Archive by Author

No red or blue guns, but an American public health crisis

As we look 23 years in the rearview mirror to Columbine, to Sandy Hook nearly a decade ago, and just four years back to Parkland, the murders of 19 children and two teachers at the Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, has once again highlighted our inability to deal with mass shootings: 20 more shootings have taken place since that tragic day.

But amid the political food fight from Left and Right corners, do Second Amendment advocates really believe that laws regulating gun access are not relevant? Are there really no gun control advocates who believe in the right to gun ownership for self-defense? Can there be any doubt that solutions must deal with the mental health aspect of gun access and gun ownership? 

As leaders at Common Ground Committee (CGC), with a mission to heal political divides, we call on policymakers, lobbyists, activists and the citizenry to just stop with the emotionally satisfying and politically expedient reactions and start seeking real, effective solutions that set aside the usual talking points.

Ideas like repealing the Second Amendment or arming teachers are non-starters that only encourage more divisiveness. By contrast, we should follow the approach of people like Ryan Busse, a former gun industry executive, who was willing on our podcast to identify what he considers the faults of the gun lobby in his search for a solution.

That’s difficult to do. Gun violence is a highly polarized topic, and much of it has to do with the fervor and stridency with which some Americans defend their Second Amendment rights while others call for weapon bans. Republicans are nearly four times as likely as Democrats to say gun rights are more important than gun control. Similarly, nine in ten Democrats — compared to half of Republicans — favor bans on assault-style rifles and high-capacity magazines. 

Yet, despite the stark differences in these views, there is a great deal of common ground in the citizenry on this issue.

Overwhelming majorities of Democrats (91 percent) and Republicans (92 percent) say they strongly favor barring people suffering with mental illnesses from purchasing firearms. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) recently praised gun legislation passed in Florida by then-Gov. Rick Scott. Moreover, large swaths of both Democrats and Republicans — 93 percent and 82 percent respectively — favor making private gun sales and sales at gun shows subject to background checks.

There are opportunities to drive meaningful policy change, but we first must accept there is no panacea to America’s gun violence problem. We must then acknowledge mass shootings as a public health issue, not a political one. Like for any public health challenge, promoting harm reduction solutions — even when considered by the public as half measures — provides tangible material benefits.

Nicholas Kristoff sums it up well when he points to how we drastically reduced deaths by automobiles. The government didn’t ban cars. Instead, it regulated the industry by enforcing safety features, in spite of cultural resistance to measures like seat belt laws. 

The comparison with vehicular deaths is indeed apt. In 2020, guns surpassed cars as the leading cause of death of children. So, if we want to move the needle, we must seek out two things: fact-based regulation on gun access and ownership, and research-based methods that enable early detection of people on a trajectory to cause harm. Activist groups like Rachel’s Challenge are doing this work and having an impact. Formed after the Columbine High School tragedy, the organization has helped avert eight mass shootings and save 150 lives annually. The Parkland students made a difference too, getting the then Republican Gov. Rick Scott to buck the NRA and sign a sweeping gun bill into law.

At the federal level, after 25 years of the gun lobby quashing attempts to track firearm-related deaths and injuries, new CDC funding into gun violence research and its root causes could lead to similar results. In collaboration with RAND’s National Collaborative on Gun Violence, we already have research analyzing the effectiveness of gun policy. RAND found “moderately good evidence” that expanding background checks could make a difference. 

More data can only yield better regulatory policy and better health outcomes. Examples from past public health scares bear that out. There were 269 National Institute of Health (NIH) research awards granted for Polio from 1973 to 2012, and we saw just 266 cases in that period. For cholera, 212 awards for 400 cases. There have been over 4 million firearm injuries in that 39-year span. The number of NIH research awards for gun-related harm? Three. 

There is a problem, and it has huge stakes. But the path is clear.

We have a duty to meet the moment before us by categorically rejecting political gamesmanship and resisting the temptation to just “do something.” Instead, let’s face up to the hard work that requires careful research and thoughtful consideration to create effective laws that will bring about lasting solutions. Failure to do so means continued acceptance of this unforgivable cost, and another missed opportunity to end this recurring American nightmare.

