Student Loan Changes in the "Big Beautiful Bill" - Why bankruptcy needs to be allowed for student loans.

 The bill that Congress passed and that has been sent on to the Senate, has some troubling changes to income driven repayment plans, and cuts of some student loan forgiveness plans. I have laid out these changes elsewhere. Needless to say, extending payment plans from 20 years to 30 years and removing forgiveness from bilked student loan borrowers is reprehensible. However, the trouble with student loans run far deeper than cruel changes to a couple of student loan debt relief options.

Whether it is students who fail to graduate, career paths that are unprofitable (in many cases they have become unprofitable after the borrower has started their career) colleges that closed down or were frauds, or life changes that ruin an individual's earning potential. Crushing debt that no way to be alleviated is cruel. If you are an 18 year old considering considering $100,000 starting a landscaping business or going to college, the better debt is the landscaping business for the simple reason that you can get out of the debt with bankruptcy if things don't work out. If you use the $100,000 for college, you not only have to succeed at school, but you need to choose the right major to lead to the career path that will enable you to pay the debt and have the living you want to enjoy. This was not the paradigm that existed when student loans became widely available, but it is the paradigm that exists now.

Students who fail to succeed

Many student loan borrowers that struggle paying their debt are borrowers who simply failed to complete the attempted degree. My father was one of these types of borrowers. In his mid 40's he wanted to make a change and to be ambitious, so he enrolled with the University of Phoenix to become a licensed counselor. When he was 45, he suffered renal cancer. Later that same year, he injured his back at a military summer camp that led to chronic pain until the day he died. Student loan collectors did not let up until the day he received his approval for social security disability

A friend of mine commented on a family member who had a stroke in medical school which has damaged his motor skills enough to make practicing medicine an impossibility. He still works, but for far less than he anticipated when he started medical school, and therefore he is still being pursued by student loan debt collectors.

If the 18 year-old landscaper fails to succeed in his business, he can walk away with bankruptcy, a little damage to his credit, maybe the repossession of the business assets, but he walks away. The 18 year old student loan borrower is not so lucky if their educational endeavor fails. They will carry that debt until they die or become disabled.

Students who find the income after college is less than they anticipated

No one makes an investment without considering the return on that investment. When I was a child, going to law school was considered a sure path to economic success. Now the average starting salary for an attorney out of law school is $101,000 with the outliers ranging from $50,000 on the low end and $200,000 for the largest prestigious firms. In the early to mid 2000s there was a glut of law school graduates that could not find any work.

Physician assistants were in high demand in the 2010's with high salaries and very expensive graduate programs. Post-COVID the market for PAs and NPs (nurse practitioners) has become saturated with a glut of online NP graduates. The NP schools are relatively cheap, and with the advent of post-COVID online masters programs the NP programs are comparably simple. Demand is low, and salaries are dropping. 

When Sallie Mae was established in 1972, the average cost of the 1971-72 school year at the University of Iowa was between 1,406 dollars and 1,500 dollars. The average starting salary for a lawyer at that time was between 12,000 and 15,000 dollars. The total cost of a legal degree at that rate was 10,500 dollars for all 7 years of graduate and undergraduate work. Therefore, the idea that student loans would not be dischargeable in bankruptcy did not sound unreasonable. The relatively small investment would yield a high rate of return.

Today, law schools range from 26,000 to 43,000 dollars per year. This makes the cost of a 3 year legal degree (not including undergraduate) 78,000 dollars on the low end and over 159,000 dollars on the high end. There is risk in that. Where as a legal graduate in 1972 might have made quick work paying off his small student loan for under 20,000, a 2025 graduate will pay more than 240,000 dollars on a 160,000 student loan with payments exceeding 2,000 dollars per month. That is a quarter of your pay if you are a lawyer making the median salary of 101,000 dollars a year. If you were not so lucky, as much as half your income will go to student loan payments for 10 years or more. 

The long time guide for student loan debt was to never take more debt than you will earn in your first year working. The value of a college education has dropped enough that following this guidance is almost an impossibility for many career paths. 

Students who had the misfortune to get loans through a crumbling or fraudulent university

In the1990's there started the rise of for profit corporate universities. They would target lower income individuals with easy admission and easy government student aid money. Universities like Devry and Corinthian Colleges were notorious frauds, while other educational institutions like ITT Technical Institutes collapsed under mismanagement. These are just to name a few.

In all of these cases, their students were left holding the bag of debt for easily obtainable student loan debt without a marketable degree.

