Italy moves to more government spending as the solution for economic growth

Italy is going back to the policies that got it in trouble to begin with.  I wasn't a fan of the higher taxes and it would have been nice to see some real cuts in government spending, but this will be worse.  From the NY Times:

Mr. Letta is part of a growing European effort to question the austerity policies championed by Germany as the medicine to deal with the economic malaise in Europe, where unemployment has surpassed Great Depression levels in some places in the south and recession is creeping toward the once-resilient economies in the north. . . .

Read More

Democrats' reasonable fear about what Obamacare will do to their 2014 election hopes

Here is another quote by a candidate running for the special election Tuesday in South Carolina who distanced herself from Obamacare.  From Politico:

South Carolina’s Elizabeth Colbert Busch, a favorite of the Democratic left, couldn't get away from the law fast enough, calling Obamacare “extremely problematic” — a quote that got wide play from GOP groups like the National Republican Senatorial Committee. . . . 

. . . On Tuesday, a Kaiser Family Foundation poll showed just 35 percent of Americans hold a favorable view of the law, right as the administration is planning to roll it out. 

All the panic forced President Barack Obama to rush to the law's defense, saying at a news conference Tuesday: “Even if we do everything perfectly, there'll still be, you know, glitches and bumps. … And that's pretty much true of every government program that's ever been set up.” 

Obama’s goal was to dismiss what he called “all the hue and cry and, you know, sky-is-falling predictions about this stuff.” 

Don't bet on that happening. Democrats have been fretting about the law since it passed, and they're not exactly falling in love with it now either. . . .

The problem is that while Democrats are distancing themselves from Obamacare now, they virtually voted for it before.  The law wouldn't have passed if all the Democrats in the Senate hadn't voted for it.

Read More

Is gun control an issue that Democrats want to win or just campaign on?

President Obama claims that those who oppose the Senate gun control bill didn't want to "protect the lives of all our children," so if the president is recruiting candidates who oppose that legislation, doesn't that mean that Obama is supporting candidates who don't value protecting the lives of all our children.  From The Hill newspaper:

Democratic leaders are wooing staunchly pro-gun candidates to run in pivotal Senate races at the same time they are discussing a strategy for bringing gun control legislation back up for debate. 

The two-pronged effort has prompted Republicans to accuse the Senate Democratic leadership of hypocrisy, but Democrats say it is simply smart politics. 

The question is whether two of the Democrats’ most promising potential candidates in Montana and South Dakota will pay a price for the leadership’s political maneuverings in Washington. Or will recruiting candidates who do not support President Obama’s gun control agenda have any effect on Democratic fundraising efforts? 

Brad Dayspring, the communications director for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, took a swipe at Democrats for playing both sides of the gun issue. 

“Washington Democrats preach gun control, but are recruiting adamantly pro-gun candidates like Schweitzer & Herseth-Sandlin. Can't be both,” he posted on Twitter. . . .

Read More

Ethnic diversity among Democrats and Republicans

This might have been obvious before, but it is nice to see that the media is acknowledging this central fact.  From Politico:

The situation is particularly embarrassing situation for Democrats, to whom black voters give the vast majority of their support. Until Sen. Mo Cowan (D-Mass.) was appointed in February, the only African-American in the Senate was a Republican — Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina.  And it’s not lost on high-profile Democrats that the GOP now enjoys more ethnic diversity among its statewide leaders than the party whose president is both an illustration and a beneficiary of America’s changing face. . . .

After all, what party has the most Hispanic governors (NM and NV) and senators (FL and TX) and Indian governors (SC and LA)? As well as a Black US Senator (SC)?

Read More

Fraud in Unemployment Insurance System

The St. Louis Federal Reserve has released a study showing $3.3 billion was made in over payments for unemployment insurance.  It seems to me that this is just one type of fraud, not the type where people are lying about whether they are eligible and that all the information is properly reported.  Identity fraud might also be occurring.  With all the concern of the $44 billion in budget cuts from the sequester, this one type of fraud in one program equals almost one percent of those cuts.  You would think that this would get some attention.  From the St. Louis Fed:

The unemployment insurance program in the U.S. offers benefits to workers if they lose their jobs through no fault of their own. In 2011, this program cost $108 billion, of which nearly $3.3 billion was spent on overpayments due to fraud. 

Unemployment insurance fraud occurs when an ineligible individual collects benefits after intentionally misreporting his or her eligibility. Recent headlines have brought attention to extreme forms of fraud, such as the collection of unemployment benefits by prisoners. The dominant form of unemployment insurance fraud, however, is what's called concealed earnings fraud. This fraud occurs when individuals collect unemployment benefits while they are employed and are earning wages. The overpayments due to concealed earnings accounted for almost $2.2 billion in 2011, two-thirds of the total overpayments due to all categories of fraud. . . .

