Utah has made another alcohol law that seems silly. That is until you do your research. Even though sound research backs it up, there are good reasons that Utah should not be the first state that should pass this law.
About the science. We must recognize that every body is different and we all metabolize alcohol differently. Some people who have had enough to drink to put their BAC at .05 may be perfectly sound and safe to drive. Other people may not be. .05 is considered legally intoxicated in Germany, the beer capitol of the world. If the beer capitol of the world thinks it should be .05, I'm not going to argue. However, most Germans will not drive their newly purchased Mercedes to the pub and then drive home. Most will ride home with a non-drinking friend or take a cab both to and from the place where they will get stoned out of their minds.
That is the standard that I would like all Americans to adopt. If you are going out to drink, don't drive there. Take a cab to the place where you will drink. If you take a cab there, you will take a cab home. If you don't drive there, you won't be tempted to drive home. Simple enough?
Utah is not a good state to begin the push for .05 in the US. There are two reasons for this. First, it deepens the divide between Mormons and non-Mormons in Utah. Yes, there are judgmental and pretentious Mormons, just like every other Christian sect. There are some Latter-Day Saints, such as myself, who enjoy and cherish our relationships with our non-LDS friends and wish that the Utah State Legislature would do less with our liquor laws and focus efforts elsewhere, like fighting bankruptcy or air pollution or some real problem in this state. DUIs are not really a big problem in Utah. Which brings me to point 2.
Utah already has the lowest DUI rates in the country. It is not because of our liquor laws. Therefore, it is not a good test ground for .05 BAC. States that are in the middle ground for DUI rates, like Georgia and Illinois would be better test grounds for this than Utah. States where lowering the DUI to .05 would make a difference in the DUI rate. People who drink in Utah are probably not going to be persuaded to stop because of a lower BAC. Perhaps it will have the opposite effect.
Governor Herbert plans to call the legislature into special session to fix some problems with the law. You might say that he should have vetoed the bill. I think if he had, the veto could have been overridden with little chance to negotiate for something better. The law will not go into effect until December of 2018. There is time. If I were in the legislature, I would want a provision for the law not to go into effect until at least 9 other states have done the same thing. If it really is a good thing, it will catch on.
Thursday, March 23, 2017
Tuesday, January 24, 2017
Myths About Term Limits Debunked...
1. Term Limits will end career politicians.
Here is a career that fits will within term limit laws:
Politician A.
Spends 12 years as a City Councilwoman, First Elected at age 25
Spends 8 years as City Mayor, First Elected at age 37
Spends 8 years in State Legislature, First Elected at age 45
Spends 12 years in US House of Representatives, First Elected at age 53
Years in Politics: 44 Years, Retires at age 65.
Sounds like a good career to me.
Truth. Term limits will do nothing more that limit the number of years a person spends in Congress. Period. It all depends on the context of the term, "Career Politician."
2. Term Limits will promote new ideas.
The idea here is that with new people coming into the office every 12 years, that the new person will bring new ideas with them. That the old ideas will go away when the old politician is forced out of office.
There are 15 states that have term limit laws. One of them is California. Their law has been on the books for 27 years. I have found, in my research, at least three attempts to change the law over the years. Why? If California's term limit laws are so effective, why are they trying to change it?
New ideas are needed. The real problem is that those who are new in office and more likely to bring new ideas to the table, are often shuffled to the back of the room by those who have been in office for a long time. The most powerful in Congress today are those who serve as committee chairs. Those who serve as committee chairs are those who have paid their dues, who have been in office for years.
The reason for this is experience. It mimics what is done in the real world. How many companies are run by those who are fresh out of college? Companies that turn a nose to the new ideas brought to the table by recent college graduates tend to pay the price. But, if a company is not run by the founder, it is run by someone with experience. There is a reason for this. Perhaps there is a better way to remind those who are at the top levels of congress to listen to the new representatives, but at the end of the day, experience will rule out.
3. Term limits will end corruption.
The idea is that the longer people are in power, the more they are corrupted by it. However, it's not hard to find honest, hard-working people who have been in congress a long time. One must remember that a US Senator serves for 6-year terms. With term limits, what would they do with the second 6 years? Whatever they want. It may actually weaken the resistance to "cash in" before their time is up. What would you do in your job if you had no accountability for six whole years?
There is nothing about term limits that will prevent special interest groups from buying influence...if you believe that that goes on. It is also possible that that money will be used to hand-pick successors where it now goes to helping incumbents. This might actually increase political corruption instead of ending it. But there really have been no studies on this and one could effectively argue both sides of this coin.
In some states with term limits, those trying to buy-in simply go to the executive branch instead of the legislative. At the federal level, if you can't go to the Chief Executive, you go to the bureaucrats. Legislation may end up getting replaced by uncontrolled regulation or deregulation by those who aren't accountable to the voters, and this is something that the same people who argue for term limits are definitely against. It goes on now and it will continue to happen with term limits and might even increase with an inexperienced Congress. This is likely something that neither major political party really wants. Term limits will do nothing to address bureaucratic corruption, but yet give that extra-constitutional fourth branch of government more power.
