The debate on guns has been changing

A decade ago, when people would ask me whether I agreed with the Democrats on every issue, I'd answer that I generally did not. The exception was 'second amendment issues.'

As a rural Democrat (though I did grow up in the city) I understand that guns are pretty fundamental to the lifestyle around here. A rancher who is way back on his ranch dealing with a sick herd animal and is confronted by a pack of wild dogs may need it (yes, folks, those 'sweet little puppies' that people leave on the side of the road-- 99% of them get hit by cars, starve or die of thirst, or become coyote food, but the other 1%, they're out there-- and you don't want to meet them without a firearm.) But beyond that, a lot of people go hunting in rural areas, and even those who do not, generally know how to use a gun. And crime, while much less here than in cities is not entirely unknown in rural areas, but the difference is that if you call 911, the nearest officer may be miles away and whatever happens will be long over before they even get anywhere close to your home. For a lot of people here, guns are so fundamental that asking them to hand over their guns would almost be like asking them to hand over their kids.

And my own view has always been, "you should be able to buy any gun you want. And other than an instant background check to make sure you aren't a criminal or a loony, there is no reason why you shouldn't be allowed to buy a firearm.“ I've opposed registration of firearms as well, believing that it's not the government's business to know how many guns you own. And truth be told, that should be the liberal view. I believe you have the right to read, say, download, smoke or do whatever you want with a consulting adult in your own bedroom, so why not the right to buy what you want, including a gun?

For that reason, ten years ago I often differed with Democrats on gun issues, opposing gun control and registration laws.

I don't disagree with Democrats now, however. No, I have not changed my position, not changed it at all. What has happened is that the debate has shifted.

Although the rhetoric machine on the right likes to call Democrats 'gun grabbers' to keep their faithul in line, the truth is that no serious attempt to ban guns was proposed either by the President or Congress during the two years that President Obama had a Democratic Congress. It just wasn't on the radar screen. Even after the Tucson shooting, while there was a half-hearted attempt to ban the 30 bullet clips that Jared Loughner used to kill six people and injure 13 in a matter of seconds, (and some including me asked why anyone would want a rapid fire 30 bullet clip, unless you are a terrible shot and can't hit anything you aim at) there was no serious attempt to restrict the type of gun or ammunition people can buy.

What we see now (mainly at the state level, and Arizona is a prime example) is a much more aggressive agenda to push guns into places where they have never been allowed in the past, and that's where I am parting ways with the right. Some bills that have been passed by the Arizona legislature in the past few years and signed into law include:

*-- a law requiring that bar owners, unless they put up a sign stating otherwise, must allow guns into bars. Obviously armed drunks wasn't a good idea so virtually every bar in the state posted the sign, but it was an unncessary expense, and more importantly the legislature tried to tell the bar owners how to run their business.

*-- ending the requirement that concealed carry owners attend a safety class, and demonstrate competence. Yeah, we can laugh at the mayhem that followed, such as the man who accidentally blew a hole in the ceiling at Wal-Mart or the or the man who accidentally partially castrated himself with his fiancee's pink pistol or the guy who shot a hole in the floor while standing in the checkout line at the supermarket or the guy who was lounging around on the couch when the gun went off but was it really such a grand idea to get rid of the safety requirement? I mean, my kids took driver's ed and they have to drive around with a learner's permit and had twelve hours of instructed driving (half at the wheel, half observing) before they are allowed to get a license. You know, because a car isn't a toy, and you might hurt yourself or someone else if you didn't know and observe the safety rules? But I guess maybe a gun is now considered a toy. At least that's apparently what this seven year old thought.

It's not the people who know what they are doing who scare me, it's the armed nincompoops.

Even worse than what was signed into law, are some of the laws that have actually passed the Arizona legislature and made it all the way to the governor's desk the past few years. And history teaches that these bills don't die if you veto them, they will just come back in a modified form (such as the guns in bars bill, which was vetoed by Janet Napolitano but later signed by Jan Brewer.)

