|
Lately, I have been pondering the issue of what can we do to keep our representatives in check, while giving them the constitutional powers that were granted to them. This is part one of the three part series on controlling the power of our representatives. In the past couple of months, I have heard two prominent individuals argue that the solution to our overpowering government is term limits. Both of these people used slightly different reasons for term limits, but the argument was essentially the same. For convenience sake, I am going to quote Glenn Beck’s argument in “Glenn Beck’s Common Sense”:
Beck hits on one of the key arguments against term limits, but he approaches it from the wrong perspective when he discusses the removal of good candidates as a result of term limits. Beck’s focus is on the candidate and not on the voter. Actually, his whole argument focuses entirely on the candidate and not at all on the voter. So, let’s ask the question a little differently. When we institute term limits, who really are we controlling? I don’t think that we are controlling the politicians. Rather, I would argue that the limitation is placed on the voter. My voice in support of a candidate is limited to a certain amount of terms. The most common term limit rules that I have heard is 6 terms for a Representative and 2 terms for a Senator. If a person decides to run as a Representative then as a Senator they will serve for 24 years. That sound like the career politician that Franklin was warning us against. So, what have we done but rather more formalize the system by which one becomes a career politician. It’s interesting that Beck says our part is simple. He argues that we need to seek out and support people who will support serious term limits. I would argue he is wrong. First it is not simple. Need, I point out Senators Hatch and Bennett? Both of them ran campaigns that called for term limits. But what happened after all these years. I would argue that our part is not simple, but essential. We must seek out candidates who have the same moral fiber that Washington and Jefferson had will term limit themselves. One example of this is Senator Tom Coburn. In 1994, he promised that he would not seek office for more that three terms when he ran to serve as a Representative from Oklahoma. He kept that promise. After a two year hiatus, he returned to political life in 2004 to serve as Senator. My understanding is that he did this at the request of many supporters, but I don’t have any evidence for that. I am not saying that we should only vote for people who make the promise to only serve for X amount of terms. I don’t think that is a good measure of a candidate. I use Coburn as an example of a politician with integrity. We need to seek out candidates who have the integrity of Coburn, Washington, and Jefferson. If we institute term limits, we will be imposing on individual freedoms. We will not be limiting congressman, rather we will be limiting the people. We will be taking away our fundamental right to vote for the person we want to represent us. Possibly Related Posts:
Today is my dear wife’s birthday. And I am so impressed with the wonderful gift that I got for her, that I want to toot my own horn for a minute on this site. Having made the decision to have a fairly large family. At least, large by today’s standards. We have to cut costs where ever possible. As part of this cost cutting venture, we don’t hire people to do any automobile repairs, unless we have to. Well, the last time that my dear wife was out rotating the tires, I was so moved by the efforts she made. Trying to remove those lug nuts with nothing more than a box wrench was tough for her. After the first tire was removed her dear knuckles were already bloody, and she still had three more to do. It was all I could do watching her as she struggled with each nut. I was so moved by her diligent efforts, I knew that there was something to do to help her. So, this year, I purchase for her a tire iron. Not just any old tire iron. Nope. I bought the cheapest one that money can buy. After all, we have a big family and can’t afford more. It will be so nice to watch her remove those lug nuts with this new tool. No longer will I have to endure the pains of her screams and grunts. It will be sure pleasure to watch her rotate the tires in just over an hour compared to half a day as in years past. I love you dear. Happy Birthday. Oh, by the way. I think it’s time to rotate the tires on my car. The above is with respect to Walter E. Williams and his dear, departed wife, Connie, and his past Christmas presents he has shared with us on the Rush Limbaugh Show. Possibly Related Posts: When I first read the headline, Legislators’ Survey Are Not Exactly Unbiased, I couldn’t help but think: “pot meet kettle.” What is the Deseret News thinking accusing the Republican Legislators of using biased polls? I have cited on this site several incidences of such bias. Oh, just for the fun of it, let look at a few examples (listed in order of newest to oldest):
