US Politics: The Roll Call Heard Across America

[DMC]

16 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

One of my best friend's annual rent is over $35k, for example. 

Someone making ~100k should still be able to handle the cost of living at that rate all by herself.  SF is particularly expensive in certain areas, but in Cali cities - and all expensive cities throughout the country - there are places to find affordable housing (at least rental, yeah buying property is insanely difficult).  If you make ~100k and still need 4 to 5 roommates that presumably contribute an equal amount to rent and still have trouble "making ends meet," then you're simply living somewhere and/or have a lifestyle beyond your means.  The numbers don't add up otherwise.

16 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

This is all true, but for most people with the best intentions, a giant pay cut would stop them from seeking any office, especially in an expensive state.

If it dissuades people solely interested in making tons of money from seeking public office, all the better.

ETA:  Sorry, missed this - 

Quote

That's the rub. A lot of these positions should get paid a lot more as things are, but nobody wants to hear it. One way to fix some things without paying them more is to pass massive campaign finance reform while reducing the length of campaigns so they don't have to work insane hours fund raising and stumping. That would also likely lead to better candidates. 

No, they should not get paid a lot more.  Not only is that never going to happen because giving yourselves massive raises would be incredibly unpopular with your constituents, but salaries for public office should not be competing with private sector rates.  Talk about a great way to exacerbate corruption.

The obvious solution (and this is hardly anything new), as you mentioned, is to reduce the burden and time spent on campaigns so then, yes, they can focus their efforts on in-session/committee work and constituency service.

[Fez]

Good chance this is the rep that Kasich was hinting at earlier in the week (since it apparently wasn't Susan Molinari, she was a bonus one). Not the biggest news, maybe it swings a few hundred votes in PA? Maybe?

Knowing Dent is a good bubble marker. Everyone I know in DC knows who he is, and probably no one else in the country outside of his former district does.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Fez said:

Good chance this is the rep that Kasich was hinting at earlier in the week (since it apparently wasn't Susan Molinari, she was a bonus one). Not the biggest news, maybe it swings a few hundred votes in PA? Maybe?

Considering Dent's public statements since resigning, I kinda assumed he had already endorsed Biden.

[Ser Reptitious]

31 minutes ago, DMC said:

If it dissuades people solely interested in making tons of money from seeking public office, all the better.

Yup, a thousand times this!

Tywin mentioned in a previous discussion of this topic that he has an uncle (iirc) who Tywin thinks would be perfect for public office. But since that guy in his best year hauled in something like $100 million*, he clearly can’t be expected (according to Tywin) to settle for a ‘mere’ six figure salary. But here’s the rub: if that guy made that kind of money in a single year it probably means that he is a billionaire, or at least close to it. So if he is really interested in making the world a better place through public service, the salary should be completely irrelevant, because he wouldn’t be doing it for the money (and it’s not like he would need it). It’d be akin to working for a charity. You do it because you care about the cause.

 

 

 

*typing this somehow made me think of Austin Powers

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

The handful of people I'm friends who live in SD always talk about how expensive it is to live there and how even with good jobs they can't own property or save much money. Everyone's experience is different though. It was interesting looking up what qualifies as low income in the three cities. SD was actually surprisingly low, and LA was not as high as I expected (but there could be a few factors at play here), but SF was extremely high as expected. The thing I hear from all my friends and family in CA though is how damn expensive it is to live in or around the major cities. One of my best friend's annual rent is over $35k, for example. 

This is all true, but for most people with the best intentions, a giant pay cut would stop them from seeking any office, especially in an expensive state.

I'm at work, I had to skim it. 

And if we're being fair, technically most of them could claim it's a 24/7/365 job anyways. 

That's the rub. A lot of these positions should get paid a lot more as things are, but nobody wants to hear it. One way to fix some things without paying them more is to pass massive campaign finance reform while reducing the length of campaigns so they don't have to work insane hours fund raising and stumping. That would also likely lead to better candidates. 

Teachers getting better pay even if the pay still won't be near what they are worth would make for better teachers and thus better candidates.

[DMC]

Excerpts from Obama's prepared remarks tonight:

Quote

"I never expected that my successor would embrace my vision or continue my policies. I did hope, for the sake of our country, that Donald Trump might show some interest in taking the job seriously; that he might come to feel the weight of the office and discover some reverence for the democracy that had been placed in his care."

"But he never did. He’s shown no interest in putting in the work; no interest in finding common ground; no interest in using the awesome power of his office to help anyone but himself and his friends; no interest in treating the presidency as anything but one more reality show that he can use to get the attention he craves."

"Donald Trump hasn’t grown into the job because he can’t. And the consequences of that failure are severe. 170,000 Americans dead. Millions of jobs gone. Our worst impulses unleashed, our proud reputation around the world badly diminished, and our democratic institutions threatened like never before."

"Democracy was never meant to be transactional – you give me your vote; I make everything better. So I am also asking you to believe in your own ability – to embrace your own responsibility as citizens – to make sure that the basic tenets of our democracy endure. Because that’s what at stake right now. Our democracy."

