Category Archives: Nevada politics

One Great Distraction: Guns, GOP, and Mental Health

blood money The GOP response to gun violence in America is getting tiresome, and no diversion or distraction more so than when its members cite “mental health” as a topic for discussion.

The Republican Party really shouldn’t get anywhere near this distraction, not with their record on making mental health care available to American citizens. [AmerBlg]   It doesn’t do to blather on about Guns and Mental Health in one breath and then take 50+ votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act in the next.

Before the passage of the Affordable Care Act about 1/3rd of those who did have health insurance in the individual market had no coverage for substance use disorder to services, and 1/5th had no coverage for mental health services, including outpatient therapy, and inpatient crisis intervention and stabilization.  Additionally, even when a person did have coverage there was no guarantee mental health services would be covered comparably to medical and surgical care.   The situation in the small group market was a bit better, coverage for substance abuse and mental health services was more common, but many states did not have “parity” laws requiring comparable coverage with medical and surgical treatment.  Then, there were those 47.5 million Americans who didn’t have any health insurance, and the 25% of uninsured adults who have a mental health condition, a substance abuse problem, or both. [ASPE]

After the passage of the Affordable Care Act mental health and substance abuse are categories covered as part of the package of Essential Health Benefits.  With the finalization of rules as of January 1, 2014 consumers buying health insurance policies can be confident that the health plan will cover mental health services, and importantly, that there will be parity for mental health and substance abuse treatment coverage. [ASPE]

And what was the Republican reaction?  “Repeal.. Repeal.. Repeal…” at least 50+ times. [WaPo]  

January 8, 2011:  There was a mass shooting in Tucson, AZ  six were killed, eleven others wounded including a member of Congress, Rep. Gabby Giffords.   January 19, 2011: The House votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act.  On February 19, 2011 the House passed an FY 2011 continuing appropriations bill with several amendments to “severely limit” the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. The measure passed with no Democratic support.  Further votes were taken to carve up and diminish the provisions of the Affordable Care Act on March 3, 2011, April 13, 2011, and April 14, 2011.  On April 14, 2011 a House resolution advised the Senate to defund all mandatory and discretionary spending associated with the Affordable Care Act.  April 15, 2011 the Republican controlled House passed its version of the budget repealing and defunding the Affordable Care Act.  During the four months after the Tucson Shooting the Republican controlled Congress spent much of its time trying to defund, limit, or outright repeal the law requiring health insurance companies to include mental health services as an “Essential Benefit” and on par with coverage for medical and surgical treatment.  And, they weren’t finished.  Republicans tried to gut the Affordable Care Act provisions on May 3, 2011; May 4, 2011May 24, 2011; and on August 1, 2011 the Budget Control Act cut some mandatory and discretionary funding tied to the Affordable Care Act.

October 12, 2011:  Eight people were killed and another critically wounded by a shooter in Seal Beach, California.  Ironically, on October 13, 2011 the House passed the “Protect Life Act” preventing any funding from be applied to abortion procedures.  More Congressional incursions were made on the Affordable Care Act on November 16, 2011, December 13, 2011, and December 16, 2011.  On February 1, 2012 Congress voted to repeal a long term care insurance program (CLASS).  February 17, 2012 the House voted to cut funding for Louisiana’s Medicaid program by $2.5 billion, and cut $11.6 billion including $5 billion from the Public Prevention and Health Fund.  The cut to the Medicaid program was significant because Medicaid is the insurance provider for low income people, some of whom might be in need of substance abuse or mental health care treatment.  On March 29, 2012 the House version of the FY 2013 budget called for repealing and defunding the Affordable Care Act.

April 2, 2012:  A former student at Oakland’s Oikos University opened fire in a classroom, seven were killed and three wounded.  The House attacked the Affordable Care Act again on April 27, 2012, and more significantly voted on May 10, 2012 to replace the automatic budget cuts to the Defense Department by defunding and repealing portions of the Affordable Care Act. June 7, 2012 the House voted to repeal the medical device tax, and limit the reimbursements for over the counter medications.  On July 11, 2012 the House voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

July 20, 2012: 12 people were killed and another 58 were injured in the shooting at the Aurora, Colorado movie theater.  Yet again, opponents of gun safety regulations noted that the shooting was the result of mental illness.

August 8, 2012: A shooter gunned down six people and injured three others at a Sikh Temple in Oak Creek, WI.

September 28, 2012: Six were killed and two injured in a workplace shooting in Minneapolis, MN.

October 21, 2012:  Three died and four were injured in a shooting in Brookfield, WI.

December 14, 2012:  Newtown, CT; 27 died including 20 first grade children. On December 20, 2012 the House voted once more to replace discretionary spending cuts enacted as part of sequestration by defunding and repealing several provisions of the Affordable Care Act.  On January 1, 2013 the “fiscal cliff deal” passed the House including the repeal of the CLASS Act and cutting funds for the Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan. 

On May 16, 2013 the House voted to repeal the entire Affordable Care Act. 

June 7, 2013: Five people were killed in a shooting incident in Santa Monica, CA which ended on the campus of Santa Monica College.  On July 17, 2013 the House voted to delay the implementation of the Affordable Care Act for employers by one year.  Also on July 17, 2013, the House voted to delay the implementation of the individual mandate.  On August 2, 2013 the House voted to prevent the IRS from implementing or enforcing any portion of the Affordable Care Act.

September 16, 2013:  12 were killed and 3 injured in a shooting at the Washington, DC Naval Yard.  On September 20, 2013 the House voted to approve a short term FY 2014 continuing resolution in which the Affordable Care Act was fully defunded, including the prohibition of all discretionary and mandatory spending, and rescinding all of its unobligated balances.  On September 29, 2013 the House voted again to repeal the medical device tax, and to delay the implementation of the Affordable Care Act by another year.  September 30, 2013, the House voted to delay the individual mandate, an action which would effectively render the law inoperable.

Votes were taken in the House on October 17, 2013; November 15, 2013; January 10, 2014; January 16, 2014, March 5, 2014 to weaken the enforcement of the Affordable Care Act.  More such votes were taken on March 11, 2014; March 12, 2014; and, March 14, 2014. [LAT]

April 2, 2014: Three were killed, sixteen injured in Fort Hood, TX, scene of a previous shooting in 2009.