Bruce Bond, a 30-year veteran of the information technology industry, is co-founder of the Common Ground Committee, a citizen-led initiative focused on demonstrating productive public discourse. Follow him on Twitter @BruceABond

Erik Olsen is co-founder of Common Ground Committee. Follow him on Twitter @ErikOlsen129

Source: TEST FEED1

Watch live: Jan. 6 committee holds first public hearing

The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol is slated to hold its first public hearing Thursday night.

The prime-time hearing will begin at 8 p.m. ET as the committee shares findings from its yearlong investigation. 

Watch the live video above.

Source: TEST FEED1

Washington Post fires Felicia Sonmez

The Washington Post has fired national political reporter Felicia Sonmez days after suspending another reporter for retweeting a sexist joke, according to multiple reports.

When reached for comment on reports of Sonmez’s firing, Kris Coratti Kelly, Chief Communications Officer at the newspaper said, “We do not discuss personnel matters.”

The reporter’s firing comes just days after executive editor Sally Buzzbee sent a memo to staffers urging them not to attack one another online.

Campaign reporter Dave Weigel was suspended without pay earlier this week after he retweeted a post containing a sexist joke. Weigel’s retweet and suspension had become a point of contention among staffers, many of whom posted their opinions online about the controversy.

Buzzbee sent the memo out following Weigel’s suspension.

For the last several days, Sonmez has criticized Post leadership publicly for how it handled the social media postings of another reporter at the newspaper.

“Of course the Washington Post is a great workplace. It is a great workplace *for them.* The system is working *for them.* What about for everyone else?” she wrote in a quoted tweet that showed other Post employees saying that while the paper isn’t “perfect” they are proud to work there.

“Many, *many* Post employees want the long-standing problems at the company to be addressed, not ignored,” she continued.

“The frustration has manifested itself not just on Twitter, but also in the Post’s employee retention problems, laid out here in painstaking detail by @PostGuild.”

After Buzbee’s weekend memo to staff, a Post spokesperson told CNN earlier this week “while we have not commented publicly, make no mistake, this is being addressed directly with the individuals involved.”

Sonmez did not immediately respond to a request for comment on her departure from the Post.

Source: TEST FEED1

If Biden owned his contribution to inflation, he’d have credibility on his achievements

President Biden has a credibility problem he needs to solve. Instead of admitting that his American Rescue Plan (ARP) contributed to inflation, he blames inflation on the pandemic, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and, most recently, what he called the Republican “ultra-MAGA agenda.” But voters aren’t buying it.: 64 percent of them including 46 percent of Democrats blame the President for the increased costs they experience every day.

ARP pumped $1.9 trillion into the economy that boosted consumer spending and fueled inflation. Distributions were based on 2019 tax returns, so many who were unaffected by COVID received money to spend unrelated to pandemic losses.

Only after taking responsibility for his role in inflation will voters believe Biden when he identifies the causes that aren’t his fault. And there are plenty of those.

For example, Donald Trump’s Cares Act, the largest economic relief bill in U.S. history, dumped $2.2 trillion into the economy. Distributions were based on 2018 and 2019 returns — so, like ARP, checks went to many who didn’t suffer economic losses from COVID.

Export curbs imposed by five countries were another cause of inflation, driving food prices up 30 percent from 2021 to 2022. Gas prices surged over last year as oil and gas demand outpaced production and consumers emerged from the pandemic to drive and fly more.

The U.S. labor shortage has also contributed to inflation because it forces businesses to increase wages to attract and keep employees. The shortage has been aggravated by the lowest migration levels in decades. Labor force participation rates fell precipitously in 2020 from 63.4 percent to 60.2 percent and have yet to recover fully — they’re still circling 40-year lows. Meanwhile net migration to the United States dropped significantly due to Trump administration policies. 

Household goods and food prices surged to their highest levels in a decade before Biden even took office.

Clearly, such things are not Biden’s fault. But accepting responsibility for the inflationary pressures he did cause will give him the credibility and the pulpit to explain the economic good they did. For example, although ARP contributed to inflation, it also reduced overall poverty by 45 percent and child poverty by 56 percent in the US in 2021.