 

[Zorral]

It's so seldom now in the last years and years we hear via the media anybody in the so-called realms of politics and power and money say anything that isn't full out bat shit insane that to hear rationality, compassion, acknowledgment that just about everything is seriously effed up, broken and corrupt seems ... almost unbelievable.  It's been that long. That. Long.

[DMC]

Peter Navarro accuses the Dems and the Chinese Communist Party of entering into a "common cause" to defeat Trump:

Quote

“What I think is happening here is that the Democrat Party and the Chinese Communist Party have entered into a common cause to defeat Donald J. Trump and their whole strategy, their whole strategy is based on blaming this administration for a global pandemic created by the Chinese Communist Party,” Navarro told reporters at the White House.

Heh.  You know what?  Fine.  Trumpists, you guys take the Russians, and we'll take the Chinese.  Let's see who wins.

[The Anti-Targ]

China probably prefers 4 more years of Trump. Why would China be keen on the USA rehabilitating its international reputation (and hence regaining influence in opposition to China's) and getting back on a democratic track? If the perception, and possibly reality, is that the USA has lost standing, power and influence on the international stage then that is all to the good for China.

The one reason China might want Trump out is if they think he's going to start a shooting war that directly hits China. But I don't China thinks that's at all likely.

Russia wanted / wants Trump because they think it weakens the USA. China would have the same perspective.

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

China probably prefers 4 more years of Trump.

That's not what the intelligence community currently thinks.  Logically, it makes sense that China would prefer stability rather than uncertainty and chaos for the American political system.  The regime does not have the same interests as Putin.  Putin wants to destabilize the west because he is in a weakened position economically and military.  The Chinese are not.  They want to keep the west stabilized so they can continue to make money off them.

[Horza]

casually boosting a cult that has murdered people and will do much worse should he lose in November 

[The Anti-Targ]

15 minutes ago, DMC said:

That's not what the intelligence community currently thinks.  Logically, it makes sense that China would prefer stability rather than uncertainty and chaos for the American political system.  The regime does not have the same interests as Putin.  Putin wants to destabilize the west because he is in a weakened position economically and military.  The Chinese are not.  They want to keep the west stabilized so they can continue to make money off them.

I don't know that I agree with this analysis, in that China's debt diplomacy expansionist strategy is greatly enhanced, or minimally disrupted by US weakness. And in any case, COVID aside, the US's domestic economy under Trump was not causing China any significant concerns in terms of money-making potential from the US market. It largely doesn't matter who the president is in terms of the domestic economy, there are much bigger forces at play (even in the absence of a pandemic) that influence the ebbs and flows of the US economy.  

I also disagree that China thinks Trump is unpredictable. I think he's entirely predictable, because everyone knows exactly how to push his buttons and can readily predict that Trump will respond in a nationalistic and personal self-interest manner. China is also a long-game thinker, and a very long grudge holder. So I don't think they are all that bothered with just 4 more years of Trump. If the USA did not have term limits for presidents maybe they would be worried about Trump being there for the next decade.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, The Anti-Targ said:

or minimally disrupted by US weakness.

There is a very important difference between weakness and destabilization.  As for China thinking Trump is unpredictable, of course they do - especially considering the trade negotiations with him over the past three and a half years.

[The Anti-Targ]

7 minutes ago, Horza said:

casually boosting a cult that has murdered people and will do much worse should he lose in November 

Has it murdered people? I thought it was certainly a bunch of cranks and crazies, but I wasn't aware it actually did physical harm to anyone.

[Zorral]

42 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Russia wanted / wants Trump because they think it weakens the USA.

They don't think that or want that, merely.  They've proven it -- THEY HAVE ACCOMPLISHED IT.

The US passport is useless.  The economy other than the competitive games of the bloated international corporate-capitalist plutocratic obscenities' is trashed, and likely not to come back at all, ever, since their guy plays silly buggers instead of working to contain the virus.  The Post Office?  The census? Elections? the boogaloos, Qanon, ICE, the police union has endorsed him, the DeVoses having their way with education and the military, etc.  Not to mention voting and elections.  .  You think that isn't destruction of the USA?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, DMC said:

Someone making ~100k should still be able to handle the cost of living at that rate all by herself.  SF is particularly expensive in certain areas, but in Cali cities - and all expensive cities throughout the country - there are places to find affordable housing (at least rental, yeah buying property is insanely difficult).  If you make ~100k and still need 4 to 5 roommates that presumably contribute an equal amount to rent and still have trouble "making ends meet," then you're simply living somewhere and/or have a lifestyle beyond your means.  The numbers don't add up otherwise.

 

They can add up quickly if you have kids, or a major health issue or whatever example you'd like that eats up a lot of your income.

Quote

If it dissuades people solely interested in making tons of money from seeking public office, all the better.

ETA:  Sorry, missed this - 

No, they should not get paid a lot more.  Not only is that never going to happen because giving yourselves massive raises would be incredibly unpopular with your constituents, but salaries for public office should not be competing with private sector rates.  Talk about a great way to exacerbate corruption.

I agree it won't happen, but that doesn't mean you can't argue that in a better world it should be that way. And as far as corruption goes, I'd be a lot more worried about what happens on the back end when they leave office than what would happen be getting a raise while in office.

