NEWS STORY I
On July 20, 1997, there was an article published in the San Diego Union Tribune concerning the expansion of gun tracking as encouraged by President Bill Clinton. This is a serious effort to keep down teenage crime. The Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative was started just last year in 17 cities in the United States. What it did was trace the history of guns taken from crime scenes back to the suppliers. This is the source of gun availability to youth and therefore one cause of youth violence.
Gun sellers supply minors with guns “through the backdoor,” so to speak in an illegal fashion, yet very profitable. This program is instrumental in attacking this root of street crime and very valuable to police officials. The article reports that 37,000 guns were traced last year and that 40% were taken from crime committing minors. This tactic is proving very successful for gathering information about the black market with respect to gun trafficking and leads to great gains in fighting it.
The program also insists that legal sales of guns to adults “through the front door” need to be done with more thorough background checks to further reduce crime. Without these checks, it is very easy for criminals to get their hands on guns in a perfectly “legal” way. Some legitimate gun buyers may not appreciate such scrutiny, but I think they should be tolerant. After all, if they are clean, they shouldn’t have anything to hide. These background checks provide safety for society and that is not something that should be compromised. Even concerns for the matter of privacy would not change my mind. I am not talking about reading their diaries, just examining the contents of their criminal record (should they have one) for possibilities of criminal activity.
The main point of this article is to announce the expansion of this program into 10 new cities by providing an additional $10 million in funding. The program addresses cities with higher crime rates which need it most. It is my opinion that every city in America should have this program or one like it in effect. Clinton started this program and adamantly supports it and its expansion. It is he who relays the analogy of tightening the locks and security of both the front and back doors of gun shops. He is concerned with the black market and is intent on lowering crime. I think this is a very good way to start. What they need to do now is be sure to crack down on these suppliers and close up those shops for good!
Those citizens concerned with the safety of society are sure to support Clinton on this issue. On the other hand it is the gun sellers and businesses that will have problems with it. This poses strong political significance to those particular businesses because of their influence on public lawmakers. They’re all in it for the money and money talks. To them I say “Too bad!” Let this program continue in full force and let it expand to every American city. Teach business people to run respectable businesses or be shut down. It’s as simple as that. In this issue I praise Clinton for his stand and agree with the aggressive actions of gun tracing and background checks.
~ © ~
NEWS STORY II
On July 9, 1997, the San Diego Union Tribune reported President Bill Clinton’s rejection of the tobacco settlement. He is not buying it, as the article claims, he has not been fooled by the fine print. The settlement is very much in favor of the tobacco industry and attempts to slyly weaken the Food and Drug Administration’s regulation over it. The deal was created by lawyers and cigarette makers and is inconspicuously favoring their own position. To my knowledge, the agreement spends industry money on campaigning, health programs and claims from victims and relatives. In other words, they are just trying to clean up a little part of the mess they are leaving behind so that they look like concerned good samaritans. This would probably cost them a lot less money than loosing valuable profits by preventing the harmful effects of smoking.
The agreement actually puts limits on how the government can regulate it! This is unbelievable. It is also the main reason for Clinton’s disapproval. He refuses to approve anything that would weaken the FDA. On the contrary, all laws should actually strengthen the administration. The article states that this agreement will not be supported by the president. In its present form, it will never become a law.
According to an article printed on July 10, regulations on the tobacco industry need to include protection for Americans against harmful effects, especially among non-smokers and children, who fall victim to illnesses and death because of cigarette smoke. Any regulations should reflect the respectability and complete power of the FDA, rather than weaken it. Politically, the power of government versus the power of businesses is a very significant struggle in which the government must come out on top in order to conserve the integrity of and America’s faith in the system.
This article was reporting the first fully developed public comments regarding the subject. The article following it, printed on July 10, 1997, contains further details of the agreement and its explication. The second article explains why the deal is unacceptable and what it lacks. Unfortunately for them, the industry will not budge. The agreement will not become a law, nor will it be rewritten, so most likely it will be dropped. This is really not too bad at all, at least the FDA remains strong and Americans are not suckered any more than usual. Clinton came out the good guy in this issue. I am actually a bit surprised, but I do agree with his stand. I am glad he is intelligent enough (or hired intelligent people) to catch this crude attempt. The tobacco industry was justly put in their place.
