Sens. Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell deal could avert crisis

Official portrait of United States Senator (R-KY) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

English: Harry Reid (D-NV), United States Senator from Nevada and Majority Leader of the United States Senate (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Doomsday predictions; the possibility of the United States failing to pay its bills for the first time in history, may be averted. At least that is the hope of Senate Leaders Harry Reid, (D-Nevada) and Mitch McConnell, (R-Kentucky) who have been working on a bi-partisan compromise they hope to sell to their own members as well as the  deeply divided U.S. House.

According to the New York Times and several other sources this morning, the two worked into the night Monday to craft a plan that would pass a resolution to finance the government through Jan. 15, putting the U.S. government back in business and raise the debt limit through February.

The deal would also establish a budget committee by Dec. 13 to replace the automatic budget cuts that were put in place by the sequester. Sequestration--unappealing across the board cuts—were the result last March from failed budget talks between Republicans and Democrats.

The upcoming Senate deal, as reported includes no real changes to the Affordable Care Act, though there may be some minor ones.

House Speaker John Boehner, (R-Ohio) was alerted by McConnell. Boehner failed to react one way or the other.

His position is at least consistent, since Boehner has failed to react to much of anything the Senate has done to keep the government open. Boehner’s lack of reaction to the Senate’s Continuing Resolution (CR) is what sparked the government to furlough federal workers and close its doors to offices, landmarks, and parks all across the country—now in Day 15 of a government shutdown.

It is believed by both Republicans and Democrats that the entire shutdown could have been avoided, had Boehner simply allowed a clean CR to be brought to the House floor for a vote. Instead, the Republicans in the House tied numerous measures to the resolution that had no chance of bi-partisan support.

With more than 40 attempts by House Republicans to repeal the Affordable Care Act, commonly referred to as Obamacare, the House attempted unsuccessfully to pass a CR with strings attached. At first, it was tied to gutting the Affordable Care Act through several varied measures.

Their efforts failed.

On Oct. 1, the Affordable Care Act went on line and millions of people attempted to sign up for health insurance, some for the first time in their lives.

With the law fully implemented, there was no longer any point to tying the law to the CR so Republicans tied other provisions to it with efforts to reopen government programs in a piecemeal fashion. It was no coincidence that amendments House Republicans offered were similar to news events and photo ops, such as the World War II Veterans Memorial or the National Institute of Health where ailing children were prevented from receiving cancer treatments. That photo-op included several House members dressed in medical garb.

Democrats stood firm, refusing to give in to House demands to have it their way. Boehner and other House Republicans continued their attempt to send the message that Democrats were to blame for the government shutting down because Democrats refused to compromise.

Boehner never bothered to mention the months since March that he refused to appoint a conference committee to reconcile the House and Senate versions of the funding bill. He also failed to mention that the Senate’s CR set the spending limit at $967 billion, a figure derived by House members. Senate Democrats wanted the limit to be $1.058 trillion, but they compromised.

What is different this time? Why would Boehner take the Senate deal now when he wouldn’t do it for the last 15 days?

Boehner has said in the past that he has no intention of letting the government default on its debt. The stakes are high. House Republicans have gotten messages from their pals with the purse strings.

Wall Street has issued warnings that a government default would have dire consequences. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew testified before the Senate, painting a grim picture with world consequences of a default. Koch Industries, ironically, has written a letter to senators urging action to avert a debt ceiling crisis.

Republicans approval rating has plummeted, with Americans largely blaming them for the government shutdown.

Mitch McConnell, who is facing an election in 2014 knows that. While he has largely been silent during this debacle, he has stepped into the fray to work with Reid on a deal. If it is successful, his political star could rise once again. If not, well, it could be meteoric calamity.

Boehner is at a crossroads.

With his speakership in jeopardy, he is going to have to make a decision. He has been trying to appease the tea party caucus, with its anti-government rhetoric. On the other side are more reasonable Republicans, some of which have seemingly broken ranks with the speaker. They have been prevented from acting on their own due to an amendment to the House Standing Rules by Pete Sessions, (R-Texas) Republican-heavy rules committee that prevents anyone but the speaker or his designee from introducing the CR to the floor.

We are close to the eleventh hour when deals are made. The stakes are high, not just for the American people, but for the individual members of congress. Next year, the House members will face re-election. Their reputations are at stake.

It may not be pretty, but they probably will get it done.