*-- the storage locker bill. Would have required that private businesses (any private business) allow people to carry a gun openly unless they invested a lot of money to install a secure storage locker where people could store their guns while in the business. So for example a convenience store would have to install such a locker or a person could walk right up to the clerk on the graveyard shift (when many convenience stores only have one person on duty) with a gun in their hand, and at the last moment could either present it butt-first to put into the storage locker or muzzle first ("this is a hold up.") Besides the obvious gift to armed robbers, this pretty much proves that the GOP legislature thinks business owners don't know what their customers want and therefore the legislature must tell them (and THEY are the ones who complain about the 'nanny state?')

*-- the guns in schools bill. Would force schools to allow any adult to carry a gun on campus. Again, a case of 'the legislature knows best,' not the local school board who knows what would work best in their community.

*-- the guns in university classrooms bill. Would force universities to allow anyone to carry a gun into classrooms. All I have to say about that is, I've had a lot more hotheads in classes I teach at a college than I've had school shooters. One time when I was teaching in Albuquerque a hothead got really ticked off in class, threw a pencil (hard) at another student's head (luckily she ducked and he missed) and then screamed obscenities at everyone and stormed off. I’m really glad he didn’t have a gun right then. For that matter, as long as we are talking about Jared Loughner (since the Tucson shooting came up earlier in this post) he was known to be a problem at Pima Community College. But fortunately the school had a gun-free policy which he followed on campus so when he had his periodic psychotic meltdowns on campus, he was unarmed at that moment. So in other words, we have become so obsessed with school shooters (which if we quit covering them and making a sensational story when there is one they probably wouldn't happen as often) that we forget the much more common case: of someone who may be in general a law abiding citizen, but who has a short fuse and a violent temper.

*-- the bill to allow guns into other public buildings, including town council meetings, municipal and civil courts and libraries. They could be banned only if the public entity involved installed expensive metal detectors at all the entrances (at this time of strained budgets, clearly something most such public institutions can't afford, and no, the legislature did not offer to provide funding in that case.) Just what we need, right? People bringing a gun to divorce court and custody hearings. Luckily even Jan Brewer realized this bill was bad news (kind of a sad commentary when you have to depend on Jan Brewer to be the adult in the room, but that's what kind of legislature we have now.)

So no, I haven't changed my position on guns at all. I still support responsible gun ownership. I still oppose gun control or gun registration. But the debate has shifted, and I do not support trying to force guns into places where they have never been part of the picture and don't belong in it.

John McCain all but admits that he doesn't represent Arizona

I've been listening to the Health Care debate. John McCain was criticizing some deals struck with individual Senators to seal their votes. He zeroed in in particular on a deal Senator Bill Nelson of Florida made to get a preferred deal on medicare for residents of Florida. McCain called it the 'Florida flim-flam' and complained, "my constituents didn't get that deal.'

He's right, medicare recipients in Florida get a better deal. That's because Bill Nelson does what is expected of a Senator and made a deal. Does not Senator McCain think that if he had asked Harry Reid for a similar deal for Arizona to procure his vote, that Reid would have jumped at the offer? Of course he would have.

THE TRUTH IS THAT JOHN MCCAIN, WITHOUT REALIZING IT, ONCE AGAIN REMINDS US THAT HE DOES NOT REPRESENT ARIZONA.!!

John McCain has forgotten the state that elected him in order to pursue his own ambition on the national stage. The problem is not what Senator Nelson (or for that matter what the other Senator Nelson, or Senator Landrieu or others) did in making deals that benefit their constituents. That's what members of Congress are supposed to do. The problem is that Senator McCain DIDN'T get anything for Arizona, just like he DOESN'T get anything for Arizona, ever.

I hope that someone saved that speech and plays it back for some of Senator McCain's medicare-eligible constituents.

Maybe it's not Texas, but Arizona that's like a whole other country.

Some highlights of the state budget that was passed by the state house of representatives by a unanimous vote:

*-- A 5.1% increase in spending (thanks to the use of federal stimulus funds without draconian cuts elsewhere)

*-- Increased scholarships for students whose families make less than $50,000 by 25%

*-- Expanded electric bill discounts for the poor

*-- Promotes the creation of a high speed rail line between two of the state's biggest cities

*-- Took money from the Governor's office budget to fund programs for veterans and the mentally ill.

