Guns Don't Make Us Safer

I’m sure Doug Yanak is a hard-working, well meaning, patriotic American and a responsible gun owner, but in his op-ed in the March 17 Gazette-Mail titled “With Guns We’re Citizens; Without Guns, Subjects,” he has completely missed the target. I won’t blame him for the headline, which may have been penned by the newspaper, but many people in the U.S. and around the world are neither gun owners nor subjects of dictators or repressive regimes.

Yanak starts his piece by letting us know he has carried a gun for thirty years and never had to remove it from his holster (to defend himself or others, I presume). He is an NRA Firearm Instructor who teaches for concealed carry firearm certifications, so his interest in convincing others of the importance of owning and carrying weapons may go beyond his interest in the effects of public policy on reducing gun violence.

In arguing against new gun laws, he first takes aim at universal background checks. He says a grandfather would be a felon if he gives his grandson a firearm.  On the contrary, the proposed legislation makes exceptions for transfers between family members and in other circumstances such as for hunting or if someone is in imminent danger.  

Next, Yanak states, “…all veterans diagnosed with post traumatic stress” would be prevented from purchasing a firearm. He’s not entirely wrong, because even now, any citizen deemed mentally incompetent is denied the right to purchase a weapon legally. But not all veterans who are diagnosed with PTSD are or likely would be deemed mentally incompetent. While the law is making its way through Congress, this is an area that is getting a lot of attention from lawmakers who want to protect veteran’s rights. How to decide who is mentally unstable and should be denied ability to purchase a firearm is a difficult legislative task, but most Americans want the current laws improved for all of our protection.

Evil and lack of spirituality, Yanak blasts, are the problem, not guns; he says that people will murder with or without guns because we live in a “Godless society.” Yet in the U.S., with some of the least restrictive gun laws and where 83% say religion is very important in their lives, we have a homicide rate of 4.2 per 100,000, and in Great Britain, with highly restrictive gun laws and where only 23% say religion is very important, there is a homicide rate of 1.2. Apparently, murder can be reduced by reducing the easily availability of guns, even if people aren’t religious.

After this, Yanak abandons all attempt at logic and turns to fantasy. He picks up the NRA’s ultimate weapon for assaulting proposed gun laws, the claim that the ultimate goal of new laws to reduce gun violence is “to give the federal government that ability to come and confiscate the innocent owners’ firearms with no appeal.” And he goes on to make the argument that governments that “established gun control” end up rounding up and killing their citizens: Turkey the Armenians, Hitler’s Nazi Germany, Guatemala the Mayans, etc. However, Great Britain passed its first restrictions, banning handguns, in 1920. The Queen has yet to start rounding people up.

The “facts” he presents have been circulating in e-mails and on the Internet for a few years, and don’t prove anything except that dictatorial regimes tend to disarm their internal enemies. Sadly, there are probably many good West Virginians who believe as Mr. Yanak does that our government wants to take away their guns and strip their 2^nd Amendment rights, and there are many right wing commentators and websites who want them to believe that, despite the fact that there is no legislation being discussed to take away any guns. Fear of Democrats in control of government has become a sales pitch for many Republican candidates and people who support them. 

But, to repeat, there is no legislation under consideration to ban handguns or rifles or shotguns and President Obama has stated publicly that is not his aim. There is discussion about ending the sale of high capacity magazines and certain weapons known as assault weapons that can shoot as fast as one can pull the trigger. Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, claims he needs one in case all law and order breaks down and armed gangs rove the streets.

Just for the sake of argument, I have to wonder what limit, if any, people like Senator Graham and Mr. Yanak think there ought to be on personal arsenals in their neighborhoods. If, as Mr. Yanak fears, the government would start rounding people up for extermination, what weapons would we need to repel the full force of the U.S. Army? Rocket propelled grenades? Tanks? Perhaps a mine field around our homes? Should all these be protected by our Constitutional right to bear arms?

