Utah's Arch » Values

The Case Against Term Limits

Travis Grant — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 05:18:19 +0000

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”:

After George Washington’s first two terms, Americans begged him to continue his service, be he refused, believing it would set a bad precedent. Jefferson, citing Washington’s example, also refused to serve a third term, noting that history shows how easily [long-term public service] degenerates into an inheritance.

Of course, FDR didn’t care about Washington’s or Jefferson’s concerns. He stayed on for four terms–a reign that went so well that we followed it up by ratifying the 22nd Amendment, ensuring that it would never happen again…

Instituting term limits on all public servants is the only way to limit the damage that can be caused by those who lack the character to assume such a role. Ben Franklin insisted that service to your country not be a full-time job or career–and he was exactly right. Our public servants must be sent back into private life without the obscene perks they’re used to.

Will term limits result in good politicians being thrown out of office too early, the proverbial baby with the bathwater? Absolutely–but that’s a small price to pay for the freedom this will grant us. Freedom from corruption, greed, arrogance, and, most of all, freedom from those who put their carrers above their country.

Our part is simple: You must seek out and support those candidates who strongly support serious term limits. Any candidate who campaigns on the idea that their job is a temporary one is a candidate worth looking closely at.

– pages 55-56

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:

Why I am not a Libertarian?

Travis Grant — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 23:08:23 +0000

There are more than one reason why I am not a Libertarian, however, today, I am going to discuss just one of them. In the future I may or may not post more reasons, but this one is in the front of my mind right now.

Because of my political leanings I read several Libertarian blogs and I find myself agreeing with them on many, but not all issues. I also read liberal blogs, but only those that actually have something to contribute to the conversation, and that usually isn’t much.

As I have read the several Libertarian blogs, I have come to a greater understanding of why I am not a Libertarian. One of the reasons, I am not a libertarian is because I want to do something. It seems to me that libertarians just want to complain. They simply want to be able to say, “It ain’t my fault, I’m not a Republican. It ain’t my fault, I’m not a Democrat.”

It’s the easy way out.

However, with my stance, I can say I am doing something. It is my party’s fault, at least partly if not mostly. And I am doing something about it.

I am involved in the Republican Party because I want to institute change in the government, and the best way is to affiliate myself with a party that has some clout and the party that is most political similar to my principles.

But joining their ranks isn’t enough. I need to get involved. And I have done just that. I have helped to elect a congressman whose political views are very close to mine. It was a lot of hard work for all involved in this campaign but we were successful.

But if I were a Libertarian, then I could not have helped to bring the change that we did. If I were a Libertarian, all I could have done was complain. Okay, I could have worked on the campaign, but I might have told myself that I was a defector from my real principles.

One might accuse be of being a defector because I am a Republican. However, I protest this claim because if you have been with me for any time, you know that all politicians are fair game for me. I will call a Republican to the table just as easily as I would call a Democrat to the fore. Actually, a Republican is probably more susceptible to my criticism.

While, there are several reasons I am not a Libertarian, one of the key reason I am not is because I want to change. I want the principles I believe in to be represented in congress. And the best way to do that is by affiliating with the party that closest represents my political philosophy, then working within the part to get them to represent.

Possibly Related Posts:

We're Debt Free!

Travis Grant — Wed, 21 May 2008 19:26:15 +0000

Two and a half years ago, my wife and I moved into our new home. After that move, we had one goal. That was to get rid of our consumer debt.

We started out by paying $700 extra on the one consumer loan that we had. It was a student loan that totalled somewhere near $32,000. Yeah, I couldn’t believe it either. Somehow, I managed to ignore the fact that I was that deep in debt.

I also started this process by reading Dave Ramsey‘s book “The Total Money Makeover.” While reading it I felt pretty good. I had not car loans. Our credit card was paid off every month, and I felt that I was on the right track.

Then came the section on Student Loans. That when it hit me hard that I was not different than other people. Sure, my interest rate was less than most. But the reality was that it was still that terrible four-letter word, DEBT.

