On the job leisure

Personally I'd rather my two senators (Washington) were both on the campaign trail and not mucking things up on the Senate floor. :-)

Yeah, we have a couple of real gems here in NY. ;-)

I can't believe, in this age of technology, that senators can't be given a remote log-in, allowing them to vote in the Senate while on the campaign trail.

Edison couldn't understand it either with his first invention, until he got his first lesson in politics.

Russ Roberts: "This is a fundamental improvement in the quality of life ..."

Yeah but don't tell my boss.

Nitpick: the title would read easier as "On-the-job leisure".

Oh, I see what you did there. The "hobby" is campaigning for President of the United States. Do you really think that the "poor citizens" of these states are being poorly represented? Are you honestly concerned for their welfare?

Or is this just a snide remark about people who serve this country in elected office?

Looking back to the good ol' days when the job of politician was unpaid?

Tim --

As a citizen of North Carolina, which John Edwards (theoretically) represented, I can categorically say that if your senator is running for President, you are being poorly represented in the Senate. Just look at how many votes they miss. Look at see how much time they spend on the Senate floor and in committee meetings. Presidential candidates miss a lot.

The job of U.S. Senator, done well, is a lot of work. It is impossible to do that job well and run for President at the same time. In my opinion, an elected official who decides to run for President should be required to resign his current position.

From tonight's debates...

Edwards: "There are 2 Americas. One that is getting screwed, and one that is getting reamed."

Giuliani: "Did I mention 9/11 in this sentence?"

Obama: "Change. Anyone want change? I got lots of quarters."

Hillary: "Martin Luther King needed a President's help to get the civil rights laws passed. It takes a President to make change. That's why when you elect me I'll be President and Obama won't. See?"

Huckabee: "Is it too late to change my name to Max Power?"

Romney: "McCain wishes he looked this good."

Thompson: "You can vote for me if you want to. If you don't want to, well, you can vote for one of these other fellers."

McCain: "Yes, I really look this old."

Paul: "In the land of the free, people should be able to make their own mistakes like name their son Mit."

Python,

What no qoute for Kucinich? How about, "I might be short and goofy, but my wife is smokin'."

"Then there are the really privileged, the people whose jobs allow them to take months off from their jobs pursuing their own interests and hobbies."

My first thought was teachers; work only 9 months out of the year and then actually complain they don't get paid enough.

Chris,

"The job of U.S. Senator, done well, is a lot of work. It is impossible to do that job well and run for President at the same time. In my opinion, an elected official who decides to run for President should be required to resign his current position."

How would that work mechanically? Would the govenor appoint a replacement or would you hold an election?

Do you think it would be a good idea to impose the same on a sitting president shooting for a second term?

Would the disincetive (lack of a fall back job) to running be net postive/negative?

Don't know the answers, just asking?

Thanks....

Mark --

Under the 17th amendment, the governor appoints a successor until a replacement is elected. How the election happens varies by state.

As far as the current President, I don't think he would need to step down, largely because he does not need to campaign nearly as much -- being the President is a huge help. Plus, the election season is generally shorter, since sitting Presidents rarely get viable primary challengers.

I don't worry too much that any of the candidates would be out of work for very long. Bob Dole seems to be doing fairly well. (he resigned his Senate seat during his presidential campaign.)

Ken --

Sure, the vacation is a benefit to teachers, but that's really a red herring. If you want to see if teachers are paid enough, look at the relative quality of the teachers that we have. If it's not where you want it, then you need to attract higher quality teachers by paying them more. There's no shortage of so-so teachers; there is a shortage of excellent ones.

In states with strong teachers unions, it's hard to replace poor teachers with better ones. (Of course, it's hard to fire any government employee, period. The union just makes it that much harder.)

I REALLY hoped that someone was going to get around to the 17th Amendment. It used to be that it was no consequence to the citizen if they were being represented by a senator or not because the senator didn't work for the citizen, they worked for the legislature. Bet if Senators were still appointed, the legislators would be screaming bloody murder that their Senator was out galavanting on the campaign trail rather than doing what they were supposed to be doing: guarding the state against intrusion by the federal goverment. The direct election of senators is something that should be rescinded.

All politicians are in the wealth-transfer business, which creates "a clash between the tax-payers and tax-eaters" (see Sheldon Richman's July 13, 2007 FEE post). Keep the senators et al. out of their offices -- they will be doing less harm.