On January 28, 2015 Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-AL) introduced H.R 596, a bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act.  The measure passed the House on February 3, 2015. [RC 58]*

May 23, 2015: Six dead, seven wounded in Isla Vista, CA. June 18, 2015: Nine dead at the Emanuel AME Church, Charleston, SC.  October 1, 2015: Nine dead, nine injured in Roseburg, OR.   Meanwhile, the Huffington Post asked Senators what might be done about the carnage:

“If there’s one issue that these senators wanted to talk about when asked about gun violence, it was the mental health component. Nearly all of those who were interviewed said their attention is on that aspect of the problem, instead of on gun laws.

“What I’ve been focused on, and I think it very much relates to, unfortunately, too many of these mass shootings, is improving our early intervention mental health system,” said Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.). “Hopefully we can take some immediate action and find common ground.” [HuffPo]

Improving our “early intervention mental health system?”   What appears to be more than slightly inane (if not outright insane)  is to believe that repealing the Affordable Care Act — such that we cannot assure health insurance coverage for substance abuse and mental health problems, on par with coverage for medical and surgical treatment – is going to augment our attempts at “early intervention,” – or for that matter, for intervention at any stage.

Unless, and until, the Republicans are willing to stop trying to repeal the law that requires mental health treatment coverage as part of an Essential Benefit package, and stop attempting to repeal the provisions saying that the coverage must be on par with other medical and surgical treatment benefits, the noise about “doing something about mental health” is just that – a distracting noise.

Unless, and until, the Republicans are willing to put legislation into the hopper (and bring it to the floor for a vote) increasing (1) federal support for mental health care services, and (2)  increasing the number of low income people in the Medicaid program who have access to expanded coverage, then they’ll have to pardon those who say the “mental health” rhetoric is a hollow, shallow, attempt to distract the nation from any serious and substantive discussion of gun violence as a public health issue.

References: Congressional Research Service, “Legislative Actions to Repeal, Defund, or Delay the Affordable Care Act, July 8, 2015. (pdf) Los Angeles Times, Deadliest Shooting Rampages, October 1, 2015.  Washington Post, House has voted 54 times in four years on Obamacare,” March 21, 2014.  AmericaBlog, “Republicans are using mental health as an excuse to do nothing about gun violence.” October 6, 2015.  International Business Times, “Republicans’ Mass Shooting Response Focuses Not On Gun Control But On Mental Health Reform,: October 5, 2015.  Huffington Post, “Despite Mass shootings, Republicans won’t touch gun laws,” October 6, 2015.

*Nevada Representatives Amodei, Hardy, and Heck, voted in favor of H.R. 596.  Representative Titus voted no.

Comments Off on One Great Distraction: Guns, GOP, and Mental Health

Filed under H.R. 1591, Mental Health, Nevada politics, Politics, public health

Dean Heller’s Immoderate Vote

Heller Goo1

Once again, Nevada junior Senator Dean Heller gets stretched out into Immoderate territory in Senate votes this week.  On September 22, 2015 Senator Heller voted in favor of the unscientific and pretty thoroughly politicized “Pain Capable…” forced birth bill (H.R. 36) [roll call 268]

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) explained the opposition to the bill by noting it is  (1) unconstitutional because it bans abortion procedures before a fetus is medically considered viable and it does not include exceptions for a situation in which a woman’s health in endangered – both elements contradict Roe v. Wade and other precedents.  [RealityCK]

Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) added: “Do we really want to make a criminal out of a physician who is trying to prevent a woman with preeclampsia from suffering damage to her kidneys or liver, or having a stroke or seizures?” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME). “Do we want the threat of prison for a doctor who knows that his pregnant patient needs chemotherapy or radiation treatments?” [RealityCK]

For those unfamiliar with lady parts and how they function (which unfortunately seems to include a majority of Republican men in Congress) let’s note that preeclampsia generally occurs after 20 weeks, and one of the first signs is an increase in the woman’s blood pressure.  There is one and only one cure for preeclampsia – the delivery of the fetus. [MayoClinic]  The decisions made by the woman and her physician are going to be really tough at this point. 

The delivery has to happen before damage to the kidneys or liver becomes permanent – or fatal.  What happens to the fetus is problematic.  The usual assumption of viability in the U.S. is 24 weeks of gestational age.  Less than that gestational age and the fetus will likely not be physically mature enough to survive into the neo-natal period and achieve the capacity to be an independent human being. [NCBI]  However, there is another factor which isn’t biological.  The technology must be available to sustain the fetus delivered this early.  For example, even in developed western European countries such as Portugal the age of assumed viability is higher than in the U.S. [NIH]

What makes Senator Heller’s position so radical is his vote to criminalize the efforts of a physician who is confronted with preeclampsia in a pregnant woman after 20 weeks into the pregnancy – when the condition most often appears – and his assumption that all pregnant women and their physicians have access to the kind of neo-natal technology associated with a neo-natal intensive care unit.  And, not just any neo-natal care unit, in cases of extremely pre-mature infants we’re talking about Level III care capacity.

Now scroll through the Nursing Institute of Nevada list of hospitals and their technical and staff capabilities.  Two list Level II nursery care, six list Level III facilities – and they are all located in either the Las Vegas or Reno area.  Treating preeclampsia outside one of Nevada’s two metropolitan areas requires all the emergency training and equipment for the most extreme emergencies.

As if the situation weren’t complicated enough, preeclampsia’s early symptoms – headaches, nausea, plus aches and pains are all things that happen in a normal pregnancy.  However, when the headaches are severe, there’s blurred vision. severe abdominal pain,  and  shortness of breath – it’s time for the emergency room. [MayoClinic]   The condition occurs in about 5%-8% of all pregnancies, and can appear at any time during pregnancy, delivery, and up to six weeks post-partum, although it most frequently happens in the final trimester. [PreecOrg]

It would be very useful if more Republican men knew that a pregnancy involves more than having a wife who reacts to certain smells, and  has trouble with shoe laces, in addition to the general knowledge that it’s a good idea to keep the gas tank filled in the family wagon.

The radical forced-birth crowd in the U.S. Senate seems not to understand that their anti-abortion grandstanding has implications in the real world in which not all pregnancies are trouble free, not all women and infants have immediate access to the very latest technology and medical expertise, and not all complications in pregnancies take place conveniently before some artificially established gestational age.  It’s too bad Senator Heller has joined this herd.

