What do we do when we want a better car, a better home or a better bottle of wine? We pay more for it. We definitely need a lot better crop of public officials. Yet we insist on paying flea market prices for people who will be spending trillions of tax dollars, not to mention making foreign policy that...
For the first time I can remember, I disagree with Dr. Sowell! Perhaps a pay increase is a good idea, but just putting the money out there is not the way to do it. How about, instead, paying for performance: continue paying their regular rate, but give them a bonus (divided by committee) for decreasing government expenditures with no corresponding reduction in service to the general welfare? Say, 5% or 10% of the total reduction spread over 5 years? We already have a program like that in place for government employees and military members, but with the bureaucratic spend-it-all budget mentality, these decreases rarely happen. Incentivizing elected officials to put the government on a diet would invert the current bloat-rewarding system.
Now that the National Football League has apparently learned that it can be costly to hire cheap officials, perhaps the rest of us should learn the same lesson when it comes to government officials, whose bad calls can do a lot more damage.
- Welfare reform is officially on life support in NYC Jazz Shaw 43 minutes ago
- Why won’t the White House explain how off-budget ObamaCare money got spent? Ed Morrissey 2 hours ago
- Are bans on high capacity magazines constitutional? Jazz Shaw 3 hours ago
- Quotes of the day Allahpundit 15 hours ago
- EPA exonerates Christie administration in obscure bridge-related offense someone made up Mary Katharine Ham 16 hours ago
- California energy companies are getting the heck outta’ dodge and moving to Texas Erika Johnsen 16 hours ago