Whatever claims they make about the general welfare, our political class is really running things mostly for its own benefit


A few weeks back, I wrote here about taxing therevolving door that takes people back and forth between the federal government and the various industries that federal government agencies regulate. My proposal was to put a surtax -- 50%, say, or maybe 75% -- on the post-government earnings of federal officials in excess of their government salaries for the first five years: Leave a federal job paying $100,000 a year for an industry job paying $600,000 a year, and you'd pay a $250,000 surtax. After all, with folks leaving the Obama administration, as they left previous administrations, for salaries several times what they earned in the public sector, and with excessive entanglement between government and business a growing problem, why not use the power of the IRS to modify behavior?
I didn't think my proposal would go very far, but maybe I was too pessimistic. It seems that people are noticing and approving.
Not long after my column ran, it got an endorsement from Boston Herald, which noted: "In his 2008 campaign, President Obama promised to 'close the revolving door.' It's still open." And spinning more furiously than ever."
And now Democratic eminence grise Bill Moyers has climbed on board as well. Writing with Michael Winship in the Huffington Post, Moyers observes: "Imagine -- conservatives and libertarians making a favorable comparison to the capital gains tax! This and that Russian meteor may be signs of the apocalypse. Just gives you an idea of how deeply awful and anti-democratic the revolving door is, no matter which side you're on. That's why it has to be slowed down if not completely stopped -- and why we'll keep talking about it."
The revolving door is just one symptom of a bigger picture: Whatever claims our political class makes about the general welfare, it is really running things mostly for its own benefit. That's why comparisons to theHunger Games, where the fat-cats in the Capital City live it up while the provinces starve, keep coming. Addressing the revolving door problem won't solve things, either, but it might help. And since it's getting more attention, perhaps I should flesh this idea out a bit more.
First, I'd apply it only to political appointees in the executive branch, at least to begin with. I'd be thrilled to apply it to congressional staffers -- and to members of Congress -- as well, but I think that such a bill would face too much opposition in, well, Congress to make it through. But if executive officials are subject to this sort of law, the pressure will grow to extend it the legislative branch as well. (And I wouldn't apply it to people who aren't political appointees because it seems unfair to slap a surtax on someone who finishes his hitch in the Marines and joins a private-security company).
Second, we might want to adjust things for people who take a pay cut when joining federal service: Perhaps if someone made more money before taking a government job, we should only tax earnings in excess of what he or she earned before. So leave a $250,000 job at a bank to take a $125,000 job with the feds, and when you leave the surtax applies only to your earnings in excess of $250K.
These are the sorts of details that the staff at the House and Senate tax committees, and the regulatory staff at the IRS, are used to addressing. Perhaps we should have some hearings on this, where witnesses can talk about the extent of the revolving-door problem, and approaches to dealing with it. Is a surtax the best one? Maybe yes, maybe no. But it will help, and it will certainly draw attention to the problem.
Glenn Harlan Reynolds is a professor of law at the University of Tennessee. He blogs at InstaPundit.com.