Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktVital Statistics:
|
Last |
Change |
Percent |
|
|
S&P Futures |
1497.4 |
1.7 |
0.11% |
|
Eurostoxx Index |
2747.9 |
3.7 |
0.13% |
|
Oil (WTI) |
96.17 |
0.3 |
0.30% |
|
LIBOR |
0.302 |
0.001 |
0.33% |
|
US Dollar Index (DXY) |
79.84 |
0.092 |
0.12% |
|
10 Year Govt Bond Yield |
1.96% |
0.02% |
|
|
RPX Composite Real Estate Index |
192.6 |
0.0 |
|
Markets are slightly higher this morning after a strong earnings report from Caterpillar and strong durable goods numbers. Bonds continue their swoon, with the 10 year approaching 2%. Is the “risk on” trade we have been waiting for since 2008 finally at hand? MBS are down as well.
Fannie Mae is offering deed-in-lieu options for underwater borrowers who are current on their mortgage and have experienced some sort of hardship like illness, job change, or other problems. It effectively allows these homeowners to “toss the keys to the bank” and walk away from their underwater property with the underwater portion of their mortgage debt forgiven. The program does not address mortgages, so a second-lien holder could prevent a homeowner from walking away.
The Federal Appeals Court has rejected Obama’s recess appointments, specifically his appointments to the NLRB and the CFPB. Cordray’s appointment to head the CFPB was an interim appointment, and he will have to go through the process for his 5-year term. Will it change anything for people in the industry? Probably not.
Since we have kicked the debt ceiling can down the road for a few months, the next item is the sequestration – which is all of the automatic spending cuts that kick in. Half will be in defense, and half will be in non-defense discretionary spending. Paul Ryan was on Meet the Press and said that he expects the sequestration cuts will happen. Agencies are bracing for the cuts to happen as well.
Looks like the eminent domain idea is officially dead, at least in California.
Filed under: Morning Report |
All Things in Moderation 
I read this:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-27/the-fed-is-more-out-of-it-than-you-thought-it-was.html?wpisrc=nl_wonk
But do not understand what the author thinks the Federal Reserve has to do with consumer demand. It seems to me the author has confused monetary policy with fiscal policy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A big problem that falls out of the DC Circuit opinion is that if it is upheld, then any regulations promulgated by the CFPB while Cordray was in office are null and void, just as any decision the NLRB made during the temporary appointments of the 3 board members. The case will have to be reviewed en banc at the DC Circuit and/or by SCOTUS, since it is in direct tension with an 11th C ruling from a few years ago.
Lyle from SCOTUSblog has more detail:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/01/presidents-appointment-power-curbed/#more-158459
LikeLike
Mike, was there a quorum problem for CFPB analogous to the obvious quorum problem for NLRB? Why would nullifying Cordray’s appointment necessarily invalidate his agency’s decisions? Or even his own?
LikeLike
I didn’t see the Ryan interview so I have no idea if Sullivan is cherry-picking quotes out of context, but here are my observations on the ones made:
The Republican strategy seems to be to force Democrats to move first. The sequestration cuts specifically avoid entitlements so any alternatives palatable to Republicans would have to be either deeper cuts to discretionary domestic spending or to entitlements. His perplexment at Democrats not proposing any is disingenuous at best and most likely part of a Machiavellian strategy to be able to blame Democrats for the perhaps inevitable reining in of entitlement spending.
Ryan is dismissing out of hand any further revenue enhancements from tax code reform which was part of his platform when running for vice-president, proving that the proposal was never in good faith and only a red herring attempt to divert the discussion from higher rates.
LikeLike
Mark,
By law, the CFPB can only issue rules if it has a director. If Cordray was not the director, then they could not have issued any rules.
LikeLike
Mike, were the Supremes to follow a rule that putative appointments were void ab initio rather than merely voidable when challenged a lot of bad guys are going to get out of federal prison.
LikeLike
“Ryan is dismissing out of hand any further revenue enhancements from tax code reform which was part of his platform when running for vice-president, proving that the proposal was never in good faith and only a red herring attempt to divert the discussion from higher rates.”
No, he’s making the same argument that Obama makes with regards to bringing back the 2011 budget deal, namely that was then and this is now.
Any approach to tax reform will have to involve lowering the top rates to get Republican buy in. Obama and the Democrats want both higher marginal rates and reduced deductions.