Eventually, through pay raises and some other tightening of the proverbial belt, we started to pay $1000 every month towards the student loan. We also used the tax refunds and part of a company bonus to help us pay down our debt.

Finally on April 15 2008, I made my last payment on the student loan. I was debt free (at least on the consumer side, I still owe on my home).

I say was, because I then did something sort of stupid. I bought a new computer that cost almost $1000 dollars. I did this because I knew that buy the time the credit card bill came due we would have the money, and because our last computer was literally on its last leg.

Thus, I am waiting until today to officially announce that I am debt free. I paid of the computer and other credit card balance (like I do every month), and I can honestly say I am debt free.

Our next step is to build our financial reserves and my wife and I are adding food storage. But we need a break from discipline. So we are buying a few wants over the next few months. These include a tent trailer (already purchased), a new computer (also purchased), a new washer and dryer, some furniture for our family room, a safe, and some other incidentals.

I just hope these next few months of “frivolity” don’t have us regretting our decision. But starting in January, we will get really serious about our financial and food stores.

Just as a final note. Dave Ramsey does not condone the use of credit cards, and for the most part I agree with him. However, after 14 years of discipline has shown, my wife and I can handle credit cards. We don’t use them, unless we have the money to back up the purchase, and we always return to a zero balance at the end of each month. I only recommend credit cards if you KNOW that you will pay them off each month, and will use them wisely.

Possibly Related Posts:

Shadow Children and Government Control

Travis Grant — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 12:30:52 +0000

I recently just finished the Shadow Children Series by Margaret Peterson Haddix. The first in the series is Among the Hidden. In this book Luke Gardner is the third born child to his parents in a society where parents are only legally allowed to have two children. This law is enforced by the death of all people who are third born.

This law was create in response to a drought which meant that there was very little food for the people. A group of politicians decided that if they reduce the number of children per couple to 2 children, then they could better control the shortage of food.

However, even after several years of better weather and a situation where food could have been better produced, the law remained in effect. I won’t tell you much more except to say that the series of seven books follows the experiences and lives of Luke and several of his third born friends as they work to overcome this evil power that threatens their lives.

While the books aren’t excellently written and to a certain extent rather predictable, they are fun and exciting to read. But more important than the read is the message that is taught. Simply put, government control over our lives no matter what the reason is not good. The wrong people will get a hold of that government and it will be at the loss of freedom and rights of every citizen.

It was great to have a discussion with my daughter and my wife (both who have read the books, long ago) about how easily we can lose sight of what is important all because of a drought or security or other disaster. It lead me to thinking about Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal. Roosevelt’s intentions were good. He wanted to help the people in a time a great trial. However, his deal with American became the biggest disaster of our country’s history.

We are slowly losing more of our freedoms to the government. The more time that passes with the new deal mindset in government, the more our will be like the lives of the citizens in Haddix’s fictional world. Sure, Haddix’s governmental control was a lot faster spread than ours is. However, it shows that power in the hands of government isn’t ever a good idea. It should also stand as a warning at how much of a slippery slope we are on.

I strongly encourage everyone to read the books. If you have children, have them read it too; it is juvenile fiction and a fairly easy read. After your children have read it. Have a great conversation about how government can become our worst nightmare.

P.S. You see that I couldn’t even last two weeks without talking politics. Oh well, I am sure there is a lot more politics to come.

Possibly Related Posts:

2 for 2

Travis Grant — Sat, 12 May 2007 12:08:24 +0000

Okay, this is not about the recent Jazz wins. Sorry Jazz Fans, but I am not a big follower of Sports, except for baseball.

Instead I just wanted to brag a bit. Well, I don’t know if this is something to be proud of, because some times those who write Letters to the Editors can be a little loopy. However, I have written only two Letters to the Deseret News (or any other newspaper). Of those two letter, exactly two have been published.

The main reason that I mention this is because I considered writing here about the Deseret News’ recent opinion on television viewing, but I just didn’t want to write that day. So instead I made a quick comment to the Deseret News.