*-- Gave most state workers, retired state workers and retired teachers a $1,000 one-time bonus

Wow, our house did that?? No, it was another state's house. A liberal, northeastern, high tax state then? No, it was TEXAS.

Granted this budget will have to be reconciled with the budget passed by the more conservative Texas Senate, but it shows that even in a conservative state it is possible this year to pass a progressive budget.

Except that here in Arizona our legislators give us a choice between draconian, more draconian and most draconian.

What part of 'temporary' don't they understand?

Yesterday Governor Napolitano vetoed a bill passed by the legislature which would have made permanent a temporary property tax cut that was passed in 2006 and is due to expire in 2009.

As the Governor noted, economic conditions have deteriorated in Arizona sharply since 2006. Arizona's economy is much more tied to the housing industry than most, so the mortgage meltdown has had severe repercussions here. We face a combined $3 billion state budget deficit over the next two years, so adding another quarter billion to that next year by extending the property tax cut would be, as she noted, "the height of fiscal irresponsibility." Over-reliance on the sales tax has compounded the problem-- in a recession people spend less so sales tax revenues are down (whereas, for example, a property tax tends to be a much more reliable and stable source of revenue.)

Advocates for the Republicans in the legislature and some in the business community (who were the beneficiaries of the tax cut) have howled that she is 'raising taxes.'

That is a competely stupid argument.

If a supermarket sells a bottle of pop for $1.39, but runs a managers special in which they announce, "THIS WEEK ONLY-- $.99" for the bottle of pop, then they are doing their customers a favor for a week. If the sale ends on schedule and the price returns to $1.39 (the normal price of the pop) it would be ridiculous to storm up to the store manager and claim that by ending the sale on the day they said they would, they are raising prices. Yet that is what advocates of extending the tax cut are doing. Instead of being grateful for the three years they don't have to pay their property tax, they are instead complaining that when it expires on schedule, they will see a 'tax increase.' Maybe they would be happier if it hadn't ever been passed at all, I suppose.

This argument, of equating the scheduled end of a temporary reduction in taxes with a 'tax increase' is breathtaking in its stupidity. But we will hear exactly the same argument nationally over the next couple of years as the Bush tax cuts (you know, the ones that were supposed to give us such a great economic success story this decade) expire.

What else can they do to make it easy pickings for fraud?

What would you think of a law that makes pensions both more opaque and reduces the requirement for who can manage them? In the old days, that usually meant that organized crime had a hand in the till.

Maybe things haven't changed all that much. The Arizona legislature, in its infinite wisdom, is set to pass HR 2147, which among other things will 1) reduce the minimum requirements for who can manage employee pension funds, and 2) makes it clear that proprietary commercial information on Arizona State Retirement System (ASRS) investments are not to be made a matter of public record.

So in a nutshell, they are arranging it so that people who didn't used to be qualified to handle pension investments, can do so now, and they can do it in the dark.

And this from the legislature that only four years ago brought you the alt-fuels scandal. And we are expected to trust this crew?

Why it makes sense in Arizona (and elsewhere) to support Bill Richardson

Preface: This post is part of a series started by Andrea, on her challenge to write about why a Bill Richardson Presidency would be good for your state.

I just posted a link to an online poll. You may want to know who I voted for. I voted for Bill Richardson.

There are a lot of reasons for this. One reason is because I've actually had the chance to watch Governor Richardson for more than twenty years, since he was my Congressman while I was living in Socorro, New Mexico. In fact I've met him at least a couple of times (though I doubt if he remembers the meetings because they were very brief) but I do remember a town-hall type of meeting that he held there on the end of the Rural Electrification Administration (which was announced by the Reagan administration in 1986, claiming that the job was '99% complete'). Governor Richardson was against ending it until the job was 100% done, as the original promise had been when the REA was created in 1935. And that's the way he is. Where I live now, in northeastern Arizona, I have met a lot of people living on the Navajo reservation who don't have electricity; despite the objections of Bill Richardson and a few others, the Reagan administration unfortunately won that battle-- so millions of Americans in hundreds of communities still are not on the electric grid (even though it really would not take all that big an investment to finish it). But Bill Richardson stood out to me then as a thoughtful man who was willing to take on even battles that didn't make headlines, like that one.