And yet, they have the gall to accuse Repuplican Legislators of having a bias. What makes it worse, is they interview Pat Jones, the Demorcat Senator, and wife to Dan Jones (yes the Dan Jones talked about in the above link). What does she have to say about biased surveys: “No professional pollster would ever ask questions like some Republicans are if they wanted to measure real public opinion, Sen. Jones adds.” Well, thank you very much Senator Jones. We now know that your husband doesn’t want to measure real public opinion. Oh, and I guess since the Deseret News also publishes these supposed poll results, we should also note that the Deseret News doesn’t want to measure real public opinion. Don’t get me wrong. I hate the surveys that the Republican Party puts out. A few years back I refused to answer one of the surveys strictly because of the bias in the survey. Sure the bias was towards my end of the political spectrum. But I don’t like biased surveys. It tells me just the exact opposite of what Dave Hansen claims in the Deseret News article. I feel like they don’t care about my opinion when I read such questions. However, I hold the Deseret News and Dan Jones more at fault when weighing these two infractions. First, you have to take into consideration that Legislators aren’t even amateur pollsters. They are simply women and men, looking to touch base with their constituents. When you think about Dan Jones, you can’t help but realize that he is a so called professional pollster. He knows better, and yet he continues to ask biasing questions. Second, the Deseret News has a responsibility to publish the truth. If they don’t publish the truth, then they must have a reason behind the publication. It is most like to try and persuade political opinion. These legislators aren’t publishing these results. I would guess most of them don’t even really know how to interpret the results. They simply want to provide a venue to hear from their constituents. Perhaps it may influence how they vote, but the fact is, they already have an opinion on most of the issues already. So, no survey results will sway their opinion. I wrote a shorter version of this post in the comments section of the web article. As you can see, it wasn’t published. I guess they don’t want to admit that they were caught red handed. It is absurd that the Deseret News would consider this article non-incriminating. But yet again, we find that they are trying to sway public opinion away from the Republican Party. Sure, the Utah GOP is wrong, but they aren’t as bad as the Deseret News. And I say shame on Joe Cannon and the editorial board of the Deseret news. Possibly Related Posts:
However, the lastest poll results about Utahns wanting higher taxes is another example of their bias. Look closely at the poll question to the right. What do you see wrong with this picture? First, look at the question. Is this not a leading question? It is so leading that it is proceeded by 3 sentences. Of course this is only to keep the uneducated public informed before they answer such an important question. They wouldn’t be trying to influence poll takers votes, that would be unethical. But they go further than that. Look at the exact question: “Would you be willing to pay higher taxes to reduce or avoid further cuts in education, health and human services…?” They might as well be asking people, “do you want to be a bad person and not fund education and health and human services?” What would happen if they asked the question like this: “Gov. Gary Herbert has proposed a balanced state budget with no tax increases. Utah has one of the highest tax burdens of all 50 states. In past years, the state has succeeded in managing the state without tax increases. Would you be willing to pay higher taxes in order to reduce the burden on Utah citizens?” If you were to ask this question, the response would be a resounding “Don’t raise my taxes.” People would be in favor of not adding additional taxes. People would support Gov. Herbert. In addition to the biasing question, there is one other little item that the Deseret News fails to draw your attention to. It’s that pesky little “+/- 5 percent,” or the margin of error, found that the bottom of the graphic. This +/-5 percent can be added to the “definitely willing” group and the “probably willing” group. So, this statistic means that their is a high probability that 43-63% of Utahns’ probably support a tax increase. If the real statistic sits between 43 or 49 percent, then most Utahn’s are against a tax increase. Again, I have to point out that this is based on an already biased question. Despite these problems with the survey, there is some interesting results in this survey, and it is really telling to me about how many Utahns really support a tax increase. Take a look at the second graphic provided by the Deseret News. What kind of tax increase do Utahns support? That’s right, they support a tobacco tax and an alcohol tax. So, what percentage of the people taking this survey do you think smoke and drink? Well, I would guess that less then 50% are regular consumers of such products. So simply put, according to these two survey results, Utahns support a tax increase as long as they don’t have to pay it. Tax someone else, but don’t tax me. Do Utahns want a tax increase? No. This poll doesn’t prove that. In fact, I think it is an excellent proof to the contrary. I support Gov. Herbert and any of the legislators who are going to work extra hard to avoid a tax increase this year. It is the right thing to do. Possibly Related Posts:
I met with a couple of legislators this past week. And when one of them was asked why are we having to wait in long lines to get our driver’s licenses renewed, the response was it’s an “unintended consequence” of the bill that we passed. To be completely honest, he seemed more interested in excusing their actions by calling them unintended consequences, then trying to explain the purpose of the bill that requires us to go through a longer lines to renew our licenses. I personally support the reason behind this bill, and I am willing to go through the longer lines. Fortunately for me, I go in June and hopefully a lot of the kinks will be worked out. My wife is going there sometime in the next couple of weeks, and she will have to suffer through the long lines. But this legislators response reminded me of a similar response I heard another legislator give when asked about the district