I see the folks who love their guns are circulating the story of a women in Georgia who shot an intruder with a crowbar - citing the event as a reason why there shouldn't be gun control - and stretching their imagination to say it justifies having assault weapons in the home. One gun law supporter was quoted as saying "It's a good thing she wasn't facing more attackers. Otherwise she would have been in trouble and she would have run out of ammunition," said Erich Pratt, director of communications for the Gun Owners of America.
In the 65 years of my life I can't recall a single instance of a homeowner facing a horde attackers attacking their home. I'm sure that would make the headlines and I would hear about it. On the other hand I don't have enough fingers to count the massacres of innocent people that have occurred the last few years by nut cases wandering the streets armed to the teeth.
Media sources say the NRA is developing TV ads to exploit the story.
They are so out of touch with reality - so deeply enamored with their right to have guns - so wrapped up in the argument as to be out of touch with reality - it is mind-boggling.
I'm sure there are people who want to ban all guns, but I think most people don't have a problem with people who choose to have a gun in their house for self protection. It's foolish - statistically the gun in your house is more likely to kill you or one of your family or friends than an unknown attacker. But if a gun in the house makes folks feel safer, not a problem - maybe we can require trigger locks and some safety training and licensing to weed out the mentally unstable. But that seems to me to be a completely different issue than allowing anyone to buy a gun at private sales and gun shows. Or to buy assualt weapons that have no purpose other than killing or maiming lots of people really quickly.
80 years ago or so the NRA started as an organization of gun owners who recognized that guns were dangerous and wanted to lobby for regulation. Today's NRA is nothing more than a public relations company for the gun industry, oblivious for the greater good of this country.
Here is an interesting question. What countries in this world would you expect people to be lobbying to put armed guards in schools? It is inconceivable in virtually every other developed western democracy, and most of the non-democracies in the world. The only ones that occur to me besides the US are Iraq, Afganistan, Pakistan and the sub-saharan countries being taken over by Al-Queda.
Friday, January 11, 2013
Monday, January 7, 2013
Minimizing the corruption inherent in our democracy
The "fiscal cliff" deal that was just struck to avoid tax increases to all taxpayers is emblamatic of a basic problem with our democratic institutions - trading pork for votes. In order to continue current tax levels on most folks, with an increase in taxes for those making over $400,000 a year, Congress "had to" give big tax breaks to the rum industry, Hollywoods film industry, Nascar and algea farmers. A big part of the reason we have the deficit spending problems we have is that so many enactments of Congress get passed by giving unfair tax advantages to some influential (and wealthy) group with a key member of Congress in their pocket. Nothing new in this as demonstrated by the movie "Lincoln" circulating in the theatres at the moment. "Lincoln" documents the great emancipator's ability to cut unsavory deals to get the amendment banning slavery through Congress.
I am sure many in Congress don't like this tradition, but go along because "thats the way things get done" The tradition of pork is supported by a couple of factors that would be applicable even if all members of Congress were high minded persons seeking to do the right thing (we are giving some of them the benefit of the doubt here).
First, every member of Congress, particularly in the house with its two year terms, is looking to their job security - how do they get re-elected. So they cultivate powerful interest groups that can funnel them money to fund their campaigns, or who are influential in their district.
Second, new members who come to Congress are generally full of untested ideological opinions about what government should do or be, with little practical experience with what works. Good public policy requires a broad understanding of history, economics, law and social sciences among other topics. Most of the people who have the ambition to scramble up the political ladder are a little too busy with their ambitions to have time to develop that kind of understanding and the minute they arrive in Washington they are thinking about positioning themselves for re-election.
What if:
1. Instead of having people constantly worrying about their next campaign we made the terms of House and Senate members longer and limited everyone to one term, and required members to sit out of public life for 4 years after their term. To avoid the problem of having a Congress full of newby's who can be manipulated by lobbiests (which is what term limites often accomplishes) we could also have elections a year before the prior members term expires, and the newly elected member would serve a one year apprenticeship during which he does not actually vote, but spends his time learning what he will need to do to do a good job.
2. Another approach that could simultaneously be pursued would be a constitutional amendment giving the president a line item veto. This would allow the President to strike out pork without vetoing an entire proposal Some may recall Congress enacted a line item veto back in the early 1990's. The Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional, hence the need for a Constitutional amendment. Some argue the line item veto is abrogating the power of Congress. Seems to me the line item veto doesn't reduce the power of Congress, they can still overturn an item veto by a 2/3's vote. What it abrogates is the ability of individual members of Congress to hold legislation hostage to further the selfish interests of their supporters or constituents.
I am sure many in Congress don't like this tradition, but go along because "thats the way things get done" The tradition of pork is supported by a couple of factors that would be applicable even if all members of Congress were high minded persons seeking to do the right thing (we are giving some of them the benefit of the doubt here).
First, every member of Congress, particularly in the house with its two year terms, is looking to their job security - how do they get re-elected. So they cultivate powerful interest groups that can funnel them money to fund their campaigns, or who are influential in their district.
Second, new members who come to Congress are generally full of untested ideological opinions about what government should do or be, with little practical experience with what works. Good public policy requires a broad understanding of history, economics, law and social sciences among other topics. Most of the people who have the ambition to scramble up the political ladder are a little too busy with their ambitions to have time to develop that kind of understanding and the minute they arrive in Washington they are thinking about positioning themselves for re-election.
What if:
1. Instead of having people constantly worrying about their next campaign we made the terms of House and Senate members longer and limited everyone to one term, and required members to sit out of public life for 4 years after their term. To avoid the problem of having a Congress full of newby's who can be manipulated by lobbiests (which is what term limites often accomplishes) we could also have elections a year before the prior members term expires, and the newly elected member would serve a one year apprenticeship during which he does not actually vote, but spends his time learning what he will need to do to do a good job.
2. Another approach that could simultaneously be pursued would be a constitutional amendment giving the president a line item veto. This would allow the President to strike out pork without vetoing an entire proposal Some may recall Congress enacted a line item veto back in the early 1990's. The Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional, hence the need for a Constitutional amendment. Some argue the line item veto is abrogating the power of Congress. Seems to me the line item veto doesn't reduce the power of Congress, they can still overturn an item veto by a 2/3's vote. What it abrogates is the ability of individual members of Congress to hold legislation hostage to further the selfish interests of their supporters or constituents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)