Another reason is that living in Arizona, I'd have to say that Bill Richardson understands our issues in a way much different from all the other candidates in the race. There is more to the term 'neighbor' than just living next door. Your neighbor has pretty much the same perspective as you do on a lot of things in life; the view from your neighbor's house is much the same as it is from yours. If the street needs to be fixed or it snows or a stray dog is getting into people's garbage, it is something that you go through and deal with together with your neighbor. Governor Richardson, to begin with, understands the unique issues involved with matters like tribal sovereignty, water issues and the border much more than, say, a Clinton of New York, an Obama of Illinois or an Edwards of North Carolina. In fact, of all the announced or likely major Democratic candidates, only Clark (of Arkansas-- right on the Mississippi river) and Richardson are from anywhere west of the Mississippi at all-- and Governor Richardson is the only one who is from a place where water generally even is an issue.

Governor Richardson has also taken a balanced approach to the border, of the type that is favored by most Arizonans. At a time when most national politicians-- of both parties-- are struggling to find themselves on the issue, Bill Richardson seems to have a good handle on it. Last year, together with our own Governor, Janet Napolitano, Governor Richardson announced a state of emergency along the border which allowed for the stationing of the National Guard along the border in order to enhance border security. At the same time he has opposed building a wall along the border. That fits the views of most Arizonans. The Arizonans who took the hardest lines on immigration-- Gubernatorial nominee Len Munsil, Attorney General nominee Bill Montgomery, Congressional candidate Randy Graf, and Congressman J.D. Hayworth, all lost in their election bids this year. The reason is plain-- other than the Minutemen and a few other loonies out there, people don't want a wall around the country. In Arizona, as in New Mexico, the ability of people and goods to pass over the border easily helps the economy and keeps thousands of people employed. Many businesses near the border make their money from trade with, through and in Mexico. Former Republican congressman Jim Kolbe understood this, as does Republican congressman Jeff Flake. So do Democrats like Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords, who beat Graf handily and will succeed Kolbe. They understand that Mexico is a partner, not an enemy. And Bill Richardson also understands this.

Further, what a lot of politicians don't understand about immigration is that the whole border issue is tied up with family. Many families run the gamut, with family members who are U.S. citizens, family members living happily in Latin America, and perhaps with family members who are here legally or illegally as aliens. So when people talk about building a wall or making being here without documents a felony, it is a personal issue that strikes to the core of family values. I know this is true in my own family. My father's family has been here since 1630 (in fact I had an ancestor who was a ship's chandler in Southampton who rented the Mayflower to the pilgrims, and himself came over ten years later.) My mother's parents were both Ellis Island immigrants during the early part of the last century. I have a cousin (on my father's side) who is today married to a Latin American man (he is a legal resident) and they go back every couple of years to visit his parents and other family members still living there. I know he has other family members living in the United States, and I haven't asked what their immigration status is (because it doesn't matter to me-- if I meet one of them then they are my family by marriage, and whether they have a green card or not won't change the family relation.) Bill Richardson's mother was from Mexico, so he certainly understands the family issues like no one else who is running. And further, whether we like it or not, the relations the U.S. has with Mexico are more important than the relations the U.S. has right now with probably any other country in the world. Geography, history and family have made it that way. Both Bill Richardson's knowledge of issues, his knowledge of Mexico and his negotiation skills would make him the best choice for someone who could work out a plan with Mexico that would secure the border, get a handle on who is going in and out and allow the free flow of trade and legal immigrants across the border. Stopping terrorists, criminals, drugs and maybe even WMD at the border won't work unless we have cooperation with Mexico, and Bill Richardson is a guy who I think can get it.