Government shutdown prohibits picnic at the lake

A calm and serene Lake Norfork

I'm really upset that I'm unable to go to the lake today for a picnic. There will be no yummy sandwiches, no homemade potato salad, and no tasty iced tea to wash it down. There will be no watching the Great Blue Herons along the shore or diving just below the surface of the water; no ducks swimming lazily in formation. I won't be able to watch the parade of squirrels chasing each other as they fight for their stash of acorns high in the oak trees whose leaves are starting to fall. I won't be able to watch boats zip across the water.

Truthfully, I had no plans to visit the lake today. I only want to because I know I can't. I am barred from the park by the lake because it is run by the Army Corps of Engineers and they were told not to report to work today. I'm no different than anyone else that is unable to enjoy my day. All federal parks, museums, the national zoo, and every other government facility is closed up tight; it is closed because the United States government is shut down due to inaction by the U.S. Congress to fund our government. 

If I was John Boehner, Speaker of the House, I would pack my picnic basket, get in my car, drive to the park, and ram it right through the gate. 

That is in essence what he did when he refused to call a clean CR (continuing resolution) to the floor that had already been passed by the U.S. Senate. It would have passed by members on both sides of the aisle. Instead, he and his merry madmen took the country hostage over his insistence that there be changes in the Affordable Care Act. There were three attempts to pass the CR with amendments related to gutting the ACA or better known as Obamacare. One of the provisions in the amendments was to allow employers to opt out of providing women's reproductive rights. Do you want your employer to decide what is best for you or your wife? 

Boehner also tried additional amendments, all related to Obamacare. Senate leaders were clear that any CR related to Obamacare would not pass. They stood their ground.

Instead of doing the right thing, Boehner refused to allow the clean CR to come to the floor, something he could have done yesterday and could still do today. 

The parade of Republicans speaking for the various amendments, each one designed to harm President Obama's signature accomplishment. One of the amendments would delay the implementation of Obamacare for a year. It was scheduled to begin today. Indeed, masses of Americans signed up for health care through the ACA today. The government shutdown had no effect because the funding was already ensured.

Another House Republican amendment, which came out of the 'rules' committee, made up of 9 Republicans and 4 Democrats, would exempt congressional members' own employees from eligibility of the Affordable Care Act. Their final attempt, just minutes before the government deadline prior to the shutdown, was to establish a conference committee to iron out the differences between the two houses. That is customary when both houses pass two differing versions of the same bill. That was something members of the senate tried to do since March when both houses passed spending bills. It didn't happen because Boehner refused to appoint members to the conference committee. Instead, Boehner's House was busy trying to repeal Obamacare -- 42 times. 

The part that annoyed me the most, during my six-hour marathon session with C-Span and C-Span 2, as I watched all the action take place live, was how Republicans tried to act as innocents as they blamed everyone but themselves. 

Make no mistake about this, Speaker John Boehner must take responsibility for shutting down the government. He and his tea party members took the country hostage, refusing to do the people's business. His actions were reprehensible! 

My desire to enjoy a day at the lake will just have to wait until the government comes to its senses, if that ever happens. My disappointment pales in comparison to the millions of workers that were told not to come to work today, will not get paid, and who knows for how long? 

I certainly hope the American people remember this day on Nov. 14, 2014 when House members want you to trust them to do the public's business for another two years. 

We mustn't let the 'Annie get your gun mentality' prevail

Guns, guns, guns (Photo credit: paljoakim)

Freedom of choice is on the decline in this country spurred by the Annie get your gun mentality. I no longer feel free to live without fear of an encounter with a crazed gunman. They are everywhere!

I have never been among the gun crowd; I have always hated guns and anything that has to do with them. The thought of shooting an animal turns my stomach. I never bought toy guns for my son. I shun all the shoot'em up movies. I abhor violence of all kinds. The older I get, the more I've embraced my life-long pacifistic tendencies. Until now, I have been free to live my life gun-free, but as I begin the autumn of my life, circumstances are forcing me to change my thinking. I say forced because it isn't something I want to do. My freedom to live peacefully without fear has been compromised.

Hate, fueled by ignorance is all around us. It was so evident in Barack Obama's 2012 election to a second term as President of the United States. I do not understand the kind of hatred that is fueled by racism, so much more prevalent than I ever knew. Folks were more inclined to elect a man who used people to get whatever he wanted. He was a proven liar who would say whatever he had to say to advance himself. Many knew it, yet he was a white guy, so he was a better choice in their minds. When Obama was re-elected, thankfully by the more open-minded, thinking people who recognized his attributes and potential to solve some of the deeply ingrained problems caused by the previous presidential administration, I felt relief.

