Did you see this tiny story from today's Free Press?
Given the fact that the Staties have been going ticket-crazy in recent winters, making it clear that they will ticket anyone who loses control and goes off the road, it makes you wonder, doesn't it? Did Trooper Jollymore get a ticket for driving too fast for conditions?
One of the issues with Gov. Shumlin’s health care plan was how poor and working class Vermonters would fare in the transition from Catamount and VHAP to the new health care exchange. As things stand, their health care costs would increase substantially; the state would have to spend an estimated $18 million to hold those Vermonters harmless.
Well, the Governor’s 2014 budget provided $10.3 million — a little more than half the needed funds. But at a media briefing on the budget, Administration Secretary Jeb Spaulding practically leaped out of his chair in his haste to explain that the $10.3M was more than enough to close the gap. That’s because FY 2014 runs from July 1 to June 30, and the exchange goes online January 1, 2014 — halfway through the fiscal year. And since $10.3M is more than half of $18M, nobody would suffer in the transition.
Case closed, right?
Well, not quite. VTDigger’s Andrew Stein went digging, and found some significant holes in the Governor’s plan. The article is very wonky, but well worth your time and attention if you want to stay informed about the Shumlin Administration’s top priority.
(This story is a terrific illustration of why we need a robust Statehouse media presence, and why anybody with a spare shekel or two should consider a donation to VTDigger.)
In January 2014, some 110,000 Vermonters who aren’t enrolled in Medicaid will have to buy health insurance through the exchange. The $10.3M will hold many of them harmless — but not all. And some could be hit hard by out-of-pocket expenses. The two issues, as explained by Digger:
1. The Shumlin plan includes a new way of calculating health care premiums based on income. The change, according to Administration officials, is designed to match the methods used in the Affordable Care Act. As they say, the old system is going away, and therefore we can’t hold onto the old formulas.
The new calculations will benefit some, while others will see premium increases. Those hikes are very modest, but for the working poor, every dollar is precious. Example: An individual earning 150% of the 2013 poverty line would see a premium increase of $35 a year. Without the $10.3M adjustment, the cost increase would have been $294 a year, so the Shumlin plan closes virtually all of that gap.
The bigger problem is…
2. Higher out-of-pocket expenses for those who actually need health care. This affects Vermonters earning between 133 and 300 percent of the federal poverty line. Example: A couple earning 300% of the poverty line would enjoy a $1250 decrease in their annual health care premiums — but their annual maximum out-of-pocket expenses would rise from $2100 under Catamount to $5,000 in the exchange.
In short, as long as you stay healthy, you win big. If you get sick, you could be stuck with substantially higher bills.
One more thing. Remember that $18M figure? The amount needed to hold the working poor harmless? Well, apparently that’s no longer the actual number:
…Mark Larson, commissioner of the Department of Vermont Health Access, replied, “Our estimates have evolved.” He wasn’t sure, however, exactly how much money would be necessary to hold all of these Vermonters harmless.
He “wasn’t sure,” or he “didn’t want to say”? It’s hard to believe the Administration really doesn’t know.
To be fair, the Administration has gone a very long way to ease the transition. The proposed system is a lot better than it would have been without the $10.3M. But, as always, the devil is in the details, and it’s best to read the fine print.
Dr Martin Luther King, Jr, ran into resistance as he strategically used nonviolent tactics to effect change. He addressed this famously in his Letter From Birmingham Jail:
You may well ask: “Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?” You are quite right in calling, for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks to so dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored.
My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth.
Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depth…The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation.
I bring this up because I admit to still being puzzled by folks who excoriate Senator Baruth not just for the content of his withdrawn assault weapons ban, but for his even daring to introduce legislation in the first place without talking about it.
While it surprised me, and I was not convinced it's necessary in Vermont, I still maintain that one way to create space for discussing potential solutions to societal issues is to confront things head on. Create tension, to use MLK's terminology.
I mean, what is negotiating if not putting down markers? You have a house on the market that I really like, but the 200k asking price is too steep. Do I not make a bid? Certainly that's an option, but if I want the house, I offer 150k maybe. You've finally got an interested buyer, so probably you don't ignore me and counter with 175k, and maybe we've got a deal, maybe we dicker over whether the washer and dryer come with, maybe I walk away because I just can't afford that much and was hoping you'd go for less, etc.
