There are some out there who are cheering the fact that President Obama had the moxie to act when Congress didn't. For years, perhaps for two decades, the President has been wanting Congress to pass an immigration reform bill. The reason, well, immigration laws as they are currently written do not work.
The reason they are not working is a little something called The Constitution, which says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the Jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."
This has been interpreted to mean that if you are born in the United States, you are a citizen. For the current immigration debate it means that if a couple from other nations comes into this country, and has a child, that child is a citizen of the US and the state they reside. If the parents are deported, the child remains here without his mother and father.
This problem is not fixable by a simple or a comprehensive bill passed through Congress, nor is it fixable by executive order of the President. The only way to fix this bill is to alter the language of the 14th amendment. This would not be unrepresented as most countries in the world do not recognize "anchor babies" as citizens.
Of course, this is out of context. The 14th Amendment was designed to give citizenship to former slaves freed as a result of the Civil War, not to give citizenship to anchor babies. But the courts have interpreted the language of the amendment as such. However, if it weren't for this, families could be deported to their home countries in total.
In the long run, that doesn't sound very appealing. And because most undocumented immigrants come from Latin America, as well as a sizable minority from Asia, any such effort would be dismissed as discriminatory against ethnic groups.
For all these reasons, efforts to reform immigration have stalled in Congress for years. The US Constitution only provides limited mechanisms for the executive or judicial branch to act when the legislative branch is hopelessly deadlocked. But President Obama doesn't agree. And when Congress failed to act on immigration, he decided to act on his own. Not only was the very action, at best, borderline constitutional, it was sneaky and it will be months before any of this could be fixed by Congress or by the Supreme Courth. Here are some of the sneaky ways in which this executive order was executed.
1. Lame Duck Congress.
Election Day is the first Tuesday in November, but the newly elected Congressmen/women/androgynous beings and Senators do not begin their term until the 3rd of January. The sixty days or so remaining in the term of the old Congress are referred to as the Lame Duck days of Congress and the constitution limits what can be done at this time. Usually, Congress does not take up new business during their Lame Duck session.
Legislation passed during this time can be quickly over-turned when the next Congress takes office in January. Let's also not forget that the party controlling the Senate changes in January. Any effort to undo what the President has done will die in the Senate before the GOP takes over. Also, the Republicans do not have an over-ride proof majority. Any action taken by Congress could be vetoed by President Obama.
2. Thanksgiving Recess
The president did not sign his executive order until after most members of Congress were on their way home for the Thanksgiving recess. Therefore, members of Congress who decided that spending a week back in their districts and with their families look week for not doing anything.
3. His term and legacy
The last two years of a president's second term are usually forgotten as the debate in the media turns to the fight over who will replace him. Too often, the last two years of the second term of many of our past presidents have been marked by scandal and controversy. Johnson had Vietnam to deal with. Reagan dealt with the Iran Contra affair. Clinton's sex life came to haunt him. And George W. Bush had a whole slew of problems.
I personally wouldn't have yelled a whole lot of Obama had been able to get congress to pass the action that he took in a bill. This bill affects a small percentage of the undocumented immigrant population. I would be frankly surprised if the Latino community doesn't act like the kid who got a $2 bill from grandma for Christmas.
I was once told by a college professor that I had that politician who actually solve problems don't get re-elected. It is absolutely true that the President can't make law on his own when Congress doesn't act. Our founding fathers would have been foolish to write the Constitution to allow it. Why even have a legislative branch if the President can act on his own? The president can write executive orders, but only within the realm that Congress has permitted him to act.
I would have rather seen the President provide a little more leadership and patience in this matter. He could meet with Latino leaders. He could put names and faces on TV. He could encourage citizens to petition their representatives. But he did not of that. Perhaps the teleprompter on the bully pulpit is broken. I think the president doesn't have the command of a crowd that his predecessors possessed. Something that Hollywood describes as "IT". I fear for what else this president is going to do on his own. I hope that someone will emerge as a leader in Congress and put the president back in his place.
I don't say that as a Republican. I say it as a Citizen of the United States. Anyone who applauds what the President has done should remember that what this president has done, the next president can undo. And what this president has done, the next president can repeat. It is scary to think about no matter which party you belong to. If Barack Obama can do this, what will Sarah Palin do if she ever gets elected? Even Democrats in congress should stand up for the sake of the country.
Sunday, November 23, 2014
Tuesday, September 9, 2014
Three Things McDonalds Does Wrong
I am not going to bore you with another reason to raise the minimum wage. You simply have to read this blog. I have already spoken on it. I am simply going to explain that the problems that McDonalds and the fast food industry have brought on themselves. I worked for a McDonalds for about 4 months and am grateful that I was able to escape.
1. Too many franchises.
Within a 10 minute drive from my home, there are no fewer than 7 McDonalds outlets. In Riverdale, Utah, there is a McDonalds inside Wal-Mart and another right across the street. There are is one in Roy, Utah. There are two nearby in West Haven, Utah. One near 40th and Midland Drive. The other is just east of the 21st Street interchange with I-15. In Ogden there is one near 12th and Washington. There is another near 40th and Washington witch is technically South Ogden.
There is a reason for this. McDonalds doesn't consider food to be primary to their business model. It is real-estate. They purchase the prime locations for franchises, for no other reason than to keep competitors like Burger King and Subway out of the neighborhood.
Source
What has happened as a result? The restaurants compete against each-other for customers. This means that they must keep their prices low, perhaps too low, to really operate efficiently. More supply with the same level of demand means lower prices for your product. That is the main reason why McDonalds employees are paid at or near minimum wage. The franchise owners can't afford to pay more.
Because McDonalds is an industry leader, nearly everyone else in the fast food market has to follow suit. If you are going to compete with McDonalds, you have to operate on a small margin as well. Which means low wages industry-wide.
2. Low-quality food
I am certainly not going to endorse the findings in Super Size Me or any other trashy documentary. These guys are too biased in their findings, and it is obvious.
There are many counter-arguments, however. KSL recently produced a news story about a many who has had at least one Big Mac every single work day for several years. That is all he will eat for lunch.
However, when the food is cheap, it is also low in quality. Sure, it is not as bad as it could be. McDonalds has the buying power to get higher-end cheap food. But it is still cheap food. Very few are going to argue with that point.
3. Career Path
Hey, did you hear the one about the famous celebrity chef who got his start at McDonalds. Me neither. Here is a list of people who began working at McDonalds and became famous. None of them for their cullinary skills
http://www.businessinsider.com/celebrities-who-used-to-work-at-mcdonalds?op=1
Of course there was this story as well...
http://news.mcdonalds.com/US/news-stories/McDonalds-Quality-Ingredients-Take-Center-Stage-D
I will concede that if a famous chef or a top chef ever worked at McDonalds, they would consider that knowledge bad for their image and would hide it from the public. Most famous chefs will say that they began their careers washing dishes at some mom and pop bakery or restaurant and worked their way to the top. From my McDonalds experience, I would argue that most people who work their way to the top a McDonalds want to become franchise owners rather than some famous chef.
It has also been my experience that if an employee gets a better offer elsewhere and wants to leave, there is little resistance in letting him go. There are hundreds of people out there who want that job.
We have three things that McDonalds has done to make their own bed. Let's see if they decide to fix it.
1. Too many franchises.
Within a 10 minute drive from my home, there are no fewer than 7 McDonalds outlets. In Riverdale, Utah, there is a McDonalds inside Wal-Mart and another right across the street. There are is one in Roy, Utah. There are two nearby in West Haven, Utah. One near 40th and Midland Drive. The other is just east of the 21st Street interchange with I-15. In Ogden there is one near 12th and Washington. There is another near 40th and Washington witch is technically South Ogden.
There is a reason for this. McDonalds doesn't consider food to be primary to their business model. It is real-estate. They purchase the prime locations for franchises, for no other reason than to keep competitors like Burger King and Subway out of the neighborhood.
