Category Archives: Heller

GOP Air Balls: ACA Repeal would increase Nevada uninsured by 95%

Trump Favorite Picture This ought to be just a little chilling:

If Republicans go through with their plan to dismantle the Affordable Care Act using a similar model as their failed 2015 Obamacare repeal, the number of uninsured would double, a new report by the Urban Institute report warns. (pdf)  Taking into account the two or so year delay GOP lawmakers say they will include in the repeal bill, the non-partisan think tank estimates that in 2019 the number of uninsured nonelderly people would rise from about 29 million to nearly 59 million.  [TPM]

And the numbers represent what? Answer:

Eighty-two percent of the people becoming uninsured would be in working families, 38 percent would be ages 18 to 34, and 56 percent would be non-Hispanic whites. Eighty percent of adults becoming uninsured would not have college degrees. [UrbanInst. pdf]

Percentages have a way of sounding bland, so some clicking on the Plastic Brain results in approximately 33,040,000 of those people who would lose their health insurance by 2019  being non-Hispanic white people.  47,200,000 would be those without a college education, and thus presumably not in a position to secure the kind of employment providing the resources to find individual health plans.

If the 2015 bill is used as the framework or model, then the Urban Institute projects that there will be 762,000 uninsured individuals in Nevada only 18% of whom would be eligible for assistance; causing a 95% increase in the number of uninsured in Nevada.   Those Nevada politicians who have been denouncing the Affordable Care Act (read Rep. Mark Amodei R-NV2) may want to pause before “taking credit” for creating a 95% increase in the number of Nevadans without health insurance.

It’s important to recall that the Big Lie about the Affordable Care Act is that it is “socialized medicine.”  In reality it’s an Insurance Law. It doesn’t create a nationalized health care system – it merely increases the number of people who have “access” to health care by providing more people with the capability of purchasing health insurance policies.

Senate Democrats have already signaled that should the “Straight Out Of The Gate Repeal and Replace” come from the majority Republicans the GOP can expect no assistance from the Democratic side of the chamber. [TPM]

And, then there’s the politics of the repeal.  If the GOP decides to use the Reconciliation Process (needing only 51 votes for repeal) then Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) raises a question:  “What we are trying to figure out is what the restrictions on reconciliation,” Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV) told TPM. “Does reconciliation allow for a replacement? And it may or may not.” [TPM]

If the process doesn’t allow for “replacement” then the Republicans have chucked the insurance for those with pre-existing medical conditions, insurance coverage for mental health, insurance coverage maternity care, protections from junk insurance policies with maximum limits, and other popular features of the ACA.  They may also be chucking hospitals under the bus.

One private equity spokesperson noted last November, “… hospitals, especially those in rural areas, could be tremendously hard hit if the replacement rolls back the progress made under the ACA to insure patients and incentivize them to get care before their illnesses require emergency room visits or hospitalization.”

Thus, with the lack of any specificity from Republicans about the nature of the “replacement” we could posit some serious problems for the members of the Nevada Rural Hospital Partners – in Winnemucca, Fallon, Battle Mountain, Boulder City, Carson Valley, Ely, Winnemucca, Incline Village, Hawthorne, etc.   A 2016 report for the American Hospital Association provides some general conclusions from which we can contemplate the effect on Nevada’s rural health providers:

”The loss of coverage would have a net impact on hospitals of $165.8 billion  with the restoration of Medicaid DSH reductions; The ACA Medicare reductions are maintained and hospitals will suffer additional losses of $289.5 billion from reductions in their inflation updates; Full restoration of Medicare and Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital  (DSH) payment reductions embedded in ACA would amount to $102.9 billion.”  [AHA pdf] 

The technical term for these losses might be “ouch?”   There is a point at which rhetoric meets the road.  It’s all well and good to bellow “Repeal and Replace?” Or, “Get Rid of Socialized Medicine.”  It’s another thing entirely to puzzle out the impact of repeal on all the stakeholders in this issue – the customers and patients, the health care providers, the hospitals and clinics, the insurance companies, and the investors who have an increasing stake in privatized health care in this country.

There are some elements of the Affordable Care Act which could be improved.  However, the Burn the Barn Down political pandering on full display among Republicans isn’t leading to any current and serious discussions of how to make these improvements viable.  And, this is chilling for policy holders, insurance companies, health care providers, hospitals and clinics, and the investors therein.