The Obama administration started providing forgiveness programs to let these defrauded borrowers out of their student loan obligation as is right and just. However, the big beautiful bill promises to remove these programs and forcing these borrowers into 25-30 year income driven repayment plans on money that was stolen from them.

What should be done?

I am generally not a Trump fan, and I am not one on this. However, credit must be given for reducing the amount of money that can be loaned out. The loans of 200,000 to 300,000 for undergraduate degrees is unconscionable. But more needs to be done.

Simply forgiving all student debt is not is the best interest of society. It leaves a bad taste in the mouths of non-college graduates and college graduates who paid their student loan debt. 

Crushing debt is painful, but crushing student loan debt can be torturous. The relief for crushing debt has always been bankruptcy. While the consequences now are not as painful as it may have been, there is still consequences for not paying debt in the form of bad credit, difficulties in obtaining mortgages or leases, and simply some embarrassment. However, the most important thing is they can move on after a bankruptcy to still lead successful financial lives.

Student loans on a large scale was conceived with a different paradigm than which we now live. An 18 year old kids cannot work all summer to pay all of their tuition and living expenses for the next school year, many careers are becoming obsolete an ever increasing rate with changes in technology, and the poor federal management of the student loan system left it open for fraud and abuse by for-profit universities who could make an easy buck and provide nothing in return.

If any group of people is entitled to financial mercy, struggling student loan borrowers are. Allowing them to qualify for bankruptcy relief of any kind is not only just, but it is merciful. 

State Convention - Governor's race

Sadly, the Utah GOP has grown far more extreme than even after the Tea Party election in 2010. The candidates that behave like statesmen are being driven out one by one. One of the last offices in the state of Utah that can maintain an old school common sense Republican is in the governor's mansion.

Governor Cox has, to a great extent, been walking the middle of the road. With his "disagree better" initiative he has been appealing to many moderate conservatives and moderate liberals (both terms seem to encompass anyone that is not on the most extreme poles of either ideology). However, the current far-right conservatives (that control the Utah GOP) find all of Governor Cox's congeniality to be a sign of RINO treachery. If SB54 was not in play, I am pretty certain he would face a losing battle in the convention next week. For that I am grateful for SB54. Losing Senator Bennett without a primary to Mike Lee in 2010 was a bitter pill that grows more and more bitter as Mike continues to audition for a potential AG spot under Donald Trump. Where are those term limits Senator?

There are two challengers that are worth discussing. One a Trump sycophant with the political debt of a presidential pardon on his back, and the other a tough talking rancher. The former appears to be the likely winner in convention, while the latter is a man I could support wholeheartedly. 

To be clear, I would prefer Governor Cox. However, Cox seems to have forgotten Mr. Miyagi's adage about walking the middle of the road. "Walk right side, safe. Walk left side, safe. Walk middle, squish just like grape." The attacks are coming from both sides. At times he shows a great deal of empathy for LGBT people using pronouns with transgender individuals, but than at other times he is willing to sign some onerous bills from the legislature. He can talk of being helpful to refugees while sending UTNG members to the Texas border to participate in Governor Abbott's virtue signaling military misadventures. I can see how his actions can be viewed as walking across all the political lanes of traffic.

First, the sycophant. 

Phil Lyman was arrested on a protest ATV ride, and convicted of criminal trespassing. The sentence appears to have been probation. His brush with the law cannot really be considered a major character flaw, it was a silly protest that changed nothing, but it is not like it demonstrates him to be dishonest. After the 2020 impeachment of Donald Trump, he was one who introduced legislation designed to punish Mitt Romney for his solitary guilty vote in the first trial. For this act of loyalty, Trump pardoned him from his conviction at the end of the Trump era. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Lyman (I know it's wikipedia, but the pardon document is there).

Lyman is the heaviest Twitter user of all the GOP gubernatorial candidates. He tries to make Cox look like a leftist on account of Cox's willingness to use pronouns out of respect for transgendered individuals, or a spendthrift on account of additional spending in the Utah State budget, and (least convincingly) that Cox is responsible for higher taxes (despite two straight years of income tax cuts) while offering no plans to lower taxes more than Cox has already done. Inflation based tax revenue increases are not the same as being a tax and spend liberal, it is a consequence of economic conditions. 

