BUCKNACKT'S SORDID TAWDRY BLOG We should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive & well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate, bier or wein in hand, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WHOO-HOO, WHAT A RIDE!!!!!!"
20 December 2012
Defense Lobby Wins, Middle Class Loses In Obama Debt Proposal 19DEZ12
AFTER all the political fighting, court cases, lobbying, protest, petition drives, e mailing, etc over the issue of voter fraud prior to this years election we finally know who committed the greatest fraud and stole the most votes......+Barack Obama. He ran as the defender of the middle class, the working class, students, seniors, vets, children, the 98% of us who have suffered and lost the most during and from the great recession. His campaign was a masterpiece of propaganda that would have made +joseph goebbels proud, because millions of us actually believed he was going to stand strong against the monied interest of the rich, wall street, the bank-financial cabal and the military industrial complex. After years of economic hardship we were desperate, and in our desperation deceived. We now know +Obama is owned by the plutocracy as much as the gop / tea-bagger ticket was, they were just stupid enough to let us know who's interest they were representing. I resent I spent so many hours volunteering to help elect Obama. I resent I donated money to his campaign. And I apologize to my fellow citizens who are going to suffer because of Obama's position on the "fiscal cliff" budget and debt negotiations. This from +HuffPost......
The President's latest budget offer slashes a 95 year old retiree's Social Security benefits by more than nine percent -- and trims the defense budget by less than one percent.
Nancy Pelosi insists that these benefit reductions aren't "cuts," which is consistent with the propensity to describe the slowed growth or freezing of military spending as a "reduction."
Pelosi says she'll push this deal in Congress and that most recalcitrant Dems will eventually fall in line behind it. She said they'll "stick with the President" - as opposed to, for example, sticking with seniors.
Why are people so anxious to avoid the "fiscal cliff" that they'll sacrifice the elderly, along with the disabled, veterans, and their families? And why does the President's proposal ask so much more "shared sacrifice" from them than it does of the nation's bloated defense contractors?
As the old saying goes: Follow the money.
Ike's Warning
In this case the money trail quickly leads from the corridors of power to the boardrooms of the Military Industrial Complex. (You didn't think it had gone away, did you?)
The contours of our national budget debate - both in the press and among politicians - have been shaped by a small cadre whose latest front group is called "Fix the Debt." Thanks to some in-depth investigative reporting from ProPublica, we now know that "Fix the Debt" is deeply embedded with the defense industry.
That's the almost all-powerful lobby which President (and five-star General) Dwight D. Eisenhower named in his final Presidential address. "We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence" by that lobby, Eisenhower said, adding: "We must never let the weight of this (complex) endanger our liberties or democratic processes,"
How's that working out for you?
Under the Influence
Fix the Debt's participants are linked to 43 companies - companies whose defense contracts amounted to $43 billion in 2012 alone. It has a $60 million publicity budget. And it's scooped up some self-interested Democrats to lend that all-important "bipartisan" air to its lobbying efforts.
The Fix the Debt cluster of lobbyists has also co-opted some lazy journalists who can't be bothered to learn the subject matter for themselves, content to treat its spoon-fed "facts" and ideas as gospel truth instead.
This corporate lobbying front has moved Beltway and media perception so far to the right that even an opinion supported by 75 percent of Tea Party members is considered too "leftist" and "extreme" to be taken seriously. [1]
Sharing the sacrifice ... among seniors, veterans, and the disabled
It shows. In their world the President's counter-offer represents the "left" side of the political spectrum. It slashes Social Security $122 billion over ten years, increases the tax burden on middle-class (but not high-earner) income, and calls for only a $100 billion reduction in planned defense spending.
That's right: The President's "compromise" counter-offer asks seniors, veterans, the disabled, and non-wealthy working people to "sacrifice" roughly three times much as the Pentagon and its contractors. It reduces an 85 year old's benefits by 6.5 percent and a 95 year old's by 9.2 percent, while trimming less than one percent from our trillion-dollar defense budget. What does that say about our values?
And remember: That's just his bargaining position. It'll go down from there.
There is no cliff
But isn't the "fiscal cliff" a disaster to be avoided at all costs?[1] In a word: No.Financial analyst Barry Ritholtz has been one of the few financial voices to point out the obvious: the stock market doesn't care about the 'fiscal cliff," or about a possible downgrade in the Federal government's credit rating. And via Wonkblog, he has the chart to prove it.
And I have the chart (here) to prove that, contrary to popular 'expert' belief, the stock market didn't care about a ratings downgrade the last time it happened. It also proves that the market fell after the last Obama/Boehner round of budget cuts.
It'll probably do the same thing their next deal, too. Austerity agreements are terrible for the entire economy - with the exception of defense contractors and a few other special interests.
Grave Implications
So who's really afraid of the "fiscal cliff"? These headlines offer some clues:
"We must not fail to comprehend its grave implications," Eisenhower said of the defense lobby. "Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society." Miracle On K Street
Meanwhile, in the supposedly "deadlocked" city of Washington, there's agreement about something. Bloomberg News reports that "House and Senate negotiators agreed on U.S. defense legislation authorizing about $640.7 billion in the current fiscal year for the Pentagon."
Boy, the Pentagon must have lobbied really hard to get that kind of money in this fiscal climate. Right? Wrong: "On Tuesday, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta called on lawmakers to cut $74 billion in "needless" spending on weapons--to no avail."
As we were saying, a reduction of less than one percent - as we wind down two wars, more or less - is the left side of the debate now. So who did lobby so successfully, for such an astonishing sum of money?
The defense lobby and its politician friends are hoping you won't ask. Just think of it as a Christmas miracle.
The Name Game
How does this cynical lobby create a political climate in which a proposal that cuts benefits and raises taxes for the middle class is the liberal side of the debate?
That's where "Fix the Debt" comes in. This supposedly unbiased group of CEOs is only the latest incarnation of a longstanding anti-tax, pro-giant-corporation lobbying web. This entity goes by many names: The "Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget." The "Comeback America Initiative." "The Can Kicks Back." And many more.
Please allow me to introduce myself ...
The Usual Suspects
But while the names change, the players stay the same - including Alan Simpson, Erskine Bowles, and corporate and defense-industry stealth super-lobbyist Maya MacGuineas.
So do their "unbiased" recommendations: Lower tax rates for millionaires, billionaires, and corporations (in the name of deficit reduction, no less.) Eviscerate Social Security and Medicare and turn their functions over to private corporations.
They say they want a "national conversation" about government debt. But when defense spending comes up they always change the subject.
Peace On Earth, Goodwill Toward Raytheon
The latest "lucky" break for defense contractors came just today, as Senate and House negotiators from both parties agreed to protect defense contractors from some of sequestration's worst features.
"A leading industry organization cheered the (the) changes," reported the Washington Business Journal,"... which softened the potential blow for contractors in the areas of workforce, compensation, and oversight."
Congratulations, contractors, on this unexpected stroke of good fortune. Now who'll soften the blow for the rest of us?
"Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals," said Eisenhower, "so that security and liberty may prosper together."
Obama and Pelosi are pushing a deal that lets this "machinery" prosper at the expense of our "peaceful goals." This holiday season is becoming the time for an "alert and knowledgeable citizenry" to take action.
____________
[1] 75 percent of Republicans and 76 percent of self-described Tea Party supporters told pollsters they opposed cutting Social Security to balance the deficit. So did more than 80 percent of Americans overall. But unless we do something it's going to happen anyway.
Follow Richard (RJ) Eskow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rjeskow
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/defense-lobby-wins-middle_b_2334995.html?utm_source=Alert-blogger&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Email%2BNotifications
The President's latest budget offer slashes a 95 year old retiree's Social Security benefits by more than nine percent -- and trims the defense budget by less than one percent.
Nancy Pelosi insists that these benefit reductions aren't "cuts," which is consistent with the propensity to describe the slowed growth or freezing of military spending as a "reduction."
Pelosi says she'll push this deal in Congress and that most recalcitrant Dems will eventually fall in line behind it. She said they'll "stick with the President" - as opposed to, for example, sticking with seniors.
Why are people so anxious to avoid the "fiscal cliff" that they'll sacrifice the elderly, along with the disabled, veterans, and their families? And why does the President's proposal ask so much more "shared sacrifice" from them than it does of the nation's bloated defense contractors?
As the old saying goes: Follow the money.
Ike's Warning
In this case the money trail quickly leads from the corridors of power to the boardrooms of the Military Industrial Complex. (You didn't think it had gone away, did you?)
The contours of our national budget debate - both in the press and among politicians - have been shaped by a small cadre whose latest front group is called "Fix the Debt." Thanks to some in-depth investigative reporting from ProPublica, we now know that "Fix the Debt" is deeply embedded with the defense industry.
That's the almost all-powerful lobby which President (and five-star General) Dwight D. Eisenhower named in his final Presidential address. "We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence" by that lobby, Eisenhower said, adding: "We must never let the weight of this (complex) endanger our liberties or democratic processes,"
How's that working out for you?
Under the Influence
Fix the Debt's participants are linked to 43 companies - companies whose defense contracts amounted to $43 billion in 2012 alone. It has a $60 million publicity budget. And it's scooped up some self-interested Democrats to lend that all-important "bipartisan" air to its lobbying efforts.
The Fix the Debt cluster of lobbyists has also co-opted some lazy journalists who can't be bothered to learn the subject matter for themselves, content to treat its spoon-fed "facts" and ideas as gospel truth instead.
This corporate lobbying front has moved Beltway and media perception so far to the right that even an opinion supported by 75 percent of Tea Party members is considered too "leftist" and "extreme" to be taken seriously. [1]
Sharing the sacrifice ... among seniors, veterans, and the disabled
It shows. In their world the President's counter-offer represents the "left" side of the political spectrum. It slashes Social Security $122 billion over ten years, increases the tax burden on middle-class (but not high-earner) income, and calls for only a $100 billion reduction in planned defense spending.
That's right: The President's "compromise" counter-offer asks seniors, veterans, the disabled, and non-wealthy working people to "sacrifice" roughly three times much as the Pentagon and its contractors. It reduces an 85 year old's benefits by 6.5 percent and a 95 year old's by 9.2 percent, while trimming less than one percent from our trillion-dollar defense budget. What does that say about our values?
And remember: That's just his bargaining position. It'll go down from there.