Perhaps the Pottery Barn rule applies to Republicans: If you break it you own it.

Leave a comment

Filed under Amodei, Health Care, health insurance, Heller, Nevada politics, Politics, public health, Republicans, Rural Nevada

Obstruction By Blue Slip: GOP assault on Federal Courts

Heller Blue Slip

Senator Dean Heller’s (R-NV) slip is showing, or rather it isn’t showing up. President Obama nominated Ann Rachel Traum to the Federal District Court (Nevada) on April 28, 2016.  So, where’s the blue form from the Senator’s office indicating the Judiciary Committee should move forward with this nomination?

One theory has it that not only are Senate Republicans blocking a Supreme Court nomination but they’re doing it down the line, right down to the overworked, understaffed federal district courts level.

“There are lots of GOP senators doing this. Sen. Dan Coats (Ind.) hasn’t turned in his blue slip for his judicial nominee, Myra Selby. Sens. Richard Shelby (Ala.) and Jeff Sessions (Ala.) haven’t turned in their blue slips for their nominee, Abdul Kallon. Sens. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Tim Scott (S.C.), Dean Heller (Nev.), Richard Burr (N.C.), Thom Tillis (N.C.), Pat Toomey (Pa.) and Rand Paul (Ky.) haven’t turned in blue slips for their nominees, either. And Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) hasn’t turned in his blue slip for his nominee, Lisabeth Hughes.”  [HuffPo]

It isn’t like the current nominee isn’t qualified. The resume is remarkable:

“Anne Rachel Traum is a Professor of Law at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas William S. Boyd School of Law.  She is currently on leave from the law school and serving as Special Counsel in the Office for Access to Justice at the United States Department of Justice.  Professor Traum joined the University of Nevada-Las Vegas William S. Boyd School of Law faculty in 2008, and she has served as the Director of the Appellate Clinic since 2009.  She also served as the Associate Dean for Experiential Legal Education from 2013 to 2015.  From 2002 to 2008, Professor Traum served as an Assistant Federal Public Defender in the Federal Public Defender’s Office in Las Vegas, Nevada.  She served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Nevada from 2000 to 2002, while on detail from the Environmental and Natural Resources Division of the United States Department of Justice, where she worked from 1998 to 2000.  She began her legal career as a law clerk to the Honorable Stanwood R. Duval, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.  Professor Traum received her J.D. Order of the Coif and cum laude from the University of California, Hastings College of Law in 1996 and her A.B. with honors from Brown University in 1991.” [WH

This obstructionism is egregious on so many levels.  Politically, it’s the equivalent of a toddler’s temper tantrum – if we can’t have exactly the courts we want then we don’t want any.  This, in turn leads to the next layer of political idiocy.

It doesn’t do to complain about the time and expense required to litigate cases and at the same time keep courts short handed such that they cannot schedule hearings on a timely basis. This affects both plaintiffs and defendants in both civil and criminal cases.  Nor, are we merely speaking of the vacancies at the top of the judicial roster.

“While Senate battles over nominees to the Supreme Court and appeals courts draw more headlines, the less-noticed openings are increasing workloads and delaying trials in federal courts that take in hundreds of thousands of cases a year — compared with the 80 or so cases heard by the nation’s highest court.

Of 673 U.S. district court judgeships, 67 — or 10 percent — are vacant under President Obama, nearly twice as many as at this point of Republican George W. Bush’s presidency and 50 percent higher than at this time under Bill Clinton (D) or George H.W. Bush (R), according to data kept by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

The number of federally designated district court “judicial emergencies” — where seats carry particularly heavy caseloads or have been open for an extended period — is also roughly double what it was in May 2008 and May 2000, according to the administrative office.

Heavy caseloads in some places slow resolution of everything from commercial disputes to workplace discrimination claims to federal regulatory challenges, in which district court rulings are often the last word because most are not appealed.” [JDnom] (emphasis added)

Consider this last paragraph carefully.  “Commercial disputes” is one category worthy of attention – someone, somewhere, who is engaged in interstate commerce may not be getting paid in a timely fashion because there is no judge with docket time available to hear the case?  Someone, somewhere would like to challenge a federal regulation, but hasn’t the “float” required to engage in protracted litigation because of the docket backlog?