Similarly, Phil put out an initial offer that was too much for some people to accept. Perfectly fine for people to disagree passionately with him–that's the crucible for much of what gets made in our republic. So folks rally and put everybody on notice that an ouright ban on new purchases of certain semi-auto weapons is a nonstarter. The Good Senator could've chosen to push on in the hopes that at the very least some increased regulation would be included in a watered down bill, or he could do as he did and say this bill isn't worth it.
Why is that bad? It doesn't stop other legislators from putting out more palatable measures for consideration, like maybe requiring background checks at all gun shows in VT, or whatever. It certainly didn't stop conversation about the extend of our 2nd Amendment/Article 16 rights to keep and bear arms.
The vast majority of introduced bills make it nowhere. Always been that way, and is just a natural part of the process. That doesn't mean you can cavalierly dismiss things like VA's proposed changes to how the state allocates Electoral Votes, or the NM bill that will jail rape victims for “evidence tampering” if they get an abortion. But it's not something wrong in and of itself, even if you disagree with the purpose and wording of the proposals.
As George Washington said when requesting that the First Congress pass a bill to organize the militia: the science of legislation teaches to scrutinize every national institution. In science, failure is good because it means a) you're doing that scrutinizing, and b) you've learned something from the process itself, even if it's that your hypothesis was completely off base.
Here we had components for an experiment: an existing legal template that did appear objectively to do some good at the national level; series of crimes wherein particular weapons were used that might need to be dealt with; a Federal government that suffers from political paralysis; a citizen legislator ready to take a risk at the state level; engaged people willing to push back. I cannot see that as anything other than a Senator and the People of Vermont doing their jobs in a republic.
Tension is good. I'd hate to think we expect our representatives in Montpelier to play it safe instead of sometimes getting out ahead of the rest of us.
ntodd
Yep, ol’ B.S. is up to his old tricks: clearing the police of wrongdoing in a high-profile case. He announced today that no criminal charges would be filed in the death of Macadam Mason of Thetford last June. Mason died after being Tasered by state trooper David Shaffer.
In a classic Friday news dump, Sorrell issued a statement this morning (no press conference; Profiles in Courage) issuing his findings, which came after an investigation by a State Police detective. All very cozy. And maybe the Tasering was justified, I frankly don’t know; but Sorrell’s track record does nothing to inspire confidence. Nor does the completely internal nature of the probe.
Nor does Sorrell’s opposition to a change in state law that would allow greater access to records of criminal investigations. Makes you think he’d just as soon keep the details of this one under wraps. But maybe I’m too cynical.
Here’s how Sorrell sets the stage for his finding:
Under Vermont law, a police officer is entitled to use a reasonable amount of force to defend himself or herself or others if he or she reasonably believes that he or she or others are in immediate danger of bodily harm, that the use of force is necessary to avoid the harm, and that the amount of force used was reasonable under the circumstances. In a criminal case, the State bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer’s use of force was unreasonable under the facts and circumstances of the case.
Yes and no, Bill. In a criminal trial, the State must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not required to do so when simply filing criminal charges.
Allen Gilbert of the Vermont ACLU offered this response to Ken Picard of Seven Days:
“It’s hard to know when, if ever, criminal charges might be brought in a law enforcement shooting death,” Gilbert said. “A trooper fired a weapon that killed a man. The weapon was used in a way that’s contrary to the guidelines from the weapon’s manufacturer. The stark fact of this case is that a Vermonter is dead who ought to be alive today.”
Sorrell’s narrative of the case includes an interesting passage that I hadn’t heard before. The state police first arrived at her home in response to calls from Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center requesting a welfare check at an address in Thetford. Troopers arrived at the scene and encountered Mason’s partner, Theresa Davidonis. She found Mason hiding in some nearby woods; she spoke with him, then told the troopers they should leave because their presence was upsetting to Mason.
Then, Davidonis went back to work. And troopers returned to the scene, in spite of her request.