There is no cliff
But isn't the "fiscal cliff" a disaster to be avoided at all costs?[1] In a word: No.Financial analyst Barry Ritholtz has been one of the few financial voices to point out the obvious: the stock market doesn't care about the 'fiscal cliff," or about a possible downgrade in the Federal government's credit rating. And via Wonkblog, he has the chart to prove it.
And I have the chart (here) to prove that, contrary to popular 'expert' belief, the stock market didn't care about a ratings downgrade the last time it happened. It also proves that the market fell after the last Obama/Boehner round of budget cuts.
It'll probably do the same thing their next deal, too. Austerity agreements are terrible for the entire economy - with the exception of defense contractors and a few other special interests.
Grave Implications
So who's really afraid of the "fiscal cliff"? These headlines offer some clues:
- Politico: "Contractors fear sequester's impact"
- Los Angeles Times: "In defense-heavy San Diego, 'fiscal cliff' threat hits home"
- Virgina Pilot: "Firms fear sequester's impact on government contracts"
- Naples (FL) News: "Fiscal cliff: Employers, Naples defense contractors anxious for deal'
- ABC News: "California defense contractors fear fiscal cliff"
"We must not fail to comprehend its grave implications," Eisenhower said of the defense lobby. "Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society." Miracle On K Street
Meanwhile, in the supposedly "deadlocked" city of Washington, there's agreement about something. Bloomberg News reports that "House and Senate negotiators agreed on U.S. defense legislation authorizing about $640.7 billion in the current fiscal year for the Pentagon."
Boy, the Pentagon must have lobbied really hard to get that kind of money in this fiscal climate. Right? Wrong: "On Tuesday, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta called on lawmakers to cut $74 billion in "needless" spending on weapons--to no avail."
As we were saying, a reduction of less than one percent - as we wind down two wars, more or less - is the left side of the debate now. So who did lobby so successfully, for such an astonishing sum of money?
The defense lobby and its politician friends are hoping you won't ask. Just think of it as a Christmas miracle.
The Name Game
How does this cynical lobby create a political climate in which a proposal that cuts benefits and raises taxes for the middle class is the liberal side of the debate?
That's where "Fix the Debt" comes in. This supposedly unbiased group of CEOs is only the latest incarnation of a longstanding anti-tax, pro-giant-corporation lobbying web. This entity goes by many names: The "Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget." The "Comeback America Initiative." "The Can Kicks Back." And many more.
Please allow me to introduce myself ...
The Usual Suspects
But while the names change, the players stay the same - including Alan Simpson, Erskine Bowles, and corporate and defense-industry stealth super-lobbyist Maya MacGuineas.
So do their "unbiased" recommendations: Lower tax rates for millionaires, billionaires, and corporations (in the name of deficit reduction, no less.) Eviscerate Social Security and Medicare and turn their functions over to private corporations.
They say they want a "national conversation" about government debt. But when defense spending comes up they always change the subject.
Peace On Earth, Goodwill Toward Raytheon
The latest "lucky" break for defense contractors came just today, as Senate and House negotiators from both parties agreed to protect defense contractors from some of sequestration's worst features.
"A leading industry organization cheered the (the) changes," reported the Washington Business Journal,"... which softened the potential blow for contractors in the areas of workforce, compensation, and oversight."
Congratulations, contractors, on this unexpected stroke of good fortune. Now who'll soften the blow for the rest of us?
"Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals," said Eisenhower, "so that security and liberty may prosper together."
Obama and Pelosi are pushing a deal that lets this "machinery" prosper at the expense of our "peaceful goals." This holiday season is becoming the time for an "alert and knowledgeable citizenry" to take action.
____________
[1] 75 percent of Republicans and 76 percent of self-described Tea Party supporters told pollsters they opposed cutting Social Security to balance the deficit. So did more than 80 percent of Americans overall. But unless we do something it's going to happen anyway.
Follow Richard (RJ) Eskow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rjeskow
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/defense-lobby-wins-middle_b_2334995.html?utm_source=Alert-blogger&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Email%2BNotifications
19 December 2012
Debunking the Gun Culture Propaganda 19DEZ12
HERE is a great piece debunking the seemingly logical but actually stupid and false arguments against gun control. Share them, and use them when someone trys to use them on you. From HuffPost....
It's been just over eight years since the assault weapons ban expired, and in that time new gun control bills have been scarce. There are a variety of reasons for the deafening legislative silence, including a cowardly lack of political will and a river of gun industry cash that flows into campaign war chests every day. But it's also because radical gun fetishists led by the NRA have been supremely effective with clever marketing and misinformation campaigns intended to undermine the brutal realities of the American gun culture.
You've probably seen many of their finest agitprop slogans plastered all over Facebook, Twitter and the right-wing blogosphere these days. They're artfully designed to be digested by people who desperately want them to be true -- in this case, kneejerk gun enthusiasts starved for solid, airtight, easy-to-remember trump cards that are capable of defeating liberal gun control arguments with swift precision. Unfortunately for them, the slogans are about as thin as the bumpers stickers they're printed on.
PROPAGANDA: Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
REALITY: This is probably the most prevalent, yet silliest line. No, an inanimate object can't spring to life and kill anyone. But a gun's intrinsic purpose is to kill, wound and threaten living beings. It's why they exist. Period. The firearms used at Aurora, Tucson, Sandy Hook and so many other mass shootings are specifically categorized as "assault rifles." The intention is, by definition, to assault. They're aggressive weapons intended to physically attack and do harm. Otherwise they'd be called "defense weapons" or "protection weapons." So, no, guns don't kill people, but people with guns and bullets kill lots of people. Around 30,000-plus per year in America.
PROPAGANDA: But cars kill a lot of people and no one wants to ban them!
REALITY: How do we deal with cars in America, compared with how we deal with guns in America? Cars and drivers are heavily regulated by the government, from emissions standards to annual inspections to safety features, and so forth. You can't legally drive a car that doesn't feature seatbelts, or a car that spews too much exhaust into the air. You have to take both a written and a behind-the-wheel test to get a license to operate a car. You often have to renew that license at regular intervals and, if you're older, you have to prove that you're physically capable of driving a car. You can't drive a car while drinking alcohol or impaired by other chemicals. There are thousands of police officers patrolling our roads and, as most of us have experienced at one time or another, they will penalize or arrest you for improper handling of a car -- with literally hundreds of laws to abide, and considerable penalties, ranging from fines to imprisonment to the government stripping you of your right to drive a car at all. So if gun fetishists are going to keep using this car analogy, then let's talk about regulating guns and gun owners the same way we regulate cars and drivers.
PROPAGANDA: You can kill someone just as easily with a knife as you can with a gun!
REALITY: Outrageously wrong. Ask any average soldier whether they'd prefer to attack an enemy with knife or with their rifle. After they laugh in your face, they'll obviously tell you they prefer their rifle. During the American Civil War, soldiers would rarely if ever use their bayonets in combat because the experience of stabbing someone was much more offensively visceral and gruesome than simply shooting them from a relative distance. Furthermore, how many mass stabbings (including meat cleavers) have there been in America? Two that we know of. The number of mass stabbings in world? Eleven. On the other hand, how many mass shootings have there been in America? Twenty-six since Columbine and not including any prior massacres. Some gun fetishists have noted that a mass stabbing occurred in China last week, with 22 victims. However, what they won't tell you, perhaps because they don't know, is that not one of those victims died.
PROPAGANDA: It's safer to have a gun in the house, or concealed on your person.
REALITY: Nope. Not true. I'll let conservative analyst and former Bush speechwriter David Frum take this one:
PROPAGANDA: Banning guns won't stop mass shootings because of the outlaws, blah blah blah.
REALITY: Once again, totally not true. Australia, May 1996, a lone gunman killed 35 people and wounded an additional 23. Subsequently, Australia passed a very strict gun control law that included a buy-back program that managed to recover 600,000 assault rifles and other arms -- 20 percent of all the known firearms in Australia. There were no more private sales of firearms, there were stringent registration laws, and, as with other nations, you had to prove to authorities that you had a specific reason for purchasing a firearm. And no, according to Slate, self-defense wasn't a valid excuse. What happened after that?
Cross-posted at The Daily Banter.
Subscribe to the uncensored and totally raw Bob & Chez Show After Party podcast.
Click here to listen to the Bubble Genius Bob & Chez Show podcast.
BobCesca.com Blog with special thanks to Nicole Naum.
Follow Bob Cesca on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/debunking-the-gun-culture_b_2332088.html?utm_source=Alert-blogger&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Email%2BNotifications
It's been just over eight years since the assault weapons ban expired, and in that time new gun control bills have been scarce. There are a variety of reasons for the deafening legislative silence, including a cowardly lack of political will and a river of gun industry cash that flows into campaign war chests every day. But it's also because radical gun fetishists led by the NRA have been supremely effective with clever marketing and misinformation campaigns intended to undermine the brutal realities of the American gun culture.
You've probably seen many of their finest agitprop slogans plastered all over Facebook, Twitter and the right-wing blogosphere these days. They're artfully designed to be digested by people who desperately want them to be true -- in this case, kneejerk gun enthusiasts starved for solid, airtight, easy-to-remember trump cards that are capable of defeating liberal gun control arguments with swift precision. Unfortunately for them, the slogans are about as thin as the bumpers stickers they're printed on.
PROPAGANDA: Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
REALITY: This is probably the most prevalent, yet silliest line. No, an inanimate object can't spring to life and kill anyone. But a gun's intrinsic purpose is to kill, wound and threaten living beings. It's why they exist. Period. The firearms used at Aurora, Tucson, Sandy Hook and so many other mass shootings are specifically categorized as "assault rifles." The intention is, by definition, to assault. They're aggressive weapons intended to physically attack and do harm. Otherwise they'd be called "defense weapons" or "protection weapons." So, no, guns don't kill people, but people with guns and bullets kill lots of people. Around 30,000-plus per year in America.
PROPAGANDA: But cars kill a lot of people and no one wants to ban them!
