Monday, April 25, 2005
A Great Debate
Joe over at the Civic Forum picked up on a post from Matthew at South End Grounds about whether or not Tennessee needs a full-time Legislature.
This is something I've pondered on myself for quite a while now. There is some very real benefit to having our representatives and Senators be tied to their home districts. That said, the era of the farmer who leaves his wife and children to tend the crops while he travels to Nashville has passed.
It is next to impossible for anyone other than a lawyer or independently wealthy businessperson to manage the duties of serving in the Legislature. Most business owners can't afford to be away from their work for that long, and any regular employee of a company would certainly not be given time off. So, the closet we can come to a "regular Joe" representing a district is someone whose financial position almost definitively puts them out of the mainstream of their district.
In my mind, the benefits of a full-time legislature outweigh the setbacks. Joe's implied point is a great one. By no longer forcing legislators to serve two masters - their career and their legislative work - we will open the door to many more willing and able candidates. In doing so, we will (hopefully) elect better members to the House and Senate. Plus, the increased professionalism will reduce legislators' dependence on lobbyists to do the bill-writing, which will benefit everyone in the state.
So, my two cents: A full-time legislature makes service more appealing to better candidates. That means better choices for Tennesseans and hopefully some better legislation.
This is a good debate to have - the substance of it can affect our state far more than any one piece of legislation. Feel free to comment below...
This is something I've pondered on myself for quite a while now. There is some very real benefit to having our representatives and Senators be tied to their home districts. That said, the era of the farmer who leaves his wife and children to tend the crops while he travels to Nashville has passed.
It is next to impossible for anyone other than a lawyer or independently wealthy businessperson to manage the duties of serving in the Legislature. Most business owners can't afford to be away from their work for that long, and any regular employee of a company would certainly not be given time off. So, the closet we can come to a "regular Joe" representing a district is someone whose financial position almost definitively puts them out of the mainstream of their district.
In my mind, the benefits of a full-time legislature outweigh the setbacks. Joe's implied point is a great one. By no longer forcing legislators to serve two masters - their career and their legislative work - we will open the door to many more willing and able candidates. In doing so, we will (hopefully) elect better members to the House and Senate. Plus, the increased professionalism will reduce legislators' dependence on lobbyists to do the bill-writing, which will benefit everyone in the state.
So, my two cents: A full-time legislature makes service more appealing to better candidates. That means better choices for Tennesseans and hopefully some better legislation.
This is a good debate to have - the substance of it can affect our state far more than any one piece of legislation. Feel free to comment below...
Comments:
Post a Comment
