Comments on: Politicians and public servants

By: Brother Mark

Brother Mark — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 03:54:09 +0000

Thank you Chad–I appreciate the comment and share Elaine’s disdain for politicians vs. statesmen and women. During the recent election, I got a kick out of the elected official that would do something about employment by sponsoring job fairs! A nice thought– but why would a company want to locate more jobs in Illinois right now? Labor follows capital not the other way around. A “chicken in every pot populism” sounds sweet to the hungry– but as an economic model it leads to fewer and fewer chickens if you have to tax the hen houses to pay for it…

By: Chad D. Walz

Chad D. Walz — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 17:58:50 +0000

Thank you Brother Mark, more people need to understand your comments. It is the only way our union will survive. Right now we have class warfare and that has never ended well, just read the history books!

By: Brother Mark

Brother Mark — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 13:16:16 +0000

NIce Blog E and thanks for the quote. The only point I would add is that the political process is always evolving — and thus what is needed from leadership (which is what we are suppose to be electing on our behalf) changes over time. Today our governments are huge by any sort of historical reckoning and have taken on all sorts of causes leaving taxpayers today little more than Surfs laboring to support the State. This is backward and the kiss of death — just look at Europe. In the past 10 years government has “created” more jobs than the private sector and today, federal non-military jobs pay 2x what the average citizen makes. The powerful public unions have insulated government from any meaningful form of productivity increases even as the private sector aggressively, continually restructures. The real weight of government gets heavier every year for taxpayers — even though deficit spending at the federal level and devaluing the currency by the mysterious Federal Reserve hide the immediate impact. The unfunded public sector retirement programs are enormous and excessively compensate our “public servants”. Teachers retiring with a pension that is the equivalent of more than $1mm in a private sector 401k is laughable for a 9 month a year job! Sorry teachers, but it is the truth!

This year our Federal government will spend $3.5 trillion dollars and take in about $2 trillion in taxes., tacking another $1.5 trillion on to our unsustainable debt which will soon reach $14 trillion. The gov’t is buying its own issuance to keep rates low despite the overwhelming supply of government IOUs hitting the market. Our social security taxes are immediately spent and each year gov’t IOU’s are dropped into the lock box — a strategy that is unsustainable as we rapidly approach that point when more boomers retire than pay in.

The way out this time is to radically reduce government across the board. By introducing term limits, reducing the honey pot for those serving, dramatically reducing the engagement of our government in our lives, and simplifying taxes and regulation — the interests of the public will be met. The path we are on is so off kilter — small changes are nearly meaningless. As an economics professor once told me…”just because the private sector does not handle a situation particularly well — what assurance is there that government involvement will make matters better”? Our public servants need to humbly acknowledge the limits of government before launching ever more complicated initiatives.

By: eirosie

eirosie — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 05:24:39 +0000

Awesome! I can’t imagine anyone disagreeing with your comparison. We so need more public servants.

By: Julie Devine

Julie Devine — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 19:30:04 +0000

Great post. I was dismayed after the primaries. Some great candidates lost simply because they didn’t have the same funding to get their message out. It’s a shame. What I would love to see happen will never happen…

I’d love it if when people headed to the polls, there were no official parties, and no names on the ballot. Instead, there would Candidate 1, 2, 3, etc. and 5 bullet points or answers to outstanding issues. People would vote for the candidate whose answers they agreed with the most. No candidate names; no parties; just the issues. And no need for the ridiculous waste of money spent on political campaigns. Candidates elected based on their merits and stances; not how much money their campaign had, political endorsements, etc.

By: Earl

Earl — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 17:20:29 +0000

What I meant to say was open primary not open ballot, so that the voter does not have to commit to one political party.

By: DoctorJ

DoctorJ — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:59:13 +0000

Interesting that the minute the US got political parties (right after Washington’s presidency), many of the public servants that created this democracy turned into politicians. Jefferson and Adams turned from deeply respectful friends (with differing points of view) to bitter enemies during their respective presidencies. Only later in life did their friendship rekindle. If you ever have the chance, I recommend seeing a stage play that outlines the lifelong relationships between Jefferson and Adams (including Abigail). Have seen this in Williamsburg, VA with their local Jefferson character and the Adams characters (John and Abigail) from Boston. It uses their correpondence to weave a story of public servants who became politicians before reconciling — a very poignant story.

Interesting to note that John Quincy Adams (John’s son) eventually became President but was ineffective due to political bickering. He is the only US President that served in the Congress (the House) after his term in the White House. He probably accomplished more as a Representative than as President, and didn’t let the bickering ever sway his ideals. THAT is a public servant.

By: Elaine Johnson

Elaine Johnson — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 14:26:52 +0000

I felt the same way after watching “John Adams.” Almost incredulous that our founding fathers made such sacrifices to establish this nation. Another good one: “1776,” which is another McCullough book. The part about Henry Knox — a young bookseller — hauling 60 tons worth of cannons from Fort Ticonderoga to Boston is an amazing testament to courage and dedication to a seemingly unachievable cause. *Goosebumps*

By: DoctorJ

DoctorJ — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 06:01:13 +0000

Best thread ever EJ. The Doctor will be back tomorrow. This topic is fantastic. Your audience awaits you.

PS Bloggers – watch HBOs “John Adams” if you can to see how pathetic we have been. Evolution is slow/not-so-good

By: Earl "Open Ballot in Illinois Primary?"

Earl "Open Ballot in Illinois Primary?" — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 02:14:31 +0000

United States Government “… is a constitutional republic and representative democracy’” per Wikipedia. Just trying to clarify an early remark I made about democracy. I think an open ballot in the Illinois primary would encourage more voters to come to the ballots to cast their vote. On the other hand I never see Illinois ever doing that, some powerful counties in our state might just lose their political party strength.