REALITY: How do we deal with cars in America, compared with how we deal with guns in America? Cars and drivers are heavily regulated by the government, from emissions standards to annual inspections to safety features, and so forth. You can't legally drive a car that doesn't feature seatbelts, or a car that spews too much exhaust into the air. You have to take both a written and a behind-the-wheel test to get a license to operate a car. You often have to renew that license at regular intervals and, if you're older, you have to prove that you're physically capable of driving a car. You can't drive a car while drinking alcohol or impaired by other chemicals. There are thousands of police officers patrolling our roads and, as most of us have experienced at one time or another, they will penalize or arrest you for improper handling of a car -- with literally hundreds of laws to abide, and considerable penalties, ranging from fines to imprisonment to the government stripping you of your right to drive a car at all. So if gun fetishists are going to keep using this car analogy, then let's talk about regulating guns and gun owners the same way we regulate cars and drivers.
PROPAGANDA: You can kill someone just as easily with a knife as you can with a gun!
REALITY: Outrageously wrong. Ask any average soldier whether they'd prefer to attack an enemy with knife or with their rifle. After they laugh in your face, they'll obviously tell you they prefer their rifle. During the American Civil War, soldiers would rarely if ever use their bayonets in combat because the experience of stabbing someone was much more offensively visceral and gruesome than simply shooting them from a relative distance. Furthermore, how many mass stabbings (including meat cleavers) have there been in America? Two that we know of. The number of mass stabbings in world? Eleven. On the other hand, how many mass shootings have there been in America? Twenty-six since Columbine and not including any prior massacres. Some gun fetishists have noted that a mass stabbing occurred in China last week, with 22 victims. However, what they won't tell you, perhaps because they don't know, is that not one of those victims died.
PROPAGANDA: It's safer to have a gun in the house, or concealed on your person.
REALITY: Nope. Not true. I'll let conservative analyst and former Bush speechwriter David Frum take this one:
A gun in the house minimally doubles the risk that a household member will kill himself or herself. (Some studies put the increase in suicide risk as high as 10 times.) An American is 50% more likely to be shot dead by his or her own hand than to be shot dead by a criminal assailant. More than 30,000 Americans injure themselves with guns every year.And here's Science Daily:
In a first-of its-kind study, epidemiologists at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that, on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun.Need more? Here's the American Journal of Lifestyle:
Author David Hemenway studied the various risks of having a gun in the home, including accidents, suicide, homicide, and intimidation. Additionally, the benefits of having a firearm in a household were also examined and those benefits included deterrence, and thwarting crimes (self-defense). From this in-depth look, it was concluded that homes with guns were not safer or deter more crime than those that do not. In fact, it was found that in homes with children or women, the health risks were even greater. "Whereas most men are murdered away from home," wrote Hemenway. "Most children, older adults, and women are murdered at home. A gun in the home is a particularly strong risk factor for female homicide victimization."One more...
PROPAGANDA: Banning guns won't stop mass shootings because of the outlaws, blah blah blah.
REALITY: Once again, totally not true. Australia, May 1996, a lone gunman killed 35 people and wounded an additional 23. Subsequently, Australia passed a very strict gun control law that included a buy-back program that managed to recover 600,000 assault rifles and other arms -- 20 percent of all the known firearms in Australia. There were no more private sales of firearms, there were stringent registration laws, and, as with other nations, you had to prove to authorities that you had a specific reason for purchasing a firearm. And no, according to Slate, self-defense wasn't a valid excuse. What happened after that?
Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post's Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here's the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn't been a single one in Australia since.I think that's enough for now. If you spot any more of these slogans and arguments, drop me a note via Facebook, Twitter or in the comments below and we'll work together to debunk this specious clap-trap once and for all. Doing so will help to unravel the deeply entrenched gun culture in America, and this must be an ongoing commitment, running concurrently with any and all legislation that comes as a result of these horrifying gun massacres.
Cross-posted at The Daily Banter.
Subscribe to the uncensored and totally raw Bob & Chez Show After Party podcast.
Click here to listen to the Bubble Genius Bob & Chez Show podcast.
BobCesca.com Blog with special thanks to Nicole Naum.
Follow Bob Cesca on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/debunking-the-gun-culture_b_2332088.html?utm_source=Alert-blogger&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Email%2BNotifications
While Politicians Run, Conservative Judges Stand for Voting Rights 19DEZ12
I can not help but think the main reason so many have turned against the Voting Rights Act is because we have a Black President. People tolerated the protection of minorities rights to vote because they could never see the nation being lead by an African American, the president would always be a white man. But the times, they are a changin'!!!! And most Americans have come to the realization that the color of a person's skin isn't important, it really is their character that matters. Deep seated racism is rearing it's ugly head, and will try to influence the decision of the US Supreme Court. The future of our county hangs in the balance, we can only hope and pray the court upholds the law and not bends with the political winds. From HuffPost....
In a speech at the John F. Kennedy Library last week, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder made an impassioned case for the present amd continuing need for the Voting Rights Act, in particular the Act's Section 5, saying," "This provision has consistently enjoyed broad, bipartisan support - including, most recently, in 2006, when an overwhelming Congressional majority joined with President Bush to reauthorize its protections."
He's right. It is almost hard to believe now, but just six years ago Republicans and Democrats came together in both chambers of Congress to reauthorize the landmark Voting Rights Act by overwhelming majorities -- 98 to 0 in the Senate, 390-33 in the House. The 25-year reauthorization of the act was signed into law on July 27, 2006 by President George W. Bush.
The story of how quickly conservative politicians abandoned their support for the iconic Voting Rights Act is one of the most depressing examples of the toxic brand of politics that has broken out on the far right. Just as important, though lesser known, is the support for this critical statute provided by lower court federal judges from across the ideological spectrum. Indeed, judges appointed to the bench by President Bush have been among the most powerful advocates for the constitutionality of, and continued need for, the Voting Rights Act.
Whether the conservative majority on the Roberts Court will follow the political winds on the right, or hew to the legal analysis of conservative judges on the lower courts, is one of the critical backstories in Shelby County v. Holder, a blockbuster challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act -- a critical part of the law -- that will be decided by the Court this spring.
On the political front, the floor debate over the 2006 reauthorization of the act stands as a striking example of how quickly Washington has changed for the worse in recent years. In 2006, Republican lawmakers were tripping over themselves to voice their support for the Voting Rights Act.
For example, Senator Chuck Grassley, citing his own remarks during the previous reauthorization vote in 1982, said "the Voting Rights Act is a key tool -- perhaps the key tool -- in eradicating any remaining vestiges of racial discrimination." Senator Mitch McConnell reminded his colleagues: "We have, of course, renewed the Voting Rights Act periodically..., overwhelmingly, and on a bipartisan basis, year after year after year because Members of Congress realize this is a piece of legislation which has worked." Republican Judiciary Committee members touted the eight months of studies and markups that went into the final bill. Southern senators spoke powerfully on how the civil rights movement had touched their lives. Lawmakers from covered jurisdictions gamely affirmed that the law had had a positive impact in their states. To be sure, there were some Republicans who were sharply critical of the act, including several Senators who signed an extraordinary post-passage Judiciary Committee Report, but by and large, Republicans in 2006 agreed with President Bush that "[i]n four decades since the Voting Rights Act was first passed, we've made progress toward equality, yet the work for a more perfect union is never ending."
In 2012, the political landscape looks very different. Following a dramatic overreaction to a handful of "studies" on voter fraud that have been thoroughly debunked, Republican legislatures around the country passed harsh new restrictions on voting and registering, including strict photo ID laws, which not one state had on the books prior to 2006. Crass calculations about demographics appear to have fed the trend. Famously, one overly candid lawmaker crowed that new voter ID laws would "allow Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania." Just last week, a GOP consultant suggested that long lines at the polls represented an advantage for Republican campaigns. That's sickening.
Correspondingly, it's very hard right now to find a conservative politician willing to defend the Voting Rights Act, even though most voted for reauthorization just six years ago. One of the few exceptions is Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, who recently told NPR: "I'm proud of this law... Going up to the Supreme Court, saying that the court should make findings that are opposite of the findings that Congress made after extremely extensive deliberation, I don't think is the way the system ought to work." Sadly, Sensenbrenner is a rare and courageous voice in the conservative wilderness.
The remarkable thing is that this willful amnesia about the wisdom of the Voting Rights Act does not seem to have filtered into the federal courts, where conservative judges have been quite adamant in explaining the continuing need for the act and the constitutionality of the challenged provision: Section 5, which requires that jurisdictions with a history of discrimination get "preclearance" from the federal government before changing voting rules. As these judges have recognized, once you read the Constitution, it is clear that Congress has the power to eliminate the scourge of racial discrimination in voting.
Indeed, perhaps the single most powerful defense of the constitutionality of Section 5 was penned by District Judge John Bates, a George W. Bush appointee, who wrote a 151-page opinion rejecting the challenges brought by Shelby County. Another George W. Bush appointee, Judge Thomas Griffith, joined an opinion by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirming the ruling by Judge Bates. Conservative judges also wrote or joined a number of other very important opinions earlier this year that employed Section 5 to prevent some of the most disturbing efforts by states to make it more difficult to vote from ever going into effect.
This sets the question as the Shelby County case is heard by the Supreme Court: will the Court's conservative majority, including President George W. Bush's two appointees to the Court, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, follow the conservative political winds or the well-reasoned opinions by conservative judges? One of our nation's most important and successful statutes hangs in this balance.
This piece was written with CAC's Emily Phelps and will be cross-posted on CAC's blog Text and History.
Learn more about the fight to defend voting rights.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-kendall/while-politicians-run-con_b_2332118.html?utm_source=Alert-blogger&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Email%2BNotifications
In a speech at the John F. Kennedy Library last week, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder made an impassioned case for the present amd continuing need for the Voting Rights Act, in particular the Act's Section 5, saying," "This provision has consistently enjoyed broad, bipartisan support - including, most recently, in 2006, when an overwhelming Congressional majority joined with President Bush to reauthorize its protections."
He's right. It is almost hard to believe now, but just six years ago Republicans and Democrats came together in both chambers of Congress to reauthorize the landmark Voting Rights Act by overwhelming majorities -- 98 to 0 in the Senate, 390-33 in the House. The 25-year reauthorization of the act was signed into law on July 27, 2006 by President George W. Bush.
The story of how quickly conservative politicians abandoned their support for the iconic Voting Rights Act is one of the most depressing examples of the toxic brand of politics that has broken out on the far right. Just as important, though lesser known, is the support for this critical statute provided by lower court federal judges from across the ideological spectrum. Indeed, judges appointed to the bench by President Bush have been among the most powerful advocates for the constitutionality of, and continued need for, the Voting Rights Act.