But it was short-lived. A new horror awakened and shocked the nation. The murder of 26 people in Newtown, CT was the worst. Twenty tots along with six teachers and administrators in a public school were murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary School. The country seemed to awaken to a reality it didn't seem to want to face before, even in the light of so many needless deaths. No one could turn their eye from the unimaginable horror that filled the classroom on Dec. 14, 2012, the day the country regained a focus on the need to do something about guns.

The majority of the country gets it. There is a need to keep killing machines out of the hands of people who would do harm to innocents. A discussion has begun in earnest about this situation. And so the battle lines have been drawn. The leader of the opposition movement to a sensible solution is once again led by the National Rifle Association and the same voices that spewed hate during the election of our President. The NRA solution is more guns. They want guns everywhere as they make the claim that a well-armed teacher could have prevented lives. More sensible voices say just the opposite. The NRA with its televangelist campaign style rhetoric is fueling more hatred in the name of making more money by selling more guns. Even while the President moves toward a more saner climate, the NRA is fueling the hatred.

From my observation, it appears there are two scenarios.

The first is total paranoia that the government is going to confiscate all guns in some sort of Twilight Zone move to ignore the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The argument is fatally flawed, but is defended to the hilt. There is talk of banning assault rifles and high-capacity magazines, firearms and ammo that is designed for no other purpose than to kill people with rapid-fire ease. Why are these weapons defended by regular people? Who in their right mind believes average citizens should possess these military-type weapons.

The other scenario is fueled by the heads of the household who maintain a genuine fear of an intruder; someone who wants to rob, rape, or murder them in their own home. They want to keep guns on hand for their own protection. They refuse to think their child might one day find that firearm and use it accidentally or on purpose. They refuse to think about that firearm being stolen and used on them, as was done in the case of the Sandy Hook shooter who used his mother's assault rifle to murder her in her bed. The 'it couldn't happen to me' argument is nothing but a fantasy.

Part of the protection argument that may be the most shocking is not the one made by the head of the household; it is made by his wife. Apparently women continue to fear the men in their lives, so they defend their need to have a gun in the house.

Every day the local news is filled with domestic violence, murder, and mayhem that occurs in a not-so-happy home. So many families have become victims of gun violence.

Women have made so many advances in our society, but so many are being left behind, for whatever reason. I suppose when a U.S. Congressman proposes legislation that is degrading to women or others make foolish statements about women's health, it is a real danger sign.

When people vote against intelligence, capability, and integrity in favor of empty rhetoric and and impossible promises and lies, what can we expect? When hope turns to desperation, what can we expect?

I believe the majority of this country is advancing intellectually and socially, but a growing number of folks relate more to Honey Boo Boo than the men and women of science that have advanced our lives and changed our world for the better. I'm very frightened for the next generation. I shudder to think of what kind of America my grandchildren will occupy. The choices that are being made today are so vital. Their future depends on it.

Good riddance 2012!

DEZEMBER 2012, December 2012 (Photo credit: eagle1effi)

It is a thrill to put 2012 behind us. As years go, this year was a disaster.

I just wish it were as easy to turn the page on politics and gun violence as it is to turn the page on the calendar. It seems we have experienced an all-time low in repulsive behavior on those two fronts.

Since I've been paying attention, I have never observed more petty, abhorrent, vile behavior as during the 2012 GOP election season. Fox News'  outright lies would have been humorous, had the stakes not been so high. Still, they had the trust of large numbers of people who actually believed them. The entire staff under the moniker of 'media' accomplished near decimation of an already suffering communication industry. Who can trust the media now, after all that has been done to destroy journalistic credibility by what we now know to be an admitted farce?

The GOP campaign, led by corporate giants with nearly unlimited amount of cash thanks to the wrong-headed conservative U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision tried to steal the election through no-responsibility campaign ads. Fortunately their candidate for president was a buffoon with little to no campaign smarts and zero integrity. His handlers weren't much better. I'm so grateful that enough of the public woke up in time to cast ballots for the incumbent.

But even more disheartening than the election debacle was the horrific gun violence in 2012 where 16 mass shootings resulted in 88 dead. The last one--on December 14--the needless slaughter of 26 innocent people, including 20 precious, little first-graders at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT, may be and should have been the final straw to break the back of an undisciplined society gone awry.

The incident of worst-nightmare proportions brought a President to tears and so affected the general public that cries for better gun laws have begun to echo across the nation. Still, that is little consolation for the tiny unsuspecting east coast town that lost its innocence.

Changing the way the country looks at gun violence could be a start in the long road to help the healing. An end to gun violence could help if that were the end of the story. But it isn't!

