Monday, December 31, 2012

Eva M. Clayton: Together We Must Show Leadership for Safe Schools and Communities

For many young people across America, especially in communities of color, gun violence is sadly a normal way of life. In both urban and rural cities and towns from Henderson, NC or Laredo, TX to Chicago or South Central Los Angeles our young people too often die as a result of gun violence. While the massacre of elementary-aged students and a few dedicated adults in Newtown, CT is a national tragedy, we should see it as one example of the failure of our nation's policymakers to be serious about gun safety.

Shortly after the Newtown tragedy, President Barack Obama directed Vice President Joseph Biden to lead an interagency effort to develop "a multifaceted approach... to preventing mass shootings in the future." This is welcomed leadership on a critical issue affecting thousands of lives each year. Consider these facts: There are 129,817 federally licensed firearms in the United States, the most heavily armed country compared to other democratic and industrialized countries, with close to 89 guns for every 100 Americans. In the UK, on the other hand, there are just six guns per 100 citizens.

What's more, every day 87 people die from gun violence. In 2011, my state of North Carolina reported 335 deaths by firearms, which represents an increase of 17 percent over the previous year. This is simply unacceptable -- and we need to take action to ensure these statistics improve and to ensure the safety of our children. With that in mind, it is my sincere hope that Vice President Biden's effort will result in bringing a wide spectrum of our electorate, including those who hold the Second Amendment as sacrosanct, closer together as a community focused on safety first and will ultimately help us all accept that having more guns does not ensure our security and freedom as a nation. As the vice p resident pulls together his team, the focus should be on gun safety and the tangential issues that are part and parcel to increased gun violence.

The Second Amendment should not be used as a deterrent to finding ways to make gun ownership more secure for our society. Our goal must be to reduce the likelihood of future shootings and tragedies. I believe most gun owners, especially our sportsmen, respect and welcome reasonable gun safety regulations and background checks. They understand that a handgun or rifle in the hands of the wrong person is the difference between controlled security and uncontrolled violence and terror.

However, the onus is not on the gun lobby alone. Individually and collectively we will need to make a commitment to examining the role of mental health, our fascination with violent entertainment on television as well as in movies and video games, as the root cause of gun violence in cities and towns across America. For that reason, the approach by the administration must be holistic, engaging all interests to identify actionable goals toward gun safety.

Hopefully, as Americans we will do more than just talk, and will demonstrate a commitment of working together for the common good, of a more safe and more secure neighborhood, community and nation. We need to emerge from our reflection with renewed determination to address the challenges of the tragic and horrific act of violence which occurred in Newtown. We all pray that the loss of lives of those young, innocent children and those dedicated adults will be honored by serious dialogue and as a result concrete action by our elected officials to prevent more mass shootings from becoming a regular occurrence.

Now is the time for all citizens to come together to find a policy solution that makes us all a little safer. Let's not wait for another violent shooting by an unstable or violent person wielding an assault weapon to take and destroy more innocent lives. As citizens, we have to play our parts by holding our elected and organizational leaders accountable. The SOS is clear: we must begin this dialogue and take action now.


Follow Eva M. Clayton on Twitter: www.twitter.com/evamclayton



Greg Lukianoff: Censorship on Campus in 2012: From Benghazi to Free Speech Zones at the University of Missouri

Looking back at what 2012 had in store for the fight for free speech and basic rights on campus, the best I can say is that it was a mixed bag. There were some encouraging signs along the way, but also many setbacks. For instance, for the fifth straight year, my organization (the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, or FIRE) found a decrease in the number of campus speech codes. This is good news. However, it sounds a little less exciting when you realize that a pretty miserable 62 percent of top colleges maintain what FIRE dubs "red light" (read: very bad) speech codes. So, some progress has been made, but there is much work still to be done.

One of the more distressing developments of this year was the speed and verve with which some academics decried America's strong commitment to the First Amendment and our substantial free-speech protections in the wake of the Benghazi attack. In the days immediately following the tragedy, many believed the attack was a direct response to a controversial YouTube video. Some academics, including Eric Posner and Anthea Butler, wasted no time seizing this opportunity to proclaim that Americans value free speech too highly.

I spent some time taking these arguments apart in my columns "We Are All Blasphemers" and "Free Speech: Just a Recent Fad?" And certain academics joined me in defending the First Amendment with gusto, including Georgetown law professor David Cole in his piece "More Speech is Better" in The New York Review of Books. But I ended my campaign when it became increasingly clear that the video was not the cause of the Benghazi attacks. Given that even the CIA admits that the attacks on the compound were not a response to that video, I hope professors like Posner and Butler will reconsider their stance. Sadly, I doubt they will; as I have discovered in my work, the idea that we must curtail that nasty First Amendment in the name of other (often shifting) values has a surprising amount of currency in academia -- the very institution that, perhaps, most relies on free speech in our society.

What concerns me even more, however, are the attitudes and beliefs of today's college students about freedom of speech. Here, once again, 2012 brought some good news and some bad news. One of the more distressing moments, for me, came when I appeared on Central Standard, a National Public Radio show on KCUR out of Kansas City, to discuss my new book Unlearning Liberty: Campus Censorship and the End of American Debate. The host invited a student panel to join us and they talked about their concerns regarding speech-restrictive policies and practices at their colleges. I became pretty distressed when I listened to Roze Brooks, a clearly intelligent, plugged-in, and thoughtful student at University of Missouri-Kansas City (UMKC), share her thoughts on free speech on campus in general.

What upset me wasn't just her discussion of UMKC's "free speech zone" policies, which not only restricted demonstrations and other free speech activities to small parts of campus, but also required that students obtain 10 days' advance permission in order to use those zones. After all, such rights violations are quite common on campuses across America. I was distressed because Brooks seemed to matter-of-factly accept the requirement of advance state permission to express oneself -- despite the fact that zones like these have been immediately overturned every single time they have been challenged in court.

Her words were just another confirmation of a fear that has plagued me for years: that no matter how strong our First Amendment protections might be, and no matter how wise the reasons for those strong protections are, they don't matter very much if students don't know what their rights are in the first place, and don't understand when they're being violated.

That is why I was extremely pleased to see that Brooks later wrote an article for UMKC's student paper that was highly critical of her university's speech policies, especially its absurd and, in my opinion, flatly unconstitutional free speech zone policy.

But the cases we see at FIRE seem to indicate that voices like Brooks' are beginning to grow less common as the attitudes that college students hold about free speech rights shift toward acceptance of repression, in some cases even championing censorship.

The battle to protect free speech on campus rests upon making sure that students are educated about and engaged in protecting their rights. That is why I think it is only fitting to end my last post of 2012 with some words from a student that inspired some real hope in me. This is how Danielle Charette, a student at Swarthmore College concluded a recent column about the issue of free speech on campus in Swarthmore's The Phoenix:

"Everyone here at Swarthmore, I'm willing to say, desires a safe and respectful learning environment. Part of that entails not wishing to be personally offended or to willingly offend others. But we cannot be so paralyzed by fear of offensiveness that we instead paralyze free speech. There is no guarantee against being offended in this world, especially not in a place like Swarthmore which purports to engage and debate some of life's most heated questions in a rigorous academic setting.


As John Stuart Mill eloquently reminds us, '[T]he peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation, those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.' Speak your mind, Swatties."


Follow Greg Lukianoff on Twitter: www.twitter.com/glukianoff



Liberal Democrat On Fiscal Cliff Talks: 'This Looks Like A Very Bad Deal'

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), one of the leading liberal voices in the Senate, went after his fellow Democrats on Monday for possibly caving on their promise to keep Bush tax cuts for only those earning $250,000 or less, saying "the direction they're headed is just absolutely the wrong direction for our country" and "grossly unfair" to the middle class in a speech on the Senate floor.

Harkin referenced reports that a "fiscal cliff" deal could include extending tax cuts implemented under President George W. Bush for those making less than $450,000 per year, rather than the $250,000 per year President Barack Obama promised as the cutoff.

Harkin said the $250,000 level already seems like a compromise. He called that cutoff a "tough pill to swallow," as that income level is already far above the income of middle-class Americans.

"As I see this thing developing -- quite frankly, as I've said before -- no deal is better than a bad deal, and this looks like a very bad deal, the way this is shaking up," he said.

"This is one point in time where decisions that are made on this so-called deal, decisions that are made could lock in for the next 10 years what kind of a country we're going to be, what kind of a society we're going to be," he added. "So we better be darn careful."

Harkin hedged later when asked whether he would filibuster such a deal, according to Fox News' Chad Pergram, saying, "Well, there might be some extended debate."

If no deal is reached by midnight on Monday, taxes will go back to those enacted under President Bill Clinton in 1993. Harkin said he isn't too worried about that outcome.