LikeLike
Bill Maher channels Mitt Romney:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/01/26/bill_maher_rips_takers_there_are_a_lot_of_dirtbags_in_this_country.html
LikeLike
Mark:
were the Supremes to follow a rule that putative appointments were void ab initio rather than merely voidable when challenged a lot of bad guys are going to get out of federal prison.
If the Supremes were to rule that putative appointments are voidable when challenged, a lot of bad guys are going to get out of federal prison anyways. It will just take longer because they will all have to file suit in an Article III court.
LikeLike
Agreed, J, Ryan’s ruling out rate increases.
LikeLike
I really don’t have the background to follow the technical arguments, but upholding this decision essentially eliminates the presidential power for recess appointments. One can argue that such a power is obsolete, but for the Senate to be able to completely end-run it on purely procedural techniques strikes me as innately unfair in some way.
The CFPB appointments were strategically a trial balloon to force a SCOTUS call on this stand-off.
The answer is to have up or down votes on presidential appointments on a timely basis but I can’t think of a mechanism short of a Constitutional amendment to ensure this.
LikeLike
“yellojkt, on January 28, 2013 at 8:44 am said:
I really don’t have the background to follow the technical arguments, but upholding this decision essentially eliminates the presidential power for recess appointments.”
Nope. There was a window when the old Congress adjourned before the new one started that Obama could have gotten the appointments done cleanly. He chose to force the issue and it was too cute by half because the Senate Democrats had done the exact same thing to Bush, who chose not to force the issue.
The court decision noted that the other alternative, namely the President rather than the Senate itself, decides when the Senate is and is not in session eliminates any checks on Presidential appointments as the President could simply have an administration made of revolving recess appointments.
LikeLike
yello:
upholding this decision essentially eliminates the presidential power for recess appointments.
No court can eliminate recess appointments, as this power is given to the President by Article II of the Constitution. What the courts can do (and are tasked to do) is interpret how the Recess Appointments clause can be employed. This decision significantly limits that Presidential power by holding that recess appointments can only occur between sessions of Congress and that the appointment can only be for a position that opens up during the inter-session recess. This is contrary to existing decisions from other Circuits and needs to be resolved by SCOTUS.
LikeLike
This is contrary to existing decisions from other Circuits and needs to be resolved by SCOTUS.
Perzactly. That is why I claim that Obama did it the way he did solely to force the issue. There are far more important appointments out there. I’m not sure he is going to win in the current judicial climate.
LikeLike
Good piece on the technical arguments:
http://www.volokh.com/2012/01/12/olc-opinion-on-pro-forma-sessions-and-recess-appointments-published/
This is the wrong place for the Democrats to have this fight. What they should be fighting about is whether or not Harry Reid as majority leader can adjourn and/or declare that the Senate is in recess without the agreement of the House.
The logical fight for Reid to have is to say that if Republicans won’t allow votes on executive branch nominees, then he will schedule a recess to allow the President to make recess appointments.
LikeLike
This may be a way, way, WAY off into the weeds question, but I’ve become curious. Why do both chambers have to agree to recess at the same time? I know it’s written into the Constitution, but what is the reasoning behind that requirement? Any reading I can do to explain it?
LikeLike
More Obama cronyism.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324734904578243932620870510.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Maybe they shot skeet together at Camp David.
LikeLike
Agree with most of that column, George. I think Bair should be SecTreas. Rubin, in his book, says he argued against the practices at Citi that the columnist says Rubin advised. Don’t know the truth, myself.
LikeLike
McWing:
Maybe they shot skeet together at Camp David.
lol.
LikeLike
jnc:
The logical fight for Reid to have is to say that if Republicans won’t allow votes on executive branch nominees, then he will schedule a recess to allow the President to make recess appointments.
That won’t counter the language in the DC Circuit’s opinion. They specifically define “the Recess” to be inter-session recesses. Any intra-session adjournment/break would not count. And they specifically say that the position must open up during “the Recess.” (though Griffith didn’t sign onto that language).
Page 30 has most of the detail:
Click to access 01207461695uide694c75117931832.pdf
LikeLike
Mike, the way putative power works is usually that there is no retroactivity that nullifies the settled results stemming from a decision of the now voided adjudicator or manager. Typically, only a current appeal that raises the voidability of the adjudicator’s authority gets the benefit of claiming error.
