Tag Archives: congress

Do Now #68: Would Stricter Gun Laws Reduce Gun Violence?

Comments (298)
photo by HeatherHeatherHeather/flickr

photo by HeatherHeatherHeather/flickr


To respond to the Do Now, you can comment below or tweet your response. Be sure to begin your tweet with @KQEDEdspace and end it with #KQEDDoNow

For more info on how to use Twitter, click here.


Do Now

Would stricter gun laws reduce gun-related violence? Why or why not? What is the central issue around this problem?

Introduction

There have been a series of tragic events these past few years that have really brought the issue of gun violence onto the national stage. Most recently, the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut has reignited this debate. It was one of the worst mass shootings in American history, 20 of the 27 people killed were small children.

The question that comes up over and over about gun violence is whether we should have stricter gun laws in place. The main issue comes down to two points: maintaining our rights and ensuring our safety. Specifically, the issue is about the balance between Americans' constitutional right to bear arms - as it is written in the Second Amendment - and the desire that almost all of us share to live safely without the threat of being harmed by gun violence.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who has been a leading gun control advocate and authored an assault weapons ban in 1994, which lapsed in 2004, is now expected to offer an updated version of this legislation. "Now is exactly the time," says New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an advocate for gun restrictions, "Calling for 'meaningful action' is not enough. We need immediate action. We have heard all the rhetoric before." There need to be controls over the sale of weapons and assault weapons do not belong on our streets – this is the clear position of gun control advocates.

But as KQED’s The Lowdown asks, what is it with America’s Love of the Gun? The article points to the figure that “there are 89 guns for every 100 civilians," according to the 2011 Small Arms Survey. That amounts to roughly 270 million guns owned nationwide, far and away the highest gun ownership rate in the world. Mitchell Rycus, a University of Michigan professor emeritus who studies violence and terrorism, agrees: "We've been a gun-toting society for hundreds of years," he said. But the focus on guns is misplaced. “The point," Rycus said in an article in the San Francisco Chronicle entitled Can We Do Anything to Prevent Massacres?, "is that America needs to look harder into the mental instability that often marks a mass killer, and to figure out how to address it.”

Continue reading »


Do Now #15: Deal with Debt

Add your comment

Photo by David Paul Ohmer, Flickr


To respond to the Do Now, you can comment below or tweet your response. Be sure to begin your tweet with @KQEDedspace and end it with #KQEDDoNow

For more info on how to use Twitter, click here.


Do Now

What should Congress do about our national debt? Should the pain fall on the wealthiest Americans or on government programs, such as Medicare?

Intro

Why can’t Congress agree on how to handle debt? In August this year Congress resorted to setting up a special committee to find a way through the impasse over the budget deficit. The plan was to find reductions by bringing together 12 members of Congress in a Congressional Supercommittee. The goal was $1.2 trillion in deficit reductions over a decade.

As a bipartisan committee - meaning both political parties were represented equally, with six Democrats and six Republicans working together - the hope was that both sides could agree on a way to resolve the crisis.

Charged with framing recommendations on budget cuts for Congress to vote on by November 23, the committee faced clear choices: either to increase taxes or cut entitlements, meaning public programs, such as Social Security, healthcare and education.

Fundamentally this impasse is about political difference, highlighting the gulf between the two parties. Republicans in the committee attacked Democrats for opposing budget cuts to popular domestic programs, programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. They maintain that Democrat leaders insist on over-spending and, as such, adding to the deficit. Democrats, on the other hand, said Republicans wouldn't accept any plan which involved raising taxes for the wealthiest Americans.

This is the deadlock. How is the pain to be divided up – should it fall on the wealthiest Americans in the form of abolishing the tax cuts instituted by George W Bush and reducing taxes, or should it be born by social programs, such as the public programs that provide benefits for the 14 million unemployed Americans? This would put hundreds of government programs on the chopping block to be cut as early as 2013.

Alice Rivlin, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who served as budget director for President Clinton, said, “Each side was prepared to offer more if they thought the other side was operating in good faith, … Each side distrusted the other. The Democrats were afraid to offer serious entitlement cuts because they thought the Republicans will just take that and not give any revenues … The Republicans said if we offer serious revenues, the Democrats will just take that and they're not serious about the entitlement cuts."

Resource

KQED Forum segment Clock Ticks for Supercommittee.
The congressional deficit reduction supercommittee faces a Wednesday deadline to reach an agreement on reducing the deficit. If the panel does not reach a deal, $1.2 trillion will automatically be cut from defense and domestic spending in 2013. We look at the politics behind the deliberations.


To respond to the Do Now, you can comment below or tweet your response. Be sure to begin your tweet with @KQEDedspace and end it with #KQEDDoNow

For more info on how to use Twitter, click here.


More Resources for Follow-up Lessons

KQED News segment For Debt Committee, No Final-Hour Deal Apparent. Nov. 21, 2011
Monday is the last day the congressional supercommittee can reach a deficit-reduction deal and still make its Wednesday deadline. The legislation has to be publicly available for 48 hours before a vote, and the clock is ticking. But instead of announcing an agreement, the committee is widely expected to admit it has failed.