Term limits for congress is pretty popular, but has detractors who feel that the experience is lost and that "good people" in congress are also kicked out in addition to the bad ones.
Personally I think these are non-arguments. Yes, good politicians will be kicked out, and if they are truly good, then they will have no problem being elected into other positions. That's all the more reason to have them kicked out since we need to have them in other areas as well. And yes, the experience of how to run congress is lost. Those who specialize in different committees will be rotated out. And that's fine. The reason that is fine is that those "specialized" congressmen may have the experience and knowledge, but that also leads to corruption since they become TOO familiar with the committees.
What we truly lack right now is a congress that knows how to work together. There are different ideas from all walks of life. No single ideology is perfect for everybody. That's why we negotiate, come up with ways to try out the different ideas and see what works best FOR THE NATION. Instead, what we have are congressmen that get entrenched into the committees where they protect their pet projects that help get them reelected. Then they do favors for other congressmen so that other bills they want passed can get those those committees. It's really become a "scratch my back and I scratch yours" type system. That is NOT good for the nation. It's only good for the congressmen. Sure, I'd like everything in government run how I indicate. But I also know that not everybody has the same feelings. So instead of digging a deep trench and hunkering down, securing positions on the left or right, congress needs to figure out how to negotiate again. And I think all this old blood is going to prevent that from being changed because they LIKE the way they are as was evidenced by the reaction to the recent incumbency losses.
So here's what I propose. Senators are already in for 6 years. I think that's enough. Yep, one term, with 1/3 of the senate replaced each year as is the current voting schedule. That puts each senator in a higher seat of seniority every 2 years. So the most "powerful" committees then are chaired by someone with 4 years of experience behind their belt. The house of representatives should have two allowed reelections. That means they also would be limited to 6 years total service in the house.
So what happens to the "good politicians"
6 years in the state legislature (or 12 depending on how the state's legislature is formed), 6 years in the house, 6 years in the senate, 8 years as a governor, and up to 8 years as president. That's still too many years leading government and not enough experience working in the private sector. But it's a good start to the limitation.
But this has been tried before. Politicians get elected promising term limits and then renege on their promise. How do you get a bunch of politicians who campaign on term limits and then vote against them to stick to their word?
Construct a term limit bill first that passes legal muster and addresses the "problems" that other term limit bills have had. This is done OUTSIDE of congress by we the people. Once a fairly agreeable bill is written, then write up a legal contract stating that the undersigned person has the legal obligation to vote for the bill in the form it is posted and not amend it or alter it in any way. Amendments and alterations to the bill by others in congress who haven't signed the agreement must voted against, we won't accept a watered down or filled with exclusions version. It will also require the person to follow the bill as it is proposed originally, regardless of whether or not it was passed. Allow for collection of donations into a trust fund to be used toward the cause of electing people who support the bill. Anybody who signs the contract who does not follow it will be liable for the full amount donated to their election, plus a large punitive amount. Those will then go back into the trust fund to elect others who will sign the contract, or legally pursue those that signed it and then went back on their word. There would be a website identifying those candidates and politicians who have signed the contract, which would be a benefit for those running for office to show their level of commitment.
Yep, it would be a genuine contract with penalty clauses. If Americans believe in term limits, they'll fund the trust and the whole concept will get passed. If a legitimate problem is found within the bill, then it can be modified by we the people and the politicians can sign an amended contract identifying the new bill in its new form.
In fact, this is a good way to get any popular bill passed that congress seems unwilling to do. Like how about a bill that says congress is subject to the same laws that we are. Originally congress was exempt from certain laws to prevent policemen from detaining them from a vote, for instance. Well, with today's technology the congressmen can vote from his or her jail cell. So requiring them to live under the same laws they pass for the rest of us (like the health care plan) seems like it should be reasonable.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Monday, August 23, 2010
Illegal immigration in America
What is the difference between an illegal immigrant and a legal one?
An approved application.
We currently restrict immigration to a fixed number of people per country. Why? The first Europeans and many others who come to America didn't have that kind restriction.
So to solve the problem of immigration, why don't we lift the restriction on the number of immigrants who can come into America. Doesn't that solve the problem? No?
The reason it doesn't solve the problem is because the problem is not about them being here illegally. The debate by anti-immigration people is often accompanied with "I don't have a problem with those who came here legally, they haven't broken the law!" as they try to make themselves out to not be anti-immigration.
Illegal immigrants have broken a law, but not a criminal law. They have broken a civil law. Just like the last time you sped on the freeway but didn't get caught -- you broke a civil law. You are not a criminal, and neither are they for entering the country without waiting for that lottery opportunity and paying for the privilege. So what is the real opposition?