But that is not always the case. I do not recall all the factors that permit distinctions to be drawn. One way of looking at it is whether the settled cases can claim there was no jurisdiction in the adjudicator at that moment. But it is circular. There was jurisdiction until there wasn’t.
LikeLike
The real solution is to change the Senate rules to preclude the use of filibusters on executive branch nominees.
LikeLike
Michigoose, here is a good overview of all the various issues with recess appointments from the CRS
http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%270DP%2BPW%3B%20P%20%20
LikeLike
jnc:
The real solution is to change the Senate rules to preclude the use of filibusters on executive branch nominees.
Agreed.
LikeLike
“markinaustin, on January 28, 2013 at 9:29 am said:
Agree with most of that column, George. I think Bair should be SecTreas. Rubin, in his book, says he argued against the practices at Citi that the columnist says Rubin advised. Don’t know the truth, myself.”
Have you watched the Frontline special yet? They do a good job of documenting how the risk management warnings actually went to Rubin who did not act on them, even though the loans that were being accepted violated Citibank’s own internal controls.
Hard to square the two different explanations: Argued against vs didn’t know anything about it. How can you argue against something you say you have no knowledge of?
LikeLike
10Q, JNC.
LikeLike
Thanks, jnc, but I don’t think that link went where you meant it to (boilerplate about the beginning of a Congress).
I’m wondering about the origins of both Chambers needing to agree to recess. Why?
LikeLike
Here you go:
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/articles/1/essays/24/adjournment
LikeLike
See also:
“This section was included to prevent either chamber from blocking legislation through its refusal to meet. Each chamber takes very seriously its independence of the other body. To avoid having to ask the other chamber for permission to adjourn, the Senate and House simply conduct pro forma (as a matter of form) sessions to meet the three-day constitutional requirement. No business is conducted at these sessions, which generally last for less than one minute.”
http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm
LikeLike
“Michigoose, on January 28, 2013 at 9:49 am said:
Thanks, jnc, but I don’t think that link went where you meant it to (boilerplate about the beginning of a Congress).”
Also, you should cut and paste the whole link. Clicking on it is misdirecting for some reason.
LikeLike
Mark:
Typically, only a current appeal that raises the voidability of the adjudicator’s authority gets the benefit of claiming error.
Sure. But if the NLRB ruled against me in the past year, I’d be filing suit right now in the DC Circuit, based on this ruling.
LikeLike
jnc: Thanks!
LikeLike
He’s just exercising the Gregory/Geitner/Rangle/Daschle exemption. Simmer down wingnut!
http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/27/illegal-guns-david-brock-media-matters/
LikeLike
Troll, I think i’ve made my peace with the fact that some are more equal than others.
It’s when they want our kids to play Stasi: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/23/missouri-lawmaker-introduces-bill-criminalizing-failure-to-report-gun-ownership-to-childs-school/
this will result in “Does your father own a gun? you can tell teacher.”
LikeLike
I read the New Republic article that was linked to previously. While I don’t go as far as Scott in my reaction it does strike me as just more of the same arguments about how the only shortcomings of the administration are communications failures and Republican intransigence, not any policy failures on the administration’s part:
Three passages in particular:
The failure of the stimulus and the other economic policies to produce the results that were promised were failures of policy not communications. I’m still waiting for a reporter in one of these long form interviews to ask the President for his understanding of why his policies didn’t produce the results that were promised, what, if anything, he’s learned from that, and what he plans to do differently as a result of what he’s learned.
The issue isn’t speaking to a group to change how they “feel” about a specific policy. The issue is the policy itself. There’s a general resistance to the idea that people who obey the law should have their rights curtailed to address lawbreaking by others.
This isn’t an issue about showing cultural affinity with sportsmen and hunters, and the idea that there’s some secret rhetoric that can bridge this divide on policy is patronizing.
So the President now buys into the standard narrative of the left that the Republicans in the House are illegitimate representatives of their constituents. The contrast with Jerry Brown’s rhetoric on the same issue is telling:
Peggy Noonan’s recent critique probably captures the essence of Obama 2.0 best:
LikeLike
“novahockey, on January 28, 2013 at 11:56 am said:
Troll, I think i’ve made my peace with the fact that some are more equal than others.