Read More

Push to get expanded background checks through the initiative process

I worry that with all the misinformation out there about background checks (and here) that bad legislation will be passed.  Anyway, the Associated Press has this sobering piece of news.

On Monday, proponents of universal background checks in Washington will announce their plan to launch a statewide initiative campaign that would require the collection of some 300,000 signatures, according to a person involved in the initiative planning who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to pre-empt the official announcement. The advocates have scheduled a fundraiser in Seattle at the end of next month and hope to have a campaign budget in the millions of dollars. 

Ballot measures may be an option elsewhere, too. Hildy Saizow, president of Arizonans for Gun Safety, said an initiative is one of the things the group will be considering as it reconsiders strategies. An organizer in Oregon was focused on the Legislature for now but wouldn't rule out a ballot measure in the future if lawmakers fail to pass a proposed bill there. . . .  

Brian Malte, director of mobilization at the national nonprofit lobbying group Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said passage through Congress is the ideal in order to have a national solution and so that states with strong gun laws aren't undermined by nearby states with weaker standards. He noted that initiative campaigns are costly endeavors that can drain important, limited resources.  

Still, Malte said, the ballot measures are an option to consider. . . .

Thanks as always to Tony Troglio for this link.

On the other hand, given the misleading polls and the sad support that gun control supporters often get (see this with the "Five sad pictures from today's anti-NRA march"), possibly initiatives are the way to show that these ideas can be defeated.

Read More

California seeking to ban lead in ammunition

California is dredging up old studies to justify banning lead bullets.  Just to get people up to speed on this issue, here is an EPA report from 1999.  An Associated Press story noted:

A 2008 study by the Centers for Disease Control and the North Dakota Department of Public Health concluded with a recommendation that lead is so prevalent in meat harvested through hunting that pregnant women and children should never eat it.  Gun supporters say that those studies have never conclusively linked consumption with illness in humans. . . .

But if you look at the North Dakota study, you will find this:

The lead levels among study participants ranged from none detectable to 9.82 micrograms perdeciliter. . . 

No attempt was made to account for other sources of lead poisoning and obviously there are multiple sources of lead in the environment (the mean level of lead in the blood in the US is 3 micrograms, not zero).  In addition, the highest level of lead in the blood for one of the 738 people sampled in the North Dakota study was less that what the government defines as elevated even for children.

Lead is a highly toxic metal that was used for many years in products found in and around our homes.  An elevated blood lead level in a child is defined as 10 or more micrograms of lead in a deciliter (μg/dL) of blood. . . . Children are more vulnerable to lead than adults.  While all children are at risk from lead, children living in older housing and in poverty are at the greatest risk.  Children who eat paint chips or breathe dust from flaking or peeling lead-based paint are the most likely to develop a problem.  Children may also develop high blood lead levels by drinking water contaminated with lead that may be in the plumbing system or by being exposed to contaminated soil or other lead hazards. . . . .

 From the New York Health Department these are the numbers for adults.

• At levels above 80 µg/dL, serious, permanent health damage may occur (extremely dangerous).
• Between 40 and 80 µg/dL, serious health damage may be occuring, even if there are no symptoms (seriously elevated).
• Between 25 and 40 µg/dL, regular exposure is occuring. There is some evidence of potential physiologic problems (elevated).
• Between 10 and 25 µg/dL, lead is building up in the body and some exposure is occuring.

It is hard to look at these numbers from the North Dakota study and view even the highest level of lead found as a danger, and there is no reason to believe that outlier is a result of hunting.  It seems likely that in the US as a whole more than 1 out of every 738 people have lead levels equal to or above the highest person in this sample.  Take Detroit.  In 2012, apparently 2,900 children under age 18 had lead poisoning.  With about 186,500 children under age 18, that implies a poisoning rate of 1.6% (down 70% from what it was just in 2004).  Given that the North Dakota data doesn't have anyone reaching the lead poisoning rates found in Detroit and that only 0.136% even reach 9.82 micrograms, Detroit has much more to be concerned about.  (Note that I am making the assumption here that the Scientific American article on poisoning means those under age 18 when it mentions "kids."  If in fact that refers to younger ages, the poisoning rate would be substantially higher.)

A similar Minnesota study that was done at the same time found: "As a result, the Minnesota DNR conducted the first-of-its-kind lead fragmentation study to simulate how different types of bullets commonly used for deer hunting might fragment."

See more on the general issue here.

Read More

Another place to cut government spending: Obama Labor Department spending millions to help establish unions worldwide

Why should our government be funding union activity in the US let alone the rest of the world?  From Fox News:

. . . The bureau for the past several years has purportedly made numerous awards -- worth millions of dollars -- to the United Nations, the Solidarity Center and other similar groups, “whose stated objective is to help establish labor unions in foreign countries," the senators said. 

They also said the bureau recently awarded a Colombian labor organization $1.5 million to help workers improve their collective bargaining rights and $2.2 million to the Solidarity Center, an AFL-CIO organization, to strengthen unions in Haiti and Peru. 