That’s when the fatal event occurred. Sorrell describes the encounter exactly as the State Police have previously done: Mason refused to comply with orders and began to approach Shaffer and, when the two men were six to ten feet apart, Shaffer fired his Taser.
That is not how Davidonis has described the standoff, but it’s not surprising that Sorrell has chosen to believe the police account.
Davidonis is still pursuing civil action against Shaffer and the VSP. This finding won’t prevent her from winning in civil court, but it doesn’t help any either.
Our former Governor, Jim Douglas, has cast his gaze upon the landscape and the tiny people below, and experienced a spark of insight:
Things would be so much better if only we had heeded the wisdom of Jim Douglas.
He imparts this pearl by way of a VPR commentary:
I have to admit that Governor Shumlin’s inaugural address left me with mixed emotions. His renewed focus on education as the key to a more informed, just and contributing society is welcome; it can surely strengthen our economy and improve Vermonters’ quality of life. In fact, I found little with which to disagree, but it also sounded very familiar.
Yes, dear Vermonters, Jim Douglas is about to remind us how blessed we were to have experienced the leadership of Jim Douglas. And how ungrateful!
Governor Shumlin’s vaunted education program? A faint and belated echo of Jim Douglas’ pedagogical insights, which were hatefully cast aside by a churlish opposition too stupid and blind to realize the sheer genius of Jim Douglas.
Prepare for a three-minute onslaught of egotism.
In 2006, my own administration proposed a program called ‘Promise Scholarships,’ whereby a Vermonter would have a portion of his or her college expenses paid in exchange for living and working in our state.
…But the legislature opted instead for a study commission that recommended a much smaller program that was approved the following year. It helped a few students, but was far less robust than I had hoped.
I was very pleased to hear the Governor emphasize a curriculum known as STEM: science, technology, engineering and mathematics. …In 2007 I proposed the creation of regional STEM schools named for Senator Robert Stafford, a national champion of education. Nothing much came of the idea then, but perhaps there’s more support now.
He pauses to crack open a new bottle — his fourth. His wife Dorothy casts a glance his way. “Oh, Jim,” she says reproachfully. “You know how you get when you drink that much Yoo-Hoo.”
He continues:
I hope the same will hold true for the Governor’s commitment to early education. My administration launched the Building Bright Futures program in 2004, but when I recommended a 20% increase for child care subsidies in my final budget 3 years ago, the legislature approved only a 15% hike, while passing completely on a comparable request for higher education. And I can’t help but wonder if we’d still be experiencing a declining labor force and population if we had launched a significant scholarship program 7 years ago.
You lousy liberals. I hope you’re pleased with yourselves. If only you’d bowed at the feet of Jim Douglas, Vermont would already be the sylvan and prosperous earthly paradise that Peter Shumlin can only dream of.
By stealing the brilliant ideas of Jim Douglas, God among men.
For those keeping score: in a three-minute commentary, Douglas said “I” eleven times, “my” four times, and “me” once. What a humble guy.
In my previous post, I gave some bullet-point highlights of the Governor’s FY 2014 budget plan. Now, some additional info and an overall reaction.
Health care on track, but no funding source yet. The Governor’s budget wasn’t the only big document to drop today; the Administration also released a pair of reports on health care reform. As delivered by Director of Health Care Reform Robin Lunge and Commissioner of Health Access Mark Larson, it was a rosy outlook on the prospects for Shumlin’s health care reform plan. Both were confident that a single-payer system would deliver better quality health care and provide it to all Vermonters, and that the cost of the new system (to launch in 2017) would be lower than the cost of the current system projected out for five years.
Which is a hell of a qualifier, if you think about it.
However, the Administration has yet to identify a funding mechanism for an estimated $1.6 billion in annual costs. Instead of recommending a single method, the Administration is giving the Legislature a laundry list of possible mechanisms. As Lunge put it, “We must have a robust conversation about funding sources.”
Yeah, robust it will certainly be. The full report, all 156 pages of it, can be read online here.
After the jump: Overall thoughts on the budget, positive and otherwise.
