Matt’s Blog

So here’s a thought, why do we think term limitations are a good idea?  I know this is a weird question, term limitations are hardly argued by anybody.  The usual argument I get when discussing this with my friends and enemies is: “Well, you know, it’s good to let someone else have a chance.”  Not that I really want to lambaste my friends (or my enemies), but it seems like we’re treating the presidency like a toy to be shared among fifth graders.  I suggest that term limitations have two negative consequences for America:

First, when there is a good president in office, it removes that president from office.  Second, when there is a bad president in office, it dulls motivations to remove that president from office, since his term will be up soon anyway.

America’s system of government, with it’s checks and balances, generally keeps the president from wielding too much power, so I argue that a good president should be able to stay in office, as long as he/she is willing to continue to do the job.  The president should understand that he may be there for a while, and therefore can implement long-term policy.  After all, just what do we think we’re accomplishing in short 4 or 8 year bursts?  Term limitations are at least partly responsible for the roller-coaster of political whims that we go on, and the flip flopping of the parties as they attempt to gain control every four years.

An how much time do elected officials really spend in their re-election campaigns anyway?  I’d really like to know.  All of the candidates for the presidency are mostly senators or governors for some body of constituents somewhere, and what exactly is happening to their work there?  Instead of having defined election cycles, an elected official should know that they may be removed from office any time, not merely at the end of their designated cycle.  That way, they are motivated to do their job well all the time, after all, isn’t that how the rest of us live?

The Brady Bill was passed in 1994 requiring background checks and waiting periods for gun purchases. States were responsible for the implementation, and some simply skipped the background checks and required only the waiting period, while others approved the purchase if the background check was not completed by the end of the 5-day waiting period. Nevertheless, homicides by firearm saw a steep decline immediately:

I retrieved this data from the CDC’s website: http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html

You will notice, suspiciously, that my chart stops at 1998.  This is because the government changed some recording policies in 1999 that affect the numbers recorded, thus making comparisons between data less meaningful.  You can look here for more information about that: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/fatal/help/datasources.htm#6.3

And, as usual, there are dissenting opinions about whether the Brady Bill is actually primarily responsible, you can go here for a good example of that:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_brady_bill.html

That page contains many well thought out ideas on other factors that could be responsible.  But it just seems too much coincidence for me to accept that the Brady bill had nothing to do with the numbers above (the decline starts right around 1994).  I haven’t manipulated this data in any way, you can use the cdc link above to see it for yourself.  Gun control works, close the ‘private sale loophole’ and we’ll see more significant reductions.