In addition, the bureau purportedly awarded a $1.5 million grant to an international development company in 2011 to assist labor unions in Vietnam engage in collective bargaining, the lawmakers said.  . . .

Read More

'Duck Dynasty' Tops all Wednesday's cable and broadcast series in the much desired 18 to 49 demo

Pretty amazing that this show was the top rated TV show in the most desired demo on Wednesday.

Duck Dynasty shows no signs of slowing. The A&E series' season finale drew a record 9.6 million viewers during its one-hour episode -- and an equally impressive 5.5 million adults 18-49. 

That haul in the key demo puts it ahead of all of cable and broadcast offerings for the night -- including American Idol. Duck Dynasty's 4.3 rating with adults 18-49 rating tops the preliminary showing for Idol (3.2 rating) by 34 percent. . . .  

In the network's adults 25-54 demo, Duck Dynasty outperformed its 18-49 showing with an average 5.5 million viewers. It also raked in 2.6 million adults 18-34. . . .

That show gives me some hope given how strongly the stars in the show are against gun control.  It is nice to see these stars giving President Obama a trashing on the issue.

“Hey, look here, the President was just on the news about gun control, but hey, luckily our congressmen and senators, they voted it down. But look, America hasn’t got a gun control problem, we have got a sin control problem. Nothing has changed with the human race, OK? We’re a bunch of flawed people, OK? And Duck Dynasty, look here, Duck Dynasty is full of flawed people that have turned to Jesus, OK? That’s the difference.” . . .

Read More

Remember those claims that 90% of Americans wanted the Senate background check bill to pass?: Well, it was clearly wrong

Despite assurances by the likes of Nate Silver that these are solid polls showing "Overwhelming majorities of 80 to 90 percent of the public say they favor background checks," I have previously noted my skepticism of these claims.  To me, it wasn't too surprising that the Senate voted down the gun control bill about 10 days ago.  My concern is that people were really just being asked about whether they wanted to keep criminals from getting guns, not about the particular legislation being voted on by the Senate.  Well, now there is another poll by the PEW Research Center that I think is much more accurate.  It asks people whether they are happy that the Senate gun control bill was stopped.  Apparently, both Republicans and Independents are generally happy that it was stopped.  My guess is that Republicans should pay a lot more attention to what Independents and Republicans wanted than Democrats who would never have voted for the Republicans anyway.  It looks to me that Republicans voted the way that their constituents wanted.  So Republicans shouldn't really care that among all voters the poll showed support of 47 to 39 percent.  They should look at the results by political affiliation.

Many, such as the New York Times, paint a picture of Senators who both simultaneously opposed the will of 90 percent of their voters and at the same time quake in fear of the NRA. Here is a piece by Joe Nocera at the New York Times on April 19th:

The four Democrats — along with many Republicans — quake in fear of the National Rifle Association. In 1994, Baucus voted in favor of the assault rifle ban — and then nearly lost his re-election bid. He never again stood up to the N.R.A. Yes, his phones were undoubtedly jammed this week. Still, it seemed to me that his unanswered phone was a potent symbol. I could almost picture him cowering in his office, waiting for us to stop asking why he sold the country down the river. . . .

Note in Baucus' case, he is retiring and yet he still voted against the so-called "universal background check" bill.  Might Mr. Nocera re-examine his piece?

The one US Senator who gun control advocates claim has been hurt by her opposition to the Senate gun control bill is Kelly Ayotte (see also here, though one will note that six months and a lot of other things have occurred since the last approval rating poll for Senator Ayotte).  Yet, it is interesting that the Democratic controlled state House of Representatives in New Hampshire isn't passing new gun control either.  From the New Hampshire Union Leader:

"NH State House Unmoved by Newtown Shootings" was the headline of a Patch.com story about a recent gathering of "area gun violence experts," hosted by the Portsmouth Democratic Party (of course) and including a representative of States United to Prevent Gun Violence, at the Portsmouth Public Library. 

A more accurate headline would have read, "Portsmouth Gun Control Panel Unmoved by Reality." 

According to the story, the "gun lobby" is so strong in New Hampshire that it will be next to impossible for anti-gun politicians to pass "universal background checks," allegedly making massacres like the Newtown tragedy more likely in this state. . . .

A collection of polls on gun issues is available here.

Other tangentially related material

By the way, the Nate Silver analysis of how Senators would vote on the Manchin-Toomey bill has some major problems, he uses a very unreliable measure of gun ownership from Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (it shows among the lowest gun ownership rates of any survey that I know of).  If you use a bad survey, you get a lot of noise and it makes it more likely that you won't get a statistically significant result.  I also like the way he runs a regression after the fact rather than predicting how people were going to vote before the Senate vote.  Letting him play around with different factors (we have no idea how many regressions that he ran before he decided to report the one that he did) makes the predictive power of that regression pretty useless.