We do have a constitutional guarantee of a “speedy and public trial,” under the provisions of the 6th Amendment, but this applies only to criminal prosecutions – not to those commercial disputes, discrimination claims (and defenses), regulatory challenges, and other civil litigation.  We have a backlog, and it’s getting deeper:

“Combined filings for civil cases and criminal defendants in the U.S. district courts decreased by 28,836 (down 7 percent) to 361,689. Terminations once again held steady, declining by 2,634 (down less than 1 percent) to 347,828. Because filings exceeded terminations, the total for pending cases and defendants rose by 12,268 (up 3 percent) to 438,808.” [UScourts.gov] (emphasis added)

Pending civil cases are reported up by 5%, to 340,925 nationwide.  And, still the Senate Republicans will not act.

Senator Heller, Where is your blue slip?

Comments Off on Obstruction By Blue Slip: GOP assault on Federal Courts

Filed under Heller, Judicial, Nevada politics, Politics

And They Voted To What? House GOP wants to drop the new fiduciary rule

Money Pile 2

The Republican leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives did try to do some business in the midst of the Democratic representatives’ sit in, and a miserable bit of business it was.

“House Republicans on Wednesday failed to muster the two-thirds majority needed to block the Obama administration’s controversial standards for financial advisers.  The House voted 239-180 to block the fiduciary rule, well more than 40 votes short of the total needed.

Wednesday night’s vote came as Democrats staged a sit-in on the House floor, starting around nearly 12 hours earlier, to push for a vote on legislation to prevent terror suspects from buying guns.”  [TheHill]

There’s a little story about priorities herein.  While the Democrats were trying to get the leadership to schedule votes on gun safety legislation, the Republicans were trying to make it easier for financial advisers to rip people off. [TP]

Let’s try to make this as simple as humanly possible.  “Fiduciary” /fəˈdooSHēˌerē,-SHərē/, “ involving trust, especially with regard to the relationship between a trustee and a beneficiary.”   Think of that pile of money in the graphic above as your savings. You have trusted a financial adviser to tell you the best investments you can make to get a good return on your savings, especially for your retirement account.   You are trusting that what your investment and/or financial adviser is telling you is in your best interest.

The Department of Labor has drafted a rule to require your financial adviser to act in your best interest regarding your investments – and not to give you advice on financial products that will do more for the investment advisers than they will do for you.  In short, it’s a matter of trust —  you should be able to trust what your financial adviser is telling you. You should be able to trust that the advice isn’t intended to feather the nests of the investment advisers instead of yours.

So, what have the Republicans been doing?  Return with us now to the Senate side of the Capitol building.  On May 24, 2016 the Republican controlled Senate voted to kill the Labor Department rule. [vote 84]  The vote was 56-41, obviously not sufficient to over-ride the promised veto.  And, who voted along with other Republicans to kill the rule? None other than our own Bankers’ Boy, Senator Dean Heller (R-NV).

HJ Res 88 Senate Vote

Now, let’s return to the House side of the Capitol Building.  HJ Res 88, “ On disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to the definition of the term “Fiduciary,” on passage, the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding… [vote 338] And who from the great state of Nevada voted to kill the rule?  Representatives Mark Amodei (R-NV2), Cresent Hardy (R-NV4), and Joe Heck (R-NV3).  Who as a member of Nevada’s congressional delegation did NOT vote to allow financial advisers to act in their own best interests rather than yours – Representative Dina Titus (D-NV1). The attempt to overturn the Labor Department rule failed 239-180.  The Republicans needed a 2/3rds majority to get rid of the rule, and thanks to Representative Titus and 179 other members of the House they didn’t get it.

In spite of the Republicans’ best efforts – your financial adviser will now have to offer investment advice based on what is in YOUR best interests – and not peddle financial products that will garner fees, kickbacks, and other “revenue enhancement” for the advisers.

And, THIS is what the Republicans thought was more important than scheduling votes on gun safety in America.