"I ask, what's so bad about that? It worked pretty darn well," Harkin said. "The economy was going well, we were paying down the deficit ... I, for one, do not fear going back to a system of taxation that basically worked very well for our country. It was only the Bush tax cuts that messed everything up."

Also on HuffPost:

  • The Deficit Has Grown Mostly Because Of The Recession

    The deficit has ballooned not because of specific spending measures, but <a href="http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?s[1][id]=FYFSD" target="_hplink">because of the recession</a>. <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals" target="_hplink">The deficit more than doubled</a> between 2008 and 2009, as the economy was in free fall, since laid-off workers paid less in taxes and needed more benefits. The deficit then shrank in 2010 and 2011.

  • The Stimulus Cost Much Less Than Bush's Wars, Tax Cuts

    Republicans frequently have blamed <a href="http://projects.nytimes.com/44th_president/stimulus" target="_hplink">the $787 billion stimulus</a> for the national debt, but, when all government spending is taken into account, the stimulus frankly wasn't that big. In contrast, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/29/cost-of-war-iraq-afghanistan_n_887084.html" target="_hplink">the U.S. will have spent nearly $4 trillion</a> on wars in the Middle East by the time those conflicts end, according to a recent report by Brown University. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/revisiting-the-cost-of-the-bush-tax-cuts/2011/05/09/AFxTFtbG_blog.html" target="_hplink">The Bush tax cuts have cost nearly $1.3 trillion</a> over 10 years.

  • The Deficit Grew Under George W. Bush

    When George W. Bush took office, <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals" target="_hplink">the federal government was running a surplus</a> of $86 billion. When he left, that had turned into a $642 billion deficit.

  • The Deficit Is Shrinking

    <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals" target="_hplink">Last year's federal budget deficit</a> was 12 percent lower than in 2009, according to the Office of Management and Budget.<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals" target="_hplink">The deficit is projected to shrink</a> even more over the next several years.

  • Investors Are Paying Us To Borrow Money

    <a href="http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=realyield" target="_hplink">The interest rate on 10-year Treasury bonds</a> is <em>negative</em>, according to the Treasury Department. Investors are even paying us for 30-year Treasury bonds, when adjusted for inflation.

  • Investors Are Not Running Away

    <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/niall-ferguson-has-been-wrong-on-economics-2012-8" target="_hplink">Conservative commentators</a> have been warning for years that investors will run away from Treasury bonds because of the national debt. So far it's not happening. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/30/treasury-yield-record-low_n_1555975.html" target="_hplink">Interest rates on Treasury bonds</a> continue to hover at historic lows.

  • Health Care Reform Reduces The Deficit

    <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/04/republican-platform-2012-factual-mistakes_n_1840795.html#slide=1461142" target="_hplink">Republicans have blasted the Affordable Care Act</a> as "budget-busting." But <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/04/republican-platform-2012-factual-mistakes_n_1840795.html#slide=1461142" target="_hplink">health care reform actually reduces the deficit</a>, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

  • The U.S. Is Borrowing Less From China

    <a href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/30/fear-of-china-syndrome/" target="_hplink">The U.S. government is borrowing much less from foreign countries</a> than before the recession, according to government data cited by Paul Krugman. That is because the U.S. private sector is financing our bigger deficits.

  • We Spend A Lot On Defense

    <a href="http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258" target="_hplink">Defense spending constituted 20 percent</a> of federal spending last year, or $718 billion, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. This adds up to <a href="https://twitter.com/AJInsight/statuses/241269134996959234" target="_hplink">41 percent of the world's defense spending</a>, according to Bloomberg TV anchor Adam Johnson. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/19/mitt-romney-military-budget_n_1687601.html" target="_hplink">Mitt Romney has vowed</a> to not cut defense spending if elected president.

  • We Spend A Lot On Health Care

    <a href="http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258" target="_hplink">Health insurance, including Medicare and Medicaid, constituted 21 percent</a> of federal spending last year. In contrast, education constituted 2 percent of federal spending. Meanwhile, <a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/08/19/2956609/middle-aged-blues-over-paul-ryans.html" target="_hplink">Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have promised not to change Medicare</a> for Americans age 55 and older.

  • Republicans May Want Large Deficits For Now

    <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/corporate-taxes-deficits-and-labor-vs-capital-during-reagans-first-term-2012-7" target="_hplink">The federal budget deficit ballooned</a> under Ronald Reagan, and that may be just the way Republicans like it. <a href="http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/06/tax-cuts-republicans-starve-the-beast-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html" target="_hplink">Some Republican thinkers</a> have proposed <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/22/opinion/22krugman.html" target="_hplink">"starving the beast"</a>: that is, cutting taxes in order to use larger deficits to justify spending cuts later. Since Republicans ultimately want lower taxes and a smaller government, what better way is there to cut spending than to make it look urgent and necessary?



Sunday, December 30, 2012

Marijuana Legalization Campaign Looks To Expand After 2012 Victories


By Alex Dobuzinskis
LOS ANGELES, Dec 30 (Reuters) - After a decades-long campaign to legalize marijuana hit a high mark in 2012 with victories in Washington state and Colorado, its energized and deep-pocketed backers are mapping out a strategy for the next round of ballot-box battles.
They have their sights set on possible ballot measures in 2014 or 2016 in states such as California and Oregon, which were among the first in the country to allow marijuana for medical use. Although those states more recently rejected broader legalization, drug-law reform groups remain undeterred.
"Legalization is more or less repeating the history of medical marijuana," said Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance. "If you want to know which states are most likely to legalize marijuana, then look at the states that were the first to legalize medical marijuana."
A political arm of the alliance spent more than $1.6 million as one of the main funders of the Washington state campaign.
The passage of the ballot measures in Colorado and Washington state in November allowed personal possession of the drug for people 21 and older. That same age group will be allowed to buy the drug at special marijuana stores under rules set to be finalized next year.
No other states have legalized marijuana, America's most widely used illicit drug, for recreational use. The drug remains illegal under federal law. Connecticut and Massachusetts also approved medical marijuana in 2012.
A big question mark hangs over whether the pro-legalization momentum could be slowed if the federal government takes an aggressive stance against the new laws.
The U.S. Department of Justice has been mostly silent on the issue. President Barack Obama said in a TV interview this month it did not make sense for the federal government to "focus on recreational drug users in a state that has already said that, under state law, that's legal."

CHANGING TIDE?
In 1996, California became the first state to allow medical marijuana by a popular vote, and Oregon and Washington state were among the second wave in 1998. But Oregon rejected a marijuana legalization ballot measure in November, while California voters did the same in 1972 and 2010.
The 2010 ballot measure in California failed to sway voters because it would have left regulation to a hodgepodge of local governments, instead of a uniform set of state rules, said Dale Gieringer, director of the California branch of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.
This month, California Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom became one of America's top state officials to call for reform of marijuana laws when he told the New York Times that laws against the drug "just don't make sense anymore."
Activists say they see demographic changes as giving them an advantage.
"We know that the younger generation is more supportive and the opposition really comes from the older generation. And as time goes on there's more of the younger generation and less of the older generation," Gieringer said.
"The second factor is we have these results in Colorado and Washington under our belt, so that sort of fertilizes the ground," he added.
One key point marijuana advocates are thrashing out is whether to pursue any ballot initiative in 2014, or wait until the presidential election of 2016, when the turnout of their reliable base of youth voters will likely be higher.
Regardless of when a ballot initiative might come to California, the nation's most populous state, groups opposing legalization vow to defeat it.
One of those is the California Police Chiefs Association.
"I have yet to hear a legalization proponent talk about how society will be enhanced, how the real social problems facing our country will be improved by legalizing yet another substance that compromises people's five senses," said John Lovell, government relations manager for the group.
A number of addiction specialists say that where marijuana is legalized, teenagers will come to believe the drug is harmless and more will use it.
Medical marijuana is already big business in California. The state Board of Equalization in its most recent analysis from 2009 estimated medical cannabis dispensaries ring up sales of $1.3 billion a year, and pay sales taxes of $105 million. (Reporting By Alex Dobuzinskis; Editing by Colleen Jenkins, Edith Honan and David Brunnstrom)

Also on HuffPost:

  • Alaska

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/alanasise/6847095796/" target="_hplink">Flickr: alana sise</a>

  • Arizona

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/billward/110338154/" target="_hplink">Flickr: Bill Ward's Brickpile</a>

  • California

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/gerbache/2260207829/" target="_hplink">Flickr: gerbache</a>

  • Colorado

    Also legalized possession by non-medical users. <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dok1/520845832/" target="_hplink">Flickr: dok1</a>

  • Connecticut

  • District Of Columbia

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigberto/2770838680/" target="_hplink">Flickr: ~MVI~ (off to coron)</a>

  • Delaware

    Flickr: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dougtone/7749689644/">Doug Kerr</a>

  • Hawaii

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/ricardo_mangual/6006230817/" target="_hplink">Flickr: Ricymar Fine Art Photography</a>

  • Maine

    <a href="www.flickr.com/photos/indywriter/2683524563/" target="_hplink">Flickr: indywriter</a>

  • Massachusetts

    Passed ballot initiative in 2012.