UPDATE: Democratic polling firm Public Policy Polling (PPP) claims to find drop in support for five Senators, but for some of these polls the time since the last poll has been over six months, though a couple of others have just been since February.   

UPDATE: Obama's approval rating on guns has also fallen.  As one headline put it, "Obama's Approval Rating on Gun Control Plummets."  Here is part of the June 4th article:

Nearly half of voters think President Obama's doing a poor job at handling gun control, according to a Rasmussen Reports poll released Tuesday. Only 37 percent of voters give Obama positive reviews for the way he's handling gun control as opposed to the 46 percent of voters who give him a poor rating.  

The president's poor approval numbers have been climbing over the past few months. They were 34 percent in February and have climbed 13 points since then. . . .

Read More

The New York Times misses the real academic fraud: How academic research is biased towards finding statistically significant results that aren't really there

Suppose that you do an experiment and you don't get the "desired results." So you redo the experiment again and you get the "right" results.  Do you just report those results?  It seems that many commonly practice this.  The problem is that if you were to do an experiment many times, but only publish the one experiment that works, you have to adjust the statistical significance for the number of times that you redid the experiment.  Suppose that you did the experiment 10 times and that one time you got results that were significant at the 10 percent level.  Pretty obviously, you really didn't get statistically significant results.  The New York Times in its discussion of Stapel's fraudulent research doesn't seem to understand this problem.  Given that the others in psychology that were interviewed apparently view this as standard practice and assuming that is indeed the correct implication that they are giving, it means to me that the research in psychology is usually fraudulent.

Obviously there is a bias towards publishing research with statistically significant results in journals, and this bias creates the wrong incentives for academic authors.  But it raises the question what if anything one can learn from most academic research.  (BTW, it is one reason that I often try to publish redoing the different combination of control variables in my regressions.)  From the New York Times:

In one experiment conducted with undergraduates recruited from his class, Stapel asked subjects to rate their individual attractiveness after they were flashed an image of either an attractive female face or a very unattractive one. The hypothesis was that subjects exposed to the attractive image would — through an automatic comparison — rate themselves as less attractive than subjects exposed to the other image. 

The experiment — and others like it — didn’t give Stapel the desired results, he said. He had the choice of abandoning the work or redoing the experiment. . . .

Read More

"MIDDLE SCHOOL’S ANTI-BULLYING ACTIVITY: GIRLS ASKED TO KISS GIRLS"

From the Illinois Review:

. . . School administrators . . . held a bullying-prevention workshop for students at Linden Avenue Middle School during which the college facilitators asked girls to kiss girls. 

When confronted by angry parents who were not notified ahead of time about this activity, Principal Dr. Katie Zahedi claimed that “the sessions were…about saying no to unwanted advances….In planning the discussion, we made it clear that absolutely no discussion of any sexual acts is appropriate to middle school, and they used the examples of a kiss….It was…ultimately about respect and safety.” . . .

Here is a marginally related story.

A Riverton High School math teacher and coach of the sophomore girls' basketball team has been arrested and charged with raping a [female] student. . . .

Read More

Two figures from my book "At the Brink"

Read More

California retroactively increases taxes all the way back to 2008

I can understand why these businessmen thought that their accounts had misread the tax law.  This is just too unbelievable.  What do you think that this will do to people's willingness to invest in California in the future?  From The Hill newspaper:

The state’s tax officials have announced that they are retroactively canceling a tax incentive for startup companies in the state, and now presenting those companies with tax bills that date back to 2008 – plus interest. 

If that sounds like a declaration of war on entrepreneurs in the Golden State, you wouldn’t be far off as far as Brian Overstreet is concerned. 

Overstreet is the tech entrepreneur widely credited with having broken the story on a holiday season decision by the California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) to retroactively rescind a tax program that had incentivized companies to stay and grow in the state. The FTB about face was driven by a court decision that said the tax incentive was inappropriately granted only to companies with 80% of their assets in California. . . .  

“If you followed the law, did nothing wrong, and created jobs in California, you received a legal reduction in the state tax on capital gains you paid when you sold your company.” Overstreet explained to me. “Now, five years later, you get a bill for new taxes plus interest for up to five years.” . . .

Read More

Gun control push not going away: "Senators Quietly Seeking New Path on Gun Control"

Admittedly, given that this is from the New York Times, it might not be something that one wants to put much weight on, but it is still a warning that one should be careful about:

Talks to revive gun control legislation are quietly under way on Capitol Hill as a bipartisan group of senators seeks a way to bridge the differences that led to last week’s collapse of the most serious effort to overhaul the country’s gun laws in 20 years. . . .

Meanwhile Vice President Biden promises:

"For the first time ever, you have people who are for gun safety, for increasing background checks," Biden said. "Two out of three of them say it will be a major determining factor in how I vote. That's the political dynamic that has changed. So I think we're going to get this anyway. I think this will pass before the year is out, within this Congress." . . .