split bill. As a resident of the south west valley of Salt Lake County, I was one of the citizens whose property tax rate was raised because of the recent district split of the Jordan School District. In essence, the legislator responded that the tax increase was an unintended consequence of the bill. As a resident of the south west valley, I support the reasoning behind the district split legislation. I believe in smaller more localized school districts. I feel that the Jordan School District was (and still is) too big to properly serve the needs of Utah’s students. However, I don’t support the unintended consequences of the bill. In this case there were two unintended consequences. The first was that a large body of people couldn’t vote on a change that directly effected them. the other unintended consequence was the needed tax increase on the citizens of the south west valley. The issue that bothers me here is that these bills aren’t being thought completely through. They aren’t recognizing that their are ramifications in real people’s lives when these bills are passed. If they were, the bills would be written in away to prevent extensive unintended consequences. My understanding is that if a bill has a financial impact that this must be studied. It seems to me that every bill should be studied similarly to prevent non-financial impacts on the community. Unfortunate consequences like long lines and voters not being allowed to vote. I never want to hear the word “unintended consequences” from a legislator again. I don’t believe that all unintended consequences should be avoided. However, I think that the need to avoid a consequence should be directly proportionate to the impact that consequence has on society. With these two particular legislators, I support them and the work that they are doing. Politically they are both very similar to me. But I would appreciate if they would take the time to understand that EVERY bill they pass will have unintended consequences and they need to write the bills in a way, that these consequences are minimized so that they have very little impact on the people. I hope that every legislator will take an oath, that after the 2010 session, that they will never have to use the excuse of “unintended consequences” when they have to explain their bill. Update (1 Feb 2010): Wow, I am shocked to admit that for once I agreed with KSL. They posted a commentary with the same title on their news today. We do part ways on part of it, but the meat of the subject is the same. Possibly Related Posts:
For the past several months I have been struggling regarding which candidate I should support for Senate. This has partly contributed to my silence on this blog. I am still struggling. That’s why I am excited to find a candidate I can support. Unfortunately, that candidate is not running for Senate. I am support Representative Jason Chaffetz for his re-election bid. Okay, I know that at times this site sounds like campaign headquarters for Jason Chaffetz. However, Chaffetz continues to win my support at every turn. This past week I received an email from the Chaffetz campaign inviting me to support the Contract for the American Dream. It didn’t take me long to read it to realize why I supported Chaffetz two years ago, and why I am going to support him again. Because most people don’t bother to click through on links, let me quote a few items I like from this contract:
I don’t support everything the Chaffetz’s suggests. For example, I have a problem with his stating that the constitution needs to be amended. The contract states “Support a balanced budget amendment.” I don’t like that our nation is in as big of a debt as we are. However, there are ways to control this without a constitutional amendment. While this contract is great. It is just words. However, Chaffetz has put is words into 12 action items. This is a list of actions he promises to make during the 112th congress. Chaffetz has proven that he is a man of action during the past year, and he will continue these actions in 2010 and in a 2nd term. I am still keeping an eye out on the Senate race, but so far none of the candidates have impressed me. I hope to be re-elected as a state delegate for my precinct again this year, and if so, I will be even more invested in the Senate race. Hopefully, someone will stand out above the others. One thing is for sure. I won’t be voting for Bennett. Possibly Related Posts:
If you know me you know that I hate making new years resolutions. Why? Because they are always broken. I hate make resolutions so much, I start my either early or late. I started my weight loss resolution back in September. I have lost 20 lbs. Just 10 more to go, but I have been working on that 10 lbs for 2 months now. However, I have decided that I am going to improve this site by doing one simple resolution this year. I am going to post something every week. Hopefully, it will be something political. But it might be something more personal. Either way, I hope you enjoy it, and I hope that you keep coming back. I have been writing a web log for over 5 years now, and it seem as though I always stagnate. Usually, I try to write a post a day. Then after about a week, I can’t find the time to post. So, I have decided that one post ever day is too much for my already busy schedule. Hopefully, this once a week resolution will be fruitful. I thank all of you for your time in reading, and I look forward to many more years of posting and commenting. Possibly Related Posts: I have been trying to find something that sends a Christmas message that I am feeling this year. I was notified of this video several weeks back. I don’t know how I missed. But I am glad that I got to watch it on Christmas Eve. I hope you enjoy.