A brief look a the history of immigration law reforms helps shed some light on the matter. Generally, most of the reforms are related to either xenophobia, or the workers coming in and depressing the local wages because they are willing to work for less. None of those immigration policies really stopped the flood of low wage workers. What happened is that US citizens had to make their own businesses, or become more educated to compete, gaining skills that the immigrants did not have and thus also increasing wages. Where it used to be possible to get a decent paying job without having completed high school, now we have to obtain a college level education. Is that not a good thing? Now the college education really isn't enough. We are losing our edge in the world because other countries are becoming more technologically skilled and better educated, some surpassing us. So what should we do? How about...get smarter, work harder? No, I guess that's not the easy way out. The easy way is to sit back and complain about how these foreigners are all taking our jobs instead. We are becoming lazy, becoming too used to government solving our problems.
Remember the last part of the inscription on the statue of Liberty? "Send me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shores. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door." Those don't sound like the cream of the crop. Those sound like the unsavory, worst people that no other country else wants. And those unsavory people became our heritage of strong people who had to fight for everything they had. Why did that change? When did the golden door require payment to pass through? These foreigners want the same opportunity that your ancestors were granted. Why do you deny them?
By keeping them undocumented, we make them more apt to become criminals. Hit-and-run? Because he was illegal. High speed chase? He was illegal. Witnessed a crime but didn't come forth? Because he was illegal. Had to steal someone's identity so he could work? Because he was illegal. Because of their status as an illegal, they are more likely to do more illegal stuff. They have a fear of police, and a fear of being caught and deported. That doesn't help. You change that one piece of paper, and you change all of that behavior.
A problem comes from the burden on our system. This is because we've gone away from our heritage of providing everyone with opportunity (everybody starts on the same footing, with nothing but the stuff they brought), and instead have embraced that of providing everybody with equal results at the expense of others (need a government handout? Now there' books detailing how many different handouts you qualify for). This push toward a government-provides-for-all is not good for us.
I know there is a huge push for a nationalized language. It is more efficient for the government and businesses to operate in one single language. So from a financial perspective, it makes sense. And it is from that alone that I think we should require government to provide services in English only, with exclusion for those services where the majority do not speak English (such as immigration services), or teaching ESL, or anywhere that it can be proven that it is more efficient to provide the service in additional languages. Although, it is far more beneficial to do away with many of these government services altogether anyway.
Illegals come and get paid a wage free of taxes because they are undocumented. They get abused with below minimum and even nonpayment of wages and can't report it. Employer's don't have to pay the social security and medicare on those illegals, which makes it appealing to employers. But there are few employers that actually do that. Some illegals end up having to fake a SSN so that they can work. An experience I had at work involved helping a company verify the social security numbers of its workers. Nearly every number failed the verification system, and most were latino names. All had given him SSNs. So let's look at the impact on the system. Those Latinos were having taxes withheld, and social security and medicare withheld. It was under a false number, a number the social security administration knew was illegal. Did the SSA reject the money sent to them saying they cannot properly credit an invalid account? No, of course not.
The laws are written such that you cannot terminate employment on somebody for not providing an SSN. The SSA has stated that a no-match letter is not grounds for terminating employment.
Why would that be? Well, let's look at the end result. Lots of money coming in for social security and medicare, which would not be able to be claimed when those Latinos retired because they were invalid numbers. No tax return can be filed, so all taxes withheld stay in the treasury.
Hmmm, from the viewpoint of a money manager in government, that would sound like a sweet deal. They would just need to make sure that employers who hired illegal workers could demonstrate that they had made a reasonable attempt to obtain the number and had withheld all applicable taxes. Because if they didn't withhold the taxes, then obviously the employer knew the worker was illegal...and more importantly, the government did not get the excess taxes. See what the government's interest is in all of this?
This is what I think we should do. Citizenship for the US should be easy to get, but come with a major string attached -- No more of this dual citizenship stuff. If you are a dual citizen of, say, the US and Canada, then you need to choose one. Your loyalty can only be to one of the two countries, especially if we were at war. Figure out which one it is and have the other citizenship removed. If you give up your US citizenship, you give up all government perks associated with it. Citizenship in the US means you would be willing to die protecting your country, even if it is in a war against the country you emigrated from.
