Why does tragedy have to prompt such stupidity?

What happened last Friday in Aurora CO was just that... a tragedy of epic proportions. A madman comes into a crowded theater armed to the teeth, and kills and wounds 70 people and terrorizes hundreds more. The inevitable result of such news is for the rest of society to ask "Why?" Rational people wonder at the causes for such awful actions, weep and pray for the victims, and hope that it never repeats again.

Then you hear the irrational people pipe up...

Those that would advocate a ban or confiscation of all firearms in this country use this latest tragedy as an example of why their way is the right way to stop the problem. Obviously, if the man didn't have access to guns, he couldn't have done what he did, right? Groups such as those that authored the 1993 Brady Bill (signed into law by Clinton and openly supported by Ronald Reagan) and the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban (also signed by Clinton and openly supported by Reagan) now say that since both laws have come off the books, the problem is "back". Add to this the problem that the alleged killer purchased 6,000 rounds of ammo via the internet without having to pass a background check, and their case seems air-tight to many.

At no point in modern American history was it "legal" to manufacture, distribute or use heroine, cocaine or marijuana... at least, without a prescription... yet the drug problem in this country is as bad as it has ever been. There has been a "War on Drugs" for more than 25 years, the entire arsenal of the US military and Federal law enforcement machine has been employed to end the problem... yet it still exists. If we can't excise the cancer that is drug abuse in this country, when such drugs have no rational "need" to be used, retained or manufactured... what hope is there to stop the specter of violent crimes committed with guns?

Tougher legislation towards limiting who can or cannot own firearms, then?

Colorado has some of the tougher laws on the books right now. The accused killer passed all the Federal, State and local background checks and purchased four perfectly legal guns in a perfectly legal manner. The fact that the rifle he bought looks like an assault rifle has no bearing whatsoever on the actual fact that the rifle was a semi-auto .223 caliber carbine which can be legally owned in all fifty States of the Union. It is no more deadly than any other .223 semi-auto rifle, and is far less deadly than an actual assault rifle, which IS illegal to own without a Federal license.

Tougher access to ammunition or a return to the ban on extended clips and cartridge holders?

Even if such clips and ammunition holders were "illegal" right now, there are literally hundreds of thousands of them already in circulation, and changing even a standard ten-round clip (legal under the 1994 ban) takes less than 2 seconds to someone with a little practice behind them. As for the ammo, and requiring background checks for that purchase? He passed all the checks to buy the guns... what would make anyone think he'd fail another to buy ammo?

Countries in Europe and the rest of the world where guns laws are tougher, or ownership is illegal, don't have this problem, so the cause MUST be the guns.

In the last ten years, Europe has seen AT LEAST four such events... two in Germany, one in Finland and the most recent in Norway. Germany has seen two school massacres that took a total of 41 lives since 2008. All committed with guns that the government said they couldn't own, possess or utilize legally. Since 1990, there have been 11 school massacres around the world, and less than half happened in the US. So, I'd say that the "rest of the world" has just as much of a problem with this as the US does.

Have to get ready for work, but I have more to say here, and will continue as soon as I can.

On stewardship....

I recently read an editorial piece in a local rag, written as a letter from a father to his son graduating from high school.  The letter was making the case that this generation, my generation, had failed as stewards of this country's ideals... and it was spot on.

The generation born after 1962 (post-Baby-Boomer) and before 1980 are the parents of those students graduating from high school and college right now, and we are the ones that have elected the leadership for the last 30 years.

Ryan has made the case in the past that the failed "generation" was the Baby-Boomers, and the case was good... but not 100% correct, I think.  The generation that brought us the turbulent 60's and the rebellious 70's cried for justice and moral direction from a government that had grown distant from the public.  Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon and Ford were NOT seen as men elected from the ranks of common society... they were "elitists" of the first order, in one manner or another.  JFK and LBJ were "old money", Nixon was "old school" and Ford was... well, he was Gerry Ford, and until he was out of office, no one really knew anything about him at all, other than he represented more of what Nixon represented.

The Baby Boomers found their "justice" in Reagan, and it wasn't the public or the electorate or even any one generation that moved away from the paradigm that Reagan brought to government... it was the government itself that decried and worked to destroy what he started, even those in government sharing his party affiliation.  Reagan made it "okay" to be proud to be American again, but past Presidents were easy scape-goats for what wasn't working in the eyes of most Americans, and Reagan's opponents made sure his legacy reflected that.  I can say this with confidence because I was one of those detractors for years.

It was "my" generation that saw the Reagan budget cuts as a removal of our expected governmental provisions... schools districts that felt the pinch of Education Department cuts weren't to blame, the Fed was;  removal or reductions of personal and State rights wasn't the fault of the Fed, it was the fault of hard economic times and a select segment of society (Federally mandated speed limits, Federal drinking ages, Roe v Wade; etc).

We raged against the budget cuts, but meekly accepted the national speed limit of 55 mph (all but Sammy Hagar, that is) and the 21-year-old drinking age. We raised our collective fists to an increase in military spending and a de-regulation of commerce and industry, but said nothing when prayer in school was banned or when States couldn't stop over-the-counter abortions from being performed. Generation X was focused solely on the instant gratification of each and every material desire that might crop up in our lives, and that gratification needed to come from anywhere else but our own sweat and blood.

With a daughter entering her second year of college, and a son going into his last year of high school, I pray that they realize where we went wrong. The strength of this nation is not now, nor ever has been, found in the collective power of the people... we are NOT a people of one voice, or one opinion, or one generation. Our "strength" is in our individualism. Our strength stems from our recognition of the rights and freedoms of the individual, and in the individual responsibilities that come with those freedoms. We are not now, nor will we ever be, strongest when we are "conscripts" to our national will... just as our military is at its weakest when it is a conscript service. We are at our best when we are all ready, as individual sovereign citizens, to come together and solve problems or defeat enemies. Our best moments in our long history show this to be true, as do our worst.

Furthermore... and quickly...

(I'm on the clock now for getting ready for work...)

I've yet to hear a rebuttal to my question of what the GOP proposes as an alternative to "Obamacare".  I'm no fan of government mandated coverage... but the system as it exists now is NOT the model that we need to be working towards.  Surely, no one with a family thinks that is the case, do they?

The average American pays $7,500 per year in health care costs for the typical family (four family members).  Just for my coverage, I'm paying more than $5,200 per year, and I have a $500 deductible, per year per covered family member... plus a $20 co-pay each and every visit.  I'd say I'm right at the national average right now... and only what is NOT covered (expenses above and beyond covered procedures) are currently tax deductible.

Coverage for the poorest Americans already exists in the Medicare/Medicaid realm... welfare benefits, in short.  Coverage for the top 5% of wage earners is mute... they have the coverage and the deductibles and costs associated with coverage are negligible to them.  It is only the roughly 8% of Americans currently unemployed, or the additional 18% of wage earners that are self employed with no coverage means that are truly "outside" the system.  That is roughly 1 out of every 4 Americans.

If the penalty for NOT having coverage for an entire year is $2700 (under Obama), then why isn't the balance of what I pay suddenly and forever tax deductible?  I could pay the $2,700... drop my current provider, and use the emergency room each and every time my kids have a fever or I stub a toe, and STILL save nearly $5k a year!  I can't be held responsible for the bills if I am uncovered due to fiscal difficulties... and paying the $7500/year is a fiscal difficulty for me, no question.  I take home an extra $394 each month, and all I have to do is factor in an additional $2700 to my tax bill come April 15.  THAT is the flaw in Obamacare, if you ask me... it is unsustainable.

So, again I ask:  What is the GOP answer to the question of healthcare reform?

No argument...

I'm in full agreement that Perot cost Bush that election... always have been.  And you are right, he didn't win the "more-than-50%" that perhaps my previous post suggested... Clinton only carried 43% to Bush's 37.5%

My point was simply that Bush failed where Reagan succeeded (even when Ron did compromise and raise taxes, he made it SEEM like he wasn't... Bush just made promises he couldn't keep).

Ummm ...

I sincerely hope Levine is right and I'm wrong, and history scoffs in a "look what they tried to attempt" way the way we see FDR's 100% tax rate on incomes over $250k.

But I must mention this - Clinton did NOT wipe the floor with George H. Bush. Adnittadly it's been a while since I argued these numbers, but if I remember correctly Clinton won a plurality in that election (43% I think, to Bush's 38%). Had Perot not ran there never would have been a President Clinton. Perot's votes were almost exclusively pulled from the GOP base (pissed about read my lips, etc). Give Bush Perot's 19% and the electoral college map changes dramatically. In fact, I think Bush wins in that scenario. Dole, he DID get his clock cleaned.

A quick response...

I know all about "fixer-uppers" and they are a lot of work, but SO worth it in the end.  The sweat equity is huge, and difficult to discount.  Good luck with that.

On Reagan...

Reagan made his case clearly and in a language anyone could understand.  Looking back now, from the age of television graphics and CGI, his charts and graphs on easels and his wooden pointers seem childish and quaint... but they got the message to America in a manner that is difficult to argue against.  Reagan's message did tend to get lost in all the compromises he kept making with Congress... his initial tax cuts were watered down by 40% by the end of his second term, and capital gains was back to over 38%.  He never did balance anything, let alone a budget... and his deficits took us from being the biggest lender to the biggest debtor on the earth.  He did deliver on his promise to return America's pride, though... and that is tough to marginalize.

I'm not sure of the election results, though.  Yes, huge margins... no question.  However, he was running against a failed President in '80 and the only man that could be described as "worse than Carter" in '84.  Dukakis did much better against Bush Sr.... and Clinton cleaned the floor with Bush and Perot in '92.  I can't credit either Dukakis or Clinton with a stronger message, so some other factor must enter in.

On Robert's decision...

For once, I'd have to say that Levin got this one right.  This is a big deal only as long as we make it a big deal.  Justice Roberts made a bad call, but it isn't the end of the world.  Let's face it, this isn't even close to the worst decision to come down from the bench... this is NOT Dred Scott v Sanford or Korematsu v United States.  This is noting more than another hurdle in the conservative agenda.

Hell, Obama has already set precedent by officially ignoring established Federal law... why can't the next GOP President do the same to Obamacare?

The Greatest Show On Earth ... x2

I have indeed completed the move from Nevada to Mississippi ... geographically at least. As Jambo might have mentioned my mother has a "cozy" 3 bedroom guest house that is more cabin than cottage, and the term "fixer upper" seems woefully inadequate. At this moment I sit surrounded by flooring that must be replaced,  gallon containers of Killz that must be applied prior to the paint, cracked molding, warped baseboards, and on and on and on. But hey, it's free from rent, the AC is cold and the WiFi is active, so as long as I'm willing to put in the elbow grease it'll be perfect for a man looking to keep costs at a minimum as he returns to college during the back nine of his 30's. And at the risk of drawing a spousal stare that could shoot a chill up the spine of Edgar Allen Poe, I'm pausing to plug in and post for a brief moment.

I read you Reagan analysis Titus. I have to say, I agree. Given the "progressive" agenda has infiltrated everyday American life, the idea that one of the two major parties was immune would be silly. Especially with the obvious policy evidence. What baffles me - and I truly mean the reasoning escapes me - is that we tend to associate Progressive Republicans (call them soft, Rhino, or whatever pejorative you wish to assign) with politicos that "just want to win." That just want to triangulate. As those whom are preoccupied with electoral success and polling data at the expense of conservative ideology.  Yet Reagan demonstrated that an unapologetic conservative approach (at least his brand of conservatism) produces wildly popular results and electoral ass-kicking the likes of which we rarely see in presidential politics. To put it bluntly - it works. It's good policy and good politics So why is it such a tough sell among the elite Republican class? It's maddening in the extreme. Hopefully, the Tea Party class recently elected in 2010 (the Rands and Rubios) will serve as an effective inoculate for at least one generation, if not more.

