Gun Control Debate Isn’t About Guns (repost)

(EDITOR’S NOTE – this story was originally published on 4/12 in my column at IVN – The MidWest Wing Report)

Gun control is certainly not a new issue in the United States but the topic has never been hotter than it is right now.  The fight over the Second Amendment to the Constitution and its bearing upon today’s society is everywhere - the 24-hour news channels on TV, talk radio, the internet, and the front page of every paper in the US.  It seems that every facet of the gun control issue that could be debated is being debated.  The thing is, the argument isn’t really about guns or gun control…its about the role of the federal government, individual liberty and state’s rights

On the surface the argument is over what “the founders intended” when they wrote the Constitution and subsequent amendments to it with the Bill of Rights, the second of which reads “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed“.  However, the reality is that the true debate is over the legislative reach of the federal government, a debate that is as old as our nation.

The line “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” is at the heart of this specific gun control discussion.  There are those who say that when our founding fathers created this amendment they could have never envisioned semi-automatic pistols or rifles with ranges exceeding hundreds of yards.  This is true.  But they also didn’t live in a time when the enemies of our nation, both foreign and domestic,  had such weapons (and much much greater ones) available to them.

Some would say the debate over gun control is similar to those regarding the use of seat-belts and motorcycle helmets.  The danger with those two illustrations is that, more often than not, they only impact the passengers in the car or the riders of the bike.  If I was to compare it to anything using that medium (automobiles/bikes) I would say gun control is similar to the speed-limit laws.  While those laws affect the driver they also affect everyone else on the road, just as gun laws affect the gun owner but also affect others in the community.

Interestingly enough the federal government doesn’t control speed limits – that power resides with the individual states.  Obviously there cannot be a complete corollary but to me the issues seem quite similar.  I doubt that those who formed our nation by rebelling against a tyrannically oppressive government would have an issue with the individual states exerting their authority on this issue.

The people who live Montana or Alaska have different views on gun control than those of Massachusetts or Rhode Island and their laws undoubtedly reflect that.  Those laws have been debated by citizens of those states inside their legislatures and will most certainly continue to be debated there.  More than likely some sort of federal mandate would still be needed on this issue though to ensure that people are not skirting the laws of their home state by purchasing weapons/ammo in a nearby state.  Perhaps that is really what the discussion should be about in Washington- the federal government helping states to enforce the laws they created for their own citizens.

NSF Research – Purdue Appeals to Bucshon

Larry Bucshon, member of the United States House of Representatives. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Recently Congressman Larry Bucshon (R-IN 8) toured Purdue University and met with faculty and research leaders to discuss government sponsored research and its importance to the University.  Congressman Bucshon is the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Research, so this carries a bit more weight than the normal district work period meet-and-greet.  Additionally, Rep. Bucshon was a heart surgeon prior to being elected to Congress in 2010 so he knows a bit about research and its importance in society.

Visits such as these take place all across the country during district work periods (when the House and/or Senate are not in session).  In a time when federal dollars are under an increasingly precise microscope, the pitches made by faculty members and university officials need to be on target.  University research is an important funding area but the dollars need to be justified to ALL Americans, not just those within the state when federal money is involved.

Often times news outlets will come out with the absurd stories of government research – just do a simple search for “wasteful government research projects”.  However, sometimes what may sound silly actually leads to life-saving developments.  A test on insect larvae could result in new anti-cancer treatments.  Research on spider silk could help develop better personnel armor for our troops.  Looking at how barnacles attach to ships could end up saving our Navy millions in maintenance costs and could lead maximize shipping efficiency (less drag means faster speeds with less required horse-power).

So, while it is of incredible importance to reduce our spending we need to make sure it is not at the risk of jeopardizing future developments that could benefit our State, Nation and ultimately our World.

Fiscal Cliff Diving

Since the election ended it seems that all of the focus of the political media has been centered on the impending “fiscal cliff”.  It has been set up as showdown between the President and Congressional Republicans, led by Speaker John Boehner (R-OH).  Now, depending on your news source preference  one or both of them are playing the villain roles.  Opinion seems about split as to whether or not America will indeed go over the fiscal cliff with some in the media advocating that it is in the best interest of our nationals future to do so.     Their reasoning is that our nation needs to embrace short-term sacrifice for long-term gains; that heading over the fiscal cliff would actually be the most fiscally responsible thing to do in the long-term.