Source
What has happened as a result? The restaurants compete against each-other for customers. This means that they must keep their prices low, perhaps too low, to really operate efficiently. More supply with the same level of demand means lower prices for your product. That is the main reason why McDonalds employees are paid at or near minimum wage. The franchise owners can't afford to pay more.
Because McDonalds is an industry leader, nearly everyone else in the fast food market has to follow suit. If you are going to compete with McDonalds, you have to operate on a small margin as well. Which means low wages industry-wide.
2. Low-quality food
I am certainly not going to endorse the findings in Super Size Me or any other trashy documentary. These guys are too biased in their findings, and it is obvious.
There are many counter-arguments, however. KSL recently produced a news story about a many who has had at least one Big Mac every single work day for several years. That is all he will eat for lunch.
However, when the food is cheap, it is also low in quality. Sure, it is not as bad as it could be. McDonalds has the buying power to get higher-end cheap food. But it is still cheap food. Very few are going to argue with that point.
3. Career Path
Hey, did you hear the one about the famous celebrity chef who got his start at McDonalds. Me neither. Here is a list of people who began working at McDonalds and became famous. None of them for their cullinary skills
http://www.businessinsider.com/celebrities-who-used-to-work-at-mcdonalds?op=1
Of course there was this story as well...
http://news.mcdonalds.com/US/news-stories/McDonalds-Quality-Ingredients-Take-Center-Stage-D
I will concede that if a famous chef or a top chef ever worked at McDonalds, they would consider that knowledge bad for their image and would hide it from the public. Most famous chefs will say that they began their careers washing dishes at some mom and pop bakery or restaurant and worked their way to the top. From my McDonalds experience, I would argue that most people who work their way to the top a McDonalds want to become franchise owners rather than some famous chef.
It has also been my experience that if an employee gets a better offer elsewhere and wants to leave, there is little resistance in letting him go. There are hundreds of people out there who want that job.
We have three things that McDonalds has done to make their own bed. Let's see if they decide to fix it.
Sunday, May 4, 2014
$15 per hour is too much too fast.
It may be time to raise the minimum wage, but $15 per hour is too much way to fast. That is the proposal in Seattle right now. This will not have the effect that people think it will have. There are three questions that politicians need to consider before raising the minimum wage. First, what percentage of workers will be effected by the proposed increase, not just overall but on a business by business basis. Second, what will business do to meet the excess payroll expenses. Third, what are the potential unintended consequences of the increase.
The typical business guideline is that a company spend 30% of their revenues on labor. That means that for every dollar your company makes, you should spend 30 cents paying people. If your company makes 1 million dollars, then you can spend 300,000 on paying your employees. But this varies by industry. Service industries like hotels and restaurants will spend a higher percentage of revenue on payroll while many professional offices will spend less on payroll. Service industries pay a little over 50% of their revenue on payroll. Other industries pay as little as 15% on payroll.
Currently, the federal minimum wage is 7.25 per hour. 15 dollars per hour represents a 107% increase in the minimum wage. This increase is not only going minimum wage workers. A business is going to have to raise almost everyone's wage. Currently, approximately 30% of the workforce nationwide makes $15 per hour or less, depending on who works full-time or part-time, where only about 2% of the workforce makes the minimum wage. If the minimum wage is raised to $15 per hour, a company is not going to raise the wage of the person who makes $14.75 to $15 per hour. The raise will have to be greater. What effect will this have if only Seattle raises the minimum wage?
The companies that will be hardest hit are the service companies. The service industry will be hit the hardest. This means that businesses in these industries will have choices to make. How do you deal with such an sharp increase in your expenses. This isn't like some vendor increasing their prices. You have no choice but to pay this money. A company that can't make payroll doesn't stay in business for very long. If your paying 50% of your revenue on payroll and suddenly it become 100%, you have nothing left for any of your other expenses. You have to pass most of these expenses onto your customers. Or you cut your staff. Or you move. Or you close.
What will likely happen is that some business will pass the new expenses onto their customers, and will even double their prices. Some business will cut their staff. Some businesses will increase their prices a little while cutting some staff. Some businesses will relocate. Some businesses will close.
Can you imagine operating a restaurant with only have the staff? Can you imagine waiting longer for your meal because there are not any clean dishes? Because there is not a cleared table? Can you imagine waiting twice as long for your food because the wait staff and kitchen staff are inadequate? Imagine what happens when word gets out that you can stay or eat in Everett or Bellevue or Renton or Federal Way pay less and get better service?
Could a business operate in downtown Seattle, bring in perspective clients and deal with the expense. Would it also make sense to operate that business in the suburbs? Would you also not want to operate where your employees have less expense to deal with.
There is also a myth that many people have. Too many people believe that their boss, their business owner has plenty of money. That they can absorb the expense. Even if you have the cash, even if you are Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, you don't stay that way for very long by letting your payroll expense grow beyond your revenue. However, most owners in the business industry aren't exactly rolling in the cash. It's a good bet that the person who owns the nearby McDonalds franchise is struggling just as much as most families are.
Imagine going to Seattle in the near future where most of the service businesses are boarded up. Where most people at the downtown offices brown bag not to save money, but because there are very few affordable places nearby to have lunch. Or where the company caters lunches from nearby cities to save money. Imagine going to Pikes Place Marketplace and finding very few of sites there are operating. Imagine walking along the waterfront with your family, but finding that the only places to eat will cost you hundreds. This is probably not the future that the Seattle Chamber of Commerce wants, which explains why they are fighting the proposed increase.
It may be time to raise the minimum wage, but such a steep increase will be too much for one business community to deal with. The effect on the service industry will be too drastic. If done, the increase in the minimum wage should be lower and implemented more gradually and should be done in a way that is realistic.
The typical business guideline is that a company spend 30% of their revenues on labor. That means that for every dollar your company makes, you should spend 30 cents paying people. If your company makes 1 million dollars, then you can spend 300,000 on paying your employees. But this varies by industry. Service industries like hotels and restaurants will spend a higher percentage of revenue on payroll while many professional offices will spend less on payroll. Service industries pay a little over 50% of their revenue on payroll. Other industries pay as little as 15% on payroll.
Currently, the federal minimum wage is 7.25 per hour. 15 dollars per hour represents a 107% increase in the minimum wage. This increase is not only going minimum wage workers. A business is going to have to raise almost everyone's wage. Currently, approximately 30% of the workforce nationwide makes $15 per hour or less, depending on who works full-time or part-time, where only about 2% of the workforce makes the minimum wage. If the minimum wage is raised to $15 per hour, a company is not going to raise the wage of the person who makes $14.75 to $15 per hour. The raise will have to be greater. What effect will this have if only Seattle raises the minimum wage?
The companies that will be hardest hit are the service companies. The service industry will be hit the hardest. This means that businesses in these industries will have choices to make. How do you deal with such an sharp increase in your expenses. This isn't like some vendor increasing their prices. You have no choice but to pay this money. A company that can't make payroll doesn't stay in business for very long. If your paying 50% of your revenue on payroll and suddenly it become 100%, you have nothing left for any of your other expenses. You have to pass most of these expenses onto your customers. Or you cut your staff. Or you move. Or you close.
What will likely happen is that some business will pass the new expenses onto their customers, and will even double their prices. Some business will cut their staff. Some businesses will increase their prices a little while cutting some staff. Some businesses will relocate. Some businesses will close.
Can you imagine operating a restaurant with only have the staff? Can you imagine waiting longer for your meal because there are not any clean dishes? Because there is not a cleared table? Can you imagine waiting twice as long for your food because the wait staff and kitchen staff are inadequate? Imagine what happens when word gets out that you can stay or eat in Everett or Bellevue or Renton or Federal Way pay less and get better service?
Could a business operate in downtown Seattle, bring in perspective clients and deal with the expense. Would it also make sense to operate that business in the suburbs? Would you also not want to operate where your employees have less expense to deal with.
