Now I'm not an economics expert, but it seems to me that owing large piles of money is generally a bad thing. For individuals, busineses, and yes, governments too. So one of the most basic obligations of any government would be to balance it's own budget (or have a surplus, that would be fine too). From what I can gather the national government doesn't do this, and my local government isn't much better. So I've been thinking about how to encouraging the budget to be balanced.
My first idea was that if the budget isn't balanced (or on time, NY tends to have budgets come out months late) then the politicians don't get paid. No balance, no salary. Likely just a drop in the bucket, but it might encourage them. But that might also make them more easily influenced by other sources of money. After all, just because they aren't being paid doesn't mean they don't have expenses of their own. So bad idea since it seems too easy to cause even more corruption.
Which got me thinking, we've got some people that have held the same office longer then I've been alive. Maybe an exaggeration, since I can't find any numbers to support this. Instead of going after their pay, go after their job. Any year where their is both a budget deficit and a debt, all elected officials become inelegible for reelection. They would sill finish out their term as usual, but then they can't run at the next one.
So long as their is a debt the budget would have to stay positive if they want to keep their jobs. If their isn't a debt then their could be a budget deficit, but probably not for very many years. This would lead to either more people being in government (as the previous batch becomes inelegible for reelection) or a balanced budget (as those in office do their job). Either way sounds good to me.
Of course, it will never happen. But I can dream, can't I?