A Proposal: Tying Voter Registration to Firearm Background Checks

    Republicans have long expressed skepticism about the extraordinary efforts to register as many people to vote as possible.  The 1993 Motor-Voter law mandated offering voter registration at DMV offices, and applications for welfare and other government benefits are often accompanied by solicitations to register to vote as well.  More recently, voter registration popped up in the draft version of an Obamacare application.  While the (mainly) Democrats who propose such ideas contend they are simply trying to make sure the franchise is not denied to any citizen, the GOP has often accused the Democrats of mostly trying to pad their own voter rolls.
    Recent gun control legislation, however, could provide an opportunity to test the sincerity of the Democrats' professed altruistic motives.  The recent push in Congress for universal background checks has been primarily a Democratic party idea.  The GOP should propose an amendment requiring that all background checks also include an opportunity to register to vote.  Since 1998, even with all the current exceptions, over 167 million background checks have been run.  The Democrats should be thrilled at this opportunity to broaden participation in our democratic process.  As Jay Carney said in March defending the inclusion of voter registration in the Obamacare application, “I'm not sure that it's such a terrible thing that people might want to register to vote.”
    From the Republican perspective, according to a 2008 election exit poll, gun ownership among Democratic voters was less than half of that of Republican voters, so the GOP has nothing to lose by offering this amendment.  If the Democrats reject the amendment, they expose their hypocrisy on voter registration.  If the amendment passes and Democrats ultimately win passage of the legislation, at least the GOP could find consolation in the two-to-one advantage in new voter registration solicitations. Sometimes, clouds need a little help with a silver lining.

Six Miles of National Park Highway to be Repaved at $400 per Foot

This photo of Newfound Gap Road is courtesy of TripAdvisor     

    A search for the words "crumbling roads" turns up so many hits on White House website that it's a wonder Americans have not been forced to resort to pack mules and wagon trains to travel from place to place.  Throw "bridges" into the mix, and one might think the word "ford" will become less familiar as a car brand and more common as a way to cross rivers.  The President and his administration have been talking about repairing this country's infrastructure for half a decade now, but apparently we haven't gotten very far.
    A contract recently awarded to repave a six mile stretch of two-lane highway in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park in Tennessee sheds some light on at least one reason.  It's expensive.  How expensive?  Try $408.52 per foot.  That's $34 per inch.
    To be fair, the work goes a little beyond paving.  Here's how the project was described when first put out for bids in October 2012:

 The project consists of the rehabilitation and resurfacing of approximately 6.1 miles of Newfound Gap Road from TN Milepost 6.3 to TN Milepost 12.4, including roadside pullouts and parking areas. The work includes asphalt pavement milling, full-depth pavement patching, shoulder stabilization, Superpave asphalt concrete pavement overlay, stone masonry and guardwall repairs, steel-backed timber guardrail, drainage, and other miscellaneous work.

    Initially, and somewhat optimistically it appears, "the cost of the entire project expected to fall within the price range of greater than $10,000,000."  In the end, the contract award was for $13,157,725.58.  And although the cost of projects I researched vary greatly, this contract is by no means out of line.
    While $13 million sounds like a lot, consider this: The US Highway system consists of 160,000 miles of highway.  While not all highways are two lanes, using the 160,000 miles as a base number and the $408.52 per foot price tag for the Great Smoky Mountains job, the entire highway system could be repaved for a mere $345 billion.  Again, sounds like a lot; but on the other hand, the entire federal government currently blows through $345 billion every month.  For taxpayers tired of spending trillions with little to show for it, at least fixing the highways would yield concrete results.  (Pun definitely intended.)

Does President Obama's Red Line for Syrian Chemical Weapons Only Cover "Civilian Populations"?

    Is President Obama creating some wiggle room on the “red line” for Syria?  Both John Kerry and Chuck Hagel have indicated that the Syrian forces under control of President Assad may have used chemical weapons.  Today, President Obama acknowledged that currently intelligence is being gathered and analyzed to determine if that indeed is the case.  But he framed his remarks and his answers to reporters' questions in such a way that might indicate that the use of chemical weapons would have to violate a yet unstated prohibition in order to be considered crossing the red line.
    The president made an appearance with King Abdullah II of Jordan for bilateral talks, and briefly addressed reporters.

