Avatar feed
Responses: 1
MSgt Steve Sweeney
2
2
0
Edited >1 y ago
Great post! The problem being is that the lawmakers would have to pass the law that would prohibit lawmakers from holding or trading stocks, and that certainly isn't likely to happen. The same with mandatory term limits (which I do not necessarily agree with).

And then there is Crenshaw's argument that "no one would run for Congress" because there is no way to "better themselves". I disagree. There would likely still be people that run, but their motives would be different. Likely more idealistic and less profit centric.

Which then gets back to not agreeing with mandatory term limits... If increasing personal wealth is not the prime motive, how many of these people are there that could still be effective and competent representatives? If, in the rose colored glasses scenario, you could pass a law that prohibited congress critters from owning stocks (to include participation in hedge funds), and they were an effective representative, and they are the person the voters wanted, why would you want some arbitrary time limit on their service?
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close