The Governor’s budget, IMO, does some things very well. Some very careful thought and a bit of creativity went into a plan that closes a $67M budget gap AND provides for some key Shumlin initiatives without raising broad-based taxes. It’s very impressive in many ways.
It is disappointing in a couple of big ones:
1. The spending cuts and revenue increases are largely regressive in nature. There’s the new five-year lifetime cap on participation in the Reach Up antipoverty program.
There’s the tax on “break-open” tickets sold in many bars and fraternal clubs, which will help fund energy assistance and efficiency programs. Those tickets benefit many local charities and worthy fundraisers, and are bought by the middle class folks who largely populate the Elks Lodges and VFW Halls of the world.
There’s the unspecified transportation revenue boost, likely to come from some kind of increase or shift in the gas tax.
There’s a shift of $4.4M from the universal tobacco settlement to help pay for human services programs; in today’s world, most smokers are in the poor and middle classes. They will be indirectly hurt by this diversion of funds.
And, most notoriously of all, there’s the plan to slice Earned Income Tax Credit payments by $17M, to pay for better chid care and pre-K education. Again, a worthy goal, but is EITC really the best way to fund it?
2. Missed opportunities. The Governor should rightly be credited for pushing ahead with single-payer health care and an ambitious renewable-energy agenda, and his education plans are laudable. But there is a need for bold action on other fronts as well. And given the drastically weakened condition of the Vermont Republican Party, the Democrats need not fear any short-term political backlash.
So why not push some other bold initiatives? Our need for a major investment in clean water was not mentioned at all. Also, he could have staked out a solid position on reforming the transportation funding system, which is going to need a major overhaul instead of an incremental approach.
There was some good work on holding human services relatively harmless. But some of the funding mechanisms are purely temporary, and the problem will only come back in a year. Why not lay out the actual human needs and a comprehensive plan to address them?
Given the unmet needs in our state, the Dems’ nearly absolute hold on political power, and an opposition party that even its chairman admits won’t be ready to contend for at least another four years, why not step forward and plot a courageous course for the future?
Shoot for the moon, Governor. Even if you miss, you’ll land among the stars.
“You stupid fucked-up dildo dipshit asshole! Listen, Senator, you want to talk about blame? Well, I BLAME YOU and all your impotent male Republican colleagues for what happened in Benghazi, and every other goddamned bad thing that’s happened since 2001! Because…SHUT UP!…I’m Talking Here!…Because all you little turds have been doing for years is making this country a laughing stock, and that’s why terrorists know they can get away with shit, because YOU REPUBLICANS let 9/11 happen! And…HEY!…Did I say SHUT-THE-FUCK-UP? or What?!…Thank you…And it’s people like me who have to clean up your messes, and you know what, Senator Paul?…I’m NOBODY’S FUCKING MAID! And I have ZERO TOLERANCE for MORONS! Oh…I’M out of order, Senator? I’ll show you fucking out of order, Titnose!…(Hillary frisbees heavy dinner plate at Senator Paul’s head)…I’ve got seven more of those in my bag, PIG!…a Christmas gift from Michelle…You WHAT?…You want my RESIGNATION? I’m already resigning, you dim dim bulb! Jesus! So I can run for President in 2016! So I can make your life, and all your fucking colleagues’ lives, a living Fucking HELL! After I’m elected, Senator Paul, I won’t need dinner plates. I’m going to sign an Executive Order allowing me to cut your balls off with a pair of eyelash scissors live on Fucking FOX News! But first I’m going to make you all clean up the mess you’ve made. I’m a what?…A Bitch?…Duh, Senator, how clever of you to have noticed? Tell me, Senator Paul, can you even SPELL the B Word. Or are you still working on A, TO, and THE in your speech writing lessons? You want to know what a Bitch is, Senator? A Bitch is this very powerful person who sits in this big Oval Office and calls up IRS to have them go through your taxes. Then the Bitch calls up HOMELAND and the FBI to look into your international business and political connections, and compare them with your voting record on National Security issues. And then…and this is my favorite one, Senator Paul…the Bitch has all these photos and videos of you performing bizarre sex acts with 13 year-old girls…and boys…and…Oh, yes, Senator…you wait til you see them in the papers and on the tube. This Bitch is going to ruin your life, Senator. Because that’s what a Bitch does! And Senator, when all this happens to you and all your Rich Republican Boy Friends, guess who’s to BLAME? YOU! You little piece of animal filth! Because YOU’RE GUILTY!! GUILT, Senator!!! You and all the other MALE PIGS in this country. YOU AND EVERY SINGLE MALE PIG IS GOING TO BE FIXED!!! But first, I’m going to Pussy-Whip your asses for…well…for as long as I’m IN THE MOOD!! You’ll all be BEGGING ME to cut your balls off, and dress you up in some cutsie housewifey dress and make you BAKE COOKIES!!!
