14 Bills at Ionia, part 3

Bill No. 8 -- The Popular Vote Statute of 2007

• Overview/Need. Although this says "Statute" it properly is a Constitutional Amendment. The bill proposes a move to popular election of the president. Under the Electoral College, the value of a vote varies, so that those in large states have relatively little say in who gets elected than those in Wyoming (population 500,000).
• Instrumentality. As a Constitutional Amendment, this measure must pass with a two thirds vote. Implementation language should indicate that the bill becomes effective upon ratification of the states. As a Constitutional Amendment, of course, there is no going back (see Sec. 5).
• Possible Amendment. Change Sec. 5 to match Constitutional requirements.
• Aff. Abolish the Electoral College is an perennial. Appeal to the notion of popular sovereignty. As the 2000 election showed, it is possible to win the popular votes and still not win the presidency. As we have seen, such outcomes cast the victor in doubt pretty much through the term.
• Neg. If you are historically minded, review arguments for preserving small state's rights. If it is by popular vote, then the small states turn completely invisible -- why should a candidate even bother with them? The question the Neg wants to raise is that of giving voice to the lesser parts of our country (and why that good over-rides that of the popular will). What do we gain by giving these regions a say?

Bill No. 9 -- Child Gun Safety and Education Bill

• Overview/Need. The Bill mandates certain mandatory safety measures for gun sellers and manufacturers. Guns in the home are a major source for child deaths -- this measure would begin to address this.
• Instrumentality. This is a fairly well-crafted piece of legislation. Note that it includes not only manufacturers of guns, but those who sell them. The weakness is that there remains no enforcement mechanism in the bill, presumably this would be with BATF. This could be a possible (but not necessary) amendment. If anything is missing here it is the regulation of gun shows. These firearms would presumably not be covered (this is a significant source of controversy with in the Second Amendment community).
• Aff. Emphasize basic safety benefits. Research deaths of children who play with guns. By making this a requirement for all sales, you have an efficient way of getting gun locks into homes.
• Neg. A negative attack can pick up a Second Amendment fundamentalism, that any restriction on guns, any requirement is but step to the government taking subverting the basic right to bear arms. That is, if they allow the regulation of manufacturers here, what else can they regulate? A different attack would be to address the question of gun shows. Since these are left out of the bill, and are one of the main sources for gun ownership transfers, this bill doesn't really solve the problem -- the danger still exists.

Bill No. 10 -- A Bill to Bypass Doctors

• Overview/Need. The bill creates a category of behind-the-counter drugs, that presumably could be picked up without additional prescriptions. Such a move coupled with generics would be a way to lower drug costs and benefit the health consumer.
• Instrumentality. The bill is fairly clear in its particulars. Watch, however, for the issue of "consulation with the pharmacist." Does this give the pharmacist a veto over what can be sold? Must the consumer make repeated consultations, or is once enough? Or perhaps the consultation in question is simply a signed form on file at the pharmacy. For instance, what about birth control pills -- can a minor pick them up? Can a pharmacy refuse to sell them? This is an area to clear up in the debate.
• Aff. Increasingly medecine is driven by pharmacology. This measure would make basic goods available with minimum hassle. Less hassle, means more use, which in turn means better health. Use the WalMart $4/precription plan as a model for how something like this could work.
• Neg. As Instrumentality discussion noted, there are a host of operational questions. On the conservative side, you may want to emphasize the hazards say of birth control pills, or whether these are really appropriate. Note these are specifically mandated to be included. Does this apply to Plan B contraceptives ("morning after" pills)? Some pharmacists have objected to selling these on moral grounds -- the same can be said for hormone-based birth control. This conservative approach is something of an outside case -- the chamber may not especially like it or be sympathetic. It will take courage.

Bill No. 11 -- A Bill to Save the American Dream

• Overview/Need. The problem with sub-prime mortgages threatens not only homeowners but the economy. The media is filled with the stories of families tossed out because of the structure of these loans. Background reading will reveal a variety of tactics used to hook buyers into products that had high fees and harsh interest-rate adjustments. Did the buyers understand the problem they were getting into? At least for low-income buyers, the answer is certainly, no. The original mortgages were confusing. Adding to the problem is the way that these mortgages were then turned into securities that could be bought and sold in markets. The result has been that instead of one institution holding the security, multiple institutions each hold a small part of that mortgage -- so what happens when it fails? Ah, you see the problem. This bill cuts to the chase. Rather than handle on a case by case, it treats these mortgages as a class. Is this a good thing? Ah, that is the question, isn't it?
• Instrumentality. The mortgage meltdown is a rather complex event, so a bill like this will be open to the charge of over-simplification. A key question will be to whom this bill applies: is it for all mortgages, including those who invested in condominiums thinking they will then sell at a profit? Or is it for owner-occupied units? This bill pays solid attention to who will enforce this legislation. This gives clear accountability.
• Proposed Amendment: Add to Section 3 a requirement that this measure only applies to owner-occupied units. (Investors should now better and deserve to take their knocks).
• Aff. There are lots of horror stories out there to emphasize the need for relief. There is a lot of consumer caution right now, precisely because of the problem in the housing sector. So making homeowners secure will also help the economy. Admit that the plan takes a big swipe, but the problem is too complex for smaller steps.
• Neg. Emphasize the role of what economists call "moral hazard:" The buyers simply should have known better. No money down loans? You don't need to be an MBA to know that smells. And especially if the amendment doesn't fly -- then the bill seems to reward a lot of investors rather than individual homeowners.

Bill No. 12 -- Privatization of Public Parks

• Overview/Need. This properly is a resolution, focusing on a state issue, that of the state maintaining too many parks relative to its budget. Underlying this is the question of finances and the public goods: if we can't fund something, shouldn't we admit it, and turn over the property or program to those who can put it to better and presumably taxable) use? The issue may be state in wording, but the underlying issue is the balance between government and the private sector.
• Instrumentality. There are several awkward moments here. Section 3 is the big culprit -- what is being limited is not clear. This will be an area for significant discussion. The tension between a federal Congress and a State proposal will also need to be dealt with. An early address might be to suggest that the bill, while inappropriate, nonetheless raises some significant issues that deserve debate. (Such a move would be well received by the judges). The other big problem with the bill is that no mechanism is provided to determine what state parts (or any park) would be under consideration. Translate this to a National level: does this mean that we put up for sale the Statue of Liberty? Sleeping Bear Dunes? Yellowstone NP? With no mechanism for determining what fits, then anything can fit. Or nothing.
• Approach: Debate the mechanism, debate principle.
• Posssible Amendment:Suggest that the Congress create a study commission to see what National properties can be removed from the roll of national holdings. That this commission apply the rules and criteria set forth in this bill.
• Aff. This is a standard libertarian critique (see the Mackinac Institute, Cato Foundation for examples) of the government doing too much. Should the Federal government really be in the business of holding land that could be put to better use by the private sector? The Aff is the harder side in this case in that a good neg will make you look like you are going to destroy parks for the sake of business.
• Neg. Emphasize that the population likes its national parks and forests. These are not minor items. Emphasize that the private sector has not been a good custodian. Suggest that the lands are really the common property of all the citizens, and so can not be given away. As a practical matter, suggest that there is little economic return to be had here (unless one starts a gold mine say, in Yellowstone).