Pardon me if I don't understand why the Democrats are so shy about returning the filibuster to pre-Tea Screamer days -- i.e. returning it to the so-called "talking filibuster" -- the kind just played out by Sen. Rand Paul.
The PTR (Party for The Rich, formerly GOP) has made it clear that it will use the fairly recent "gentlemen's agreement" filibuster to sidetrack any and all legislation (e.g. gun control) and appointees (e.g. Caitlin Halligan, Richard Cordray) that offend their wealthy and greedy masters or their rabid "base" (in both meanings of the word). This agreement to allow a filibuster by intent instead of actual talking was a stupid idea in the first place; the fact that the Democrats have let the Republicans further abuse it is ridiculous.
Why are the Democrats continually playing the role of losers? They need to pass important legislation and appoint key nominees to important posts; the PTR is thwarting them. What have they got to lose? Are they actually still worried that the Republicans will get angry at them? Why aren't the Republicans worried about angering the Dems?
Suppose that the "rules" of the Senate are changed so that every filibuster must be a talking filibuster, and the "worst" happens: the PTR wins control of the Senate in two years. First of all, the Dems will have two years to get some things done. Second, they will have the talking filibuster and the chance of picking up a few Republican votes to thwart any real bad stuff the PTR might try to pass. And, finally, they will have the Obama veto for the next 3 1/2 years. I think it is highly unlikely that the PTR, as currently constituted, and with the demographics as they are shaping up, will be able to elect a president in the foreseeable future (though of course their gerrymandered House districts will defeat true majority rule for some time yet).
Thus, it is not clear to me what the Democrats fear in making a filibuster rules change. Stuffing that change down the throats of the Republicans will make the Dems look like a real party, not a bunch of perennial losers-even-when-they-win.
I personally believe that showing some spunk will help them electorally down the road. Worrying about a possible loss is often a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Do Democrats want to win?
Rachel Maddow mentioned on her show this evening that a new Washington Post poll finds that about 9 in 10 Americans support background checks for gun purchases at gun shows; other gun-control measures receive varying pluralities of support among those polled. She then pointed out that the Senate Judiciary Committee reported out a bill to strengthen background checks -- 10 to 8 -- with NO REPUBLICANS voting in favor. Interestingly enough, the WashPo poll shows that Democrats have just a narrow lead over Republicans when asked who is more to be trusted on gun control.
The message in all this is that the Democrats should be making use of being on the majority side of this issue. Instead of squirreling away their money for the next gerrymandered election, they should be airing campaign-style spots attacking the Republicans for being dangerously out of step on the matter of "responsible" gun safety.
Instead, the Dems are likely make the same mistake they always make: they don't use their advantage when they have it on an issue, but wait until the public, ever short on memory, forgets the issue and forgets -- if it ever noticed -- that only one party shares their view.
Unless the Dems point out where they differ with the Republicans, and point it out when it matters most, people will revert to the lazy "Oh, both parties are to blame" that we keep hearing, and that the major lazy news purveyors keep falling back on.
No, the two parties are not the same on many very important issues (spending priorities, immigration reform, campaign financing, medical care etc.). It's not that the Democrats are so progressive or insightful, it's that the PTR (Party for The Rich, formerly the GOP) is so totally and dismally beneath contempt.
Democrats: hit them now with a barrage of ads pointing out that the Republicans are the party of lax gun laws and, especially, the party opposed to background checks.
Also, most people do not like banks and the things they do to us. Now is the time for ads about how the Republicans are once again coddling the banks and Wall Street (another non-hero) by trying to destroy the Consumer Financial Protection Agency.
(Also, it's time to start thinking seriously about a public campaign to prepare for real filibuster reform.)
The Dems have to start playing to win; maybe they can drag their anxious-to-compromise president along as well.
The message in all this is that the Democrats should be making use of being on the majority side of this issue. Instead of squirreling away their money for the next gerrymandered election, they should be airing campaign-style spots attacking the Republicans for being dangerously out of step on the matter of "responsible" gun safety.
Instead, the Dems are likely make the same mistake they always make: they don't use their advantage when they have it on an issue, but wait until the public, ever short on memory, forgets the issue and forgets -- if it ever noticed -- that only one party shares their view.
Unless the Dems point out where they differ with the Republicans, and point it out when it matters most, people will revert to the lazy "Oh, both parties are to blame" that we keep hearing, and that the major lazy news purveyors keep falling back on.