Recommended reading for Republican men: “Frequently Asked Questions,” Preeclampsia Foundation. “Familial Occurrence of Preeclampsia,” National Institutes of Health, NCBI. “Late Pregnancy Complications,” Patient.Info. “Preeclampsia,” Mayo Clinic. “Medline Plus: Preeclampsia,” NLM, NIH. “Preeclampsia,” WebMD.

Comments Off on Dean Heller’s Immoderate Vote

Filed under Health Care, Heller, Nevada politics, Politics, Republicans, Women's Issues

Words from the Week and the No True Scotsman Fallacy

GOP Dinosaur Distress Flag Understatement of the Week: On the resignation of John Boehner (R-OH): “Boehner has faced constant pressure from conservatives who believed he was too willing to compromise with President Barack Obama and too likely to rely on Democratic votes to pass crucial legislation. The approaching confrontation over government spending had raised the prospect of another possible challenge to his speakership by conservatives, something Boehner has beaten back several times before.” [LVRJ]

Word salad from times past:  Representative Mark Amodei (R-NV2) on his vote for Rep. Boehner for the speakership: “

“So we ‘fire Boehner’ and start a month-long or longer election for his successor at a time when we should be dismantling the Affordable Care Act, taking care of our veterans, reducing the deficit, navigating foreign affairs and solving Nevada’s federal issues? That’s a great plan, if you want to continue the dig on Congress as a place where nothing gets done. 

“I am perfectly fine with differing views. Not everyone is going to agree all the time. But it is a bit discouraging to get lit up on an issue where in some cases a person has taken a thought or two from one source and treated it like the complete and final word.”

Present Palaver: Representative Amodei’s right on one score – the Congress has a 14% approval rating. [Gallup]  And, he may be correct on another.  When Amodei spoke to the previous “fire Boehner” attempt and predicted a squabble for the Speakership, the comments might have been predictive, this round could see yet another scramble between supporters of Rep. McCarthy (R-CA), Rep. Hensarling (R-TX), Rep. Roskam (R-IL) and perhaps others. [TheHill]  And then there’s the comment from Rep. Peter King (R-NY) – “this is a victory for the crazies.” [TheHill]

Possibly very true words:  The extension of Representative King’s remark — “You can’t appease these people.” [TheHill]

More words:  There are two ways to see compromise, and Winston Churchill expressed both.  On one hand he said, “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile – hoping it will eat him last;” while on another occasion he said, “The English have never drawn a line without blurring it.” [FQ] There are situations in which either or both might be true.  However, the current manifestation of the American GOP seems to have glommed on to the former without consideration of when the latter might be more appropriate.

The Republicans have become more conservative, and thereby less likely to appreciate Churchill’s second comment on compromise.  The Poole-Rosenthal study emphasized this point:

“The short version would be since the late 1970s starting with the 1976 election in the House the Republican caucus has steadily moved to the right ever since. It’s been a little more uneven in the Senate. The Senate caucuses have also moved to the right. Republicans are now furtherest (sic) to the right that they’ve been in 100 years.”  [NPR]

Perhaps Rep. King’s ‘crazies’ have adopted the line attributed to the script writers of the 1949 oater “She Wore A Yellow Ribbon,” in which John Wayne’s character said, “Never apologize and never explain – it’s a sign of weakness.” [AskMeta]  There are some interesting pieces covering this general topic.  See, for example, Paul Rosenberg’s “They’ll always move further right: Why every defeat only makes Republicans more extreme,” in Salon, June 24, 2015.  Or, Ryan Dennison’s post in Addicting Info, “As Democrats move left, Republicans have moved dangerously to the extreme right,” June 28, 2015.  Or, Bill Schneider’s article, “How far right can Republicans go?” written for Reuters, May 21, 2014.

The current flap involving the Republican Congressional leadership illustrates another pattern that may be afflicting the GOP as it moves inexorably to the extreme right – the “reinterpretation of evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one’s position.” AKA The No True Scotsman Fallacy. []

The fallacy is a form of circular argument which substantiates an existing belief by dismissing any counter-examples to it. Such as the classic form:

(1) “Angus puts sugar on his porridge,” (2) No (true) Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge; therefore (3) Angus is not a (true) Scotsman.” Therefore, Angus is not a counter-example to the claim that no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.”

By changing the characters, we could create another example. (1) Economist A demonstrates that lowering taxes doesn’t create more tax revenue. (2) No true Economist would argue that lowering taxes doesn’t increase revenue; (3) therefore Economist A is not a true economist; and therefore Economist A is not providing counter-examples to the claim that no true economist would claim otherwise.

Or we could say: (1) There are instances in which the circumstances of a pregnancy call for abortion to be provided as a medical procedure; (2) No true conservative would ever countenance an abortion; (3) Therefore no one advocating abortions under these circumstances is a true conservative; therefore there is no counter-example to the claim that there are circumstances in which abortion is an appropriate medical procedure.

Playing the pseudo-patriot card is easy in the creation of a foreign policy example of the No True Scotsman Fallacy.  (1) Diplomat B drafts a treaty with a nation not recognized as an ally. (2) No true American would ever agree to a treaty with ____; therefore (3) Diplomat B is not a true American; and therefore, the fact of the treaty doesn’t provide a counter-example to the proposition that no true American would agree to a treaty with ____”

The problem, of course, with the application of the No True Scotsman Fallacy is that the definition of “TRUE” becomes inextricably entangled with the policy proposals under consideration, and the further the illogical thinking extends the more narrow the definition of “TRUE.”   Thus, the No True Scotsman Fallacy hinges on a definition of  a “true” American or a “true Christian” which serves the advocate’s personal set of ideological beliefs – and only the advocate’s personal set of ideological beliefs.

Hence, no TRUE Republican could compromise with the Democratic side of the aisle in Congress.  Speaker Boehner compromised with the Democrats. Ergo Speaker Boehner is not a “true” Republican.   And then the Republican Party becomes too extreme for Republicans?

Comments Off on Words from the Week and the No True Scotsman Fallacy

Filed under Boehner, conservatism, Nevada Congressional Representatives, Nevada politics, Politics, Republicans

Pain Capable Panderers Get The Wedgies

Heller Goo 2

No matter how much he may try to stretch himself into a “moderate” shape Nevada Senator Dean Heller is aligned squarely with the radical right when it comes to women’s health.   The U.S. Senate can’t seem to address major items like climate change, infrastructure, and the voting rights act, but the Republican controlled body can certainly spend time on women’s bodies.  Witness: H.R. 36, and the vote thereon. [rc268]

H.R. 36 is the product of the House conservatives’ brain-flatulence and emphatic embrace of pseudo-scientific items like a “pain capable” fetus, in which abortions would be banned after twenty weeks.  What’s the science?