  • Michigan

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/kayoticblue/213316452/" target="_hplink">Flickr: ckay</a>

  • Montana

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/csbarnhill/2633187564/" target="_hplink">Flickr: csbarnhill</a>

  • Nevada

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/http2007/4699361533/" target="_hplink">Flickr: http2007</a>

  • New Jersey

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulflannery/4021996652/" target="_hplink">Flickr: psflannery</a>

  • New Mexico

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/everyskyline/3134662783/" target="_hplink">Flickr: michaelwhitney</a>

  • Oregon

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/d-powell/2099638403/" target="_hplink">Flickr: digging90650</a>

  • Rhode Island

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dlthurston/3967126839/" target="_hplink">Flickr: thurdl01</a>

  • Vermont

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/bryanalexander/6129117/" target="_hplink">Flickr: BryanAlexander</a>

  • Washington

    Also legalized possession by non-medical users. <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/rose_braverman/6924724331/sizes/l/in/photostream/" target="_hplink">Flickr: Rose Braverman</a>

  • Medical Marijuana Restaurant in Colorado

    From La Ganja to Ganja Ganoush, find out about an eatery that incorporates medical marijuana in its recipes.




David Brooks Pins Cliff Failure On Republican 'Brain Freeze'

New York Times columnist David Brooks said Sunday that Republicans should shoulder most of the blame if lawmakers do not reach an agreement on the fiscal cliff ahead of Tuesday's deadline.

"What's happening in Washington right now is pathetic. When you think about what the revolutionary generation did, what the civil war generation did, what the World War II generation did -- we're asking not to bankrupt our children and we've got a shambolic, dysfunctional process," Brooks said during an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"Most of the blame still has to go to the Republicans," he continued. "They've had a brain freeze since the election. They have no strategy. They don't know what they want. They haven't decided what they want."

Brooks' comments echoed a similar assessment from President Obama, who sat down with "Meet the Press" for an interview that aired Sunday morning.

"We have been talking to the Republicans ever since the election was over. They have had trouble saying yes to a number of repeated offers," Obama said. "[S]o far, at least, Congress has not been able to get this stuff done. Not because Democrats in Congress don't want to go ahead and cooperate, but because I think it's been very hard for Speaker Boehner and Republican Leader McConnell to accept the fact that taxes on the wealthiest Americans should go up a little bit, as part of an overall deficit reduction package."

But Brooks also reserved some of his criticism for the president, stating that Obama has at times "governed like a visitor from a morally superior civilization," appearing to undermine the very point he'd made about the value of the high moral fiber of previous generations just seconds earlier.

"He comes in here and he'll talk to [John] Boehner, he won't talk to the other Republicans," Brooks said. "He hasn't built the trust. Boehner actually made a pretty serious concession, $800 billion in tax revenues, probably willing to go up on rates. But the trust wasn't there. If the president wants to get stuff done over the next four years, it's got to be about a lot more than just making the intellectual concessions."

Also on HuffPost:

  • Military Health Care - $16 Billion

    In his last offer to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), President Barack Obama lobbied for $16 billion in cuts from the military's health care program, TRICARE. In 2012, the president also proposed hiking fees for military personnel and veterans who receive benefits under the program in an effort to help cut the defense budget. His proposal drew significant fire from Republican lawmakers and veterans' groups.

  • Military Retirement Program - $11 Billion

    Both sides agreed to cuts from the military retirement program. Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) claimed during July 2011 talks that lawmakers had reached a tentative deal to slash <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/11/fiscal-cliff-talks-medicare-social-security_n_2113259.html" target="_hplink">$11 billion</a>. Under the current system, military personnel receive immediate retirement benefits after serving for 20 years. According to a recent report from the Congressional Budget Office, the appropriation cost per active military service member has <a href="http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43574" target="_hplink">increased at a higher rate</a> than either inflation or the total pay package of private-sector employees. Given the budget constraints looming before the Defense Department, the CBO floated the idea of transitioning the military retirement program to a matching-payment model.

  • Federal Employee Retirement Program - $33 -$36 Billion

    Cantor claimed that Republicans and Democrats had agreed to <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/11/fiscal-cliff-talks-medicare-social-security_n_2113259.html" target="_hplink">$36 billion in savings</a> over 10 years from civilian retirement programs. The president proposed a marginally more modest figure of <a href="http://presspass.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/11/15089281-white-house-grand-bargain-offer-to-speaker-boehner-obtained-by-bob-woodward#.UKCJftkTtS8.twitter" target="_hplink">$33 billion</a> in his final offer to House Speaker John Boehner. Just this year, Republicans in the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform also looked to find savings from the Federal Employee Retirement System by <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/house-committee-approves-measure-upping-federal-employee-contributions-to-retirement-plan/2012/04/26/gIQAuoW6iT_blog.html" target="_hplink">requiring employees to pay more of their salary</a> into their pensions, which Democrats opposed as a pay cut that would make civil service less attractive for top talent. In September 2011, the federal government employed <a href="http://www.fedscope.opm.gov/cognos/cgi-bin/ppdscgi.exe?DC=Q&E=/FSe%20-%20Status/Employment%20-%20September%202012&LA=en&LO=en-us&BACK=/cognos/cgi-bin/ppdscgi.exe?toc=%2FFSe%20-%20Status&LA=en&LO=en-us" target="_hplink">over two million individuals</a>, either through the cabinets or independent agencies. Many Republicans have complained that the federal workforce has ballooned during the Obama administration, and while the raw number of employees has risen by <a href="http://www.thefactfile.com/2012/01/23/the-size-of-the-federal-workforce-rapid-growth-for-some-stagnation-for-others/" target="_hplink">14.4 percent</a> between Sept. 2007 and Sept. 2011, the percentage of public employees out of the total civilian workforce has <a href="http://www.thefactfile.com/2012/01/23/the-size-of-the-federal-workforce-rapid-growth-for-some-stagnation-for-others/" target="_hplink">remained fairly constant</a> around 1.2 percent since 2001. Much of the raw growth has been concentrated in the Department of Defense, Veteran's Affairs and Homeland Security.

  • Agricultural Subsidies - $30 - $33 Billion

    Democrats and Republicans agreed to cut as much as <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/12/fiscal-cliff-barack-obama-_n_2118739.html" target="_hplink">$30 billion</a> from agricultural subsidies; the main opposition fell along geographical lines rather than partisan ones. Hailing from an agriculture-heavy state, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) threatened to pull out of talks entirely if a deal included that much in subsidy reduction. The president ended up pushing for <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/11/fiscal-cliff-talks-medicare-social-security_n_2113259.html" target="_hplink">$33 billion in cuts</a>, but that figure also included reductions in conservation programs. Baucus now tells HuffPost any cuts should be made through the farm bill, not fiscal cliff talks.

  • Food Stamps - $2 to $20 Billion

    Cantor pushed hard for significant cuts to food stamps, formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. He charged that the federal government could save as much as <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/11/fiscal-cliff-talks-medicare-social-security_n_2113259.html" target="_hplink">$20 billion over ten years</a> by eliminating waste and fraud, but the White House countered that the real number was closer to $2 billion. Instead, those cuts would force the program to scale back on the number of enrollees and the level of benefits it could offer.

  • Flood Assistance - $4 Billion

    Obama proposed cutting <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/12/fiscal-cliff-barack-obama-_n_2118739.html" target="_hplink">$4 billion from flood assistance</a> funding in his final offer to Boehner in July 2011. But Hurricane Sandy straining the National Flood Insurance Program; The New York Times <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/nyregion/federal-flood-insurance-program-faces-new-stress.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0" target="_hplink">reports</a> that thousands of claims are being submitted daily, which could send the overall cost upwards of $7 billion for a program that suffers from a ballooning debt problem. And with climate change promising <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/climate-change-predictions-foresaw-hurricane-sandy-scenario-for-new-york-city/2012/10/31/b78de428-2374-11e2-ac85-e669876c6a24_blog.html" target="_hplink">future flooding disasters</a> along the eastern seaboard, cutting the program looks unwise.

  • Home Health Care - $50 Billion

    The president offered to cut <a href="http://presspass.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/11/15089281-white-house-grand-bargain-offer-to-speaker-boehner-obtained-by-bob-woodward#.UKCJftkTtS8.twitter" target="_hplink">$110 billion over the next decade</a> from the government's health care spending, excluding Medicare. Among the programs that could lose crucial funding is home health care, where Democrats and Republicans agreed to <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/11/fiscal-cliff-talks-medicare-social-security_n_2113259.html" target="_hplink">$50 billion in reductions</a> over ten years. Cantor pushed for closer to $300 billion in spending cuts to health care, but Democrats appeared to stand firm.