Now I get to make the point here where one person will read it, and it got read by about three more people via the Deseret News. I am just tired of the people who keep commenting that it is anything other than decency as to why people are turning of the television. It’s amazing how many people I talk to who don’t watch TV because they are sick of the indecency. And they aren’t all Mormons.

Finally, if you are curious about how much they “editorialize” my comments, here is the original letter I sent:

I agree with the Deseret News’ opinion that “television needs a tuneup” ( May 10). However, I don’t agree with your explanation as to why people are tuning out. People are turning off the television because it is too offensive. There is too much sex, violence, and foul language on TV. People are getting sick of bringing this junk into their homes.

Apparently, they don’t like to be called the Deseret News anymore…

Finally, the other Letter to the Editor that I had published was about the over glorification of Mark Hacking in the media. I was tired of hearing how wonderful a murderer was. He killed someone, why must the media deify him. Unfortunately, it is still happening, need I point out the media love for Cho and Talovic.

Possibly Related Posts:

Marriage and the Big G

Travis Grant — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 12:42:43 +0000

Almost two years ago, my wife and I celebrated our 10th anniversary by attending Education Week at Brigham Young University. Yeah, I wanted to do something more exciting like at a lake or on a cruise, but my wife won out. Good thing she did.

While I didn’t really want to go, there were a couple of classes that really struck my interest. One was on finance and retirement savings and it ended up being a great class and very entertaining and informative. The other was Brett Latimer‘s course on American Culture. This four-part course discussed American History and how our culture has been influenced by Hollywood, our constitution and government across history, and homosexuality.

That last item on the list gets me ahead of where I want to be, but it tells you where I am going. Also the lecture notes that I linked to earlier (and here), are slightly different than the ones from the class I attended. But the idea is basically the same.

The first lecture (PDF) was basically a discussion of how Hollywood has an agenda. Hollywood, anymore, isn’t about entertaining people as much as it is about indoctrinating people. He presents some interesting statistics about the increase in number of R rated movies and the decrease in attendance at theaters. While, I am not sure that there aren’t flaws in his presentation, I was awe struck by what I learned.

The second lecture (PDF), which I believe I missed, but figured out from the third lecture, was about moral relativism and its negative effects on our culture. To state it rather simply, there is an absolute truth (the big G, as Latimer called it). However, society tries to teach that all things are good (the little g in Latimer’s words). And throughout history the big G and the little g have been at odds with each other.

I don’t see it in the notes that Latimer provides currently, however, he paralleled the Civil Right’s movement to the Homosexual movement. He said that in the case of the civil rights movement the liberal (meaning not conservative according to the time) cause was the big G. It was a movement towards a correct principle that all men regardless of race, religion, and color were created equal. And because this was a big G issue that the 15th Amendment was passed and ratified.

So, the questions come down to this. Is the Marriage Amendment that is up for vote on June 6th a big G or a little g? Is marriage between a man and a woman an absolute truth? Or is it just a winds of the time concept? For me this is a big G. And although many are having a problem with this amendment for many reasons after serious reflection on this subject and on the lecture from Brett Latimer, I will be following the counsel of my religious leaders and I will be writing my congress asking them to vote for this legislation.

Possibly Related Posts:

Broken TV – Marriage

Travis Grant — Wed, 24 May 2006 12:53:17 +0000

One more thought on bent and broken television before I move on. I was originally going to include this with my discussion of Without a Trace, but it didn’t seem to fit, and I now feel that it merits it’s own entry.

How many television dramas portray happily married couples?

As I am writing this the only show that I can think of is Seventh Heaven. I am sure there are others, but contrast my list to this next one.

How man television dramas portray discontent marriages or divorces?

My list is: Without a Trace, Law and Order, CSI, Desperate Housewives (just a guess, I have actually never seen an episode), and I am sure there are more not to mention the countless marital problems on the daytime soap operas.

Marriage is being attacked. Maybe at first it was in the courtrooms, maybe at first it was a small movement. But now you can’t turn on a TV show without marriage being a huge problem for many of the characters.