Comments Off on And They Voted To What? House GOP wants to drop the new fiduciary rule

Filed under Economy, financial regulation, Heck, Heller, Nevada politics, Republicans

Feinstein Amendment Fails, and Heller Helped

Feinstein Amendment

Senator Feinstein’s (D-CA) amendment (S.Amdt 4720 to S. Amdt 4685) to H.R. 2578 failed on a 47 to 53 vote June 20, 2016.   In contrast with many pieces of legislation, the Feinstein Amendment was short and relatively simple:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:
      Sec. ___.  Hereafter, the Attorney General may deny the
    transfer of a firearm if the Attorney General determines,
    based on the totality of the circumstances, that the
    transferee represents a threat to public safety based on a
    reasonable suspicion that the transferee is engaged, or has
    been engaged, in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in
    aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material
    support or resources therefor.
For purposes of sections
    922(t)(1), (2), (5), and (6) and 925A of title 18, United
    States Code, and section 103(g) of Public Law 103-159 (18
    U.S.C. 922 note), a denial by the Attorney General pursuant
    to this provision shall be treated as equivalent to a
    determination that receipt of a firearm would violate section
    (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, or
    State law. A denial described in this section shall be
    subject to the remedial procedures
set forth in section
    103(g) of Public Law 103-159 (18 U.S.C. 922 note) and the
    intended transferee may pursue a remedy for an erroneous
    denial of a firearm under section 925A of title 18, United
    States Code. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, such
    remedial procedures and judicial review shall be subject to
    procedures that may be developed by the Attorney General to
    prevent the unauthorized disclosure of information that
    reasonably could be expected to result in damage to national
    security or ongoing law enforcement operations, including but
    not limited to procedures for submission of information to
    the court ex parte as appropriate, consistent with due
    process. The Attorney General shall establish, within the
    amounts appropriated, procedures to ensure that, if an
    individual who is, or within the previous 5 years has been,
    under investigation for conduct related to a Federal crime of
    terrorism, as defined in section 2332b(g)(5) of title 18,
    United States Code, attempts to purchase a firearm, the
    Attorney General or a designee of the Attorney General shall
    be promptly notified of the attempted purchase.
[text] (emphasis added)

It’s simple – Been under investigation for suspicious activity related to terrorism? Been investigated or under investigation for aiding abetting terrorists – the purchase of a gun can be delayed.  If a person thinks they have been unfairly denied such a purchase – there’s an appeal process.

And Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) couldn’t bring himself to vote for it.  There will be some excuse offered – was the wording not perfect? Was the appeal process not made clear? Was it not going to exactly prevent the last couple of terrorist related mass shootings? Will it not prevent all gun violence? Or, the silliest reason yet offered, WE have to fight them over there so they don’t come here.  (Hint: some are homegrown here) No matter – The Senate Has Spoken – the terrorists cannot take a full bottle of shampoo on a commercial airliner but they can walk into any gun store at any time and buy any gun to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time.

Sad.  Just who is looking out for our national security?

Comments Off on Feinstein Amendment Fails, and Heller Helped

Filed under Gun Issues, Heller, terrorism

Senator Heller’s Choke Point

Heller Amendment Operation Choke Point

One thing in life is almost more certain than death and taxes – if there is legislation that the banking industry wants then Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) will be quite happy to sponsor it, carry water for it, vote for it, and then remind anyone who is still listening how he’s a Man for the Consumers because he once voted against the “bail-out.”   To see Senator Heller’s latest foray into playing the Banker’s Boy one needs to dig a bit, unearthing S.Amdt 4715 to S.Amdt 4685 amending HR 2578, the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2016.

Senator Heller has teamed up with Senators Vitter, Crapo, Paul, Lee, and Cruz to insert the following: 

Sec. __.  None of the funds made available in this Act may
    be used to carry out the program known as “Operation Choke
    Point”. [Cong.gov]

What is Operation Choke Point and what was it intended to do?  The Department of Justice was disturbed by reports that fraudulent merchants had found a way around federal banking regulations and once they inserted themselves into the banking system they could team with payment processors to initiate debit transactions against consumer’s accounts and have the amounts transmitted to their own accounts.

Even more disturbing, the Department’s investigations revealed that some third party processors knew that the merchants with whom they were working were frauds but they continued to process their transactions in direct violation of federal law.  [Harris pdf]

So, for example, Quickie Check Instant Lending could get a customer to sign a loan agreement for some outrageous amount of interest, and then hand the item over to a payment processor.  With some cooperation from the bank (usually garnered by providing a handsome fee thereto) the payment processor would have the bank make automatic debits to the person’s account.  Or, say, the Fast Weight Loss Pill Factory got an order from John Q. Public, and the payment processor + bank would insure that John’s bank account was regularly debited for the fraudulent product, or for products not delivered, or whatever scam was being run.

