Sarah was just talking to a friend of ours who currently lives in the great state of New York. Our friend was lamenting the outrageous taxes up there. Wherever you go they want to take more of your money. I feel bad for our struggling friends but states like New York and California are perfect case studies in how big government actually accomplishes very little for its citizens. I was reminded of this quote from Winston Churchill:
"If you're young and not a liberal,you have no heart; if you're old and not a conservative, you have no brain."
It's so true. When you're young you are filled with all kinds of idealism and if only liberal ideas could be implemented more fully then all would be peachy. However, once you've experienced the real world...
Big government = oppression and inefficiency
Limited government = opportunity and liberty
It's an important lesson that many refuse to learn until they're forced to live under big government. Oh, it helps to know that democrats hold a 109-41 supermajority in the state house.
Disclaimer - Sarah did not approve of my writing this. Not because she disagrees but because she doesn't want to appear to be gloating. Which I'm not doing, by the way. I really do wish those people hadn't moved to New York. And they should know that they are always welcome back to a red state.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"What the government is good at is collecting taxes, taking away your freedoms and killing people. It's not good at much else." - Tom Clancy
ReplyDelete"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." - Tacitus, Roman senator and historian (A.D. c.56-c.115)
ReplyDeleteGreat quotes Ammon. I'm not sure of Clancy's overall qualifications to speak on political issues except for that he's an American and has a right to speak. Regardless, he's pretty correct in his assessment.
ReplyDeleteI'm still stuck on this notion that term limits would really help us. I think that many of the unsavory elements of US politics would cease to play a role. Take the recent Charlie Rangel situation. By the way I really, really don't like this guy. But he's been in congress for 40 years!!! Time to go Chuck. His odds of getting embroiled in all of these ethics violations are much lower if he would have served his 2 terms and then been shown the door.
Well, I have had better experiences in blue states than red, and have lived in both.
ReplyDeleteAs far as term limits go, they are unnecessary, that is what voting is for. A representational system that needs artificial limits is one that is already malfunctioning. We should cure the disease not the symptom.
Then, Kyle, what's the basis for term limits on the president since we also can remove him with our votes as well? Why isn't that an artificial limit?
ReplyDeleteBut in the absence of term limits another solution would be to go back to senators being appointed by state legislatures. This has its own unique set of issues to deal with but it would return some organized power and representation for the states. This was what the constitution required until that progressive tyrant Woodrow Wilson pushed for the 17th amendment. And if you are shocked by my description of Wilson as a tyrant then you don't know your history. Read about that man and you'll be shocked at the history that you never learned. His administration was a dark and dangerous time in American history and it is by the grace of God that we emerged with our republic intact. I think I smell an entire blog post coming on the unadulterated evils of the Wilson administration.
Dude, this is going to be so great!
ReplyDeleteKyle, welcome to the blog.
Troy, Kyle is a newer member of our ward and is one of my new political debate friends. Good times.
Bring on the history lesson. You know I love history! :)
*evil laugh* this is going to get fun!
The two-term limit for presidents is a recent addition by the way. One I don't mind, but find unnecessary. If voters think the incumbent is the best for the job, they should be able to vote that way. The problem isn't limits or lack-thereof, but uninformed voters (both sides of the aisle).
ReplyDeleteThe loose confederacy of states is not a model that works well when faced with large well organized states in the current world stage.
One of the great strengths of our government system (constitutional republic) is an ability to modify to changes in national and international conditions without devolving into mob rule. As a result, the constant push and pull is necessary, but a static reflection of the original appearance of the republic in our current incarnation as a nation state would be counterproductive.
Very interesting Kyle. I had forgotten that the two-term limit was only implemented after FDR tried to hold on to the job like the pope.
ReplyDeleteStill though, I think it's a good thing as term limits prevent professional politicians. I don't think the founders envisioned professional politicians. Money, your last name (aka - Kennedy), and incumbent status often has too much influence on elections today because people aren't worried enough to look past who has the recognizable name and the coolest commercial. So, although it would be advisable to solve the problem by helping people see that your congressman who has served for 40 years hasn't done jack for you, I still think term limits is a net positive.