“Published research generally supports an experience of pain being possible only later in gestation than 20 weeks. A synthesis of available evidence was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2005 by experts from the University of California, San Francisco, and elsewhere, and their report concluded: “Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester.” The third trimester begins at 27 to 28 weeks from conception.” [FactCheck]

There are a couple of things to notice in the summary above. First, “evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited,” or, restated, there is limited evidence (read: little) that the fetus is able to perceive pain. Secondly, if we accept the “limited’ evidence, then the perception is unlikely until 27-28 weeks after conception. However, nothing scientific stopped Senator Dean Heller from voting to bring H.R. 36 up for a vote.  The motion to break cloture failed.

Nevada’s other Senator, Harry Reid, offered the following summation of GOP efforts:

“It is said that you cannot make the same mistake twice. The second time you make it, it’s a choice. On every issue imaginable Republicans are choosing to  employ the same failed strategy. Over and over again, they drag Congress and the American people through votes that are publicity stunts designed to boost their conservative records.

Today we stand in the midst of yet another Republican show-vote designed to honor the political wish list of extremists. Once again, Republicans have decided to place women’s health at the center of their ideological campaign. We’ve seen this tactic before.  It doesn’t work. Americans are tired of Republican attacks on women’s health.”

And yes, the bill is going nowhere, and the vote was a waste of time.  However, it does appear indicative of a Republican strategy in this Constant Campaign season.

Enter The Wedgies

For the sake of argument, let’s define a wedge issue as a social or cultural topic introduced into a campaign which seeks to attract and galvanize persuadable voters who might otherwise focus on economic or other major issues.  There’s nothing particularly new about this technique.  We could start almost anywhere, but 1968 seems as good a place as any, as an election into which two divisive issues were raised: “Public Order,” and “busing.”  The former sought to brand Democrats as the party of chaos (Chicago civil unrest) and the party supporting “forced integration” for which “busing” was the stand-in.  The busing (race) issue morphed into “States Rights”  and “welfare queens” (race) during the 1980 campaign, which was, in turn,  revised into the “Affirmative Action” (race)  issue in 1996. The “gay marriage wedge issue” was used to good effect in the 2004 election season.

Clinging to the Wedgies

While wedge issues are extremely helpful during primary elections, their utility may diminish during general elections depending on the level of voter turnout.  The danger of the wedge strategy is that it may be viewed as what is on offer from a party which has very little else to publicize to a national audience.  The second danger inherent in the wedge strategy is that the issue itself may become marginalized and less effective in national elections.

It’s a useful exercise during any campaign season to take a step away from the publicity attached to single issues or single candidates and see what the polling says about national priorities.  For example, the July 28, 2015 polling done by Quinnipiac University shows registered voters placing the highest priority on the economy and jobs (37%), health care (13%), terrorism (12%), and foreign policy (9%).  Immigration (9%), Climate Change (6%), federal deficit (6%), taxes (3%) rounded out the polling.  Those social and cultural issues garner about 2% to 3% in other polling. [TPP]

Note that of the contemporary wedge issues only immigration is seen as a major national priority (9%) and the polls don’t indicate the perspective of the voters in terms of either passing comprehensive immigration policy reform, or on the other hand, a policy of mass deportation. Gay marriage and abortion barely register with a majority of American voters.

Using gay marriage as a wedge issue appears to be one of those issues whose time has come and gone. Gay marriage might have been a potent wedge issue in 1996 when only 27% of the population thought those marriages should be valid, however its luster faded by 2015 when approximately 60% of the American public agreed that gay marriages should be legal. [Gallup] The fact that only the most radical of the Republican Party’s presidential candidates sought to exploit the issue of the Kentucky county clerk leads to the conclusion that this issue has also been marginalized.

The next available wedge issue for social  conservatives is abortion, and it appears to be moving center stage for its close up in the 2015 primary season.  The priority given to the abortion issue by the GOP has been explained thusly:

“The answer lies in the Republican Party’s shift to the right. A decade ago, between 30 and 40 percent of Republicans identified as pro-choice. This May, (2012) that number was a scant 22 percent. It’s hard to know whether that’s the result of Republicans changing their minds about abortion, or pro-choice respondents ceasing to identify as Republicans. But the result is the same: The party is increasingly uniform in its opposition to abortion.” [AmProsp]

This might help to explain why H.R. 36 (and other similar legislation) is perceived as a cohesive issue for Republicans and why Senator Heller and others have attached themselves to it.  Trends in voter affiliation may support the thesis that some are ceasing to identify as Republicans since polling was done in  2003.  As of 2014 32% responded as Democrats, 39% as Independents, and 23% as Republicans; a loss of 7% in self-identification with the GOP since 2003. [PRC]  If the trend continues, we might reasonably conclude that the fixation in the GOP with what appears to be a wedge issue of limited utility could have serious consequences for that party in upcoming national elections.

Given the Republican Party’s march to the right, the willingness of its national leadership to adopt a wedge issue like abortion, and the continual emphasis placed on the topic by ultra-conservatives, probably means we will see more publicity about Planned Parenthood, more non-scientific legislation, and more lock step votes such as that of Senator Heller in the U.S. Senate.   And it’s still over 400 days until the next national election.

Recommended/Reference: N. Coca, “Wedge Issues: A 2008 Historical Preview,” NithinCoca, January 2008.  D.S. Hillygus, T.G. Shields, “The Persuadable Voter: Wedge Issues in Presidential Campaigns, Princeton University Press, 2009.  K. Walsh, “Wedge Issues Take Center Stage in 2016 Race,” USNWR, April 2015.  Sen. Harry Reid, “Republican Attacks on Women…” Press Release, September 2015.  D. Townshend, “Abortion: The New Wedge Issue,” American Prospect, August 2012.  Pew Research Center, “Trends in Party Affiliation,” April 2015.  The Polling Report, “Problems and Priorities,” July 2015.

