Monday, March 4, 2013

Stereotypes Not Helpful In Gun Debate

Read the column here.

Note that, as stated, I did not delve into policy questions in this column. I merely recounted my own experiences as a law-abiding, responsible gun owner and asked that policymakers differentiate between folks like me and the bad guys (which, unfortunately, is what routinely does not happen with proposed gun control legislation).
 

That said, I will offer a brief bit on policy here: even my friends on the left of the political aisle should be alarmed at the baldly political maneuvers employed to secure the hurried passage of New York's SAFE Act. More than half of the Empire State's counties have adopted resolutions opposing the legislation and several more are considering doing the same. Even the New York Sheriffs Association, which agrees with many parts of the Act, has criticized the brazen manner in which it was enacted. Also, the New York Supreme Court has given the state until 29 April to explain, in detail, how the law is constitutional or have an injunction issued by the Court against it.

Be that as it may, while the GLOCK 17 was not the first firearm with a plastic/polymer (plastic in the scientific sense meaning malleable) stock or receiver, it was the first pistol so equipped to be commercially accepted outside the narrow confines of pistols suitable for hunting.

To my knowledge, a couple of Remingtons were the first to have plastic/polymer stocks or receivers.  The Nylon 66 rifle, chambered in .22LR, appeared in theNylon 66 rifle, chambered in .22LR, appeared in the 1950s and was very well received.  The same company’s XP-100 bolt action pistol, chambered in a variety of hunting calibers, made its appearance in 1963.

Heckler und Koch’s VP70, chambered in 9X19mm, debuted in 1968: the “M” variant (Militรคr) allowed for semi-automatic and three-round burst fire (the latter when fitted with a specially designed shoulder stock that housed the burst mechanism); the Z variant (Zivil – civilian) fired in semi-automatic mode only.  Sales, outside of a few military contracts never amounted to much.

I remember when the GLOCK first hit the American market – and the near hysteria it caused among the gun control crowd, who claimed that it was a “plastic” pistol that could not be detected by existing airport metal detectors.  Of course, this was (and remains) pure fiction.  I also remember how some handgun traditionalists disparaged the newfangled GLOCK with terms such as “drastic plastic” and “tactical Tupperware.”

The GLOCK 17 was first devised in 1981, a marvel of engineering comprised of just 34 parts (perhaps a couple more with the latest “Generation 4” designs), including three separate internal safety mechanisms.  The pistol was adopted by the Austrian military in
1983.  A year later, following the GLOCK’s passage of NATO durability testing, the pistol was adopted by the Norwegian military.  In 1986, the company established an American subsidiary and established its U.S. headquarters in Smyrna, Georgia.

And the folks at GLOCK have been laughing all the way to the bank ever since.  In fact, according to the company’s web site, by 2012 more than 65% of the nation’s police forces issued the company’s pistols to their members.

GLOCK (the company always uses all capitals)

GLOCK Sport Shooting Foundation

International Defensive Pistol Association

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Medicaid Bill Violates State Constitution

Read the column here.



Obviously, this column is a companion piece to my last one, fleshing out as it does one of the arguments of the latter in far greater detail.

The initial sentence of the sixth paragraph should read “Further, the language of SB 24 explicitly notes that a new Article 6C is to be amended to Title 31, Chapter 8 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated . . .”  The incorrect verbiage is my responsibility (you know how it is, you know how something you have written should read, so you read it that way when proofing, even if it is in error).

Be that as it may, here are the correct citations:

State of Georgia Constitution - Article III, Section V, Paragraph II; see page 18:

HB 1055 (2010); see page 77:

SB 24 (2013)

State of Georgia Constitution – Article III, Section IX, Paragraph VI(i); see page 28:

O.C.G.A. – Title 31 Chapter 8, Article 6A (you’ll have to navigate to it):

Code of Federal Regulations – 42 CFR 433.68:

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, February 4, 2013

From Party Versus Party To People Versus Government



Read the column here.

I fully understand the need to plug the hole in the state’s Medicaid funding and the desire to leverage federal matching funds (of course, the latter puts states in the pathetic position of raising their own taxes so as to get back some of the money those states have sent to Washington, but that is another argument).  Besides, readers should remember that one of the central tenets of Obamacare is to slough more Medicaid spending off onto the states.  Even so, as discussed in the column, my gripe is with the manner in which the General Assembly is abdicating its responsibilities.

In order to secure such quick passage of SB 24, the Senate suspended one of its own Rules (3.129(a)) so that it could be read and referred to committee on the first day of the session.  This was done by voice vote as opposed to a roll call.  Also, the bill was referred to the Regulated Industries and Utilities Committee, somewhat curiously in that the web site of the Committee notes that it has jurisdiction over “gas, telecommunications, electric and other related industrial areas,” even before a chairman had been named to the Committee or any of its meetings had been scheduled.