There is also a myth that many people have. Too many people believe that their boss, their business owner has plenty of money. That they can absorb the expense. Even if you have the cash, even if you are Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, you don't stay that way for very long by letting your payroll expense grow beyond your revenue. However, most owners in the business industry aren't exactly rolling in the cash. It's a good bet that the person who owns the nearby McDonalds franchise is struggling just as much as most families are.
Imagine going to Seattle in the near future where most of the service businesses are boarded up. Where most people at the downtown offices brown bag not to save money, but because there are very few affordable places nearby to have lunch. Or where the company caters lunches from nearby cities to save money. Imagine going to Pikes Place Marketplace and finding very few of sites there are operating. Imagine walking along the waterfront with your family, but finding that the only places to eat will cost you hundreds. This is probably not the future that the Seattle Chamber of Commerce wants, which explains why they are fighting the proposed increase.
It may be time to raise the minimum wage, but such a steep increase will be too much for one business community to deal with. The effect on the service industry will be too drastic. If done, the increase in the minimum wage should be lower and implemented more gradually and should be done in a way that is realistic.
Sunday, December 29, 2013
Same-Sex Marriage in Utah...Worst Case Scenario for the LDS Church
Much has been made of what same-sex marriage means for the LDS church. There is a lot of fear being spread around many circles. Can the government force the LDS church to recognize same-sex couples? Can the government force the LDS church to perform temple sealings for same-sex couples?
The short answer is no. Your question is, hasn't this been done before? And the answer is no.
In the late 1800s, the Federal Government pressured the LDS church to drop the practice of polygamy. Andy many of you will tell me that the Federal Government succeeded. That is not exactly the truth. The LDS church, in 1890 agreed to stop plural marriage in the United States. However, in Mexico and Canada, plural marriage continued for another 14 years. Plural marriage ended when it was time.
You might say that the LDS church also caved to political pressure in 1978 when they decided to give the priesthood to all male members. The church simply was not under the same kind of political pressures in 1978 at all. There were no government threats at all.
As far as same-sex marriage is concerned, what will happen. Initially, nothing. SSM has been legal in a number of states for many years. In spite of rumors of lawsuits, there has been little pressure from on the church to recognize it. In the United States religion is a choice. So someone sues the church to force a Bishop to perform their ceremony, how far does that lawsuit go? It's not like there are not hundreds of other churches to choose from.
But if it does get that far, you probably won't see the federal government attempt to seize property or dis-incorporate the church as you did in the late 1800s. First of all, it's not like the LDS church doesn't exist in other countries around the world. If the US church organization is broken up in the United States, it's not like the church can't reorganize in Brazil or Mexico or in a country more favorable to church doctrines. It could happen in the blink of an eye in this day and age.
The likely worst that the government can do to the LDS faith or to any faith in this day and age is to remove their tax-exempt status. This would provide a little bit of a windfall, initially, along the Wasatch front, particularly in Utah County where there are 4 temples, BYU, the Provo MTC and around 150 LDS stakes. So in my ill-faded attempt to 'steady the ark' here is how the LDS church could deal with this new expense.
First, the church could double up on their chapels. Turn the part of each church that is now called the cultural hall into a second chapel. In meeting houses that now hold 2 or 3 wards, you could house as many a 8 with minimal remodeling. All that would needed to be added to the chapels that would continue to be used is an extra wing for new office space and an extra wing for new classroom space. The other half of the chapels in the church could be razed, and the land sold. Areas that now hold bowries and softball fields could be turned into parking lots. Members could also be encouraged to walk, carpool and take public transportation to their weekly meetings.
This type of construction has already happened in big cities such as New York, Denver and San Francisco where land is expensive and difficult to come by. The church could save significant amounts of coin, if they were taxed, by trying this type of construction along the Wasatch Front.
Let's say that in the future the government says that they can no longer recognize marriages that are performed in temples as binding. How does the church react. Couple will simply be married civilly before having their marriages later sealed in the temple. If this were to happen, the best case scenario is that the couple is married at the county courthouse in the morning, officiated by a justice of the peace or a notary public. Then the couple could have their temple ceremony in the afternoon.
At worst, that sealing would take place years later, when the Stake President determines that the marriage has been sufficiently tried and the couple has earned the right and the likelihood of divorce is minimal. Averages tells us that this time is 7 years, but perhaps this will be later. Perhaps enough time will pass that the children will remember and appreciate the experience. There are some countries, such as Brazil, that do not recognize religious marriages, and couples are required to be married civilly before going to the temple.
The bottom line is that if you are LDS and worried about the church being forced to recognize something that you don't believe. Don't. Remember who is in charge and trust in a positive outcome.
The short answer is no. Your question is, hasn't this been done before? And the answer is no.
In the late 1800s, the Federal Government pressured the LDS church to drop the practice of polygamy. Andy many of you will tell me that the Federal Government succeeded. That is not exactly the truth. The LDS church, in 1890 agreed to stop plural marriage in the United States. However, in Mexico and Canada, plural marriage continued for another 14 years. Plural marriage ended when it was time.
You might say that the LDS church also caved to political pressure in 1978 when they decided to give the priesthood to all male members. The church simply was not under the same kind of political pressures in 1978 at all. There were no government threats at all.
As far as same-sex marriage is concerned, what will happen. Initially, nothing. SSM has been legal in a number of states for many years. In spite of rumors of lawsuits, there has been little pressure from on the church to recognize it. In the United States religion is a choice. So someone sues the church to force a Bishop to perform their ceremony, how far does that lawsuit go? It's not like there are not hundreds of other churches to choose from.
But if it does get that far, you probably won't see the federal government attempt to seize property or dis-incorporate the church as you did in the late 1800s. First of all, it's not like the LDS church doesn't exist in other countries around the world. If the US church organization is broken up in the United States, it's not like the church can't reorganize in Brazil or Mexico or in a country more favorable to church doctrines. It could happen in the blink of an eye in this day and age.
The likely worst that the government can do to the LDS faith or to any faith in this day and age is to remove their tax-exempt status. This would provide a little bit of a windfall, initially, along the Wasatch front, particularly in Utah County where there are 4 temples, BYU, the Provo MTC and around 150 LDS stakes. So in my ill-faded attempt to 'steady the ark' here is how the LDS church could deal with this new expense.
First, the church could double up on their chapels. Turn the part of each church that is now called the cultural hall into a second chapel. In meeting houses that now hold 2 or 3 wards, you could house as many a 8 with minimal remodeling. All that would needed to be added to the chapels that would continue to be used is an extra wing for new office space and an extra wing for new classroom space. The other half of the chapels in the church could be razed, and the land sold. Areas that now hold bowries and softball fields could be turned into parking lots. Members could also be encouraged to walk, carpool and take public transportation to their weekly meetings.
This type of construction has already happened in big cities such as New York, Denver and San Francisco where land is expensive and difficult to come by. The church could save significant amounts of coin, if they were taxed, by trying this type of construction along the Wasatch Front.
Let's say that in the future the government says that they can no longer recognize marriages that are performed in temples as binding. How does the church react. Couple will simply be married civilly before having their marriages later sealed in the temple. If this were to happen, the best case scenario is that the couple is married at the county courthouse in the morning, officiated by a justice of the peace or a notary public. Then the couple could have their temple ceremony in the afternoon.
At worst, that sealing would take place years later, when the Stake President determines that the marriage has been sufficiently tried and the couple has earned the right and the likelihood of divorce is minimal. Averages tells us that this time is 7 years, but perhaps this will be later. Perhaps enough time will pass that the children will remember and appreciate the experience. There are some countries, such as Brazil, that do not recognize religious marriages, and couples are required to be married civilly before going to the temple.
The bottom line is that if you are LDS and worried about the church being forced to recognize something that you don't believe. Don't. Remember who is in charge and trust in a positive outcome.
Saturday, October 19, 2013
In the aftermath, what did the shut-down strategy accomplish?