Comments Off on Pain Capable Panderers Get The Wedgies

Filed under abortion, Heller, Nevada politics, Politics, Reid

Conflated Issues Inflated Fears

Inflation chart cause

There’s fear, right here in the outback, that raising the minimum wage will drive up inflation.  The Humboldt Sun (Sept. 18, 2015 p3)  includes a long LTE titled, “$15 minimum wage would stimulate inflation.”   The author writes:

“The government requires businesses to pay employees more by passing minimum wage legislation. This increase is not because workers are more productive, so it costs more to produce goods and services. Businesses might lay off workers to bring down labor costs, but that results in less output. Ultimately, they must raise the cost of consumer goods.”


There are several macro-economic concepts mashed into this, but let’s assume that the writer is speaking of the form of inflation diagrammed in Chart 2 above, “Cost-Push Inflation,”  defined as follows:

Cost-push inflation … occurs when prices of production process inputs increase. Rapid wage increases or rising raw material prices are common causes of this type of inflation. The sharp rise in the price of imported oil during the 1970s provides a typical example of cost-push inflation (illustrated in Chart 2). Rising energy prices caused the cost of producing and transporting goods to rise. Higher production costs led to a decrease in aggregate supply (from S0 to S1) and an increase in the overall price level because the equilibrium point moved from point Z to point Y. [SFFRB]

Cost-Push inflation might be presented as the Inflation Monster, IF it were the only kind of inflation possible – it isn’t.  There’s also Demand-Pull.  And we return to the San Francisco Federal Reserve for its basic definition:

“Demand-pull inflation occurs when aggregate demand for goods and services in an economy rises more rapidly than an economy’s productive capacity. One potential shock to aggregate demand might come from a central bank that rapidly increases the supply of money. See Chart 1 for an illustration of what will likely happen as a result of this shock. The increase in money in the economy will increase demand for goods and services from D0 to D1. In the short run, businesses cannot significantly increase production and supply (S) remains constant. The economy’s equilibrium moves from point A to point B and prices will tend to rise, resulting in inflation. [SFFRB]

And how does a central bank increase the supply of money? Monetary policy.  The textbook way, prior to September 2008, was that if the opportunity costs for holding noninterest-bearing bank reserves was the nominal short-term interest rate (federal funds rate), then we’d have a situation in which if the funds rate were low the quantity of reserves banks would want to hold would increase. [SFFed]  Note: the banks have an interest in putting reserves to work by lending them.  If a bank found itself with “excess” reserves the obvious thing to do would be to find borrowers and earn a return on the money. Thus the situation wherein the cost to the banks of borrowing money is essentially zero, in a post 2007-08 effort to support the financial markets and kick-start the economy.  Now what?

Why hasn’t there been some awesome Demand-Pull Inflation?  Monetary Policy. The situation has changed, although few outside the financial commentators have paid much notice.

“The change is that the Fed now pays interest on reserves. The opportunity cost of holding reserves is now the difference between the federal funds rate and the interest rate on reserves. The Fed will likely raise the interest rate on reserves as it raises the target federal funds rate (see Board of Governors 2011). Therefore, for banks, reserves at the Fed are close substitutes for Treasury bills in terms of return and safety. A Fed exchange of bank reserves that pay interest for a T-bill that carries a very similar interest rate has virtually no effect on the economy. Instead, what matters for the economy is the level of interest rates, which are affected by monetary policy.” [SFFed]

If Demand-Pull inflation is corralled by monetary policy which is based on the Federal Reserve now paying interest on reserves, doesn’t this argue against raising wages which will increase unit costs of production and hence raise consumer prices?  Not necessarily.

The author of the LTE maintains: “The Federal Reserve has held interest rates at near 0 percent for several years. Some claimed cheap loans would stimulate the economy. The problem is that banks have been fiscally conservative, with few loans and little interest rate to savers.”

A crucial part of this puzzle is the press release from October 6, 2008 from the Federal Reserve stating:

“The Federal Reserve Board on Monday announced that it will begin to pay interest on depository institutions’ required and excess reserve balances. The payment of interest on excess reserve balances will give the Federal Reserve greater scope to use its lending programs to address conditions in credit markets while also maintaining the federal funds rate close to the target established by the Federal Open Market Committee.”

Yes, the interest rate remained low, but the banks with excess reserves on hand had less incentive to loan out those reserves if they could simply leave them on the books and earn interest.  The Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006 allowing this situation  [S 2856 109th] was quite generous to the bankers, such as section 201 which “(1) authorize payment of interest on funds maintained by a depository institution at a Federal Reserve bank; and (2) authorize the Federal Reserve Board to reduce to 0% the reserves required to be maintained by a depository institution against its transaction accounts. (The current requirement ranges from 3% to 14%.)” [GovTrack]

While the Federal Reserve makes a nice scapegoat for those who believe in broader extensions of consumer credit, it really doesn’t do to belabor its role (or lack thereof) in stimulating the consumer end of the economy when Congress provided the vehicle by which the wall between brokers and bankers was breached (Title 1, Section 101) and compounded the issue by enacting authorization for banks to sit on reserves in order to earn interest (Title 2, Section 202).

And, here’s where the LTE author swims in shark territory – a monetary policy which encourages broader consumer lending would also be a factor in the creation of Demand-Push inflationary pressures.  A person really can’t have it both ways.

How much is too much?

There are, in both fact and theory TWO forms of inflation.  Nor can we assume that inflation is always a bad thing.  Most economists like an inflation rate of just under 3%. [Investopedia]  Why? Because the alternative – deflation —  is even worse.  During deflationary periods workers get laid off, consumers spend less, people hold off major purchases believing prices will fall further, and the spiral continues – downward.

Consumer Price Index 2005 to 2015 The blue line includes items like energy/food which are inherently more volatile, the line for all others shows a fairly consistent rate of inflation right around the 2.5% mark – remember 3% is the economist’s ideal. It’s also useful to note that the wide variances occur between January 2008 and January 2010 – when the U.S. economy was trembling before and  in the wake of the financial crash.

