Comments on: GAO on FCC: Trampling on Sunshine . . . http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/10/gao_on_fcc_tram.html The Law, the Universe, and Everything Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:44:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Frank http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/10/gao_on_fcc_tram.html/comment-page-1#comment-52091 Frank Sat, 06 Oct 2007 21:56:28 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2007/10/gao-on-fcc-trampling-on-sunshine.html#comment-52091 I'm in agreement that the salaries would likely need to be raised. Here's an interesting take on a tangentially related issue: negative salaries for some employees: http://jamesdmiller.blogspot.com/2007/10/negative-salaries-for-supreme-court.html I’m in agreement that the salaries would likely need to be raised.

Here’s an interesting take on a tangentially related issue: negative salaries for some employees:

http://jamesdmiller.blogspot.com/2007/10/negative-salaries-for-supreme-court.html

]]> By: SN http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/10/gao_on_fcc_tram.html/comment-page-1#comment-52090 SN Sat, 06 Oct 2007 06:46:00 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2007/10/gao-on-fcc-trampling-on-sunshine.html#comment-52090 Would such a promise need to come with a substantial pay raise for FCC commissioners? For anybody with the requisite skills and knowledge, a stint as an FCC commissioner is a tremendous pay cut. At the moment, though, their pay is effectively subsidized by private industry through the substantial premium they earn when they return to private life. (Obviously this is true across a broad range of government jobs, not just FCC commissioners!) A reform like this without a corresponding pay raise might cause many potential commissioners to think twice about the job. (Of course, many economists would probably argue that the public is already being implicitly "taxed" for the difference by the transfer of surplus from the public to the private industries that benefit from these corrupt deals. But higher salaries mean higher taxes which are very visible, whereas corruption isn't. and even when you point out the corruption, I think most Americans would miss the necessary link: they'd want to prohibit the corrupt behavior by fiat without realizing they also need to increase Commissioners' pay, and then instead of being implicitly taxed through the social loss from corrupt policy, they might simply instead be implicitly taxed through the social loss from bad policy because candidates with the appropriate skill and experience decline to serve as Commissioners.) Would such a promise need to come with a substantial pay raise for FCC commissioners? For anybody with the requisite skills and knowledge, a stint as an FCC commissioner is a tremendous pay cut. At the moment, though, their pay is effectively subsidized by private industry through the substantial premium they earn when they return to private life. (Obviously this is true across a broad range of government jobs, not just FCC commissioners!) A reform like this without a corresponding pay raise might cause many potential commissioners to think twice about the job.

(Of course, many economists would probably argue that the public is already being implicitly “taxed” for the difference by the transfer of surplus from the public to the private industries that benefit from these corrupt deals. But higher salaries mean higher taxes which are very visible, whereas corruption isn’t. and even when you point out the corruption, I think most Americans would miss the necessary link: they’d want to prohibit the corrupt behavior by fiat without realizing they also need to increase Commissioners’ pay, and then instead of being implicitly taxed through the social loss from corrupt policy, they might simply instead be implicitly taxed through the social loss from bad policy because candidates with the appropriate skill and experience decline to serve as Commissioners.)

]]>