When Biden took office the unemployment rate was 6.4 percent. By early May it fell to 3.6 percent, its lowest in 52 years. Unemployment is at record lows in 17 states. In May, the economy added 390,000 jobs and state unemployment benefits fell to their lowest since 1969.

More than 10 percent of blue-collar workers have moved up to tech jobs and higher wages as companies waive the need for a college degree and train new hires — a talent upgrade not seen since the preparation for World War II.

Taking some responsibility for inflation would also help Biden counter partisan attacks on his immigration policies. House Republicans frightened voters with accusations that immigrants crossing our southern border are criminals, sex offenders and rapists.

But the fact is, immigrants are more law-abiding than native-born Americans. In Texas, which has America’s second highest immigrant population, crime by illegal immigrants is 45 percent below that of native-born Americans. Crime by legal immigrants in Texas is 62 percent below that of native-born Americans. Nationally, legal immigrants are 74 percent less likely to be incarcerated than native-born Americans. For illegal immigrants the number is 41 percent.

Republicans also criticize Biden’s plan to lift Title 42, which empowers federal health authorities to stop migrants from entering the country when necessary to prevent the spread of disease. Trump used it to block hundreds of thousands of migrants from entering from Mexico, claiming that “tremendous infectious disease is pouring across the border.”

But epidemiologists, physicians and public health experts have debunked Trump’s claim as scientifically baseless and politically motivated, intended to block asylum seekers and return them to dangerous conditions. Their concerns were justified. Over 8,700 of these migrants were kidnapped, raped, or attacked after being returned to their countries of origin.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis accused Biden of letting COVID-infected migrants pour over our southern border by the hundreds of thousands — when Florida’s COVID surge was due to the state’s low vaccination rates.

Nonetheless, anti-immigration rhetoric has misled voters: 45 percent of them, including just 22 percent of Republicans, believe immigrants “help the country.” This is a misconception Democrats need to correct. In general, immigrants are a highly entrepreneurial group. They are 80 percent more likely to start businesses than native-born Americans, and they launch new companies at twice the rate. In fact, immigration boosts economic growth, increases job opportunities and wages for native-born Americans, and expands the middle class. 

Trump claimed immigrants “compete … against … American workers” and that cutting back legal immigration would “boost wages and … open jobs … to American workers.” Yet, 14 leading economists found immigration has little or no negative effects on overall wages or hiring of native-born workers. Most Americans agree: 77 percent say undocumented immigrants mostly fill jobs U.S. citizens don’t want. There were 11.4 million job openings through May, rivaling the record job opportunity in 2000.

Biden has many economic achievements to tout. But they aren’t resonating with voters because he hasn’t owned his results. If, however, he takes a measure of responsibility for inflation instead of deflecting it, he could gain enough credibility to shift the spotlight onto the remarkable strengths he’s created for the economy.

Neil Baron advised the SEC and congressional staff on rating agency reform. He represented Standard & Poor’s from 1968 to 1989, was Vice Chairman and General Counsel of Fitch Ratings from 1989 to 1998. He also served on the board of Assured Guaranty for a decade.

Source: TEST FEED1

California animal shelter to require those adopting pets to support gun restrictions

An animal shelter in California will not allow anyone who does not support gun control to adopt their pets.

The Shelter Hope Pet Shop in Thousand Oaks, Calif., announced at the end of May that they added the question, “Where do you stand on gun control?” to their standard adoption interview for potential pet owners.

“We believe that if we can make our voices heard on how we feel we can make an impact. We do not support those who believe that the 2nd amendment gives them the right to buy assault weapons,” Shelter Hope Pet Shop owner Kim Sill wrote on the organization’s website. “If your beliefs are not in line with ours, we will not adopt a pet to you.”

The shelter also requires owners to be at least 25, have a current driver’s license and submit to a physical inspection by the shelter if they don’t own their home.

Sill referenced the deadly mass shooting at a Thousand Oaks bar in 2018, writing that the shooter who carried out that attack had volunteered at Shelter Hope Pet Shop. Sill added that she had been told by officials that the gunman had considered targeting the shelter as a potential location to carry out the shooting.