@Ser Reptitious, for ease I'm just going to include you here, and for the most part you have the details right, but I should have included a lot of qualifiers, but it doesn't matter. In retrospect that was actually a terrible example. Let me try another. Say you have a family of five, with dual earning lawyers that collectively make $600k a year. Let's also assume both people make the same amount. Going from $300k to $100k  and thus from $600k to $400k may sound like a major first world problem, but when you start adding up the family's entire expenses, a 33% reduction in household revenue could cause major upheaval in the family which may not make it worth it to run, even if the person is passionate about helping people and badly wants to do it. Additionally it's possible that switching careers may actually increase the family's expenses, especially if said individual needs to rent a place and isn't home multiple days a week to help with the day to day life of being a parent. On paper the reduced salary doesn't seem that bad, but it could have a major negative impact on the family, and that's before you start to consider the realities of everyday life.

Worth noting, we're using the most generous state as our example. If you look up a list of how each state compensates its legislators, you'll see that a lot of places pay them rather poorly. Additionally, being a part-time or hybrid legislator can screw up your ability to make a good living when the legislative body is not in session.

Also, I agree that salaries shouldn't be exactly in line with the private sector, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't help attract better candidates. The pay shouldn't be the driver to seek office, but it's human to understand why some people just can't take such a significant reduction.

Quote

The obvious solution (and this is hardly anything new), as you mentioned, is to reduce the burden and time spent on campaigns so then, yes, they can focus their efforts on in-session/committee work and constituency service.

Regarding campaigning for a state House or Senate seat, I have an open question. It's still too early, but over the last few cycles I've noticed a number of TV ads for them. Are people seeing the same thing in other states? I helped run a state senator's campaign a decade ago, and the idea of trying to run ads on TV was laughable then, at least here.

2 hours ago, Zorral said:

Teachers getting better pay even if the pay still won't be near what they are worth would make for better teachers and thus better candidates.

I agree, and you could say the same for say, the police.... To be clear, I was advocating for a number of government positions to pay better so they attract better candidates. 

And if we get one positive thing from this pandemic, hopefully people will STFU about teachers being greedy because they are making legitimate asks for better pay. Parents with younger kids are bitching left and right about how hard it is to just teach their kids. Imagine a room stuffed with 30+ of these little monsters and how hard of a job it is.

[The Anti-Targ]

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

There is a very important difference between weakness and destabilization.  As for China thinking Trump is unpredictable, of course they do - especially considering the trade negotiations with him over the past three and a half years.

Agreed, and in the case of China's interests in the USA they are in conflict. China wants a (international relations) weak but (economically) stable USA. The whole China calculus will be on whether there is a net gain (greater value from international weakness vs cost of instability) from Trump being in vs Biden. IMO China will see its interests better advanced by 4 more years of weakening US geopolitical influence and would be willing to accept some further instability as the cost.

Trump's unpredictability is overblown by domestic US analysts who are not in the bag for Trump, and they project that perspective on the thinking of trading partners and economic rivals. In our trade negotiations divisions Trump's unpredictability doesn't get a mention. It really is not relevant.

[Horza]

20 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Has it murdered people? I thought it was certainly a bunch of cranks and crazies, but I wasn't aware it actually did physical harm to anyone.

In their own idiosyncratic way, Q people have started murdering folks, including a Gambino mob boss for some reason.

They’ve also started going nuts about child custody cases and working to assist with child kidnappings. None of that could possibly go wrong.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

@The Anti-Targ, DMC is right. And he specifically hit the point here:
 

Quote

They want to keep the west stabilized so they can continue to make money off them.

One of the major drivers of China's behavior is to keep their economy stable and growing, and the best way to do that is to have ties with the West, even if they have no interest in moving to a system that more reflects ours. There's a great fear in the Communist Party that if there's an economic collapse, hundreds of millions of people will rise up and overthrow the current government. As far as I can tell, big picture, they don't care which party is in charge of any Western nation so long as the money keeps flowing. Trump presents an active risk to this due to his erratic behavior. If he came into office demanding reform in trade and then negotiated in good faith with them, they probably wouldn't care who wins in November. 

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

They can add up quickly if you have kids, or a major health issue or whatever example you'd like that eats up a lot of your income.

Yeah it's real tough living off of $100k a year.  And they don't make good yachts anymore.  You sound ridiculous.

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I agree it won't happen, but that doesn't mean you can't argue that in a better world it should be that way. And as far as corruption goes, I'd be a lot more worried about what happens on the back end when they leave office than what would happen be getting a raise while in office.

What's the argument for why it "should" be that way?  To attract the greediest motherfuckers among us to elected office?  Sounds pretty stupid to me.

11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

If you look up a list of how each state compensates its legislators, you'll see that a lot of places pay them rather poorly. Additionally, being a part-time or hybrid legislator can screw up your ability to make a good living when the legislative body is not in session.

Hybrid and especially part-time legislators are paid less because generally they are rarely in session nearly as much as a full-time legislature would be.  They have plenty of time and opportunities to pursue alternative means of income, and if you don't they do you really don't know much about state legislatures.