The idea behind Choke Point was to gather information from banks which appeared to be engaged in fraud, or might have evidence of fraudulent conduct by others. Subpoenas were issued, and indeed there were some banks doing some rather obnoxious business.  [See Fair Oaks Bank]  The Fair Oaks Bank had received hundreds of notices from consumers’ banks that the people whose bank accounts were being charged had NOT authorized the payments; had evidence that more than a dozen merchants served by the payment processor had “return rates” over 30% and one had a “return rate” over 70%; and, Fair Oaks had evidence of efforts by merchants to conceal their real identities.

One of the obvious targets are payday lenders who were operating in violation of state regulations regarding the amount of interest that could be charged to a customer.  As the New York Times explained back in January 2014:

“The new, more rigorous oversight could have a chilling effect on Internet payday lenders, which have migrated from storefronts to websites where they offer short-term loans at interest rates that often exceed 500 percent annually. As a growing number of states enact interest rate caps that effectively ban the loans, the lenders increasingly depend on the banks for their survival. With the banks’ help, the lenders that typically work with a third-party payment processor that has an account at the banks are able, authorities say, to automatically deduct payments from customers’ checking accounts even in states where the loans are illegal.”

The object of Choke Point was to cut the insidious relationship between the banks, the processors, and the fraudsters – or choke it off.  If one wanted to promote the interests of the payday lenders, third party processors, and banks willing to turn a blind eye toward the nature of these transactions – there are fewer ways much better than to hamstring the Department of Justice’s investigations into these kinds of transactions.  However, that is precisely what Senator Heller is proposing.

The DoJ’s investigations were also reviled because some of the ammosexuals among us got the idea that if pawn shops couldn’t use the untraditional routes for payment, therefore the whole operation was one giant gun grab. Senators Cruz and Lee bought this horse and have been riding it for some time now.  One quick visit to Politifact will demolish the SunTrust Bank/Brooksville Pawn shop story that made the rounds in 2015.

“SunTrust announced in a Aug. 8, 2014, press release that the bank had “decided to discontinue banking relationships with three types of businesses – specifically payday lenders, pawn shops and dedicated check-cashers – due to compliance requirements.” The bank still works with firearms dealers, according to the release.” [Politifact]

Hence, the policy decision made by SunTrust was no more “anti-gun” than it was anti-jewelry, anti-guitar, anti-CD, anti-work out equipment, or anything else  in a pawn shop.

There are some salient features of this story – once again Senator Heller who delights in his description as a “moderate,” has teamed up with some of the most radical members of the GOP in the U.S. Senate (witness his previous alliances with Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC).  Once again Senator Heller has sided with the payday lenders against any action taken to regulate their relationships with their customers. And, once more Senator Heller has demonstrated his willingness to carry any water in any bucket the American Bankers’ Association wants him to transport to the Senate floor.

Comments Off on Senator Heller’s Choke Point

Filed under banking, Economy, financial regulation, fraud, Heller, Nevada politics

Guns and Money

Stonewall NRA How Much? Thus far into the 2016 election cycle the National Rifle Association PAC  has donated a total of $398,400 to Federal candidates with $3,500 going to Democrats and $394,900 donated to Republican campaigns.  The Safari Club International PAC has contributed $17,000 to Democratic candidates and $317,500 to Republicans.  The National Shooting Sports Foundation PAC has donated $118,500 with $2,000 to Democratic candidates and $116,500 to Republican candidates.  The National Association for Gun Rights PAC has donated $29,000 to Republican candidates, and nothing to Democratic ones. The Gun Owners of American PAC has donated $9,585 with all contributions given to Republicans. The Ohio Gun Collectors Association PAC has distributed $7,000 all of which has gone to Republican candidates. The Dallas Safari Club PAC has donated all $3,000 of its contributions to Republicans.  [OS.org]

The NRA PAC has donated $75,000 so far to the National Republican Senatorial Committee; $30,000 to the National Republican Congressional Committee; $15,000 to the Republican National Committee; $9,950 to the Blue Dog PAC, $5,000 to the Republican Party of Iowa; $5,000 to the Republican Federal Committee of Pennsylvania; $5,000 to the Republican Party of Tennessee; $5,000 to the Republican Party of Kentucky; and, $5,000 to the Republican Party of Idaho.  [OS.org]