Lyman has also shown a willingness to engage in culture war / rage politics. Most recent example being the walkout by 7th and 8th graders on account of allegations that there are "furries" (people who identify with animals?) that get away with aggression as opposed to normal kids who are punished for their aggression. Despite school district and teacher assertions that no kids are dressing up in full animal mascot type costumes in school and that the "furries" students are generally picked on, he has pursued the walk-out students side of the story. Lyman also tweeted, but later apologized, for blaming the Baltimore bridge collapse on some African-American public employees as DEI (diversity, equality, and inclusion) candidates who were not actually qualified for the positions they held.

As you can see, I am not a fan.

While not my first choice, I do find Carson Jorgenson to be the best alternative to Cox. He gave a rousing speech to the Washington County GOP convention, and he seems to be honest and upright. Most importantly, I do not believe he would operate as a sycophant to Trump. He comes from a ranching family in central Utah, he works the ranch, and is a craftsman of horse bridles. Politically, he led the Utah GOP as chairman. In his tenure, he brought the Utah GOP out of debt. I kind of love the idea of an honest rancher as governor. Land issues and agriculture should be one of the most important issues on all Utah minds. Farm land is disappearing as farming and ranching continues to show diminishing returns, and selling out to developers seems more profitable. If nothing else, he doesn't jump into inane rage political tweets before all of the facts are ascertained. He has the temperament to be a good governor, while Lyman has the temperment of a first term congressman desperate for time on the Fox News microphone.  If you don't know about him, see here: https://www.carsonjorgensen.com/bio.html 

The problems of unbelief and faith exploitation in politics

American incivility and polarization has a myriad of causes. The causes that concern me the most are our lack of a shared understanding of objective truth, the marginalization and exploitation of faith, and our isolation from our neighbors and fellow citizens. I have already written on the loss of objective truth. Right now I want to write on the marginalization and, conversely, the exploitation of faith.

In a conservative communities like Utah affords, you can hear the lamentation of how the freedom of religion is under attack and this concern is not unfounded. 

In the later half of the 20th century, the nation started to embrace the idea of separation of church and state. In many facets, this was a good thing. For example, schools could not refuse to discuss the ideas of evolution and other non-biblical theories about how the world was created and some state laws and local ordinances that tried to enshrine forms of Christianity as a official faith were overturned.

However, as with any movement, moderation did not apply and the pendulum likely swung too far. Whether the inflection point was losing prayer in public or some other step away from religion, I do not know and I have not done enough research to define that point. Regardless, the point we have reached is one where more and more Americans do not affiliate with religion at all.

On the other side, reading twitter provides a host of people who either are having their faith exploited by people seeking power or people who are trying to exploit the faith of others to obtain power. In some cases, people of seemingly genuine faith are duped into believing that leaders and celebrities are baby eating lizard people or that the leader being pushed on faith leaders is an incarnation of the Lord. There are the pushers as well, those who make outlandish claims that everything is a conspiracy gains Christians and votes are stolen and changed in massively and well orchestrated frauds...

Sidebar: If the Democrats and the Federal government were well organized enough to steal 7+ million votes over multiple states while not making the elections of rank and file Republican congressmen, senators, and state leaders null in the same elections, you would think they would be well enough organized to succeed in trying at least one of the 91 criminal cases that have been charges against the anointed party leader. I digress.

Admittedly, I am not a good enough writer to get this thought fully formed and fleshed out. However, the most important points are 1.) Shared moral standard that Americans once shared because of shared communions and congregations no longer exist. 2.) Power structures that once existed by virtue of shared moral standards have crumbled. 3.) People who reject faith rhetorically attack the need of faith in the public sphere, and 4.) people of faith are ready to physically fight for a return of the moral standards that once ruled out country.

If we are no longer forming communities around local churches or faiths, we need to find ways to build communities around something else.This maybe one of the most difficult problems we face. Social causes and political party activity can only form partisan communities, and from such partisan communities can only spring forth contention - first rhetorical (we have this now) and then actual contention. 

The problem of truth

 I'll admit that I am a social media junky. That is not saying that I do anything reckless on social media, I am saying that I enjoy the exchanges that can occur. I am a 46 year old man who has worked almost exclusively from home for the past 14 years, and so exchanges with other adults (even if virtually) is a mental and emotional need that finds some relief in online spheres. My only other real source of adult conversation is my wife and my barely adult daughters.

There are many problems with social media. From trolls to hackers, and from political incivility to religious (and anti-religious) bigotry, all of these problems will greet you in the online spheres. While all of these problems are frustrating and painful, these may be but symptoms of greater problems. The root problems I see are 1.) that we no longer have a shared belief of objective truth 2.) sources of religious or moral development have been marginalized by nonbelievers and exploited for power consolidation by some purported believers 3.) most Americans live in isolation (even if they are in the center of civilizations) and we no longer look at our neighbors as friend but rather as strangers (I am fully guilty of this). The problem that has been on my mind this week has been the problem of truth.

