DavidsPrice.com

Americans are increasingly questioning our 40 year policy of drug prohibition and criminalizing addiction. Congressman Price has a record of supporting these failed policies.

In 1990, Congressman Price voted for H.R. 5269, a bill seeking to “control crime.” Never mind that criminal law enforcement is an issue that the Constitution suggests is a role for state governments. A review of the bill reveals a better title would be “Drug War Escalation Act.” It enacts several tough law enforcement and sentencing policy aimed at drug offenses, which may include possession, sale, and other factors. Some provisions of the bill, per the CRS summary on its THOMAS page, include:

• Provides for life imprisonment without release for those convicted a third time of a felony drug offense. (aka, a “Three Strikes” Law)
• Requires the Director of National Drug Control Policy to designate a Rural Drug Policy Coordinator to examine the special needs of rural areas in drug interdiction and coordinate the drug interdiction efforts of Federal agencies in such areas.
• Directs the Attorney General to attempt to assign not less than ten drug enforcement agents to each State and not less than four additional special agents to each rural State.
• Directs the Secretary of the Treasury to develop a drug interdiction training program for law enforcement officers in rural areas.
• Provides for imposition of the death penalty for those: (1) subject to mandatory life imprisonment for committing a Federal drug felony as part of a continuing criminal enterprise which involved specified quantities of controlled substances or specified gross receipts arising out of such activity; (2) convicted of committing such a felony as part of a continuing criminal enterprise where the defendant is a principal administrator, organizer, or leader of such an enterprise and, in order to obstruct the investigation or prosecution of the enterprise, attempts or conspires to kill any public officer, juror, witness, or family or household member of such a person; and (3) who, acting with a specified state of mind, engage in a Federal drug felony resulting in the death of another person in the course of the violation or from the use of the controlled substance involved in the violation.
• Sets forth aggravating factors for drug offense death penalty, including previous conviction of an offense for which a sentence of death or life imprisonment was authorized, previous conviction of other serious offenses, previous serious drug felony conviction, use of a firearm, distribution to persons under age 21, distribution near schools, using minors in trafficking, and lethal adulteration.

This bill reflects a general policy for drug control that simply hasn’t worked. The drug trade is growing ever larger and more lucrative despite the billions we spend each year enforcing prohibition. More than half of federal prisoners are non-violent drug offenders, while incarceration costs more than $23,000 per prisoner per year as of 2005. It has also engendered significant institutionalized racism and discrimination.

The cost of federal drug prohibition doesn’t end with arrest, prosecution, and incarceration. Incarcerated drug offenders cannot be just released and put back on the streets with the expectation that they are well-adjusted individuals. Thus, we’re now being asked to fund legislation like the Second Chance Act for “re-entry” of drug prisoners, for which Price voted.

Congressman Price apparently thinks it’s a good idea to spend billions a year fighting the War on Drugs and incarcerating nonviolent drug offenders, subjecting them to the physical and psychological damage of incarceration, and then spend hundreds of millions more “re-adjusting” them for re-entry into society.

In contrast, Switzerland’s drug policy exhibits a rational approach that has actually reduced drug addiction, crime, and violence. The world has taken notice of its outstanding results.

A number of studies have found that Switzerland’s heroin-assisted treatment plans help ease the scourge of addiction for users and society.

Initially met with criticism and apprehension, the Swiss model is now attracting the interest of other countries.

Programmes for the administration of heroin under medical supervision are still viewed warily by the World Health Organization, which is heavily influenced by governments with repressive drug policies, principally the United States.

“In the beginning, people worried that the Swiss government’s liberal policy would attract even more people to heroin. Those fears have proved unfounded,” Nordt stressed.

Nordt and Stohler’s research shows that in the canton of Zurich, home to more than a fifth of Switzerland’s addicts, there were 850 new heroin users in 1990 but just 150 in 2002.