  • Higher Education - $10 Billion

    The president proposed cutting <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/12/fiscal-cliff-barack-obama-_n_2118739.html" target="_hplink">$10 billion from higher education</a> over the next decade, mostly from Pell grants. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/27/pell-grants-college-costs_n_1835081.html" target="_hplink">Over nine million students</a> relied on federal subsidized loans to afford college during the 2010-2011 school year, and the skyrocketing costs have continued to diminish the purchasing power of the Pell grant program. Obama has actively worked to make college more affordable for lower-income students. Key Republican lawmakers have attempted to cut funding for student loans; most notably, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) slashed the maximum award from $5,550 per student per year down to <a href="http://colorlines.com/archives/2011/07/dems_students_fight_to_save_pell_grants_amidst_debt_ceiling_talks.html" target="_hplink">just $3,040</a>.

  • Medicaid And Other Health- $110 Billion

    The original funding levels proposed by Cantor and the GOP leadership would turn the entitlement program for America's poor into little more than a block grant program, Democrats claimed during the 2011 debt ceiling talks. Under such a program, they argued that states would then <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-11/medicaid-to-lose-1-26-trillion-under-romney-block-grant.html" target="_hplink">drop more people from enrollment</a> and scale back on health benefits. In fiscal year 2009, <a href="http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0151.pdf" target="_hplink">over 62 million Americans</a> -- many of them children -- depended on Medicaid for their health care. But the president did agree to <a href="http://presspass.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/11/15089281-white-house-grand-bargain-offer-to-speaker-boehner-obtained-by-bob-woodward#.UKCJftkTtS8.twitter" target="_hplink">$110 billion</a> in cuts from Medicaid and other health programs.

  • Medicare - $250 Billion +

    Republicans pushed for a drastic overhaul to the entitlement program for America's seniors. Ryan infamously proposed turning Medicare into little more than a voucher system in which seniors would receive checks to purchase their own health care on the open market -- a plan that would ultimately <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kennethdavis/medicare-vouchers_b_1947804.html" target="_hplink">force individuals to shoulder more of the burden</a> for their health care costs. Democrats refused to accept changes similar to those in Ryan's plan. The president, however, was <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/11/fiscal-cliff-talks-medicare-social-security_n_2113259.html" target="_hplink">more open to other GOP suggestions</a> on Medicare. In his final offer to Boehner, he agreed cut $250 billion over the next ten years -- in part by increasing premiums for higher-income seniors and by raising the eligibility age from 65 to 67 (although over a longer time frame).

  • Tax Reform - $800 Billion - $1.6 Trillion

    Republicans have again and again <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0511/Boehner_Medicare_Medicaid__everything_should_be_on_the_table_except_raising_taxes.html" target="_hplink">decried any attempt</a> to raise taxes, either on the highest earners or on corporations. (A Democracy Corps/Campaign for America's Future survey shows that <a href="http://www.ourfuture.org/report/2012114508/cafdemocracy-corps-election-poll-2012" target="_hplink">70 percent of voters</a> support raising taxes on the wealthiest two percent of Americans.) Instead, Boehner has pushed for a <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/11/fiscal-cliff-talks-medicare-social-security_n_2113259.html" target="_hplink">comprehensive tax reform bill</a> that would lower the marginal tax rates while closing loopholes and eliminating deductions in order to raise around $800 billion in additional revenues. For many Democrats, <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323551004578117152861144968.html" target="_hplink">that figure simply isn't enough</a>. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney announced Tuesday that the president was aiming for as much as <a href="http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/showing-backbone-on-the-debt/" target="_hplink">$1.6 trillion in new revenues</a>, and the president told reporters on Wednesday that it would be <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/14/obama-tax-cuts_n_2131256.html" target="_hplink">practically impossible</a> to raise the amount of revenue he wanted simply from closing loopholes and lowering rates.

  • Social Security - $112 Billion

    Social Security <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/14/fiscal-cliff-social-security_n_2130762.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular" target="_hplink">isn't driving the deficit</a>, yet Republicans have <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/11/fiscal-cliff-talks-medicare-social-security_n_2113259.html" target="_hplink">pursued drastic changes</a> to the program. Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has promised that Social Security would be <a href="http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/reid-no-messing-with-social-security" target="_hplink">off the table</a> in the on-going negotiations to avoid the fiscal cliff, but Obama did concede to tying the benefits to a <a href="http://presspass.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/11/15089281-white-house-grand-bargain-offer-to-speaker-boehner-obtained-by-bob-woodward#.UKCJftkTtS8.twitter" target="_hplink">recalculated Consumer Price Index</a> that would ultimately provide less money to retirees. Sen. Bernie Sanders claims that, under such a measure, seniors who are currently 65 years-old would see their benefits drop by <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/267079-reid-assures-sanders-he-wont-agree-to-social-security-cuts-in-debt-deal" target="_hplink">$560 a month in 10 years</a> and by as much as <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/267079-reid-assures-sanders-he-wont-agree-to-social-security-cuts-in-debt-deal" target="_hplink">$1,000 in 20 years</a>. The Moment of Truth project (led by the two former co-chairs of the president's deficit reduction commission, former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) and former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles) claims that the recalculated CPI could save as much as <a href="http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/11767/the_social_security_cut_washington_does_not_want_you_to_understand/" target="_hplink">$112 billion</a> from Social Security over the next ten years.

  • Tax Loopholes And Deductions - Up To $180 Billion

    Although Cantor and other GOP House members demanded that any deficit-reduction deal brokered in 2011 be classified as <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/11/fiscal-cliff-talks-medicare-social-security_n_2113259.html" target="_hplink">revenue-neutral</a>, they were open to closing particular loopholes in the corporate tax code and limiting itemized deductions for individuals -- given that they were offset by other tax cuts. Out of the $50 billion in savings to be found over the next decade from closing loopholes, Cantor proposed getting $3 billion from eliminating the break for corporate-jet owners and another $20 billion from voiding the subsidies for the oil and gas industries. On the individual earner side, he proposed eliminating the second-home mortgage deduction for $20 billion, as well as limiting the mortgage deduction for higher-income households to rake in another $20 billion. He also offered to tighten the tax treatment of retirement accounts. But Democrats wanted to see even greater action taken on itemized deductions. In June 2011, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) proposed raising $130 billion in new revenues by capping itemized deductions at 35 percent for the highest income brackets. The GOP response to his proposal at the time was a resounding "no."

  • Bush Tax Cuts For The Wealthy - $950 Billion

    Set to expire on Dec. 31, 2012, the Bush tax cuts represent one of the most controversial elements of the so-called fiscal cliff. They added over <a href="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2/24editorial_graph2-popup.gif" target="_hplink">$1.8 trillion to the deficit</a> between 2002 and 2009. Yet Republicans argue that an extension is necessary to create jobs and spur economic growth. But a <a href="http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/PDF/0915taxesandeconomy.pdf" target="_hplink">study</a> from the Congressional Research Service found that tax cuts for the wealthiest earners had little economic effect. The White House is pushing for a renewal only of those tax breaks for the lower- and middle-class Americans in order to save the average middle-class family <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/01/pf/taxes/fiscal-cliff-tax/index.html" target="_hplink">between $2,000 and $3,500</a> next year. Letting the cuts expire for those earning over $250,000 a year -- or the wealthiest two percent of Americans -- would haul in <a href="http://www.offthechartsblog.org/cbo-ending-high-income-tax-cuts-would-save-almost-1-trillion/" target="_hplink">$950 billion</a> in savings over the next decade, according to the CBO. Obama stressed how much the country stood to gain from such an approach Wednesday during a press conference. "If we right away say 98 percent of Americans are not going to see their taxes go up ' 97 percent of small businesses are not going to see their taxes go up," he said. "If we get that in place, we're actually <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/49821777" target="_hplink">removing half of the fiscal cliff</a>."



Obama Had GOP Cornered, Says Republican Senator

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said on Sunday that the only reason some Republicans had been willing to raise tax rates on income above $250,000 was that President Barack Obama had been firm in his position. Now that Obama and other Democrats are showing more flexibility, offering to set the threshold for tax increases at at least $400,000, the political calculus has changed, Kyl told ABC's "This Week."

On "Fox News Sunday," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said that he wouldn't support a $250,000 level because Democrats will agree to a higher threshold.

Kyl was read a comment by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a top Republican who said recently that he expected $250,000 to be the agreed-upon level. "I believe we're going to pass the $250,000 and below sooner or later, and we really don't have much leverage there because those rates go up by operation of law Dec. 31. I would focus on the areas where we do have more leverage," Cornyn said.