“So there. Now, if this committee has any more questions, I’d be happy to go into more detail about situations and positions past, present and future. No? Well then…oh…look at the time…I’ve got to go do a bit for Sesame Street. You know, Senator, that show the Moron you ran for President last year wants to cancel. Over My Dead Body! No…I take that back…OVER YOUR DEAD BODY!…And YOURS!…And YOURS!…(Hillary is flinging dinner plates again, getting more and more deadly with each fling)…And YOURS!..And Fucking YOURS!…Fuck this!…Hand Me That Godamn Chair!!!………..”
Peter Buknatski
Montpelier, Vt.
As I write this, Governor Shumlin is beginning his budget speech. But I’ve just returned from a sneak preview of the FY 2014 budget from Administration Secretary Jeb Spaulding and Finance Commissioner Jim Reardon. I’ll put out a few headlines right now, and fill in more information later today and tonight.
No new broad-based taxes. As promised, Shumlin is delivering a balanced budget without any increases in income, sales, or rooms and meals taxes. There is at least one major spending problem to be resolved — about $35 million in the transportation budget– that is likely to require some tax or fee increases.
Budget gap: Following yesterday’s announcement of lower-than-expected revenues, Reardon said the gap in the 2014 budget (which had been estimated at $50-70 million) has come in near the top of that range: $67 million. The Governor’s budget, as presented, is in balance for 2014. The shortfall was largely made up in three line items, all in Human Services:
1. $33 million in unspent human services funds carried forward from 2012 and 2013.
2. $26 million in “special and federal funds” allowing for a corresponding cut in general fund money.
3. A change in the “Reach Up” program that would save about $6 million. Shumlin proposes setting a lifetime cap of five years, or a cap of three continuous years, for any recipient. The reasoning is that Reach Up is meant as a temporary stopgap for people who could (at least in theory) enter the workforce. There would be no cap on benefits for the disabled or others unable to work.
The five-year and three-year (continuous) caps would be applied retroactively. So if you’ve been on Reach Up for four years, well, sorry, you’d suddenly be close to maxing out.
As Spaulding and Reardon explained the budget, the “Reach Up” change is the only significant true “cut” in Human Services.
Transportation funding. Shumlin proposes $250 million in transportation investments, including $131M for bridges, $109M for paving, and $11M for rehabbing the western Vermont rail line. There is a $35 million gap in the state’s portion of transportation spending; if Vermont doesn’t spend that $35M, it will lose federal matching funds.
Shumlin is not proposing a specific funding mechanism to raise that $35M; he will work with the Legislature on that one.
Spaulding specifically said that “a gas tax increase is NOT off the table.” And he raised an interesting possibility: currently, gasoline is taxed on a per-gallon basis, plus there is a small sales tax on gasoline. He raised the idea of shifting some of the tax burden from the per-gallon levy to the sales tax, which would be a percentage of each dollar in gas sales — a higher figure. But that’s only one possibility.
After the jump: Heating and efficiency, EITC reboot, and a modest increase in the state workforce.
UPDATE 2:30 p.m.
Heating and thermal efficiency. For the first time, Shumlin is including money for the federal LIHEAP program, because the feds haven’t been fully funding it in recent years. So there’s $6M in the state budget for LIHEAP.