[Y]esterday, some of you saw that I asked my people to brief Congress about the fact that we now have some evidence that chemical weapons have been used on the populations in Syria.  Now, these are preliminary assessments; they’re based on our intelligence gathering.  We have varying degrees of confidence about the actual use, but there are a range of questions around how, when, where these weapons may have been used...

We have to act prudently.  We have to make these assessments deliberately.  But I think all of us, not just in the United States but around the world, recognize how we cannot stand by and permit the systematic use of weapons like chemical weapons on civilian populations...

...knowing that potentially chemical weapons have been used inside of Syria doesn’t tell us when they were used, how they were used...

    What is unclear is what the president intended by "civilian populations."  Does he mean the line has not been crossed if chemical weapons were used on armed militants?  Otherwise, why would it matter “how they were used”?  Is there a distinction between dropping chemical weapons on a neighborhood of private homes and launching them in a battle directly against an active fighting force?  What actually constitutes a "game chang[ing]" use of chemical weapons?

    The president went on to say:

...for the Syrian government to utilize chemical weapons on its people crosses a line that will change my calculus and how the United States approaches these issues...

     Again, "on its people" could mean civilians, or could be interpreted more broadly to mean any Syrian people whether or not they have taken up arms.  Congress will likely be pressing the administration for answers as the credibility of the United States is at stake, not only in Syria, but in North Korea and Iran as well, where other "red lines" have been drawn.  A world already on edge due to North Korea recent saber-rattling and Iran's nuclear ambitions will be anxiously waiting and watching.

Who is Responsible for the "Mess" Now?

    President Obama attended the dedication of the George W. Bush Presidential Library in Texas this week.  James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal attended the ceremony and recorded his observations is an article entitled "The Difference Between 43 and 44? Not So Much."  While making the case that more parallels exist between our last two presidents than President Obama would care to admit, Taranto recalls one of the talking points from the current president's first term:

The Bush-was-the-worst myth served a political purpose for Mr. Obama, enabling him to excuse his own shortcomings of leadership by blaming them on the "mess" he had "inherited." (Never mind that Mr. Obama was not some crown prince but an elected politician who aggressively pursued the office he now holds.)

    During the 2012 presidential campaign, I noted (as did Taranto) the stark contrast in the president's willingness to take responsibility versus his penchant for pointing his finger at others.  On October 16, 2012, I wrote:

    The president already suffers from a reputation for blame-shifting that from an analysis of his words as recorded on the White House website seems well earned.  The last time the words "I take responsibility" appear on the website is July 6, 2011, in the transcript of the president's Twitter Town Hall.  By contrast, during that same time period, the phrase "got us into this mess in the first place" appears 86 times, referring almost exclusively to the previous administration.  Even when the president speaks of "fault," it is often in the context of placing the word in the mouths of his critics, as in "They say the economy is bad and it's Obama's fault."

    It is interesting to note that the phrase "got us into this mess" has completely vanished from the president's vernacular.  The last time the phrase appears on the White House website is November 2, 2012... just before the election.  In nearly six months, the president and the White House press office have not used the phrase once.  One must conclude either we are not in a “mess” anymore, or, if we still are, the president recognizes at this point in his second term who bears the responsibility for keeping us there.

    By the way, the last use of "I take responsibility" on the White House website?  Still July 6, 2011, almost 22 months.  However, in a debate with Mitt Romney during the 2012 campaign, the president did say relative to the Benghazi, Libya terror attacks, "I'm the president. And I'm always responsible."  The date of his statement?  October 17, 2012, the day after Taranto and I published our articles.  Coincidence?  Let's just say I'm willing to take responsibility.

Congress Prepares Flu Vaccine Tax [Clarification added]