But Kyl said that's no longer the case. "I don't think you have so many Republicans -- and the context of it was what is realistic as a deal. And the context of it was the president's adamant position that he wouldn't compromise on anything above $250,000. Let's just get back to the theory," Kyl suggested, ticking off arguments about the harm done to small businesses by a tax hike.

Graham said he won't support a "fiscal cliff" package that raises rates on income between $250,000 and $400,000 or $500,000, because he knows Democrats will cave on a higher threshold. He used the example of his fellow Fox guest, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).

"No," he said when asked if he'd support the $250,000 level, "because she's willing to go for more, and why would I not find 4 or 500, because I know the votes are there for 4 or 500? But in the House, will the votes be there for 4 or 500?"

Feinstein flinched and, when pressed, put the onus back on the president, who was the first to raise the compromise level to income over $400,000. "We believe that the 250 threshold is the appropriate threshold. The president did make an offer, we understand, of 400,000, with a trillion in cuts accompanying it. That was turned down by the House," she said. "The time has come really to measure the absence of a deal against a deal. ... We have to solve this immediate situation."

Asked whether she'd accept the higher level, Feinstein was quick to answer. "I could certainly live with it," she said.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), speaking on "This Week," said he thought a deal would come together after Jan. 3, when Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) is safely reelected speaker. "I am hopeful in the new year, after Speaker Boehner is elected -- reelected -- and he doesn't have to worry about those 50 [members of the Tea Party faction], that he will start working in a way like the Senate works, which is Democrats and Republicans together," said Schumer.

Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said on the Senate floor that Boehner appeared more worried about holding his speakership than reaching a deal.

Earlier on HuffPost:

  • Prison Reform

    The U.S. incarcerates its citizens at a rate roughly <a href="http://www.parade.com/news/2009/03/why-we-must-fix-our-prisons.html" target="_hplink">five times higher than the global average</a>. We have about 5 percent of the world's population, but 25 percent of its prisoners, according to The Economist,. This status quo costs our local, state and federal governments a combined $68 billion a year -- all of which becomes a federal problem during recessions, when states look to Washington for fiscal relief. Over the standard 10-year budget window used in Congress, that's a $680 billion hit to the deficit. Solving longstanding prison problems -- releasing elderly convicts unlikely to commit crimes, offering treatment or counseling as an alternative to prison for non-violent offenders, slightly shortening the sentences of well-behaved inmates, and substituting probation for more jail-time -- would do wonders for government spending.

  • End Of The Drug War

    The federal government spends more than <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-20072096.html" target="_hplink">$15 billion a year</a> investigating and prosecuting the War on Drugs. That's $150 billion in Washington budget-speak, and it doesn't include the far higher costs of incarcerating millions of people for doing drugs. This money isn't getting the government the results it wants. As drug war budgets balloon, drug use escalates. Ending the Drug War offers the government two separate budget boons. In addition to saving all the money spending investigating, prosecuting and incarcerating drug offenders, Uncle Sam could actually regulate and tax drugs like marijuana, generating new revenue. Studies by pot legalization advocates indicate that fully legalizing weed in California would yield <a href="http://canorml.org/background/CA_legalization2.html" target="_hplink">up to $18 billion annually</a> for that state's government alone. For the feds, the benefits are even sweeter.

  • Let Medicare Negotiate With Big Pharma

    The U.S. has <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/06/01/us-healthcare-costs-sb-idUSTRE5504Z320090601" target="_hplink">higher health care costs than any other country</a>. We spend over 15 percent of our total economic output each year on health care -- roughly 50 percent more than Canada, and double what the U.K. spends. Why? The American private health care system is inefficient, and the intellectual property rules involving medication in the U.S. can make prescription drugs much more expensive than in other countries. Medicare currently spends about $50 billion a year on prescription drugs. According to economist Dean Baker, <a href="http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/intellectual_property_2004_09.pdf" target="_hplink">Americans spend roughly 10 times more than they need to</a> on prescription drugs as a result of our unique intellectual property standards. These savings for the government, of course, would come from the pockets of major pharmaceutical companies, currently among the most profitable corporations the world has ever known. They also exercise tremendous clout inside the Beltway. President Barack Obama even <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/02/barack-obama-politics_n_1847947.html" target="_hplink">guaranteed drug companies more restrictive -- and lucrative -- intellectual property standards</a> in order to garner their support for the Affordable Care Act.

  • Offshore Tax Havens

    The U.S. Treasury Department estimates that it loses about <a href="http://www.ctj.org/pdf/stopact.pdf" target="_hplink">$100 billion a year</a> in revenue due to offshore tax haven abuses. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) has been pushing legislation for years to rein in this absurd tax maneuvering, but corporate lobbying on Capitol Hill has prevented the bill from becoming law.

  • Deprivatize Government Contract Work

    In recent years, the federal government has privatized an enormous portion of public projects to government contractors. Over the past decade, the federal government's staffing has held steady, while the number of federal contractors has <a href="http://pogoarchives.org/m/co/igf/bad-business-report-only-2011.pdf" target="_hplink">increased by millions</a>. This outsourcing has resulted in much higher costs for the government than would be incurred by simply doing the work in-house. On average, contractors are paid <a href="http://pogoarchives.org/m/co/igf/bad-business-report-only-2011.pdf" target="_hplink">nearly double</a> what a comparable federal employee would receive for the same job, according to the Project On Government Oversight.

  • Print More Money

    There's an old saying in economics: You have to print money to make money. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/09/underwear-sales-growth-economy_n_1952214.html" target="_hplink">Okay, there's no such saying</a>. Nevertheless, the great boogeyman of many conservative economic doctrines -- inflation -- isn't such a bad idea during periods where much of the citizenry is drowning in debt. Inflation is by no means a perfect remedy: it's a stealth cut to workers' wages. But it also has many benefits that are often unacknowledged by the Washington intelligentsia. Inflation makes housing debt, student loan debt and any other private-sector debt more manageable. Today, when <a href="http://www.corelogic.com/about-us/researchtrends/asset_upload_file448_16434.pdf" target="_hplink">10.8 million</a> homes are underwater -- meaning borrowers owe banks than their houses are worth, moderate inflation could ease that debt burden. By effectively reducing monthly bills, moderate inflation could actually put more money in the pockets of these homeowners to spend elsewhere, thus stimulating the economy. Moderate inflation -- 5 percent or so -- could also help alleviate the <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505145_162-57555780/student-loan-debt-nears-$1-trillion-is-it-the-new-subprime/" target="_hplink">$1 trillion</a> in student debt currently plaguing America's graduates. Make no mistake -- hyperinflation of 20 percent, 30 percent or more -- is bad. But the U.S. has ways to crush inflation when it gets out of hand, as proven by the Federal Reserve under then-Chairman Paul Volcker in the early-1980s.

  • Print Less Money

    The government prints a <em>lot</em> of $1 bills. But it turns out that minting $1 coins is much, much cheaper. Over the course of 30 years, the government could save $4.4 billion by switching from dollar bills to dollar coins. Here's looking at you, <a href="http://www.usmint.gov/mint_programs/nativeamerican/" target="_hplink">Sacagawea</a>.

  • Immigration: Less Detention, More Ankle Bracelets

    The government spends <a href="http://newamericamedia.org/2012/04/ice-slow-to-embrace-alternatives-to-immigrant-detention.php" target="_hplink"> $122 per person, per day</a> detaining immigrants who are considered safe and unlikely to commit crimes. The government has plenty of other options available to monitor such people, at a cost of as little as $15 per person. For the first 205 years of America's existence, there was no federal system for detaining immigrants. The process began in 1981.

  • Financial Speculation Tax

    Wall Street loves to gamble. In good times, financial speculation is the source of tremendous profits in America's banking system, but when the bets go bad, the government picks up the tab, as evidenced by the epic bank bailouts of 2008 and 2009. Unfortunately, this speculation is difficult to define in legalistic terminology and even more difficult to police. One solution? By taxing every financial trade at the ultra-low rate of 0.25 percent, the U.S. government can impose a modest incentive against gambling for the sheer sake of gambling. If there's an immediate cost to placing a bet, a lot of traders will choose not to bet. What's more, this tax could raise about <a href="http://www.ips-dc.org/media/why_a_financial_transaction_tax" target="_hplink">$150 billion a year</a> for the federal government.

  • Carbon Tax

    Taxing greenhouse gases would generate $80 billion a year right now, and up to $310 billion a year by 2050, <a href="http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/07/carbon-tax-mckibbin-morris-wilcoxen" target="_hplink">according to an analysis by the Brookings Institution</a>. It would also help avert catastrophic ecological and economic damage from climate change.




