Tag: term limits

Posted on

lasts

Today is my middle son’s last day of high school. No words, no less, will be shared this day in regard to any graduate encouragement, praise or proclamation; such is an approximate week away. I wish to instead speak of something different yet relevant. I wish to speak about all these “lasts.”

For JT, it was his last day…

His last day in Biotech…
His last Nerf Wars…
His last time pulling into 1 Tiger Trail no more than half awake…
His last mad dash out of the parking lot at the end of the day…
His last avoidance of the school lunch…
His last late night scarfing through the pantry for what to put in his sack lunch…
His last show choir competition…
His last show choir “grand champions” award…
His last class field trip…
His last concert…
His last egg drop invention…
His last game…
His last time to put on the uniform…
His last morning searching for clean socks…
His last GPA/class rank announcement…
His last day in the stands…
His last time cheering on his buddies…
His last prom…
(His last time his madre pays for prom…)
His last ACT attempt…
His last undergrad application…
His last high school essay…
His last morning scrambling for some festive spirit wear…
His last early-morning-not-talking-to-his-brother, simultaneously getting ready…
His last late night, thankful moment, talking with his parents…
His last show choir guys sleepover…
His last “grab-some-food-at-B-Dubs” after school…
His last time to take the mound…
His last daily banter with the guidance department…
His last morn not really eating the minimal breakfast I made for him before school…
His last political debate in AP Gov…
And his last day doing life with his current best friends…

While “lasts” often make us grimace — as much of what we love, does come to an end — I’ve learned that “lasts” give life meaning. It’s why wrestling with the reality of heaven and hell is vital; they’re the only things said to forever last.

“Lasts” help us not take whatever-the-last-describes for granted.

In fact, it’s one of the main reasons, this semi-humble current events observer advocates for term limits; if our representatives knew they had only a limited time to serve us well, perhaps they would listen more closely to the totality of their constituents, work better with the persons across the aisle, and be more prudent in their decision-making and spending. They only have so much time to serve. They need to serve us well.

Just a simple thought today, recognizing that most things exist only for a season, and yes, seasons change. Seasons give life value. Life has some necessary endings, allowing us to get to what’s next.

While I pondered this post yesterday afternoon, my son had 20, maybe 25 of his friends out in the backyard playing a rousing game of football. While a regular routine of theirs, no doubt it was the last after school game of his high school tenure.

Wisely, he enjoyed it so.

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

humble enough to limit service

photo-1456431063673-c7c7e8bab74f

While our current societal state seems rife with disagreement, one thing most agree upon is that our political system is broken. It’s inefficient. It’s too much…

… too much money… too much spending… too much obstruction… too much manipulation of the rules… too much gerrymandering… too much partisanship… too much arrogance… too much lying… too much division… too much disrespect… too much rhetoric… too much secrecy… too much corruption… too much special interest… too much.

Regardless of what happens on Election Day, the American government will remain broken until we solve the “too much.” What’s the solution? Some contend it’s campaign finance reform. Others boast if only we all agreed that their party should possess all power.

My sense is that it starts with something far more simple. It starts by reminding the elect that they are public servants — not career politicians. Public servants do not forget whom they serve; career politicians tend to serve party, special interest, and often self.

We need to remind the elect that they are not the elite. We need to remind them that they are citizens just like the rest of us, putting on their pants — or pantsuits (hardeeharhar) — the same leg at a time. Let me thus strongly advocate this day for term limits. I believe we need to limit how long our legislators can spend in elected office.

One of the things I’ve learned in recent years is that when you realize a season or experience is limited, you’re more intentional during that time. You don’t take it for granted. You’re more apt to handle it wisely and well.

Term limits would keep our Senators and Representatives humbler, reminding them that they are not God’s gift to us. It would emphasize the servant aspect of their position. As stated by Dan Greenberg, a nonprofit executive and former member of the Arkansas House of Representatives:

  • Term limits counterbalance incumbent advantages.
  • Term limits secure Congress’s independent judgment.
  • Term limits are a reality check.
  • Term limits minimize members’ incentives for reelection-related “pork- barrel” legislation.
  • Term limits would restore respect for Congress.