There’s also $6M for thermal efficiency (weatherizing) and $5M for the Clean Energy Development Fund. To pay for this $17M in new commitments, Shumlin considered and rejected a fuel tax. Instead, the state will impose a 10% levy on the sales of lottery-style “break open” tickets (not to be confused with Vermont Lottery games).
If you’ve ever been to a fraternal organization like the Elks or the American Legion, you’ve seen these games. You pay a buck per ticket at the bar, break it open, and you may win a small prize. These games are permitted as long as the proceeds go to a nonprofit cause. But there has been no state regulation or taxation, and Spaulding admitted that the state has no clear idea of how many “break open” tickets are sold each year. Estimates range from $135M to $224M; the actual total may be higher.
This proposal is likely to be very unpopular in certain circles.
Early childhood education. The budget does include Shumlin’s controversial proposal to redirect $17M from the Earned Income Tax Credit (resulting in lower benefits to the working poor) into support for early childhood education.
In a tacit admission that this idea has stumbled badly out of the gate, Spaulding told reporters that there would be a big media briefing on the proposal next Monday. They’re clearly hoping a public-relations reboot will give the proposal a better chance of passing the Legislature.
Adding to the state workforce. The budget adds a total of 79 new positions, including 25 in Mental Health for operation of the new Berlin psychiatric hospital and 18 in the Department for Children and Families to address caseload pressures. Spaulding was quick to point out that the state is “still operating leanly” with a total executive branch workforce that’s nearly 300 positions smaller than in January 2007.
UPDATE 3:00 p.m.
Smoothing the transition to the health care exchange. The budget includes $10M to help Vermonters now enrolled in Catamount or VHAP make the transition to the new health care exchange. There is an estimated $18M annual gap between the coverage provided by Catamount and VHAP, and what will be provided under the exchange.
However, as Spaulding was eager to point out, the $10M covers only part of a year under the exchange, so it’s enough to hold Catamount and VHAP clients harmless for FY 2014. (The fiscal year runs from July 1 to June 30. The exchange goes online on January 1, 2014.)
A capital budget squeeze. Shumlin’s budget accommodates the state’s expected portion of rebuilding/replacing the Vermont State Hospital and the Waterbury office complex. It does so by cutting other capital projects to the bare-bones level for the next two years. That’s believed to be sufficient to cover the new costs while keeping all other capital projects on line — although admittedly, their pace will be slowed.
A change in the Secretary of State’s budget. The Secretary of State’s office is being taken off the General Fund books (saving $4M). Instead, it would be funded through the redirection of corporate fees. The SoS budget will include funding for technology improvements needed to implement campaign-finance reforms — particularly electronic filing to a searchable database of campaign finance information.
Those are the highlights as I saw them. There may be more thoughts and reactions later on.
(Crossposted at DKos.)
Hey, remember last year’s fake right-wing outrage over Obamacare’s “threat to religious liberty”? How it would force health care institutions, such as Catholic hospitals and health plans, to provide services contrary to their beliefs? Such as birth control?
Well, the moral objections vanish when money’s at stake. Case in point: A Colorado man filed suit against a Catholic hospital chain after his pregnant wife died of a blood clot and the hospital didn’t try to save the seven-month-old twins she was carrying.
The husband did not contest his wife’s care, but filed a wrongful-death suit over the loss of the twins. He claimed they were viable and could have been delivered. The hospital chain’s defense?
There was no wrongful death, because seven-month-old fetuses are not persons.
As Jason Langley, an attorney with Denver-based Kennedy Childs, argued in one of the briefs he filed for the defense, the court “should not overturn the long-standing rule in Colorado that the term ‘person,’ as is used in the Wrongful Death Act, encompasses only individuals born alive. Colorado state courts define ‘person’ under the Act to include only those born alive. Therefore Plaintiffs cannot maintain wrongful death claims based on two unborn fetuses.”
The hospital chain won the case at trial and in the Colorado Appeals Court; the state Supreme Court is deciding whether to hear the case.
And the chain’s mission statement promises…
…to “nurture the healing ministry of the Church” and to be guided by “fidelity to the Gospel.” Toward those ends, Catholic Health facilities seek to follow the Ethical and Religious Directives of the Catholic Church authored by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Those rules have stirred controversy for decades, mainly for forbidding non-natural birth control and abortions. “Catholic health care ministry witnesses to the sanctity of life ‘from the moment of conception until death,'” the directives state. “The Church’s defense of life encompasses the unborn.”