Saturday, December 29, 2012

Mission: Impossible


By Richard Cowan
WASHINGTON, Dec 29 (Reuters) - Following a Friday meeting with congressional leaders, an impatient and annoyed President Barack Obama said it was "mind boggling" that Congress has been unable to fix a "fiscal cliff" mess that everyone has known about for more than a year.
He then dispatched Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, on a mind-boggling mission: coming up with a bipartisan bill to break the "fiscal cliff" stalemate in the most partisan and gridlocked U.S. Congress of modern times - in about 48 hours.
Reid and McConnell, veteran tacticians known for their own long-running feud, have been down this road before.
Their last joint venture didn't turn out so well. It was the deal in August 2011 to avoid a U.S. default that set the stage for the current mess. That effort, like this one, stemmed from a grand deficit-reduction scheme that turned into a bust.
But they have never had the odds so stacked against them as they try to avert the "fiscal cliff" - sweeping tax increases set to begin on Tuesday and deep, automatic government spending cuts set to start on Wednesday, combined worth $600 billion.
The substantive differences are only part of the challenge. Other obstacles include concerns about who gets blamed for what and the legacy of distrust among members of Congress.
Any successful deal will require face-saving measures for Republicans and Democrats alike.
"Ordinary folks, they do their jobs, they meet deadlines, they sit down and they discuss things, and then things happen," Obama told reporters. "If there are disagreements, they sort though the disagreements. The notion that our elected leadership can't do the same thing is mind-boggling to them."

CORE DISAGREEMENT
The core disagreement between Republicans and Democrats is tough enough. It revolves around the low tax rates first put in place under Republican former President George W. Bush that expire at year's end. Republicans would extend them for everyone. Democrats would extend them for everyone except the wealthiest taxpayers.
The first step for Reid and McConnell may be to find a formula acceptable to their own parties in the Senate.
While members of the Senate, more than members of the House of Representatives, have expressed flexibility on taxes, it's far from a sure thing in a body that ordinarily requires not just a majority of the 100-member Senate to pass a bill, but a super-majority of 60 members.
With 51 Democrats, two independents who vote with the Democrats and 47 Republicans, McConnell and Reid may have to agree to suspend the 60-vote rule.
Getting a bill through the Republican-controlled House may be much tougher. The conservative wing of the House, composed of many lawmakers aligned with the Tea Party movement who fear being targeted by anti-tax activists in primary elections in 2014, has shown it will not vote for a bill that raises taxes on anyone, even if it means defying Republican House Speaker John Boehner.
Many Democrats are wedded to the opposite view - and have vowed not to support continuing the Bush-era tax rates for people earning more than $250,000 a year.
Some senators are wary of the procedural conditions House Republicans are demanding. Boehner is insisting the Senate start its work with a bill already passed by the House months ago that would continue all Bush-era tax cuts for another year. The Democratic-controlled Senate may amend the Republican bill, he says, but it must be the House bill.
For Boehner, it's the regular order when considering revenue measures, which the U.S. Constitution says must originate in the House.

SHIFT BLAME
As some Democrats see it, it's a way to shift blame if the enterprise goes down in flames. House Republicans would be able to claim that since they had already done their part by passing a bill, the Senate should take the blame for plunging the nation off the "cliff."
And that could bring public wrath, currently centered mostly on Republicans, onto the heads of Democrats.
Voters may indeed be looking for someone to blame if they see their paychecks shrink as taxes rise or their retirement savings dwindle as a result of a plunge in global markets.
If Reid and McConnell succeed, there could be political ramifications for each side. For example, a deal containing any income tax hikes could complicate McConnell's own 2014 re-election effort in which small-government, anti-tax Tea Party activists are threatening to mount a challenge.
If Obama and his fellow Democrats are perceived as giving in too much, it could embolden Republicans to mount challenge after challenge, possibly handcuffing the president before his second term even gets off the ground.
It could be a sprint to the finish. One Democratic aide expected "negotiation for a day." If the aide is correct, the world would know by late on Saturday or early on Sunday if Washington's political dysfunction is about to reach a new, possibly devastating, low.
If Reid and McConnell reach a deal, it would then be up to the full Senate and House to vote, possibly as early as Sunday.
Reid and McConnell have been through bitter fights before. The deficit reduction and debt limit deal that finally was secured last year was a brawl that ended only when the two leaders agreed to a complicated plan that secured about $1 trillion in savings, but really postponed until later a more meaningful plan to restore the country's fiscal health.
That effort led to the automatic spending cuts that form part of the "fiscal cliff."
Just months later, in December 2011, Reid and McConnell were going through a tough fight over extending a payroll tax cut.
In both instances, it was resistance from conservative House Republicans that complicated efforts, just as is the case now with the "fiscal cliff." (Editing by Fred Barbash and Will Dunham)

Related on HuffPost:

  • Prison Reform

    The U.S. incarcerates its citizens at a rate roughly <a href="http://www.parade.com/news/2009/03/why-we-must-fix-our-prisons.html" target="_hplink">five times higher than the global average</a>. We have about 5 percent of the world's population, but 25 percent of its prisoners, according to The Economist,. This status quo costs our local, state and federal governments a combined $68 billion a year -- all of which becomes a federal problem during recessions, when states look to Washington for fiscal relief. Over the standard 10-year budget window used in Congress, that's a $680 billion hit to the deficit. Solving longstanding prison problems -- releasing elderly convicts unlikely to commit crimes, offering treatment or counseling as an alternative to prison for non-violent offenders, slightly shortening the sentences of well-behaved inmates, and substituting probation for more jail-time -- would do wonders for government spending.

  • End Of The Drug War

    The federal government spends more than <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-20072096.html" target="_hplink">$15 billion a year</a> investigating and prosecuting the War on Drugs. That's $150 billion in Washington budget-speak, and it doesn't include the far higher costs of incarcerating millions of people for doing drugs. This money isn't getting the government the results it wants. As drug war budgets balloon, drug use escalates. Ending the Drug War offers the government two separate budget boons. In addition to saving all the money spending investigating, prosecuting and incarcerating drug offenders, Uncle Sam could actually regulate and tax drugs like marijuana, generating new revenue. Studies by pot legalization advocates indicate that fully legalizing weed in California would yield <a href="http://canorml.org/background/CA_legalization2.html" target="_hplink">up to $18 billion annually</a> for that state's government alone. For the feds, the benefits are even sweeter.

  • Let Medicare Negotiate With Big Pharma

    The U.S. has <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/06/01/us-healthcare-costs-sb-idUSTRE5504Z320090601" target="_hplink">higher health care costs than any other country</a>. We spend over 15 percent of our total economic output each year on health care -- roughly 50 percent more than Canada, and double what the U.K. spends. Why? The American private health care system is inefficient, and the intellectual property rules involving medication in the U.S. can make prescription drugs much more expensive than in other countries. Medicare currently spends about $50 billion a year on prescription drugs. According to economist Dean Baker, <a href="http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/intellectual_property_2004_09.pdf" target="_hplink">Americans spend roughly 10 times more than they need to</a> on prescription drugs as a result of our unique intellectual property standards. These savings for the government, of course, would come from the pockets of major pharmaceutical companies, currently among the most profitable corporations the world has ever known. They also exercise tremendous clout inside the Beltway. President Barack Obama even <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/02/barack-obama-politics_n_1847947.html" target="_hplink">guaranteed drug companies more restrictive -- and lucrative -- intellectual property standards</a> in order to garner their support for the Affordable Care Act.

  • Offshore Tax Havens

    The U.S. Treasury Department estimates that it loses about <a href="http://www.ctj.org/pdf/stopact.pdf" target="_hplink">$100 billion a year</a> in revenue due to offshore tax haven abuses. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) has been pushing legislation for years to rein in this absurd tax maneuvering, but corporate lobbying on Capitol Hill has prevented the bill from becoming law.

  • Deprivatize Government Contract Work

    In recent years, the federal government has privatized an enormous portion of public projects to government contractors. Over the past decade, the federal government's staffing has held steady, while the number of federal contractors has <a href="http://pogoarchives.org/m/co/igf/bad-business-report-only-2011.pdf" target="_hplink">increased by millions</a>. This outsourcing has resulted in much higher costs for the government than would be incurred by simply doing the work in-house. On average, contractors are paid <a href="http://pogoarchives.org/m/co/igf/bad-business-report-only-2011.pdf" target="_hplink">nearly double</a> what a comparable federal employee would receive for the same job, according to the Project On Government Oversight.