Whether the conservative majority on the Roberts Court will follow the political winds on the right, or hew to the legal analysis of conservative judges on the lower courts, is one of the critical backstories in Shelby County v. Holder, a blockbuster challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act -- a critical part of the law -- that will be decided by the Court this spring.
On the political front, the floor debate over the 2006 reauthorization of the act stands as a striking example of how quickly Washington has changed for the worse in recent years. In 2006, Republican lawmakers were tripping over themselves to voice their support for the Voting Rights Act.
For example, Senator Chuck Grassley, citing his own remarks during the previous reauthorization vote in 1982, said "the Voting Rights Act is a key tool -- perhaps the key tool -- in eradicating any remaining vestiges of racial discrimination." Senator Mitch McConnell reminded his colleagues: "We have, of course, renewed the Voting Rights Act periodically..., overwhelmingly, and on a bipartisan basis, year after year after year because Members of Congress realize this is a piece of legislation which has worked." Republican Judiciary Committee members touted the eight months of studies and markups that went into the final bill. Southern senators spoke powerfully on how the civil rights movement had touched their lives. Lawmakers from covered jurisdictions gamely affirmed that the law had had a positive impact in their states. To be sure, there were some Republicans who were sharply critical of the act, including several Senators who signed an extraordinary post-passage Judiciary Committee Report, but by and large, Republicans in 2006 agreed with President Bush that "[i]n four decades since the Voting Rights Act was first passed, we've made progress toward equality, yet the work for a more perfect union is never ending."
In 2012, the political landscape looks very different. Following a dramatic overreaction to a handful of "studies" on voter fraud that have been thoroughly debunked, Republican legislatures around the country passed harsh new restrictions on voting and registering, including strict photo ID laws, which not one state had on the books prior to 2006. Crass calculations about demographics appear to have fed the trend. Famously, one overly candid lawmaker crowed that new voter ID laws would "allow Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania." Just last week, a GOP consultant suggested that long lines at the polls represented an advantage for Republican campaigns. That's sickening.
Correspondingly, it's very hard right now to find a conservative politician willing to defend the Voting Rights Act, even though most voted for reauthorization just six years ago. One of the few exceptions is Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, who recently told NPR: "I'm proud of this law... Going up to the Supreme Court, saying that the court should make findings that are opposite of the findings that Congress made after extremely extensive deliberation, I don't think is the way the system ought to work." Sadly, Sensenbrenner is a rare and courageous voice in the conservative wilderness.
The remarkable thing is that this willful amnesia about the wisdom of the Voting Rights Act does not seem to have filtered into the federal courts, where conservative judges have been quite adamant in explaining the continuing need for the act and the constitutionality of the challenged provision: Section 5, which requires that jurisdictions with a history of discrimination get "preclearance" from the federal government before changing voting rules. As these judges have recognized, once you read the Constitution, it is clear that Congress has the power to eliminate the scourge of racial discrimination in voting.
Indeed, perhaps the single most powerful defense of the constitutionality of Section 5 was penned by District Judge John Bates, a George W. Bush appointee, who wrote a 151-page opinion rejecting the challenges brought by Shelby County. Another George W. Bush appointee, Judge Thomas Griffith, joined an opinion by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirming the ruling by Judge Bates. Conservative judges also wrote or joined a number of other very important opinions earlier this year that employed Section 5 to prevent some of the most disturbing efforts by states to make it more difficult to vote from ever going into effect.
This sets the question as the Shelby County case is heard by the Supreme Court: will the Court's conservative majority, including President George W. Bush's two appointees to the Court, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, follow the conservative political winds or the well-reasoned opinions by conservative judges? One of our nation's most important and successful statutes hangs in this balance.
This piece was written with CAC's Emily Phelps and will be cross-posted on CAC's blog Text and History.
Learn more about the fight to defend voting rights.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-kendall/while-politicians-run-con_b_2332118.html?utm_source=Alert-blogger&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Email%2BNotifications
Year End Summary from BRAVE NEW FOUNDATION 19DEZ12
2012 Brave New Foundation Campaigns
|
VIDEO; HONOR ROLL OF THE SANDY HOOK SHOOTING VICTIMS 17DEZ12
FROM The PBS NewsHour. On occasion, at the end of the news broadcast they do the Honor Roll of members of the US Military killed in action. It is a silent tribute of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, showing the names of the fallen, their age and hometowns. On Monday night they presented a Honor Roll of the children and teachers murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary School and in Newtown, CT. God be with these families and Newtown.
Published on Dec 17, 2012
In a special honor roll, we remember the 27 victims -- 20 children and seven adults -- of the mass shooting in Newtown, Conn.
VIDEOS: Sen. Dianne Feinstein Readies to Reintroduce Expired Assault Weapons Ban &Gun Rights Supporter Sen. Mark Warner Says Tighter Firearms Laws Needed 17&18DEZ12
THERE is a nationwide push for stricter gun control laws concerning military assault style weapons and high capacity ammo clips in the wake of the mass murders of children and teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT. Sen Dianne Feinstein D CA is bold and well spoken in her proposal to reinstate the ban on assault style weapons, planning to introduce the law her office wrote in 1994 (and expired in 2004) in the Senate and Pres Obama has expressed support for this legislation. Sen Warner D VA showed just what is wrong with so many politicians in expressing his opinion on gun control. He mouthed all the politically correct expressions of sorrow about the deaths of children and teachers in Newtown and then reverted to being a political coward, spewing meaningless, non-committal, wait to see how public opinion shakes out comments. His performance on The PBS NewsHour disgusted me, he showed he is spineless and has been morally corrupted by his years of kow-towing to the nra. I am ashamed he is one of Virginia's Senators on Capital Hill. Here are Sen Feinstein's and Sen Warner's interviews from The PBS NewsHour, judge for yourself who is the real leader....
GWEN IFILL: In the wake of the shootings, the
debate in Washington turned immediately to how and whether new limits
on gun ownership can, and should, be enacted.
Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California has pledged to revive a law banning assault weapons. She is chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. And she joins us now.
Welcome, Senator.
SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, D-Calif.: Thank you very much.
GWEN IFILL: With half of the members getting an A rating from the National Rifle Association, do you have any sense that things will be different now for the assault weapons ban than it has been in the past?
DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Well, I have every sense that it's an uphill road. It was in the past when we did it in the past.
I wrote that bill. My office wrote that bill. It went through. It wasn't amended. It went through the Senate, the House. It was signed by the president. And it was the law for 10 years.
I think what is unique about this is, it's really just one class of gun, the assault weapon. The assault weapon is developed for military purposes, to kill in close combat.
And it doesn't belong in the streets of our cities. And it doesn't belong where it can be picked up easily by a grievance killer, who can walk into a workplace, a mall, a theater, and now an elementary school and kill large numbers.
GWEN IFILL: Explain to our viewers how what you are planning to introduce would have changed what happened in Newtown, Conn.
DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Well, over time, that weapon would be much less available.
What we're trying to do is ban the sale, the manufacture, the transfer, the importation of assault weapons. And it gets quite technical. And I won't go into that right now.
Grandfathered weapons that people already have, subject those weapons either to licensing or to a trigger lock, and spell out those grandfathered weapons, which would be over 900 in the bill, so nobody can say, oh, we took our -- their hunting weapon away.
Then I would be able to say, here's your hunting weapon. It's specifically exempted in the bill.
GWEN IFILL: So, we're talking about a prospective law, not one...
DIANNE FEINSTEIN: That's right. That's right.
GWEN IFILL: ... gun people already own?
DIANNE FEINSTEIN: It would ban approximately 100 weapons by actual name and then weapons by physical characteristics.
GWEN IFILL: Let's talk about the politics of all of this.
Today, we saw three pro-gun-rights Democratic senators, Sen. Reid, Sen. Manchin, Sen. Warner, all say that what happened in NewtownConnecticut has changed everything. Do you have a sense that there's a shift under way?
DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Oh, yes. I think this is the straw that broke the camel's back, to be very honest with you, Gwen.
I don't see how Americans can want, you know, a situation where a 20-year-old gets a gun from his mother, kills his mother, goes into a school, shoots his way through the glass, goes in and puts three to 11 bullets in 6-year-olds, 20 of them.
Now, if you just do an average of six bullets -- five bullets, that's 100 bullets. So it's the big clip, drum or strip that is also banned from sale, manufacture, importation, transfer. So it's the clip that enables you to have the firepower.
And I gather this particular Bushmaster, you can actually sort of dial down the ease with which you pull the trigger and its frequency. So you can just pump those bullets out in a very few seconds.
GWEN IFILL: Do you -- have you gotten any sense of a change of heart among the Republican members of the Senate?
DIANNE FEINSTEIN: I haven't had a chance to talk to Republicans. I certainly will be doing that.
I have really kind of been busy just fielding calls, which is unusual, some 20 calls to my house yesterday at home and calls today from members of the House and others that want to help with this.
GWEN IFILL: You called the White House today to talk to the president.
DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Yes.
GWEN IFILL: Has that conversation happened?
DIANNE FEINSTEIN: No. No.
GWEN IFILL: And do you believe he support you on this?
DIANNE FEINSTEIN: I haven't gotten a call back. But I will be persistent. I'm trying now to call his chief of staff to say, please, may I speak with the president briefly.
GWEN IFILL: You -- gun control activists have said that they believe that the president's first term was a failure.
And people who are gun rights activists have said that the president wants to legislate the Second Amendment out of existence. Which is true? Or is neither true?
DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Oh, neither is true.
I think the president now has an open mind. At least, I hope he has. I think the fact that I have authored something before which became the law hopefully will have some credibility with him.
And we're very happy to sit down with his staff, which is what I want to offer, to go over the specifics of the legislation, options, and get his views. I would like to do that sooner, rather than later, because we're working with others.
I want to work with members in this body, members in the other body, and try to see that, by the beginning of the year, we have got something where there is some very good support.
GWEN IFILL: What do you say to people who support the right to own arms that this is the camel's nose under the tent, and, the next thing, you will be after concealed-carry weapons, you will be after other kinds of gun rights?
DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Well, that's just not true.
It wasn't true with the prior bill that was the law for 10 years. And I just think, candidly, that dog doesn't hunt.