Also, if you watch closely, TV also seems to say that marriage will only get in the way of one’s career. The sentiment is that marriage and career are mutually incompatible. Even though millions of Americans have proven just the opposite, TV still can’t portray a working person with a happy marriage.

By TV portraying marriage as the worse part of society, people are less likely to pursue it as on option. Instead the will seek alternatives. You know the option of the highly successful (please note sarcasm here) living together arrangement (separation rate is significanlty higher than marriage). Or there is the even less effective single for life option (age of death decreases significantly for singles).

I am not sure what TV gains from non-married couples (perhaps they spend more time in front of the TV without the commitment, I know I would). But there is a definite message being sent by TV, and that message is, that marriages don’t work, so don’t even bother.

Most of the successful marriages are portrayed in comedies, and the only reason that these are successful is because the dad is so stupid and the wife always saves him (but that’s another column). These marriages are usually fairly solid (i.e., Home Improvement and Hope and Faith) but often is a brunt of the comedy. However, there is a big move towards portraying marriage as negative (i.e., Two and a Half Men).

The reality is that marriage works. Most people who are married are happy. Sure they have hard times (and TV should portray these hard times), but usually people bounce back and love each other more after an argument. Instead, television likes to portray divorce as the only option and that marriage is always doomed for failure.

Possibly Related Posts:

Broken TV – Without a Trace

Travis Grant — Tue, 23 May 2006 12:54:12 +0000

I loved this show. A year ago if you had asked me what my favorite show on TV was I would have said the Amazing Race, but this was a close second.

However, it was about a year ago that this show started going down hill. I remember writing a letter to CBS telling them that one of the reasons that I watched TV was for a little entertainment and to see that good does happen in the world. Then I explained to them that Without a Trace was starting to focus too much on the evil, and not providing the viewer with much sense of hope.

I am sure that it hit the trash can faster than I was able to hit the send button, but I had to say it.

Well, about a month ago, I finally gave up on the show.

Its darkness got too dark for me. Okay, I have to admit that the show that finally broke me from this show was the lesbian kiss at the end. I just couldn’t handle that. I don’t want it on my TV and I more especially don’t want it in my home. Call me a homophobe if you like, but it was the straw that broke the camels back.

After I finally gave up on the show, I remember getting an email from a conservative group that touts it’s efforts to get Without a Trace fined for its episode that was semi-pornographic and had a sex scene involving teenagers. I remember the episode and was ashamed that that wasn’t the straw in my case. Oh, I was disturbed by it, and I remember thinking about writing CBS again, but I hadn’t thought to just give up on the show.

This show, although it leans towards bent, is broken, because there continues to be a theme that evil will prevail. While, I know in the real world the good guys don’t always win, I don’t want my entertainment to always portray that. I want the good guys to win about 90% of the time (if not more). The way that Without a Trace is going I wouldn’t be surprised if the good guys win in about 50% of the cases.

I have given up on this show, and I hope that others will too. Not the CBS will get the picture. It will still keep producing demoralizing and inappropriate shows.

Possibly Related Posts:

Bent TV – CSI

Travis Grant — Thu, 18 May 2006 13:01:05 +0000

I used to watch CSI. I probably gave it more time then it was worth during the first couple of years.

During that time, one thing consistently bothered me. Crime Scene Investigators don’t make arrests! Yet, Grisham always ended the show in glory, by being at the arrest and flaunting his glorious mind.

I started to give up on the show because of that, but its bent direction finally turned me away for good.

Admittedly, I haven’t watch CSI for years. I really have no idea what is going on with each character, and I really don’t care. Thus, all of my observations come mostly from either the 2nd or 3rd season.

What finally turned me off of the show was during the end of one of the seasons there was an insinuation that Grisham was having an affair with a lady who ran a porn house (and I am using a PG term to try and describe it).

Granted it seems that every promotion that I see for this show has to either involve a strip club, a whore house, or some other sexual activity. And that really should have been enough to turn me off. However, it wasn’t until the main character pursued evil and made this show a completely bent story, that I finally gave up on it.