I think not. I prefer to believe in the old adage, the pen is mightier than the sword. The second amendment has held up for over 200 years; even after a Civil War, Confederate soldiers were allowed to keep their guns. Sensible laws can be written that allow Americans to have firearms for hunting and self-defense without allowing them to build up arsenals of military style weapons which might, in a fit of rage or temporary insanity, be used against the rest of us as was done at Columbine, Tucson, Aurora, and Newtown.

Obamacare: An issue of morality

ObamaCare is a word coined by those who oppose the Affordable Care Act, but President Obama has embraced the term. If we re-elect him and preserve it, a new study shows we’ll soon begin to see powerful results of the law on one of the biggest factors leading to poverty.

Imagine for a moment that there is a medicine with no significant side effects, which if given freely to those who want it, prevents a condition that causes 34 out of a thousand young people to miss significant work time, often leading them to leave the workforce or drop out of school. People who live with the condition are usually affected for at least 18 years, and many fall into poverty and require government assistance during some or all of these years, especially those who have recurring bouts of the condition. In order to avoid some of the effects of this condition, on average fifteen of a thousand elect a procedure that is considered shameful by many.

By now, you probably realize I’m talking about pregnancy, and the medicine to avoid it is birth control. A recent two year study of 9,000 young women in St. Louis that got little fanfare  (small notice near the classifieds in the Charleston Gazette, Oct. 5^th ) shows dramatic results in reducing teen pregnancies and abortions.  According to the AP release, “When price wasn’t an issue, women flocked to the most effective contraceptives—the implanted options, which typically cost hundreds of dollars…” The result was 80% fewer teen pregnancies and one-third the abortions of national averages. As Ed Rabel pointed out in his recent entreaty to improve sex education for our teens (Charleston Gazette, Oct. 8), West Virginia, with the 8^th highest rate of teen pregnancies among states, has potential to reduce rates even further.

Even if the only legacy of ObamaCare were a dramatic national reduction in teen pregnancy and abortion, the program would likely be seen in the future as having significantly reduced poverty and largely solved a thorny national problem.  Imagine how many girls might avoid the pitfalls of young motherhood and instead finish school, find gainful employment, and then marry and raise a family when they are better prepared emotionally and economically for parenthood. Imagine how many children will avoid the fate of being raised by an overburdened, underprepared teenager or shuffled around to relatives or foster parents who may only grudgingly care for them. Yet birth control is just one of many provisions of the Affordable Care Act that are likely to improve health and reduce poverty.

I would think the pro-life movement would rally behind ObamaCare once they learned of its dramatic effectiveness in reducing abortion, not to mention the expected impact on poverty. To someone opposed to abortion, someone who believes abortion is tantamount to murder, would it not in these circumstances be immoral to oppose provisions in the Affordable Care Act that provide for birth control without co-pays? Mitt Romney has flip-flopped on many issues before and during his run for president, but he continues to say at every opportunity that he would repeal ObamaCare on day one of his presidency. This is one more reason not to allow him a chance.

Romney Can't Buy Our Votes

A lot has been made of Romney’s 47% remarks, surreptitiously recorded while he spoke to wealthy donors in Florida about the difficulty of getting Obama supporters to vote for him. And rightly so—he said that the 47% of Americans who don’t pay federal income tax “are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it… my job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

In fact, many have pointed out, the 47% of Americans who don’t pay income tax are mostly the elderly and working people who don’t earn enough to reach the threshold of paying income taxes, though they pay Social Security taxes and Medicare taxes, commonly known as payroll taxes. It’s the way our tax system is structured, to encourage people to work rather than tax them back into deeper poverty at the lowest income levels. It’s the way Bill Clinton, with cooperation from Republicans, insisted the tax code be restructured in “Welfare to Work” legislation. Many of those who do not pay federal income tax are not Obama supporters, or at least they weren’t before Mitt spoke so disparagingly of them.