GWEN IFILL: Why shouldn't it be true? Why wouldn't you want to go after those other laws?
DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Because that's not what I have done in the past. And it's not what I'm doing right now.
GWEN IFILL: How much do -- as we have this debate now, how much are we focusing on guns, and how much are we focusing or should we be focusing on the things that drive people to use guns in these horrific ways?
DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Well, I think you concentrate on both. You concentrate on mental illness and what we can do. You concentrate on safety in schools and those kinds of things.
But small children have a basic right to go to a school and feel safe. And these guns, because they kill large numbers of people very quickly, they aren't used for hunting, they aren't hunting weapons. You don't need them for defense. They are military-style weapons. And they don't belong in the streets of our cities or our towns.
GWEN IFILL: And, finally, Sen. Feinstein, we have been here before. The president, as he said last night, has spoken at four different memorial services for shooting victims since he's been president.
And each time, there's been discussion that this is the moment -- especially after a congresswoman was shot, this is the moment when everything will change. Why is this the moment?
DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Well, this is the moment because I think people have had it. They have had it in fear.
You know, look at Aurora. That man came in with a 100-round clip -- excuse me, drum. If that drum hadn't jammed, he would have killed many more people. Look at Virginia Tech. Look at Jonestown. Look at -- Jonesboro, rather. Look at Columbine. Look at what's been happening. It's got to stop.
Our schools have to be safe places. These guns are the guns that the grievance killer, the gangs, that people who want to do real damage look for and find very easy to obtain in our society. And we need to change that. And that's what I'm trying to do.
GWEN IFILL: Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, thank you so much.
DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Thank you, Gwen.
GWEN IFILL: An administration official told the NewsHour today that the president began talking with White House staff, the vice president and some members of the Cabinet about ways the country can respond to the tragedy in Newtown.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec12/feinstein_12-17.html
JUDY WOODRUFF: We turn to the aftermath of
the shooting in Connecticut, as the community continues to mourn its
losses in Connecticut, resume some routine, and consider its own role in
a national conversation on what steps should now be taken.
Ray Suarez begins our coverage with this report.
RAY SUAREZ: A hearse arrived this morning at Saint Rose of Lima Catholic Church in Newtown carrying the body of 6-year-old James Mattioli, one of the slain first graders from Sandy HookElementary School.
Hours later, a church bell tolled as mourners greeted another small white casket at the funeral for Jessica Rekos, also 6.
Meanwhile, students from other local schools returned to class, in buses adorned with ribbons bearing Sandy Hook's colors. Police were on hand, as were counselors.
JOHN SOLLAZZO, Connecticut Police Officer: Making the kids safe and happy, that's all we're here for, is to make sure that they are safe and happy.
RAY SUAREZ: Sandy Hook itself remains closed. Plans call for its students to be sent to a now vacant school in nearby Monroe, but it was unclear when.
Back in Washington, a string of Democratic members of Congress took to the House floor, calling for new gun legislation.
REP. JANICE HAHN, D-Calif.: We need to pass bold, necessary, overdue gun control legislation. If we do not, this will happen again.
REP. GERRY CONNOLLY, D-Va.: Twenty innocents and their six teachers. More tears. More burials. But will we heed its meaning? Will we break the gun lobby's spell?
RAY SUAREZ: Outside the Capitol, the head of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said Sandy Hook has altered the political equation on guns.
DAN GROSS, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence: They say Friday's horrific mass shooting at Sandy HookElementary School changed everything. And it has. It is a tipping point.
RAY SUAREZ: And White House spokesman Jay Carney announced President Obama will back a push for new legislation.
JAY CARNEY, White House: He is actively supportive of, for example, Senator Feinstein's stated intent to revive a piece of legislation that would reinstate the assault weapons ban. He supports and would support legislation that addresses the problem of the so-called gun show loophole.
RAY SUAREZ: Late today, the National Rifle Association offered its first statement on the killings, saying it was shocked, saddened and heartbroken. The group called a Friday news conference and promised meaningful contributions to prevent any future massacres.
GWEN IFILL: We interviewed Sen. Dianne Feinstein last night about her push to renew the assault weapons ban. Now we hear another perspective.
Virginia Sen. Mark Warner is a Democrat who received an A-rating from the National Rifle Association.
Sen. Warner, welcome.
We heard that yesterday after the shootings in Newtown, you said that this was a game-changer. What do you mean by that?
SEN. MARK WARNER D-Va.: Well, Gwen, I'm a strong Second Amendment rights supporter. I own firearms. On my farm, I have actually got shooting range.
But Friday afternoon, my daughters, who had all come home from college, said, dad, you know, how did this happen? And what are you going to do about it?
And just as a father, the horror of what happened in Connecticut coming on the heels of tragedies at Virginia Tech years before, the tragedy in Colorado, and it seems like about every six or nine months, one of these incidents happening in America, makes me say, you know, enough is enough. There's got to be a rational way to sort through this.
I'm not saying I have got a perfect piece of legislation. I don't think there is a single perfect piece of legislation. But in a country where we have got 30,000 gun deaths a year, there's got to be a way that we can do a bit more. And I hope that responsible gun owners around America will join in this conversation as well.
I think we have got to recognize that it is about rational, appropriate gun rules, but also about mental health issues. And my hope is our country takes a deep breath and doesn't just simply get exercised by this for a few moments and then push this horrible tragedy back into the background and forget about it.
GWEN IFILL: Assuming that there is not one single solution here, let's talk about what you mean when you say rational gun control. Sen. Feinstein says an assault weapons ban would be rational. Would you agree with that?
MARK WARNER: I think that, from the evidence I have seen, that a lot of the challenge comes around the speed by which you can shoot, in effect, these multiple magazines in terms of how rapidly they can be discharged.
Now, there's a whole series of different negotiations about what qualifies as an assault weapon and what doesn't. I think there will be time for that kind of conversation.
We have got to find a way to sort through to where there is an ability for law-abiding citizens still to possess firearms -- nobody is going to take away your shotgun -- but to make sure that these kinds of weapons that in many cases were developed for our military and have become extraordinarily, lethally effective killing machines for our military are now in the hands of people that are just not appropriate.
GWEN IFILL: The governor of your home state of Virginia has said that he thinks that maybe you should consider arming teachers in classrooms. The governor of Michigan, who is another Republican, said today -- decided to veto a conceal carry law in Michigan.
Which of these is the right approach?
MARK WARNER: Well, quite honestly, I'm not sure either of those are the right approach.
I don't -- I think what we need is to be able to have a conversation, and be able to have a debate about this. But I'm not sure the notion that, as I have heard some members of Congress say, that if each teacher had been armed that somehow this would have prevented a tragedy.
I believe that we need to look at mental health issues. I think we need a reexamination of some of our gun restrictions. And my hope is, is that this doesn't break down on kind of a red shirt/blue shirt, Democrat/Republican kind of issue.
GWEN IFILL: You mentioned the NRA. Let me ask you about that.
They put out a statement today, after having not said much about this, saying that they -- the National Rifle Association of America is made up of four million moms and dads, sons and daughters, and that they are planning a news conference to talk about that, but they are prepared to make what they describe as meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again.
What would you like to hear the NRA -- you're a member of the NRA. You're supported by the NRA. What would you like to hear them say as -- contribute as a meaningful contribution?
MARK WARNER: What are the instruments here that are being used? Are there guns that were developed by the military as technology has advanced and has allowed our soldiers to become better, more effective in Iraq and Afghanistan? Should all of those weapons be able to be slightly modified and then sold on a commercial market?
What kind of -- how much restraint does it put on a lawful target shooter if they want to have to change out a clip after every 10 shells or -- 10 or 15 shells? I'm not sure what the right number should be here.
But I think the NRA ought to have a voice in this conversation as well. I think they can go ahead again, reassure that nobody is going to be out trying to say we need to take away your shotgun or take away the kind of components that are part of American culture in terms of the right to hunt, the right to enjoy the outdoors with firearms.
But I do think that simply saying that the status quo is acceptable and bemoaning another tragedy six or nine months from now, without any real close examination of seeing what laws and rules and regulations need to be changed, would be a real mistake and wouldn't do -- wouldn't be the appropriate honoring the legacy of those poor kids that lives were taken.
And, quite honestly, I have to give my three daughters a better answer than I gave them on Friday night. I have got to be able to say, you know, I was part of trying to at least get some level of solution, so this kind of tragedy doesn't happen again.
GWEN IFILL: Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, thank you so much for joining us.
MARK WARNER: Thank you, Gwen.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Tomorrow night, we will talk with Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec12/warner_12-18.html
Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California has pledged to revive a law banning assault weapons. She is chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. And she joins us now.
Welcome, Senator.
SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, D-Calif.: Thank you very much.
GWEN IFILL: With half of the members getting an A rating from the National Rifle Association, do you have any sense that things will be different now for the assault weapons ban than it has been in the past?
DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Well, I have every sense that it's an uphill road. It was in the past when we did it in the past.
I wrote that bill. My office wrote that bill. It went through. It wasn't amended. It went through the Senate, the House. It was signed by the president. And it was the law for 10 years.
I think what is unique about this is, it's really just one class of gun, the assault weapon. The assault weapon is developed for military purposes, to kill in close combat.
And it doesn't belong in the streets of our cities. And it doesn't belong where it can be picked up easily by a grievance killer, who can walk into a workplace, a mall, a theater, and now an elementary school and kill large numbers.
GWEN IFILL: Explain to our viewers how what you are planning to introduce would have changed what happened in Newtown, Conn.
DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Well, over time, that weapon would be much less available.
What we're trying to do is ban the sale, the manufacture, the transfer, the importation of assault weapons. And it gets quite technical. And I won't go into that right now.
Grandfathered weapons that people already have, subject those weapons either to licensing or to a trigger lock, and spell out those grandfathered weapons, which would be over 900 in the bill, so nobody can say, oh, we took our -- their hunting weapon away.
Then I would be able to say, here's your hunting weapon. It's specifically exempted in the bill.
GWEN IFILL: So, we're talking about a prospective law, not one...
DIANNE FEINSTEIN: That's right. That's right.
GWEN IFILL: ... gun people already own?
DIANNE FEINSTEIN: It would ban approximately 100 weapons by actual name and then weapons by physical characteristics.