It’s when they want our kids to play Stasi: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/23/missouri-lawmaker-introduces-bill-criminalizing-failure-to-report-gun-ownership-to-childs-school/
this will result in “Does your father own a gun? you can tell teacher.””
The constant repetition of this disclaimer is what I find insulting to my intelligence.
If you want to ban guns, then just own it. Cease trying to convince your opponents that you “believe in the Second Amendment”.
LikeLike
jnc:
If you want to ban guns, then just own it. Cease trying to convince your opponents that you “believe in the Second Amendment”.
I totally agree, but it’s more than just a second amendment thing. It applies to their ideology as a whole. There is a pretense of believing in individual freedom as a matter of principle that is belied by their policy positions.
LikeLike
It’s simply not believable. that and the hunting thing. like that’s why the second amendment was drafted.
LikeLike
NYT retrospective on President Obama’s first term that’s worth a read:
Highlights:
Sorry David, I just don’t buy the narrative of President Obama as a frustrated deficit cutter anymore. I remember that bill and I gave the President the benefit of the doubt based on the timing and also that it was old business from the previous year. However, his first budget clearly established that this was the pattern, not the exception and that has continued ever since.
LikeLike
New study that refutes the conventional wisdom:
“Gun-related homicides and injuries down as firearm sales soar
Analysis shows deaths have decreased in Virginia despite a surge in business
Posted: Sunday, January 27, 2013 12:00 am | Updated: 12:05 am, Mon Jan 28, 2013.
BY MARK BOWES Richmond Times-Dispatch”
http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/local/central-virginia/gun-related-homicides-and-injuries-down-as-firearm-sales-soar/article_f573c648-2e22-5534-a2a8-56fa0fef0fdb.html
LikeLike
“There is a pretense of believing in individual freedom as a matter of principle that is belied by their policy positions.”
I get the same feeling when obama starts talking about the free market.
LikeLike
“There is a pretense of believing in individual freedom as a matter of principle that is belied by their policy positions.”
You misspelled free-dumb.
LikeLike
“It’s simply not believable. that and the hunting thing. like that’s why the second amendment was drafted.”
It’s like saying the 1st amendment was written primarily to protect those who write bad poetry.
LikeLike
speaking of poetry, apparently it died.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2013/01/22/is-poetry-dead/
LikeLike
When guns are outlawed, only Mexican drug cartels will be able to legally purchase them.
LikeLike
You can have my sonnets when you pry them from my cold dead fingers.
LikeLike
Penning a sonnet
on freedom of expression
No, it’s not dead yet.
LikeLike
NoVA: What I found fascinating/hilarious about that link is the fact that (when I clicked on it) there were 371 comments. That’s around 300 more that Rubin gets on a typical column!
LikeLike
“Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on January 28, 2013 at 1:21 pm said:
“It’s simply not believable. that and the hunting thing. like that’s why the second amendment was drafted.”
It’s like saying the 1st amendment was written primarily to protect those who write bad poetry.”
Sigh. Clearly the 1st amendment was written primarily to protect those who surf porn on the Internet. As opposed to say campaign speech.
LikeLike
Nova, are you dreading the JJ Abrams reboot of Star Wars as much as I am?
LikeLike
JNC, my initial reaction was “that’s not true, that’s impossible.”
that said, after the disaster that was the Episodes I-III, how much worse can it get.
If you haven’t seen it, this is worth checking out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_People_vs._George_Lucas — pretty sure it’s on netflex streaming. the best part was the fan film made by a bunch of kids that was a shot for shot recreation of Raiders of the Lost Ark, which is the subject of this http://www.amazon.com/Raiders-Story-Greatest-Film-Ever/dp/1250001471
LikeLike
This fucking kulak got what he deserved. Forgot his place.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/01/28/EXCLUSIVE-Journalist-Accosted-By-Security-Over-Mayor-Bloomberg-Gun-Control-Question
LikeLike
“novahockey, on January 28, 2013 at 2:27 pm said:
that said, after the disaster that was the Episodes I-III, how much worse can it get. “
See the JJ Abrams reboot of Star Trek.
LikeLike
Some lawyer should be able to make some money here:
“Steve Jobs threatened patent suit to enforce no-hire policy”
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/01/23/business-us-apple-google-lawsuit-idUKBRE90M04Y20130123
http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/23/3906310/the-no-hire-paper-trail-steve-jobs-and-eric-schmidt-didnt-want-you-to-see
LikeLike
Mattera’s attempt at stunt journalism pretty much explains why Bloomberg needs a security detail. The security guards treated him with much more respect and professionalism than I would have.
So far today we have had two links to Daily Caller and one to Breitbart and you guys go nuts when Matt Taibbi gets quoted? I don’t want to get accused of sundry logical fallacies, but a little diversity of opinion would be helpful. And no, the New Republic article doesn’t count.
LikeLike
yello:
So far today we have had two links to Daily Caller and one to Breitbart and you guys go nuts when Matt Taibbi gets quoted?
I think I am the only one who has ever made an issue of Taibbi.
LikeLike
I quote Taibbi all the time.
LikeLike
Did you miss all the other links, WaPo, NYT, Bloomberg? How is the left not represented?
LikeLike
“See the JJ Abrams reboot of Star Trek.”
we’re doomed
LikeLike
McWing: don’t count WaPo amongst the liberal leftie media.
jnc: I’ve got a hold on the Gracchi book you cited on PL; looks interesting!
LikeLike
Michigan, that’s funny!
LikeLike
New study that refutes the conventional wisdom:
“Gun-related homicides and injuries down as firearm sales soar
Analysis shows deaths have decreased in Virginia despite a surge in business
Posted: Sunday, January 27, 2013 12:00 am | Updated: 12:05 am, Mon Jan 28, 2013.
Oye…that headline is slightly misleading and given the limitations on the study the claim that it refutes conventional wisdom is dubious.
I think the most that study shows is that increasese in reported gun sales from commercially licensed dealers which occur in Virginia do not lead to an increase in gun-related homicides and injuries in gun crimes in Virginia. There is a sort of bizarre irony here in that gun sales are so poorly tracked that data is limited and makes it difficult, if not impossible, for either side of the debate to use gun data to support their arguments.
LikeLike
That article was complete statistical gibberish. The decrease in gun related crime has been long term and relatively mild. Moreover, I doubt few people go out and buy a gun to immediately commit a homicide or suicide, so year to year comparisons seem pretty silly. More likely the statistical decrease is due to the increasing suburbanization of Northern Virginia.
I really would like to have much better statistical analysis of gun deaths against other factors but finding a non-biased source is nearly impossible.
LikeLike
Ashot, no worse than this Harvard study which Ezra cited the other day:
“8. More guns tend to mean more homicide.
The Harvard Injury Control Research Center assessed the literature on guns and homicide and found that there’s substantial evidence that indicates more guns means more murders. This holds true whether you’re looking at different countries or different states. Citations here.’
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/
Following the links one finds this:
“3. Across states, more guns = more homicide
Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997).
After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.”
The key of course is the disclaimer: “After controlling for poverty and urbanization”. Translation – statistical manipulation.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
I find the analysis of the unwashed numbers more convincing. Over a five year period guns sales went up and homicides went down. I don’t think that is causation, but rather evidence that they are unrelated to each other.
LikeLike
“so year to year comparisons seem pretty silly.”
No more so than the “More guns tend to mean more homicide” argument being advanced by the other side. It’s unfortunate when the actual numbers don’t match the theory being advanced.
LikeLike
It’s my understanding that Senator Menendez will personally vouch for all underage Dominican prostitutes that are here illegally. Apparently it’s in the bill.
LikeLike
Has Rush Limbaugh weighed in on the Menendez scandal yet?
LikeLike
Dunno, has he? What’s MMFA say?
LikeLike
They aren’t allowed to say anything because they are part of the Vast Liberal Media Coverup. We have to rely on Daily Caller to make sure the real news gets out.
LikeLike
I love this diary, but weren’t the D’s trying to do the same thing?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/27/1182006/-If-it-is-not-stopped-the-Republican-war-on-democracy-will-tear-this-nation-apart?detail=hide
LikeLike
Doesn’t my Breitbart link get any credit?
When have I claimed there is a conspiracy? I don’t beleive that. Do you?
LikeLike
yello:
I really would like to have much better statistical analysis of gun deaths against other factors but finding a non-biased source is nearly impossible.
I can send you a PDF of this paper if you’d like.