1. It was masturbatory. I know that this is an offensive word to some, but it fits. For those of you who are unfamiliar with this word, let me define it as self-gratifying and one-sided. In the long run, who really benefited from the stand that Ted Cruz made against the implementation of Obamacare other than Ted Cruz and a few of his allies? Mike Lee, for example, won $700,000 in campaign donations. But otherwise, Lee lost support at home and he will need every penny he raised to defend his seat from an in-party challenge in 2016.
2. It was myopic. What are the goals of the Republican Party right now? They really should be three fold. First, to successfully defend their majority in the House of Representatives in 2014. Second, to gain the majority of seats in the senate in 2014. And third, build momentum for the eventual Republican nominee for the Presidency in 2016.
How did the stand against Obamacare work toward those goals? First of all, it created an anti-incumbent furor in the electorate. Sure, that helps in gaining a majority in the Senate, but it makes defending the majority in the house much more difficult. It also gives the eventual democratic nominee in 2016 a wedge to use against his or her opponent.
3. It was meager. In the long run, what was accomplished? The concessions that were won were meager and not worth shutting down the government for 16 days. When taking a stand like this, the gains have to be worth shuttering the government for two weeks. Obviously, they were not going to delay Obamacare implementation, and in that sense, there was little to gain from the onset. All that happened was the can was kicked 4 months down the road, and we potentially go through this all again in January, long before the unpleasant memories have faded.
A better strategy for the Republicans would have been to allow Obamacare to go into effect and let people judge the program for what it is. It's problems have been apparent and well-documented. If the Republicans would have simply let it be implemented, allowed the problems to come to the forefront, they could have joined in a united chorus of "I told you so." If you elect Republicans, we can do better.
You have to pick your battles carefully, or you lose. In this case, not enough was accomplished for the GOP to declare victory.
2. It was myopic. What are the goals of the Republican Party right now? They really should be three fold. First, to successfully defend their majority in the House of Representatives in 2014. Second, to gain the majority of seats in the senate in 2014. And third, build momentum for the eventual Republican nominee for the Presidency in 2016.
How did the stand against Obamacare work toward those goals? First of all, it created an anti-incumbent furor in the electorate. Sure, that helps in gaining a majority in the Senate, but it makes defending the majority in the house much more difficult. It also gives the eventual democratic nominee in 2016 a wedge to use against his or her opponent.
3. It was meager. In the long run, what was accomplished? The concessions that were won were meager and not worth shutting down the government for 16 days. When taking a stand like this, the gains have to be worth shuttering the government for two weeks. Obviously, they were not going to delay Obamacare implementation, and in that sense, there was little to gain from the onset. All that happened was the can was kicked 4 months down the road, and we potentially go through this all again in January, long before the unpleasant memories have faded.
A better strategy for the Republicans would have been to allow Obamacare to go into effect and let people judge the program for what it is. It's problems have been apparent and well-documented. If the Republicans would have simply let it be implemented, allowed the problems to come to the forefront, they could have joined in a united chorus of "I told you so." If you elect Republicans, we can do better.
You have to pick your battles carefully, or you lose. In this case, not enough was accomplished for the GOP to declare victory.
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
The Right and Wrong to Push the Conservative Agenda
By this title, you may have guessed that I believe that the GOP is pushing their agenda the wrong way. The government has shut down, federal employees are out of work, government services have been curtailed. People are upset. I'm going to let you in on a secret. Many in the GOP don't care. This includes Senator Mike Lee. They want to push the country into another recession. They believe that President Obama and the Democrats will be blamed and the GOP, and that super conservatives will reap the benefit at the ballot box in the coming years.
This, by the way, is the strategy the Democrats employed in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Make the president look bad, then the sitting President and his party usually garner blame when the country goes into economic chaos. Your party gets to benefit.
This is a bad strategy is so many ways. First and foremost, according to election exit polls, most people still blamed the current economic mess on President George W. Bush and the Republican Party in the last election. There is little evidence that people have forgotten that. If the economy teeters into recession again, do people see it as an extension of the Bush recession? Are you sure?
Second, the ACA, which people refer to as Obamacare, is the law of the land. It has already passed through Supreme Court muster. But perhaps an analogy to help people understand this better.
When I was in college at Weber State, our football team traveled to Reno to take on the Wolfpack when they were still members of the Big Sky Conference. The Wolfpack, at that time, recently won a national championship and was ranked in the top 5. They were heavy favorites. Weber State went into Reno and took a 49-7 lead late into the third quarter. They lost the game 56-52. In the press conference after the game, Coach Dave Arslenian blamed the loss on a missed call on an onside kick when Weber was ahead 52-49. When you blow a 6 touchdown lead, do you really want to go in public blaming the loss on the officials?
That is what the GOP is doing right now. They are blaming this lost game on the officials. Sure, the house can vote to repeal or replace the ACA. But they don't have the votes in the Senate, and even if they did, it would surely be voted by the President, who will not let his prized legacy go away. What is the right way to go?
If you want the ACA to go away, you need to keep the majority in house, gain a majority in the senate and then win the White House. The ACA will be the law of the land until 2017, like it or not. There may be nothing constitutionally wrong with the way the GOP in the house is trying to block funding of the act. There may be nothing constitutionally wrong with the way Ted Cruz and Mike Lee are acting in the Senate. However, it is a risky political strategy. There is no guarantee that the voting American is going to send Republicans to Congress in 2014 as a result of these actions.
Rather than a strategy that could sour the voting public on the GOP, actions taken by the Republicans right now have to be geared toward improving the Republican brand. They need to make people feel better about voting Republican in 2014 and 2016.
The strategy right now is to make Democrats look bad so that people won't feel good voting for Democrats in the next election cycle. There is a lot of risk in making people feel like the government doesn't represent you, that going to the polls on election day accomplishes nothing. It makes more people think in their minds, "what is the point of voting in the first place?" What does that really accomplish?
The right way to do it is the way the Ronald Reagan showed us in the 1980s. The first step is to work to build and strengthen the economy. If you can't do this at the national level, do it at the state level. Show people that they can get jobs in red states. Let people vote with their feet at first. The people in blue states will begin to notice what is happening in red states and demand similar changes in their states. Can this work? Compare Detroit to Salt Lake City and decide for yourself.
As was said so often in the 1992 election, "It's the economy." It still is. Now why in your right mind would you do anything to undermine this fragile economy? Let's say that the ACA drags down the already fragile economy without a government shutdown, who gets the blame? Perhaps, it's best that America learn this lesson the hard way. Let's hope that there is enough of a GOP party left to fix the country when it does.
Let me write one more thing about the TEA party movement. It stands for Taxed Enough Already. Nothing that the Republicans have done to shut down the government will lead to lower taxes. One thing that can lead to lower taxes is reducing the percentage of the populace on the public dole. What happens during the shutdown is that Americans who have bet their ability to be self-reliant have to apply for unemployment, housing assistance and food stamps. That doesn't sound like it will do anything to reduce taxes in the long run to me. TEA party people must work harder to understand the unintended consequences of their actions.
This, by the way, is the strategy the Democrats employed in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Make the president look bad, then the sitting President and his party usually garner blame when the country goes into economic chaos. Your party gets to benefit.
This is a bad strategy is so many ways. First and foremost, according to election exit polls, most people still blamed the current economic mess on President George W. Bush and the Republican Party in the last election. There is little evidence that people have forgotten that. If the economy teeters into recession again, do people see it as an extension of the Bush recession? Are you sure?
Second, the ACA, which people refer to as Obamacare, is the law of the land. It has already passed through Supreme Court muster. But perhaps an analogy to help people understand this better.
When I was in college at Weber State, our football team traveled to Reno to take on the Wolfpack when they were still members of the Big Sky Conference. The Wolfpack, at that time, recently won a national championship and was ranked in the top 5. They were heavy favorites. Weber State went into Reno and took a 49-7 lead late into the third quarter. They lost the game 56-52. In the press conference after the game, Coach Dave Arslenian blamed the loss on a missed call on an onside kick when Weber was ahead 52-49. When you blow a 6 touchdown lead, do you really want to go in public blaming the loss on the officials?