  • Print More Money

    There's an old saying in economics: You have to print money to make money. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/09/underwear-sales-growth-economy_n_1952214.html" target="_hplink">Okay, there's no such saying</a>. Nevertheless, the great boogeyman of many conservative economic doctrines -- inflation -- isn't such a bad idea during periods where much of the citizenry is drowning in debt. Inflation is by no means a perfect remedy: it's a stealth cut to workers' wages. But it also has many benefits that are often unacknowledged by the Washington intelligentsia. Inflation makes housing debt, student loan debt and any other private-sector debt more manageable. Today, when <a href="http://www.corelogic.com/about-us/researchtrends/asset_upload_file448_16434.pdf" target="_hplink">10.8 million</a> homes are underwater -- meaning borrowers owe banks than their houses are worth, moderate inflation could ease that debt burden. By effectively reducing monthly bills, moderate inflation could actually put more money in the pockets of these homeowners to spend elsewhere, thus stimulating the economy. Moderate inflation -- 5 percent or so -- could also help alleviate the <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505145_162-57555780/student-loan-debt-nears-$1-trillion-is-it-the-new-subprime/" target="_hplink">$1 trillion</a> in student debt currently plaguing America's graduates. Make no mistake -- hyperinflation of 20 percent, 30 percent or more -- is bad. But the U.S. has ways to crush inflation when it gets out of hand, as proven by the Federal Reserve under then-Chairman Paul Volcker in the early-1980s.

  • Print Less Money

    The government prints a <em>lot</em> of $1 bills. But it turns out that minting $1 coins is much, much cheaper. Over the course of 30 years, the government could save $4.4 billion by switching from dollar bills to dollar coins. Here's looking at you, <a href="http://www.usmint.gov/mint_programs/nativeamerican/" target="_hplink">Sacagawea</a>.

  • Immigration: Less Detention, More Ankle Bracelets

    The government spends <a href="http://newamericamedia.org/2012/04/ice-slow-to-embrace-alternatives-to-immigrant-detention.php" target="_hplink"> $122 per person, per day</a> detaining immigrants who are considered safe and unlikely to commit crimes. The government has plenty of other options available to monitor such people, at a cost of as little as $15 per person. For the first 205 years of America's existence, there was no federal system for detaining immigrants. The process began in 1981.

  • Financial Speculation Tax

    Wall Street loves to gamble. In good times, financial speculation is the source of tremendous profits in America's banking system, but when the bets go bad, the government picks up the tab, as evidenced by the epic bank bailouts of 2008 and 2009. Unfortunately, this speculation is difficult to define in legalistic terminology and even more difficult to police. One solution? By taxing every financial trade at the ultra-low rate of 0.25 percent, the U.S. government can impose a modest incentive against gambling for the sheer sake of gambling. If there's an immediate cost to placing a bet, a lot of traders will choose not to bet. What's more, this tax could raise about <a href="http://www.ips-dc.org/media/why_a_financial_transaction_tax" target="_hplink">$150 billion a year</a> for the federal government.

  • Carbon Tax

    Taxing greenhouse gases would generate $80 billion a year right now, and up to $310 billion a year by 2050, <a href="http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/07/carbon-tax-mckibbin-morris-wilcoxen" target="_hplink">according to an analysis by the Brookings Institution</a>. It would also help avert catastrophic ecological and economic damage from climate change.




PHOTOS: Remembering Those We Lost This Year

Around the Web:

Notable Deaths of 2012 ' PICTURES - NationalJournal.com

Politics Memorial Site: Notable Deaths & Obituaries | Legacy.com

Deaths in 2012 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notable deaths of 2012 - latimes.com

Arlen Specter -- 'one of the few truly wild cards' -- dead at 82 - CNN ...

Daniel Inouye Death Leaves Hole In Hawaii Political Clout

15 Strange Political Deaths Photo Gallery - 1. Jack Wheeler ...

Notable deaths of 2012 - Obituaries - Boston.com



GOP's Moment Of Truth Explained

Around the Web:

On Fiscal Cliff, Republicans Wait For Action From Obama, Democrats

Republican leaders huddle over fiscal cliff - Jake Sherman ... - Politico

Fiscal Cliff News: Obama Meets With Congressional Leaders, Little Sign Of ...



Friday, December 28, 2012

Finger Pointing Trumps Rationality In Big Fight

The Fiscal Cliff Drama, in WSJ Graphics


Congress, Obama set to resume 'fiscal cliff' talks


Is Government Driving U.S. Over Fiscal Cliff?



Radley Balko: Five-Star Fridays: Fontella Bass, RIP.

Fontella Bass died this week. Here's the song she wrote and made famous, although like too many 1960s soul and R&B artists, the song made money for everybody but her. (At least until she finally won in court, nearly 30 years later.)

The experience apparently soured her to the music business. She made one more album--Free in 1972. It was a commercial flop, but it's one of my favorite soul albums of the 1970s. After that, she largely retired, at least from mainstream R&B.

Our loss, then and now. Rest in peace.

And here's a personal favorite:



Follow Radley Balko on Twitter: www.twitter.com/radleybalko



Wade Henderson, Esq.: Time to Put the National Interest Ahead of Ideology, Branding

In a televised interview last week, Republican Rep. Tim Huelskamp of Kansas said that nothing the president offered in spending cuts could convince him to vote to raise income taxes, not even on the wealthiest Americans. Nothing, nada, zip.

In the same week, Republican Rep. Allen West of Florida explained why he opposed Speaker Boehner's "Plan B" to allow tax rates to increase on incomes above $1 million. "If you don't draw a contrast with the other side, who are you?" West asked.

Somewhere along the way, some House Republicans seemed to have confused ideology for common sense and branding for governing. And soon -- perhaps as early as next week -- we may all pay the price for their confusion.

According to the polls, the public has already decided that Republicans will bear the brunt of the blame if Congress and President Obama fail to reach an agreement to keep our economy from falling off the so-called "fiscal cliff" or defaulting on our debt.

Personally, I don't care which political party gets the blame. What I am concerned about -- and what every member of Congress should be concerned about -- is how we can avoid this completely unnecessary train wreck from happening in the first place.

Without a deal before year's end, our economy will run smack into an austerity headwind created by the combination of tax increases and deep spending cuts that will stifle the recovery and potentially ignite a global recession.

The pain will be especially hard for people living paycheck to paycheck in the higher taxes they would pay and the access they would lose to vital safety-net programs, and for the long-term unemployed, who would lose the unemployment insurance they need to make ends meet. In addition, nearly 300,000 children would be cut from the school lunch program and millions of Americans would lose access to food stamps.

This is an emergency for tens of millions of Americans, and fortunately, some Republicans have signaled that they're willing to accept a fair deal that balances spending cuts and tax increases. But too many House Republicans seem more concerned about their branding and maintaining an ideological purity against raising taxes.

President Obama has been clear that he wants to head off this disaster-in-the-making, but it requires bipartisan support to do so. Throughout the negotiations, the president has shown flexibility in ways that many of us who advocate for the poor and middle class are not happy about, like putting benefit cuts for Social Security recipients on the table.

But so far, even that extraordinary offer and the president's willingness to accept smaller tax increases hasn't been enough to entice House Republicans to reconsider their stubborn allegiance to tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

Time is running out, but it's not too late for Republicans to choose to put common sense and governing ahead of branding and ideology. That's the only way we'll be able to move past the cliff and move forward as a nation, together.


Follow Wade Henderson, Esq. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/civilrightsorg



Thursday, December 27, 2012

Support For Stricter Gun Laws Soars In Poll

Support for tighter gun control laws continues to rise in the wake of the school shooting in Newtown, Conn., according to a new HuffPost/YouGov poll, and another new poll finds that support for stricter gun laws is at its highest point in years.

In the new HuffPost/YouGov survey of 1,000 adults conducted Dec. 21-22, 55 percent of Americans said that gun control laws should be made more strict, 13 percent said they should be made less strict, and 27 percent said there should be no change. Support for stricter laws in the new poll is even higher than it was in another HuffPost/YouGov poll conducted immediately after the shooting took place, when 50 percent of respondents said that that gun control laws should be made stricter.

Jeffrey Sachs: Retreating from Violence in 2013

I propose a New Years Resolution for America: the retreat from violence in 2013. We ended 2012 witnessing a mentally unstable, 20-year-old slaughter school children using assault weapons owned by his gun-enthusiast mother, who also became his first victim. We watched in shock as an unapologetic NRA urged more guns, not less, on our wounded society.

Yet even the deranged NRA performance had one thing right: Our problems are not just guns, but a society drenched in violence. I'm not speaking about Hollywood and video games. I'm speaking about our nation's approach to the world.

Our foreign policy is the NRA's strategy applied globally: shoot first and aim later, believe that the only instruments in our foreign policy toolkit are threats and drone missiles, and sell advanced weaponry far and wide.

Americans were all too easily whipped into a war fury to topple Saddam Hussein on phony pretenses and lies. Perhaps 100,000 Iraqi civilians died, if not many more. Thousands of young American men and women died and tens of thousands are maimed for life.

We continue fighting a war in Afghanistan on a cynical political cycle. If the U.S. had real war aims in Afghanistan, the Obama Administration would not have announced years ago that the war would end in 2014. The date was set for Obama's reelection campaign, to avoid an appearance of weakness in the run-up to reelection. We will leave Afghanistan accomplishing nothing that we couldn't have accomplished at a tenth the cost and without a war.