“If you lie about being a [National Rifle Association] supporter, make no mistake, we will sue you for fraud,” Sill wrote.

The owner told NBC News that a number of the shelter’s donors are Republicans and have threatened that they will cut off financial support if she doesn’t remove the interview question about gun control.

“I say, fine, keep your money,” Sill told the network. “If I go out of business, as a result, I go out of business. But I have to do something. And this is the only thing I can do to make the point that mass killings by people armed with guns have to stop.”

National Rifle Association spokeswoman Amy Hunter responded to Sill’s comments Thursday, arguing that “having this asinine political litmus test comes at the expense of needy and homeless dogs and cats.”

Sill said she put the new policy in place following the shooting at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, last month, which in conjunction with other recent mass shootings has reignited a nationwide debate about gun control.

“That did it for me,” the shelter owner said. “I had to do something, so I did this.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Why controlling inflation should be the Federal Reserve’s primary goal

Early in the pandemic, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell emphasized that the Fed intended to pursue the goals of maximizing employment and allowing inflation to rise above its 2 percent target to make up for past shortfalls below that target. The experience of the past few years should cause us to question this dual mandate.

Beginning in March 2020, expansionary monetary policy combined with government stimulus spending put lots of money in Americans’ pockets. This contributed to a boom in household consumption spending, shortages and rising prices of durable goods — in other words, to the inflation we see today.

On the employment side, spending expanded so rapidly that, while service businesses such as restaurants and airlines reduced their operations, many goods-producing businesses had a hard time recruiting or retaining enough workers to keep up with demand. These supply-side problems were exacerbated by generous unemployment compensation that enabled laid-off workers to be more selective about jobs or take extended sabbaticals.

The tension dates back to at least 1977, when Congress amended the Federal Reserve Act to state that the Fed should promote “maximum employment, stable prices and moderate long-term interest rates.” But Federal Reserve monetary policy only indirectly effects employment, while it controls inflation and aggregate spending more directly. Inflation would be much less of a problem if the Federal focused on what it can do best.

With stable prices, spikes in unemployment would be less common, too. In the long run, price stability and full employment do not conflict.

And although inflationary monetary policy can contribute to declining unemployment, the relationship is at best temporary. To the extent monetary policy can be used to fund generous unemployment compensation, as it was during the pandemic, it can even contribute to fewer people working. When the resulting inflation is high over an extended period, it tends to be more unstable, which contributes to higher average unemployment.

During a recession when unemployment is high, the Fed can still keep inflation in check without preventing economic recovery, though it may take longer. High unemployment is caused by decisions households and businesses make to reduce spending. The economy has a self-correcting mechanism, by which reductions in spending and increased savings lead to lower prices and interest rates. This eventually creates incentives for people and businesses to buy more goods and services and to fund those additional purchases by borrowing more. This process leads to a gradual expansion in employment as businesses hire more people to produce more consumer and investment goods.

This can work the other way, too. While expansionary monetary policy may hasten the recovery from a recession, eventually the resulting higher prices have the opposite effect, discouraging purchases and leading to an offsetting decline in jobs. We are already beginning to see a reduction in the quantity of goods and services demanded caused by rising prices and the Fed’s more restrictive monetary policy to bring down inflation.

Chairman Powell claims that the Fed will do whatever it takes to reduce inflation, but we will see how serious he is. If, as is likely to be the case, unemployment starts rising, the stock market continues to decline and rising interest rates drive up the cost of borrowing, the Fed will be subject to political pressure to return to expansionary monetary policy to stimulate the economy.

If the Fed responds to this pressure by easing monetary policy before inflation is under control, we may experience a “go-stop” period similar to the period that ended with a severe recession in the early 1980s.

Beginning in the mid-1960s, as the economy was booming, the Fed raised interest rates “only hesitantly” to keep unemployment low. When inflation became a problem, the Fed pursued more restrictive monetary policy. Then unemployment rose and the Fed started expanding the money supply again to stimulate spending. But during each subsequent cycle, inflation rose to a higher level than the last one and unemployment fell only temporarily before rising again.

