Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[hack]

Term limits are very important for heads of state. It's pretty much a rule: you get a head of state 10 years in that job or more, and things are going to go south. Even just a few steps down the ladder, yeah. Different.

[iam416]

The issue against term limits is the incumbent wins far too often merely by name recognition.

That's actually not the issue. The position for terms limits is that incumbents win too often and that CAUSES poor representation/bad government.

The issue is whether higher turnover actually creates better government. Put another way, is the pool of potential replacements better than the existing folks. I have a hard time believing the macro bell curve distribution of candidates varies from the elected pot to the unelected pot. I would actually posit that the elected pot is probably a slightly better pool. But assuming they're roughly equal, what do you gain by higher turnover? Inexperience.

As I said, I'd prefer to keep the really good people at the expense of tolerating the awful. Term limits are very much designed to purge the awful at the expense of also removing the very good.

[entropy]

I'm not sure there are many good ones. While it takes a little time for new congressmen/women to learn the ropes, I firmly believe long term politicians are so bought and sold they no longer valuable. Plus, over time the ability to compromise and work together dwindles.

[hack]

I believe that politicians should be limited to two terms - one in office and one in prison.

I am so sick of professional politicians. I think politicians should be selected like jury duty, by random selection. It can't be worse than what we have now. Democracy seems to bring out the worst people, not the best, especially when combined with money.

I would be ready to exchange this set of problems for that set of problems bit its the system that makes them that way IMO. Change the environment in which they do their thing.

Extralol at your two-term solution.

[iam416]

I'm not sure there are many good ones. While it takes a little time for new congressmen/women to learn the ropes, I firmly believe long term politicians are so bought and sold they no longer valuable. Plus, over time the ability to compromise and work together dwindles.

I think over time your ability to compromise increases. First, you establish a history with your counterparts that, IMO, is more productive than not. Second, you don't have the pressure of being elected on a specific platform.

I see it at the state level and at the federal level. Newbies come in on a very specific platform and, in a lot of cases, a platform that is ardent. They likely won a primary (where it really counts) by criticizing their opponent's willingness to compromise. And so they come in with zero impetus to compromise at all, zero personal relationships which may foster respect and compromise and end up accomplishing zero. As their terms pile up they eventually ease a bit. Or maybe that's just in Ohio.

Also, it's not like you can win an election (with or without an incumbent running) w/o significant donor support. I mean, c'mon. If you get elected, by and large you owe lots of people.

Anyway, if someone can persuade me that the unelected pool of candidates is somehow better than the elected pool, I'll change my view. Otherwise I view it as throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

[entropy]

I really don't think the long term dems and long term republicans can work together. I don't think they've developed relationship unless you consider mistrust and animosity terms for a relationship

and I can also blame the same game by asking you to prove the current elected officials are better than what is out in the population for potential candidates. it's an impossible position to defend or challenge

[entropy]

also.. if you've been in the same place for 20 yrs, you continue to give the same favors over and over again. At least with new blood, the special interest groups have a better chance to change.

[iam416]

Well, I guess my response would be I'm for the status quo. To change the status quo you ought to have a good reason. And if your reason is better government, that's fine. But you ought to be able to establish solid basis for that assertion.

Anyway, I respect your opinion. In my experience, I haven't seen any benefits at all from term limits and would probably rate them a cost to good governance (my experience being state level). I understand the arguments contra. No problem.

[entropy]

with the comments that come out of both parties mouths... I think it's safe to say we can do better. Course, I'd argue first a third party is needed to fix anything.

[Da Geezer]

Ghengis Jon, that is one of the greatest lines I've heard in some time. I'm gonna steal it.

But you say something really important when you say that democracy is a problem, and brings out the worst in people. Our Founders certainly didn't trust democracy. Franklin's answer to "What kind of government have you given us, Dr. Franklin?" was "a Constitutional Republic, if you can keep it."

So, to keep the conversation perking along, what do you folks think of the idea that the only people who have the franchise are Net Tax Payers. Why is it we seem to think that the more voters we have in any election, the better it is for the country? Shoot, in Oregon you can vote for a month before election day, by email.

I used to favor term limits until I watched how they have functioned over the years. In MI the limits are 6 yrs. for the Reps. and 8 for the Sen. Many of the newbies have local government experience, so they are good to go zoning and other municipal matters. But they are clueless on so many of the things that governing a state requires. They have to lean on experts, and those experts tend to be bureaucrats. So, IMO, term limits tend to empower some bureaucrats. And once and a while you get a really good congressman, and it's a shame to lose him.

I'd favor a law that prohibited any person who was a congressman from being a lobbyist after he leaves office.

I don't believe people should be forced to donate to politicians they disagree with as a condition of continuing employment.

I believe teacher tenure is a social evil and should be taxed, because when you tax something, you get less of it.

In large urban government school districts, the newest teachers are assigned to the worst schools. Our charter schools are non-union and do not have tenure, but certainly do have merit pay. I know the arguments, pro and con, but the way we work it is to have pairs of retired principal/superintendent appear unannounced for teacher evaluation. They have no other connection to the school. No politics. We do look at testing, but we administer so many tests for evaluation, that it is not high-stakes testing. The results are available to teachers the next day. Michigan's state-wide testing takes way too long to provide feedback. Most important, our customers provide feedback. The market tells you who are the great teachers. $ 20,000 is a top merit bonus, $ 5,000 is common.

