Or, how to make gun owners fund Medicaid. Here's two letters to the editor of the Denver Post today regarding a proposal in the legislature to charge gun buyers $10 for state-mandated background checks through the Colorado Bureau of Investigation. These background checks were legislated into law a couple of years ago by the state, to replace the federal background checks that were already being done. Now that the state budget has taken a dive, they want to start charging the purchaser for the check. So, which letter writer's side are you on?
____________________________________________
A tax, not a fee
Re: "Let users pay for gun checks," March 6 editorial.
It is not surprising to see The Post endorse a proposed $10 charge to Colorado gun buyers to fund the Colorado Bureau of Investigations' Insta-check system, but why don't you call the charge what it is: a tax. What else should one call a mandatory confiscation of an individual's money in order to pay for a government program or service?
It is unconscionable, not to mention unconstitutional, to require a citizen to pay for the exercise of a fundamental individual right. It has long been evident that a government cannot charge a citizen a poll tax to exercise his or her franchise. Why does The Post think it is proper for a citizen to pay the government in order to lawfully purchase a firearm?
Colorado is not a user-fee state. Services such as law enforcement, fire control and education are funded by all taxpayers, not just those who use the services. If the government deems CBI background checks are a necessary prerequisite for firearms purchases, then the government must pay for those checks.
Otherwise, no matter what one may like to call it, a charge for checks is simply a new tax on gun owners.
ANYTHONY J. FABIAN
Aurora
The writer is president of the Colorado State Shooting Association.
---------------------------------------------
Double gun fees, keep Medicaid
Re: "Families plead to keep Medicaid; Lawmakers consider cutting funds to voluntary state programs," March 4 news story.
I was reading the story about families having to plead before our state legislature to not cut Medicaid funding, as that is the only thing keeping their families solvent as they care for brain-damaged children.
My heart literally hurt thinking of how hard these people's lives already are, and now they have to fear they might lose financial assistance on top of everything else.
I read the remarks of Rep. Brad Young, that certain Medicaid programs could end up on the chopping block, and I wondered, what does it take for a politician to say, "Not this program"?
Then my eyes moved to the right and read the adjoining article about a $10 fee for criminal background checks and how that fee needed to be passed on to the gun buyers. Otherwise, taxpayers would have to pay so gun buyers could get their guns in five minutes or less.
I looked at that article, and I looked back at the one about families fighting to keep Medicaid so they can continue to care for their severely disabled children. And I thought, "How sad."
So I am writing to urge people to contact their legislators ... and urge them to charge those gun buyers $20 for their background checks ... and use the extra $10 to increase Medicaid funding.
ROBIN ABB
Boulder
____________________________________________
A tax, not a fee
Re: "Let users pay for gun checks," March 6 editorial.
It is not surprising to see The Post endorse a proposed $10 charge to Colorado gun buyers to fund the Colorado Bureau of Investigations' Insta-check system, but why don't you call the charge what it is: a tax. What else should one call a mandatory confiscation of an individual's money in order to pay for a government program or service?
It is unconscionable, not to mention unconstitutional, to require a citizen to pay for the exercise of a fundamental individual right. It has long been evident that a government cannot charge a citizen a poll tax to exercise his or her franchise. Why does The Post think it is proper for a citizen to pay the government in order to lawfully purchase a firearm?
Colorado is not a user-fee state. Services such as law enforcement, fire control and education are funded by all taxpayers, not just those who use the services. If the government deems CBI background checks are a necessary prerequisite for firearms purchases, then the government must pay for those checks.
Otherwise, no matter what one may like to call it, a charge for checks is simply a new tax on gun owners.
ANYTHONY J. FABIAN
Aurora
The writer is president of the Colorado State Shooting Association.
---------------------------------------------
Double gun fees, keep Medicaid
Re: "Families plead to keep Medicaid; Lawmakers consider cutting funds to voluntary state programs," March 4 news story.
I was reading the story about families having to plead before our state legislature to not cut Medicaid funding, as that is the only thing keeping their families solvent as they care for brain-damaged children.
My heart literally hurt thinking of how hard these people's lives already are, and now they have to fear they might lose financial assistance on top of everything else.
I read the remarks of Rep. Brad Young, that certain Medicaid programs could end up on the chopping block, and I wondered, what does it take for a politician to say, "Not this program"?
Then my eyes moved to the right and read the adjoining article about a $10 fee for criminal background checks and how that fee needed to be passed on to the gun buyers. Otherwise, taxpayers would have to pay so gun buyers could get their guns in five minutes or less.
I looked at that article, and I looked back at the one about families fighting to keep Medicaid so they can continue to care for their severely disabled children. And I thought, "How sad."
So I am writing to urge people to contact their legislators ... and urge them to charge those gun buyers $20 for their background checks ... and use the extra $10 to increase Medicaid funding.
ROBIN ABB
Boulder
