Do you think that we would have better schools and better foreign policy if....?

Question

we required anyone holding a public office to 1) serve in active duty and 2) send their children to public schools?

I ask this becuase it appears to me that the people who are making the decisions for the public aren't actually required to deal with the consquences of those decisions.

Ex #1: Our governor (in Michigan) is going to drastically cut our educational budget this year - but her kids are in private school - so the cuts won't affect her.

Ex #2: while this has been tough to research, it is not apparent that anyone in the House of Representatives or the Congress has a child currently enlisted in the military. Same with the President and his cabinet members. Don't you think that if the lives of their children were on the line that foreign policy would be more carefully dictated?

Thanks all for the input!

Derek: where can I find that sort of information - I'd actually like to pursue this line of thought some more, but how can I find out which politicians have children who serve?

Answer 1

Some of your statistics are wrong. You watch too much Michael Moore. To start with, check out representatives Tim Johnson, Duncan Hunter, and Joe WIlson (all 3 had children in Iraq). Mark Kennedy and John Ashcroft also have children in the war theatre. (By the way, all of them are republican representatives, if that matters to you) Many more have children that are stateside or reservist. My attached source lists 7 (out of 535 congressmen)

In fact, the percent of military children to congressional leaders is far higher than the percentage of military children in the general population (surprising, since the congressmen have no control over their children's decisions) Add in congress members that were themselves in the military (and many were in Vietnam or Korea, not WWII)., and your ex#2 is proven false.

Making policy makers send their kids to public school is an excellent idea. I'd like to go a step further. I think that a state or local public servant should be required to live in an "average" neighborhood, where the local population is of average income of the area they represent. But don't blame the governor, blame your state reps for a bad budget.

The trouble with either idea is that you would discourage the candidates of the highest potential. While being "above average" tends to insulate one from the problems of the people, persons that are successful administrators and leaders tend to make more money. (Face it, most national politicians are millionaires) Taking away privileges such as private school would simply scare many (not all) earnest leaders into avoiding politics, instead of using their skills for the good of the community. So I think a rule such as this would lead to less effective leaders (in general), not better ones.

Sorry, my source is a little dated, but it's all I have time to do

Answer 2

Last I heard, I think there was one or two that had children serving in the military.

As for your governor, granted, her kids won't be affected by the cuts, but if Michigan is like Colorado, then the school system is funded by property taxes, so she's paying for school from which she draws no direct benefit, and she's paying again for a private school.

In answer to your question, I think it's ALWAYS a great idea to arrange things such that those making the rules are impacted by them.

I heard of a produce distribution company that located the overflow area for the produce the buyers bought right next to the buyers, so if they bought too much and the produce in the overflow area started to rot, the buyers would gently be encouraged not to buy so much next time.

Everything in life, especially politics, should be so arranged, don't you think?

Just comes from reading the newspaper and watching the news. Looks like Freebird's got ya covered.

Answer 3

I agree with you. Especially with #2

Answer 4

i like your question very much
i definitely agree with what you said
there should be a policy that forces politicians to follow the tried and tested path

Answer 5

you have it in a nutshell......

different rules apply for the privileged, or for those who can afford to buy their own set of laws.........