That is what the GOP is doing right now. They are blaming this lost game on the officials. Sure, the house can vote to repeal or replace the ACA. But they don't have the votes in the Senate, and even if they did, it would surely be voted by the President, who will not let his prized legacy go away. What is the right way to go?
If you want the ACA to go away, you need to keep the majority in house, gain a majority in the senate and then win the White House. The ACA will be the law of the land until 2017, like it or not. There may be nothing constitutionally wrong with the way the GOP in the house is trying to block funding of the act. There may be nothing constitutionally wrong with the way Ted Cruz and Mike Lee are acting in the Senate. However, it is a risky political strategy. There is no guarantee that the voting American is going to send Republicans to Congress in 2014 as a result of these actions.
Rather than a strategy that could sour the voting public on the GOP, actions taken by the Republicans right now have to be geared toward improving the Republican brand. They need to make people feel better about voting Republican in 2014 and 2016.
The strategy right now is to make Democrats look bad so that people won't feel good voting for Democrats in the next election cycle. There is a lot of risk in making people feel like the government doesn't represent you, that going to the polls on election day accomplishes nothing. It makes more people think in their minds, "what is the point of voting in the first place?" What does that really accomplish?
The right way to do it is the way the Ronald Reagan showed us in the 1980s. The first step is to work to build and strengthen the economy. If you can't do this at the national level, do it at the state level. Show people that they can get jobs in red states. Let people vote with their feet at first. The people in blue states will begin to notice what is happening in red states and demand similar changes in their states. Can this work? Compare Detroit to Salt Lake City and decide for yourself.
As was said so often in the 1992 election, "It's the economy." It still is. Now why in your right mind would you do anything to undermine this fragile economy? Let's say that the ACA drags down the already fragile economy without a government shutdown, who gets the blame? Perhaps, it's best that America learn this lesson the hard way. Let's hope that there is enough of a GOP party left to fix the country when it does.
Let me write one more thing about the TEA party movement. It stands for Taxed Enough Already. Nothing that the Republicans have done to shut down the government will lead to lower taxes. One thing that can lead to lower taxes is reducing the percentage of the populace on the public dole. What happens during the shutdown is that Americans who have bet their ability to be self-reliant have to apply for unemployment, housing assistance and food stamps. That doesn't sound like it will do anything to reduce taxes in the long run to me. TEA party people must work harder to understand the unintended consequences of their actions.
Sunday, August 18, 2013
Proposal to Mordernize Utah's Higher Education System
1. Toughen entrance standards for the University of Utah and Utah State University. There is no reason why these two schools should accept students who are not ready for college. If kids are not prepared based upon three factors; ACT Scores, Grade Point Average, and classes taken they should not be admitted. It is a waste of money by both the schools and the students themselves to attend these schools when they are not academically prepared.
2. Create more two-year community colleges. I am not going to propose that these schools get built from the ground up, but that existing institutions become converted into community colleges. Salt Lake Community College is huge, and I do not suggest any more in Salt Lake County as a result. Here is my list.
Northern Wasatch Front:
A. Convert Utah State's Brigham City Campus into the new Brigham City Community College.
Davis/Weber County
B. Convert WSU-Davis into the new Layton Community College. This will require an expansion at the main Weber State Campus, but there is land at the old site of McKay-Dee Hospital which has been unused for nearly a decade. This would be a good use of eminent domain. There are also many abandoned buildings in downtown Ogden that WSU could convert and use as classroom space.
C. Convert Wood Cross High School into the new Bountiful Community College. The loss of a high school in Davis County can be compensated for by building a new high school in Farmington. If you look at the Davis County School District boundaries, you can see that this could be a welcome change for that district.
Utah Valley
D. There are a scattering of empty stores on University Parkway/State Street area. Use eminent domain to convert one of the older, more-abandoned strip malls; such as the Family Center in Orem, into a new community college. The retail vacancy rate in Utah Valley is around 8%. This is not good for any community. Obviously the demand for all of this retail space is not there. Loss of one major shopping center will probably be good for the community as a whole.
3. There are new 4-year colleges, similar in mission to Weber State and Utah Valley that are needed, especially if admission to the USU and the U of U become tougher. Otherwise, these two colleges will become overwhelmed and will not be able to assist their students. Here are my proposals to assist.
A. Convert the South City campus of Salt Lake Community College into Salt Lake State College. Give the new college right of first refusal to all commercial land between the former South High School and Spring Mobile Ballpark. This will give the new college a place to grow, but to grow at a comfortable place. Salt Lake Community college could then take over the former Granite High School as the main north-county campus. Eventually, the campus will surround that area of State Street, which is blighted by many abandoned stores. The example for this kind of campus is Portland State University.
B. So you want to relocate the state prison? Why not convert part of it into a new four-year college? My proposal is the what is now the women's section of the prison be converted into a new 4-year state college. There are several names this new campus could take, but I suggest Lone Peak State College.
2. Create more two-year community colleges. I am not going to propose that these schools get built from the ground up, but that existing institutions become converted into community colleges. Salt Lake Community College is huge, and I do not suggest any more in Salt Lake County as a result. Here is my list.
Northern Wasatch Front:
A. Convert Utah State's Brigham City Campus into the new Brigham City Community College.
Davis/Weber County
B. Convert WSU-Davis into the new Layton Community College. This will require an expansion at the main Weber State Campus, but there is land at the old site of McKay-Dee Hospital which has been unused for nearly a decade. This would be a good use of eminent domain. There are also many abandoned buildings in downtown Ogden that WSU could convert and use as classroom space.
C. Convert Wood Cross High School into the new Bountiful Community College. The loss of a high school in Davis County can be compensated for by building a new high school in Farmington. If you look at the Davis County School District boundaries, you can see that this could be a welcome change for that district.
Utah Valley
D. There are a scattering of empty stores on University Parkway/State Street area. Use eminent domain to convert one of the older, more-abandoned strip malls; such as the Family Center in Orem, into a new community college. The retail vacancy rate in Utah Valley is around 8%. This is not good for any community. Obviously the demand for all of this retail space is not there. Loss of one major shopping center will probably be good for the community as a whole.
3. There are new 4-year colleges, similar in mission to Weber State and Utah Valley that are needed, especially if admission to the USU and the U of U become tougher. Otherwise, these two colleges will become overwhelmed and will not be able to assist their students. Here are my proposals to assist.
A. Convert the South City campus of Salt Lake Community College into Salt Lake State College. Give the new college right of first refusal to all commercial land between the former South High School and Spring Mobile Ballpark. This will give the new college a place to grow, but to grow at a comfortable place. Salt Lake Community college could then take over the former Granite High School as the main north-county campus. Eventually, the campus will surround that area of State Street, which is blighted by many abandoned stores. The example for this kind of campus is Portland State University.
B. So you want to relocate the state prison? Why not convert part of it into a new four-year college? My proposal is the what is now the women's section of the prison be converted into a new 4-year state college. There are several names this new campus could take, but I suggest Lone Peak State College.
Monday, May 20, 2013
Just Punishment for the IRS.
Tea Party groups are preparing to sue the IRS for targeting their groups during the last election cycle. One has to ask the question, aren't Tea Party groups trying to take advantage of their fellow tax-payers?
This is not necessarily so. 40 years ago, there was a scandal brewing in Washington that eventually went all the way to the President. Perhaps you read about it in your history class, if they made it all the way to the 1970s. It was called Watergate. It brought down President Richard Nixon, who resigned as the US House was drafting articles of impeachment. Several reforms came out of wake of this scandal. But none of them involved the use of the Internal Revenue Service as a tool to punish the enemies of the President. Because Congress has failed to act on this, something has to be done.
There are 3 ways to make laws in the US. If legislation fails, the President or the administration can act by fiat. This is where much regulatory law comes from. We will likely have an opportunity on this blog to speak about regulatory fiat at a later time. Laws can also come about by legal precedent.
