[n_huffhines]

ok.... what I meant was throwing money at a problem does nothing to fix it. Paying a person for running a "surplus" fixes almost nothing just like throwing money at education does nothing. They will still figure out a way to job the system

anyway I'm out since we seem to be having communication problems

That's why I included an incentive to shrink tax revenue. If he can deliver a big surplus while shrinking tax revenue, he will actually get a larger % of the surplus. I must not have communicated that well, either.

 

[Weezy]

There are people out there that do believe government should be performing certain acts and some that believe in all out big government. To give bonus for shrinking government while only rewarding government actions with re-elections would give preference to small government thinking.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but it would essentially redefine US government, imo.

 

[n_huffhines]

There are people out there that do believe government should be performing certain acts and some that believe in all out big government. To give bonus for shrinking government while only rewarding government actions with re-elections would give preference to small government thinking.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but it would essentially redefine US government, imo.

I don't think it gives preference to small government. The way our current government is structured gives preference to large government, which is why it's had large and steady growth since day 1. I think this would be leveling the playing field. Politicians have relatively no incentive to make government small. This would introduce that incentive. This doesn't mean a governor wouldn't ever grow government. If that's what the people demand, he'll have to do it to maintain office.

 

[Weezy]

I don't think it gives preference to small government. The way our current government is structured gives preference to large government, which is why it's had large and steady growth since day 1. I think this would be leveling the playing field. Politicians have relatively no incentive to make government small. This would introduce that incentive. This doesn't mean a governor wouldn't ever grow government. If that's what the people demand, he'll have to do it to maintain office.

IMO, that's what should keep it small as well. You shouldn't add an incentive to small government. To me, what you are suggesting is interference with democracy similar to government intrusion into markets by adding incentive to get what you want.

If the people want large government they will keep electing large government officials. Eventually the people will either prosper or change their ways.

 

[n_huffhines]

(1) IMO, that's what should keep it small as well. You shouldn't add an incentive to small government. (2) To me, what you are suggesting is interference with democracy similar to government intrusion into markets by adding incentive to get what you want.

If the people want large government they will keep electing large government officials. Eventually the people will either prosper or change their ways.

(1) It would if there weren't such a thing as special interest groups. The whole system is structured for rent-seeking. Like DTH mentioned, direct election of Senators was a change to the system that interfered with our republicanism. (2) We aren't supposed to be a democracy, we are a republic. And if it's democratically approved, would you consider it to be interfering with democracy?

 

[milohimself]

Baker, no amount of money we could pay elected officials would be able to turn off the appeal of big time campaign dollars and a seven figure salary once they leave dc.

One thing alone won't do it. At the very minimum, contribution disclosure, term limits and a multi year 'cooling off' period after their final term to at least slow the revolving door between the hill and k street.

 

[n_huffhines]

Baker, no amount of money we could pay elected officials would be able to turn off the appeal of big time campaign dollars and a seven figure salary once they leave dc.

One thing alone won't do it. At the very minimum, contribution disclosure, term limits and a multi year 'cooling off' period after their final term to at least slow the revolving door between the hill and k street.

What about politicians on the margin? Maybe 50% of governors go into office with truly good intentions, and eventually justify selling out. If even half of them decide not to sell out because this incentive satisfies them, I think it would be worth it.

 

[milohimself]

Unfortunately, thats not how it works most of the time. Usually, an elected office holder has already 'sold out' well in front of being elected. The system is generally closed to those who won't play ball.

 

[Gramps]

Unfortunately, thats not how it works most of the time. Usually, an elected office holder has already 'sold out' well in front of being elected. The system is generally closed to those who won't play ball.

Sad but true.

 

[PKT_VOL]

It is wishful thinking. Idealism vs. Realism. There are more practical ways to right the ship.

 

[n_huffhines]

It is wishful thinking. Idealism vs. Realism. There are more practical ways to right the ship.

Maybe, but will they ever be attempted? Speaking of realism. Nobody wants to right the ship. That's what I wanted to change, specifically. Give them an incentive to right it.

Without the incentive, you can bet it all that nothing will change.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Maybe, but will they ever be attempted? Speaking of realism. Nobody wants to right the ship. That's what I wanted to change, specifically. Give them an incentive to right it.

Without the incentive, you can bet it all that nothing will change.

I agree with you. However, the only realistic catalyst will be a revolution of some sort. Something like tea party (originally) on steroids. Such an event is contingent upon a efficient cause. The efficient cause would have to be economic in nature (basically an economic catastrophe of sorts).

The good news is that the house of cards is going to eventually collapse. It is only a matter of time. The political revolution will follow. America has a history of letting the sh*t hit the fan then quickly getting its act together.

 

[RespectTradition]

Here in Tennessee, our current Governor is Haslam and the one before him was Bredesen. Bredesen is so rich he didn't take his salary as governor. I don't know if Haslam is or not, but he is wealthier than Bredesen I believe.

I think this kind of thing applies to a lot of governors nowadays.

Can an economic incentive such as you are suggesting really mean anything?

What about this? Amend state constitutions so that if the state runs a deficit two years out of three, then no one serving as governor or in the legislature during those two years can stand for reelection.

Or this? Amend state constitutions so that tax increases only apply to people living in districts where the representatives vote in favor of it and not in districts where the rep votes against it.