Term Limits Done Right

I've been thinking about this for some time, and I want to write it down now!

I've heard the arguments on term limits, the "We need to stop politics from being a career" vs "The voters can vote people out anytime they want" crowd.

I've decided that term limits are necessary and essential to a functioning democratic republic.

The question then becomes "How long?"  Many people advocate 2 Senate terms (12 years) or something similar.  The President is limited to 8 years.  Me, I've decided that these lack a certain amount of intellectual consistency:  If it's OK to go for 12 years, why not 14 or 18?  Why that line?

So, then, how do you have term limits without someone arbitrarily deciding how long they should be?

Answer:  One-and-Done Term Limits.

Put simply, I would advocate a Constitutional Amendment that would say that "No person holding any elected office of the United States, or any of them, or any local subdivision of a state, or the District of Columbia, shall, during the term for which they are elected, be eligible to stand for, or be elected to, any other office.  Additionally, no person holding such office may in any way, directly or indirectly, solicit funds from any third party for political purposes"

Basically, this eliminates 2 things:

1. Incumbency:  A member cannot run for reelection.
2. Office Hopping:  An elected officeholder cannot run for "higher office"

The limiting principle here, which other term limits proposals lack, is that an elected office holder should be spending their term of office performing the office to which they were elected.  The duties of such office do not include campaigning for reelection, campaigning for higher office, or fundraising.

Once the person's term of office expires, they are entirely free to campaign for their previous office, or some other office, if they so choose.

Simple, straightforward, and has a clearly defensible principle on which it rests.

News Flash: Barney Frank Opposes the Right to Strike!

On the Lou Dobbs show tonight, Barney Frank was talking about how he dislikes "retention bonuses". Summed up, he's against people who say "If you don't bribe me, I'll quit and hurt your company."

Isn't that precisely what unions do when they threaten to go on strike? "Pay us more, or we'll all quit working and hurt your company."

Pay people MORE bonuses

Politicians and reporters need to stop talking about economics, particularly when they have not the slightest clue as to what they're talking about.

Yes, AIG lost a ton of money last year. Yes, the taxpayers had to bail them out. Yes, they just gave people $165m in bonuses. Yes, reporters and politicians are piling on.

Let's look at this simply: Let's simplify AIG into two divisions (and the numbers are made up) a Securities Division and a Life Insurance Division.

The Securities Division is getting hammered with all their underwriting losses on mortgage backed securities. They lost $125b last year!

The Life Insurance Division by contrast is doing much better. With all the stock-brokers throwing themselves out of windows, they're able to get out of paying off on based on the suiscide clauses (note...this is fiction...but I've gotta spice it up a bit)! Last year was a banner year, and they made $25b for the division.

Overall, the company lost $100b.

So, it comes time to do bonuses. The head of the Securities Division gets, how do I put this, zip, zero, nada, perhaps even a suggestion that he seek other employment in the near future. The Life Insurance division, however, has met and exceeded all of their quotas. Their contracts specify that they should get about $165m in bonuses! Happy days are here!

Now, in comes the Government. They decide to tax those Life Insurance bonuses at a rate of 100% (retroactively and as a bill of atainder, in violation of the US Constitution, but who cares about that). They got to show who was boss in that little p!$$ing contest, didn't they.

So the next year, the guys in Life Insurance say "Why bother working so hard?" The Securities Division doesn't stink up the place quite as bad, losing $100b, but now Life Insurance, who aren't working so hard to get the suiscide clauses in their policies, lose $50b. No bonuses for anyone! Yay, the Government's happy! The press is happy! The proletariat are happy!

The company has, however, now lost $150b this year and needs a bigger bailout...good thing they took those bonuses away!

Memories of 9/11/2001

At the time, I lived in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, so it was a bit earlier out in the Mountain timezone.

My wife at the time had a really early morning job, so she'd sneak out early and leave me to catch some more sleep. I had a TV in the bedroom that woke me up each morning tuned to CNN (yes...I'm a news junkie).

So it fired up in the morning, and it was between the two hits on the WTC, and there was smoke billowing out of the one. While I was watching, I saw a gray shape cut across the screen, and my first thought was "That looks like a United plane..." and boom.

I remember screaming at the idiot doing cometary on the TV when they asked "How is such an accident possible?" I'd already come to the conclusion that we were at war...and even as a Canadian, I felt that we were there with you, both as part of the NORAD system, and as part of the North Atlantic alliance, and the words of that treaty came to my mind unbidden at that moment: "An attack against one shall be an attack against them all."

I was proud of my country in the days following, the way that Canadians opened their homes to stranded travelers, the way that we stood shoulder to shoulder with out American brethren both at home, and in Afghanistan. I certainly would have preferred that Canadians take a more active role with our ally in Iraq, but it was not to be.