Twitter was originally, my least favorite form of social media. The idea of dumbing down public discourse to 140 characters or less seemed insulting to the idea of thoughtful conversation. I started my experience in social media through the blogosphere of the early 2000s (this blog having started back then). The blogosphere was full of often thoughtful analysis of public issues, civic problems, and social debates. Even though the comment pages could be harsh, the comment were almost always well thought out (because if the logic was not thought out, you would be humiliated LOL)

However, Facebook killed the blogosphere with Twitter, Instagram, and Pinterest, and blog comments dried up soon after followed by regular blog postings. As Facebook became insufferable with advertising, Twitter became a diverse sphere where opposing voices could argue. The commentary stayed comparably sane if often uncivil until Musk decided to buy Twitter a few years ago.

I still visit X on a semi daily basis, but the thing that is most glaringly apparent is that there is a massive gulf in defined objective truth that is making American political polarization almost impossible to correct. The average visitor that defines themself as conservative on X or Twitter appears to believe that the United States is run by a cabal who is out to destroy people in their tribe, they believe in massive conspiracies, and that Donald Trump has always been an honest and successful businessman whose only crime has been to expose the cabal (often the cabal seems to me to simply be anyone who disagrees or criticizes Trump). They seem to sincerely believe that there is definitive and irrefutable evidence for this worldview. I'll be frank in that I may be narrating this view incorrectly because it seems to be in such opposition to my objective truth.

My understanding of the truth about the world in this regard is so diametrically opposed to the apparent "conservative" view that I don't even try to converse with them about it. It is depressing and frightening. 

Depressing because defining the truth in current events should not be difficult. These are happening right now, or they happening the recent past - something we all experienced together. I watched January 6th unfold live in anger and (I still feel) righteous indignation. The idea that this was an offense against the constitution that I believe in seems completely obvious to me. The election was run just like every election before it, the vote count was more skewed in one direction than it was when Romney lost to Obama, and all of the alleged evidence has always failed Occam's razor (the simplest explanation is usually the true explanation) and the whole conduct of Donald Trump and the GOP officials that supported his actions were in direct opposition to almost all post presidential conduct for 200+ years.

Frightening because such large segments of society cannot agree on current (what should be objective) fact or truth. Voltaire allegedly said "If you can make people believe the absurd, you can make them commit atrocities". Given the wide chasm between the object truth about our current state of affairs in US government, one clear truth is that one side must currently believe absurdities. If this is true, how far away are we from seeing atrocities committed? The German's accepted the absurdities of Nazism and committed the atrocities of the Holocaust, the absurdities of communism led to countless atrocities. Currently, Putin has used this to great affect. He and his machine has done all they could to make the Russian people (and shockingly to me many "conservative" Americans) believe absurdities about their Ukrainian neighbors, and they are committing atrocities right now. Some member of Congress and the Senate are committing similar the atrocities of withholding aid to Ukraine right now.

What can be done?

I hate to say it, but the time may have come for tighter control on ethical journalism. I don't say that I think this network or that is full of liars, I mean there may need to be some form of truth auditing for legitimate journalistic organizations (this is seriously just spit balling). Annual reviews of stories written along with retractions and apologies to determine whether a journalistic organization can be relied upon. Maybe something like the CPA audit opinion of a corporations financial statements. This may help increase public confidence in the journalistic organizations that have and do try and maintain integrity. The narrative that the "mainstream media is corrupt" has decimated the sources of agreed upon ethical truth in America. Liberal Americans only believe news reported on CNN, MSNBC, WaPo and the New York Times and maybe their local news, and conservative Americans what they agree with on Fox News, and the stuff reported on the news outlets like OAN and Newmax and sometimes their local news. Since conservative Americans are the least likely to trust traditional media, they are far more prone to believe heavily biased blog-type articles that often fail to adequately research and vet the stories they tell. This seeking truth from obscure sources has had a devastating effect.

The other thing we need is a new emphasis in education and in public on epistemology. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of knowledge, justification, and rationality. This will help give American's the function machine that will help them decide in an effective manner whether information should be believed or disbelieved. The remainder is admittedly from Chat GPT, but I think it highlights how to develop a good epistemology.