Be that as it may, SB 24 went into the Senate hopper, had a first reading, and was referred to committee on 14 January.  The bill had its second reading and was favorably reported by the Regulated Industries and Utilities committee on 16 January (by an 11-3 vote, the Committee approved a substitute that shortened the length of the scheme from 5 years to 4 and added a stipulation that if the trust fund created by the bill was abolished any fees left in it could not be spent without the General Assembly’s approval).  I could not find a roll call vote for the Committee’s action; note that Frank Ginn serves as vice-chairman of the Committee.  The bill had its third reading and was adopted by the full Senate on 17 January (by a 46-9 vote with 1 vacancy), both Bill Cowsert and Frank Ginn voted in favor of the amended bill.

Over in the House, SB 24 had its first reading on 28 January, its second reading on 29 January, and was favorably reported by the Governmental Affairs Committee on 30 January (I could not find the margin by which the measure passed, much less a roll call vote).  SB 24 had its third reading and passed the full House on 01 February (by a 147-18 vote with 5 not voting and 10 excused); Spencer Fry and Chuck Williams voted in favor of the bill while, much to her credit, Regina Quick dissented.

With respect to my left-leaning friends, the Democrats are hardly blameless; they governed the Peach State via the smoke-and-mirrors stratagem for 130 years. I focused on the GOP because: 1) they are currently in the majority in both chambers of the General Assembly; and 2) I am one myself and, quite frankly, I expect better from them.

Besides which, the Democrats seem perfectly content to go along with this taxation via proxy thing. If you don't believe it, pull up the roll call votes on both T-SPLOST and the "bed tax" for yourselves; while it appears that Democrats voted for the measures by smaller percentages than did the Republicans, the majority of former still voted in favor of both.

For the text and legislative history of the Transportation Investment Act of 2010, see:

For the text and legislative history of SB 24, see:

Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, January 20, 2013

Constitution Should Be Embraced

Read the column here.



My concern is not just with the various branches the federal government ignoring the Constitution, but with the manner in which the federal government, those of the respective states, and even local governments (county, municipal, school boards) increasingly seem willing to skirt constitutions, codes, ordinances and good government practices in a wholesale manner.  And if you don't believe it, just keep track of the news for a couple of weeks with that thought in mind.
 
For Seidman’s op/ed in the New York Times (30 December 2012), see:

For Seidman’s book, see:

For a review article of such thinking, see Alexander C. Kafka in The Chronicle of Higher Education (10 December 2012):

For a variety of responses to Seidman, see:






Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Predictably, "Fiscal Cliff" Deal Ignores Real issue

Read the column here.


Regular readers (and yes, there are some) may have noticed that I wrote nothing concerning the so-called fiscal cliff until now.  One reason was the fact that my arguments would not have been appreciably different from those of any number of other commentators.  The other, as outlined in the column, was that the course of events was predictable.  Besides, I was waiting to see the specifics of the deal we all knew was coming (and this column may be thought of as a companion piece to my last one).

The 10:1 ratio of tax increases to spending cuts was the lowest CBO “scoring” that I found; an earlier such scoring from the same source was more like 41:1.  I used the lower figure on purpose, so as to not be accused of exaggerating or inflating my figures.

Other issues the fiscal cliff compromise did not address are:
        -four consecutive years of $1 trillion plus deficits (with no end in sight)
·         -the $48 trillion shortfalls in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid
·         -the fact that Social Security has run deficits for each of the last two years ($49 billion in 2010 and $45 billion in 2011) and is projected to do so from now on
·         -the last time both houses of Congress voted on an actual budget was April 2009 (the House of Representatives, under GOP control, passed budget resolutions in 2011 and 2012 but the Senate did not)
·         -the fact that according to the Congressional Budget Office the compromise will result in an additional $4 trillion in budget deficits over the next decade.

And, of course, the compromise was chock full of special interest tax breaks and giveaways.

Remember, though, that if the mythical “rich” would just pay their fair share, all will be well (that’s sarcasm, by the way).

For a very brief history of past budget deals in which tax increases happened, but the promised spending cuts did not, see this from Cal Thomas:

For a very brief review of the four different budget deficit “commissions” that have come and gone since 2010 (Domenici-Rivlin, Bowles-Simpson, Gang of Six, and Biden) that preceded the most recent Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (the “super-committee”), see:

For a very brief review of the various provisions of the 150-plus page fiscal cliff compromise, see:

For many of the statistics cited, see Federal Spending by the Numbers 2012 by the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation (specific references used in the report come predominantly from the Congressional Budget Office, the Congressional Research Service, and the Office of Management and Budget).  I advise readers to digest the full report, as it outlines various facets of the astonishingly dismal fiscal situation awaiting us (and no matter how bad you think that it is, the reality is worse).  See:

For more on Americans for Limited Government’s calculation that 88% of the new revenue raised by the compromise will be need to pay interest on the new debt that it creates, see:

For more on tax cheat Geithner’s “creative” accounting to forestall traversing the debt ceiling, see this from State Budget Solutions:

Addendum -  My point was not that the Social Security tax holiday stimulated economic growth, which in my opinion was always a debatable proposition because smart folks have been either saving the extra income or paying down debt (though I did appreciate hanging on to a bit more of my own money), but rather that while everyone's attention was directed toward soaking the "rich" the reality was that taxes were going up on us all - as usual.

Sphere: Related Content