Earlier Senator Harry Reid made this promise:

"Make no mistake, this debate is not over," Reid, D-Nev., said Thursday after lawmakers voted down a string of amendments to the bill. "In fact, this fight is just beginning." . . .Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said the bill is not dead, though it might have to be altered."Either through the fury of constituents who were wronged yesterday or by revisions to the bill, we will try to bring this back up," Murphy said. . . . 

UPDATE: "Manchin says he's working to get another Senate vote on gun background check" 

. . . Manchin told “Fox News Sunday” that he’s going to rework the proposal to get it back to the Senate floor.
“We’re going to work this bill with all of our hearts,” he told Fox News. . . .
On Friday, Toomey said he had no plans to revive the proposal.
"My own view is very simple: The Senate has had its vote. We've seen the outcome of that vote. I am not aware of any reason to believe that if we had the vote again that we'd have a different outcome," he said, according to The Philadelphia Inquirer.
Manchin told Fox: “I don’t think he’s done.” . . .
Senate Majority Harry Reid said days after the defeat of the Manchin-Toomey proposal that he has “hit pause” on efforts to pass comprehensive gun-control legislation.
He said last week the proposal remains a work in progress but no action is being taken now.

The full transcript of the Fox News Sunday interview is available here.

Read More

Apple might have $145 Billion in cash, but tax laws are forcing it to borrow money

Apple has huge amounts of cash, but they can't get at the money without paying a large tax penalty.  So the tax law is forcing Apple to borrow a large amount of money that it shouldn't have to borrow.  From Buzzfeed:

The most interesting part of Apple's earnings report wasn't its $43.6 billion in revenue or $9.5 billion in net profit. Nor was it the 37.4 million iPhones and 19.5 million iPads sold over the last three months. It was the fact that, despite having just under $145 billion in cash and short-term marketable securities on its balance sheet, the company plans to borrow money by issuing debt for the first time in its history. 

Apple did not specify how much it planned to borrow, saying only that it "expects to announce more details about this in the near future." Sure, the company needs to find money to fund the extra $50 billion it plans to spend on share buybacks by 2015, which at a total of $60 billion makes it the largest single share repurchase program in corporate history. It also needs more money for its 15% dividend increase to $3.05 per share. . . . 

"Seventy percent of Apple's cash is overseas and would be taxed if they brought it home to buyback stock," said BTIG analyst Walter Piecyk. . . .

Read More

Obama morns victims of Boston Bombing with only a White House photographer present

Does this strike one as being extremely contrived and artificial?  This seems ripe for a SNL skit to poke fun at this self importance.  From Politico:

Tuesday morning, a peculiar announcement trickled out of the White House press office: President Barack Obama would be holding a moment of silence for the victims of the Boston bombings. At the White House. By himself. No press or other intruders allowed.

Except the White House photographer.

That Obama assumed Americans would want an iconic photo of him privately mourning the victims of the bombings was emblematic of a kind of hubris that has enveloped the president and his White House as the president commences his second term. . . .

Read More

Debating Geraldo Rivera and Brady Campaign's Dan Gross on Obama's Background Check proposals

The audio of the discussion is available here.

Read More

General Electric cuts of loans to Gun Shops: Was there Obama administration influence?

Given how closely General Electric is linked to the Obama administration and the massive government subsidies that it receives, why doesn't anyone in the media try figuring out if their refusal to give loans to gun companies is related to GE trying to please to the Obama administration.

General Electric Co.  is quietly cutting off lending to gun shops, as the company rethinks its relationship to firearms amid the fallout from the school shooting in Newtown, Conn. 

This month, Glenn Duncan, owner of Duncan's Outdoor Store in Bay City, Mich., said he received a letter from GE Capital Retail Bank in which the lender said it had made "the difficult decision" to stop providing financing services to his store. Other gun dealers have received similar notices. . . .

Read More

While your planes are late because of the sequester, remember how Obama is selectively cutting spending

Those working on Obamacare are apparently being exempt from the budget cuts.  From The Hill newspaper:

The office implementing most of President Obama's healthcare law is not furloughing its workers as a result of sequestration, its director said Wednesday.
Gary Cohen, director of the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, said Wednesday that his office has not cut its workers' hours and pay as a result of the automatic budget cuts that went into effect in March.
Republicans have accused the Obama administration of politicizing the sequester by targeting highly visible programs like airport security and White House tours.
The fact that ObamaCare officials haven't been furloughed shows that the cuts are political, Rep. Greg Harper (R-Miss.) said Wednesday.
"We're talking about at least a 15 percent furlough of current air-traffic controllers, resulting in delays and perhaps safety concerns, but yet this has been a selective political item by the administration," Harper said. . . .

First note that during the air traffic controller striking during the Reagan administration, administrators were able to step in and they kept the planes flying.  Yet, today with a much smaller reduction in number of workers, we have hours of delays.  In addition, note that all airports are not facing the same impact from air traffic control cuts.  If you are going to make the cuts in air traffic control, it seems to me that the efficient thing to do would be to cut so that each place faces the same delays.  That way you could actually reduce total delays.