We continue the U.S. foreign policy of regime change, despite its absurd failures and blowbacks time and again. It's a hallowed tradition, stretching back to Mossadegh, Arbenz, Diem, Allende, and others.

In 2011 we decided that Libya's Muammar Gaddafi had to go, so NATO provided the air cover and the heavy arms to topple him. Yes, Gaddafi was crazed, but no, NATO cannot now run Libya nor even handle the blowback as armed troops once in Libya now overrun Mali. Be sure that more violence will follow in Mali and other parts of West Africa.

Now we are told that Syria's Bashar al-Assad has to go. We will arm and try to manipulate the rebels. Syria's ancient cities will be turned to rubble and thousands more civilians will die in the name of saving them. And then Syria will be ungovernable, but now on our watch. The rebels we armed will soon be our enemies. As in Yemen, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Mali, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Syria -- the list goes on. This we call a foreign policy.

Of course the numbers of dead in these recent wars pale in comparison with the deaths in another unnecessary American war, the Vietnam War, which took the lives of more than one million Vietnamese civilians and more than 50,000 Americans. And what was the point of that war? It resulted from a grotesquely exaggerated U.S. fear of Vietnam being reunited under nationalist-communist leaders, the ones we signed a trade pact a few years after the war ended.

Why do we engage in so many useless wars? Almost for the same reason that we have no gun control. A significant number of Americans, perhaps a quarter or a third, harbor the belief that force is the only answer to disagreements. Yet more consequentially, the larger part of America, and the political class in general, is afraid of this group.

Consider why we were in Vietnam. Lyndon Johnson knew the war was both pointless and hopeless, but he sent more than 500,000 troops because he was afraid that the U.S. right wing would attack him for being soft on communism if South Vietnam were to fall on his watch. This is the same reason why we will leave Afghanistan in 2014 rather than 2012 or earlier.

It's a deeper question why a minority preaching violence so often gets its way. Why are the politicians so paralyzed by the fear of being called weak? Why are peaceful approaches to solving problems at home and abroad not even pursued? My guess is that the powerful emotion of fear dominates reason. Extremists can whip up pervasive and infectious fear that turns peaceable people into proponents of violence.

The constant resort to violence is draining America's spirit and finances. The $700 billion we spent on the Pentagon this past year is not only more than the combined spending of the next 15 countries, and more than five times China's military spending, but also overshadows by far our other approaches to solving world problems and building national security.

The Republicans rail against foreign aid, but all foreign aid combined, around $30 billion a year, is not even a one-twentieth of what we spend annually on the Pentagon.

There is a much smarter way. The NRA wants us to have a gun in every classroom. How about realizing that free trade in assault weapons in a violence-prone society is a bad idea, and one incidentally that doesn't have a scintilla of constitutional protection (even Scalia believes that the Second Amendment does not protect assault weapons). It's time to remove assault weapons from the marketplace, not with fig-leaf legislation that is easily ignored, but through real and consequential measures as they have in Australia, the UK, and many other countries.

Similarly, a world awash in weapons and wars can never be a safe world. We need to find other inducements to peace. The key step would be to take a moment to understand the places we are bombing -- in doing so, we'd actually discover a better way to national security.

These violent places, from Mali to Afghanistan, are poor, famine-prone, water scarce, and reeling under climate change (which is causing longer and more intense droughts). Their extreme poverty and vulnerability to famine leads to the violence of desperate and frustrated people. These societies need help to grow food, improve livestock, harness solar power, mobilize information technology, and thereby address the problems that are crippling their societies and turning hope to despair and to arms. In 2009, Obama gave a speech in Cairo calling for the mobilization of science for development in Africa and the Middle East. Good idea, but barely implemented. It's high time to turn that speech into action.

In 2013 let's take just one-seventh of the Pentagon budget, $100 billion, and devote it to solving global problems like food, water, energy, and education. We will see a renaissance of peace that would change minds as well as hearts, in the U.S. and around the world.


Follow Jeffrey Sachs on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JeffDSachs



Brian Levin: The Cancer of Gun Violence Requires the Policy Equivalent of Chemotherapy

When people are diagnosed with cancer, doctors do not simply advise them to take ibuprofen to alleviate the pain. Rather, doctors typically act systemically, using chemotherapy and radiation in attempt to obliterate the cancer. Of course, these treatments are often difficult and there is always the chance that the cancer may come out of remission. But ultimately, they attack the root of the problem and offer the best hope for recovery. Gun violence is a cancer plaguing our American body politic. In the past two weeks alone, the over 200 victims have ranged from six- and seven-year-old kids and their teachers in suburban Connecticut to firefighters in upstate New York. We must treat this menace with potent legislation that amounts to the policy equivalent of chemotherapy to address the underlying causes of gun violence.

In his remarks to the press after the Sandy Hook shooting, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre elaborated on the "meaningful contributions" to the national conversation on gun violence the organization had promised in the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings. His solution, more guns in more hands in more places, was anything but meaningful. Like the doctor who opts to treat cancer with painkillers, this proposal relies on treating violence as it erupts and fails to get at the root of the problem making it untenable and, frankly, dangerous.

Mr. LaPierre asked, "Would you rather have your 911 call bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away ... or a minute away?" But an assailant carrying a semi-automatic weapon or a gun with a high capacity magazine could kill hundreds before an armed guard could respond -- even if a guard were stationed inside of a school. As a case in point, during the massacre at Columbine High School, an armed sheriff's deputy was stationed on the premises. Amid the chaos, he "didn't know who the 'bad guy' was" and could not halt the perpetrators.

Even if we were to place armed guards in every classroom, as we know all too well, gun violence and mass shootings are not confined to schools. Would Mr. LaPierre buy the logical extension of his argument that the only way we can be safe is if armed guards and "good guys" are on every single street corner and every nook and cranny across the 50 states? This is a frightening proposition.

True meaningful action to reduce violence in our society requires a holistic approach. Yes, improving the security of our public places and the effectiveness of law enforcement is an important component. As is enacting policies at the federal, state and local levels to bolster mental health services, improve education and opportunities for young people, and reduce the exposure of our youth to violent images and messages. Addressing these issues is crucial, as many of the perpetrators of gun violence are mentally ill and many others are trapped in a destructive culture of nihilism and hopelessness. Our young people have grown up bombarded by blood and gore in movies and video games. But we would be remiss if our plan to address gun violence neglected to touch on the very weapons that are used to carry out these massacres plaguing our streets and our schools, our shopping centers and our theaters, our temples and our office buildings.

On Sunday morning, Mr. LaPierre stated on Meet the Press, "You know, look. I know there's a media machine in this country that wants to blame guns every time something happens. I know there's an anti-Second Amendment industry in this country." Is it unreasonable to acknowledge that guns play a role in gun violence and that this is not some kind of fabrication by a vast conspiracy? The canard that "guns don't kill people, people do" is flawed because a rock, a kitchen knife or a jump rope or, nearly any object, can be used to kill someone. What sets apart guns, especially automatic and semi-automatic weapons, as well as guns with high capacity magazines, is their lethal potential. Attackers can use them to mow down untold numbers of people in seconds.

No one is trying to confiscate everyone's guns. Not President Obama, not Senator Feinstein, not Mayor Bloomberg, not the Brady Coalition -- not anyone. While this is how LaPierre and his contemporaries have framed the calls for sensible gun laws in our country, this mischaracterization is deceptive and presents a false dichotomy: people who want all guns confiscated and banned, leaving hunters to resort to spears on one side, and those who want to protect the Second Amendment on the other. I think most reasonable people would agree that policies such as banning assault weapons -- that have no legitimate use outside of the military -- and ending loopholes that allow people to purchase guns at gun shows and on the internet will help keep us safe without threatening the Second Amendment.

While LaPierre and others say that the majority of Americans support the Second Amendment, this is not incompatible with the gun control supported by the overwhelming majority of Americans. A recent CNN/ORC International poll conducted after the Sandy Hook shooting shows that 85 percent of Americans favor some kind of gun control laws. More specifically, nearly everyone polled favors background checks, over 90 percent support barring high-risk populations (e.g. convicted felons) from owning firearms and 62 percent support banning semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines. Even the late President Ronald Reagan, himself a member of the NRA and a victim of gun violence said, "I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home."

No one policy or set of policies can end all gun violence. However, laws have the power to reduce gun violence and mitigate the carnage. The more comprehensive the legislation we pass, the more likely it is that we will be successful, and it is clear that gun control must play a role. Let us support our leaders seeking to make our society safer through multidimensional policies aimed at the root causes of gun violence. By enacting these measures, the policy equivalent of chemotherapy, we can begin to eradicate the cancer of gun violence ravaging our body politic.


Follow Brian Levin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/brianlevin