In the 1960s, Moscow inaugurated special “ZiL Lanes” or “Chaika Lanes.” Named after the Soviet limousines reserved for high government officials (the ZiL was a copy of the ’63 Lincoln, the Chaika a copy of the ’56 Packard) these were roads that, like the limousines, were reserved for high government officials. ZiL Lanes allowed the Nomenklatura to whiz from the Kremlin to their country dachas in comfort, while their inferior comrades were stuck in jams on the Kutuzovsky Prospect. The Soviets built several ZiL Lanes, and the one along the Kutuzovsky Prospect is still in use today serving Putin’s pals.

Earlier Americans took a different approach. A possibly apocryphal story of George Washington’s inaugural ball has it that someone had brought him a stool or podium to speak from, but the general feeling in the room was that the president—even Washington—was just a man like the rest of them and so the stool was taken away. Today, of course, even the mayor of New York gets to stop traffic for his convoy, and they are building a permanent fence around the people’s house in Washington, D.C. to keep the people from getting too close. Bill De Blasio also built a wall around the mayor’s mansion on the Upper East Side.

It’s beginning to sound more like Marxism than a new birth of freedom. Marxism, remember, is nothing but an aristocracy of the bureaucrats.

But how can you expect congressmen to remember that they are servants of the public when they earn more than three times the U.S. median income? When the Office of the Attending Physician will provide them with special emergency medical care for an annual fee of just $626.89? When their job comes with an average annual expense account of $1.4 million for representatives and $3.7 million for Senators? When their license plates allow them to park illegally, anywhere? When the last time they held a normal job was 40 years ago—or never?

Teddy Roosevelt was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for brokering the end of the Russo-Japanese War in 1905; he accepted the medal but turned down the money, not wishing to cash in on his office. Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 for becoming president and you better believe he took the cash. But that’s nothing compared to Obama’s $400,000 per event speaking fee (at least as of 2017).

It’s hard to find a single high-ranking public official, with the exception of Donald Trump, who has become effectively poorer during his time in office. Some have become much, much richer. Nancy “Marie Antoinette” Pelosi expresses her concern for struggling Americans while maintaining her own winery, two commercial properties, and two personal homes with a special freezer in one of them just for ice cream. The speaker’s salary is $223,500 a year (a $30,000 raise since 2018) but, of course, the bulk of her $100 million fortune comes from clever insider stock trades her husband executes in advance of favorable legislation. (A new set of these astonishing trades was executed just two weeks ago, Yahoo Finance reports.)

Perhaps it’s time we take our public servants down a notch or two, so we can look them in the eye. If our public services are so good, and our elected officials are so eager to lavish money on those public services, why are the same elected officials so eager to avoid using them? How many congressmen take the bus to work or send their kids to public schools?

Much more.....

https://amgreatness.com/2021/02/09/congress-vs-normal-people/


And most of you believe these people can be trusted to demand an honest election, how naïve can you be? Our elected congress represent the campaign donors who pay for their re-elections. Not the voters who sent them to Congress!

Quote:


That is bugger all for someone with that level of responsibility. Most public servants serving under them would be on higher salaries and shorter hours. In business, people implicitly understand "pay peanuts, get monkeys" but for some reason this goes out the window with politics.

Jest wrote on Feb 13^th, 2021 at 9:45am:


So what?

Jest wrote on Feb 13^th, 2021 at 10:10am:


They make the most consequential decisions of anyone in the country. You don't pay someone a million dollars to swing a hammer.

