Politically Uncorrected: The Elephant in the Room

Obamacare NR CoverIt wasn’t a “big “story. In fact, the article published by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette last June received little follow-up and even less attention. That’s unfortunate – because it’s a story that explains the anxiety so many Americans express about both Obama’s Affordable Care Act and even “reasonable” gun controls.

More about that in a minute.

The not so big story was about a Butler Pennsylvania resident, one Jeffrey L Burtner, suing the Pennsylvania State Police in federal district court. Mr. Burtner sued to force the state police to correct their records erroneously showing he was involuntarily committed to a state mental institution.

Under state law anyone adjudicated as a “mental defective” or involuntarily committed cannot possess a gun. On this basis, the state police relied on their “instant check system” to deny Mr. Burtner the right to buy a new hunting rifle. Their system showed that he had been committed in 1992.

Now this is where it gets interesting. Mr. Burtner asserted he has never been committed to a mental institution and he immediately challenged the “mental defective” designation.

He approached both the hospital and the provider cited as the sources of the state police report. They both indicated they had no such records that he had been committed. Mr. Burtner’s attorney forwarded this exculpatory evidence to the state police, expecting perhaps they would do something sensible with it.

So far so good. Mistakes happen, no one is perfect, and all’s well that ends well.

Not quite! This is where it gets positively Orwellian.

The state police through their legal office acknowledged they possessed no evidence of Mr. Burtner’s involuntary commitment, stating: “the PSP has been unable to find any involuntary commitment documentation on Mr. Burtner …”

Understand what is happening because what comes next is stunning.

Here, apparently, is a law-abiding Pennsylvanian, attempting to exercise his second amendment rights to buy a new hunting rifle. He reportedly had bought other guns before. Lawfully and willingly, he submits to the required background check, alleges damaging misinformation in the government’s data bases, hires an attorney to help him gather corrective information, and submits that information to the state police.

Upon receipt of that information the state police acknowledge they have no information to the contrary. In other words, they acknowledge they have no basis to deny the purchase or rely on the disputed information about Mr. Burtner.

So the state police corrected their records, apologized to Mr. Burtner for the embarrassment and inconvenience (to say nothing of the costs he had incurred) and approved his original application to purchase a hunting rifle.

That’s certainly what should have happened!

But what actually happened provokes outrage. Upon acknowledging they had no evidence that he had ever been committed, the state police told Mr. Burtner that to get the incorrect information removed from the government data base, he “… would have to take legal action for the PSP to remove it from PICS (the instant background check).”

He was compelled to go to federal court and ask for a declaration so that he can exercise a constitutional right, while requiring the state police to expunge its records — records the state police have already acknowledged are unsupported by any facts.

Happily for Mr. Burtner the whole farce finally ended in November when the state finally agreed to settle the lawsuit, pay him $400, and allow him to purchase a gun.

What is wrong with this picture?

For starters, it’s preposterous that a citizen must go into federal court to force a state agency to correct their own records when those records are preventing him from exercising a constitutional right.

But the injustice imposed on Mr. Burtner, however unpleasant his experience, pales against the corrosive erosion to confidence in government that even such small incidents provoke. Mr. Burtner’s ordeal also explains what is so inexplicable to gun control advocates – why millions of Americans still resist or are indifferent to reasonable gun control measures. And it helps to explain why almost two thirds of Americans now oppose the Affordable Health Care Act.

Opposition to these programs do not arise because most Americans’ oppose either sensible gun control or workable health insurance. Opposition arises because we don’t trust our governments to administer these programs with competence and common sense. It’s not the laws most oppose; it’s the government that incompetently administers them.

That is the elephant in the room amid the gun debate and health insurance – and indeed many of the controversies of our time. We increasingly don’t trust government to get it right.

Americans fear that Mr. Burtner’s story will become their story – that if gun laws are strengthened or health insurance expanded, government will screw it up. We have lost trust in government and Mr. Burtner’s story and others like it exacerbate those feelings.

Somehow, Americans’ must come to believe again that government will do the right thing and the smart thing most of the time. We must come again to believe that government can do its job. Until that happens we will make little progress with guns or health insurance or any of the pressing challenges confronting us today.

—-

Madonna is Professor of Public Affairs at Franklin & Marshall College, and Young is a former Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Penn State University and Managing Partner of Michael Young Strategic Research. Madonna and Young encourage responses to the column and can be reached, respectively, at terry.madonna@fandm.edu and drmikelyoung@comcast.net.

November 27th, 2013 | Posted in Features, Front Page Stories, Guest Commentary, Top Stories | 6 Comments

6 thoughts on “Politically Uncorrected: The Elephant in the Room”

  1. vince phillips says:

    I was taken with the thoughtful and explanatory nature of this article and fear that the example of the gun buyer is sort of an everyman type of anecdote.. I work with insurance agents, many of whom see that the federal government has built a system designed to expand federal power and control over insurance while reducing or eliminating the private sector. Case in point, premium credits for small businesses to offer coverage — but now they must enroll in the exchange to get their credit. Those firms who are now dependent on the tax credit are forced (coerced) away from their private sector plan. Another example: Private plans now get to compete against federally subsidized — taxpayer subsidized — plans which artificially drives the premiums downward to make people think they are cheaper but they aren’t. Someone else pays for them.
    Trust in government must be earned and once lost, cannot easily be restored.

  2. JeffW says:

    Now just replace “buying a gun” in this essay with “being allowed to vote” and you’ll immediately see why Tom Corbett will never be re-elected.

  3. Theresa says:

    Excellent connection on why there is a problem but no ideas on how to find a way out.

    You described just one recorded mishap with the case of Jeffrey L Burtnerup trying to get a gun permit. Each area has real life examples multiplied times 100 (surely) that provides the evidence of the government messing up the job it is meant to do. This is why, rightfully so, the majority of Americans believe the government is unable to run Healthcare (Obamacare) efficiently, honestly, fairly, or correctly without causing “harm” in the transactions to the users.

    Instead of trying to fix the situation to restore trust and rebuild confidence, the White House Administration blames others, points fingers, and lies. The real rubber hasn’t even met the road yet. So until we can get at the heart of character the only rationale thing for “We the People” to do is to stand together and refuse to let the government take control of any more things to screw up.

  4. Behonest says:

    Montco … You know Madonna is a dem, right? His piece with Young is just to communicate, not advocate. That piece, I feel, communicated the concerns of opposition better than opponents themselves. Unfortunately it makes a rational argument.

  5. Ridge says:

    Pathetic. I wouldn’t accept this essay from a 10th grader.
    Now, how it is possible that Mr. Madonna could convince himself that he has made a reasonable point? Answer: too many hours watching Fox News.
    I’m sure all of us have wondered how mass hysteria comes about. We have seen it in Europe and at home. I submit we are now in the midst of another McCarthy-type era where even reasonable men like Mr. Madonna lose their way.

  6. Perhaps if media hounds like Terry Madonna would spend less time spinning horror stories like this and more time explaining how these incidents are a tiny, insignificant blip in an otherwise smoothly functioning government, people might have more faith in the system. When you magnify the errors and ignore the greater good, you are, in effect, doing footwork for the powers that oppose government regulation – the Kochs, the Toomeys, and the Tea Party crazies of the world.

Comments are closed.