Swalwell and the Democrats double down | Tim Talk | Tim Hunt | DanvilleSanRamon.com |


https://danvillesanramon.com/blogs/p/print/2016/01/26/swalwell-and-the-democrats-double-down


Local Blogs

By Tim Hunt

Swalwell and the Democrats double down

Uploaded: Jan 26, 2016

Congressman Eric Swalwell is making his election year priorities known through his actions.
One of his latest missives to supporters concerned gun control and mass shootings. The rather inflammatory rhetoric follows:
“Far too often, we see that another tragic, mass shooting has taken place in our country -- and the fact Congress has yet to act is downright offensive.

“No life should be lost because of our ineffective gun control laws, but as long as Congress refuses to take action, I’m afraid we’ll only see an increase in mass shootings.

That’s why I’m joining my Democratic colleagues and taking a stand to end gun violence.”
Curiously how he ignored that the areas with the tightest gun control laws (Chicago, Baltimore, Connecticut) have both the highest rates of violence and the occasional tragic mass shooting. Somehow, those tighter restrictions do not seem to be working.
Yet, Eric and his fellow Democrats want to double down.
He did so with his invitation to the State of the Union address. His guest was Fremont Police Chief Richard Lucero who is a gun control advocate.
Congressman Mark DeSaulnier, who represents the San Ramon Valley, also brought a gun control activist, Amanda Wilcox, the legislation and policy chairwoman for the California Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Her daughter, Laura, was shot to death in 2001.
Swalwell could have made quite a statement to his colleagues and constituents if he had invited Jim Steinle of Pleasanton, father of Kate, who was murdered while walking with him on a San Francisco pier.
Another missive from Eric this month dealt with the California budget and funding for the University of California and state university system. He was encouraging signing an online petition for the state to increase funding for the institutions of higher learning. He certainly has a bully pulpit, but no vote on the matter.
He would be well advised to look at what has happened to the costs of higher education since the government got into the student loan business in the early 1990s. Costs of higher education have risen so dramatically that they outstripped even health care.
So, what does the federal involvement tell us about costs?
He also might ask how well UC President Janet Napolitano and her administrative colleagues are doing with controlling costs of bureaucrats and their overhead vs. investing money into classrooms to educate students.

Comments