Resign to Run, why not?

[EZC-Boston]

I don't come into PPP land much if at all but I wanted to get some opinions from folks here. My dad was telling me they had this in Florida and then I read the following from today's Tuesday Morning Quarterback on ESPN.com Page 2. It makes a lot of sense and I think would make primary season a lot better.

 

Is there any chance of this ever being put into play at the federal level?

 

 

Of Course They Vote for More Subsidies, They Themselves Are Subsidized: In the spring, as a dozen Democratic and Republican officeholders were crisscrossing the country campaigning for presidential nominations yet still receiving taxpayer money for jobs they were making no pretense of performing, TMQ declared there should be a federal resign-to-run law. Several states now have resign-to-run laws: They prevent officeholders from taking tax-funded salaries while not doing their jobs. Why is it assumed that saying the words, "I am running for president" makes it OK for a senator to pull in $200,000 or so per year in pay and benefits, yet perform no duties? If you told your employer you would not perform your duties for a year because you were running for president, yet still expected full pay, your employer would say two words that are not "Merry Christmas." Now we're down to four White House-seeking freeloaders, and both parties look bad. All three senators are billing the federal taxpayer to self-promote around the clock; the governor is billing her state's taxpayers to self-promote around the clock. Either presidential candidates should be required to resign to run, or at least anyone who declares for the presidency or vice presidency should have his or her public salaries and benefits suspended.

[Chilly]

I think its a terrible idea.

 

Forcing candidates to resign causes vacancies at huge posts, requiring costly special elections, and tipping the balance of power one way or the other temporarily (not the way people voted for it). In addition, you are punishing a district by removing their voice because their candidate has higher ambitions. And yes, on important issues, candidates such as McCain and Obama will still fly to DC to vote.

 

Officeholders already spend a good 1/3rd to 1/2 of their time campaigning and fund-raising anyway.

[DC Tom]

I think its a terrible idea.

 

Forcing candidates to resign causes vacancies at huge posts, requiring either costly special elections, and tipping the balance of power one way or the other temporarily (not the way people voted for it). In addition, you are punishing a district by removing their voice because their candidate has higher ambitions. And yes, on important issues, candidates such as McCain and Obama will still fly to DC to vote.

 

Officeholders already spend a good 1/3rd to 1/2 of their time campaigning and fund-raising anyway.

 

I like it, because it'll make campaigns that much more entertaining.

 

"My esteemed opponent, former Senator Moneygrubber, didn't even complete his last senate term. He quit on his constituency. Is this the kind of man you want for President?"

 

 

On the down side...there's the simple fact that if you applied that rule fairly, every incumbent would have to quit office to seek another term.

[Chilly]

On the down side...there's the simple fact that if you applied that rule fairly, every incumbent would have to quit office to seek another term.

 

No way it'd get enforced for people running for re-election though, adding to the incumbency advantage.

[molson_golden2002]

I like it, because it'll make campaigns that much more entertaining.

 

"My esteemed opponent, former Senator Moneygrubber, didn't even complete his last senate term. He quit on his constituency. Is this the kind of man you want for President?"

 

 

On the down side...there's the simple fact that if you applied that rule fairly, every incumbent would have to quit office to seek another term.

Which brings us to the issue of term limits. Seems to work for the executive branch, why not for the legislative side?

[blzrul]

Term limits and line-item vetoes could solve a number of problems.

[Chilly]

Which brings us to the issue of term limits. Seems to work for the executive branch, why not for the legislative side?

 

Yeah, I agree that term limits would overall be a good thing, but you're asking career politicians to basically end their careers.

[DC Tom]

Term limits and line-item vetoes could solve a number of problems.

 

And cause others. Be careful what you wish for.