Water is another critical issue in the Southwest. We have a rapidly expanding population in Arizona (in fact Arizona just recently outpaced Nevada in this category to become the fastest growing state in the nation), and the limit on how far it can expand is dependent on one thing more than anything else: the water supply. New Mexico is also experiencing rapid growth (I went back with my wife a couple of years ago to visit Moriarty and Los Lunas, communities where we used to live, and was amazed at the growth that has occurred in both places.) The water issues in New Mexico, if less stressing than they are in Arizona, are very much the same. In 2003, a dry year, Governor Richardson was willing to endure the heat from outraged boaters and others when he released 122,500 acre feet instead of the expected 217,000 from Elephant Butte reservoir. While he has since visited the area and funded classes on boating safety and other issues, his decision then showed that 1) he understands water limitations, and 2) he is willing to make an unpopular decision that he thinks is right even when it costs him political support; that's a rarity in a politician these days.

Bill Richardson has always respected the Native American tribes in New Mexico. He hasn't tried to interfere with the free exercise of tribal soverignty, and (as I mentioned earlier) he is aware of the fact that on some reservations the electric grid was never completed, and felt that it should have. I am involved right now with a project to bring electricity to a community that has been waiting for decades to receive it, and my belief is that if Bill Richardson becomes President this issue, and others on reservations (such as the high numbers of meth labs) will be addressed, but in a way that respects and works with, rather than dictates to the sovereign governments that exist on the reservations.

Those are some reasons specific to Arizona that I support Bill Richardson, and believe that if it came to it he is the one Democrat who might be able to force John McCain, if he is the GOP nominee, to campaign at home (particularly with the McCain-mafia connection that is likely to come up sooner or later). There are some other reasons as well, that would apply no matter where I lived. The biggest one, now that we see the disastrous consequences in Iraq of our policy of unilateralism and the doctrine of 'pre-emptive war,' is that Bill Richardson's foreign policy (and he has extensive experience in the area) is based on diplomacy and peaceful resolution of conflict. That doesn't mean that he couldn't make a hard decision if he had to-- for example, in a speech to the U.N. in Stockholm in 1998 then-U.N. ambassador Richardson, speaking on behalf of the Clinton administration policy, said that it was possible that use of force might be needed to get Iraq to comply with U.N. sanctions (which the threat of did in fact get Saddam Hussein to let the inspectors back in before President Bush decided that he would rather just unilaterally ignore that the Iraqis had done what he asked and invade anyway.) Bill Richardson is a man of peace though and I know from having watched him for twenty years (during which time he has engaged in successful hostage negotiations and other negotiations with some pretty dangerous and unsavory characters) that he would consider war as a last resort only, and only if all other options for resolving a situation have failed. Further, he brings something that is sorely needed at this time-- a voice that is respected in the world and would begin to return the U.S. to a position of leadership in the world. No other candidate, of either party has the credentials and respect around the world that Bill Richardson has that will enable him to do the long, hard job of repairing America's reputation in the world and re-establishing America's moral authority to lead.

Bill Richardson also is innovative and willing to use the Government to help ordinary people. One example of this was his landmark initiative for providing a quarter million dollars of life insurance for each member of the New Mexico National Guard, including those deployed in Iraq. The effect of this was to eliminate one of the main concerns that our soldiers have-- worrying about how their loved ones will get along if they don't come back, and allow them to focus on the task at hand. The innovation by Richardson eventually embarrassed President Bush into doing the same thing on a national level.

New Mexico has also always been a very poor state with thousands of people in grinding poverty. It's still a poor state, but with Richardson's leadership as governor it is starting to grow and inch up on all those lists where it has been at or near the bottom for decades. New Mexico is blessed with a budget surplus again this year-- largely because of Richardson's willingness to resist the urge to throw money at problems while still increasing funding for specific areas to address specific and well-defined deficiencies. He has cut a few taxes in New Mexico, but the taxes he has cut-- like sales tax on things like groceries and medical care-- really are targetted towards everyone, not just the wealthy.