Consumer Price Index chart If fact, before we become too alarmed by inflationary trends we might want to take a look at the column highlighted above from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and note that we are well below that 3% threshold.  In other words, it’s time to stop worrying excessively about inflation – both forms – and start being concerned with why wages and salaries have tended to stagnate over the past thirty years?  [Pew]

“…after adjusting for inflation, today’s average hourly wage has just about the same purchasing power as it did in 1979, following a long slide in the 1980s and early 1990s and bumpy, inconsistent growth since then. In fact, in real terms the average wage peaked more than 40 years ago: The $4.03-an-hour rate recorded in January 1973 has the same purchasing power as $22.41 would today.” [Pew] see also: [EPI]

Our local author is still alarmed, “Recent price spikes are more noticeable than the usual gradual increases.  That naturally leads to call for a minimum wage increase. But if granted, the inflation cycle will begin again.”  To which we’d have to ask:

  • What recent price spikes? The annual inflation rate as calculated by the BLS Consumer Price Index, the figures the economists use, has been less than 2.5% since 2006.  Further, the prices of gasoline has dropped from about $4.11 in July 2008 to $2.73 as of August 2015. [EIA]
  • If not those phantom price spikes, then what else could raise the call for an increase in the minimum wage?  The trends in stagnant wages and salaries?
  • What inflation cycle?  The annual increase in inflation hasn’t risen above 2.5% since 2006 and 3% is the threshold used by most economists to determine a “significant” increase.  During five of the last ten years we’ve experienced inflation of less than 2%.
  • However, let’s not assume that the author is referring to the here and now but to the ubiquitous “awfulness to come somewhere down the road about which we should be terribly alarmed.”  Is there anything in the statistical tables indicating that an increase in the federal minimum wage would yield inflation rates in excess of traditionally  held economic standards?  Given that the federal minimum wage has been raised 22 times since first authorized in 1938, has there been any drop in the real GDP per capita in the last 75 years? (Hint: no)

If it’s not consumer spending driving an inflation cycle in the modern economic environment – what is?  There is something about which we ought to be worried, but it’s not your father’s inflation cycle – it’s the climate created by the financialists:

“Both gross and net business debt have continued to rise since 2007, but the proceeds have been almost entirely recycled into financial engineering—including more than $2 trillion of stock buybacks and many trillions more of basically pointless M&A deals.

This diversion of the $2 trillion gain in business debt outstanding since 2007 to financial engineering is owing to the near zero after-tax cost of corporate debt. The latter has caused the enslavement of the C-suite to the instant gratification of rising share prices and stock options value in the Fed’s Wall Street casino.” [ZeroHedge]

Not to put too fine a point to it, but the brakes will be applied to any inflationary pressure by the bursting of the next financial bubble.

References and Sources: Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, “What are some of the factors that contribute to a rise in inflation?’ October 2002.  John C. Williams, “Economic Research: Monetary Policy, Money, and Inflation,” Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Economic Letters, July 9, 2012.  Bernard Shull, “The impact of financial reform on Federal Reserve Autonomy,” Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, working paper 735, November 2012. (pdf)  Douglas Rice, “Inflation: It’s a Good Thing,” Investopedia, May 22, 2009.  Bureau of Labor Statistics: Consumer Price Index, 12 month percentage change. (2015) “For most workers wages have barely budged for decades,” Pew Research Center, October 9, 2014.  EPI, wage stagnation in nine charts, January 6, 2015.  CBPP, “A guide to statistics on historical trends in Income Inequality,” revised July 15, 2015.  L.E. Hoglund, “Gasoline prices: cyclical trends and market developments,” Beyond the Numbers, BLS, May 2015. (pdf) EIA, “Petroleum and Other Liquids: Retail Prices all grades and formulations, August 2015.  Department of Labor, “Minimum Wage Mythbusters.”  CNN, “Minimum wage since 1938,” interactive graphic.  “Meet the New Recession Cycle,” Zero Hedge, April 4, 2015.

Comments Off on Conflated Issues Inflated Fears

Filed under Economy, financial regulation, income inequality, Minimum Wage, Nevada politics, Politics

Domestic Violence is Everyone’s Business: Just Perhaps Not The State of Nevada’s Business?

Domestic violence costs $8.3 billion in expenses annually: a combination of higher medical costs ($5.8 billion) and lost productivity ($2.5 billion).” [Forbes]

In the same year this quotation appeared in Forbes magazine, the Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence reported 58,582 contacts concerning  domestic violence in the state. 37,439 of them were first time contacts, another 13,670 were “repeats,” and there were 7,473 follow up contacts. [FY2012-13 pdf]  In the next annual report there were a total of 61,229 contacts; 38,042 initial, 15,165 repeats, and 8,022 follow ups. [FY 2013-2014 pdf]  The calendar year report for 2014 shows  a total of 65,026 contacts, 40,927 first time, 15,534 repeats, and 8,565 follow ups. [CYR 2014 pdf]

DV victims total We also know that in calendar year 2014 the primary victims were most often women (38,145) as contrasted to men (2,782).  We can also infer from the numbers that they are in the age range 18-64, or during the years in which they are most likely to be employed.

Indeed, some 9,119 of the primary victims were someone’s full time or part time employee.  Perhaps what we can’t know is how many of those in the unemployed category were women who were isolated in abusive domestic

DV victims employment statussituations where they were forbidden to work outside the home, or in some instances to have only very tenuous contacts with those outside the house.

What we can know, and do, is that in national terms we are losing an estimated $2.5 Billion annually in lost productivity costs. Domestic violence contributes to lost wages and reduced earnings, it impeded  the victim’s job advancement, and compromises safety for the employees and their co-workers. [BBoston]   That $2.5 billion also includes time lost as the victims miss work, arrive late or have to leave work early to care for themselves or other family members.

A Fall 2000 report for the State Attorney General’s office (pdf)  outlines recommendations for employers to mitigate the effects of domestic violence: (1) condition perpetrators’ continuing employment on remaining non-violent; (2) intervene against stalkers in the workplace; (3) safeguard battered employees’ employment and careers by providing flexible schedules, leaves of absence, and establishing enlightened personnel policies; (4) provide employment security to battered employees; (5) provide available resources to support and advocate for battered employees.

A follow up report “Nevada Domestic Violence Prevention Council Domestic Violence and the Workplace:  A Toolkit for Employers,” (pdf) was issued by former Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto.  This document links to the Workplaces Respond (to domestic and sexual violence) model policy guidelines to implement the recommendations set forth in the 2000 report.   The model policy guidelines would work well for moderate to large sized businesses, what isn’t clear is how many employers in Nevada have  clearly stated and implemented domestic violence prevention and mitigation policies in their personnel manuals. For that matter, it’s difficult to determine precisely what the state is doing – assuming that the state should function as as example for other entities to follow.

