The results are in: The Clinton administration, for all its anti-gun
blustering, must really like them, if gun prosecution case figures are
any indication.

According to a recent report,
gun prosecutions have fallen 44 percent since 1992. A new study done by
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University
said that of the declining number of cases referred to the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF), most “involve alleged weapons
violations,” which appears to indicate that opponents of more gun
control are right — the federal government doesn’t need new and more
restrictive laws, it simply needs to enforce those it has. Even more
indicative, the study showed, is that the BATF also has fewer
investigative personnel than in 1992. So even if they wanted to
investigate more cases, they couldn’t. Neat, huh?

You didn’t really think Bill Clinton — suddenly — developed a
“liking” for the Second Amendment, did you? Of course not — and this
tactic doesn’t fool everyone, either.

Consider that less enforcement of existing laws ordinarily translates
into fewer convictions and, most probably, more offenses being
committed with firearms because the laws serve no deterrent purpose.
Naturally, for arrogant socialists like Clinton, more gun crime
or, more correctly, any gun crime, would seem to point to the
need for more gun control, right?

Wrong — but remember we’re talking about the Clinton Era of
Government. Even GOP presidential frontrunner George W. Bush has said
he favors more gun control.

Hence the tactic. Using the warped and sick logic of Washington,
D.C., more gun crimes are necessary in order to justify
more gun control, with the eventual goal being the outright
banning of firearms, period.

And this can’t happen if the government actually enforces the laws
already on the books.

Not Everyone Loves High Taxes

Democratic socialists — and some “moderate” Republicans — love to
push the theory that “most Americans” don’t mind the current level of
high taxation. At least, that’s what they’re saying in response to the
GOP’s newest 2000 campaign issue: “We stand for lower taxes (again).”

But hold on — say it ain’t so.

OK, “it ain’t so,” according to the latest polling figures
on the
issue of taxes. Fully two-thirds of Americans feel they are overtaxed to
some degree, while only about 37 percent think the “current level of
taxation” is OK. And this after White House spinmeisters confidently
predicted that GOP members of Congress, during recess, would find out
from their constituencies that they didn’t want a tax cut.

The truth is, however, nobody is going to get a real tax cut anytime
soon. Even if it eventually becomes law, the Republican-sponsored $800
billion tax cut plan would only return about 3 percent of a worker’s
wage on average, won’t begin until three years after passage and will be
deducted from a projected 10-year federal budget of some $20

If you’re like me, you’re probably trying already to figure out how
best to spend your twenty bucks. …

GOP For Smaller Government?

A story published yesterday by the Conservative News Service
perfectly illustrates why most Americans may feel overtaxed, why the
federal government is too large, why states shouldn’t accept so much
“federal” money, and why the Republican Party lies like a dog when they
claim to be the “Party of Smaller Government.”

According to CNS, states
are “awash” in federal welfare cash (read: Taxpayer money), some after
nearly five years of new federal welfare payment rules and the so-called
Welfare Reform law pushed by Republicans a few years ago. The report
said states collectively have about $7 billion in overages in
their state welfare aid accounts because, though the federal money has
remained constant since 1994, most states have already reduced their
recipient rolls — some drastically. Wisconsin, for example, has
80 percent fewer welfare recipients than it did three years ago.

On the first point, it’s easy to see why Americans feel so
overtaxed. When this kind of windfall can be created with federal
money, obviously the government doesn’t need as much from taxpayers to
sustain itself.

Secondly, in a government that can afford to let such a costly
oversight build into a $7 billion overpayment scheme, there are too many
bureaucrats and too much red tape in the system. In fact, since states
are doing so well on their own, why does the Department of Health and
Human Resources continue to exist? If we have to provide welfare
money to states, can’t we just have one person in a cubicle writing

Third, states shouldn’t even be accepting so much federal money in
the first place because, as this story highlights, “he who giveth can
also taketh away.” Furthermore, the federal strategy is thus: Get
states hooked on federal money, then rule their turf by default by
issuing “guidelines,” “rules” and “regulations” about how the money is
to be spent. It’s simple — if you don’t take “federal” money you don’t
have to submit to federal rules. And if this economy is as good as Fed
Chairman Alan Greenspan says it is, states should have plenty of revenue
earned from state sources to cover their expenses. If they don’t, then
let them streamline as well. Instead, however, Americans get
excuses: “We can’t turn this money back over to you — what happens if we
have some sort of emergency?” Fine; tax me more then. In the
meantime, I want my money back.

Lastly, you’ll notice that those encouraging the states to “spend the
money on something — anything” are Republicans, even as they
lambaste socialist Democrats for not wanting to give Americans back more
of their own money, vis a vis the $800 billion tax cut plan.
That’s hypocritical.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.