Tea Party groups may not win a lot of money by suing the IRS. That should not be the point. If courts side with them, which they probably will, it will set a new legal precedent. It will ensure that the tax collection arm of the Federal Government can't be used as a political battering ram. Meaning that this president, and any future president, will be unable to use the IRS to punish political enemies.
This seems necessary. In everything that has happened since it was revealed that the IRS was being used to punish enemies of the White House, no one, from either party, has seemed willing to draft legislation to make this behavior illegal. It shouldn't be, and Speak Boehner seemed to think based on his, "who is going to jail" comment, that it is already against the law. No one seems to have said that we should draft laws to ensure that this behavior is swiftly and clearly punished in the future.
In the law, you do not have to sue for money. You can sue for performance. You can sue to ensure your neighbor picks up after his dog. You can sue the city to put up more street lights in a high crime area. And you can sue to government to ensure that the IRS asks only financial questions in a audit. You can also sue to ensure that the IRS only audits when they find financial irregularities. And you can sue to ensure that no elected official, nor appointed official has the power to order an IRS audit unless irregularities are discovered in tax statements.
This all should have been on the books 40 years ago. Seems we haven't learned for history. Let's make sure that this lesson is learned now, even if we must use the courts.
This is not necessarily so. 40 years ago, there was a scandal brewing in Washington that eventually went all the way to the President. Perhaps you read about it in your history class, if they made it all the way to the 1970s. It was called Watergate. It brought down President Richard Nixon, who resigned as the US House was drafting articles of impeachment. Several reforms came out of wake of this scandal. But none of them involved the use of the Internal Revenue Service as a tool to punish the enemies of the President. Because Congress has failed to act on this, something has to be done.
There are 3 ways to make laws in the US. If legislation fails, the President or the administration can act by fiat. This is where much regulatory law comes from. We will likely have an opportunity on this blog to speak about regulatory fiat at a later time. Laws can also come about by legal precedent.
Tea Party groups may not win a lot of money by suing the IRS. That should not be the point. If courts side with them, which they probably will, it will set a new legal precedent. It will ensure that the tax collection arm of the Federal Government can't be used as a political battering ram. Meaning that this president, and any future president, will be unable to use the IRS to punish political enemies.
This seems necessary. In everything that has happened since it was revealed that the IRS was being used to punish enemies of the White House, no one, from either party, has seemed willing to draft legislation to make this behavior illegal. It shouldn't be, and Speak Boehner seemed to think based on his, "who is going to jail" comment, that it is already against the law. No one seems to have said that we should draft laws to ensure that this behavior is swiftly and clearly punished in the future.
In the law, you do not have to sue for money. You can sue for performance. You can sue to ensure your neighbor picks up after his dog. You can sue the city to put up more street lights in a high crime area. And you can sue to government to ensure that the IRS asks only financial questions in a audit. You can also sue to ensure that the IRS only audits when they find financial irregularities. And you can sue to ensure that no elected official, nor appointed official has the power to order an IRS audit unless irregularities are discovered in tax statements.
This all should have been on the books 40 years ago. Seems we haven't learned for history. Let's make sure that this lesson is learned now, even if we must use the courts.
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
This Type of Rhetoric Must Stop.
Let's take a look at this picture that someone posted on Facebook.for a moment...
What strikes you about this add? It's the language. It breaks a lot of rules about how a civil person would act. It's once thing, as I do, to disagree with Obama's policies. It's one thing to voice your opposition to the policies of the President. It's quite another to call not so nice names to his supporters.
Is it any wonder the Congress is deadlocked? People of both sides of any political discussion have very strong feelings about what causes they support. The first way to avoid finding middle ground is to make fun of, or even bully the people who feel the opposite.
There are good, conservative reason to stand in opposition to Obama's policies. If you doubt that, read this blog. Resorting to name calling is not the way to get our point across.
Now, as far as...
Obama's work experience. He was a US Senator when he was elected. If Obama is unqualified to be president, so were Andrew Jackson, Franklin Pierce, Benjamin Harrison, Warren G. Harding, and John F. Kennedy.
Conservative reason to oppose:
John McCain was also a US Senator. However, McCain had a longer history in the Senate and was present for most of his votes. It was easy to find his record on many issues. Obama was still a first term senator, and some people have said that it takes 6 years just to learn where all of the bathrooms are.
I do not agree with Obama's economic plan, but please remember who was president when the economy crashed in 2008 and what party he was from. That is the reason why most people who like Obamanomics choose as their reasoning.
Conservative reason to oppose:
The Economic plan first implemented under Reagan is a plan for growth, but also a plan for risk. The economy crashed in 2008 because companies were not prepared for the risk that comes with high growth, particularly in the real estate market. The plan can work again, especially if more people can prepare themselves for the risks.
There are people who voted for McCain or Romney because he was white. They were just as wrong.
Conservative rebuttal:
Race is never a reason to vote for or against someone. Period.
Again, this is said as if Republicans did not give away free stuff. The Republicans, even Ronald Reagan, gave away freebees to the public. Newt Gingrich, in the late 1990s, even though he helped balance the budget, was more concerned about tax cuts than actually paying the federal debt.
Conservative rebuttal:
The only reason for government give-aways is if the government is going to get more tax revenue than is spent. Very few give-aways meet this acid test.
Many people find security in labor unions. They see maintenance of the Union as a key to preserving their way of life. They might be misinformed, but tool in this context is very ugly word.
Conservative rebuttal:
Labor unions offer a false sense of job security. As was learned with the Hostess bankruptcy, if the company can't stay in business, there is little any labor union can do about it. The best job security comes from developing skills that are in demand.
It is true that nothing is free, and this is especially true of healthcare. But too many people are brought up with the idea that they do not have to pay for these things, and that someone else should pick up the bill. It will take decades to reprogram people otherwise.
Conservative rebuttal:
We do need to get out of the trap that someone else is going to pay for our health care. We need savings plans that roll over from year to year and we need to allow people to save their own money, tax free, to pay for health care needs on their own. As far as the escalating expense, however, the medical industry also needs to understand what their customer base is capable of paying. If cars, for example, saw the same kinds of escalating expenses that the health care industry has seen, we'd all be walking. Reliance on a 3rd party to pay 70-90% of someones medical bills is not a good business model. We need to ask people to pay more and we need to get the health care industry to give people a break on prices. We need to pay for the little things ourselves so that there is insurance money to cover the big things.
To the last point, I doubt anyone truly knows, republican or democrat, what President Obama really stands for. There is not such thing as a transparent politician. Transparent people don't get elected.
Conservative rebuttal:
It would be nice if politicians were more transparent. Who knows when that will happen. I suggest that if you ever run for office, that you bring transparency to politics. Maybe the trend will catch on.
What strikes you about this add? It's the language. It breaks a lot of rules about how a civil person would act. It's once thing, as I do, to disagree with Obama's policies. It's one thing to voice your opposition to the policies of the President. It's quite another to call not so nice names to his supporters.
Is it any wonder the Congress is deadlocked? People of both sides of any political discussion have very strong feelings about what causes they support. The first way to avoid finding middle ground is to make fun of, or even bully the people who feel the opposite.
There are good, conservative reason to stand in opposition to Obama's policies. If you doubt that, read this blog. Resorting to name calling is not the way to get our point across.
Now, as far as...
Obama's work experience. He was a US Senator when he was elected. If Obama is unqualified to be president, so were Andrew Jackson, Franklin Pierce, Benjamin Harrison, Warren G. Harding, and John F. Kennedy.
Conservative reason to oppose:
John McCain was also a US Senator. However, McCain had a longer history in the Senate and was present for most of his votes. It was easy to find his record on many issues. Obama was still a first term senator, and some people have said that it takes 6 years just to learn where all of the bathrooms are.
I do not agree with Obama's economic plan, but please remember who was president when the economy crashed in 2008 and what party he was from. That is the reason why most people who like Obamanomics choose as their reasoning.
