in government controls. Says Spitzer:
This prompts a simple question: Why do we buy guns from companies that permit their products to be sold to bad guys?
In this era of government ownership of financial institutions, we are getting more used to the notion that government as an economic actor can exercise its power in differing ways. After all, firms that received TARP money are subject to a bevy of pay restrictions—wisely constructed or not—and were forced to cancel showy parties and retreats.
If we can use a capital infusion to a bank as an opportunity to control executive compensation and to limit use of private planes, why can’t the government use its weight as the largest purchaser of guns from major manufacturers to reward companies that work to keep their products out of criminals’ hands? Put another way, if it is too difficult to outlaw bad conduct through statutes, why not pay for good conduct? Why not require vendors to change their behavior if they want our tax dollars?
But then, who would you buy guns from? All of them or none of them? Companies cannot control what happens to their guns once they ship them. After all, it’s not actually like any gun manufacturer is complicit in their products being sold to bad guys. In fact, there are pretty strict rules they follow to sell only to qualified licensees and .gov agencies. This sounds good on paper to some government sorts but it’s really not going to be effective.
But it’s funny to hear Spitzer going on about bad guys. I mean, aren’t Johns and money launderers bad guys? Consider the source.