The chief of the FAA told Congress today that Washington-area airports will largely escape the effects of the air traffic controller furloughs — a blessing for lawmakers who fly out of the nation’s capitol. 

Michael Huerta, head of the Federal Aviation Administration, told a congressional panel that the Washington region’s airports are spaced out enough and have enough spare capacity that furloughs to air traffic controllers won’t hurt as much here. . . .

UPDATE: Even the Chicago Tribune finds that Obama wants to make the sequester cuts as painful as possible.

. . . So, what could the administration do to make a reduction of barely 1 percent of actual federal outlays — less than $45 billion of this year's roughly $3.8 trillion — turn citizens against Republicans who oppose more tax increases? Easy, or so the president's men and women figured: Cue the air controller furloughs! Let's stall some flights on the tarmac!
Sure enough, travel delays have followed. We're less certain, though, that this hostage-taking will cut the way the White House expects: The scheme relies on citizens being — how to put this delicately? — stupid enough to think that the Federal Aviation Administration can't find a more flier-friendly way to save $600 million. 

To believe that, though: 

• Americans would have to ignore the plan that U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., delivered in early March to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, detailing how LaHood's FAA could save twice that amount — $1.2 billion. 

• Americans would have to ignore House Republicans who note that LaHood's supposedly destitute FAA is spending some $500 million on consultants — and $300 million on travel and supplies. 

• And Americans would have to ignore Democrats' refusal to accept congressional Republicans' offer to give the administration more flexibility in sequester cuts — an offer House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., reiterated during a meeting Monday with the Tribune editorial board. No, the White House doesn't want flexibility. The White House wants what the president predicted March 1. . . . . 

Read More

Are the Boy Scout's policies and statements consistent on homosexuality?

Whatever one's views on people who are openly gay being allowed in the Scouts, my question is whether they are being consistent.  If the Boy Scouts of America are really just wanting the policy regarding homosexuality to apply to those members under 18 years of age, why does the organization continue to explaining the concerns over male homosexuals supervising young boys is not objectionable?

The BSA also consulted four experts in the field of child sex abuse prevention. The four conveyed a “nearly universal opinion” within their field that homosexuality is not a risk factor for the sexual abuse of children. . . .

Read More

Senators and Congressmen want an exemption from Obamacare

What is it Obamacare that Senators and Congressmen don't want it to apply to them?  One thing is clear that neither Democratic nor Republican politicians in Washington want the new regulations to apply to them.  Well, guess what?  Apparently Democrats have discovered that Obamacare will be very expensive.  From Politico:

Congressional leaders in both parties are engaged in high-level, confidential talks about exempting lawmakers and Capitol Hill aides from the insurance exchanges they are mandated to join as part of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, sources in both parties said. 

The talks — which involve Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), the Obama administration and other top lawmakers — are extraordinarily sensitive, with both sides acutely aware of the potential for political fallout from giving carve-outs from the hugely controversial law to 535 lawmakers and thousands of their aides. Discussions have stretched out for months, sources said. . . . 

There is concern in some quarters that the provision requiring lawmakers and staffers to join the exchanges, if it isn’t revised, could lead to a “brain drain” on Capitol Hill, as several sources close to the talks put it. 

The problem stems from whether members and aides set to enter the exchanges would have their health insurance premiums subsidized by their employer — in this case, the federal government. If not, aides and lawmakers in both parties fear that staffers — especially low-paid junior aides — could be hit with thousands of dollars in new health care costs, prompting them to seek jobs elsewhere. Older, more senior staffers could also retire or jump to the private sector rather than face a big financial penalty. . . . 

Read More

Please explain why New York State law bans one of these guns and not the other

Read More

West Virginia Boy returns to school after being arrested for wearing NRA t-shirt

Another bizarre zero tolerance example.  It seems clear that the point of terrorizing school children over guns is to traumatize them about guns.  From Fox News:

A West Virginia teenager who was arrested and suspended from school after he refused to remove an NRA T-shirt is back in class.
Fourteen-year-old Jared Marcum of Logan returned to Logan Middle School on Monday after serving a one-day suspension.
His father, Allen Lardieri, told 13 News that the situation was exaggerated and said, "I don't see how anybody would have an issue with a hunting rifle and NRA put on a T-shirt, especially when policy doesn’t forbid it."
The school district's dress code prohibits any profanity, violence, discriminatory messages, but the report noted that gun images are not on the list. . . .

Read More

Cheltenham Township man uses AR-15 to defend himself from criminal breaking into his house

A many who was already facing charges of aggravated assault broke into this home.  From the Philly Inquirer.