This process only ended when the Fed, under the leadership of Paul Volcker, raised the federal funds rate sharply in 1979. During Volcker’s tenure and also that of Alan Greenspan after him, the Fed demonstrated a commitment to preemptively raising interest rates before inflation became a problem.

The more the Federal Reserve can be constrained by rules, particularly if those rules strongly prioritize limiting inflation or aggregate spending, the more likely it will do what it takes to ensure price stability. If full employment was not a part of its mandate or clearly considered to be a secondary goal, the Fed would have a harder time justifying allowing the money supply to expand as much as it did in recent years. The result would be more stable prices and employment in the long run.

Tracy C. Miller is a senior policy research editor with the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.

Source: TEST FEED1

Will reversing Roe v. Wade impact midterm election turnout?

Following the leak of a draft decision suggesting the Supreme Court is poised to overturn Roe v Wade, Democrats are scrambling to shore up support before the November 2022 midterm elections with promises to protect a woman’s right to abortion should the court follow through.  

To better understand how voters might respond to the Supreme Court’s decision, which is expected in the coming days, the Kaiser Family Foundation conducted a poll of 1,285 U.S. adults. 

Although the majority of voters surveyed (57 percent) said a reversal of Roe v. Wade would not affect their likelihood to vote come November, 37 percent of respondents did say the decision would make them more motivated to vote, with opinions split down party lines. 

Over half of Democratic voters said a reversal would make them more motivated to vote in midterms, compared with 73 percent of Republican voters who said a reversal would not make a difference in their motivation. 

Opinions were split along age and gender lines as well, as one in four young women voters said the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade would motivate them more to vote and that they will only cast their ballot in favor of a canditate who supports abortion rights. 

“The findings suggest that a decision to overturn Roe could narrow a midterm voter enthusiasm gap, projected to favor the Republican party over the Democratic party,” authors of the report wrote. The poll was conducted from May 12-19, 2022; news of the draft leak broke on May 2.

However, among women aged 18 to 49, only 23 percent said they had heard a “lot about” the leak, 24 percent said they’ve heard “little” about it, and 23 percent said they’ve heard nothing at all. 

America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news.

Similar to other national opinion polls, nearly two thirds of voters said they were opposed to overturning Roe, with Democrat and Independent voters making up a large majority of this group. In contrast, 61 percent of Republicans surveyed supported overturning the decision.

However, over half of Republican women under the age of 50 also said they believe abortion should be a personal choice as opposted to regulated by law. 

Should the ruling be overturned, 17 states in the country have trigger laws in place that will immediately restrict access to abortion. Although voters are aware of the hurdles these laws would put in place, Republicans were more likely to view limited access as a good thing. 

Sixteen states plus Washington, D.C., have already codified the right to an abortion into state law. 

“If Roe v. Wade is overturned and many states across the country move to ban or restrict abortion access, people of color, lower-income people, and younger people would be disproportionately impacted by the laws largely due to the high cost of travel to neighboring states,” authors said. 

Notably, 79 percent of respondents were against state laws that would criminalize abortion and 80 percent were opposed to laws that permit private citizens to sue those who assist women with the procedure. Eighty percent also opposed criminalizing the crossing of state lines to receive an abortion. 

Results also illustrate knowledge gaps among voters when it comes to emergency contraception and medical abortion. Medically-induced abortion is the most common form of the procedure in the U.S. yet 73 percent of women between the ages 18 and 49 surveyed had never heard of medication abortion or mifepristone, first approved in 2000. 

With regard to emergency contraception, or the commonly called morning after pill, 73 percent of individuals polled incorrectly believe emergency contraceptive pills can terminate an early pregnancy. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Mondaire Jones says LGBTQ progress 'at risk of being rolled back'

Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-N.Y.) said Thursday that the progress LGBTQ+ people have made in equality over the decades is now at risk of being overturned by the Supreme Court.

The congressman pointed to Justice Samuel Alito’s leaked draft opinion last month that would effectively overturn Roe v. Wade, in which the justice references decisions that expanded LGBTQ+ rights, such as marriage equality.

Jones told The Hill’s Julia Manchester during the “America’s Unfinished Business: An LGBTQ+ Summit,” hosted by The Hill for Pride Month, that if the court does overturn abortion, it won’t stop there.