On the 5 year anniversary of my blog writing, I want to wish you all a Merry Christmas. And I pray that you remember the Spirit of Christ this year. Possibly Related Posts:
It is the season of giving and many people are feeling a little more charitable than usual. many of us donate a little more our favorite organizations. Here where I work we raised money for a coworker whose 1-year-old daughter is struggling with cancer. It’s a good thing. As I study the concept of charity, I am often taken to Mosiah 4:16-19 where we are counseled to care for the needy. It is important for us to care for those who need our help. It is an important principle of the gospel. So, why not support the welfare system? Pyrolitical offers a great explanation of why government isn’t the proper way to care for others. Prior to reading this article, I understood what they refer to as Strikes #1 and #2. When we are forced to care for others it really isn’t charity. When we are forced to care for others we aren’t afforded the opportunity to grow (either as the giver or as the receiver). I am greatful for this article from Pyrolitical because it offers me a greater understanding of charity and why government as the means to perform charity is wrong. First, I am struck by strike three (yeah, I am cheesy enough to use that pun). Government mandated charity separates the giver from the receiver. It opens doors for the receiver to want more. It also closes a door for the giver to want to give more. It becomes antithetical. Further, I appreciated how they explained that:
And they recognize that the giver is also blessed in charity:
As we near the end of another great year and a season of giving. Let’s remember that our service to our fellow men brings us together as a people. All are blessed when we voluntarily give to others. Possibly Related Posts:
A recent article in USA Today discusses the real effect of the Climate Summit in Copenhagen. The article comes from an interview with Ray Weiss from the San Diego’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Weiss is a geochemist specializing in atmospheric pollution. And from what I could read from the article, and other research I did on Weiss, he accepts the premise that global warming is directly related to human events. I don’t wish to discuss that, however. The real important thing to take from the article is that Weiss feels that this meeting is all fluff. Perhaps, the best way to sum his opinion up is with the last quote from Weiss in the article. He says, “As a parent, unless you set a set of rules, your kids won’t respect them. This summit is no different.” Weiss is concerned that this summit hasn’t done anything to improve our ability to measure pollution. While each country has made a commitment to reduce the pollution. There is still not effective way of measuring it. Why would this conference not be interested in creating effective ways of measuring pollution? The theory that seems to best fit is that they aren’t worried about it because they don’t want to measure it effectively. They don’t want to measure it effectively, because it won’t matter. They will still push their agenda any way. This is just another example of ClimateGate to me. Why make a promise, if you have no way of substantiating that you met the requirements. Unfortunately, Weiss doesn’t get it. I believe that Weiss is sincere in his desire to reduce pollution in hopes of stopping global warming. However, the people that pay his bills aren’t as sincere. They just want to have big meetings in luxurious hotels to talk about all the good they are doing. Beyond that, This meeting isn’t about trying to find a solution to global warming. Rather, it is a means to a completely different end. It is about increasing the role of government influence in our lives. It is about controlling us and keeping us from being free. Possibly Related Posts:
|
|
|
|
Copyright © 2010 Utah's Arch - All Rights Reserved |
||
Like
.
.
Recent Comments