Sadly, some of the same voices that supported artificial news during the presidential campaign are the same ones that now cry for more guns, not less. The National Rifle Association, which many fail to realize is little more than the marketing arm of the gun manufacturers lobby, has some of those same Fox News devotees squarely in its sites. They see no reason guns shouldn't be placed in the hands of school teachers to keep the students safe. Never mind that it didn't help at Columbine High School or at Ft. Hood where weapons actually belong and are issued to all the soldiers there.

It is unbelievable to me that anyone could believe that more guns could keep people safe from gun violence. That is like saying that keeping water in a toddler's bathtub will deter drowning.

I'm sick to death of the excuse that guns are for protection. Too often guns purchased for protection simply result in injury and death during a heated argument, or in an instant of despair resulting in suicide, or perhaps an accident by a curious child. Responsible gun owners should lock their weapon securely. So what kind of protection is that? Gun owners want it both ways, but it doesn't work that way. Protection from bad guys would require access to a loaded gun. Protection for family members requires locking away and securing the gun and ammunition.

Though this is a discussion that will likely span the entire new year, at least it is has begun. It is a topic that is long overdue, which is reason enough for optimism in the coming new year.

So once again, we wipe the slate clean. A new beginning with high hopes where anything is possible is upon us. Our future begins now. What we do with it is our choice.

Peace!

Ending gun violence must start with open discussion

The United States Constitution
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Like so many people across the country I am sickened by the recent school shooting tragedy in Newtown, CT that slaughtered 28 people, including 20 innocent young children.

The number of gun-related deaths in this country makes is inexcusable. It has gotten to the point that people are afraid. I'm afraid.

I don't buy the fact that everyone should carry a gun. In fact, if I hear one more person say that if those teachers or the principal was armed, this wouldn't have happened. I am at a total loss to reconcile that kind of thinking. Less guns are needed on the streets and in public places; not more. Guns are hideous! The people that use every excuse as to why they have a love affair with them are worse.

No longer can I tolerate that whole second amendment rights tirade. The second amendment to the U.S. Constitution was written long before the kind of carnage assault rifles can create was conceived. Guns were meant to create peace and protection; not devastation and death. Yet that is the ugly reality. The second amendment is at best, outdated. People think nothing of updating their bathroom fixtures, but the laws we must live by, not so much.

Shouting gun control from the highest rooftops has no affect. There has to be a renewed discussion about not just changing the laws, but changing the attitudes.

I've found that good and decent people who think they are doing the right thing by arming themselves to protect their homes and families may in fact be a big part of the problem. The following is eye-opening and should be seen by every law-abiding citizen that supports carrying a weapon.

Concealed Carry Permit Holders Live in a Dream World

Varying views about how to end gun violence include polar extremes with every argument in-between. Some want the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution amended and brought up-to-date. Some believe every person should be armed. Others believed guns should be banned completely. With such a disparity of views about this important problem, one or none of those may be the answer. It may be a combination of them, or one that hasn't yet been proposed. But one thing is for certain--the discussion has to happen. Too much blood of innocent victims has been shed. All sides need to come together to solve this problem and return the United States to the a peaceful and caring nation our forefathers tried to create.

Related articles

• The Second Amendment : U.S. Constitution
• Bob Costas' gun violence comments draw controversy
• Ed Schultz: 'Times Change,' Stop 'Hiding Behind The Second Amendment'

Barack Obama must win a second term

US President Barack Obama 

I feel confident that Barack Obama will win a second term in the White House. I say that partially because I cannot imagine any other scenario. Like so many others, I have watched this race with Mitt Romney intensely. I've studied the debates; read all the pundits; and engaged every way possible. There should be no contest. On character alone, Obama is head and shoulders above his challenger. Obama wins on substance, temperament, intellect, diplomacy, integrity, and just about every other way.

I have not, however, donated money to the campaign, for two reasons. 

First, I stand by the principle that elections should not be bought. The Citizens United decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that basically threw out any monetary restrictions in campaign finance is immoral and unethical, in my opinion. I plan to support any effort in the future that will negate this blunder by the corporate-heavy, prejudicial court. 

Probably more importantly, I just don't have money to throw into the political arena. Paying bills and taking care of necessities is a much more responsible avenue in my fixed-income household. I'm at least grateful there is enough to pay for the necessities. 

Just because I am not throwing money at my President does not mean I don't support his candidacy. In fact, any of my Facebook friends will attest that I am a big Obama supporter. I have literally devoted hours in an effort to debunk the lies, distortions, and misrepresentations from my 'friends.' If I got paid for the 'writing' I've done on the subject, my personal economic situation would be greatly improved. That however, is not, nor has never been my goal. I have long endeavored in support for causes that I believe in, not because of what I could get out of it, but for what I could put into it. 