Today, I say as a proud Canadian, God Bless America, and thank you, America for taking the fight to the terrorists, not sitting back meekly waiting for the terrorists to bring the fight to us. Today, all freedom loving people are citizens of America, and I am proud to say "I am an American", if only for today.

Law of Unintended Concequences Strikes Again

Who is the largest supplier of oil to the United States? Canada, right...well maybe not for long. Are Canada's oil reserves drying up? No. Has the US found a better supplier of it's oil? No. Have Canadian oil companies offended their customers to the south? Not really...that is unless you count the US Congress...

Investor's Business Daily reports that Canada has taken some objection to some provisions of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, passed by the holier-than-thou Democrats in Congress last year. Two provisions in the law make oil from our friends in Ft. Mac off limits for export to the US:

• Tar sands are considered "alternative fuel"
• Oil sold to the US Government from "alternative fuels" must emit fewer greenhouse gasses than conventional crude.

Anyone ever look at the process for extracting oil from tar sands? Put simply, they pump it full of steam and the heat and water serve to separate the oil from the sand. Producing that steam takes, you guessed it, energy...mostly from burning natural gas, and guess what burning natural gas does? It emits the dreaded "greenhouse gasses". Alternatively, they could produce steam from nuclear power (see http://commonsenseaintsocommon.blogspot.com/2006/06/albertas-nuclear-option.html), but that's years, if not decades away.

Congrats Speaker Pelossi...you now get to buy the oil for your strategic petroleum reserve from such good friends as Hugo Chavez, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Happy St. Patrick's Day

On a day when everyone seems to claim that they're Irish...you might want to check to see if you actually are!

Ireland has some very liberal rules for citizenship through descent. The basic rules are:

• If one of your parents was born in Ireland, you are an Irish Citizen
• If one of your grandparents was born in Ireland, you are eligible to become an Irish citizen through the "Register of Foreign Births"
• If your great-grandparent was born in Ireland, and your parent registered as above before your birth, you are eligible via the same mechanism.

As you can see, you can go back a ways on this. Myself, my grandfather was born in County Donegal on the isle back in the early 20th century. By providing the Embassy with documentation, including my grandfather's birth certificate (like Canada it's bilingual, just the other language is Gaelic), his marriage certificate, my mother's birth and marriage certificates (showing my grandfather as a parent), and my birth certificate (again the one with descent info), I was able to receive a certificate of foreign birth. Finally, with that document, I was able to apply for an Irish passport...

Now I can go through that "EU Citizens Only" line at airports in Europe, and if I ever choose to, I can live and work in most of the EU without any significant immigration hassles! And because I took the time to fill out the paperwork before my daughter was born, I've passed these same rights on to her as well!

Reference: http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/moving-country/irish-citizenship/irish_citizenship_through_birth_or_descent

The Myth of Voter Turnout

How often have you heard the talking heads on TV decry the fate of falling voter turnout in our democracies? When was the last time your heard anyone, from any part of the political spectrum, say that maybe this isn't so bad? If you said "Never", read on...you're about to!

Most people in the political world take it on faith that more voter participation is a good thing. Like most articles of faith, however, it really isn't based upon any real evidence.

I divide voters (regardless of how they vote) into 5 main classes:

• Ideologues/True Believers: These are the people for whom the leaders of their party can do no wrong, and would vote no matter what for them, even if they happened to run a yellow dog for a particular office. I also include in this list people who vote on the basis of a single issue and say "Well, I agree with X on 99.9% of issues, but we don't agree on this last issue, so I can't vote for him!"
  
• Information Addicts: These people are addicted to information and news. The research about all the parties and candidates running for an office and choose between them.
• Sheeple: These are the people who look for momentum in an election. Nothing bothers them more than voting for a loser, so they're mostly concerned about who will win, and getting onto that bandwagon
• Traditionalists: "My daddy voted for party X, and his daddy before him voted for party X, so that's why I vote for party X"
• The Apathetic Majority

Two of these groups have high turnout already, and increasing it is difficult (a small pool to work with)

1. True Believers: These people vote with near 100% reliability. Increasing/Decreasing turnout among this group takes an Act of God (think major storm preventing them from getting to the polls)
2. Information Addicts: These people generally are pretty high turnout too. They've invested so much time in researching the candidates that it would be a shame to waste all that time by not voting.

So, increasing turnout has to focus on the other three. The question then becomes "Why?"

Does someone who simply votes because Candidate X is ahead in the polls actually help democracy? They have no idea what the issues are or what they're voting for/against.

Traditionalists are similarly uninformed, and honestly, I could care less if they drag their backsides out of their homes/offices to vote.

The Apathetic Majority, again. If they don't take the time to learn about the issues and candidates, does their vote actually matter? Or is it mere random chance that serves no real purpose other than to make us feel better about ourselves because more people voted?

