The United States Senate took bold action today, passing the Crime Reduction through Arming the Public Act. The controversial bill, actively opposed by police unions, passed the upper chamber, 60-39, on a strict, party-line vote. Progressive Senate Democrats, though disappointed by their failure to attach an amendment to the bill which would have secured more funding for local law enforcement, remained loyal to their party and their President.
Citing concerns that failing to successfully pass the bill would effectively hobble the President's legislative agenda, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid offered, "Sure, we could have taken the traditional approach advocated by some and just thrown money at local law enforcement, but we've been doing that almost since day one, and we still haven't eliminated crime. No," Reid continued, "we couldn't just keep doing the same old thing any longer. Just hiring more police won't do a thing to get our crime problem under control. Besides, we needed to give the President a win. Rahm said so."
Reid shrugged off criticism that the bill was a government-mandated giveaway to gun manufacturers. "Nonsense. This is a way to make sure that criminals know that the public is armed, and dangerous. Criminals will think twice about committing crime, if they know that everyone has to own a gun. This bill will reduce crime."
When pressed about the failed efforts of progressive Senate Democrats to attach a provision to the bill which would have more than doubled federal support for local law enforcement, Reid was unapologetic. "We would all love to give more funding to police departments across this country. But we just don't have the money. If the police funding amendment had passed, we would have had to find the money to pay for it, and some of my members were opposed to new taxes. But this bill is about crime reduction, not the police, so we focused on that goal: crime reduction. Could this bill be improved? Sure. And it will be improved. Later. But for now I think it's important that we realize that the American people are the winners today. We've made them safer. And we did it without having to raise their taxes or expand the federal government."
Creeping expansion of the federal government kept several key Senators from initially committing to supporting the bill's passage. "Initially I was very skeptical that this bill would do anything to reduce crime," said Joe Lieberman (I-CT), "but would do everything to increase the size of the government. Hiring more police doesn't reduce crime, but it does make for bigger government. Every time a cop catches a crook, that crook has to go to court. Courts have judges, lots of them are activist judges. And those kind of judges are the 'Bill of Rights' types who think that accused criminals ought to have rights. And that doesn't do anyone any good. So, in order to get my vote, they had to get rid of all that money for the police. It would have just made for more government. Besides," Lieberman smiled, "it got me some press and really pissed off the liberals."
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs expressed the administration's relief that this controversial bill had finally passed. "We're glad that this is finally done. The President is looking forward to signing a crime reduction bill, which is what he campaigned on, reducing crime, and this bill says it does that. So the President's legislative agenda is coming along nicely. Last year we fixed health care and didn't have to raise taxed to do it, and this year we solved the crime problem, also without having to raise taxes, and next year, we look forward to curing the country's social ills." When pressed for details on how the President planned to relieve America of its endemic social ills, Gibbs offered "we're looking into legislation requiring all Americans to purchase Bibles. The left of the left is complaining about their First Amendment rights, but so long as Congress only requires that you buy Bibles, and doesn't mention anything about believing them, there's really no Constitutional prohibition. So don't worry about the liberals."