Let’s look at the  the model policy and compare it to the State Personnel Manual.  The Model Policy includes the following:

“[Employer] recognizes that victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking and dating violence may need time off to obtain or attempt to obtain a restraining order or any other legal assistance to help ensure his or her health, safety, or welfare or that of his or her child. [Employer] will work in collaboration with the employee to provide reasonable and flexible leave options when an employee or his or her child is a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence and/or stalking. [Employer] will work with employee to provide paid leave first before requiring an employee to utilize unpaid leave.”  [Model Policy]

Here’s an exercise. (1) Download the State of Nevada’s Employee Handbook. (pdf)  (2) Type <Cntrl F>  (3) Type “Domestic” in the inquiry box.”  If you don’t want to do this yourself then you’ll have to trust that I found 5 instances of the term “domestic” anywhere in the document.  The first concerns insurance benefits, the second concerns domestic partner benefits, the third concerns survivor benefits, the fourth is in the same paragraph as the third, and the fifth finally gets around to the issue at hand:

“ The personal safety and health of each employee is of primary importance. It is the responsibility of all employees to support safety and health programs by reporting any threats received or restraining orders granted against a disgruntled spouse, domestic partner, acquaintance, or others. You must report all incidents of direct or indirect threats and actual violent events to a supervisor, and the matter will be treated seriously. A direct or indirect threat and/or actual violence will be documented and reported to both the Attorney General’s office and the Department of Administration, Risk Management Division using the report form found on their website All incidents will be immediately investigated and appropriate action taken. (NAC 284.646-284.650)”

The link takes you to the Risk Management site.  In short, the Nevada policy manual for employees addresses workplace violence, but not necessarily violence which takes place “off campus.”  Yes, workplace violence should be taken seriously. Yes, domestic violence all too often translates to workplace violence; but NO the State of Nevada has not adopted personnel guidelines which would put a dent in those lost productivity, lost career advancement, lost earnings and wages columns that plague other institutions?

Comparing the Model Policy with the State Employee Handbook, the Model Policy calls for collaborative efforts to assist a victim of domestic violence get a restraining order or legal assistance.  The victim should give the employer a reasonable amount of time to juggle schedules or fill in when calling in, and the employer should make every effort to secure the legal protections which may be necessary.

The State Handbook does address what happens after the battery.

“If you are a full-time employee, you earn 10 hours (1¼ working days) of sick leave for each month of full-time service. Part-time employees earn a prorated amount based on full-time equivalent service. Sick leave can be used as soon as it is accrued. (NRS 284.355, NAC 284.113, 284.5415) You may only use sick leave for authorized reasons. Authorized reasons for using sick leave are: an inability to work because of illness or injury, incapacity due to pregnancy or childbirth, medical and dental appointments, family illness (subject to some limitations), and death in the immediate family.”

Apparently, about as close as the state gets to addressing the needs of a battered person to secure legal or technical assistance, is:

“An employee does not need to use this leave entitlement in one block. Leave can be taken intermittently or on a reduced leave schedule when medically necessary. Employees must make reasonable efforts to schedule leave for planned medical treatment so as not to unduly disrupt the employer’s operations. Leave due to qualifying exigencies may also be taken on an intermittent basis.”  (emphasis added)

If we put this all together we have a situation in which (1) Nevada obviously has issues regarding domestic violence in the State; (2) Domestic violence has ramifications beyond the medical and legal costs associated with it and has an impact on earning power, career advancement, and productivity; (3) Nevada has at least two publications endorsing and promoting positive measures employers may take to reduce the medical, legal, and economic impact of domestic violence; and (4) Nevada doesn’t include policies designed to assist victims of domestic violence in its own Personnel Manual.

What’s wrong with this picture?

References: Weller, “Covering Domestic Violence: A Guide for Informed Media Reporting in Nevada, (pdf)  State of Nevada Employee Handbook, Department of Administration, Division of Human Resource Management, (pdf)  National Resource Center – Workplaces Respond to Domestic and Sexual Violence, Model Workplace Policy.   Catherine Cortez Masto, AttyGen, “Nevada Domestic Violence Prevention Council Domestic Violence and the Workplace: A Toolkit for Employers.” (pdf) Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence: Statewide Statistics FY July 2013-June 2014. (pdf) NNADV Calendar Year Report Jan.-Dec. 2014 (pdf) NNADV. org general resources and web site; statistics.

1 Comment

Filed under domestic abuse, Economy, Nevada, Nevada economy, Nevada politics, Women's Issues

Silver Bullets and Straw Man Arguments: Gun Legislation in Nevada (Updated)

OK Corral Here we go again.  Another spate of gun violence yields another editorial assault on common sense gun regulation from conservative sources, this time the editors of the Las Vegas Review Journal.  The title says it all, “Expanded gun background checks not a cure all.”  There are at least a couple of things wrong with this argument.  First, it’s a straw man argument. No one is claiming that universal background checks will cure the American violence problem.  The claim is that closing the gun-show loophole and requiring background checks for sales to non-family members will reduce the probability of gun violence.  Secondly, as the editorial itself acknowledges, background checks can prevent gun sales to domestic abusers.

Even this legislation, SB 175, didn’t really go far enough, and in some respects represents a step backward in terms of controlling access to firearms.  Those guilty of domestic violence, who are subject to an extended order of protection, are forbidden from purchasing or otherwise acquiring a firearm during the period the order of protection is in effect. To get this small attempt at controlling firearm access by domestic abusers, meant the NRA won state control of all gun related issues, county concealed carry permits in Clark County went by the wayside, and expanded language was added to liability in instances in which a “reasonable person might be afraid” for his or her life.

The second logical issue with the editorial is good old fashioned circular reasoning.  The authors logic appears to be that (1) effective background checks require efficient offender databases; (2) Nevada has an inefficient offender data base system; therefore (3) Nevada cannot have effective background checks.  This logic works IF one is prepared to skip blithely over the question of how to make the Nevada offender data base more efficient – and is perilously close to the old Undistributed Middle.

And then comes the perfectly predictable: “Regardless, as has been shown countless times, criminals are not going to follow any gun control law.”  So, if we extrapolate this to its obvious, and much referenced conclusion, there is no reason to enact sanctions against bank robbery and bear baiting because criminals are not going to follow the law?