What really disgusts me with this show is that these are supposed to be the good guys. However, Hollywood can’t have any truly good guys any more. They have to have bad guys who are playing the good guy role. This is perhaps the best definition of a bent story. I truly yearn for the days of the good cop who busts the bad guy. To a certain extent the Law and Order stories fit that category, and if I have time, I don’t mind spending a hour watching them.

Possibly Related Posts:

Dishonoring the Flag

Travis Grant — Sat, 13 May 2006 12:50:52 +0000

As you drive through many neighborhoods in Utah on days like Memorial Day, Flag Day, President’s Day, or Independence Day, you will see what appears to be an awesome display of patriotism. Early in the morning a group of young Scouts got together with a few leaders and posted an American Flag in the lawn of people who donated money to their organization. It really is quite an awesome display.

However, I am deeply concerned about how this is done. This morning as part of my duties as a Webelo’s Den Leader (co-leader with my lovely wife), I helped my Webelos and several other Cub Scouts place these flags in lawns in our neighborhood. However, what I saw when I got to the place they store the flags appalled me. The flags were not properly folded. Instead, they were rolled around the PVC pipe that is used as a flag pole. After further investigation I found out that the flags were semi-permanently mounted to the pole with a cable tie.

So, I am tempted to send this letter to our scout troops Charter Organization Representative.

Dear Charter Organization Representative,

The Boy Scouts of America is a great organization for teach boys a love of God, Country, and self. And after several years of involvement I have found that this is a great organization and I look forward to when my son can participate in the activities, leadership, and development that it provides. While, I generally don’t donate much to non-profit organizations, I usually will donate to the Boy Scouts.

However, I am concerned with a recent donation that I made to the Scouts (and the young women organization of the Church). I donated $30 to have a flag placed in the lawn of my home so that I could participate in the patriotic display of a neighborhood united in support of its Country and the men and women who fight and die for it.

On Memorial Day 2006, I had the opportunity as the Webelo’s Den Leader to help the Cub Scouts of your Charter place the flags around our neighborhood. And while the display was awesome, I am afraid that I was less than pleased with the process.

The proper way to store the American flag is with 13 folds leaving the field of stars visible. The most important reason for doing this is respect for the flag, our country, and the people who have fought for it. However, this will also extend the life of the flag by reducing the bumping of the flag against other poles and flags in storage.

The flags own and cared for by your Scouts are semi-permanently attached to the pole and cannot be removed without considerable effort. Thus, the flags can only be stored by rolling them up around the pole.

The only reason that I can see for not folding the flags is to save time. However, what message is this saying to our scouts? I believe that it tells the boys that their time is more important than their country. It changes the order of how I believe the Boy Scouts sees things. It puts self before country and not the other way around.

I respectfully request that the flag be folded before it is stored. If this is not possible, then I request that the flag no longer be placed in my yard. Please keep the $30 donation, but understand that I will not donate in the future.

Respectfully,
Travis R Grant

Okay, now, I need you to reign me in here. Am I wrong? I tried to find information about the proper storage and respect of the flag, and I can’t find it anywhere. The closest I could come to an official statement is the U.S. Code Title 4, Chapter 1. However, there is no mention that the flag should be stored in the triangle fold. I did find one site that mentions folding as proper storage (see usflag.org). However, this is not an official site.

So, should I actually send the letter above? Should I make changes? Am I complete wrong? Am I right? (Like that’ll ever happen.) Should I st let it slide and allow the scouts to store the flag in a way that I find offensive? Should I add a comment about how I feel the boy need to be in their uniforms too, or would that be pushing it too far?

UPDATE (1 Jun 2006): I emailed the good peoople at ushistory.org, who run a great resource on the American Flag and Betsy Ross, and they told me that although the triangle fold isn’t necessary it is the most respectful. After a follow up email, they confirmed that just rolling the flag around the pole is not appropriate and shouldn’t be done.

Possibly Related Posts: