Jan 11, 2013

PROPOSAL: The Well-Regulated Militia Act of 2013

"By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia', the 'security' of the nation, and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms', our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason, I believe the Second Amendment will always be important." 
- John F Kennedy

After a rash of multiple-victim public shootings in the last few months, the "we must do something" mentality has reached near-consensus levels. From armed guards at schools to blanket gun bans to national registry to mental health awareness, everyone has an solution. If we must do something, let's do something smart. I would like to propose a moderate, comprehensive plan to address several gun-related issues that might satisfy the "do something"ers, as well as disparate ideological forces all at once.

One of the most popular gun control measures proposed recently is a national registry of all gun ownership (or sales). I'm skeptical that having a list of who owns what gun would prevent anyone from using them in a crime, only make them easier to track after, but let's consider it. An acquaintance (and political adversary) of mine, Patrick Goff, suggested making gun registration part of a militia membership. Innovative! Synergistic! Bipartisan! Brilliant!

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution reads:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
At the time of the founding, there was no standing army (and generally, the founders were against having one), so the military defense of the nation and the people was ensured by the people themselves being armed, and called to service when necessary. One argument against the individual right to arms is that without a "well regulated militia" that right is no longer applicable. Then what if we in effect re-created the militia with the national gun registry that so many suggest? You would register your gun with your state's National Guard, who would then issue you a (cheesy as it sounds) membership card as an honorary member of the National Guard militia.

This might sound like a national military conscription, and there's certainly the threat that a different administration and Congress might want to turn it into one, but it wouldn't be. We already have the Selective Service System that enables a nationwide draft upon congressional approval. Militia membership would not require any action or service from the member, only serve as an incentive to register your guns.

To give further incentive to this arrangement, militia membership might provide modest tangible benefits. The member could be entitled to a free gun safety/target practice/self defense course at the nearest National Guard base once every three years. Concealed carry permitting could be streamlined by militia membership. (If you have ideas for other benefits, leave a comment!)

Of course this proposal does not solve gun violence, cure mental illness, or keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but it does represent a huge, potentially bipartisan step forward in responsibility and awareness.

Jan 8, 2013

Texans vs Patriots, a history

To prepare for the Texans-Patriots divisional playoff game this weekend, let's review the Patriots' postseason history under Brady.
2011
- beat Broncos (beat Broncos week 15)
- beat Ravens (hadn't played Ravens that year)
- lost to Giants (lost to Giants 24-20 week 9 & preseason week 4)

2010
- lost to Jets (beat Jets 45-3 week 13)

2009
- lost to Ravens (beat Ravens 27-21 week 4)
(note: lost to Texans 34-27 week 17)

2008
- didn't make playoffs

2007
- beat Jaguars (hadn't played Jaguars that year)
- beat Chargers (beat Chargers 38-14 week 2)
- lost to Giants (beat Giants 35-30 week 17, 27-20 preseason week 4)

2006
- beat Jets (lost to Jets 17-14 week 10)
- beat Chargers (hadn't played Chargers that year)
- lost to Colts (lost to Colts 27-20 week 9)
(note: beat Texans 40-7 week 15)

2005
- beat Jaguars (hadn't previously played Jaguars that year)
- lost to Broncos (lost to Broncos 28-20 week 6)

2004
- beat Colts (beat Colts 27-24 week 1)
- beat Steelers (lost to Steelers 34-20 week 8)
- beat Eagles (beat Eagles preseason week 1)

2003
- beat Titans (beat Titans 38-30 week 5)
- beat Colts (beat Colts 38-34 week 13)
- beat Panthers (hadn't previously played Panthers that year)
(note: beat Texans 23-20 week 12)

2002
- didn't make playoffs
Certainly the Patriots are a great team and have done well to consistently get to the playoffs and do well once there. But looking at their playoff losses, three of them were to teams they had previously beaten, and three of them were to teams they had previously lost to in the regular season. For their 13 playoff wins, six of them were against teams they had previously beaten, five against teams they hadn't played, and two against teams to whom they had lost.

So while they do have a nearly 50% chance of beating teams twice in a season, they also have a 50% chance of losing to a team they've previously beaten, especially recently. In two of the last three post-seasons, they lost their first game to a team they'd beaten earlier in the year.

The Texans (with Schaub) have only played the Patriots twice. The Texans won the first meeting in 2009 and lost the second this year. They are absolutely capable of beating them again, especially with the newly confident, healthy, balanced team they have now. Betting on the Patriots might be a smart move, but it's not a certainty, even based on their playoff history.

Jan 2, 2013

For Current TV, Al Jazeera > Glenn Beck

I'm no Glenn Beck fan (though I used to be), but this is pretty outrageous:
Glenn Beck’s The Blaze approached Current about buying the channel last year, but was told that “the legacy of who the network goes to is important to us and we are sensitive to networks not aligned with our point of view,” according to a person familiar with the negotiations.
So according to Current TV executives (see: Al Gore), Glenn Beck isn't "aligned with [their] point of view" (obviously), but Al-Jazeera, a network that uses questionable methods to be a primary source for terrorist propaganda, is?

It could be that A-J just offered them more money than Beck did, and they're using the ideology argument to bolster their progressive audience while they're in the news. But if they truly did mean it, and "point of view" was one of the criteria used to reject Blaze and select A-J, it adds a whole new level to the red-green (or in this case, black-green) alliance to undermine Western institutions.

Jan 1, 2013

Senate fiscal cliff deal in numbers

Let's take a broad look at what 40 Senate Republicans voted for last night to avert the fiscal cliff deficit reduction they passed over the last few years.
Biden-McConnell Plan:
$620 billion revenue - mostly from tax increases on $400,000+ incomes
$30 billion in new spending - unemployment extension not offset
$15 billion in cuts - mostly military and healthcare tweaks
Postpones automatic sequester cuts of $1.5 trillion for 2 months 
Those sure do seem like small numbers. To see just how small, consider that they're spread out over 10 years, then compare them to 1 year of the budget itself.
$3.8 trillion total spending
$2.9 trillion total revenue
But let's compare apples to apples: 1 year of the budget to 1 year of the deal.
$3.8 trillion spending to start
$3 billion new spending
$1.5 billion cuts
end with ... wait for it ... $3.8 trillion spending
$2.9 trillion revenue to start
$62 billion new revenue (assuming economic growth doesn't slow...)
end with ... wait for it ... $2.9 trillion revenue
In broad terms of the budget, absolutely nothing was accomplished either in revenue or spending. Next, let's take a look at the previous proposals to really judge where we ended up.
Geithner Plan
$1.6 trillion new revenue - increase taxes, eliminate deductions over $250k income
$50 billion new spending
$350 billion cuts

Boehner counteroffer
$800 billion new revenue - eliminate deductions over $250k income
$1.2 trillion cuts

Obama outline
$1.2 trillion new revenue - increase taxes, eliminate deductions over $400k income
$80 billion new spending
$1.2 trillion cuts

Boehner "Plan B"
$1 trillion new revenue - increase taxes, eliminate deductions over $1M income
$1 trillion cuts
So instead of $350 billion to $1.2 trillion in cuts, we got $15 billion. Instead of $800 billion to $1.6 trillion in new revenue, we got $620 billion. Over 10 years.

This is not compromise, it's surrender.

Dec 10, 2012

Let it burn: Syria edition


Ok, that's it. I've been mulling Syria for as long as the civil war has been raging. The knee-jerk answer was that Assad has to go, and we should help him do it, through any means necessary. He started this by assaulting peaceful demonstrators over a year ago. Then, it was an easy thing to oppose.