But if you want to come to the US to work and send something back home but not be a US citizen, I propose that a visa (the right to work card, not the credit card) be granted for anyone who wants to work here. No more limitation on the number of cards, only on specific people (like known criminals) you want to keep out of the country. Opponents of the visas say that the cheap labor coming in and stealing American jobs is bad for us. So the visas are limited and what happens instead? Those companies hire illegals who are still taking American jobs and now there is no contribution to the government. Or those companies outsource or relocate outside of the country and send the dollars there instead. If your job is at threat of being taken by somebody else with equal skill who will do it for less, then you have to make yourself more valuable to compete, and that's better for everyone. I think that's one of the reasons America progressed so quickly in the world. We had to advance (and did not have the restrictions other countries had) in order to survive. Plato said that Necessity was the mother of all invention, and if we are challenged as Americans we will rise to the challenge just as in times past...or we will take our place in the footnote of history.
What about our borders? Secure the borders? Absolutely. Those who want to bring harm to our country are able to do so more easily through unsecured borders. By allowing people to enter the country legally (and therefore subject themselves to being documented) we can focus on keeping the bad elements out, such as those wanting to import illegal drugs (also a topic for another day) or those who have been deported due to criminal activity. Do we have to secure the borders first? That is something the conservative talk show hosts like to push, but I don't think that's necessary. There really isn't as much need if you aren't trying to keep out desperate people who just want a chance to make a living. So it could be done at the same time, or even after passing good immigration reform.
An approved application.
We currently restrict immigration to a fixed number of people per country. Why? The first Europeans and many others who come to America didn't have that kind restriction.
So to solve the problem of immigration, why don't we lift the restriction on the number of immigrants who can come into America. Doesn't that solve the problem? No?
The reason it doesn't solve the problem is because the problem is not about them being here illegally. The debate by anti-immigration people is often accompanied with "I don't have a problem with those who came here legally, they haven't broken the law!" as they try to make themselves out to not be anti-immigration.
Illegal immigrants have broken a law, but not a criminal law. They have broken a civil law. Just like the last time you sped on the freeway but didn't get caught -- you broke a civil law. You are not a criminal, and neither are they for entering the country without waiting for that lottery opportunity and paying for the privilege. So what is the real opposition?
A brief look a the history of immigration law reforms helps shed some light on the matter. Generally, most of the reforms are related to either xenophobia, or the workers coming in and depressing the local wages because they are willing to work for less. None of those immigration policies really stopped the flood of low wage workers. What happened is that US citizens had to make their own businesses, or become more educated to compete, gaining skills that the immigrants did not have and thus also increasing wages. Where it used to be possible to get a decent paying job without having completed high school, now we have to obtain a college level education. Is that not a good thing? Now the college education really isn't enough. We are losing our edge in the world because other countries are becoming more technologically skilled and better educated, some surpassing us. So what should we do? How about...get smarter, work harder? No, I guess that's not the easy way out. The easy way is to sit back and complain about how these foreigners are all taking our jobs instead. We are becoming lazy, becoming too used to government solving our problems.
Remember the last part of the inscription on the statue of Liberty? "Send me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shores. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door." Those don't sound like the cream of the crop. Those sound like the unsavory, worst people that no other country else wants. And those unsavory people became our heritage of strong people who had to fight for everything they had. Why did that change? When did the golden door require payment to pass through? These foreigners want the same opportunity that your ancestors were granted. Why do you deny them?
By keeping them undocumented, we make them more apt to become criminals. Hit-and-run? Because he was illegal. High speed chase? He was illegal. Witnessed a crime but didn't come forth? Because he was illegal. Had to steal someone's identity so he could work? Because he was illegal. Because of their status as an illegal, they are more likely to do more illegal stuff. They have a fear of police, and a fear of being caught and deported. That doesn't help. You change that one piece of paper, and you change all of that behavior.
A problem comes from the burden on our system. This is because we've gone away from our heritage of providing everyone with opportunity (everybody starts on the same footing, with nothing but the stuff they brought), and instead have embraced that of providing everybody with equal results at the expense of others (need a government handout? Now there' books detailing how many different handouts you qualify for). This push toward a government-provides-for-all is not good for us.
I know there is a huge push for a nationalized language. It is more efficient for the government and businesses to operate in one single language. So from a financial perspective, it makes sense. And it is from that alone that I think we should require government to provide services in English only, with exclusion for those services where the majority do not speak English (such as immigration services), or teaching ESL, or anywhere that it can be proven that it is more efficient to provide the service in additional languages. Although, it is far more beneficial to do away with many of these government services altogether anyway.
Illegals come and get paid a wage free of taxes because they are undocumented. They get abused with below minimum and even nonpayment of wages and can't report it. Employer's don't have to pay the social security and medicare on those illegals, which makes it appealing to employers. But there are few employers that actually do that. Some illegals end up having to fake a SSN so that they can work. An experience I had at work involved helping a company verify the social security numbers of its workers. Nearly every number failed the verification system, and most were latino names. All had given him SSNs. So let's look at the impact on the system. Those Latinos were having taxes withheld, and social security and medicare withheld. It was under a false number, a number the social security administration knew was illegal. Did the SSA reject the money sent to them saying they cannot properly credit an invalid account? No, of course not.