GWEN IFILL: Let's talk about the politics of all of this.
Today, we saw three pro-gun-rights Democratic senators, Sen. Reid, Sen. Manchin, Sen. Warner, all say that what happened in NewtownConnecticut has changed everything. Do you have a sense that there's a shift under way?
DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Oh, yes. I think this is the straw that broke the camel's back, to be very honest with you, Gwen.
I don't see how Americans can want, you know, a situation where a 20-year-old gets a gun from his mother, kills his mother, goes into a school, shoots his way through the glass, goes in and puts three to 11 bullets in 6-year-olds, 20 of them.
Now, if you just do an average of six bullets -- five bullets, that's 100 bullets. So it's the big clip, drum or strip that is also banned from sale, manufacture, importation, transfer. So it's the clip that enables you to have the firepower.
And I gather this particular Bushmaster, you can actually sort of dial down the ease with which you pull the trigger and its frequency. So you can just pump those bullets out in a very few seconds.
GWEN IFILL: Do you -- have you gotten any sense of a change of heart among the Republican members of the Senate?
DIANNE FEINSTEIN: I haven't had a chance to talk to Republicans. I certainly will be doing that.
I have really kind of been busy just fielding calls, which is unusual, some 20 calls to my house yesterday at home and calls today from members of the House and others that want to help with this.
GWEN IFILL: You called the White House today to talk to the president.
DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Yes.
GWEN IFILL: Has that conversation happened?
DIANNE FEINSTEIN: No. No.
GWEN IFILL: And do you believe he support you on this?
DIANNE FEINSTEIN: I haven't gotten a call back. But I will be persistent. I'm trying now to call his chief of staff to say, please, may I speak with the president briefly.
GWEN IFILL: You -- gun control activists have said that they believe that the president's first term was a failure.
And people who are gun rights activists have said that the president wants to legislate the Second Amendment out of existence. Which is true? Or is neither true?
DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Oh, neither is true.
I think the president now has an open mind. At least, I hope he has. I think the fact that I have authored something before which became the law hopefully will have some credibility with him.
And we're very happy to sit down with his staff, which is what I want to offer, to go over the specifics of the legislation, options, and get his views. I would like to do that sooner, rather than later, because we're working with others.
I want to work with members in this body, members in the other body, and try to see that, by the beginning of the year, we have got something where there is some very good support.
GWEN IFILL: What do you say to people who support the right to own arms that this is the camel's nose under the tent, and, the next thing, you will be after concealed-carry weapons, you will be after other kinds of gun rights?
DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Well, that's just not true.
It wasn't true with the prior bill that was the law for 10 years. And I just think, candidly, that dog doesn't hunt.
GWEN IFILL: Why shouldn't it be true? Why wouldn't you want to go after those other laws?
DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Because that's not what I have done in the past. And it's not what I'm doing right now.
GWEN IFILL: How much do -- as we have this debate now, how much are we focusing on guns, and how much are we focusing or should we be focusing on the things that drive people to use guns in these horrific ways?
DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Well, I think you concentrate on both. You concentrate on mental illness and what we can do. You concentrate on safety in schools and those kinds of things.
But small children have a basic right to go to a school and feel safe. And these guns, because they kill large numbers of people very quickly, they aren't used for hunting, they aren't hunting weapons. You don't need them for defense. They are military-style weapons. And they don't belong in the streets of our cities or our towns.
GWEN IFILL: And, finally, Sen. Feinstein, we have been here before. The president, as he said last night, has spoken at four different memorial services for shooting victims since he's been president.
And each time, there's been discussion that this is the moment -- especially after a congresswoman was shot, this is the moment when everything will change. Why is this the moment?
DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Well, this is the moment because I think people have had it. They have had it in fear.
You know, look at Aurora. That man came in with a 100-round clip -- excuse me, drum. If that drum hadn't jammed, he would have killed many more people. Look at Virginia Tech. Look at Jonestown. Look at -- Jonesboro, rather. Look at Columbine. Look at what's been happening. It's got to stop.
Our schools have to be safe places. These guns are the guns that the grievance killer, the gangs, that people who want to do real damage look for and find very easy to obtain in our society. And we need to change that. And that's what I'm trying to do.
GWEN IFILL: Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, thank you so much.
DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Thank you, Gwen.
GWEN IFILL: An administration official told the NewsHour today that the president began talking with White House staff, the vice president and some members of the Cabinet about ways the country can respond to the tragedy in Newtown.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec12/feinstein_12-17.html
Gun Rights Supporter Sen. Mark Warner Says Tighter Firearms Laws Needed
Ray Suarez begins our coverage with this report.
RAY SUAREZ: A hearse arrived this morning at Saint Rose of Lima Catholic Church in Newtown carrying the body of 6-year-old James Mattioli, one of the slain first graders from Sandy HookElementary School.
Hours later, a church bell tolled as mourners greeted another small white casket at the funeral for Jessica Rekos, also 6.
Meanwhile, students from other local schools returned to class, in buses adorned with ribbons bearing Sandy Hook's colors. Police were on hand, as were counselors.
JOHN SOLLAZZO, Connecticut Police Officer: Making the kids safe and happy, that's all we're here for, is to make sure that they are safe and happy.
RAY SUAREZ: Sandy Hook itself remains closed. Plans call for its students to be sent to a now vacant school in nearby Monroe, but it was unclear when.
Back in Washington, a string of Democratic members of Congress took to the House floor, calling for new gun legislation.
REP. JANICE HAHN, D-Calif.: We need to pass bold, necessary, overdue gun control legislation. If we do not, this will happen again.
REP. GERRY CONNOLLY, D-Va.: Twenty innocents and their six teachers. More tears. More burials. But will we heed its meaning? Will we break the gun lobby's spell?
RAY SUAREZ: Outside the Capitol, the head of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said Sandy Hook has altered the political equation on guns.
DAN GROSS, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence: They say Friday's horrific mass shooting at Sandy HookElementary School changed everything. And it has. It is a tipping point.
RAY SUAREZ: And White House spokesman Jay Carney announced President Obama will back a push for new legislation.
JAY CARNEY, White House: He is actively supportive of, for example, Senator Feinstein's stated intent to revive a piece of legislation that would reinstate the assault weapons ban. He supports and would support legislation that addresses the problem of the so-called gun show loophole.
RAY SUAREZ: Late today, the National Rifle Association offered its first statement on the killings, saying it was shocked, saddened and heartbroken. The group called a Friday news conference and promised meaningful contributions to prevent any future massacres.
GWEN IFILL: We interviewed Sen. Dianne Feinstein last night about her push to renew the assault weapons ban. Now we hear another perspective.
Virginia Sen. Mark Warner is a Democrat who received an A-rating from the National Rifle Association.
Sen. Warner, welcome.
We heard that yesterday after the shootings in Newtown, you said that this was a game-changer. What do you mean by that?
SEN. MARK WARNER D-Va.: Well, Gwen, I'm a strong Second Amendment rights supporter. I own firearms. On my farm, I have actually got shooting range.
But Friday afternoon, my daughters, who had all come home from college, said, dad, you know, how did this happen? And what are you going to do about it?
And just as a father, the horror of what happened in Connecticut coming on the heels of tragedies at Virginia Tech years before, the tragedy in Colorado, and it seems like about every six or nine months, one of these incidents happening in America, makes me say, you know, enough is enough. There's got to be a rational way to sort through this.
I'm not saying I have got a perfect piece of legislation. I don't think there is a single perfect piece of legislation. But in a country where we have got 30,000 gun deaths a year, there's got to be a way that we can do a bit more. And I hope that responsible gun owners around America will join in this conversation as well.
I think we have got to recognize that it is about rational, appropriate gun rules, but also about mental health issues. And my hope is our country takes a deep breath and doesn't just simply get exercised by this for a few moments and then push this horrible tragedy back into the background and forget about it.
GWEN IFILL: Assuming that there is not one single solution here, let's talk about what you mean when you say rational gun control. Sen. Feinstein says an assault weapons ban would be rational. Would you agree with that?
MARK WARNER: I think that, from the evidence I have seen, that a lot of the challenge comes around the speed by which you can shoot, in effect, these multiple magazines in terms of how rapidly they can be discharged.
Now, there's a whole series of different negotiations about what qualifies as an assault weapon and what doesn't. I think there will be time for that kind of conversation.
We have got to find a way to sort through to where there is an ability for law-abiding citizens still to possess firearms -- nobody is going to take away your shotgun -- but to make sure that these kinds of weapons that in many cases were developed for our military and have become extraordinarily, lethally effective killing machines for our military are now in the hands of people that are just not appropriate.
GWEN IFILL: The governor of your home state of Virginia has said that he thinks that maybe you should consider arming teachers in classrooms. The governor of Michigan, who is another Republican, said today -- decided to veto a conceal carry law in Michigan.
Which of these is the right approach?
MARK WARNER: Well, quite honestly, I'm not sure either of those are the right approach.
I don't -- I think what we need is to be able to have a conversation, and be able to have a debate about this. But I'm not sure the notion that, as I have heard some members of Congress say, that if each teacher had been armed that somehow this would have prevented a tragedy.
I believe that we need to look at mental health issues. I think we need a reexamination of some of our gun restrictions. And my hope is, is that this doesn't break down on kind of a red shirt/blue shirt, Democrat/Republican kind of issue.
GWEN IFILL: You mentioned the NRA. Let me ask you about that.
They put out a statement today, after having not said much about this, saying that they -- the National Rifle Association of America is made up of four million moms and dads, sons and daughters, and that they are planning a news conference to talk about that, but they are prepared to make what they describe as meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again.
What would you like to hear the NRA -- you're a member of the NRA. You're supported by the NRA. What would you like to hear them say as -- contribute as a meaningful contribution?
MARK WARNER: What are the instruments here that are being used? Are there guns that were developed by the military as technology has advanced and has allowed our soldiers to become better, more effective in Iraq and Afghanistan? Should all of those weapons be able to be slightly modified and then sold on a commercial market?
What kind of -- how much restraint does it put on a lawful target shooter if they want to have to change out a clip after every 10 shells or -- 10 or 15 shells? I'm not sure what the right number should be here.
But I think the NRA ought to have a voice in this conversation as well. I think they can go ahead again, reassure that nobody is going to be out trying to say we need to take away your shotgun or take away the kind of components that are part of American culture in terms of the right to hunt, the right to enjoy the outdoors with firearms.