~ © ~
GENERAL SUMMARY
There were four articles in particular that I picked out relating to the President’s reform package. The article on June 29 entitled “Reform lag is the fault of Congress, says Clinton” is him justifying his tardiness. The second article, printed June 30, is called “Clinton to unveil revised tax-cut proposal today” and basically tells us that he has it together and what it includes. The third article, on July 21, shows the headline: “Medicare fight stalls budget talks” which discusses more tax problems. Lastly, the other July 21 article, “Tax-cut negotiators split over child credit for poor,” also talks about reform.
The first article says that Congress has been holding up issues of reform which made the president fall behind in his development of it. His plan will include health care issues, balanced budget approaches and campaign spending. Politically all these issues are very important for the nation to know Clinton’s views but at that time we all just had to wait. We did know, however, that Clinton would like to encourage free airtime for candidates on television to curb the cost of spending.
The second article talks more about the issue of tax-cuts. Clinton’s tax-cut proposals will provide more cuts for the working middle class. $85 billion dollar cuts will be applied to the lower 60% percent of taxpayers, according to the article. Clinton and his aides figure that the richer Americans would not battle the rates as long as the market was headed for expansion. It was also mentioned that Clinton may support cuts in capital gains taxes and the creation of education savings accounts. It is very significant that these issues be agreed upon because many Americans are following it very closely. We are all very concerned with the amount of taxes we pay.
The third article discusses Medicare premiums for the elderly and how it has stalled budget talks. President Clinton favors premiums on Medicare to be paid by patients 67 and older depending upon their annual income. The article states he “proposed $5 payment per visit for home health care services.” This seems very reasonable to me, of course the elderly would possible paying a lot of $5 fees that can really add up; or just start seeing the doctor less often. I would hope they would continue to rely on their physicians, it is a shame that cost might interfere with good health. Later in the article it says that those who make more money would pay slightly more, and so on. I think it should be a set amount, otherwise it seems like they are trying to get as much money out of each individual as they possible can. It is a very difficult topic to consider and is always significant in presidential election platforms.
The last article mentioned deals with a tax credit issue of his reform. Clinton wants to give a $500 tax credit to the poor for each child. Republicans say that’s what welfare is for. Besides, the poor have had reductions four times in the past 16 years which is more than usual. Republicans would prefer that the $500 credit should go to the middle class that are working families, because the poor don’t even earn enough to pay taxes and already get other breaks. Politically we are seeing the democrats and republicans butting heads against this issue--a very important one when considering the fairness of tax-cuts.
So we have four separate articles related together by topics of reform, taxes and health care. All subject to fairness, popular opinion and justice. Politically, they are very significant because they each address a certain part of the American population. The first issue concerns the poor, the second issue addresses the middle class, the third issue affects seniors and the fourth issue involves both the middle class and the poor. How Clinton stands on each issue means votes in future elections so he has to try hard to appease every one. These are often issues that are contemplated before each presidential election as well, and are therefore followed through with during the course of the President’s term.
~ © ~
CONCLUSION
I have grown up to perceive the individual holding the office of presidency to be very boring and wishy washy. I have learned, though that Clinton is an ordinary person with his own opinion and positions on issues just like every one else. Americans can decide whether they agree or disagree with him and vote and make judgements accordingly. The only difference is that he can hire many aides to help him form these opinions and/or do the research involved in taking a stand with some issues.
I was surprised to find that I actually agreed with the president’s stance on some of the articles reported, especially concerning gun tracing and background checks, tobacco, global warming (as complicated as it is!), insurance companies’ access to genetic histories and vaccinations for children. It was also interesting to read proof that the Paula Jones case was just a fraudulent attempt to make money in politics.
In writing my own analysis of certain new stories, it would appear that I understand a lot more about politics than I normally give myself credit for. I had quite a few topic to chose from while writing my summaries, it made me feel more confident. I am surprised at my understanding because in the past I tended to reject any topic related to politics. My mother is a politician in National City and sometimes I get so irritated with all the mudslinging and pressure to be politically correct. I suppose a little bit actually rubbed off on me because I can related to the ideas behind the president’s actions and statements because of the position he is in, just like my mom has to do.
I read a lot more of the newspaper than I usually do because I just never have time to sit down long enough to read it. While I thumbed through looking for Clinton’s name in the articles, I picked out other interesting articles that I took a second or two to skim over. That is definitely a start. First you have got to create an interest for something and then it can become a habit. In my case, I probable won’t read much more than the eye-catching headlines but its better than nothing. At least I will be familiar with and/or recognize all the things I don’t know!