No, the two parties are not the same on many very important issues (spending priorities, immigration reform, campaign financing, medical care etc.). It's not that the Democrats are so progressive or insightful, it's that the PTR (Party for The Rich, formerly the GOP) is so totally and dismally beneath contempt.
Democrats: hit them now with a barrage of ads pointing out that the Republicans are the party of lax gun laws and, especially, the party opposed to background checks.
Also, most people do not like banks and the things they do to us. Now is the time for ads about how the Republicans are once again coddling the banks and Wall Street (another non-hero) by trying to destroy the Consumer Financial Protection Agency.
(Also, it's time to start thinking seriously about a public campaign to prepare for real filibuster reform.)
The Dems have to start playing to win; maybe they can drag their anxious-to-compromise president along as well.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Does Obama have a plan?
In his news conference yesterday, the President said that he will not allow the Republicans to use the threat of the debt ceiling to gain budget concessions it could not win through constitutional (voting in Congress) means. He said: “They will not collect a ransom in exchange for not crashing the American economy" (read transcript here).
The concept of a debt "ceiling" is related to the distinction between Congress authorizing spending (via spending bills) and Congress authorizing borrowing for this spending when the Treasury has insufficient funds to pay. Initially these two authorizations were made simultaneously by Congress. Beginning in 1917 (in the face of world war) Congress created the concept of a debt ceiling in order to streamline the process. Borrowing, when necessary to pay for spending, would be automatically authorized up to a certain limit, set each year by Congress. Since that time the debt ceiling has been periodically raised by Congress. This happened more than 70 times in the last 50 years: 18 times under Ronald Reagan alone.
As far as I know there has never been a test of the constitutionality of the 1917 creation of the debt ceiling. As we all have been reminded recently, section 4 of the 14th amendment to our Constitution says:
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Historical analysis of this section shows that it was instituted to keep debt and possible default out of the hands of unscrupulous politicians who might use default as a way of blackmailing the U.S. government -- a situation which, of course, exactly describes what we face now. It seems likely, then, that the debt ceiling and especially its current use by the Republicans, violates Section 4, and is likely to be unconstitutional. The problem is: How to have it declared as such?
Some have suggested that the President simply declare the debt ceiling law unconstitutional, and ignore it. There is a big problem however: the President does not have the power to declare a law unconstitutional -- that is for the Supreme Court to decide. If he simply ignores the law, he could be sued by Congress, declared in contempt, and even impeached. This would create a constitutional crisis that would demand Supreme Court intervention. Given the nature of the current court, the result is quite unclear. For this reason (probably among others), President Obama has already refused to go this route.
(There are many pro and con arguments about the constitutionality of the debt ceiling vis-a-vis the 14 Amendment -- you can read them in many places on the Web, including Wikipedia.)
Another option that has been suggested for the President is to mint coins in large denominations which the Treasury could deposit and use to pay debt. Specifically, a law passed by Congress in 1996 (by Republicans over Democratic opposition) says:
The Secretary may mint and issue bullion and proof platinum coins in accordance with such specifications, designs, varieties, quantities, denominations, and inscriptions as the Secretary, in the Secretary's discretion, may prescribe from time to time.
Thus, the Treasury could mint several trillion dollar coins -- more than enough to make the debt ceiling irrelevant. Although this sounds ridiculous, no one has advanced an argument making such an action illegal or unconstitutional, even using the law in this way was not the intent its authors. If Obama or his Treasury Secretary tried such a move the Republicans would challenge it; however, as in the case of the 14th Amendment, it is unclear who might have "standing" to test its constitutionality, nor how the arguments would run. They probably would be based on the Congress's sole power to raise money. In any case, the President once again has strongly suggested that he would not pursue a "constitutional" track (or "trick" if you will).
So what does President Obama have in mind when he says that he will not negotiate the debt ceiling with congressional Republicans?
On the basis of unfortunate past history, I fear that he will once again make a deal with Republicans that will give them 80 -90% of what they want: large cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and other government spending that benefits the vulnerable and non-rich. When confronted with a debt ceiling challenge a year ago, Obama caved. He has already backpedaled on taxes on the wealthy and has recently suggested an openness to decrease cost of living increases for Social Security, even though he had promised not to allow this program to be part of deficit-reduction.
(Social Security has its own budget and is emphatically not part of the deficit problem. If Social Security can not pay out its promised benefits, then it won't pay them. At the moment this problem will likely occur around 2037. All problems with Social Security can be avoided by simply eliminating the ceiling on collecting the Social Security or FICA Tax. At the moment this fact has been suppressed by both parties)
On the other hand, if the Republicans refuse to raise the debt ceiling, the President might, in the name of avoiding default, start making hugely unpopular cuts in certain selected programs: Medicare, Congressional salaries, the military, air-traffic control and security, federal highways etc. He would hope that the outrage resulting from these actions (or threats thereof) could be directed at the Republican party.
At the moment it looks like he will let the PTR (Party for the Rich, formerly GOP) stew in its juices while he attacks them for threatening to trash the US (and possibly the world ) economy in order to attain their ideological ends. Since the Congress -- personified these days by the Republicans to control it -- is sewer-level in popularity, this may have some effect, though there is little room for lowering public opinion of the House. Meanwhile I think he will do some minor selling out behind the scenes -- both as incentive to Republicans to cave on the ceiling and because that is the way he is built. He may also feel that while default is likely to be bad from an economic standpoint, ultimately the world will realize that we will stand behind out debts ... eventually. There is simply no better repository for investment and financial trust than the U.S. economy. China, India and Brazil are still "rising" and Europe is still fighting its demons with respect to stabilizing the Euro while confronting the problems of Spain, Greece, etc that have been exacerbated by the failure of the austerity measures pushed by the conservatives in Germany and Britain.
Would Obama take such a gutsy stand? Would it work? It seems so out of character, at least based on what we've seen politically of the President, that it's hard to imagine him going through with it. Even if he did, would that actually have an effect on the Republicans, many of whom come from pretty safe congressional districts and in any case don't have to face re-election for another couple of years?
There is one other factor that may pressure the Republicans: the business community is very fearful of the uncertainties of default. While certain industries have used the Tea Screamers to push for relaxation of regulation, and certain wealthy people want to stave off higher taxes, basically, from what I've read, Business is pragmatic not ideological, and is already putting some screws on House leadership to back off.
We shall see.
The concept of a debt "ceiling" is related to the distinction between Congress authorizing spending (via spending bills) and Congress authorizing borrowing for this spending when the Treasury has insufficient funds to pay. Initially these two authorizations were made simultaneously by Congress. Beginning in 1917 (in the face of world war) Congress created the concept of a debt ceiling in order to streamline the process. Borrowing, when necessary to pay for spending, would be automatically authorized up to a certain limit, set each year by Congress. Since that time the debt ceiling has been periodically raised by Congress. This happened more than 70 times in the last 50 years: 18 times under Ronald Reagan alone.
As far as I know there has never been a test of the constitutionality of the 1917 creation of the debt ceiling. As we all have been reminded recently, section 4 of the 14th amendment to our Constitution says:
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Historical analysis of this section shows that it was instituted to keep debt and possible default out of the hands of unscrupulous politicians who might use default as a way of blackmailing the U.S. government -- a situation which, of course, exactly describes what we face now. It seems likely, then, that the debt ceiling and especially its current use by the Republicans, violates Section 4, and is likely to be unconstitutional. The problem is: How to have it declared as such?
Some have suggested that the President simply declare the debt ceiling law unconstitutional, and ignore it. There is a big problem however: the President does not have the power to declare a law unconstitutional -- that is for the Supreme Court to decide. If he simply ignores the law, he could be sued by Congress, declared in contempt, and even impeached. This would create a constitutional crisis that would demand Supreme Court intervention. Given the nature of the current court, the result is quite unclear. For this reason (probably among others), President Obama has already refused to go this route.
(There are many pro and con arguments about the constitutionality of the debt ceiling vis-a-vis the 14 Amendment -- you can read them in many places on the Web, including Wikipedia.)
Another option that has been suggested for the President is to mint coins in large denominations which the Treasury could deposit and use to pay debt. Specifically, a law passed by Congress in 1996 (by Republicans over Democratic opposition) says:
The Secretary may mint and issue bullion and proof platinum coins in accordance with such specifications, designs, varieties, quantities, denominations, and inscriptions as the Secretary, in the Secretary's discretion, may prescribe from time to time.
Thus, the Treasury could mint several trillion dollar coins -- more than enough to make the debt ceiling irrelevant. Although this sounds ridiculous, no one has advanced an argument making such an action illegal or unconstitutional, even using the law in this way was not the intent its authors. If Obama or his Treasury Secretary tried such a move the Republicans would challenge it; however, as in the case of the 14th Amendment, it is unclear who might have "standing" to test its constitutionality, nor how the arguments would run. They probably would be based on the Congress's sole power to raise money. In any case, the President once again has strongly suggested that he would not pursue a "constitutional" track (or "trick" if you will).
So what does President Obama have in mind when he says that he will not negotiate the debt ceiling with congressional Republicans?
On the basis of unfortunate past history, I fear that he will once again make a deal with Republicans that will give them 80 -90% of what they want: large cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and other government spending that benefits the vulnerable and non-rich. When confronted with a debt ceiling challenge a year ago, Obama caved. He has already backpedaled on taxes on the wealthy and has recently suggested an openness to decrease cost of living increases for Social Security, even though he had promised not to allow this program to be part of deficit-reduction.
(Social Security has its own budget and is emphatically not part of the deficit problem. If Social Security can not pay out its promised benefits, then it won't pay them. At the moment this problem will likely occur around 2037. All problems with Social Security can be avoided by simply eliminating the ceiling on collecting the Social Security or FICA Tax. At the moment this fact has been suppressed by both parties)
On the other hand, if the Republicans refuse to raise the debt ceiling, the President might, in the name of avoiding default, start making hugely unpopular cuts in certain selected programs: Medicare, Congressional salaries, the military, air-traffic control and security, federal highways etc. He would hope that the outrage resulting from these actions (or threats thereof) could be directed at the Republican party.
At the moment it looks like he will let the PTR (Party for the Rich, formerly GOP) stew in its juices while he attacks them for threatening to trash the US (and possibly the world ) economy in order to attain their ideological ends. Since the Congress -- personified these days by the Republicans to control it -- is sewer-level in popularity, this may have some effect, though there is little room for lowering public opinion of the House. Meanwhile I think he will do some minor selling out behind the scenes -- both as incentive to Republicans to cave on the ceiling and because that is the way he is built. He may also feel that while default is likely to be bad from an economic standpoint, ultimately the world will realize that we will stand behind out debts ... eventually. There is simply no better repository for investment and financial trust than the U.S. economy. China, India and Brazil are still "rising" and Europe is still fighting its demons with respect to stabilizing the Euro while confronting the problems of Spain, Greece, etc that have been exacerbated by the failure of the austerity measures pushed by the conservatives in Germany and Britain.
Would Obama take such a gutsy stand? Would it work? It seems so out of character, at least based on what we've seen politically of the President, that it's hard to imagine him going through with it. Even if he did, would that actually have an effect on the Republicans, many of whom come from pretty safe congressional districts and in any case don't have to face re-election for another couple of years?
There is one other factor that may pressure the Republicans: the business community is very fearful of the uncertainties of default. While certain industries have used the Tea Screamers to push for relaxation of regulation, and certain wealthy people want to stave off higher taxes, basically, from what I've read, Business is pragmatic not ideological, and is already putting some screws on House leadership to back off.
We shall see.
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Violence and the NRA
First of all, to see one of the many nasty political facets of the NRA, please check out the column by the NYTimes' longtime Supreme Court analyst Linda Greenhouse; you can find it here:
As you can see from this article, it is a big mistake to believe it when the NRA says it is for the enforcement of gun laws already on the books. In fact, the NRA has opposed virtually every gun control measure ever proposed; when a measure is passed, the NRA has done everything in its power to suppress enforcement of the law. The bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) has been underfunded for decades because the NRA has put political and economic pressure on representatives in both houses of Congress -- mostly Republicans but many Democrats as well. It has also exerted sufficient pressure to keep ATF from having a permanent director, which limits the department's power to enforce existing laws. Although the general membership elects the leadership of the NRA, it is not a all clear that the general membership is aware or explicitly approves of the behind-the-scenes political activities of its leadership (more on this below).l
The NRA blames the video game industry for promoting gun violence, but in fact only games from makers not under their political control or not involved with political payoffs for the NRA meet with it's disapproval. It seems that games with a military theme, no matter how perverted or unrepresentative of the U.S. military, seem to be OK with the NRA: this is discussed in this article carried by Yahoo News. Although most mayors and police have split with the NRA on gun control issues, the NRA still maintains close ties with the military and, of course, with the Republican party.
Incidentally, violent video games, whether approved or not by the NRA, can be pretty awful and are largely unregulated. You can see a brief survey of the "Top Ten Violent Video Games" here. I suspect that for most grownups these are pretty primitive and simple-minded, but they contain frightening examples of bloody violence and complete dehumanization of putative "enemies". Nevertheless, it is clear from the many examples -- many uncomfortably recent -- of mass murders that the killers were completely unswayed by any pity or guilt during their crimes -- exactly the same as the killers in these games. The fact that most of the sadistic acts in these games are not committed with guns is actually irrelevant: it is the dehumanization of the victims that makes the torture and murder possible. And this includes the "military" themed games, which the NRA seems not to find objectionable. In these, dehumanization takes the form of presenting the victims of violence as Nazis, communists, terrorists, vague "criminals" or even zombies. The point is that they are "other" and "bad", hence one is justified in doing anything we might want to do to them.
Whether such games can actually create mass-murderers is probably impossible to tell, since how could one possibly test this hypothesis scientifically? Some hypothesize that it may be possible that the violence in video games might actually be a catharsis for some potential killers, taking the place of actual violence. Of course, a similar hypothesis might also be made about, say, simulated child pornography (animated or with adults imitating children): that viewing and finding release from such videos might actually supplant the need for assaults against actual children. These are interesting topics of discussion, but once again: how could we assess their truth?
Anyway, returning to the issue of guns and the NRA.
It is important that those who favor gun control in some form be realistic about the NRA and its members and its leadership. First of all, the NRA is not composed of just hunters and hobbyists. Many in the NRA don't hunt but own a gun for purposes of self-defense. Among these folks there is a wide variety of visions about self-defense, ranging from store-keepers worried about robberies to individuals worried about street crimes, to people who believe that an oppressive and dictatorial government may "come for them."
Now, of course there are paranoid loonies who fear the U.N. and "black helicopters." What about those who think that guns will protect them from street crime? There certainly are cases where store owners have thwarted robberies and homeowners have chased away intruders. However, from what I've read, most cases in which a gun has been fired by an individual at an individual have been cases of either improper or criminal use of a weapon to intimidate (and not to defend), or cases of mistaken identity that lead to tragedy or near tragedy. David Frum, a longtime Republican consultant, takes this view in an article for CNN: Guns endanger more than they protect.
(I personally am not gun-phobic, but would never keep a firearm in my house unless it were disassembled and locked. Can you imagine having a loaded firearm in your night table and hearing a person rattle your front door in the middle of the night and enter your house? You call: "Who's there?" and there is no answer. Footsteps come up the stairs toward your bedroom; you take the gun and when the bedroom door opens, you fire. Oops, it's your slightly inebriated son paying a surprise visit from college. I, for one, would rather be killed by an intruder than accidentally kill a family member. Somehow I suspect most people share that preference.)
So how should we take the position of the NRA on gun control as expressed by its leadership? Actually, in a survey of 45,000 Americans, only about 22% reported owning a gun, and only a total of about 35% of households reported a gun in the family. Of actual gun owners, only about 1 in 4 actually belonged to the NRA; thus, gun-owning NRA members seem to be only about 5% of the population. These figures come from a statistical essay in the Washington Post. The article goes on to show that the views expressed by Wayne Lapierre (VP and spokesman of the NRA) do not uniformly represent the opinion of NRA members on all issues involving gun control, and certainly not the opinions of all gun owners.
Outside the minority of gun owners and NRA members, Americans at this time support reasonable gun control measures. The two obvious ones are a ban on assault rifles and a ban on large capacity ammunition magazines (those holding more than 10 bullets). Neither of these would be a burden on hunters, hobbyists, and even self-defense advocates: if 10 shots from a semi-automatic weapon won't deal with a random street assault or a home invader, you are pretty much doomed. If you are worried about black helicopters and resurgent communism then, I'm afraid, we owe you nothing except a plan that pays for a good healthcare professional.
As you can see from this article, it is a big mistake to believe it when the NRA says it is for the enforcement of gun laws already on the books. In fact, the NRA has opposed virtually every gun control measure ever proposed; when a measure is passed, the NRA has done everything in its power to suppress enforcement of the law. The bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) has been underfunded for decades because the NRA has put political and economic pressure on representatives in both houses of Congress -- mostly Republicans but many Democrats as well. It has also exerted sufficient pressure to keep ATF from having a permanent director, which limits the department's power to enforce existing laws. Although the general membership elects the leadership of the NRA, it is not a all clear that the general membership is aware or explicitly approves of the behind-the-scenes political activities of its leadership (more on this below).l
The NRA blames the video game industry for promoting gun violence, but in fact only games from makers not under their political control or not involved with political payoffs for the NRA meet with it's disapproval. It seems that games with a military theme, no matter how perverted or unrepresentative of the U.S. military, seem to be OK with the NRA: this is discussed in this article carried by Yahoo News. Although most mayors and police have split with the NRA on gun control issues, the NRA still maintains close ties with the military and, of course, with the Republican party.
Incidentally, violent video games, whether approved or not by the NRA, can be pretty awful and are largely unregulated. You can see a brief survey of the "Top Ten Violent Video Games" here. I suspect that for most grownups these are pretty primitive and simple-minded, but they contain frightening examples of bloody violence and complete dehumanization of putative "enemies". Nevertheless, it is clear from the many examples -- many uncomfortably recent -- of mass murders that the killers were completely unswayed by any pity or guilt during their crimes -- exactly the same as the killers in these games. The fact that most of the sadistic acts in these games are not committed with guns is actually irrelevant: it is the dehumanization of the victims that makes the torture and murder possible. And this includes the "military" themed games, which the NRA seems not to find objectionable. In these, dehumanization takes the form of presenting the victims of violence as Nazis, communists, terrorists, vague "criminals" or even zombies. The point is that they are "other" and "bad", hence one is justified in doing anything we might want to do to them.
Whether such games can actually create mass-murderers is probably impossible to tell, since how could one possibly test this hypothesis scientifically? Some hypothesize that it may be possible that the violence in video games might actually be a catharsis for some potential killers, taking the place of actual violence. Of course, a similar hypothesis might also be made about, say, simulated child pornography (animated or with adults imitating children): that viewing and finding release from such videos might actually supplant the need for assaults against actual children. These are interesting topics of discussion, but once again: how could we assess their truth?
Anyway, returning to the issue of guns and the NRA.
It is important that those who favor gun control in some form be realistic about the NRA and its members and its leadership. First of all, the NRA is not composed of just hunters and hobbyists. Many in the NRA don't hunt but own a gun for purposes of self-defense. Among these folks there is a wide variety of visions about self-defense, ranging from store-keepers worried about robberies to individuals worried about street crimes, to people who believe that an oppressive and dictatorial government may "come for them."
Now, of course there are paranoid loonies who fear the U.N. and "black helicopters." What about those who think that guns will protect them from street crime? There certainly are cases where store owners have thwarted robberies and homeowners have chased away intruders. However, from what I've read, most cases in which a gun has been fired by an individual at an individual have been cases of either improper or criminal use of a weapon to intimidate (and not to defend), or cases of mistaken identity that lead to tragedy or near tragedy. David Frum, a longtime Republican consultant, takes this view in an article for CNN: Guns endanger more than they protect.
(I personally am not gun-phobic, but would never keep a firearm in my house unless it were disassembled and locked. Can you imagine having a loaded firearm in your night table and hearing a person rattle your front door in the middle of the night and enter your house? You call: "Who's there?" and there is no answer. Footsteps come up the stairs toward your bedroom; you take the gun and when the bedroom door opens, you fire. Oops, it's your slightly inebriated son paying a surprise visit from college. I, for one, would rather be killed by an intruder than accidentally kill a family member. Somehow I suspect most people share that preference.)
So how should we take the position of the NRA on gun control as expressed by its leadership? Actually, in a survey of 45,000 Americans, only about 22% reported owning a gun, and only a total of about 35% of households reported a gun in the family. Of actual gun owners, only about 1 in 4 actually belonged to the NRA; thus, gun-owning NRA members seem to be only about 5% of the population. These figures come from a statistical essay in the Washington Post. The article goes on to show that the views expressed by Wayne Lapierre (VP and spokesman of the NRA) do not uniformly represent the opinion of NRA members on all issues involving gun control, and certainly not the opinions of all gun owners.
Outside the minority of gun owners and NRA members, Americans at this time support reasonable gun control measures. The two obvious ones are a ban on assault rifles and a ban on large capacity ammunition magazines (those holding more than 10 bullets). Neither of these would be a burden on hunters, hobbyists, and even self-defense advocates: if 10 shots from a semi-automatic weapon won't deal with a random street assault or a home invader, you are pretty much doomed. If you are worried about black helicopters and resurgent communism then, I'm afraid, we owe you nothing except a plan that pays for a good healthcare professional.
Monday, December 17, 2012
More stupidity from the Dems.
If the Democratic Party were run by the Republicans, here's what they would do.
1. They'd make up some phony charges against U.N. ambassador Susan Rice; scream about them over and over, and let the usual network news hacks blow it up into something that seems to have substance. They'd trot out hawks Lindsey Graham and John McCain and have them babble about how they could never support her for Secretary of State -- though they loved Condi Rice, who really screwed up.
2. They'd suddenly turn faux non-partisan by hinting that they'd love to support incumbent Senator John Kerry for the position of Secretary of State.
3. They'd let their timid President back down and signal to Rice that she should make his life easier by pulling out of contention for the position.
(As if on command, she followed the script and Obama quickly accepted her decision. So much for inviting them to pick a fight with him.)
4. They'd quietly let Scott Brown put his political machine back in gear while the "Democrats" try to find temporary replacement for Kennedy, then engage in a divisive primary campaign to pick a candidate for the Senate candidate to replace Kerry.
Oh, you remember Kerry: the guy why learned that the Viet Nam war was wrong after serving there (because he needed military cred to run for political office some day), then proceeded to forget this lesson and back George Bush's phony war in Iraq -- even though the vast majority of his constituents in Massachusetts opposed it.. Obviously the Republicans still love him for that and the Democrats would never say a thing against him. Oh, he also backed the Patriot Act.
Will Obama appoint the deeply flawed Kerry to be Secretary of State as the Republicans hope he will? We shall see.
It sure is a good thing that the Republicans don't run the Democratic Party...
1. They'd make up some phony charges against U.N. ambassador Susan Rice; scream about them over and over, and let the usual network news hacks blow it up into something that seems to have substance. They'd trot out hawks Lindsey Graham and John McCain and have them babble about how they could never support her for Secretary of State -- though they loved Condi Rice, who really screwed up.
2. They'd suddenly turn faux non-partisan by hinting that they'd love to support incumbent Senator John Kerry for the position of Secretary of State.
3. They'd let their timid President back down and signal to Rice that she should make his life easier by pulling out of contention for the position.
(As if on command, she followed the script and Obama quickly accepted her decision. So much for inviting them to pick a fight with him.)
4. They'd quietly let Scott Brown put his political machine back in gear while the "Democrats" try to find temporary replacement for Kennedy, then engage in a divisive primary campaign to pick a candidate for the Senate candidate to replace Kerry.
Oh, you remember Kerry: the guy why learned that the Viet Nam war was wrong after serving there (because he needed military cred to run for political office some day), then proceeded to forget this lesson and back George Bush's phony war in Iraq -- even though the vast majority of his constituents in Massachusetts opposed it.. Obviously the Republicans still love him for that and the Democrats would never say a thing against him. Oh, he also backed the Patriot Act.
Will Obama appoint the deeply flawed Kerry to be Secretary of State as the Republicans hope he will? We shall see.
It sure is a good thing that the Republicans don't run the Democratic Party...
Thursday, December 6, 2012
Eliot Spitzer on tax reform
Eliot Spitzer has posted two short essays on Slate in which he suggests that we tax capital gains and dividends the same as ordinary income, and also institute a "financial transactions" tax. Here are the links:
Raising Capital Gains Tax
Financial Transactions Tax
Note that these are parts of the tax and spending program that I have been advocating; see my recent blog Solving the Debt Problems.
Note that Eliot Spitzer would make a good chair of the SEC; too bad he has a "past".
Raising Capital Gains Tax
Financial Transactions Tax
Note that these are parts of the tax and spending program that I have been advocating; see my recent blog Solving the Debt Problems.
Note that Eliot Spitzer would make a good chair of the SEC; too bad he has a "past".
Monday, December 3, 2012
Robert Reich's new video
Robert Reich -- one of the good Bobs -- has a new video about how and why the Democrats should hold firm in facing the "financial cliff".
BTW: It would be disgrace if Reich were not appointed to some important position in the Obama Administration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