Conservative reason to oppose:
The Economic plan first implemented under Reagan is a plan for growth, but also a plan for risk. The economy crashed in 2008 because companies were not prepared for the risk that comes with high growth, particularly in the real estate market. The plan can work again, especially if more people can prepare themselves for the risks.
There are people who voted for McCain or Romney because he was white. They were just as wrong.
Conservative rebuttal:
Race is never a reason to vote for or against someone. Period.
Again, this is said as if Republicans did not give away free stuff. The Republicans, even Ronald Reagan, gave away freebees to the public. Newt Gingrich, in the late 1990s, even though he helped balance the budget, was more concerned about tax cuts than actually paying the federal debt.
Conservative rebuttal:
The only reason for government give-aways is if the government is going to get more tax revenue than is spent. Very few give-aways meet this acid test.
Many people find security in labor unions. They see maintenance of the Union as a key to preserving their way of life. They might be misinformed, but tool in this context is very ugly word.
Conservative rebuttal:
Labor unions offer a false sense of job security. As was learned with the Hostess bankruptcy, if the company can't stay in business, there is little any labor union can do about it. The best job security comes from developing skills that are in demand.
It is true that nothing is free, and this is especially true of healthcare. But too many people are brought up with the idea that they do not have to pay for these things, and that someone else should pick up the bill. It will take decades to reprogram people otherwise.
Conservative rebuttal:
We do need to get out of the trap that someone else is going to pay for our health care. We need savings plans that roll over from year to year and we need to allow people to save their own money, tax free, to pay for health care needs on their own. As far as the escalating expense, however, the medical industry also needs to understand what their customer base is capable of paying. If cars, for example, saw the same kinds of escalating expenses that the health care industry has seen, we'd all be walking. Reliance on a 3rd party to pay 70-90% of someones medical bills is not a good business model. We need to ask people to pay more and we need to get the health care industry to give people a break on prices. We need to pay for the little things ourselves so that there is insurance money to cover the big things.
To the last point, I doubt anyone truly knows, republican or democrat, what President Obama really stands for. There is not such thing as a transparent politician. Transparent people don't get elected.
Conservative rebuttal:
It would be nice if politicians were more transparent. Who knows when that will happen. I suggest that if you ever run for office, that you bring transparency to politics. Maybe the trend will catch on.
Monday, April 8, 2013
Term Limits...Not the Answer for Better Government
Many people believe that term limits are the answer to better government. But this is not the case. Most people arguing for or against term limits do not present cold hard facts. But what facts can you site? Well, there are 15 US States that have legislative term limits. If term limits were such a great thing for the states, then states with term limits would be some of the best-managed states with some of the best results for their citizens. The data says otherwise.
Of the states which have term limits, the credit ratings are all over the board. 3 states which have term limits, Florida, Missouri and Nebraska, have a AAA credit rating. Three states, Arizona, California and Michigan, which have term limits have an AA- credit rating or worse. Among those without term limits, only New Jersey and Illinois have poor credit ratings
Wall Street 24/7 has listed the best managed states, based up results like unemployment and cost of living. And they also use debt per-capita as a measure. None of the states in the top 20%, or top 10 states, have term limits. Only Maine and Nebraska are in the 2nd 20% and have term limits. Arizona, California, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan and Nevada, who have term limits, are in the bottom 20%.
No states that have term limits have both a good credit rating and are considered well-managed. Of states without term limits, only Illinois has a poor credit rating and is considered one of the worst-managed states.
Can we make any conclusions based upon this data? The main conclusion is that term limits, at best, have no effect on the quality of government. Based on the data, we can conclude that term limits would also be ineffective at the federal level as most states, except for Nebraska, have the same division of powers that the Federal Government has. (Nebraska has a uni-cameral legislature or no House of Representatives.) At the same time, this could also be an argument for the states that have term limits to repeal them.
But I am not the only one who feels that term limits are not so great.
Why would this be the case. Isn't a good thing to get rid of career politicians? Look at this from the point of view of someone wanting to contribute to the election after a representative has reach the limit of his term. If you are benefiting from the direction of government, do you want to see a change? Do you want to risk electing a reformer? Probably not. You want a clone. And if you can't find a clone, you find a twin. And if you can't find a twin, you find a sibling. If you benefit from the current direction of politics, you will do everything in your power to ensure that nothing changes.
The second problem is experience. We value experience when filling just about any job, why is experience a bad thing when it comes to politicians? If you want change and reform, you need someone new. But that does not mean you will get a reformer who can be effective. One thing that a manager must consider before terminating an employee for cause is who can he hire to replace him. That replacement will have to learn the job and will, perhaps, at least at first, be worse than the person that was fired. This is why marginal performers at your work site are usually never fired. When your legislature has term limits, it's almost all learning curve. And lack of experience in the legislature may even tip the balance of power toward unelected bureaucrats.
California is the prime example of term limits not working. It is considered one of the worst-managed states in the US, and it has the lowest credit rating. Sometime well-meaning but inexperienced legislators just don't know where or how to pull the right strings. They don't know how to say no, or when to say yes. They don't know when voting against the party line is a good thing, and almost always vote with it instead. I must emphasize this one point...term limits in California have done nothing to improve the quality of their state government, and have probably made it worse. Experienced legislators have moved on, and back to their old day jobs. When someone returns, it is as lobbyist...and when a lobbyist knows more about how the government works than the legislators, the lobbyist will usually have their way. Is that really a good thing?
Perhaps, instead of term limits, what is needed is another check on the system. Here in Utah, one of those checks is the caucus system. There are problems with the caucus system, and there was a ballot initiative to do away with it that never came to the voters. The caucus system was instead weakened by a compromise. For all it's faults, it did get 3-term Republican Robert Bennett out of office, which is something that proponents of term limits want. Many conservatives in the state liked him. Many wealthy people liked him, and that is what spurred the ballot initiative.
As a nation, we need systems that better hold incumbents feet to the fire. A system that keeps them honest and effective stewards. Often at the party level, incumbents are given a free pass, even if they have not been very effective. And in some cases, they get a free pass even if they have been corrupt and abusive of their power. Congressional districts are more often drawn to keep the same party in power than to be neutral. At least the Utah caucus system, for all of it's problems, creates an easier road for challengers, and a more challenging road for incumbents even if that power is now somewhat weakened. And look at where Utah is on this list. AAA credit rating and one of the best managed states. I think part of the reason for that has been the caucus system.
You might also argue that having a presidential term limit has been a good thing. But out of all of the two-term presidents after Harry Truman, only one has publicly said he would like a third term. That man's name is Barrack Obama. And look at what Obama has done with his second term. Many of his most controversial actions, that became law without the consent of Congress have happened in his second term. An example of this is the tightening EPA regulations on coal plants, which have shuttered coal mines in union country. If Obama was still worried about the Labor Union vote, would he have taken the same actions? It's debatable and something to think about.
Many of our two term presidents since the 22nd Amendment was ratified have shown at least some contempt for the voice of the people? Does the Iran/Contra Affair ring a bell? Watergate coverup? Hurricane Katrina? The 22nd Amendment didn't curb the President's power. If anything, it gives him more power, because in his second term, he can run unchecked by not having to run again.
What about the President's Party? Wouldn't the president be checked in power because he wants to be succeeded by someone in his own party? How many times has a two-term president been succeeded by someone from his own party? Since the 22nd Amendment was ratified, that has only happened once, when George HW Bush succeeded Ronald Reagan.
Doesn't history and the president's legacy curb his power? Has that stopped anyone in their second term? As for Richard Nixon, it only emboldened him.
It's plain that state without term limits are much better off than states with term limits. Term limits may sound like a good thing, but there is really no evidence to show that they will be effective at a national level. In the long run, it's just another feel-good idea, that won't do much. And if anything, may make problems worse.
Credit Rating Source.
Best Managed States.