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 13^th, 2021 at 10:51am:


I think its correct that in more recent times the American system (not the Australian system) has evolved to give a bit more independence to individual party members but at the end of the day it’s rare for individual party members to vote consistently against what the party dictates because the party provides the infrastructure and doner contacts through which they obtain the funds to win their seats and continue holding their seats. In fact we saw it very recently when AOC and her group campaigned to force a vote on Medicare for all and were not going to vote on Leader of the House (Pelosi) unless the House first voted for M4All. What happened? They went to water and did as the party dictated and voted for Pelosi and still there has not been a vote for M4All. Why? Because the Parties control their members and the Powers Elite control both parties to ensure that nothing much changes and that the real decisions are made by the Power Elite.  Bernie Sanders is another good example. He's been an independent for much of his political life but to run for President he had to run as a democrat or have no chance of getting even as far as he did, which wasn’t very far despite the ground swell of support for his policies which the Party didn’t support and therefore was not going to succeed.

Most so called "Representatives" in politics in the Western world today are there for their careers because there is very little that they can actually do (even if they were inclined to and many are not) that is contrary to what has already been decided for them by a handful of people who control the party.

There is hardly a country today that doesn't claim to be a democracy and not one of them is. In Australia, where most of us are sure we're a democracy and most the others are not the vote for gay marriage was delayed for years (even though it was well know that it had huge majority support) and when they finally put it to the people we were told that the plebiscite was advisory only.

Our system of politics was never designed to be a democracy but rather just an elaborate show to make us feel that we have a meaningful say in the running of our lives when in truth we have no say at all.

Its the 21st century. The American Constitution was ratified in 1787. It was designed by the American aristocracy to keep power in the hands of the American aristocracy. But never the less some crumbs of benefit were sprinkled down the ranks to the plebs. But the system is old and tired and cant control the peasants as well as it used to because deep down people know that it doesnt really serve them. Its time for the next great leap forward

Jest wrote on Feb 13^th, 2021 at 2:54pm:


Sometimes yes.  American representatives have always been far more independent than Australian or British ones.  There are numerous examples of American representatives bucking the trend and voting against what the party wishes.  Recently with Trump's second impeachment there were several Republicans who votes against their party discipline and voted to impeach him.  There was some backlash but how much was considerably less than what would happen downunder.  Trump got impeached.  I don't believe he'll be convicted but there is always a possibility of Senators voting to do that.  His lawyers like him, were arrogant and that could count against him.  There are numerous examples of American representatives voting how they wanted, not how they party desired - quite often on issues of "race".

Quote:


It is quite hard to run as el Presidente' when an independent.  Sanders just bowed to the inevitable. 

Quote:


Again, doesn't work that way in the US.  The party members control the party there in a big way.  They all vote in the Primaries for their party to determine their candidates.  Downunder, only the Democrats experimented with that same process.  The others have all stuck with the sub-branch - satisfy them and they select you for their candidate, except of course for the small number who are "parachuted in" from high and sometimes even then, they are ignored.

Quote:


That a great deal more to do with internal Tory Party politics than it did with the popularity of the issue with the voters.  Tories were unwilling to back what they believed their members wanted.  Many of them also didn't support it.  What was required was a plebiscite - a proper referendum - the Tories tried to do it on the cheap, that's all and as a means to delay the inevitable.

Quote:


Well, when you look at the history of the Westminster Parliament you see that it started as a means of securing power for the aristocrats and the powerful and ended up being controlled by the people.  The same process occurred here.  The colonial parliaments were controlled by the rich and powerful.  Today they are controlled by the people.

Quote:


There hasn't been an Aristocracy in the US.  Tsk, tsk.  The US Constitution was the first written constitution.  The UK still lacks a constitution.  Australia copied what it believed were the best bits from the UK, the US, and Switzerland.  It appears to have worked.

freediver wrote on Feb 13^th, 2021 at 9:29pm:
The party machine. Oh and since I don't want them and believe they do more harm than good I wouldn't even pay them peanuts. 

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 13^th, 2021 at 4:40pm:

Exactly thats the point. The party system reigns you in. It reigned in AOC and her group and Sanders because they threatened party power (in the case of AOC) and fundamental party policy (in the case of AOC and Sanders). Those who operate outside of it or don't toe the line within it cant govern so that nothing changes and every 4 years they have their fan fair to pretend that the average Joe has some control when he has none.