While I definitely do not agree with every policy or decision, I have been proud of the leadership in the White House. I cannot say the same thing for challenger, Mitt Romney. To me, Romney epitomizes everything that appalls me. Born with the proverbial silver spoon in his mouth, he really doesn't stand for anything. Despite his participation in his church, he doesn't appear to me to be a moral character. That is another topic for another time.

While Mitt Romney may have done some good things in his life, I'd be willing to bet he benefited by them. He is the kind of man whose deeds are the main course; while any other benefit to anyone else is merely a side dish. He is a bully, void of empathy. He has harmed countless people for his own gain. To me, that is the lowest form of human behavior. I certainly don't want that type of person leading our country.

I've been amazed at how many people simply hate Obama. It is painfully obvious that irrational feelings of hatred stem from varying levels of racial bias because Obama's father was African-American. The election of this President has caused bigotry to rise to the surface, largely by fringe groups of white, Christians who still judge people by the color of their skin, but even by some who don't admit their prejudices. I find it incredible and frightening that in 21st Century America there are still people so filled with racism--a racism so ingrained in them that it colors their views and perceptions. It is so appalling.

Mitt Romney is the stereotypical white, rich guy that probably never knew the joy of getting his hands dirty. A man of privilege for his entire life, he doesn't know what he is missing. 

How could anyone think he could lead a country where only one percent of the population is like him? Romney's role on the national stage should be limited to that of economic adviser, because that is what he knows. But as the leader of a country that is so diverse, a Romney presidency would be worse than what was experienced under the George W. Bush administration. I never dreamed anyone could be worse than Bush, but I believe Romney would be. While he may be a good business manager, running a country is far more complex and requires skills he does not have. A country is all about its people--something Romney is not very good at. 

Running a country is not about simply descending the stairs from a perch in an ivory tower, writing a few pink slips, and then retreating to the country club to joke about it with friends. 

I am sickened at how the marketing of Mitt Romney has influenced so many people--including many of my friends and family. How can people be so blind as to fall for the faux facts, targeted policies aimed at the audience, plans that change with the wind, and his refusal to answer questions? Where is the substance in this man? 

Mitt Romney has turned the leadership of the country into a game. He wants to win it and he will win at any cost. This isn't about leadership of the country we all hold dear; it is about winning. 

What appalls me the most is that people are not just allowing it but are encouraging it. They have convinced themselves that he is what they see in front of them. In reality what they see is an actor--a made-up for the camera robot with no heart. Funny, they voted for George W. Bush because they thought he was a nice guy, only to learn how wrong they were. These are people who lack the depth of understanding to vote for the person that will do the best job managing our country as just one of many in an increasingly  complex world. I just don't think Mitt Romney is up to the task. 

Parade Route

Politics often provides such a clear distinction between the candidates.

It was at a parade that I met Barack Obama, the Democrat running for a second term as President.

The following picture of the two of us posing in front of my house was taken Beecher, Illinois back in 1994 when Obama was campaigning for  a seat in the U.S. Senate.

I was a small town reporter taking pictures of the Fourth of July parade. We lived along the parade route, so I often combined business with pleasure. I recall being totally excited and amazed that a candidate for the U.S. Senate was walking in our little, small town parade. I had no idea at the time that the man with whom I took this picture would become the 44th President of the United States.

Obama obviously loved campaigning. He loved being around people. He enjoyed meeting them. His huge smile was evidence of how much fun he was having. He reached for as many hands as reached out to him. He was friendly and took time to talk with folks along the parade route. In fact, there were many times he had to run to catch up after being sidelined by questioners and interested future constituents.

Then there is the other side. A video was made of Paul Ryan, the Republican Vice Presidential running mate of Mitt Romney, who is challenging Obama.

I could go on about Romney, but this is a story about parades, so the object is Paul Ryan, the same man whose speech at the Republican National Convention was picked apart by fact checkers the following morning.

Watch how Paul Ryan greets the people along the parade route.

There is no doubt in my mind which man I would rather see lead this country.

Gun debate goes on and on and on...

AURORA, CO - JULY 23: Two daughters of movie-theater-shooting-victim Gordon Cowden's embrace one another at the makeshift memorial built across the street from the Century 16 theater July 23, 2012 in Aurora, Colorado. Two of Cowden's teenage daughters were with him in the theater when he was killed. Twenty-four-year-old James Holmes is suspected of killing 12 and injuring 58 others Friday during a shooting rampage at a screening of 'The Dark Knight Rises.' (Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife)

What happened last weekend in Aurora, Colorado was everyone's worst nightmare. Like most others who have watched the details of the tragedy unfold, I thought about how I have been going to movies all my life. It has always been a relaxing, enjoyable, peaceful experience. Never in my wildest dreams could I imagine that someone could walk up and down the aisles shooting innocent people.

