We’re generally in favour of making politicians eat their own dogfood, whenever it’s possible.
If Congress is going to pass something called “bankslaughter” (essentially making failed bank executives criminally liable), then we’d like to see them held liable when a law turns out to be a big mistake.
And if we’re going to pass a public health plan, and if it’s going to be so good, then how about these Congressmen commit to joining it?
So we’re philosophically in agreement with Sean Braswell at The Stimulist who proposes performance for Congressmen, just as they’d like to see in more of the private sector. Braswell suggests bonuses be doled out based on approval ratings, and also things like economic performance/jobs created within their particular district.
But really, that’s the problematic part. Paying Congressmen to create jobs in their district would create an even bigger incentive to pass wasteful pork — expect more unneeded fighter planes than we have now. Even growth, which we think of as a “good” is only good if it doesn’t come at the expense of long-term economic health (see: the financial crisis).
If anything, we’d like to see Congressmen rewarded for not shoveling cash indiscriminately to the home district, and not engaging in short-term data-enhancing economic measures. But how the heck do you measure that? When someone has an idea, let us know, and we’ll be all in favour of pay-for-performance in Congress.
NOW WATCH: Money & Markets videos
Business Insider Emails & Alerts
Site highlights each day to your inbox.