The laws are written such that you cannot terminate employment on somebody for not providing an SSN. The SSA has stated that a no-match letter is not grounds for terminating employment.
Why would that be? Well, let's look at the end result. Lots of money coming in for social security and medicare, which would not be able to be claimed when those Latinos retired because they were invalid numbers. No tax return can be filed, so all taxes withheld stay in the treasury.
Hmmm, from the viewpoint of a money manager in government, that would sound like a sweet deal. They would just need to make sure that employers who hired illegal workers could demonstrate that they had made a reasonable attempt to obtain the number and had withheld all applicable taxes. Because if they didn't withhold the taxes, then obviously the employer knew the worker was illegal...and more importantly, the government did not get the excess taxes. See what the government's interest is in all of this?
This is what I think we should do. Citizenship for the US should be easy to get, but come with a major string attached -- No more of this dual citizenship stuff. If you are a dual citizen of, say, the US and Canada, then you need to choose one. Your loyalty can only be to one of the two countries, especially if we were at war. Figure out which one it is and have the other citizenship removed. If you give up your US citizenship, you give up all government perks associated with it. Citizenship in the US means you would be willing to die protecting your country, even if it is in a war against the country you emigrated from.
But if you want to come to the US to work and send something back home but not be a US citizen, I propose that a visa (the right to work card, not the credit card) be granted for anyone who wants to work here. No more limitation on the number of cards, only on specific people (like known criminals) you want to keep out of the country. Opponents of the visas say that the cheap labor coming in and stealing American jobs is bad for us. So the visas are limited and what happens instead? Those companies hire illegals who are still taking American jobs and now there is no contribution to the government. Or those companies outsource or relocate outside of the country and send the dollars there instead. If your job is at threat of being taken by somebody else with equal skill who will do it for less, then you have to make yourself more valuable to compete, and that's better for everyone. I think that's one of the reasons America progressed so quickly in the world. We had to advance (and did not have the restrictions other countries had) in order to survive. Plato said that Necessity was the mother of all invention, and if we are challenged as Americans we will rise to the challenge just as in times past...or we will take our place in the footnote of history.
What about our borders? Secure the borders? Absolutely. Those who want to bring harm to our country are able to do so more easily through unsecured borders. By allowing people to enter the country legally (and therefore subject themselves to being documented) we can focus on keeping the bad elements out, such as those wanting to import illegal drugs (also a topic for another day) or those who have been deported due to criminal activity. Do we have to secure the borders first? That is something the conservative talk show hosts like to push, but I don't think that's necessary. There really isn't as much need if you aren't trying to keep out desperate people who just want a chance to make a living. So it could be done at the same time, or even after passing good immigration reform.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
The birth of a new law
I think most people have experienced it themselves or had a close friend that has had this happen...
It happens to me all the time. As a computer professional, I often help out other people. Many times "it doesn't work" suddenly works when I do it. And I've had it happen to me as well. I went to demonstrate something that didn't work to show how it was broken and, sure enough, it worked just fine.
I had that experience today. A client couldn't install one of the products I had written. So the client tried to show me and it worked. The client felt foolish, but I tried to reassure him that he wasn't. I've witnessed this phenomenon often enough that I know it exists.
I think this is a common effect with automobiles. Something goes wrong and you take it to the mechanic. And it works just fine. It only happens when the mechanic isn't around.
And then I got to thinking, what is this phenomenon called? There has to be a name for it. I searched around, but was unable to find anything. Maybe my internet searching skills need to be upgraded. It is like a variation of Murphy's Law. Since it happens only when observed, my immediate thoughts turned to the observer effect - that by watching it impacts the outcome. Not quite the same thing. This is something that needs a name.
I do believe it should be a "Law". Like Murphy's Law or the Law of Attraction -- not really laws that pass scientific muster, but giving them the "Law" title adds a bit of humor to it. Elevating it to the same status as the law of gravity gives it a false sense of always applying.
"The Law of Observation" has a nice ring to it, but a quick internet search shows a few different versions of Law of Observation already attempted to be defined by others with a different definition. One saying that it relates to whether or not something happened because it wasn't observed (for instance a tree falling in the forest, does it make a sound), one relating to the way things changed based on how you feel from having observed something (negative / positive), and a third very humorous one stating that the probability of being observed while doing something stupid is proportional to how stupid the act is. Personally, I think this third one should have full claim to that title, so I'll gracefully bow out of using that one.