And great teachers are now grossly underpaid. All research shows that the quality of the teacher is the one variable we can partially control that affects outcomes the most. I'm all about outcomes.

And while I'm on a rant, I believe the female on the $ 10.00 bill should be "the black grandmother". I was school board president for 16 years in one particular urban charter school, and if you wanted results, you called grandma.

[Da Geezer]

I spent so much time writing, I missed out on the give-and-take. I presume you have all had the experience of sending a really good Representative to D.C. and watching him over the years become more and more "Washingtonized". West Michigan is one of the most Rep. districts in the country. I've seen now three good guys go to DC, and the third is now sounding like he lives in DC. Obama has an 85% approval rate within DC, and 6 of the 10 richest counties in the US are around DC.

When Lois Lerner planted the question about the targeting of conservative 501(c)(4)s, her answer was something like "Well everybody was so concerned with the Citizens United decision that I thought there would be no blow-back." Notice how just the culture of where she worked affected her decision.

John Roberts believes in a European style health care system. So he rewrites the ACA, twice. All members of SCOTUS went to Harvard or Yale. 5 are Catholic, 4 are Jewish. 4 have lived most of their life in NYC. All breathe the air of the Coastal Elites. Hey, I'm 100% in favor of a OSU grad being a Supreme Court Nominee! Talent would be fine with me.

But to Entropy's point, you just are not going to get along when you block Robert Bork from getting on the SCOTUS. He should have, and many believe he could have been paired with Leonard Tribe, the preeminent liberal law professor. No problem, because both are patriots. Both are brilliant. Instead we get guys like Souter and Kagan who have no record to defend.

[entropy]

I'd actually suggest the first term in anything is a learning term.. then you get two after that. The president only gets two and that job seems pretty big to me.. but I can live with 3 if the job curve is steeper.

That said... if a job is so difficult that it takes yrs to learn and be effective, maybe it needs to be simplified. That in its self is a form of job security that doesn't add value. I couldn't imagine many business would succeed under those models.

[entropy]

Another thought.. the internet is actually making it more difficult for the gov't to work. True democracy doesn't work and the internet is moving us towards that model. You're no longer electing people to make decisions and govern on your behalf. We are micro managing them and providing instant feedback on every word, let alone decision they make.

[hack]

All breathe the air of the Coastal Elites.

If they are good jurists, and not corrupt, I don't care much. Elites come from anywhere and everywhere. You yourself may be one -- from what you've written, it seems like you were born on second or third base too. But if you're wary of elites, I'm not sure your definition of the term. Most of what you espouse reinforces the ability of elites to remain that way and insulated from hungry outsiders with good entrepreneurial ideas.

[Da Geezer]

My Dad was a spray painter until he was too old, and then he opened a real estate brokerage. He was orphaned at 12, and was appointed to West Point at 19, but he came down with TB. He never paid a dime toward my schooling, but I did work for him to earn money, and in those days, if you really worked, you could earn enough money to pretty much pay for college. I wish kids could do that now.

What is an "elite"? Inherited wealth is one characteristic, but not definitive. I was accepted to Law school at both Harvard and Yale. I went to visit. The folks I met and the professors stressed that "you are 'the chosen' to rule this country". Many students who were not Legacy had Fulbright Scholarships. And even then the politics were hard left, in those days we called it communist. The Port Huron declaration had originated at UM as had the SDS, and the folks of the Ivys believed in taking over the country by taking over the academic and judicial functions. I was a leftist radical, which was one reason I chose UM. Also, it was cheaper.

The reason I favor very low taxation and emphasize entrepreneurship is that we live in the a country where there is not a rigid class system, a land of opportunity (now a phrase you cannot say in schools in CA by the way). Elites are not elite because of money. My Dad had a great phrase " Overalls to Overalls in 4 generations".

Elites come from the Ivy League, Stanford and a couple of other schools. Read the NY Times and you will hear them speak. Most important, elites are told from their youth that they are the smartest, the best, the future leaders. As Hillary said about vouchers for health care, "but what if they make the wrong choice?". That is an elite attitude.

Bork and Tribe were the best of their generation IMO. One liberal, one conservative. My point is that a great Jurist who has spoken widely and written extensively cannot be confirmed to the Supreme Court. Since Bork, we are stuck with "stealth candidates". Elana Kagan was asked for her views on marriage during her confirmation, and she said one man-one woman. But Justices "grow" in office, at least those who are appointed by Republicans do. I'd just like a diverse country to have a more diverse Supreme Court. And I know of nowhere in this country, other than DC, where Obama has an 85% approval rating. Talent tends to favor the status quo because he lives in one of the best governed states in the country. Where you live matters. 4 Justices from NYC?

The defining character of an "elite" is a feeling of entitlement, either by birth, or by schooling. Buffett, Ellison, Bezos and Gates are in no way elites. Neither are/were Illich, Gilbert or Davidson. Several dropped out of college, but all were solidly middle-class.