LikeLike
Found a media conspiracy believer. Typical wingnut. Probably a Trig Truther as well.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vast_right-wing_conspiracy#mw-mf-search
LikeLike
That the fire arm rate is an order of magnitude higher in the US makes the little 20-30% decline in the state of Virginia seem like pretty small potatoes. This is why silly studies like the Richmond Dispatch one just show noise in the signal.
LikeLike
Comparing results within a single state over a period of time is much more of a controlled experiment, to the extent that one can be done in sociology, than comparing results across multiple countries each with varying laws and demographics.
20 to 30% reduction isn’t small potatoes. Any result like that from the numerous gun bills being proposed would be trumpeted by progressives. And apparently a study is silly if it contradicts the preconceived policy conclusions.
LikeLike
jnc:
A story to warm the cockles of your heart.
LikeLike
The Alice-in-Wonderland world of regulatory bureaucrats.
LikeLike
RBS story behind paywall but EPA story came through in toto. Thanks. I thought that mandate could not stand.
LikeLike
I thought for sure the RBS article was outside the firewall. I am not logged into the WSJ and I can see it all. Weird. But here is the bberg story on the same thing.
LikeLike
The delicious irony: Obama’s office to close down Guantanamo is, er, closed down. Guantanamo still up and running, I think.
I guess we’ll have to wait a bit longer for him to “restore the standards of due process and the core constitutional values that have made this country great.”
LikeLike
I thought this was the justification for waiting periods. I might be wrong about that. But is suicide even a problem we should concern ourselves with?
LikeLike
Comparing results within a single state over a period of time is much more of a controlled experiment
It could be, but obviously not necessarily. Did a neighboring state or nearby state adopt stricter gun laws during that stretch, leading to lots of out of state purchases?
The biggest problem with any of these studies is the limited amount of available data. The Daily Show did a pretty good segment about how little the government does/can do with respect to tracking gun sales. To me, that’s as maddening as anything. It’s difficult, if not impossible, to craft sensible gun control laws when we know so little about gun sales and how they end up in the hands of criminals.
I’m also not sure why you are so critical of the Harvard study that controlled for poverty and urbanization. I’ll try to read that study later, but isn’t that a pretty common way of determining the impact of different variables on an outcome? Back in my medical malpractice days controlling for income was pretty common in the medical studies I would read.
LikeLike
Tim, thanks for your reply re: SEC conflicts.
Scott and Brent: Isn’t RBS owned by UK or Scotland? I don’t understand how that works.
Tim, NoVA, JNC – you guys all know where I am on gun reg – it hasn’t changed in 48 years. If all commercial sales were regulated and all gun owners were permitted, a generation from now we would have an effective crime fighting tool, as the spate of Saturday night specials currently out there self destruct. I am focused on prosecution because I once did it for a living. But there are no stats that reliably indicate a correlation, one way or another, between gun regs and gun death rates. Louisiana has 5 times the gun death rates of TX. MD has twice the gun death rates of VA, sometimes 3 times. MD’s governor says it’s b/c gun controlled MD gets its guns in VA. But by his logic, VA gun death rates would be as high as MD’s.
Nevertheless, I favor regulating all commercial sales, waiting periods for background checks, licensing and permitting, banning fully automatic weapons, banning sawed off shotguns,missile launchers, and the like; perhaps restricting the sale of identified semi-automatics that are easily converted to full automatic and the sale of specifically designed armor piercing ammo and the sale of large magazines. These “perhaps”es are a nod to police agencies that fear being outgunned, but if they don’t happen I won’t lobby for them. They don’t account for but a tiny fraction of gun deaths in America.
If reducing gun violence in America is really what we want to do, then decriminalizing drugs and eliminating folding currency will have an immediate impact, especially done in tandem.
LikeLike
mark:
Scott and Brent: Isn’t RBS owned by UK or Scotland?
Yes, the UK government owns over 80% of RBS stock. I don’t know precisely how the government specifically exercises its control over the company, but it does control it. What is interesting to me is that the UK government itself is also seeking a settlement from RBS over the libor scandal, which means it would be essentially paying itself the fine.
LikeLike
Tim, how is this gonna work?
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/01/28/how-mary-jo-whites-connections-could-complicate-her-s-e-c-job/?nl=business&emc=edit_dlbkam_20130129&pagewanted=print
Over the years I have seen this cause recusal in state agencies, again and again.