Of the states which have term limits, the credit ratings are all over the board. 3 states which have term limits, Florida, Missouri and Nebraska, have a AAA credit rating. Three states, Arizona, California and Michigan, which have term limits have an AA- credit rating or worse. Among those without term limits, only New Jersey and Illinois have poor credit ratings
Wall Street 24/7 has listed the best managed states, based up results like unemployment and cost of living. And they also use debt per-capita as a measure. None of the states in the top 20%, or top 10 states, have term limits. Only Maine and Nebraska are in the 2nd 20% and have term limits. Arizona, California, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan and Nevada, who have term limits, are in the bottom 20%.
No states that have term limits have both a good credit rating and are considered well-managed. Of states without term limits, only Illinois has a poor credit rating and is considered one of the worst-managed states.
Can we make any conclusions based upon this data? The main conclusion is that term limits, at best, have no effect on the quality of government. Based on the data, we can conclude that term limits would also be ineffective at the federal level as most states, except for Nebraska, have the same division of powers that the Federal Government has. (Nebraska has a uni-cameral legislature or no House of Representatives.) At the same time, this could also be an argument for the states that have term limits to repeal them.
But I am not the only one who feels that term limits are not so great.
Why would this be the case. Isn't a good thing to get rid of career politicians? Look at this from the point of view of someone wanting to contribute to the election after a representative has reach the limit of his term. If you are benefiting from the direction of government, do you want to see a change? Do you want to risk electing a reformer? Probably not. You want a clone. And if you can't find a clone, you find a twin. And if you can't find a twin, you find a sibling. If you benefit from the current direction of politics, you will do everything in your power to ensure that nothing changes.
The second problem is experience. We value experience when filling just about any job, why is experience a bad thing when it comes to politicians? If you want change and reform, you need someone new. But that does not mean you will get a reformer who can be effective. One thing that a manager must consider before terminating an employee for cause is who can he hire to replace him. That replacement will have to learn the job and will, perhaps, at least at first, be worse than the person that was fired. This is why marginal performers at your work site are usually never fired. When your legislature has term limits, it's almost all learning curve. And lack of experience in the legislature may even tip the balance of power toward unelected bureaucrats.
California is the prime example of term limits not working. It is considered one of the worst-managed states in the US, and it has the lowest credit rating. Sometime well-meaning but inexperienced legislators just don't know where or how to pull the right strings. They don't know how to say no, or when to say yes. They don't know when voting against the party line is a good thing, and almost always vote with it instead. I must emphasize this one point...term limits in California have done nothing to improve the quality of their state government, and have probably made it worse. Experienced legislators have moved on, and back to their old day jobs. When someone returns, it is as lobbyist...and when a lobbyist knows more about how the government works than the legislators, the lobbyist will usually have their way. Is that really a good thing?
Perhaps, instead of term limits, what is needed is another check on the system. Here in Utah, one of those checks is the caucus system. There are problems with the caucus system, and there was a ballot initiative to do away with it that never came to the voters. The caucus system was instead weakened by a compromise. For all it's faults, it did get 3-term Republican Robert Bennett out of office, which is something that proponents of term limits want. Many conservatives in the state liked him. Many wealthy people liked him, and that is what spurred the ballot initiative.
As a nation, we need systems that better hold incumbents feet to the fire. A system that keeps them honest and effective stewards. Often at the party level, incumbents are given a free pass, even if they have not been very effective. And in some cases, they get a free pass even if they have been corrupt and abusive of their power. Congressional districts are more often drawn to keep the same party in power than to be neutral. At least the Utah caucus system, for all of it's problems, creates an easier road for challengers, and a more challenging road for incumbents even if that power is now somewhat weakened. And look at where Utah is on this list. AAA credit rating and one of the best managed states. I think part of the reason for that has been the caucus system.
You might also argue that having a presidential term limit has been a good thing. But out of all of the two-term presidents after Harry Truman, only one has publicly said he would like a third term. That man's name is Barrack Obama. And look at what Obama has done with his second term. Many of his most controversial actions, that became law without the consent of Congress have happened in his second term. An example of this is the tightening EPA regulations on coal plants, which have shuttered coal mines in union country. If Obama was still worried about the Labor Union vote, would he have taken the same actions? It's debatable and something to think about.
Many of our two term presidents since the 22nd Amendment was ratified have shown at least some contempt for the voice of the people? Does the Iran/Contra Affair ring a bell? Watergate coverup? Hurricane Katrina? The 22nd Amendment didn't curb the President's power. If anything, it gives him more power, because in his second term, he can run unchecked by not having to run again.
What about the President's Party? Wouldn't the president be checked in power because he wants to be succeeded by someone in his own party? How many times has a two-term president been succeeded by someone from his own party? Since the 22nd Amendment was ratified, that has only happened once, when George HW Bush succeeded Ronald Reagan.
Doesn't history and the president's legacy curb his power? Has that stopped anyone in their second term? As for Richard Nixon, it only emboldened him.
It's plain that state without term limits are much better off than states with term limits. Term limits may sound like a good thing, but there is really no evidence to show that they will be effective at a national level. In the long run, it's just another feel-good idea, that won't do much. And if anything, may make problems worse.
Credit Rating Source.
Best Managed States.
| State | Term Limits | Credit Rating | Best Managed* |
| Arizona | y | AA- | Bottom 20% |
| Arkansas | y | AA | 2nd lowest 20% |
| California | y | A- | Bottom 20% |
| Colorado | y | AA | Middle 20% |
| Florida | y | AAA | Bottom 20% |
| Louisiana | y | AA | Bottom 20% |
| Maine | y | AA | 2nd 20% |
| Michigan | y | AA- | Bottom 20% |
| Missouri | y | AAA | Middle 20% |
| Montana | y | AA | Middle 20% |
| Nebraska | y | AAA | 2nd 20% |
| Nevada | y | AA | Bottom 20% |
| Ohio | y | AA+ | 2nd lowest 20% |
| Oklahoma | y | AA+ | 2nd lowest 20% |
| South Dakota | y | AA+ | 2nd 20% |
| Alabama | n | AA | 2nd lowest 20% |
| Alaska | n | AA+ | 2nd 20% |
| Connecticut | n | AA | 2nd 20% |
| Delaware | n | AAA | 2nd 20% |
| Georgia | n | AAA | 2nd lowest 20% |
| Hawaii | n | AA | Top 20% |
| Idaho | n | AA+ | Middle 20% |
| Illinois | n | A+ | Bottom 20% |
| Indiana | n | AAA | Middle 20% |
| Iowa | n | AAA | Top 20% |
| Kansas | n | AA+ | 2nd 20% |
| Kentucky | n | AA- | Bottom 20% |
| Maryland | n | AAA | Top 20% |
| Massachusetts | n | AA | 2nd 20% |
| Minnesota | n | AAA | Top 20% |
| Mississippi | n | AA | Bottom 20% |
| New Hampshire | n | AA | Top 20% |
| New Jersey | n | AA- | Middle 20% |
| New Mexico | n | AA+ | 2nd lowest 20% |
| New York | n | AA | Middle 20% |
| North Carolina | n | AAA | Middle 20% |
| North Dakota | n | AA+ | Top 20% |
| Oregon | n | AA+ | Middle 20% |
| Pennsylvania | n | AA | Middle 20% |
| Rhode Island | n | AA | 2nd lowest 20% |
| South Carolina | n | AA+ | Bottom 20% |
| Tennessee | n | AA+ | 2nd lowest 20% |
| Texas | n | AA+ | 2nd lowest 20% |
| Utah | n | AAA | Top 20% |
| Vermont | n | AA+ | Top 20% |
| Virginia | n | AAA | Top 20% |
| Washington | n | AA+ | 2nd 20% |
| West Virginia | n | AA | 2nd lowest 20% |
| Wisconsin | n | AA | 2nd 20% |
| Wyoming | n | AAA | Top 20% |
| *Based on Debt per-capita, Unemployment, Cost of Living and Median Household Income | |||
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