Yes, unless it’s financially inconvenient.
Good thing Colorado doesn’t have a “personhood” amendment, or the hospital would have been screwed.
F*cking hypocrites.
I, for one, am sorry and disappointed that Philip Baruth has withdrawn his gun control bill. I don't know if I would have supported every provision, but shouting him down because a small segment of society doesn't like what he has to say doesn't seem like a good way to do things. (Technically I don't know if it's even possible to “withdraw” a bill, but if the only sponsor withdraws his support and says he doesn't want the Senate to take it up that's pretty much the same thing.)
Still, some substantive debate is called for right now, and I don't think it's going to happen. Knowing that it's not going anywhere in the Legislature doesn't stop me from throwing out a couple of ideas and questions that have been rolling around in my brain for the last month or so.
First off, I don't take it as a fixed, settled principle that the Second Amendment creates or was intended to create an individual right to own firearms. Nobody, almost literally nobody, thought that until the Supremes decided that it does a few years ago. That doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong, but you have to be suspicious when it's thugs like Scalia, Alito, and Thomas who decide they've discovered a new individual right in the Constitution. As far as I know, it's the only individual right they think the Constitution actually protects.
Like I say, suspicious. After all, these are some of the same guys who decided Bush v. Gore on a one-time-only, never mention this again application of the Equal Protection Clause that applies only when necessary to keep a Democrat out of the White House. Suspicious.
Second, we have the fact that even the most extreme of gun rights people seem to accept the principle that some level of restriction on gun ownership is permissible under the Second Amendment, but I have never seen a single principled basis by which they think the Second Amendment would allow for any lines to be drawn.
Lawyers and courts like to look for limiting principles and you just can't find them in this debate. Once they say that “shall not be infringed” means what they think it says you can wait all day for them to say why the Constitution allows them to have an AR-15 with a thirty-round magazine but not a .50 caliber machine gun, a bazooka, a Stinger missile, or a rocket-propelled grenade launcer. Forget tanks and thermonuclear devices, how do they know that the Framers intended the line to be drawn precisely where they want it and nowhere else?
Isn't that worth discussing?
And beyond that, if the Constitution does allow for lines to be drawn, isn't it legitimate to have a discussion not just about what is permissible but what makes good sense, and what is needed to protect the public?
Or how about this one: we hear over and over that there are only a few hundred murders committed each year with rifles and shotguns, and the thousands more are committed with handguns. Why does this lead to the conclusion, “Therefore, do nothing”? Doesn't that raise the obvious question that handguns are what we should really be looking at and regulating? If not, why not, especially since, except in few circumstances, the idea that your handgun is going to protect you from the scary stranger or the scarier jack-booted thug is mostly a pipe dream?
And if we have the discussion, could we get the people on both sides to focus on the substance? For instance, if you are in favor of gun rights, saying, “It's not a clip, it's a magazine” is not an actual response to a question about how many bullets a person should be allowed to load into a gun at one time. Mocking the term “assault weapon” as an aesthetic concept is not a substantive response to the question of whether there are some weapons that by their design, concealability, portability, or ability to be modified to be full-auto that are too dangerous to be out in public.
And if your response to magazine limits is that it means that your hobby of shooting at targets isn't as much fun if you have to change magazines more often, explain to me how having fun while you engage in your hobby is an important constitutional principle.
This is an area where I would like to see some more law enforcement. Isn't it obvious that every time someone who is prohibited by law from purchasing a firearm tries to do that he or she has committed the crime of attempted illegal possession of a firearm? Why aren't they prosecuted?
And can't we at least eliminate the gun show loophole? You know, the one that 92% of your fellow Americans support? Would it be okay to do that in Vermont even if Congress won't do it?
I think all of these questions and a whole lot more are legitimate questions for debate, but now we're not going to have that debate, at least not here.
Maybe my title is all wrong. Maybe we were never going to have a good discussion, no matter what else happened.