Comments on: Behavioral Economics (And Congressional) Failings http://weakonomics.com/2010/07/20/behavioral-economics-and-congressional-failings/ Everything That's Wrong With You And Your Money Wed, 23 May 2012 01:09:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Chris http://weakonomics.com/2010/07/20/behavioral-economics-and-congressional-failings/comment-page-1/#comment-4494 Chris Fri, 06 Aug 2010 22:55:23 +0000 http://weakonomics.com/?p=4636#comment-4494 I don't think term limits are the answer. Unfortunately from a behavioral perspective it might make things worse. The problem is aligning politicians with the good of the citizens, not the good of their "campaign" donors. Term limits do nothing to decrease the need for those bribes, oops, campaign contributions, to get elected. The solution is to only allow individuals that can vote in a particular election to contribute to a politician or election. Think about it, whether its corporations, unions, political parties or other special interests, all that money alligns the politicians with their interest. By only allowing "Voters" to contribute, it forces the politician to reach out to their constituents. This works at the local level as you dont have to worry about out of state interests trying to get legislation passed in their interest, whether its the Mormon Church from Utah contributing to Prop 8 or real estate developers contributing to politicians willing to use eminent domain so they can develop condos. Until you get money out of the equation, nothing else will change. In fact, by putting term limits, you increase the chance that the politician will need those contributions even more for the next office they run for. Remember, a senator, after term limits will just run for congress, or president, or governor or mayor. You get the point. I don’t think term limits are the answer. Unfortunately from a behavioral perspective it might make things worse. The problem is aligning politicians with the good of the citizens, not the good of their “campaign” donors. Term limits do nothing to decrease the need for those bribes, oops, campaign contributions, to get elected. The solution is to only allow individuals that can vote in a particular election to contribute to a politician or election.

Think about it, whether its corporations, unions, political parties or other special interests, all that money alligns the politicians with their interest. By only allowing “Voters” to contribute, it forces the politician to reach out to their constituents. This works at the local level as you dont have to worry about out of state interests trying to get legislation passed in their interest, whether its the Mormon Church from Utah contributing to Prop 8 or real estate developers contributing to politicians willing to use eminent domain so they can develop condos.

Until you get money out of the equation, nothing else will change. In fact, by putting term limits, you increase the chance that the politician will need those contributions even more for the next office they run for. Remember, a senator, after term limits will just run for congress, or president, or governor or mayor. You get the point.

]]> By: My Fat Tax | Weakonomi¢s http://weakonomics.com/2010/07/20/behavioral-economics-and-congressional-failings/comment-page-1/#comment-4414 My Fat Tax | Weakonomi¢s Wed, 21 Jul 2010 14:53:45 +0000 http://weakonomics.com/?p=4636#comment-4414 [...] updates from Weakonomics.com.Powered by WP Greet Box WordPress PluginYesterday, I wrote about how behavioral economics doesn’t seem to do much for getting people to be smarter about what they&.... But because policy is so hard to implement, politicians don’t try to do introduce the kind [...] [...] updates from Weakonomics.com.Powered by WP Greet Box WordPress PluginYesterday, I wrote about how behavioral economics doesn’t seem to do much for getting people to be smarter about what they&…. But because policy is so hard to implement, politicians don’t try to do introduce the kind [...]

]]>