Let me offer some alternative solutions
1. End the practice of gerrymandering. Require that congressional district boundaries be drawn by non-partisan panels, that they are not only contiguous, and as geographically proportional as possible. No more congressional districts designed to favor any political party, any race, any gender, any religion.
2. Allow members of Congress to be impeached and removed from office by their state legislatures. The only real way to end corruption is to punish it. As of today, the only people who can punish members of the US Congress are members of the US Congress. As much as I respect The Founders, I think that they missed something here. In all areas, members of Congress should ultimately be accountable to the people they represent, especially in wrong-doing.
3. Support reforms that make it harder for members of Congress to get reelected, instead of easier. In too many states, and especially in gerrymandered districts, incumbents get a free pass to re-election. This should not be the case. Incumbents should be forced to justify keeping their job every single election. The harder they work to return to officer, the more accountable they will be and the less corrupt they will be. Term limits will do not a thing to accomplish this.
Here is a career that fits will within term limit laws:
Politician A.
Spends 12 years as a City Councilwoman, First Elected at age 25
Spends 8 years as City Mayor, First Elected at age 37
Spends 8 years in State Legislature, First Elected at age 45
Spends 12 years in US House of Representatives, First Elected at age 53
Years in Politics: 44 Years, Retires at age 65.
Sounds like a good career to me.
Truth. Term limits will do nothing more that limit the number of years a person spends in Congress. Period. It all depends on the context of the term, "Career Politician."
2. Term Limits will promote new ideas.
The idea here is that with new people coming into the office every 12 years, that the new person will bring new ideas with them. That the old ideas will go away when the old politician is forced out of office.
There are 15 states that have term limit laws. One of them is California. Their law has been on the books for 27 years. I have found, in my research, at least three attempts to change the law over the years. Why? If California's term limit laws are so effective, why are they trying to change it?
New ideas are needed. The real problem is that those who are new in office and more likely to bring new ideas to the table, are often shuffled to the back of the room by those who have been in office for a long time. The most powerful in Congress today are those who serve as committee chairs. Those who serve as committee chairs are those who have paid their dues, who have been in office for years.
The reason for this is experience. It mimics what is done in the real world. How many companies are run by those who are fresh out of college? Companies that turn a nose to the new ideas brought to the table by recent college graduates tend to pay the price. But, if a company is not run by the founder, it is run by someone with experience. There is a reason for this. Perhaps there is a better way to remind those who are at the top levels of congress to listen to the new representatives, but at the end of the day, experience will rule out.
3. Term limits will end corruption.
The idea is that the longer people are in power, the more they are corrupted by it. However, it's not hard to find honest, hard-working people who have been in congress a long time. One must remember that a US Senator serves for 6-year terms. With term limits, what would they do with the second 6 years? Whatever they want. It may actually weaken the resistance to "cash in" before their time is up. What would you do in your job if you had no accountability for six whole years?
There is nothing about term limits that will prevent special interest groups from buying influence...if you believe that that goes on. It is also possible that that money will be used to hand-pick successors where it now goes to helping incumbents. This might actually increase political corruption instead of ending it. But there really have been no studies on this and one could effectively argue both sides of this coin.
In some states with term limits, those trying to buy-in simply go to the executive branch instead of the legislative. At the federal level, if you can't go to the Chief Executive, you go to the bureaucrats. Legislation may end up getting replaced by uncontrolled regulation or deregulation by those who aren't accountable to the voters, and this is something that the same people who argue for term limits are definitely against. It goes on now and it will continue to happen with term limits and might even increase with an inexperienced Congress. This is likely something that neither major political party really wants. Term limits will do nothing to address bureaucratic corruption, but yet give that extra-constitutional fourth branch of government more power.
Let me offer some alternative solutions
1. End the practice of gerrymandering. Require that congressional district boundaries be drawn by non-partisan panels, that they are not only contiguous, and as geographically proportional as possible. No more congressional districts designed to favor any political party, any race, any gender, any religion.
2. Allow members of Congress to be impeached and removed from office by their state legislatures. The only real way to end corruption is to punish it. As of today, the only people who can punish members of the US Congress are members of the US Congress. As much as I respect The Founders, I think that they missed something here. In all areas, members of Congress should ultimately be accountable to the people they represent, especially in wrong-doing.
3. Support reforms that make it harder for members of Congress to get reelected, instead of easier. In too many states, and especially in gerrymandered districts, incumbents get a free pass to re-election. This should not be the case. Incumbents should be forced to justify keeping their job every single election. The harder they work to return to officer, the more accountable they will be and the less corrupt they will be. Term limits will do not a thing to accomplish this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