That kind of horror often plays out in movie theaters, but on the screen, not in the audience. I cannot imagine what it must be like to live through such horrific violence, or what would be worse to die because of it.

Turning an American iconic activity into a bloody horror has enraged me. But I am even more horrified that so many people refuse to place any kind of blame on the relative ease of this 24-year old killer to obtain weapons of mass destruction. We went to war with a country over such a thing! But so many people, the very people that condoned the unjust war in Iraq that was based on lies by the George W. Bush administration, defend the right to own semi-automatic weapons and magazines that hold hundreds of shots. Their argument is based on self defense. I have to ask what is wrong with these people?

A quick Internet search of the subject, revealed multiple sources that make the claim, "more guns, less crime." In fact, that is the title of a book written by John Lott. The NRA has embraced his work and in the summer of 2003 recommended the book and its analysis to then Attorney General John Ashcroft in a letter signed by 18 state attorneys general. They sang the praises of Ashcroft's position on the Second Amendment. And so it goes...

I can't help but remain skeptical because it only seems to me that violence is much more a part of life today than it has ever been before. In my unskilled, unstudied opinion, guns seem to be at the very heart of it. Never before has this country seen the kinds of mass killings that we are seeing on a seemingly regular basis. Shootings resulting in multiple deaths have occurred in fast food joints, the workplace, college campuses, elementary and high schools, shopping malls and now at movie theaters.
A little further research revealed a working paper written by Mark Duggan from the National Bureau of Economic Research at Cambridge, Massachusetts, who looked into the relationship of guns and crime. His paper was entitled: "More Guns More Crime." At the time of his research, Mark was a student at the University of Chicago in the Dept. of Economics.

His paper http://www.nber.org/papers/w7967 was an in-depth analysis--than a cursory Google search. Those first results were obvious bias sources. One article on Google can be recreated literally hundreds of times by different sources. Such is the case with gun advocates.

Duggan noted his paper one item that stood out for me. He said he used statistics from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) because the NCHS data gave a more accurate source of homicide data than the FBI. He noted that between five and eight-percent of homicides are not reported in the FBI state-level data each year.

Another paper published by Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue III is entitled, "Shooting Down the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis." http://www.nber.org/papers/w9336, students at Yale and Stanford respectively.

"While certain facially plausible statistical models appear to generate this conclusion, (Lott's book "More Guns Less Crime") more refined analyses of more recent state and county data undermine the more guns, less crime hypothesis," said Ayres and Donohue III.

Donahue also wrote, "The latest misfires in support of the 'More Guns, Less Crime' hypothesis," in the Stanford Law Review, 2003.

The discussion has gone on for years, with no resolution. Fire power is getting faster and more lethal while political leaders continue to back away from the very subject. Who can blame them? The country is as divided about guns as it is on a host of other topics, especially in this election year.

So, the argument between gun and non-gun advocates continues, while more and more potential future victims of gun violence go about their happy lives. Potential killers keep going to gun stores and ordering their Glocks on the Internet. One day the two will meet. Bang, somebody will be dead!

Two Illinois Governors now serving time

If I hadn’t watched the news coverage, I wouldn’t have believed that ex-Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich would really end up in federal prison. Yet that is exactly where he now lives—at the Federal Correctional Institution in Englewood, Colorado, far from his Chicago home and his wife and two daughters.

I have thought about him from time-to-time, after learning about his arrest, conviction, and ultimately, what seemed to me, to be a harsh sentence.

I cannot imagine the kind of agony he and his family must have felt knowing that he, a two-term Governor of the State of Illinois, husband and father, would have to report to prison, to live in an unfriendly, alien environment among common thieves and murderers.

Super PAC Redemption

One of the worst elements in our Democracy, in my view, is the ability to buy an election. This is really nothing new. As the amount of money spent on campaigns escalates, so does my ire. It seems that funding is the single-most determining factor in picking our leaders. But wait…there could be some redeeming qualities about Super PACs.

On their face, I have not changed my opinion. But this year has been so outrageous, so over-the-top, so outlandish, that I can’t help but see not only a little humor in this situation, but a little poetic justice as well.

Lighten up on President Obama

 US President Barack Obama 

Plenty of blame is encircling the White House as Democrats express frustration with President Barack Obama over the compromise deal he made with Republicans on tax cuts.

The wealthiest Americans have been given another perk they didn't need and in some cases don't want, along with those who do need it--middle class America.

