Gramm and the crime bill

Bruce Norbeck madtom at IX.NETCOM.COM
Thu Feb 8 20:32:09 MST 1996

ticle. I'm sure you've all read it, so I won't include the whole thing.
But something about it makes me wonder...
    These people who supplied the article claimed that Mr. Gramm had
shown no inclination to "fix" the bill, & had indicated that such a ef-
fort was "ludicrous" to begin with. Mr. Gramm said no such thing -- he
specifically urged the committee to fix the bill, so that the Senate
would be able to adopt it.
    What did he say was wrong? He emphatically stated that $8 billion
in social spending had to be taken out. He said that the bill the Sen-
ate had passed would have put more cops on the street, but the final
product would hire 2 social workers for every cop. He said that the
Bill-ting was willing to cut $4 billion, but it had to be done across
the board -- that money would be cut from all the programs, from pri-
son-building & from hiring of new cops -- & he insisted that such was
unacceptable. He stated that the people of his state (note that he is
representing his constituent's interests, here!) wanted that social
pork taken out, & more money to be spent on arresting, convicting, &
convicting criminals.
    Now, he didn't say anything about the gun ban. Of course, such com-
ments might have been edited out before Mr. Quinton ever saw the post
to begin with.
    Why would anyone do such a thing? For that matter, why would anyone
make statements in a public forum, which statements can be easily pro-
ven wrong by the evidence they themselves present?!?!?!?
    Why? Perhaps... because they're such hard-core Buchanan-istas that
they're willing to smear Gramm, the only other REAL conservative in the
race that has a chance to be elected?
    Could be!

madtom at
Libertarian, pagan, pot-smoker, patriot -- DON'T TREAD ON ME!

p.s.: of course I'm biased -- I can't be paid enough to vote for Bu-
chanan, while Gramm actually has SOME measure of my respect.

More information about the Rushtalk mailing list