Your points are well taken; however, rather than relying upon conjecture, we can actually look at research done at the state-level (where compensation of legislators, staff sizes, days in session, etc. vary considerably) and see that citizen legislatures (e.g., Texas General Assembly, Idaho legislature, Arkansas, New Hampshire, etc.) do not outperform more professionalized legislatures (e.g., California, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, etc.) in terms of legislation passed, greater efficiency, balancing the budget, etc. In fact, if you examine work by Thad Kousser, you will see that some unintended consequences of the citizen legislature is that interest groups have an even greater effect (since incumbency is wiped out and members have less experience and need assistance in figuring out how to perform their jobs; as someone who has worked in Congress, trust me when I say that lobbyists are all too ready to "help" you perform your job).
Also, it influences the composition of the legislature but not necessarily in a better way...think about it: if legislators only make $15,000 a year (every other year), who can afford to do this job? Independently wealthy businessmen who have an incentive to hold the position (since they can write legislation to benefit their industry/corporation); retired persons; the independently wealthy (like the Bush family) and persons with "flexible jobs." Who is less likely to serve in a "citizen legislature": those of us who cannot take a pay cut because we do not have a trust fund; parents and particularly women who bear the brunt of childcare; perhaps minorities (although I'm not sure much research has been done on this). Anyway, this will result in skewed policies...
The professional legislators are the ones I am directing my comments towards. At a federal level, there's a break down in minimal progress. Whereas citizen legislatures seem capable of meeting most deadlines.
I won't argue that, at a state level, professional legislators will serve with less bias and be more efficient than a part-timer, but at the federal level, this logic doesn't seem to apply
The point is that the institutional rules matter and influence legislative behavior and outcomes. You were suggesting that turning the US Congress into a less professionalized legislature (i.e., lowering congressional pay) would somehow result in better outcomes. I am showing that research on this subject does not support your claim. The only way to test your claim is to systematically compare legislative behavior and outcomes in professional legislatures (where legislators treat this as a full time job) and citizen legislatures (where legislators work part-time). Scholars have examined this and have found that interest groups have greater influence in part-time legislatures (since legislators themselves have fewer resources, staff, and time to research large-scale legislation on their own), productivity is not significantly greater in professional (full-time) legislatures, and you may actually see greater bias in policies based on who can serve in citizen legislatures (versus professional legislatures). This is not my "opinion" rather this is based on academic literature using careful analysis (and lots of data!).
Do you actually know any soldiers? Because I do, and they're conditioned to believe that what they're doing is what they're supposed to be doing. The whole "following orders" thing. Which has to happen, or they would go AWOL in droves. So yeah, I think your argument is ignorant.
No, not quite. We swear to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and donestic. And yes we follow orders, lawful orders. There might be a little brainwashing here and there, but if the implication is the military will brainlessly go after us citizens because they have orders, i would have to disagree.
::::comes out of lurking::: well. Listen to Jermys...she knows the military acronyms!!! She must know what she's talking about!!
The secret service is effective. Armed guards are not the secret service. I am not convinced that armed guards are effective for protecting schools. But at least it is a better talking point than arming teachers.
Totally agree. I love the Secret Service and they do a phenomenal job protecting many of our leaders and family members, whose lives are put at risk every day. And they are effective. But there's a bullet in James Brady's head that tells me they don't bat .1000. If a Secret Service detail can't keep all bullets out of every president's body all the time, I don't know how we can expect a single armed guard at the front door of a school to do any better.
I have no idea if this has been said, so I apologize in advance.. But it's not the President's choice to have guns protecting his children, or himself. It's the law. The President has no say in it. So.. doesn't that kind of make the NRA's argument invalid? I mean, the NRA is yelling about how guns are protecting the President's children, but for all we know, Obama wishes they weren't (though I doubt it), but hey, he might. But legally, he can't refuse the Secret Service's protection.
Why are you saying something rational? Don't you know KING OBAMA MAKES ALL THE RULES???
I'm still lol'ing at the idea that it would be preferable to have less well-educated people in Congress.
It's like the Cultural Revolution or something. That went well!
Hey Sonrisa, you should flip burgers, whilst Evee teaches our children. Ashbride, please go serve in government, and Miso, I WOULD like fries with that!
Post by karinothing on Jan 17, 2013 21:19:49 GMT -5
Okay, I admit to not reading everything. But I heard on NPR the other day that there were armed guards working at Columbine and they were unable to stop the gunmen. SO I am not really sure why people think the presence of armed guards will be the answer to everything.
i'm dead serious. what is your point? if you don't think that armed guards is necessarily the ultimate solution for a variety of reasons (including funding), and if you recognize the difference in threats to your kids v. the president's kids, what IS your point? no one should ever speak broadly about a desire to reduce threat of death?
i'm glad you and lhc had the patience, b/c i certainly wouldn't have.