...that a revolving door government like the one we have now (and have had for awhile now, for that matter) doesn't really help anyone except those in the revolving door? And that reforms are necessary? I would imagine that conservatives and liberals would at least agree with the core of the idea that corruption is bad, even if they want to institute different types of measures to limit it.
Corruption is bad, how to deal with effectively is an the million dollar question. I'm curious as to your ideas on how you would limit corruption in the Government.
It looks to me that corruption tends to increase the longer a person is in office. So until we have better ways to deter or uncover corruption, term limits is about the only tool we have to limit it.
I really wouldn't know how to do it effectively. I live in New Jersey which is effectively the most corrupt state in the union (besides maybe Illinois) and can attest that its been a cesspool of graft and corruption for at least thirty-five years. The contagion is so widespread on EVERY level of the government here, but I'm more specifically referring to the guys who walk through the revolving door between the Federal government, academia and Wall Street. Rick Rubin and Larry Summers are prime examples of such sh!tbags. I would say one possible solution is to put serious restrictions on the amount of time a contracting official has to wait before joining a corporation or their board. One year is certainly not enough and I'm not sure even three would do much help. I would say at least five. However, the high-level officials don't even have to wait that long; they walk straight through the door without waiting at all. This is the first thing I think needs to be addressed.
I agree although terms that are too short will ensure a different kind of corruption. We need to try to find some middle-ground that helps make elected officials accountable while reducing the potential for corruption.