What every pundit I’ve heard has overlooked is what Romney was actually trying to communicate to his rich friends: “Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect.” In other words, the main reason Romney believes people will vote for him is to save money on taxes. He reveals another truth: Republicans are for low taxes because that buys votes, not because, as they claim, lowering taxes creates jobs (there are better ways to stimulate job growth). Romney is saying they can’t buy the votes of Obama supporters because, he claims, most Obama supporters don’t pay income taxes, which he says he’d lower.

Really? Does Mitt Romney believe, do Republicans believe that Americans base their votes solely on how much money they think the winner will save them on their tax bill? Well, I pay plenty of income tax, and Mitt, to paraphrase the Beatles song; I don’t care too much for money. Money can’t buy my vote.

The Big Dog, Persuader in Chief

West Virginians who support President Obama wonder how they can explain to those who don’t or who are undecided, many of them registered Democrats, why they should vote for him. In response, I’m turning to master communicator Bill Clinton. His speech to the Democratic National Convention was criticized for length but praised for its detail and accuracy. Unlike Paul Ryan’s speech at the Republican convention, Clinton’s words and numbers hold up to fact checking. Here are the main points of his argument to reelect President Obama:

·      Democratic presidents have created almost twice as many jobs as Republican presidents in the last 50 years (42 million vs. 24 million)

·      The current Republican office holders “think government is the enemy, and compromise is weakness.” President Obama is still committed to cooperation and has shown he’s willing to work with Republicans if they will work with him.

·      President Obama “inherited a deeply damaged economy,” prevented a depression, and “laid the foundation for a modern economy that will produce millions of good new jobs.”

·      We are much better off than we were when Obama took office as the economy was in free fall and job loss was 750,000/month.

·      “No president – not me or any of my predecessors could have repaired all the damage in just four years….But conditions are improving.”

·      Since the stimulus kicked in, 4.5 million private sector jobs have been created. There would be a million more jobs if Congressional Republicans hadn’t blocked his jobs bill.

·      Obama saved the auto industry, bringing back 250,000 jobs. Romney opposed the plan.

·      Obama made an agreement with auto industry “management, labor, and environmental groups to double car mileage…” This and his “all of the above” energy plan save us money on gas now and in the future.

·      Obama made reforms to lower the cost of federal student loans and make them easier for students to repay.

·      Obamacare is not a government takeover. Insurance companies are running it under new, fairer rules forcing them to spend more on health care instead of for profits and advertising.

·      Millions more Americans are now and will become insured, even those who cannot now get insurance because of pre-existing conditions.

·      “And for the last two years, health care spending has grown under 4%, for the first time in 50 years.”

·      The Republican claim that the President is “robbing Medicare of 716 billion dollars” is false. He is saving money by cutting unnecessary subsidies to insurance companies and some providers, and using the savings to save seniors money on prescription drugs.

·      The Republican charge that Obama is weakening the work requirement for citizens receiving welfare assistance is false. In fact, he is working with Republican governors to strengthen it.

·      The President has offered a debt reduction plan of 4 trillion dollars in a decade (fact checkers say this is somewhat inflated because it includes money saved by ending wars). It contains spending cuts of $2.50 for each $1 of increased taxes on high earners.

·      Romney’s budget plan gives more tax cuts to the rich and will either add to the debt or cause tax increases for middle class taxpayers. He won’t say what he would cut, but it would hurt the country to make cuts in the amounts he and Ryan propose.

·      “If you want a ‘you’re on your own, winner take all’ society, you should support the Republican ticket.  If you want a country of shared opportunities and shared responsibilities – a ‘we’re all in it together’ society, you should vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden.”

Some people who support the President have asked me how we can talk to those who seem to discount facts and talk very negatively about him. The human brain is an amazing instrument with several parts. Our more primitive brain reacts to emotions, especially fear. That’s why it’s so hard to change someone’s mind with facts, and why folksy charm in politicians like Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan is so effective with many Americans,

If you're an undecided Democrat or Independent, I hope you're willing to consider the facts. But folks, don’t take it from me, take it from the Big Dog, President Clinton, “I want to nominate a man who’s cool on the outside, but who burns for America on the inside…I want Barack Obama to be the next president of the United States.”