The reality of the situation is that neither Mr. Boehner or Mr. Obama is the villain.  Both, in a sense, have backing of the American people.  The voters elected Mr. Obama to a 2nd term while they voted for a GOP majority in the House of Representatives, assuring Mr. Boehner two more years as Speaker.  Given this, that both have the “support” of the American public, I tend to think a compromise will be reached in the waning hours prior to the approaching cliff.  Hard-liners in each party will be upset by this, but I see it as the politically reasonable result.  President Obama, of course, has the upper hand (personally) due to not having to worry about another election.  His party though has just as much to lose as the GOP if the United States heads back into another recession.

Voter ID..ea

With our latest election now in the rear-view mirror I thought it was an apt time to discuss the “voter ID..ea” (see what I did there).  Many liberals were up in arms in late October and early November in states that had so-called “strict” voter id laws (such as showing a driver’s license in order to vote) by saying this discriminated against the poor.  Conservatives on the other hand, were trumpeting the evolution of such laws as ways to cut down on voter fraud.  As if often the case, both sides have valid points.

Those who say that voter ID laws suffocate or even prohibit the turnout of the poor due to government issued identifications costing money have a point.  To those who cannot scare together enough money to afford a single meal a day, paying the fee for a driver’s license (or similar document) seems rather trivial   As such, without an id, one cannot vote.  Now, many states DO offer the ability to get a free ID if you cannot afford to pay for one.  As with such things, there are hoops to jump through and this information regarding this not always readily available.

Those who applaud voter ID measures have validity on their side as well.  Voter ID laws make voter fraud on the individual voter level much more complicated.  No longer can one individual vote multiple times (well, I suppose they could, but it is vastly more difficult I imagine).  Given that voting is central to our Nation’s fabric, it is important that elections be free of as much fraudulent activity as possible.  Furthermore, in some states, the ability voter ID laws have also been paired with open polling sites, meaning that you no longer have to visit one specific polling place because you live in a specific area.  If there is a polling site that is more convenient to a person then their prior pre-ordained polling place, then they are free to take advantage of that convenience while exercising their civic duties.

Clearly, voting is something that is key to our Republic.  It should be something that is manageable and suited to the citizenry while at the same time being as free from doubt and illegality as possible.  Those in state government should work towards making sure that every eligible citizen has a chance to cast his or her ballot at the appropriate times.  With only 50% of our populace making their voices heard, we need to encourage voting, not discourage it.  We need to make sure every voice that can be heard is heard when the votes are counted.  To do that, voter fraud must me mitigated and voting ease and convenience must be maximized.

North Dakota’s Property Tax Question

Today, citizens in North Dakota will go to the polls to decide whether or not to end property taxes.  That’s right – END property taxes.  This isn’t a  measure like many states have, where they will cap them at a certain percentage, or lower them.  North Dakotans (is that what they call themselves?) will be voting on a measure that removes over $800 in revenue from the State and completely ends the levy of property tax on the citizens.  The measure is not likely to pass (according to the linked NYT article) but it is very interesting to look at.

North Dakota is one of the few states that could push an idea like this forward – they have huge income from oil drilling and have experienced a tech boom recently.  So, while some states of the larger states try to figure out how to stop the negative growth, North Dakota is one of the few that has budget surpluses.  Their people think the State has a very different problem than, say, California….North Dakota has too much money.  So they are taking matters into their own hands with the proposal.

In reality, I don’t care too much about the budgetary math.  I don’t think the measure will pas when you look at all of those who have lined up against it.  What is more striking to me is that a collective group of citizens is working to push the government – not the other way around.  While it seems each year we see some sort of petition drive that is voted on (most seemingly in California), few are this big.  The often have to deal with niche issues or social issues.  This…well this strikes at the very heart of government.  This group feels that the government of North Dakota is simply collecting too much from its people and they are aiming to change that.  they are taking a stand and getting involved – and that is something to applaud in this day in age where many of us just complain instead of fixing a broken system.

If the measure does fail, I am hopefully that those in Bismark will work with those who have put forth this measure to come up with a solution that can keep North Dakota moving forward.  After all, government is supposed to be FOR the people, not profiting off of the people.