Now back to the Domestic Violence issue.  What was gained by victims of domestic abuse in SB 175? Answer: Precious Little. [DB April 2015]  Under Section 5 of the bill a domestic abuser (the Adverse Party) was forbidden to purchase firearms for the duration of an extended order of protection.  Please recall that Nevada has two types of restraining orders, temporary and extended, and it can take up to 45 days to get an extended order. [NRS 33.031]   Meanwhile, the statistics are available for the period from April to June 2015. (pdf)

Between April and June 2015, there were 16,245 “contacts” made by authorities concerning domestic violence, and 10,637 were “first time,” another 3,537 were “repeats,” and there were 2,071 “follow up contacts.” Of the 10,637 victims 9,938 were women (93.4%), 699 were men (4.27%).  The age of the victim was not reported in 4,316 instances.  There were 1,479 female victims between the ages of 18-29; 2,577 female victims between the ages of 30-44; and, 1,193 female victims between the ages of 45-64.  Arrests were made in 1,490 cases, no arrest was made in 1,648 cases, and 135 cases are pending.  During the period between April and June 2015 there were 3,327 temporary orders of protection prepared.  2,402 temporary orders of protection/restraining orders were provided.

Assuming that law enforcement and the judicial system were functioning effectively, we had 2,402 cases in a three month period in which it was determined that the victim – most likely a woman – was deserving of a temporary order of protection.  However, the “adverse party” would be free to retain possession of firearms during the length of the temporary order, and for 45 days until an extended order of protection could be issued.

These numbers take on some urgency when put in the context of domestic violence in Nevada.  Back in 2012 25 of the 84 homicides within Las Vegas police jurisdiction were related to domestic violence, the numbers were worse in 2013 when 33 of 105 homicides were related to domestic disputes. [LVRJ]

More alarming still, the national report published by USA Today, on mass killings and family problems.  We have a “mass killing” about every two weeks (since 2006);  the FBI counted 172 between 2006 and 2011.  These numbers may be an undercount because of erroneous and excluded cases, leaving the FBI with a 57% accuracy rate.  And here comes the disturbing part:  Of those mass killings, in 53% the victims were family members. (Other 21%, Public 15%, Robbery/Burglary related 11%) A break up of some kind is the tipping point in 1 out of every 4 mass killings that aren’t connected to strangers, gang violence, or a robbery gone wrong. One in four victims were close family members, children, siblings, spouses, etc. In 77% of the mass killings the weapon used was a gun.  One-third of the victims were under the age of 18; and, 75% of the guns involved were handguns.

The USA Today report drilled down further: semi-automatic hand guns were involved in 49.6% of the shootings; handgun/revolver in 22.4%; and automatic pistols in 0.9%.  Single shot rifles were used in 9.5%; semi-automatic rifles in 8.6%; and automatic rifles in 0.4% of the cases. A shotgun was used in 8.6% of the deadly events.  One third of the perpetrators will be dead at the scene.

It’s certainly true, a domestic abuser will resort to whatever weapon may be at hand from guns to kitchen knives to baseball bats and to manual strangulation… however, as these statistics suggest the outcome is more likely to be deadly if a firearm is involved.

So, should the “little woman” be armed, does the gun in the home constitute an “equalizer?” The answer is no.

“A recent meta-analysis concluded what many people already knew: the availability of firearms is a strong risk factor for both homicide and suicide. But the study came to another conclusion that is rarely mentioned in the gun control debate: females are uniquely impacted by the availability of a firearm. Indeed, the study found that women with access to firearms become homicide victims at significantly higher rates than men.

It has long been recognized that higher rates of gun availability correlate with higher rates of female homicide. Women in the United States account for 84 percent of all female firearm victims in the developed world, even though they make up only a third of the developed world’s female population. And within American borders, women die at higher rates from suicide, homicide, and accidental firearm deaths in states where guns are more widely available This is true even after controlling for factors such as urbanization, alcohol use, education, poverty, and divorce rates.” [LATimes]

In another study, published in the American Journal of Public Health, researchers interviewed 417 women across 67 battered women’s shelters. Nearly a third of these women had lived in a household with a firearm. In two-thirds of the homes, their intimate partners had used the gun against them, usually threatening to kill (71.4 percent) them. A very small percentage of these women (7 percent) had used a gun successfully in self-defense, and primarily just to scare the attacking male partner away. Indeed, gun threats in the home against women by their intimate partners appear to be more common across the United States than self-defense uses of guns by women. [LATimes]

Another large case-control study compared women who were murdered by their intimate partner with a control group of battered women. Only 16 percent of the women who had been abused, but not murdered, had guns in their homes, whereas 51 percent of the murder victims did. In fact, not a single study to date has shown that the risk of any crime including burglary, robbery, home invasion, or spousal abuse against a female is decreased through gun ownership. Though there are examples of women using a gun to defend themselves, they are few and far between, and not statistically significant. [LATimes]

Thus much for the advocacy of yet more guns, and yet more permits to be able to conceal those guns?  And yet more reason to take note of the statistics on domestic violence, the presence of guns in unstable households, and the need to remove firearms from volatile domestic situations.

Questions Remain

  • When do the NRA talking points asserting there is no magic single solution to gun violence become stale and hackneyed?  When does the public come to understand that this is a straw man argument which does little good for the safety of the state and the families residing in this state?
  • When does the profoundly illogical argument that because something might be difficult, or even require more effort, that the desired outcome (less gun violence) is therefore impossible, become a clear example of circular reasoning and unfounded assertion?
  • When do we act on the statistics which strongly suggest that the presence of a firearm in a home increases the probability of lethal domestic violence and suicide? Not to mention tragic incidents involving children.
  • When do we take into consideration the fact that there are some 45 days under Nevada law during which a domestic abuser is free to retain firearms, indeed, free to obtain more “firepower” during that period?
  • What additional arguments must be made before those who advocate for zero restrictions on firearm ownership/possession understand that in a civilized society the temporary removal of firearms from a volatile domestic situation doesn’t mean there is a violation of a Constitutional right?

Update: The Violence Policy Center released its national report today. Nevada is 5th in the nation in female homicide rate.

Comments Off on Silver Bullets and Straw Man Arguments: Gun Legislation in Nevada (Updated)

Filed under domestic abuse, Gun Issues, Nevada legislature, Nevada politics, Women's Issues