A version of this was published in the Charleston Gazette-Mail on Sunday, September 16, 2012

We're All Economists Now

With the selection of Paul Ryan as Romney’s running mate, the “Ryan budget” will be the focus of debate for this election season. Ryan’s plan would turn Medicare into a voucher system, severely cut Medicaid spending, give enormous tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans, increase taxes on the middle class, and cut or eliminate unspecified non-defense federal programs such as education, research, parks, environmental protection, and food safety.

In short, if Americans elect Romney and give Republicans control of Congress, the Ryan budget would devastate many poor and middle class Americans and undo the progress that has been made toward recovery under President Obama. Ryan claims the lower taxes on corporations and the wealthy would spur an economic boom that will bring in revenue to decrease debt and deficit. Under Reagan, this was known as trickle down economics. It didn’t work then (he raised taxes to bring in needed revenue), it didn’t work under George W. Bush (the deficit and debt exploded and job creation was anemic), and it won’t work for Romney-Ryan.

 “It’s the economy, stupid!” as Democratic strategist James Carville famously pointed out about presidential elections. If the economy is good, people will vote for the incumbent or his party; if not, they’ll vote for the other party. Most people will judge the economy based on their situation. If they are prospering, have work, feel secure, their savings and investments are growing and their tax burden is reasonable, they judge the economy is doing okay. If not, they vote for a change in leadership.

When Barack Obama ran on a platform of “hope and change,” his hope was that in a time of a worldwide financial meltdown politicians of both parties would pull together to bring the economy out of the deepest recession since the 1930’s, keep it out of a depression, make changes to solve problems that created the mess. After that, he hoped that a growing economy would allow for investments in education and updating of our energy sector.

In the last months of George W. Bush’s term, with the stock market continuing to plummet, worldwide credit frozen and banks “too big to fail” being propped up by massive infusions of government money, it looked like Congress was ready to pull together to pass legislation to fix problems by stimulating growth to create jobs and improving regulation of Wall Street.

After the election, President Obama invited Republicans to participate in the process of shaping the stimulus package.  Obama agreed to extend tax cuts for wealthy Americans even though he had campaigned to end them, and to include new tax cuts, though he knew those tax cuts would not stimulate the economy as much as the infrastructure spending and investments in alternative energy he had proposed. When it came time for votes, despite his efforts to include their ideas and negotiate on ideas they had in many cases proposed, except for three Northeastern moderates, Republicans would not support it.

The Republican leadership made their top priority to “make Barack Obama a one term president,” even if it meant that the economy would suffer, dashing President Obama’s hopes for a new politics of compromise and consensus. They not only refuse to compromise on legislation, but incessantly use the Senate filibuster, once a rare procedure. Bills that would pass with a majority are tabled, since it requires not 51 Senators, but 60 to break a filibuster.

Mitt Romney criticizes the President because this is the “weakest recovery” since the Great Depression. At least it’s a recovery, despite Republicans tactics which have had severe impact on a slowly growing economy, such as the filibuster and threatening default on the national debt. Despite their intransigence, over four million private sector jobs have been added since October of 2009 when stimulus funding and census hiring reversed the downward slide in employment (public sector jobs have not fared so well, especially since stimulus funds to state and local government jobs have ended).

While some Americans are not better off than they were when Barack Obama became president, our economy is better off now that the stock market has recovered, the auto industry is booming, and Americans are protected from the worst abuses of the health insurance industry.

Implementing the Ryan budget, which the Republican controlled House has passed, and supporting the Romney-Ryan ticket would continue the country on the path it was on before Barack Obama intervened, with more wealth at the top, a shrinking middle class, and less of a safety net for the needy. Here in West Virginia, most of us stand to lose in such an economy. 

This essay was published in the Charleston (WV) Sunday Gazette-Mail, Sunday, Aug. 19, 2012