Good epistemology involves articulating a framework for how knowledge is acquired, justified, and evaluated. Here's a simplified explanation:

Reliability and Rationality: A good epistemology should prioritize methods that are reliable and rational. This means relying on processes that consistently lead to accurate beliefs and conclusions.

Empirical Evidence: An effective epistemology places a strong emphasis on empirical evidence. This involves using observation, experimentation, and sensory experience to gather data about the world. Empirical evidence helps to ensure that beliefs are grounded in reality rather than speculation.

Logical Reasoning: Logical reasoning is another essential component of a good epistemology. This involves using principles of logic and deduction to analyze evidence, draw conclusions, and identify inconsistencies in arguments. Logical coherence helps to ensure that beliefs are internally consistent and free from contradictions.

Open-mindedness and Critical Thinking: A good epistemology encourages open-mindedness and critical thinking. This means being willing to consider alternative viewpoints, subjecting beliefs to rigorous scrutiny, and revising beliefs in light of new evidence or arguments.

Skepticism: Healthy skepticism is integral to a good epistemology. It involves maintaining a cautious attitude towards accepting claims or beliefs without sufficient evidence. Skepticism helps to guard against credulity and encourages careful evaluation of sources and claims.

Peer Review and Verification: A good epistemology values peer review and verification. This involves subjecting claims and research findings to scrutiny by other experts in the field. Peer review helps to identify errors, biases, and weaknesses in arguments or evidence, leading to more reliable knowledge.

Consistency with Well-Established Knowledge: A good epistemology ensures that beliefs are consistent with well-established knowledge and principles. This involves building upon existing understanding and avoiding beliefs that contradict firmly established facts or theories without compelling evidence to support them.

Overall, a good epistemology is characterized by a commitment to rationality, empirical evidence, critical thinking, skepticism, and the continual refinement of knowledge through rigorous inquiry and evaluation.

Divorce and Taxes - Form 8332

It is still mind blowing how often men in divorces are led to believe they can simply claim their children as dependents simply because the divorce decree says they can.

If you are divorcing, the other spouse will have custody (meaning the child sleeps at their house) for more than 183 days of the year, and you negotiate trading off claiming the child, you MUST have the other spouse sign one Form 8332 that indicates what years you can claim the child. 

If you do not get a signed Form 8332, your ex-spouse has all power as far as the IRS is concerned to claim the children every year. You may be able to sue in family court proceedings for breaching the decree, but the ex-spouse will win the point with the IRS everytime.

Divorce attorneys please get this form signed everytime and keep it on file.

2024 Impending Presidential Election

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills! The fact that Republicans are consistently polling for Trump over any of the GOP primary challengers is beyond me. The reasons why Trump should have never been considered a fit candidate are myriad and they were obvious to 2015 Utah Republicans. Today? I don't know where the 2015 Republicans have gone.

I just finished the book Overreach by Owen Matthews. In the book, it discusses the Kremlin's metamorphosis from communism to liberal democracy to pseudo-conservative authoritarianism in regards to how the Ukrainian war started. 

The book it mentions a Russian conservative organization that has the goal of creating a conservative version of "The International" the communist organization that tried to coordinate the communist revolution throughout Europe. It has an eerie plausibility to its existence and (in debatable degrees) success. 

Russian conservatism today values the Russian Orthodox church, Russian greatness and imperialism, neo-czarism, violent rejection of western liberal ideals, highly accepting of conspiracy theories and highly suspicious of traditional journalism, encouragement of nationalistic clubs and organizations that are sometimes violent against opposition, and traditional family values (which apparently includes the right to beat a spouse without facing repercussions). Putin is unassailable in political rhetoric.

American conservatism is leaning towards authoritarian-leaning leadership that appears to be almost unassailable inside party political conversation, highly accepting of conspiracy theories (Q), growth of clubs like Proud Boys, III percenters, and other nationalistic organizations that do seem willing to pursue violence against opposition, almost entirely unaccepting of narratives presented by traditional journalism outlets. 

Last but not least, conservatism seems to be backing Putin's invasion of a smaller weaker neighbor. Not even 30 years ago, George HW Bush heroically stood against Iraq doing the same thing against Kuwait.

The GOP of today is more reminiscent of Russia's All- Russia Peoples Front or the United Russia Political party than the GOP of 2016 or even the GOP of 1984-1988 when Reagan was president. If there is a conservative version of the old "Commonturn", they appear to have been successful in Hungary, the UK with Brexit, and in the US with the GOP.

Thank you Senator Romney - Term Limits

I watched the impeachment trial. The only real reason was that I was bored at work for the past few weeks, late tax laws have pushed the start of tax season back for a lot of people and I just needed something to occupy my mind. 

