>Ronn Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>The point of the above is that many politicians are treated so well as a
>>result of their positions that they have little or no idea of what their
>>average constituent goes through on a daily basis. Is that what we want,
>>or would we prefer that the politicians be familiar with the everyday life
>>of the common person?
At 09:06 15-02-01 -0800, Joshua wrote:
>Honestly, if I am selecting a single person to represent me in national or
>regional decisions, I'd prefer slightly higher taxes to ensure that they
>can remain focused on their job and not the minutia. Similarly, I expect
>my manager to delegate tasks to me.
>
>Again, though, when we say "politician", how many people are we talking
>about? I think of elected officials and their appointees (e.g. everyone
>who left with Clinton). Is that more than 40,000 in the US, all the way
>down to the county level? (And I don't think the "perks" of being
>job-focused (the same perks that CEOs employ) extend all the way down to
>your local county sheriff.)
You are clearly not familiar with what goes on at state and local levels in
many areas. If you remember "The Dukes of Hazzard," the character of "Boss
Hogg" was funny because he was only a slight exaggeration of the real thing
found in some jurisdictions: an elected official who runs his county like
a fiefdom, and who has so much accumulated money and power that no opponent
has a chance against him at election time.
-- Ronn! :)