I found a humorous website full of Laws of the same caliber. None matching the law I'm describing.
In fact, I need a good description for it. So here goes: The problem will disappear when the technician is there but will reappear when when the technician leaves. Scientifically, this could be stated as: The visibility of the problem is inversely proportional to the proximity of the technician. Hmmm, the plain version sounds easier to understand, I'll leave it at that.
There's two meanings to it.
Alright, I think that's a good definition. Now just need a good name for it. Technician's Law. Searching the web I find one post that already refers to it, but the person posting is describing an actual law in Israel for ensuring technicians come during the time they scheduled. Nothing humorous, fairly targeted and little room for confusion. I think I can use the same title :)
There, coined and official.
It happens to me all the time. As a computer professional, I often help out other people. Many times "it doesn't work" suddenly works when I do it. And I've had it happen to me as well. I went to demonstrate something that didn't work to show how it was broken and, sure enough, it worked just fine.
I had that experience today. A client couldn't install one of the products I had written. So the client tried to show me and it worked. The client felt foolish, but I tried to reassure him that he wasn't. I've witnessed this phenomenon often enough that I know it exists.
I think this is a common effect with automobiles. Something goes wrong and you take it to the mechanic. And it works just fine. It only happens when the mechanic isn't around.
And then I got to thinking, what is this phenomenon called? There has to be a name for it. I searched around, but was unable to find anything. Maybe my internet searching skills need to be upgraded. It is like a variation of Murphy's Law. Since it happens only when observed, my immediate thoughts turned to the observer effect - that by watching it impacts the outcome. Not quite the same thing. This is something that needs a name.
I do believe it should be a "Law". Like Murphy's Law or the Law of Attraction -- not really laws that pass scientific muster, but giving them the "Law" title adds a bit of humor to it. Elevating it to the same status as the law of gravity gives it a false sense of always applying.
"The Law of Observation" has a nice ring to it, but a quick internet search shows a few different versions of Law of Observation already attempted to be defined by others with a different definition. One saying that it relates to whether or not something happened because it wasn't observed (for instance a tree falling in the forest, does it make a sound), one relating to the way things changed based on how you feel from having observed something (negative / positive), and a third very humorous one stating that the probability of being observed while doing something stupid is proportional to how stupid the act is. Personally, I think this third one should have full claim to that title, so I'll gracefully bow out of using that one.
I found a humorous website full of Laws of the same caliber. None matching the law I'm describing.
In fact, I need a good description for it. So here goes: The problem will disappear when the technician is there but will reappear when when the technician leaves. Scientifically, this could be stated as: The visibility of the problem is inversely proportional to the proximity of the technician. Hmmm, the plain version sounds easier to understand, I'll leave it at that.
There's two meanings to it.
- The technician won't see the problem when you try to show it
- The technician sees the problem and fixes it and shows you that it is working
Alright, I think that's a good definition. Now just need a good name for it. Technician's Law. Searching the web I find one post that already refers to it, but the person posting is describing an actual law in Israel for ensuring technicians come during the time they scheduled. Nothing humorous, fairly targeted and little room for confusion. I think I can use the same title :)
There, coined and official.
 |
| Technician's Law: The problem will disappear when the technician is there but will reappear when the technician leaves. |
Friday, August 20, 2010
Really, just thoughts
I frequently get these ruminations in my head about current events. And I tell people. And they don't care. Everybody has their own opinions. So why would you be interested in mine? No clue.
But I wanted a place to post these thoughts. Get them out of my mind. It's that "I'm too busy to have this thought occupying my mind any more." So I figure if I post them and get them out of my mind, great :) Do I expect my thoughts to change the world? No, of course not. I'm one person amongst billions, why would my thoughts matter? They don't. I have no expectations for the posts I blog here.
But if you stumble across these and you see a flaw in my thought process and want to post a logical disagreement or ask for clarification, the comments are available for you. This isn't a full time job and I only check the comments once in a while, so be patient if you don't see your comment or a response appear right away.
But I wanted a place to post these thoughts. Get them out of my mind. It's that "I'm too busy to have this thought occupying my mind any more." So I figure if I post them and get them out of my mind, great :) Do I expect my thoughts to change the world? No, of course not. I'm one person amongst billions, why would my thoughts matter? They don't. I have no expectations for the posts I blog here.
But if you stumble across these and you see a flaw in my thought process and want to post a logical disagreement or ask for clarification, the comments are available for you. This isn't a full time job and I only check the comments once in a while, so be patient if you don't see your comment or a response appear right away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)