I am not wringing my hands over “the revolving door” here – just the inefficiency of having the deciding vote being so heavily conflicted. She cannot even appear to be using confidential info she learned over the last eight years because of attorney-client ethics, on top of federal ethics rules.
LikeLike
Mark,
At least initially it seems that Ms. White will have to recuse herself from quite a few cases. The twist of her husband working for Cravath is also pretty interesting. I wonder if a savy individual would purposefully avail themselves of Cravath to conflict her out. The conflicts won’t last forever, but, at least initially, it does seem that she will likely have a lot of conflicts.
LikeLike
“novahockey, on January 29, 2013 at 6:56 am said:
“Moreover, I doubt few people go out and buy a gun to immediately commit a homicide or suicide,”
I thought this was the justification for waiting periods. I might be wrong about that. But is suicide even a problem we should concern ourselves with?”
Yes, if they are planning on taking someone else with them.
LikeLike
Re: RBS. I don’t want a guilty plea, I want a trial. I want to know if they actually did it or not.
LikeLike
jnc:
RBS. I don’t want a guilty plea, I want a trial. I want to know if they actually did it or not.
If they plead guilty, don’t you know that they did?
LikeLike
Mark, In my lifetime I’ve seen gun regulations get progressively more stringent with minimal impact on actual gun violence. I’m old enough to remember when the policy on guns in schools in my high school was you had to leave your rifle unloaded and clearly visible in the rack in the back of the truck and lock the ammo in the glove box. This was to accommodate the kids who went hunting before high school started during hunting season. This was during the 1980’s.
LikeLike
JNC, we agree. For me the main purpose of gun regulation is crime solution after the fact, not prevention. We have had declining gun deaths since 1991 and they continued to decline after Brady expired. I still think Brady, plus gun show coverage, would be good long run policy for law enforcement/crime solution. But taking the cash/$$$ out of urban crack and rural methamphetamine?
That would be good violent crime prevention policy.
LikeLike
Mark:
But there are no stats that reliably indicate a correlation, one way or another, between gun regs and gun death rates
An article from the New England Journal of Medicine.
LikeLike
OK, Mike, I’ll buy that the nation’s gun death capitol reverted slightly to the mean for awhile b/c of regulation. From the study:
The facts that the frequency of gunrelated homicides remained high in the District of Columbia after the gun law went into effect and that there have been dramatic increases in homicides very recently are not incompatible with the argument that the restrictive licensing law had a preventive effect on homicides.
Let us assume that is not statistical noise. I like the marginal effect, am glad it happened, hope it would be replicated, and think it would be merely an unexpected benefit of a program designed to make tracing bad guys easier. What is clear is that it does not attack the core of the gun violence problem, which is drug related and thus currency related.
LikeLike
Mark:
it does not attack the core of the gun violence problem, which is drug related and thus currency related.
Another study from the New England Journal of Medicine.
LikeLike
Mike, this study is not surprising and I believe handguns in the home are statistically more dangerous than no handguns in the home. Particularly in the homes of alcoholics, druggies, and individuals with a history of violent behavior. But two facts also stand out here: only about 1/9 of homicides in the three studied counties were home gun deaths, and there was no difference in case homes and control homes wrt long gun ownership, as related to gun deaths.
Again, gun registration and permitting after background checks, and I will now add a gun safety course, are good ideas. They may have marginal good results beside the long term help for law enforcement. I do not oppose these types of regulations and have always supported them. However, you know that the emotional appeal made after mass killings has about as much to do with curbing gun violence in America as the emotional appeal to ban violent movies.
If you want me to back off the absolute assertion that there is no significant statistical correlation, I will. I can now say that there is evidence that gun regulation has a measurable, but marginal, effect on gun violence, according to the NEJM.
LikeLike
“ScottC, on January 29, 2013 at 8:31 am said:
jnc:
RBS. I don’t want a guilty plea, I want a trial. I want to know if they actually did it or not.
If they plead guilty, don’t you know that they did?”
Nope. Plea deals are about cost/benefit calculations, not actual guilt or innocence.
LikeLike
jnc:
Nope. Plea deals are about cost/benefit calculations, not actual guilt or innocence.
Well, I suppose you could equally say that trials are about manipulating the thinking of 12 members of the jury, not actual guilt or innocence. So why would a trial satisfy you any more than an actual admission of guilt?