The Collection of Tax from Online Sales

Recently, Michigan Governor Rick Snyder stated that he supported a measure for the State of Michigan to collect sales tax from online purchases.  While citizens are supposed to pay this sales tax anyway, there usually is not a mechanism built into the site for them to do so, as such, they must self-report this.  As you can imagine, this frequently goes unreported.  While some on the right would try to use this as ammunition against a moderate politician, this policy is especially sound for a state still trying to recover from a decade of mismanagement and budgetary issues.  Michigan is hardly alone in this measure, Indiana also considered a similar measure this year (they have an agree with Amazon.com to start collecting taxes in 2014).

The “Occupy…” And “Tea Party” Movements – Brothers From The Same Mother

It seems that each party has its lightning rod subgroups, with the Republicans it is the Tea Party and with the Democrats it is – or could become – the Occupy (wherever) Movement.  In 2008 and 2009 the Tea Party movement was born and grew from nothing into a very big something.  In 2011, the Occupy (insert place here) Movement spring up across the nation.  One group – very conservative, the other – very liberal.  What is interesting though is that these two groups are really born out of the same issue – unhappiness with government role and actions within our economy.

Shrinking Federal Government…Increase in State Government?

If Republicans can maintain their majority in the US House while also winning the Senate (and maybe the Presidency) we will likely see a dramatic decrease in the size and scope of the Federal Government.  Some of the items being talked about as cuts from the Federal Budget would need to be absorbed at the State level.  This, in turn, means that State Governments could end up growing.  The shifting of services from one sector of government to another may not have a large impact on the bigger states who already have that large tax-supported infrastructure.  However, in states that have part-time legislatures, more oversight means more legislation and more time spent in the respective capitols.

The High Cost of College

On Monday you saw an article by Thomas Anderson discussing the Student Loan debate, or more precisely, the debate about the Student Loan debate.  One thing, throughout all of this that seems to be ignored is that the cost of going to college has increased dramatically.  In the 11 years since I graduated college, my alma mater has almost doubled tuition (around $2,300 to now $4,300+).  In that time, inflation has increased only 30%.  That means that tuition in 2001 costs, adjusted for today’s inflation, would be just under $3000.  That is only a $700 increase…not the $2000 increase you see above.  Remember, this does not even factor in the cost of student housing or books which can fluctuate for each student but DO factor into the overall amount a student takes out for a loan.

Student Loan Debate

When student loan interest rates were temporarily reduced from 6.8%to 3.4% a few years ago, it was to relieve those who had subsidized Stafford loans during tough economic times. The problem with giving temporary relief to group of individuals who are relatively new to creating personal budgets (recent college graduates) is that they rarely ever prepare for when the temporary relief ends. However, the idea of offering temporary relief in this case was that the economy was bad, so we’d make it easier on those with students loans to handle their debt Then when the economy rebounds and things look better for them, we can return interest rates to pre-relief levels.

So now we’re hearing about the current debt on this issue. The pre-determined deadline for the rate reduction has come. So now it is time to say “The economy still sucks and we need to continue the economic relief this reduction provided.” Or we say “The economy is better, recent grads can handle the pre-relief rates, and we can let the rate reduction expire.” That is it, those are the two options. There is no 3rd option of “The economy is on the rebound, but we should continue giving economic relief to this group of people because, well because it is a nice thing to do.”

In life we have to make tough decisions. But it looks like in Government we don’t have to do that. I guess that explains over $15 trillion in debt and trillion-dollar yearly operating deficits. See the only reason this is being debate is so we can paint one side as good and the other side as bad. That shouldn’t be the issue, it should be this is the right thing to do or it isn’t.

If the President wants to extend the temporary cuts in loan interest rates, then say that the economy is not in good shape, especially for recent grads, and increasing the rates will further hurt the economy. You can’t preach about recovery and a better economy one day, and the next talk about the need to extend economic relief. Don’t shit in one hand and then try to sell me fertilizer with the other Mr. President.

And as far as Republicans go. They should be for extending the relief and cuts because the economy is still in the shitter. They should be up there saying, “Yes, we need to provide this economic relief because the President’s economic policies have failed this country and this generation of recent and future college graduates. They need help, and this President is doing nothing to brighten their economic future. We will pass this extension of temporary assistance AND X,Y, and Z (Whatever economic recovery plans GOP leadership wants to insert in their would be fine), to help recent and future college graduates.”

Everyone is bullshitting too much with this. Plain and simple, the economy sucks, college grads need help, and Obama is just a panderer. The message is short and sweet: “Obama’s economy sucks, so we need to extend loan interest cuts.”