Such a downward curve is not found in other countries, especially those that have tried to crack down on drugs. In Britain and Australia, drug use rose during the same period. In Italy, it vacillated from one year to the next, but the Zurich researchers view that data as incomplete.

“In Switzerland, the medicalisation of heroin use has helped change the image of users: from rebels to losers,” Nordt said. “In the eyes of the young, they’re mostly just sick people, forced to get medical help.”

The harm reduction policy followed by the Swiss authorities has also been successful in reducing heroin-related deaths, which have fallen by more than half over the course of a decade, and the transmission of AIDS.

And there is more good news concerning the fight against crime and prostitution.

“Compared with countries like Britain, where crime is very often linked to substance abuse, this trend has almost disappeared in Switzerland over the last few years,” said Nordt.

It’s time for introducing new and effective drug policies. It’s time to fire David “Lock ‘Em Up” Price on November 4.

There were several proposed Balanced Budget Amendments to the Constitution during the early-mid 1990s. It is instructive to visit the Roll Call vote records to see how David Price voted.

The first proposed amendment is of a vote from 1990, the final session of the 100th Congress, Price’s second term. To his credit, Congressman Price voted for it. Great job, Congressman.

The second proposed amendment is a vote in 1992. Once again, Congressman Price voted for it. If one had not looked at his recent record of gross fiscal irresponsibility, one might think that Congressman Price is a fiscal conservative.

However, Congressman Price changed direction in 1994, voting against a Balanced Budget amendment when it was proposed a third time. Perhaps there was some substantive change in language from 1992 to 1994 that would have offended him, so it is instructive to review each version of the amendment.

First, the 1990 Amendment:

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution to provide for a balanced budget for the United States Government and for greater accountability in the enactment of tax legislation.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution if ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after its submission to the States for ratification:

`Article–

`SECTION 1. Prior to each fiscal year, the Congress and the President shall agree on an estimate of total receipts for that fiscal year by enactment into law of a joint resolution devoted solely to that subject. Total outlays for that year shall not exceed the level of estimated receipts set forth in such joint resolution, unless three-fifths of the total membership of each House of Congress shall provide, by a rollcall vote, for a specific excess of outlays over estimated receipts.

`SECTION 2. The public debt of the United States shall not be increased unless three-fifths of the total membership of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a rollcall vote.

`SECTION 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year in which total outlays do not exceed total receipts.

`SECTION 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become law unless approved by a majority of the total membership of each House by a rollcall vote.

`SECTION 5. The provisions of this article are waived for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect.

`SECTION 6. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States except for those for repayment of debt principal.

`SECTION 7. This article shall take effect beginning with fiscal year 1993 or with the second fiscal year beginning after its ratification, whichever is later.’.

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution to provide for a balanced budget for the United States Government and for greater accountability in the enactment of tax legislation.

Resolved,

ARTICLE .

SECTION 1. Prior to each fiscal year, the Congress and the President shall agree on an estimate of total receipts for that fiscal year by enactment of a law devoted solely to that subject. Total outlays for that year shall not exceed the level of estimated receipts set forth in such law, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide, by a rollcall vote, for a specific excess of outlays over estimated receipts.

SECTION 2. The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a rollcall vote.

SECTION 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year in which total outlays do not exceed total receipts.

SECTION 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become law unless approved by a majority of the whole number of each House by a rollcall vote.

SECTION 5. The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect.

SECTION 6. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except for those for repayment of debt principal.

SECTION 7. This article shall take effect beginning with fiscal year 1995 or with the second fiscal year beginning after its ratification, whichever is later.

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution to provide for a balanced budget for the United States Government and for greater accountability in the enactment of tax legislation.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission to the States for ratification:

`Article–

`SECTION 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote.

`SECTION 2. The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law for an increase by a rollcall vote.

`SECTION 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year, in which total outlays do not exceed total receipts.

`SECTION 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become law unless approved by a majority of the whole number of each House by a rollcall vote.

`SECTION 5. The Congress may waive the provisions of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House, which becomes law.