So, in summary, the informed voters are already voting. Why we should be encouraging the uninformed and apathetic to vote and dilute the votes of those who actually care is beyond me.

US Immigration

Lately, this is a topic that has been occupying a lot of my thoughts...mainly due to the fact that in July of last year, I relocated from Canada to the US with my company, and now I'm learning just how many roadblocks there are in the US Immigration system.

First, I'd like to say the best line I've heard on immigration policy during the US presidential primaries came from Fred Thompson...he said "We need high fences and wide gates." and I heartily agree. Another good line came from Dennis Miller when he was ranting on the subject and said "...but for God's sake, sign the guestbook on the way in."

I believe that every country has both a right and obligation to control their borders and control who comes into their country. The US is one of the most open societies in the world, and they accept huge numbers of people from all over the world.

First, I want to address some of the just plain stupid stuff that people think about immigrating to the US. One is about "chain migration", where someone, once they get into the US, can bring their brothers, sisters, etc. into the use, multiplying the number of immigrants that are permitted into the US. This came up with the debate this last summer with the "12 million people being legalized and bringing 3-4 others each with them".

OK...the proposal this past summer would have taken an illegal immigrant (and I never use the term undocumented!) approximately 13 years to become a US Citizent (USC). Only USCs can sponsor sibblings to come into the country. The current wait to sponsor a brother/sister to come into the US for a USC is estimated at 30 years...that's right...3 decades. So...let's say I was 21 when this passed. I wait 13 years to become a USC. At age 34, I take my oath and become a USC. Now that same day, I apply for my 2 brothers and 2 sisters to come in. I'll be almost ready to collect Social Security before they can come to the US!!! That's a huge threat to US society!

Now, let's look at the process to come to the US with a job offer...personally, I'm in the us on an L-1B visa, available to employees of US companies who have specialized knowledge, and have worked for the company outside the US.

First, you need to prove that there is no US person, either USC or green-card holder, who is available for your job. This involves advertising the position, both in newspapers and online, along with a review by the US Department of Labor of the recruitment process. This is called Labor Certification and needs to be done as the first step.

Next, you submit a "Petition of Alien Worker" (I-140), and you need an approved Labor Certification to submit this form. You need to prove that you fall into an appropriate category of people who can immigrate to the US.

Now, you wait...there's a concept of a "Priority Date" that you have to wait for. Even though your employer has established via the Labor Certification that nobody wants your job, you have to wait until a quota becomes current. Over the last year, the wait has varied between zero and 65 months for this.

Finally, your Priority Date (actually, the date you file for Labor Certification) becomes current (Yay!). You can now file for "Adjustment of Status" (because you're in the US in another status...both L-1s and H-1b visa holders are allowed to file for permanent residence). This takes from 6-18 months to complete, and you're finally a permanent resident of the US. You're probably 6-7 years from when you first started now.

My biggest question: What is the purpose of the quota? Why, once you've established that there is no US person who is qualified for your job, do you need to then stand in line? Isn't this disruptive to business who need people? I can see quotas to protect jobs and keep foreigners from flooding into the country. I can see the Labor Certification process for the same purpose, but the combination is simply useless redundancy!

Anders Acclimation in Calgary West set aside by Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

"In the end result, I am satisfied that the decision of the Panel was not correct and that its decision must therefore be set aside. As a result, the acclamation of Mr. Anders also must be set aside and a new nomination meeting and process must be set in place. Ms. Mason should be replaced as Chair of the Committee."

Decision in Full

Floor Crossing

There will be much wringing of hands and knashing of teeth over the crossing of Khan to the Conservative benches this morning. In the interest of full disclosure, I was of a mixed mind about both Stronach's and Emmerson's defections, but that was more of a questioning of motives than saying that floor-crossing per se is wrong.

When you go to vote, you are voting not for a party, but for an individual. The respective parties all endorse particular candidates for election as Members of Parliament (and I pray someday Senators), but in reality, it is the individual who is being elected to represent the interests of their constituents.

I disagree with anything that would prevent floor-crossing in the future. I am from the Reform wing of the party, particularly the small "d" democratic tradition. Requiring MPs to remain where they are elected means that party leaders have even more control over those MPs.

I believe that MPs need to have the right to vote based upon a variety of factors: the platform they were elected on, the platform of the party (think of David Kilgour and his personal crusade against the atrocities in Darfur, which differed from the Liberal Party for whom he ran), the wishes of his/her constituents, and ultimately, the MP's own best judgement about what is best for his/her country.

So long as party leaders can expel members from caucus for voting against the party line, a MP must have the same right to leave. And he/she should not be consigned to the purgatory that is the lot of Independent MPs. Like it or not, the House of Commons is a house of parties, and even though backbench MPs are close to powerless, unaffiliated MPs are even more so, as they miss out on committee assignments, turn in Question Period rotation, support for private members bills and motions, just to name a few items.