The president seems either to not understand the legislative process
very well or to remain undecided as to whether he wants progress or more
political fighting on the gun violence issue. How else to explain why
he threw into his anti-gun violence plan giant, unattainable items such
as an assault-weapons ban (which we couldn’t adequately define in 1994
and didn’t work) alongside some common-sense items such as armed school
guards and funding for mental health?
Opponents will focus, just as the president did, on the big issue –
the assault-weapons ban — and insist that the whole package is kaput
before it lands in the relevant Senate and House committees. In effect,
President Obama included a poison pill in his own legislation.
He would have made it much harder on opponents of any gun
restrictions if he had culled the list down to a more manageable size,
emphasizing mental health care and detection of mental illnesses and
keeping guns out of the hands of the seriously mentally ill.
Matt Miller
speaks for many voters on this point: “I’m all for universal background
checks, tighter assault-weapon bans, limits on high-capacity magazines,
and ambitious and well-funded gun-buyback programs. But unless we also
find more effective ways to identify and treat people who are
dangerously mentally ill, we’ll never stop tragedies like Newtown (or
Aurora, or Tucson, or Virginia Tech).”
So why didn’t the president start on the point on which we can all
agree, rather than picking a fight on items over which there is almost
certainly no agreement? Ya got me.
A number of the anti-gun provisions make no sense. Take the limit on
high-capacity magazine clips. The president wants a limit of 10 rounds.
Maybe gun owners want 70. So they compromise at 25. Does this make mass
shootings less deadly? A deranged shooter might instead wear a holster
for easy access to additional weapons, or he might just switch out an
empty magazine for a full one, which takes a few seconds. And what about
all the high-capacity clips out there already? Would it take 10 years
or 100 to get rid of them? It is the lack of common sense in these
measures (which seem to come from people who know very little about
fighting crime or about guns) and willingness to paint opponents as
irresponsible or anti-child that is so grating, not to mention
unconducive to progress.
I would also add a fiscal point. The package costs $500 million. We
don’t have the money for this or many other things. This is, in part,
the argument for entitlement reform, which is crowding out spending
on priorities liberals (e.g. gun enforcement) and conservatives (e.g.
defense) prefer. The question is not whether we should throw Grandma
over the cliff but whether some rich grandmas can pay for more of their
health care so we can protect kids in school from madmen (as well as do
many other things for the poor and young, the unemployed and untrained).
Veronique de Rugy and Jason J. Fichtner (h/t Jim Pethokoukis)
speak to the issue of entitlement crowd-out, explaining that
entitlements and debt payments combined have grown from 38 percent of
the budget in 1970 to 64 percent in 2012 and, if we continue on this
path, to 82 percent in 2040. These are transfer payments that go, in
large part, from young to old without regard to progressivity. The
authors argue: “This is no surprise as the federal government faced its
fourth year of trillion dollar deficits and spent an unprecedented $3.5
trillion (in current dollars), or about $11,200 per person, in 2012
alone. As deficits continue to pile onto the national debt, interest
payments continue to grow significantly as a result. Hence, the primary
drivers of government spending today and into the future are the
continual growth in entitlements and interest payments on the federal
debt that crowd out all other areas of the budget.”
It would be nice if the president would have scaled down his gun
ambitions and recognized that if he wants to pursue projects like this
he should start negotiating on the debt ceiling and entitlement cuts.
That, unfortunately, is too much to ask.
No comments:
Post a Comment