I don’t necessarily mean that the current ones deserve a raise, however, the incentives to become a political leader in our country (and perhaps others too) are meek. It seems to me that the best and brightest are not turning to community/country leadership, but rather tech or finance.

It's understood that the government functions very inefficiently, and thus, higher salaries for individuals who really can't do much seems egregious. Agreed. But, would our government function better if we had the best talent running it? Additionally, is a higher salary enough of an incentive to attract the best minds? A career in government is definitely a deterrent to most, but it probably depends on one's ability to make an impact. For good reason, our founding fathers inserted some friction into the process of being able to change things, but I think that friction has expanded over time to become immobilizing, thanks in part to market forces creating more attractive paths for brilliant people.

Private and public companies are incentivized to create and capture value that’s ultimately returned to shareholders. In The Sovereign Individual, a question was posed to the reader that forced a thought around the value that the government creates for its stakeholders (otherwise known as citizens). Ages ago, the primary value of the government in the eyes of the citizens was to protect its physical well-being, generally, against raids by nearby groups of people. As the frequency of those wars and scuffles has declined substantially, I believe it’s important to incentivize our political leaders to think clearly about the value the government creates for it’s citizens today (and in the future), and, perhaps more importantly, execute on it.