    Congress is preparing to take action on a bipartisan proposal to raise taxes on flu vaccines. This is not a tax on the wealthy, but rather on a broad swath of Americans, or at least those who choose to be immunized against the flu.
    In February, identical bills were introduced in the House and Senate to add seasonal flu vaccines to the IRS code as taxable.  The legislation would exact a 75¢ per dose tax on any "vaccine against seasonal influenza."  Given that the Centers for Disease Control projects that 135 million doses of flu vaccine will be used this year, the government's take on flu vaccines alone is over $100,000,000 per year.
    Along with taxes on other vaccines, this tax would fund the Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund.  The fund is a "no-fault alternative to the traditional tort system for resolving vaccine injury claims that provides compensation to people found to be injured by certain vaccines."  However, the fund is by no means in the same kind of trouble that other government "trust funds" are.
    The balance in the fund (as of November 2012) was more than $3.5 billion.  Since the program's inception in 1988, the fund has paid out only $2.5 billion in 25 years for cases involving all vaccines, not just the flu vaccine.  This means the balance in the fund could conceivably last another 25 years with no further tax revenue.
     The House bill (H.R. 475) was submitted on February 4th by Republican Jim Gerlach with Democrat Richard Neal co-sponsoring, and the Senate version (S. 391) was submitted by Democrat Max Baucus and co-sponsor Republican Orrin Hatch.  The same legislation had been introduced in the 112th Congress just months ago.  The House version died in committee, but the Senate version actually passed by unanimous consent the day it was introduced.
    Now, a posting on the Senate website reports that the Senate has reached an agreement on the current legislation. Although this flu season is winding down now, the tax could easily be in place by next winter if the House follows suit and the president signs it:

The Senate reached an agreement that if the Senate receives H.R.475 from the House of Representatives and the bill is identical to the text of which is at the desk, then the bill be read three times and the Senate proceed to a vote, at a time to be determined by the Majority Leader in consultation with the Minority Leader, with no intervening action or debate. H.R.475, a bill to amend the internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include vaccines against seasonal influenza within the definition of taxable vaccines.

    As is the case with all government "trust funds," there is no cash set aside to pay out claims.  According to the November 2012 report on the vaccine trust, the $3.5 billion balance is invested in "US Treasury Securities."  In other words, financing a portion of the $16.5 trillion national debt.


Note: This article first appeared at The Weekly Standard.



Clarification:
The current IRS code definition of a “taxable vaccine” already includes “Any trivalent vaccine against influenza.”  The new law reads that “Subparagraph (N) of section 4132(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting 'or any other vaccine against seasonal influenza' before the period.”  This is to make sure that all future flu vaccines are taxable in addition to the current ones.  Some interpreted my original article to mean that no flu vaccines were previously taxable, and now they would be.  The discovery that previous flu vaccines have ben taxable all along is not likely to assuage the anger many have expressed, especially in light of the $3.5 billion balance in the "trust fund."

The U.S. Mint's "First Spouse" Gold Coin Series

    The White House website includes a page entitled "The First Ladies" with links to biographies of the 46 woman who have held that title.  The folks at the U.S. Mint, however, are a little more forward thinking than their White House counterparts.  The website for the mint includes a special selection of coins under the heading "Fi
rst Spouse Series."  The online catalog offers an assortment of gold coins as well as lesser metals.  The half-ounce gold coins currently sell for upwards of $900:

    It turns out the Obama administration is not trying to make a political or social statement.  Rather, the coins are minted based on a 2005 law passed by Congress and signed by President Bush.  With speculation already circulating in 2005 about the possibility that Hillary Clinton would run for the nation's highest office, perhaps Congress was just being proactive in case the Unites States found itself in the position of having former president Bill Clinton christened as the first First Spouse.  Of course with President Obama's recent endorsement of same-sex marriage, the days of the term "First Lady" may be numbered anyway, and not just at the U.S. Mint.

Anthony Weiner's 14 Missing Ideas for New York City

    Perhaps buoyed by Mark Sanford's unlikely political resurrection, former Congressman Anthony Weiner is slowly raising his public profile in an apparent bid for mayor of New York City.  Earlier in April, Weiner launched a website where he presents a virtual pamphlet (paid for by Weiner for Mayor) entitled "Keys to the City - 64 Ideas to Keep New York the Capital of the Middle Class."  On Monday, Weiner's first tweet from a brand new Twitter account was a link to this document:

    However, a closer inspection of the website reveals that "64 Ideas" might not be a first draft.  A look at the embedded text in his website says: “Keys to the City - 78 Ideas to Keep New York the Capital of the Middle Class - By Anthony D. Weiner ”.  (It pops up on a Google search also.) Here's a screencap of the source code:

    One can't help wondering which fourteen ideas didn't make the cut.  Perhaps Michael Bloomberg's Big Gulp ban was originally Weiner's plan.