Now that the "rebels" have either been transformed into or entirely replaced by radical jihadis, we should not and cannot support them in any way, even by the deposing of Assad. We should instead lend only humanitarian support to the people, not fighters, where necessary, and let the regime and jihadi forces kill as many of themselves as possible. Two vile, inhuman birds; one stone.

(Full disclosure: I did not actually watch the video linked above, nor do I intend to or suggest you do.)

Dec 8, 2012

Two things certain: Taxes and death, in that order

If Republicans agree to raise taxes to avoid the fiscal cliff, the 2014 elections will be a massacre. We should put our plan on the table, walk away, and let the chips fall where they may. Any surrender on the issue will result in a much worse outcome for the party in the next election.

Democrats (in the media) are giving us poll numbers in an attempt to convince us that the public wants taxes on the rich to go up as part of a deal. While this is true, they're not providing us this information for our own benefit. If Republicans agree to raise taxes this year, everyone who does so will be challenged by more conservative candidates in the 2014 GOP primary. Some of those challengers will win their primary, unseating longstanding and virtually unbeatable representatives. Some of those primary winners will turn around and lose the general election.

We need look no further than Richard Mourdock in the race this year for the Senate in Indiana to see how well that turns out. Sure, we occasionally get a Marco Rubio out of the deal, but at what cost? If poor candidates like Angle, O'Donnell, Buck, Akin, and Mourdock hadn't lost seats in the last two elections, Republicans would have at least a 50-50 tie in the Senate right now, if not a majority.

Caving on taxes ensures a 2014 GOP primary civil war, which is a strategic goldmine for Democrats, giving them a chance to get back a supermajority in the Senate and a majority in the House. We cannot let that happen, especially for the last two years of the Obama administration.

Dec 5, 2012

"Necessary" revenues?

In the ongoing "fiscal cliff" negotiations (read: public gamesmanship; there have been no actual negotiations yet) to avoid the expiring tax rates and automatic budget cuts previously enacted by Congress, the White House has created an arbitrary requirement for a certain amount of revenue that it says it must reach for any meaningful proposal. From a response to Jake Tapper in the White House press briefing today:
"[We] have not seen and no outside independent economist has seen a credible proposal that says you can achieve the kind of — the kind of revenues that are necessary for a balanced approach just by closing loopholes or capping deductions."
Who decided what amount of revenues are "necessary" for a "balanced approach"? One might think he means (and a good approach would be) the revenue necessary when combined with complimentary spending cuts to reduce the deficit to $0 and balance the budget. However, the total amounts we're talking about in any potential deal are literally fractions of the annual deficit. President Obama's proposal is $2 trillion, Speaker Boehner's proposal is $2.2 trillion, Bowles-Simpson is $4 trillion, but these are all spread over 10 years, where the deficit every year has been over $1 trillion for each of the last four years. So what is this unspecified target that the amount of new revenue must reach? Assuming the White House likes their own proposal and thinks it is itself "balanced" and meets the targets "necessary", this appears to be roughly 1/5 of the annual deficit. Why is that the proper goal? Why not 1/4 of the deficit? Why not 1/2? Why not the whole thing?

The Obama proposal includes $1.4 trillion in revenue from tax increases and $600 billion from spending cuts. Given the White House's reliance on the "balanced approach" trope, are we to assume that they think the numbers 1,400 and 600 are somehow balanced? Do they even know the meaning of the word? Actually, the House proposal of $800 billion in revenue (from deduction elimination, not rate increases) and $1.4 trillion in cuts is numerically more balanced than the White House proposal. However, in the real world neither of these proposals is actually balanced or even comes close to repairing the enormous fiscal damage done over the last six years.

UPDATE: During the budget/debt ceiling talks in 2011, President Obama suggested that $1.2 trillion in tax revenue could be raised by elimination deductions and credits without raising rates (or even with lowering them). Why isn't that possible anymore? And assuming he thought $1.2 trillion was a "balanced" amount of revenue then, why is $1.4 trillion balanced now and $800 billion not?