We also need to consider the NRA lobbying arm, the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, which runs issue-based campaign ads of its own.  This organization cannot donate directly to candidates but is allowed to receive millions of dollars in donations from corporations.  It is not required to disclose the donors but manufacturers like Smith & Wesson and Sturm Ruger & Company have announced large donations to the NRA-ILA in the past. [CNN]  It’s public knowledge that during the two year period of the 2014 election cycle the NRA spent almost $36 million on lobbying, campaign contributions, and related political spending. [CNN]

Who Gets? Nevada Congressional candidate Cresent Hardy received $3,000 from the NRA PAC.  Joe Heck, Senate candidate in Nevada received $4,950 from the NRA PAC.

Cresent Hardy received another $2,000 from the Safari Club International PAC.  Senate candidate Joe Heck also received $2,000 from the Safari Club International PAC. Current Nevada Senator Dean Heller also received $2,000 in the 2016 cycle from the Safari Club International PAC.   The recipients are those listed in reports up to May 16, 2016. [OP.org]

The Response

The tragedy in Orlando, Florida, illustrates in a horrible way why simplistic thinking is detrimental to civil discourse in America.  And, the NRA response was perfectly predictable:

“Radical Islamic terrorists are not deterred by gun control laws. The San Bernardino terrorist attack wasn’t stopped by California’s so-called “assault weapons” ban. The gun ban in Brussels didn’t prevent the terrorist attack there. And France’s strict gun control didn’t stop the two attacks in Paris, committed with fully-automatic rifles and grenades.

Repeating the same thing but expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. Law-abiding gun owners are tired of being blamed for the acts of madmen and terrorists. Semi-automatics are the most popular firearms sold in America for sport-shooting, hunting and self-defense.” [USAToday]

Heck, Hardy, and Heller have accepted NRA donations, and thus we’d have to assume they adhere to the arguments set forth by the NRA – logical flaws and all.

blood drop

The line that criminals (or terrorists) are not deterred by gun control laws is getting a bit stale.  Bank robbers aren’t deterred by laws designed to prevent robberies, but we have them on the books so that those violating the laws will be prosecuted.  Gun safety regulations are just that; laws designed to keep people safer – from successful suicides, assaults with these deadly weapons, and terrorist attacks.

blood drop

There is nothing quite so illogical as setting up an impossible standard and then insisting that all legislation perfectly meet that Impossibility. No law prevents all murders, all robberies, all auto thefts, or even all terrorist attacks, BUT doing nothing isn’t really a viable option.   Again, banning the sale of sliding side cribs for infants will not prevent all infant deaths, but it has prevented some, and for that we should be grateful.  We don’t ban all toys, but we don’t allow the sale of lawn darts which killed a handful of people and injured a few thousand.  The idea isn’t that we will be Perfectly Safe, but that we will be SAFER if military style weapons and high capacity magazines are not available to every single individual in America.

blood drop

Yes, expecting a different result from the same action is silly – however, the point is that we haven’t taken ANY action to curtail the proliferation of military style weaponry in civilian hands.  In fact, we’ve done the reverse.  There are at least 70 instances in which state legislatures have weakened gun safety law since the Sandy Hook massacre. [HuffPo] Congress, as is relatively obvious, hasn’t enacted any measures related to keeping Americans safer – none.

So, let’s turn this argument around.  The NRA pleads that what we have done since Sandy Hook hasn’t made us any safer.  True – we’ve weakened laws on the books, and the Congress has done nothing; therefore, expecting our environments to be safer is “expecting to do the same things and expecting to get another result.”

blood drop

The “poor me” gun owners argument is also getting bromidic.  No one is “blaming” those “responsible gun owners” for attacks in San Bernardino, Orlando, Charlestown, Blacksburg, Fort Hood, and Aurora…

Indeed, these were carried out by the deadly delusional among us. The real question is WHY we continue to countenance the easy sale and distribution of deadly weapons, regardless of the hands unto which they are committed?

blood drop

Semi-automatics are the most popular firearm sold in America,”  is NOT an argument for believing that continuing to do nothing will make us all safer.  Mrs. Winslow’s Soothing Syrup for Babies was a very popular product in the 19th century, and indeed it would sooth those teething little critters – with the 65 mg of morphine per fluid ounce.  To Mrs. Winslow’s concoction we might add Lloyd Manufacturing’s Cocaine Toothache Drops, Kimball’s White Pine and Tar Cough Syrup, and Laudanum – the latter being exceptionally popular.  Merely because an item is “popular” doesn’t mean it is a wholesome, safe, and generally useful product.