`SECTION 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts.

`SECTION 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except for those for repayment of debt principal.

`SECTION 8. This article shall take effect beginning with fiscal year 1999 or with the second fiscal year beginning after its ratification, whichever is later.’

A couple of days late, but from the WSJ:

WASHINGTON — The U.S. is actively considering talks with elements of the Taliban, the armed Islamist group that once ruled Afghanistan and sheltered al Qaeda, in a major policy shift that would have been unthinkable a few months ago.

U.S. Marine Staff Sgt. Joseph Debose, 26, stands among village elders as Afghan and American forces search for weapons Oct. 25 in the Korengal Valley of Kunar Province in eastern Afghanistan.

Senior White House and military officials believe that engaging some levels of the Taliban — while excluding top leaders — could help reverse a pronounced downward spiral in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan. Both countries have been destabilized by a recent wave of violence.

The outreach is a draft recommendation in a classified White House assessment of U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, according to senior Bush administration officials. The officials said that the recommendation calls for the talks to be led by the Afghan central government, but with the active participation of the U.S.

The idea is supported by Gen. David Petraeus, who will assume responsibility this week for U.S. policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Gen. Petraeus used a similar approach in Iraq, where a U.S. push to enlist Sunni tribes in the fight against al Qaeda in Iraq helped sharply reduce the country’s violence. Gen. Petraeus earlier this month publicly endorsed talks with less extreme Taliban elements.

What does Mr. Military Industrial Complex, Congressman Price, have to say about this?

Which begs the question: why the rush to war, Congressman Price? Why continue our “military efforts” against the Taliban with a fundamentally misguided idea historically that an foreign occupying military simply can sustain its operations in Afghanistan? Why call for this when it’s our military aggression that instigates al-Qaeda to attack us in the first place?

But furthermore, why the rush to war when perhaps the most publicly prominent general in our military is telling us to give peace a chance?

For this entry, we will go outside his aforementioned email. Don’t worry; we’ll be returning to it very soon.

After taking another look at the debate between Congressman Price and Dr. Lawson, his “Keeping in Touch” newsletter that he sent to the 4th District voters (at taxpayer expense), and his Vote Smart page, there’s a particular claim that Congressman Price likes to make (or at least imply) that his recent record shows to be a bowl of mush. This claim is that he is some sort of a principled fiscal conservative who works tirelessly for balanced budgets. 

In his “Keeping in Touch” newsletter, he states:

Instead of using the budget surpluses he inherited to pay down the national debt, he used it to provide tax cuts to the wealthy and presided over the greatest fiscal reversal in U.S. history. 

In response to the Project Vote Smart question, “Do you support requiring the federal budget to be balanced every year,” he answers, “Yes.” He decries the Bush Administration’s deficit policies. (Nevermind that he lies in his claim that the federal budget was out of balance before accounting for social security surprluses. Gohere, take the budget surplus/deficit and Social Security surplus/deficit numbers from the tables, and do the math yourself.)

The problem is that his rhetoric falls flat when observing his record on fiscal issues this year. If you go to his Voting Record page, you will see that he voted:

This is while we’ve had an approximately $400 billion deficit THIS YEAR! 

The Price of our Congressman’s fiscal irresponsibility is just too high. 

In a number of posts, we have used the term “straw man argument” to describe Congressman Price’s statements. It has come to our attention that many may not be familiar with this term. For your reference, here is a description from Wikipedia.

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “set up a straw man,” one describes a position that superficially resembles an opponent’s actual view, yet is easier to refute. Then, one attributes that position to the opponent. For example, someone might deliberately overstate the opponent’s position. While a straw man argument may work as a rhetorical technique—and succeed in persuading people—it carries little or no real evidential weight, since the opponent’s actual argument has not been refuted.

Is it quite clear now why most of David Price’s statements can be accurately described as “straw man arguments?”

Umm… Congressman Price, to which particular ethnic communities are you referring?