Liberals are the most furious with Obama, believing that he has been untrue to the base of support that elected him. There is even talk about finding a candidate to run against him in the next presidential primary.

Wait just a darn minute!

First off, it wasn't just liberals that elected Obama. There were plenty of moderate Democrats. Independents, and perhaps even a Republican or two that cast ballots Obama's way. Obama had a multitude of appealing attributes that made him appeal to voters, not the least of which was his intellect and grasp of the issues that affect real people.

Obama is aware that as President of the United States, he is not just the president of his own political party, but he is president of all Americans.

One of his attributes is that Obama was not a Washington insider who had planted his feet firmly into the muck that is D.C. Because of that, he may have lacked a little experience in dealing with the sharks in the Congress who have sharpened their teeth for years.

Personally, I'm not willing to condemn him for that.

I am a little more frustrated with members of Congress. If Democrats were so anxious to end the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans implemented by Bush, why did they ignore  this battle until the 11th hour? They have been the majority party for two years. If this issue was so important, why didn't they put a little effort into it? During the campaign for the November election, I received dozens of emails, phone calls, and pleas for dollars and support.

Why is getting elected more important than governing?

Passing laws is not up to the President, yet he was forced to take a leadership role in the tax cut deal because Democrats didn't act on it. Only when they learned Obama was negotiating with Republicans, did they take a vote in the House. It was no surprise that it failed because they didn't work at it.

I consider myself liberal in my thinking, and yet I know that governing the country requires looking at the big picture--the whole picture.

I dislike the compromise, but I don't fully believe Obama is the problem.

That said, I am completely giving him a pass.

His political inexperience may have caused him to give in a little too quickly when Republicans threatened to block all bills in the Congress until they got what they wanted.  I have to concur with those who criticized Obama for mentioning a compromise even as he was going into the "talks" with Republicans. Perhaps Obama knew something we didn't. Republicans have made no secret that one of their first priorities was to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans.

I have to fault Obama and Democrats for not pointing out that a tax cut for the top 2 percent of wage earners in this country has no stimulative basis. They have had the tax cuts in place and the economy still tanked. Joblessness has risen while they enjoyed their tax breaks. There is no evidence nor does it make sense that the status quo will cause job creation.

Still, I believe we must not judge Obama too quickly. Obama has had a full plate--inheriting an economic crisis caused by Bush's wars, wealth bailouts, weakening regulations, and other actions. This is only Obama's first half of his first term.

I want it all too, but I am wise enough to recognize that we can't always get everything we want.

Yes, Obama could have/should have used the tools available to him to shame Republicans in numerous national addresses to the people, on television and in editorial pages across the country. He could have waged a campaign-like initiative to inspire the public to lobby their representatives, but it isn't like he was just sitting on his hands. The man has had his hands full.

I believe Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and others are acting like bullies. Do you beat a bully by pissing him off? I don't think so. It may just be more effective in the long run to out-think him. Shaming the Republicans with which Obama disagrees philosophically, would do nothing to help us get through the next two years. We cannot afford more of the gridlock we have experienced in the past when so much needs to be done to get the country back on track.

As we criticize Obama, are we thinking about the future--particularly the next two years?

I guarantee he is. I believe he is planting the seeds that will grow into future compromise, an even more vital commodity when Republicans control the House. Obama does not have the luxury of just washing his hands of them, much as he and we would prefer. He has to deal with them. I'm sure the November election altered his game plan. It had to.

We always say we want real people who we can trust to serve in office.

Yet we inherently don't trust them. We are critical at every juncture. Obama evaluated the situation and did what he thought was right. He kept his eyes on the prize--which was retaining the previous tax cuts for middle class Americans. While he found the tax cut on the top 2% distasteful, as evidenced by numerous statements and even mentioned in the first chapter of his book, there is no question that he didn't enjoy giving in on that front. But that was not his focus. His focus was help for the middle class. And his mandate was to reach across the aisle and to bring the two sides together.

Imagine the consequences if the tax cuts expired. People most unable to deal with it would have been harmed even more. The ripple effect would have derailed any hope of recovery. Obama may have been right not to fight to the bitter end. This would only have further alienated Republicans causing them to further dig in their heels.

It is nice that Democrats in congress say they are willing to go to the mat to fight the tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. Fighting for principal is a good thing. I've done it all my life.

But I'm not the President of the United States. Obama can't afford to fight only on  principal because he no longer has that luxury. He must govern us all, even the rich. While the American people won't remember this when the next election cycle rolls around; Obama will. Democrats will. If the rich Republicans don't create the jobs they promise, and help the economy out of the tank, Democrats will hold them accountable to the electorate. The news media will not let rich Republicans get away with it if they fail.

