Politicians should be paid commissions only – performance based compensation R1

Politicians should be paid commissions only – performance based compensation R1

I say that politicians should be paid - compensated on a performance based via commissions only, for example on every tax dollar that they save. Example, if a politician cuts government spending 1 Million dollars, the tax payers would pay him X% of 1 Million.

If it hits them in the pocket, they are going to be much more cautious how they spend our money.

A politician running for office should reimburse any matching funds after the election.

A politician should run the country like any non-profit corporation, with checks and balances, fiscal responsibility and not committing funds that our great grandchildren would have to pay.

Any politician who violates the oath of office will lose his job and forfeit his benefits and pension.

It is time we should hold our politicians accountable for their deeds and behavior, any deviation from honesty and ethics will be punished severely.

Honesty, integrity and accountability is the motto.

YJay Draiman

PS

We should not rush to give our money to foreign countries, if we do give, it is a loan and must be repaid; the loans should also be collateralized with real estate and assets of the receiving country.

Value-based Management of the Government

Value-based management makes an explicit link between a government's strategic and operating decisions and their impact on the country and its citizen’s benefits. It does so in part by aligning politicians incentives with citizens' interests.

Politicians should earn the public trust, which, in turn, is based on openness and accountability. Excessive compensation, self-dealing and hidden agenda’s are detrimental to earning public trust.

When a State took A GIANT STEP WHEN it INSTITUTED PERFORMANCE BASED COMPENSATION INSTEAD OF THE INFLEXIBLE CONSTRAINTS OF THE MERIT SYSTEM. OVER HALF OF the STATE EMPLOYEES ARE NOW EMPLOYED AND COMPENSATED BASED ON PERFORMANCE RATHER THAN STATUS. AND THAT NUMBER IS GROWING EVERY DAY. GOVERNMENT CAN NEVER HAVE THE FULL CONFIDENCE OF ITS PEOPLE IF IT DOES NOT KEEP IN STEP WITH THE REST OF SOCIETY.
PERFORMANCE BASED EMPLOYMENT IS NOT ONLY DESIRED IT IS ESSENTIAL IF STATES ARE GOING TO CONTINUE AS ECONOMIC GENERATORS OF PROSPERITY. BASED ON States EXPERIENCE, I ENCOURAGE other States IN ITS EFFORTS TO MODERNIZE ITS STATE WORKFORCE.

Just over 2 months ago, the National Commission on Public Service, known as the Volcker Commission, issued its report on how to revitalize the Federal Government. At about the same time, the President issued his fiscal 2004 budget proposal. Both documents contain bold recommendations to reshape the Civil Service:

The Volcker Commission, for example, suggests abolishing the General Schedule and allowing managers to base employees’ salaries on ‘‘competence and performance.’’ The White House’s budget proposal includes a $500 million Human Capital Performance fund to reward top performing employees, as well as a proposed shift of the entire Senior Executive Service to a pay-banding system.

More and more often, Federal agencies are seeking permission to develop a compensation system outside the General Schedule.

More than 20 percent of non-postal civil servants now work under alternate personnel systems according to the Volcker report, including those developed at the Federal Aviation Administration, the Internal Revenue Service and the General Accounting Office. In all of those examples, change in the compensation system was designed not merely as an end to itself but as a way to improve agency performance.

The GAO is here today and I am looking forward to hearing how the various pay for performance systems are working so far, including GAO’s own.

American concern about inefficiency in government dates back to the First Continental Congress. In the 200 years since then, reorganization plans have come and gone, but the fundamental structures of government departments have changed only infrequently, although their jurisdictions have changed constantly, and usually have grown. Recent politicians statements of Reinventing Government program is only the latest in a long series of plans to reorganize or reinvigorate the federal government.
One of the many devices proposed by politician’s is to create a "government that works better and costs less" is an often tried yet little- known type of government entity called a federal government corporation (FGC). Congress has created a new government corporation every year or so since World War II. It created the United States Enrichment Corporation in 1992, and the Corporation for National and Community Service (AmeriCorps) in 1993. Congress recently has considered new federal corporations for everything from aid to small businesses to the regulation of boxing, and is now considering proposals for a Technology Transfer and Commercialization Financing Corporation. Reinventing Government would add to the list by semi-privatizing much of the Federal Aviation Administration into the U.S. Air Traffic Services Corporation, an FGC that would, the administration hopes, borrow funds (which would not be counted towards the national debt) to modernize air traffic control.