An Elkins Park man was killed late Friday after he forced his way into a stranger’s apartment in Cheltenham Township.Jasper Brisbon, 32, wandered up to a couple late Friday at the Lynnewood Apartments as the pair spoke outside their unit. . . .
But as they entered their home Brisbon jumped between them, forcing his way in.
The male of the couple ran to get a semi-automatic AR-15 rifle and insisted Brisbon leave. Brisbon refused. Instead, as the man yelled “Stop! Stop Stop!” Brisbon moved menacingly toward the man, police said.
The man fired a shot striking Brisbon in the torso and immediately called 911, police said.
An ambulance rushed Brisbon to Abington Memorial Hospital where doctors pronounced him dead. . . .
Police said the residents of the apartment . . . did not know Brisbon and that the AR-15 was legally purchased. 

Read More

Massachusetts' strict gun control laws apparently didn't stop the Tamerlan or Dzhokhar Tsarnaev from getting guns

The Massachusetts' gun control law may be associated with higher violent crime rates, but it didn't stop the Tsarnaev brothers from getting ahold of guns.  From Politico:

The two brothers suspected of bombing the Boston Marathon and engaging in a massive firefight with police last week weren’t licensed to own guns, according to a report. 

Cambridge, Mass., police told Reuters they had not issued a gun license to 26-year-old Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who died after the firefight. The police departments in both Cambridge and Dartmouth said they didn’t issue 19-year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev a firearms identification card, which would’ve allowed him to own rifles holding less than 10 rounds and shotguns. Dzhokhar, who is under 21, wasn’t eligible for a regular handgun license. . . .

Yet, the number of legal gun owners has fallen from 1.54 million to just over 200,000.  The main point though is that murder and violent crime rates have gone up.

Read More

Soros funded Florida Center for Investigative Reporting claims: "As Firearm Ownership Rises, Florida Gun Murders Increasing"

George Soros has funded the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting, and you can see how they report the data in the most biased possible ways.  Eric Barton with the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting writes:

Murders by firearms have increased dramatically in the state since 2000, when there were 499 gun murders, according to data from Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Gun murders have since climbed 38 percent — with 691 murders committed with guns in 2011. 

Only partial numbers are available for 2012, but from January to June, there were 479 murders in Florida — 358 of them committed with a gun. That’s an 8 percent increase in gun murders compared to the same period in 2011. 

Guns are now the weapons of choice in 75 percent of all homicides in Florida. That’s up from 56 percent in 2000. . . . .

Note that they could also have looked at robberies and aggravated assault rates with guns and they would have seen drops of 23 and 11 percent respectively.  If they had looked at murder rates with guns, those rose by 16 percent, versus the rate that they reported that didn't adjust for population growth of 38 percent.  Given that crimes can be deterred with guns, it seems to me that one will want to look at primarily at total murders, robberies and aggravated assaults.

Even more interestingly, gun sales have soared in Florida since 2008 and all the rates, both with and with out guns, fell since then.  The crime data is available here.

Unfortunately, mainstream newspapers such as the Miami Herald and the Lakeland Ledger pick up this report.

The claim that the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting is funded by Soros is found at various places including this piece in the Lakeland Times:

Take a look at the fast-growing number of Soros-funded centers - they are blooming everywhere, like tulips in the spring, the Colorado Center for Investigative Reporting, the New England Center for Investigative Reporting, the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting, the Philippines Center for Investigative Journalism and on and on - and even a cursory look at the selected subjects shows an amazing similarity. . . .

UPDATE: The FCIR lists funding sources here.

Note however that Soros and his OSI have given money to the Center on Media, Crime and Justice and that the Fund for Investigative Journalism has received money from Soros.  I assume that there are other ways that Soros has given money to FCIR, but this seems enough to me.

Read More

National Journal doesn't believe Obama's prediction that gun vote will help Democrats in 2014

My guess is that how these politicians vote is a lot better predictor of what the voters want than these biased polls.  From Josh Kraushaar at the National Journal:

. . . Yet, despite the embarrassing setback, Obama nonetheless argued that he still held the upper hand, politically: “If this Congress refuses to listen to the American people and pass commonsense gun legislation, then the real impact is going to have to come from the voters.”  That couldn’t misread the political environment heading into 2014 anymore. That’s the audacity of mope. 

Put simply, the 2014 Senate elections will be fought predominantly on the very turf that is most inhospitable to gun control–Southern and Mountain West conservative states. It’s no coincidence that three of the four Democrats who opposed the Toomey-Manchin bill are facing difficult reelections in 2014 and presumably are attuned to the sentiments of their constituents. Blame the National Rifle Association for the bill’s failure, but the lobby is feeding into already deeply held opposition to gun regulations and a broader sense of anxiety about the president’s and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s intentions–particularly given the president’s past publicized remark about “bitter” rural voters who “cling to their guns and religion.”  It doesn’t take much for the gun-rights crowd, significant in these states, to jump to inaccurate conclusions given that history. 