Tax breaks for the wealthy is not a stimulus for job growth. Had it been, we would not have seen unemployment continue to rise during this time--while they enjoy their tax breaks. There is no sound reason for Republicans to get this perk.

Time will likely show that another tax break for the richest two percent of the country was wrong. But it will be so much easier to prove in the future if they fail to produce jobs they promised. This little battle between the President and his own party has made the public aware.

While I too was frustrated with Obama, I am most disgusted by the members of Congress which has failed to act time and time again.

Mostly, I'm disgusted with the electorate--the seemingly good people of this country who believe all the crap the Republicans have sold to them. There is no excuse for the harsh results of the November election except to say that Democrats failed.

The folks who put all those Republicans in office pride themselves in being blind followers. They follow their lord and they follow their political leaders, believing theirs is the only way. They must learn that theirs isn't the only way. There are many other ways. Democrats need to do a better job to educate the electorate--even if it means a little compromise among us on our own independent views.

Not an informed voter, stay home!

Is this not the most disgusting election season in history?

The entire premise that rich people can buy elections has been around for decades, but never before has it been more obvious, at least to some. But some people still don't get it.

The I'm-mad-as-hell-and-I'm-not-going-to-take-it-anymore attitude is normally one I would endorse, but not this year. I am a strong advocate of exercising your right to vote, but only if you are an informed voter. If you are the kind of person that simply falls for the television commercials or glossy brochures that come to your door, please stay home.

Candidates of both parties are lying, manipulating, and waging the battle of their lives. I wish I could calculate the monumental costs of this election, but throw more than six zeros at me and I admit getting a little blurry-eyed. In truth, six figures is about all I can comprehend. Yet there are tens of millions being spent every day across this country. Doesn't anyone have a problem with that?

I used to bristle at the fact that only the wealthy could afford to run for public office. Now, I find myself completely freaking out about how unlimited corporate donations and anyone with tons of money and an agenda can turn any wacko into a candidate.

I've often wondered where this wealth comes from. I certainly don't have it, but then I'm a hard-working, honest person who tries not to hurt or take advantage of other people. My goal in life is not to be rich—I'd rather be happy. I would never step on other people just to get ahead. I don't rip people off. I try to tell the truth. I care about total strangers. I don't think I'm better than anyone else.

It isn't just the act of buying elections that is bothersome. I am horrified about the what if's. What if these nutjobs actually become representatives of our government? These people are going to speak on our behalf. They are going to make decisions that will ultimately affect us all.

I'm not sure what the answers are, but we have to learn from our mistakes. Why aren't we?

George Ryan’s appeal opposed by Solicitor General

U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement filed a brief Friday, April 25 stating that the U.S. Su-preme Court should refuse to hear the appeal of convicted ex-Governor George Ryan.

The U.S. Solicitor General, who was nominated by President George Bush in March, 2005 and confirmed by the Senate in June.

By definition, the solicitor general is to argue for the Gov-ernment of the United States in front of the U.S. Supreme Court when the government is involved in a case.

Clement said complaints about jurors were misguided and a hearing was not warranted.

Following Ryan’s conviction, his attorneys Dan Webb and former Gov. James R. Thompson did as they promised – to take Ryan’s case all the way to the Supreme Court.

Thompson was adamant that Ryan should receive a fair trial. His argument, that the trial was not fair, was based on some in-consistencies with some of the jurors during the six-month long trial. Thompson’s opinion was bolstered by the sole dissent in the Court of Appeals and a mi-nority opinion by Circuit Judges who ultimately refused to rehear Ryan’s case.

On Jan. 23, Thompson filed a petition urging the U.S. Supreme Court to act on Ryan’s behalf to overturn his conviction.

That was a final step in a long line of legal maneuvers that could no longer keep Ryan out of federal prison.

Clement also weighed in last November when Ryan’s bail was denied by U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.

Ryan reported to prison in No-vember 2007 to serve a six and one-half year sentence. He was initially sent to Oxford Institu-tion, in Wisconsin, but was re-cently moved to Terre Haute Federal Institution in Terre Haute, Indiana. Under new regu-lations, of which Ryan was un-aware at the time of his sentenc-ing, Oxford could no longer care for inmates over 70 years of age. Ryan is 74.

Ryan and his business partner Lawrence Warner were con-victed on April 17, 2006, of mul-tiple counts of racketeering, con-spiracy, mail fraud, obstruction of justice, money laundering, and tax violation while he served as Secretary of State.

Ryan is expected to be re-leased from prison in 2013.