I'm guessing your comment about "the loose confederacy of states" is referring to my remark about the 17th amendment? If so, I agree that we can't go back to the days of the Articles of Confederation. A stronger, more centralized governing body than that is definitely required; however, adhering more closely to what the constitution intends than we currently are when it comes to the authority of individual states would help our government to be more efficient. A large bureaucracy entrenched in Washington, DC will rarely do as well as local government (state, county, city) in many aspects. That's one of my biggest beefs with health care reform. The constitution does not allow for something as significant as health care to be regulated entirely from the federal government. And rightly so.
I agree that flexibility is the greatest strength of our constitution. However, with the constant push and pull and individual adaptations over the years I'm afraid we're slowly becoming something that barely resembles our original principles. We're rejecting even the spirit of the constitution.
Ok, so, even though I've read the constitution about 10 times or so, I'm still no expert on all matters consitutional. But, for what it's worth I think I had some very interesting insights (sorry for finding my own thoughts interesting) during Church this 4th of July. In Relief Society we discussed a talk by Pres. Ezra Taft Benson called "Our Divine Constitution". I was literally cringing in my seat. However, it turned out that I gained some great new insights. Here are some of those thoughts:
ReplyDeleteIt seems that Americans (and maybe other nations) consider the Constitution this document that cannot be touched, altered, adjusted...whatever. And that every little sentence in there needs to be just that very way. Well, I'm not necessarily going to argue that. But, as we went through Pres. Benson's talk, who made clear that the constitution is important for 'all men' (as specifically said in D and C), I realized that it's not so much every little detail in the constitution that matters, but what it achieved/achieves overall. It brought checks and balance, and it brought a rule of law. With those things, freedom, order, civility, etc. could be established. Many Western nations have used the US constitution as a model for their own nations, and many have thrived as a result. And I think that's a pretty important point. I really don't think that every little detail matters so much as the big picture. I think God got involved in the development of the Constitution because freedom for all men is key to being able to embrace and live the gospel. The constitution set a standard. Many others followed suit, even though they adapted their own versions. But the key elements of rule of law, checks and balance and that kind of jazz are found across the board in the nations who've modeled themselves after the US constitution.
I don't know if I'm getting my point across, but I think it was a big insight for me that it's not about 'The glorious Constitution that can't be touched', but about basic principles that were needed in the world to establish government that's functional and promotes freedom. We have that. We have that in many countries now. Not enough countries yet, but it's there. And that's a wonderful thing. But, I think it just may or may not matter how we choose to handle term limits. I mean, it may matter and we can make adjustments. But, I don't think it takes away or adds to what the Constitution is all about. I guess it could.
Eh, my head hurts. I'll shut up now.
Fran
You made your point very well Fran and I agree with you. I think, however, that when people start to get worried about the constitutionality of certain policies in the US it most often has to do with the size and scope of federal power. That's just been the way things have always been here and it isn't surprising given our colonial history. I don't think there would be a whole lot of opposition to little things being changed such as the age of eligibility for a congressperson or changing a senator's term from 6 years to 5. Federal power vs. state power has ALWAYS been debated in America. Probably most fiercely at our founding (Federalist Papers, Anti-federalist papers) but throughout our history the debate has been hot as well. It took us to Civil War even. Currently, the constitutionality of the AZ law is being decided in courts based on the same issue - federal vs. state authority. It's all very fascinating to me, this give and take between federal and state governments. I think we generally have a good balance but every now and then a topic pops up that shines a light on the fact that people in this country take very different views on what the constitution allows the federal government to do and what it leaves to the state. In a sense America is still being founded, we'll never reach that perfect place. We'll never completely realize the dream that all men are created equal but we try. America is a vibrant and living republic and I love these state vs. federal arguments because it makes very clear that we're still an engaged people.
ReplyDelete