But I do think that simply saying that the status quo is acceptable and bemoaning another tragedy six or nine months from now, without any real close examination of seeing what laws and rules and regulations need to be changed, would be a real mistake and wouldn't do -- wouldn't be the appropriate honoring the legacy of those poor kids that lives were taken.
And, quite honestly, I have to give my three daughters a better answer than I gave them on Friday night. I have got to be able to say, you know, I was part of trying to at least get some level of solution, so this kind of tragedy doesn't happen again.
GWEN IFILL: Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, thank you so much for joining us.
MARK WARNER: Thank you, Gwen.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Tomorrow night, we will talk with Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec12/warner_12-18.html
BOOGIE WOOGIE VIDEO
CLICK the link to watch this video and enjoy. I wish I could move like this!!!!
The male dancer is super ... never moves his shoulders compared to what his feet and knees are doing. The pianist is from Switzerland. He plays some of the best Boogie Woogie anywhere. He is so BIG over there, they hold an annual week-long Boogie Woogie contest, and all the best dancers in the world are invited. In this video he is joined by two amazing dancers. The male dancer even has a haircut from the forties. And they're both wearing two-toned shoes!
Turn up the volume, watch and give a listen. If you're a dancer, you'll appreciate this. If you have two left feet, it's a great trip!
If you experience any trouble tapping your foot to the beat, you better hurry and schedule an appointment with your physician.
FOR THOSE WHO DON'T REMEMBER, HERE IS HOW THE BOOGIE WOOGIE WAS DONE IN THE 1940'S AND 1950'S! https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=b7b1413066&view=att&th=13bb51efd3dbb2fc&attid=0.1&disp=safe&zw
The male dancer is super ... never moves his shoulders compared to what his feet and knees are doing. The pianist is from Switzerland. He plays some of the best Boogie Woogie anywhere. He is so BIG over there, they hold an annual week-long Boogie Woogie contest, and all the best dancers in the world are invited. In this video he is joined by two amazing dancers. The male dancer even has a haircut from the forties. And they're both wearing two-toned shoes!
Turn up the volume, watch and give a listen. If you're a dancer, you'll appreciate this. If you have two left feet, it's a great trip!
If you experience any trouble tapping your foot to the beat, you better hurry and schedule an appointment with your physician.
FOR THOSE WHO DON'T REMEMBER, HERE IS HOW THE BOOGIE WOOGIE WAS DONE IN THE 1940'S AND 1950'S! https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=b7b1413066&view=att&th=13bb51efd3dbb2fc&attid=0.1&disp=safe&zw
17 December 2012
WORDS OF WISDOM AND COMFORT & President Obama at Prayer Vigil for Connecticut Shooting Victims: "Newtown, You Are Not Alone" 16&17DEZ12
WORDS of wisdom and comfort
verse of the day
He heals the brokenhearted and binds up their wounds.
- Psalm 147:3
voice of the day
If thou shouldst never see my face again, pray for my soul. More things are wrought by prayer than this world dreams of.
-Alfred Lord Tennyson
prayer of the day
God, please comfort and heal all of those who are grieving those lost in the shooting on Friday. Grant our leaders wisdom moving forward to prevent such violence in the future.
Today, President Obama traveled to Newtown, CT to meet with the
families of those who were lost in Friday's tragic shooting, and to
thank first responders for their work.
This evening the President spoke at an interfaith vigil for families of the victims, and all families from Sandy Hook Elementary School. He offered the love and prayers of a nation grieving alongside Newtown:
President Obama also spoke about the need to engage Americans in
efforts to prevent tragedies like the one in Newtown, reiterating that
America's first job is caring for our children:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/12/16/president-obama-prayer-vigil-connecticut-shooting-victims-newtown-you-are-not-alone?utm_source=121712&utm_medium=photo&utm_campaign=daily
verse of the day
He heals the brokenhearted and binds up their wounds.
- Psalm 147:3
voice of the day If thou shouldst never see my face again, pray for my soul. More things are wrought by prayer than this world dreams of.
-Alfred Lord Tennyson
prayer of the day
God, please comfort and heal all of those who are grieving those lost in the shooting on Friday. Grant our leaders wisdom moving forward to prevent such violence in the future.
President Obama at Prayer Vigil for Connecticut Shooting Victims: "Newtown, You Are Not Alone"
This evening the President spoke at an interfaith vigil for families of the victims, and all families from Sandy Hook Elementary School. He offered the love and prayers of a nation grieving alongside Newtown:
Here in Newtown, I come to offer the love and prayers of a nation. I am very mindful that mere words cannot match the depths of your sorrow, nor can they heal your wounded hearts. I can only hope it helps for you to know that you’re not alone in your grief; that our world too has been torn apart; that all across this land of ours, we have wept with you, we’ve pulled our children tight. And you must know that whatever measure of comfort we can provide, we will provide; whatever portion of sadness that we can share with you to ease this heavy load, we will gladly bear it.
Newtown -- you are not alone.
As these difficult days have unfolded, you’ve also inspired us with stories of strength and resolve and sacrifice. We know that when danger arrived in the halls of Sandy Hook Elementary, the school’s staff did not flinch, they did not hesitate. Dawn Hochsprung and Mary Sherlach, Vicki Soto, Lauren Rousseau, Rachel Davino and Anne Marie Murphy -- they responded as we all hope we might respond in such terrifying circumstances -- with courage and with love, giving their lives to protect the children in their care.
We know that there were other teachers who barricaded themselves inside classrooms, and kept steady through it all, and reassured their students by saying “wait for the good guys, they’re coming”; “show me your smile.”
And we know that good guys came. The first responders who raced to the scene, helping to guide those in harm’s way to safety, and comfort those in need, holding at bay their own shock and trauma because they had a job to do, and others needed them more.
And then there were the scenes of the schoolchildren, helping one another, holding each other, dutifully following instructions in the way that young children sometimes do; one child even trying to encourage a grown-up by saying, “I know karate. So it’s okay. I’ll lead the way out.”
As a community, you’ve inspired us, Newtown. In the face of indescribable violence, in the face of unconscionable evil, you’ve looked out for each other, and you’ve cared for one another, and you’ve loved one another. This is how Newtown will be remembered. And with time, and God’s grace, that love will see you through.
President Barack Obama attends the Sandy Hook interfaith vigil at
Newtown High School in Newtown, Conn., Sunday, Dec. 16, 2012. (Official
White House Photo by Pete Souza)
And by that measure, can we truly say, as a nation, that we are meeting our obligations? Can we honestly say that we’re doing enough to keep our children -- all of them -- safe from harm? Can we claim, as a nation, that we’re all together there, letting them know that they are loved, and teaching them to love in return? Can we say that we’re truly doing enough to give all the children of this country the chance they deserve to live out their lives in happiness and with purpose?Read President Obama's full remarks from the vigil.
I’ve been reflecting on this the last few days, and if we’re honest with ourselves, the answer is no. We’re not doing enough. And we will have to change.
Since I’ve been President, this is the fourth time we have come together to comfort a grieving community torn apart by a mass shooting. The fourth time we’ve hugged survivors. The fourth time we’ve consoled the families of victims. And in between, there have been an endless series of deadly shootings across the country, almost daily reports of victims, many of them children, in small towns and big cities all across America -- victims whose -- much of the time, their only fault was being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
We can’t tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change. We will be told that the causes of such violence are complex, and that is true. No single law -- no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world, or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society.
But that can’t be an excuse for inaction. Surely, we can do better than this. If there is even one step we can take to save another child, or another parent, or another town, from the grief that has visited Tucson, and Aurora, and Oak Creek, and Newtown, and communities from Columbine to Blacksburg before that -- then surely we have an obligation to try.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/12/16/president-obama-prayer-vigil-connecticut-shooting-victims-newtown-you-are-not-alone?utm_source=121712&utm_medium=photo&utm_campaign=daily
Obama, Boehner move closer to ‘cliff’ deal 17DEZ12
PRESIDENT OBAMA IS GETTING READY TO SELL US OUT, AGAIN!!!! THIS IS NOT WHAT WE VOTED FOR AND WE CAN NOT ACCEPT HIS CAVING IN TO REPIGLICAN /TEA-BAGGER DEMANDS BENEFITING THE RICH AND CORPORATE AMERICA!!!! If rep boehner wants to be responsible for taking the country over the so call "fiscal cliff" let him. We have to fight to protect Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and funding for education, vets benefits, national infrastructure and the social safety net too many of the 98% have relied on during this recession. This from my earlier post on these negotiations When You've Lost the VFW on Budget Cuts, You've Lost America 12DEZ12 (go to http://bucknacktssordidtawdryblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/when-youve-lost-vfw-on-budget-cuts.html to see the full post)
MY parents are retired and I know how the
current COLA formula for Social Security effects them. The adjustment is
never enough to cover the real cost of living. Now the government is
considering a ploy called the "chained CPI" to cut Social Security and
other benefits for the retired, vets and the poor while raising taxes on
the middle class. We can not allow this to become a concession in the
ongoing negotiations to avoid the fiscal cliff. We all need to e mail
President Obama http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/submit-questions-and-comments
our Senators http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
and our Representative http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
and tell them the "chained CPI" plan must be rejected and in no way be a part of the fiscal cliff budget negotiations. Don't know what to say? Use talking points from the vets letter to Congress. Or you can check out the letter I emailed at the bottom of this post. REMEMBER, Congress is counting on NOT hearing from YOU!
HERE is an update from the Washington Post......
Obama and Boehner (R-Ohio) huddled at the White House for 45 minutes Monday morning for their third conversation in the past five days. Later, Boehner met for an hour at the Capitol with his leadership team in advance of a briefing Tuesday morning for the entire House GOP that could be a crucial test of Boehner’s ability to sell the deal.
Administration officials and aides to Boehner declined to comment publicly on the talks, but people in both parties said they continued to make progress. Obama laid out a counteroffer that reduces the amount of new taxes he is demanding to $1.2 trillion over the next decade and concedes a key Republican demand — applying a less-generous measure of inflation to several government programs, including Social Security.
That change would save about $225 billion over the next decade, about two-thirds of it through smaller cost-of-living increases for Social Security beneficiaries. Obama tentatively embraced the change in budget negotiations with Boehner in the summer of 2011. Since then, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and many other Democrats have rejected the proposal, insisting that the solvency of Social Security be addressed separately from the year-end negotiations.