One thing that I think is apparent is that Congress needs term limits. Out of 53 US GOP senators, only 2 of them dared to vote for simply hearing witnesses in an impeachment trial of a man whose morals (the lack thereof) can be best illustrated by the transcript of a deposition he gave prior to his election regarding his net worth (a figure that does have some actual importance in finance):

Trump: My net worth fluctuates, and it goes up and down with the markets and with attitudes and with feelings, even my own feelings, but I try.
Attorney Ceresney: Let me just understand that a little. You said your net worth goes up and down based upon your own feelings?
Trump: Yes, even my own feelings, as to where the world is, where the world is going, and that can change rapidly from day to day ...
Attorney Ceresney: When you publicly state a net worth number, what do you base that number on?
Trump: I would say it's my general attitude at the time that the question may be asked. And as I say, it varies.

Trump's lack of honesty and morals is nothing that can be dismissed as "fake news". From his well known extramarital affairs to his off-color comments to Billy Bush about grabbing a lady's nether regions, he is clearly a debauched lecher. From his well documented history of corporate bankruptcies to the many documented allegations of defaulting on contractual obligations both personally and in business, we know that he is a charlatan and a mountebank. In the words of Shakespeare, "he's an infinite and endless liar, an hourly promise-breaker".

There would have been nothing lost in hearing witnesses. In fact, the majority of American's were in favor of hearing witnesses. The accepted history of Donald Trump's past conduct would have provided enough circumstantial evidence to warrant subpoenas in a criminal or civil proceeding, and it should have been enough for the US Senate. 

The GOP of my youth would have rejected such a man as unworthy to be considered for public office. Indeed, the GOP of 2015 and 2016 tried to keep themselves distant from the man in the hopes that his candidacy would come to naught. However, the GOP learned to play mental gymnastics and to turn a blind eye to the man's utterly corruptible nature. 

While writing this, I can hear Trump-licans already keying the epithet "liberal" in this essay's comment feed. Ironically, with the exception of the xenophobic GOP view of undocumented aliens (which helped elect Trump) I am in lock-step with most conservative policies. If you want me to narrow it down, I am fine with gay marriage - the fact that men can marry men and women can marry women doesn't diminish the value of my marriage in the least. However, the fact that I cannot ignore the rank odor than permeates Donald Trump's character, has now made me an irredeemable liberal in the eyes of a vast majority of the current GOP. Indeed the zeal of some Trump supporters has echos from followers of another world leader from 80+ years ago.

The recent vote on witnesses in the impeachment trial illustrate how Mitt Romney and Mike Lee provide a good case study that supports the need for term limits. 

Most senators on both sides of the isle try and follow the Orrin Hatch career path. They get elected, the pay and benefits far exceed their pay in the private sector, the develop notoriety, and in the end most of them will make connections that will guarantee a great deal of wealth once they are either voted out of office or when they decide to retire from politics. This is their career, if the majority leader says vote this way - you do it. 

In Mitt Romney, I believe we find the antithesis of this career path.

He is worth a trustworthy 250 million dollars that can in fact be verified with numbers (not the wind that blows between his ears).  He doesn't need his Senate seat to support his family or secure a fortune - his has already been earned. He would like to serve another term, but it he is voted out of office (which is likely with Utah's rabid GOP) he can go back to his fortune without any real problems. Mitt Romney in the Senate has the ability to step back and vote according to his conscience (and to see Trump as he is). I would argue there is a de facto term limit in the case of Mitt Romney.

Counter that with the younger senior senator from Utah Mike Lee. As of 2015 (the most recent numbers I found) his net worth was 218k. He short sold a home when he decided to run for the senate 9+ years ago. Compared to Mitt Romney, he needs his career in Washington. He depends on the high pay that a career senator receives and he is counting on the astronomical income he can make as a lobbyist when he retires. There is no political oxygen for a senator like this to cross the Senate majority leader or a President that uses Twitter with the efficiency of a middle school mean girl. He is left to squirm about how Trump's Billy Bush comments made him uncomfortable as a father, while doing everything he can to stay in the President's good graces. He has no choice. 

The only way to bring Congress back is to enact limit terms. This will provide representatives and Senators the political oxygen in their careers (at least for one term) that will allow them to vote for what is right even when party leadership insists that they are wrong. Members of Congress with political oxygen would have the ability to bring reasoned debates and compromise back to our countries decision making processes - if only in my dreams.