Now, I wonder if Levine would be as quick to say "anybody but Obama", regardless of their Progressive Republican leanings, when it comes to the Supreme Court? Do you realize that in deciding my NON participation in a market is a form of "participation" that must be regulated under the commerce clause at the penalty of fines or imprisonment (and that those enforcement fines are permitted under congressional taxing powers), the SCOTUS has destroyed the idea of limited government? Under this approach their is no activity the government can not force me into or prevent me from. I sincerely believe that when he great story of America is written (and at this rate it will be written in Mandarin) they will look back and say "There. There is where they entered the second half of their great experiment." Make no mistake about it, if this ruling stands, the concept of limited government has been defeated. And the one thing a life time appointment is supposed to ensure - immunity from politics and the everyday pressures of Washington DC - it failed to do. Because even Justice Kennedy believed the Obamacare individual mandate violated Constitutional Law, yet Chief Justice Roberts, we lost him? Nothing in this man's background, decisions, stated ideology, speeches, writings or behavior fits with this decision. In fact, it has leaked that the three conservative Justices (Scalia, Thomas and Alito) attempted to ascertain the reasoning behind his decision and quote, "Could not get a satisfactory answer." Something happened. This was not a long march towards the Left as other GOP nominated Justices have fallen prey to. This was an abrupt about face. Why? It's hard to comprehend without quickly slipping into conspiracy theories that involve men in black trench coats and nefarious stares.

At any rate, I think Romney would do well to pick a Rubio or Ryan (I mean Paul Ryan, but hey, I'll put down my paint brush for king and country). Either way I have almost no confidence in his campaign promise to repeal Obamacare. My posts will be sporadic at best, but I'll be around as I float in between caulk and a hard place.

Happy Fourth!

Independence Day is here... its sunny, hot and very summery outside.  Everyone is asleep still, except for me and Jake, and we're wondering what fun we can squeeze in on a tight budget (payday isn't till Friday).  Whatever it is, it will be with my family and in my yard.  It isn't often that someone in this industry gets July 4th off... so I'm going to enjoy it.

I was thinking of Ryan yesterday as I was driving home.  I had Levin on the radio, and a caller had said that he was sick of the "progressive" Republicans that always seemed to fill the GOP ticket spot come every election cycle.  I could tell from the way he spoke that he was a Glenn Beck fan of monumental proportions, quoting tid-bits from the GB show in almost everything he said... and MAN did that piss off Levin.  It was amazing... Levin ranted for a full segment, not only on how much he didn't care if he was voting for a "progressive" Republican or Ronald Reagan himself... anything to get Obama out of office.  THEN he'd would worry about fixing the GOP.

What made me think of Ryan was how he continually says that the Party (GOP) needs to "get back" to its roots within the Reagan-era.  "Reagan Republican" is the adjective so often employed by those longing for the heady days of 1982, when the top marginal rate went from 70% to 28%, capital gains fell to a low of 20% (lowest since 1928), and the government spending rate went from 4% of GDP to 2.5%.  I, too, think this is a model the modern GOP needs to adopt... and not just the GOP, but all of Government.

This thinking wasn't "Republican" though... and Levin might as well have come out and said it last night.  Reagan was NOT "embracing" some forgotten truth lost by the GOP since the Depression... he was re-thinking and re-inventing how government should operate in the modern world, and it worked.  In less than 18 months, Reagan had us out of the recession that Carter and Congress had dropped us into so deeply, and that all the progressives before them had begun.

This is my point:  "All the progressives before them" means everyone from FDR to Gerald Ford... every single one.  Nixon, Eisenhower, Ford, LBJ, Carter, Kennedy... ALL progressive, all following a New Deal paradigm.  When Reagan was taking his message to the streets, everyone from Bush Sr., Gerry Ford and Fed Chairman Paul Volker mocked him mercilessly for his "trickle-down" economic theory.  Almost no one within the Party was willing to back Reagan up with any showing of public support.

To take it even further, once Reagan got his 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act in place, Congress (with a GOP majority most of his first term) worked tirelessly to erase it from the books.  And every GOP Congress and President since Reagan has ignored or forgotten what he showed to be true, as well.

So, I maintain that Reagan wasn't a "Republican"... he wasn't espousing anything the GOP wanted to support, either before his terms or after.  Thus, if someone is going to claim to be a "Reagan Republican" than they are claiming to be something other than a traditional GOP politician, in the same way that "Blue Dog" Democrats are not Democrats at all, either.

Having said that, what are the chances that "Reaganomics" can be brought back into the equation via a GOP candidate, Romney or otherwise?  Will it have to be someone from a third party?  Other candidates are far closer to Reagan's model than Romney or McCain, yet these are the last two candidates that the primaries have produced.  Why is that?  How does that change?