TERM LIMITS


For the Math nerds:
Lim 
X-->1

In an earlier post, T.P. Voigt mentioned 12 things we can do to fix America. One of those was to set term limits for Congress. I would like to expound upon that and offer a specific solution. That ultimately is the goal of this blog; to not just point out national problems but to find sensible solutions.

Currently, the only limit in place for the federal government is the President. The President can serve two consecutive terms of four years. There is actually a way for a person to serve as President for 10 years. He or she would have to have been the Vice President for a President who was removed from office at least 2 years into the term. The VP would finish out the term as President and then still be able to run and potentially be elected twice.

But as for Congress, there is no such limit in place. Representatives are elected for 2 year terms and the Senate for 6 years. The Supreme Court Justices are given life appointments. They can die or retire, but their jobs are guaranteed so they can focus on the law and not their job security.

Because this blog is about actually offering solutions, here is mine.

I propose that we set the term limits as follows: The House of Representatives are allowed to be elected up to a total of 6 times, giving them 12 years to serve. These can be either concurrent or non-sequential. Members of the Senate are allowed 3 terms totaling 18 years. These can be either concurrent or non-sequential.

Why these numbers? Well, the Senate was set up so it would have a higher turnover ratio so it could there for be a more long term thinking group. The House has a high turnover, every 2 years, and is meant to capture the immediate emotion and feeling of the nation at that given time. These two bodies account for the short term and the long term. With a 12 and an 18 year limit, we still have that.

But we also gain the added benefit of no more career politicians. They would now have to have real skills in another field. We would most likely see an increase of teachers, doctors, farmers, welders, computer programmers, stay at home mothers, be more willing and able to enter the political ring.

The big, behind the scenes groups that use their money to keep politicians in power would be less likely to do so knowing their “candidate” won’t be around forever.  When a person knows their end is near they generally do one of two things: go out with a bang or a fizzle.

Knowing their time is at hand, the politician won’t have to spend so much time worrying about campaigning or raising money or passing laws that only benefit their voter base. It removes some of the burdens politicians face of constantly face. They can focus on actually being productive and not just cater to the masses.

And with the higher probability of newer members of Congress, we increase the likelihood of new, fresh ideas coming in and are less likely to face the political grid lock that happens when long time congresspeople circle the wagons and get into their petty feuds.

I welcome any comments on this possible solution. Am I too generous with my limit? Are limits a bad thing? Is there a different way you would want to limit Congress? This might be a small little blog, but someone might someday read something on here and make something happen

I KNOW THIS TO BE TRUE, WITH EVERY FIBER OF MY BEING

Imagine this: You are watching CNN. The host has two guests arguing about illegal immigration. The guests are touted as experts in their field and their credentials would prove that: one is a Harvard graduate; the other from Princeton. Both have the same degree. Yet somehow these two equals in their fields are able to have completely opposite views and argue them passionately. They both have the same data on the number of illegals in the country.

How is it then that when presented with the same data that two people can disagree while being so similar? It is simple. Normative vs. positive statements.

In economics (the most logical of all pursuits) breaks down all statements and ideas put forth into one of two categories: normative or positive. Understanding these will help to better understand what people are really arguing about.

A normative statement is one that is based on emotion and has no relation to numbers, facts, statistics, or data. It is a person’s statement on anything really that is based on their own thoughts and feelings. A normative statement cannot be quantified or studied. It cannot be correct in and of itself. It is generally not an acceptable way to support ones ideas either. An example of a normative statement: “There are too many illegals in this country”. Or “We should do more to help poor people”. Or this fun gem “The rent is too damn high!!” These statements are all based on a person’s individual beliefs. They cannot be proven nor disproven with numbers. How many is ‘too many’ illegals? How much is ‘do more’? How high is too high?

A positive statement is one that is solely based on numbers or quantifiable data. It is a statement that is correct regardless of opinion. Positive statements exists separate form any creed, color, gender, ethnicity, or political affiliation. Positive statements are what actually prove arguments and are useful in public and private discourse. Some examples are “1.2 million babies are aborted each year in the United States”, “The position of running back in the NFL is comprised of 99% black men”, or “The rent is 68% higher than the national average”. These statements ignore what is right and wrong. These statements actually inform others and are what we need more of.

So, how can our pretend Harvard and Princeton graduates have the same data and disagree so vehemently? Normative beliefs. One feels that illegals are hurting the country; the other feels we should do more to help them. Both can say that there are 12 million illegals in the U.S.

Why does any of this matter? Because the media uses these to make us react in the way that best sells air time or issues. We are told the normative statement and then given the positive statement that supports that feeling. This is a HUGE problem because numbers never lie but people do. And people can dig deep enough and long enough to find the positive statement they need to support their normative one.

It is important for us to be able to distinguish between a normative and a positive statement. Politicians use the normative to get your vote. They say sweet things to convince you that they can help. We like hearing sweet things. But the sweet things can’t be added, can’t be subtracted, or analyzed.

It is my humble hope that we we gather together to discuss and debate on what is going on and what needs to happen, we do so positively. Lets leave our heartfelt exclamations out of it. It is almost impossible for a human to remove their emotions from their words and actions, but for us to come together to really make things better, we need to bring our facts to the table and discuss the merits of those.

I know you really care about what you care about otherwise you wouldn't care.

 FREEEDOM!!!!!!!!

From the mouth of the Captain:

We sall have had enough

The accepted Lies

Truth.

   Some thoughts on the Gay Rights movement:

 

  My guiding principle on this issue is three fold: 1) I believe fully in liberty and justice for all. Isn't being free to decide one's destiny the whole point of being an American? 2) I will let anybody do their thing, as long as it doesn...'t affect me and my thing. Giving people the right to marry whom they choose doesn't really affect me or my thing. So we're good. You start telling me I have to be gay in order to support gay people and then we will have a problem. And 3) I try my best to follow the example of Jesus Christ, who, does not condone homosexuality, but, he also does not condone my less obvious sins either. He said love everyone. and so, that is what I will do. I don't agree that being homosexual is by any means acceptable. But I also believe that no one should be barred from making their own decisions. Tomorrow I could be forbidden from owning guns or practicing my religion, I wouldn't like that one bit. So I cant be a hypocrite and tell others what they can or cannot do. I support peoples right to marry whom they choose.