“Because of the filibuster and the lack of political courage of a number of my Republican colleagues over the past couple of decades, it has been the Supreme Court of the United States that the LGBTQ community has turned to for the protection and the recognition of its rights,” Jones said. 

“And we are, unfortunately, seeing that at risk, all that progress at risk of being rolled back because of this extreme majority.”

Jones, who was one of the first openly gay Black men elected to Congress alongside Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.) in 2021, called for the filibuster to be reformed or eliminated to protect LGBTQ+ rights. 

Across the country, many states have introduced and passed dozens of laws to restrict LGBTQ+ progress, such as limiting discussions on sexual orientation or gender identity in schools or barring transgender youth from competing in school sports.

This “patchwork system of protections” is one reason not to rely on individual states and instead pass federal laws, Jones said, though he recognized that many organizations are fighting against more progressive policies.

Kevin Jennings, CEO of Lambda Legal, the oldest and largest national legal organization for LGBTQ+ people and those living with HIV, told CW33 contributor Ron Corning at Thursday’s summit that youth face increased rates of suicide, dropping out of school and substance abuse. 

He said these trends have only been exacerbated as states pass discriminatory legislation.

“It’s a logical reaction to being taught every day that your life is literally worth less because of who you are,” Jennings said.

While some politicians continue to push anti-LGBTQ+ legislation, Jennings said Lambda Legal remains on the ground as a “last line of defense” with legislation in Congress stalled.

But Jones and Jennings both said relying on litigation to achieve public policy, which has been the case for a majority of LGBTQ+ progress, is flawed because those decisions can be overturned.

Jones pointed out multiple priorities Congress could and should tackle to support the LGBTQ+ community, in addition to pushing forward the Equality Act, which is stalled in the 50-50 Senate. 

Those policies include Medicare for All, expanding access to PrEP for HIV prevention and student debt cancellation, which Jones called “an issue of LGBTQ+ justice” as those youth are less likely to have familial support for college.

“Progress must be fought for and protected. That is my commitment, and I know that is the commitment of my colleagues,” Jones said.

Source: TEST FEED1

Jonestown survivor Jackie Speier details shooting trauma: ‘Stop shielding your eyes’

Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) relayed her own experience being a victim of gun violence in a speech Wednesday in support of a bill that would raise the age to buy a semi-automatic weapon from 18 to 21. 

The House passed the Protecting Our Kids Act Wednesday largely along party lines in the aftermath of mass shootings in Buffalo, N.Y., and Uvalde, Texas. The Buffalo and Uvalde shootings both were carried out by 18-year-old gunmen. 

Speier is a survivor of the 1978 Jonestown massacre, in which cult leader Jim Jones oversaw a mass murder-suicide of more than 900 of his followers in Guyana. After the United State became aware of reports of human rights abuses happening at the Jonestown com, then-Rep. Leo Ryan (D) of California led a delegation — including Speier, who was serving as his aide — to investigate. 

Cult members shot and killed Ryan and four others. Speier was shot multiple times and seriously wounded.

“My body is riddled with bullets,” Speier said Wednesday. “I have a divot in my leg that’s the size of a football. I have skin grafts on all parts of my body. I live with that every single day.” 

Pressing Republicans to support the bill, Speier noted that federal law currently prohibits licensed dealers from selling handguns to individuals under 21. 

On Twitter, Speier described her own injuries and said that a student in Uvalde was decapitated during the shooting. 

“Stop shielding your eyes & ears, don’t rationalize the carnage of an AR-15,” she tweeted. 

“If we had a 737 that crashed every month for 12 months, in this country, we would do something about it,” she said on the House floor. 

During the House’s Wednesday hearing on gun violence, Speier pressed Buffalo Police Commissioner Joseph Gramaglia to describe the conditions of the victims in the shooting in detail, saying she wanted other members of Congress to hear. 

“I’m a victim of gun violence. I know what it does to a body, and I cannot believe that my colleagues don’t recognize that prohibiting the sale of an assault weapon until the age of 21 isn’t going to save lives,” Speier said. 

Source: TEST FEED1