blood drop

Military style weapons are for military and law enforcement use. Period. Yes, a person could “go hunting” with an AR-15, but why? Most hunters use sporting rifles and shotguns so as not to “mess up the meat.”  At the risk of repeating myself – a person might use an AR-15 for hunting especially if the individual is of the type inclined to use a D8 Cat to move a bag of potting soil.  As far as home defense goes – just who do they think is going to show up?    Granted my marksmanship leaves a lot to be desired, but if I haven’t hit the “target” with my first couple of shots what would make me believe that I will do any more damage with the next 30 rounds? Except perhaps to complete the total “air-conditioning” of my living room?  I don’t expect a small army of burglars. I expect that statistics will hold that most burglars operate alone and unarmed.  The odds are against my ever needing a high capacity magazine attached to a highly lethal weapon – so why bother with the purchase?

blood drop

All too often when the smoke clears from a tragic shooting we find that the motives of the shooters were a complex mix of mental illness, delusional thinking, personal issues, political ideologies, and were far more complicated than simply ascribing blame to a singular causal factor.  However much the NRA wants to believe that Orlando was exclusively a terrorist attack, and however much Daesh would like to claim it, the shooter’s ideation remains cloudy – was it homophobic? Was it terroristic? Was it both? What other factors may have been involved? Was it a dramatic version of suicide-by-cop going down in a blaze of glory when his life was falling apart?  We don’t know much at this point and we may not know much more later in the investigations.  What we do know is that it didn’t take all that much effort for him to purchase all the firepower he needed to implement his irrational plan.

Questions

To those Federal candidates and office holders like Hardy, Heck, and Heller:

1. Do you believe that anyone should be allowed to purchase a high capacity magazine for a military style weapon which can be easily modified to function as an automatic weapon?

2. Do you believe that military style weapons should be readily available in the marketplace for civilian use?

3. Do you believe that simply because we can’t prevent every tragic loss of life to suicide, homicide, or assaults that we should do nothing to alleviate the situation?

4. Do you believe that individuals who can’t pass a background check should be able to purchase guns at a gun show?

5. Do you believe  that persons who are adjudicated mentally ill, have a history of spousal abuse, or who are on “no-fly” lists should be allowed to purchase military style weapons and high capacity magazines?

Perhaps instead of taking the NRA’s nihilistic approach – there’s nothing we can do – we ought to be discussing how we can implement a general policy based on the concept that every little bit helps, and that doing Something is  preferable to doing Nothing.

Comments Off on Guns and Money

Filed under Gun Issues, Heck, Heller, Nevada politics, Politics

Profiles in Cowardice: GOP Soft on Terrorism

Gun Congress I should have known, given that Senator Dean Heller’s last campaign material came from the National Shooting Sports Foundation, that he’d cave to NRA radicals on the following bit of legislation: S.Amdt. 2910 to S.Amdt. 2874 to H.R. 3762

All those links refer eventually to a simple amendment —

“To increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of firearms or the issuance of firearms and explosives licenses to known or suspected dangerous terrorists.” {Sen}

And, how did the junior Senator from Nevada cast his vote?  Here’s the roster from vote # 319 —

Heller Terrorist Vote 319That’s right – all those “Nay” votes were to prevent the Department of Justice from refusing to approve gun sales to those on the Terrorist Watch List.  In other words, spoken so often in the last 48 hours, Senator Heller doesn’t want terrorists flying but he evidently has no problems allowing them to waltz into a gun store and loading up on – say,  “1600 rounds of ammunition, another 4,500 rounds ‘at home,’ two assault rifles and two semi-automatic handguns.” [ABC]   

“Senators will need to decide where they stand. Or do they stand with the NRA?” Reid said on the Senate floor Thursday, declaring that the Senate had been “complicit through our inaction” in the 355 mass shootings that have taken place in the United States since the start of the year. “Those who choose to do the NRA’s bidding will be held accountable by our constituents.” [WaPo]

That pretty well sums it up.

Comments Off on Profiles in Cowardice: GOP Soft on Terrorism

Filed under Gun Issues, Heller, terrorism