Do you object to guilty pleas in all criminal charges, or only certain ones? If the latter, how do you decide which to object to and which to accept?
LikeLike
i’ll dig up a link, but prosecutors are using plea bargains to get convictions. take the deal, or we’ll increase the number of charges
LikeLike
Nova, over 90% of all criminal indictments result in plea bargains. Always was, always will be.
LikeLike
Mark:
It’s two things. First, I disputed that gun regulation cannot have a measurable effect on gun violence, which you have now addressed. Second, I dispute that the core of gun violence is drug-related.
Not specifically focused on drugs, but a recent CDC study on gang homicides.
LikeLike
Just out of curiosity, is the NEJM counting suicide by gun as gun violence? I
LikeLike
Neither NEJM article uses the term “gun violence.”
LikeLike
“So why would a trial satisfy you any more than an actual admission of guilt?”
I want to see the evidence and hear the testimony and I believe that there’s a public interest served in this.
I’ll have to stew more on coming up with a standard to distinguish a valid use of the plea bargain from an illegitimate one.
LikeLike
jnc:
I want to see the evidence and hear the testimony and I believe that there’s a public interest served in this.
I could be wrong, but I don’t think there is anything to stop the government from making public whatever evidence it has of criminal behavior following a plea of guilty. A trial is not the only forum in which evidence can be made public, and indeed it can even be a rather poor forum for that, given the rules of evidence imposed on the two parties. And, of course, whatever public interest might be served through a trial must be weighed against the public interest in a) foregoing the expense of a trial and b) a guaranteed settlement as opposed to a possible judgement in favor of the defendant. I assume that this is precisely the sort of judgment that prosecutors are making when they are negotiating a plea.
LikeLike
Cato on plea bargins: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/devils-bargain-how-plea-agreements-never-contemplated-framers-undermine-justice
LikeLike
nova:
Cato on plea bargins:
Thanks, that was good.
LikeLike
Thanks Mike, I hadn’t read either of them and was just wondering if the studies were including suicide by gun, as it is the leading cause of gun death.
LikeLike
“a guaranteed settlement as opposed to a possible judgement in favor of the defendant. ”
If the defendant didn’t actually commit the crimes, then it is also in the public interest to show that the government was wrong. Convictions aren’t synonymous with justice. I’m tired of the cover ups.
LikeLike
jnc:
If the defendant didn’t actually commit the crimes, then it is also in the public interest to show that the government was wrong.
I agree, although 1) if the defendant didn’t commit the crime, he probably shouldn’t plead guilty and 2) the conundrum here is that it is the government that ostensibly represents the public interest.
Convictions aren’t synonymous with justice.
Agreed and that is true whether the conviction came via a plea bargain or a jury decision. Nor, of course, are acquittals synonymous with justice (eg the People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson). Which again brings me back to wondering why a trial would necessarily satisfy you where a guilty plea would not.
I’m curious…if RBS pleads guilty, do you think it will be because they were railroaded by an overzealous or corrupt prosecutor?
LikeLike
With regards to the first set of points, the Cato link addresses that better than I can.
“I’m curious…if RBS pleads guilty, do you think it will be because they were railroaded by an overzealous or corrupt prosecutor?”
It will be a straight cost/benefit calculation. Cost of doing business.
There’s also the revolving door nature of the prosecutors for most of these crimes and the defendants bar in Manhattan.
LikeLike
jnc:
With regards to the first set of points, the Cato link addresses that better than I can.
Cato makes a good point that the default use of plea bargains 1) gives prosecutors lopsided power relative to defendants and 2) allows the government to generate an inordinate amount of laws to regulate behavior, since they don’t ever have to actually go throu the expense and bother of prosecuting them. But my sense is that your desire to see RBS go to trial has to do with something other than a feeling that either prosecutors have too much power relative to RBS or that RBS is subject to too many regulations. Do correct me if I am wrong.
It will be a straight cost/benefit calculation. Cost of doing business
Undoubtedly that is true. But that doesn’t mean they haven’t been railroaded, so the question remains.
It makes sense to me to object to a guilty plea to charge X in lieu of a trial if 1) you think the defedant has been railroaded or 2) you think the defendant is guilty of much worse than X. Outside of either of those, I don’t understand the passion for spending money on a trial to establish what the defendant is willing to admit without a trial.
LikeLike