Still, senior Democratic aides said they could probably muster the votes for the change if it was not applied to disability payments, known as SSI, and if very old seniors were protected through a bump-up in benefits at age 85.
Obama has also dropped his demand for the extension of a payroll tax holiday that has benefited virtually every worker for the past two years. But he is also seeking higher taxes on a larger swath of wealthy taxpayers than Boehner has accepted, $50 billion in new spending on infrastructure, an extension of emergency unemployment benefits, and a hike in the federal debt limit sufficient to delay any fight over the issue for two years.
In his latest proposal, Boehner offered a one-year debt-limit increase. And Republicans have opposed more infrastructure spending and additional unemployment benefits.
Negotiations ramp up
Talks over the fiscal cliff have accelerated since Boehner made an offer Friday to increase tax rates on income over $1 million and to delay a fight over the government’s borrowing limit for another year in exchange for significant cuts to health and retirement programs. Boehner’s proposal called for $2 trillion in savings over the next decade, half from higher taxes and half from cuts to the fast-growing health and retirement programs that are the federal government’s largest expense.
People in both parties said the next few days could prove critical: Wither Obama and Boehner would reach a consensus and sell it to their respective parties, or talks would collapse, leaving congressional leaders scrambling for a fall-back plan to mitigate the economic damage from more than $500 billion in automatic tax hikes and spending cuts scheduled to begin immediately after Dec. 31.
Both sides cautioned that rank-and-file lawmakers had yet to digest — or even see — a proposal that would require them to breach party orthodoxy. Democrats could be asked to relent on reductions in Social Security benefits, while Republicans would have to agree to tax hikes on the wealthy.
The talks have made “substantial progress,” but “they have a long way to go,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, who is acting as a liaison between the White House and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
Of particular concern to negotiators is the conservative wing of Boehner’s caucus, which has been boisterous in its opposition to tax increases of any kind. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) said he found initial reports of Boehner’s tax offer upsetting.
“I don’t like it,” Chaffetz said. But echoing a number of other conservatives, Chaffetz said he was willing to “give the speaker the benefit of the doubt and hear him out before I pass judgment.”
Liberal Democrats, too, were on edge. Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.), who organized 57 House Democrats to sign a letter last week urging Obama and congressional leaders to protect Social Security, said adopting the new measure of inflation known as the chained consumer price index (CPI ) would result “in serious benefit cuts for recipients, particularly for our seniors and the disabled.”
“You can’t tell me it’s balanced when the principal payees are seniors and the disabled,” Edwards said.
In addition to political stumbling blocks, there are substantive differences between the two sides. Boehner’s concession on raising tax rates on income above $1 million breathed new life into the stalled talks. But Obama wants to push that threshold down to $400,000, a significant adjustment to his campaign pledge to raise taxes on income over $250,000, or about 3 million households.
Meanwhile, Obama’s demand for $1.2 trillion in new taxes is $200 billion more than the speaker’s current offer. The GOP may in turn demand an additional concession on health care — raising the eligibility age for Medicare beneficiaries from 65 to 67.
While Obama tentatively agreed to raise the Medicare eligibility age during talks with Boehner in 2011, it has emerged in the current negotiations as a line the White House is unwilling to cross.
Democrats encouraged
Still, Democrats in particular seemed buoyed by the status of negotiations after a weekend of horse-trading by Boehner’s senior policy adviser and Obama’s chief liaison to Congress. Those negotiations played out in the shadow of the massacre of 20 elementary school students in Connecticut on Friday and the death Monday of Sen. Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii), who had served 50 years in the Senate.
If a deal is reached, people in both parties say, it is likely to include postponement of roughly $100 billion in automatic spending cuts to the budgets of the Pentagon and other agencies next year.
However, $1 trillion in future cuts to agency budgets adopted during the 2011 budget battle would remain in place. Counting around $800 billion in savings from ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the overall package would come close to reducing deficits by a total of $4 trillion over the next decade — a target that economists say would stabilize the soaring federal debt.
As talks continued, Reid made tentative plans to advance fiscal-cliff legislation in the Senate, warning lawmakers that they probably do not have time to finish before Christmas. Instead, Reid said the Senate would probably have to return to Washington next week to take a final vote.
Rosalind S. Helderman contributed to this report.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-boehner-meet-as-debt-talks-intensify/2012/12/17/6b43c24a-4868-11e2-b6f0-e851e741d196_print.html
our Senators http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
and our Representative http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
and tell them the "chained CPI" plan must be rejected and in no way be a part of the fiscal cliff budget negotiations. Don't know what to say? Use talking points from the vets letter to Congress. Or you can check out the letter I emailed at the bottom of this post. REMEMBER, Congress is counting on NOT hearing from YOU!
HERE is an update from the Washington Post......
By Paul Kane and Lori Montgomery
President Obama and House Speaker John A. Boehner moved close to agreement Monday on a plan to avert the year-end “fiscal cliff,” but they had yet to clear several critical hurdles, including winning the support of wary House Republicans.Obama and Boehner (R-Ohio) huddled at the White House for 45 minutes Monday morning for their third conversation in the past five days. Later, Boehner met for an hour at the Capitol with his leadership team in advance of a briefing Tuesday morning for the entire House GOP that could be a crucial test of Boehner’s ability to sell the deal.
Administration officials and aides to Boehner declined to comment publicly on the talks, but people in both parties said they continued to make progress. Obama laid out a counteroffer that reduces the amount of new taxes he is demanding to $1.2 trillion over the next decade and concedes a key Republican demand — applying a less-generous measure of inflation to several government programs, including Social Security.
That change would save about $225 billion over the next decade, about two-thirds of it through smaller cost-of-living increases for Social Security beneficiaries. Obama tentatively embraced the change in budget negotiations with Boehner in the summer of 2011. Since then, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and many other Democrats have rejected the proposal, insisting that the solvency of Social Security be addressed separately from the year-end negotiations.
Still, senior Democratic aides said they could probably muster the votes for the change if it was not applied to disability payments, known as SSI, and if very old seniors were protected through a bump-up in benefits at age 85.
Obama has also dropped his demand for the extension of a payroll tax holiday that has benefited virtually every worker for the past two years. But he is also seeking higher taxes on a larger swath of wealthy taxpayers than Boehner has accepted, $50 billion in new spending on infrastructure, an extension of emergency unemployment benefits, and a hike in the federal debt limit sufficient to delay any fight over the issue for two years.
In his latest proposal, Boehner offered a one-year debt-limit increase. And Republicans have opposed more infrastructure spending and additional unemployment benefits.
Negotiations ramp up
Talks over the fiscal cliff have accelerated since Boehner made an offer Friday to increase tax rates on income over $1 million and to delay a fight over the government’s borrowing limit for another year in exchange for significant cuts to health and retirement programs. Boehner’s proposal called for $2 trillion in savings over the next decade, half from higher taxes and half from cuts to the fast-growing health and retirement programs that are the federal government’s largest expense.
People in both parties said the next few days could prove critical: Wither Obama and Boehner would reach a consensus and sell it to their respective parties, or talks would collapse, leaving congressional leaders scrambling for a fall-back plan to mitigate the economic damage from more than $500 billion in automatic tax hikes and spending cuts scheduled to begin immediately after Dec. 31.
Both sides cautioned that rank-and-file lawmakers had yet to digest — or even see — a proposal that would require them to breach party orthodoxy. Democrats could be asked to relent on reductions in Social Security benefits, while Republicans would have to agree to tax hikes on the wealthy.
The talks have made “substantial progress,” but “they have a long way to go,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, who is acting as a liaison between the White House and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
Of particular concern to negotiators is the conservative wing of Boehner’s caucus, which has been boisterous in its opposition to tax increases of any kind. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) said he found initial reports of Boehner’s tax offer upsetting.
“I don’t like it,” Chaffetz said. But echoing a number of other conservatives, Chaffetz said he was willing to “give the speaker the benefit of the doubt and hear him out before I pass judgment.”
Liberal Democrats, too, were on edge. Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.), who organized 57 House Democrats to sign a letter last week urging Obama and congressional leaders to protect Social Security, said adopting the new measure of inflation known as the chained consumer price index (CPI ) would result “in serious benefit cuts for recipients, particularly for our seniors and the disabled.”
“You can’t tell me it’s balanced when the principal payees are seniors and the disabled,” Edwards said.
In addition to political stumbling blocks, there are substantive differences between the two sides. Boehner’s concession on raising tax rates on income above $1 million breathed new life into the stalled talks. But Obama wants to push that threshold down to $400,000, a significant adjustment to his campaign pledge to raise taxes on income over $250,000, or about 3 million households.
Meanwhile, Obama’s demand for $1.2 trillion in new taxes is $200 billion more than the speaker’s current offer. The GOP may in turn demand an additional concession on health care — raising the eligibility age for Medicare beneficiaries from 65 to 67.
While Obama tentatively agreed to raise the Medicare eligibility age during talks with Boehner in 2011, it has emerged in the current negotiations as a line the White House is unwilling to cross.
Democrats encouraged
Still, Democrats in particular seemed buoyed by the status of negotiations after a weekend of horse-trading by Boehner’s senior policy adviser and Obama’s chief liaison to Congress. Those negotiations played out in the shadow of the massacre of 20 elementary school students in Connecticut on Friday and the death Monday of Sen. Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii), who had served 50 years in the Senate.
If a deal is reached, people in both parties say, it is likely to include postponement of roughly $100 billion in automatic spending cuts to the budgets of the Pentagon and other agencies next year.
However, $1 trillion in future cuts to agency budgets adopted during the 2011 budget battle would remain in place. Counting around $800 billion in savings from ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the overall package would come close to reducing deficits by a total of $4 trillion over the next decade — a target that economists say would stabilize the soaring federal debt.
As talks continued, Reid made tentative plans to advance fiscal-cliff legislation in the Senate, warning lawmakers that they probably do not have time to finish before Christmas. Instead, Reid said the Senate would probably have to return to Washington next week to take a final vote.
Rosalind S. Helderman contributed to this report.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-boehner-meet-as-debt-talks-intensify/2012/12/17/6b43c24a-4868-11e2-b6f0-e851e741d196_print.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)