And how do the White House or allied groups plan on punishing gun-control opponents? The notion of challenging the Second Amendment Democrats is as fanciful as it is self-defeating. Democratic primary voters in the deep South have significantly different views on gun rights than their coastal counterparts. Even if they support expanded background checks, the chance of landing a candidate running a one-issue campaign against brand-name Democrats like Mark Pryor and Mark Begich defies common sense. Three years ago in Arkansas, liberals poured their money and manpower in to defeat former Sen. Blanche Lincoln in a primary with the state’s lieutenant governor. Even though Lincoln was unpopular in the state–later losing reelection to Republican Sen. John Boozman by 21 points–she fended off the challenge. . . .

Some notes on the recent polling here and here.  The Hill newspaper goes on about how thankful the Democrats are to getting the gun control debate behind them.

Democrats in Congress have quickly changed the subject from gun control to immigration reform and are relieved to be moving past an issue that divided them to more solid political ground. 

The political momentum from the resounding victories of Election Day stalled earlier in the week when Republicans punched out all three pillars of Obama’s gun-control agenda. . . .

Read More

Chris Wallace at 1:18 into this video asks whether people in Boston wished that they had guns for protection

Given how Wallace treated those who opposed additional gun control regulations during the recent debate, Wallace is showing some balance here.

Read More

Obama Administration admits that the Miranda decision does make it harder to convict criminals

If you really think that that Miranda makes it harder to find out information from a criminal and convict them as the Obama administration implies here, doesn't that imply that Obama believes that Miranda resulted in higher crime rates?

Read More

Rand Paul: The Only Way To Stop These Shootings Is To End Gun Free Zones

I really wish that Rand Paul didn't make the claim that all these initial denials were real dangerous people.  As I have pointed out, this claim is simply wrong (more detailed links and discuss is available here).  On the other hand, at 2:30 into the video he questions gun free zones.

Unfortunately, Senator Ted Cruz makes the same error here (see at 1:49 into the video).

Read More

Remembering the first real Federal push for gun control

Franklin D. Roosevelt was responsible for this push:

Roosevelt’s original proposal for what would become the National Firearms Act of 1934, the first federal gun control law, sought to tax all firearms and establish a national registry of guns. When gun owners objected, Congress scaled down FDR’s proposal to allow only for a restrictive tax on machine guns and sawed-off shotguns, which were thought to be gangster weapons with no usefulness for self-defense.   

Congress watered down FDR’s bill because of concerns about maintaining the right of people in rural communities, where there was little police presence, to have handguns for protection. . . .

Read More

Illinois House fails to get supermajority to pass concealed handgun law

"May Issue" law receives only 31 votes compared to the "right to carry" law that received 64 votes.  Unfortunately, a supermajority was required of 71 votes to pass.

Presumably this means that the State Attorney General will try appealing the Circuit Court decision that struck down Illinois' ban on concealed carry.

From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

Gun rights advocates fell silent in the Illinois House on Thursday night after falling seven votes short of approving the public possession of firearms statewide despite a federal court order that gives legislators just weeks to put such a law on the books. 

The proposal creating a method to permit qualified gun owners to carry concealed weapons failed 64-45. The measure needed a supermajority of 71 votes because the legislation would trump the right of the state's larger cities to set up their own laws. 

For the second time in as many days, a House vote on concealed carry demonstrated the chasm between gun rights advocates and those who want tighter restrictions on them. . . . 

Called a "may issue" concealed-carry law, Cassidy's measure was modeled on the New York law that survived a potential challenge before the U.S. Supreme Court this week. It received only 31 votes. That's far fewer than those willing to support Phelps on his "shall issue" proposal, which would allow anyone who meets the training and background check requirements to carry. . . . 

Thanks to Tony Troglio for the link.

Read More

Interview on Sun News about Senate defeat of gun control bill

Read More

Even Politico notes the extreme bias in the media over the background checks

Bill Kristol is hardly a conservative on the gun issue, and even he thinks that the bias has been quite strong.  From Politico:

. . . Even by the standards of today’s partisan media environment, the response has been noteworthy. Television hosts, editorial boards, and even some reporters have aggressively criticized and shamed the 46 Senators who opposed the plan, while some have even taken to actively soliciting the public to contact them directly. 

The decision by some members of the media to come down so firmly on one side of a policy debate has only served to reinforce conservatives’ longstanding suspicions that the mainstream media has a deep-seated liberal bias. 

“I guess the liberal media get annoyed when Senators listen to their constituents and think for themselves, rather than doing the media’s bidding,” Bill Kristol, the editor-in-chief of the Weekly Standard, told POLITICO. 

”It’s clearly biased and unmistakably ideological,” said John Podhoretz, the conservative New York Post columnist. “These outlets can do what they do want, but nobody should kid themselves about what they’re doing.” . . .

I have noted this for a long time with the cheerleading by the media on the bogus claim that 40% of gun sales are done with out background checks (see others discuss it here).

Read More