We certainly could use more respect for Congress.

Interestingly, term limit polling continually shows an overwhelming majority of us support such a measure. Note that the only substantial opposition comes from incumbent politicians and special interest groups; that should tell us something. Special interest groups/lobbyists want to keep “their people” in power. Said convicted-for-extensive-corruption, lobbyist Jack Abramoff, “As a lobbyist, I was completely against term limits, and I know a lot of people are against term limits, and I was one of the leaders, because why? As a lobbyist, once you buy a congressional office, you don’t have to re-buy that office in six years, right?” Again, that should tell us something. It should tell us lots.

Note the following:

  • Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) has spent over 51 years in office.
  • Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) is in year 45 of office.
  • Sen. Thad Cochran (R- MS) — combining his Senate and House tenure — is in year 43.
  • Rep. Don Young (R-AK) is also in year 43.
  • Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has been in office for 41 straight years.
  • His counterpart, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) has served the exact same amount of time.
  • Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) has been in the Senate and House over 40 years.
  • Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) have both served for 39.

I thank the above for their public service. However, I desire the promise, independence, creativity, objectivity, and respect that new congressmen would infuse into our current inefficient political system. We’ve put up with it for too long. It’s too much.

Let’s talk to those who represent us…

Want to represent us well? Then start by being humble enough to limit how long you serve.

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

government repairs: part 2 of 5

If the government is not irreparably broken, then how can we fix it? 

 

Priority #1:  congressional term limits.

 

Several of you have publicly and privately affirmed the above; the first step to fixing our broken government is to establish term limits for the elect.  The length of each term should be debated.  Presidents are given a maximum of 8 elected years.  I believe a reasonable approach is 12 years for senators — meaning 2 elected terms — and 8-12 years for representatives — meaning 4-6 terms.  If 8-12 years is not long enough to complete one’s job, then perhaps one is in the wrong job.

 

In preparation for suggested priority #1, I sought conservative, liberal, and independent opinion — gleaning insights from the Annenberg Public Policy Center, Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, BalancedPolitics.org, and RestartCongress.org among others.  Utilizing several of their articulations, let me offer the following reasons for congressional term limits:

 

  • Politicians would be less likely to focus on special interests because they cannot stay in office indefinitely.
  • If the elect are less focused on special interests, they will also be less likely to become comfortable with “pork barrel” spending.
  • Being less focused on lobbyists and special interests, chances for corruption will be limited.
  • More of a “citizen” Congress would be created, as opposed to congressional bodies primarily consisting of lawyers and career politicians.  Congress would thus be better in touch with their constituents as opposed to in touch with national party platforms.
  •  If better in touch with constituents, the vote of the elect would also more accurately reflect those they represent.
  •  The elect will then not be too far removed from their experiences in the private sector; hence, they should more easily comprehend how the private sector is affected by their legislation.
  •  Those in their last term of office are more likely to ignore politics and media criticism when considering prudent policy measures.
  •  The need for re-election becomes less important — as then does toeing the party line and holding onto party seats.  Too much of that is the current driver behind individual legislative decisions, which complicates passing legislation.
  •  Committee assignments would be determined by merit and expertise, rather than tenure, another area that currently wields significant potential for corruption.

 

The bottom line is that term limits would help restore ample respect for Congress.

 

One more thing that was eye-opening to me during this research process was the answer to the following question:  who typically opposes term limits?  What people groups seem to be most against the concept — especially when you look at the substantial, ethical reasons above?

 

Primarily in opposition to term limits are political scientists, lobbyists and special interests, and the elect themselves.  The concern among some political scientists is that amateurs may end up running the government.  But the lobbyists? … the special interest groups?  They see their influence as potentially lesser.  The elect?  They like being in office.

 

Term limits, hence, are priority #1.

 

Respectfully,

AR