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 | 1688.6 | 3.7 | 0.22% |
| Eurostoxx Index | 2893.2 | 26.1 | 0.91% |
| Oil (WTI) | 106.2 | -2.0 | -1.86% |
| LIBOR | 0.252 | -0.002 | -0.81% |
| US Dollar Index (DXY) | 81 | -0.449 | -0.55% |
| 10 Year Govt Bond Yield | 2.79% | -0.10% | |
| Current Coupon Ginnie Mae TBA | 103.8 | 0.0 | |
| Current Coupon Fannie Mae TBA | 103.3 | 0.7 | |
| RPX Composite Real Estate Index | 200.7 | -0.2 | |
| BankRate 30 Year Fixed Rate Mortgage | 4.57 |
Markets are higher after Larry Summers withdrew his name from consideration for the Fed Chairmanship. Bonds and MBS are rallying hard, with the 10 year yield down 10 basis points.
Janet Yellen is a Greenspan clone, as is Bernanke. Summers would have ended QE a bit earlier than Yellen would have. I have to say I am skeptical of the 10 year here at 2.79%. If you wanted to refi and missed the boat, the market just let you back in. I would take advantage of it, because the secular story on bonds is unchanged. LO’s should go back and contact their borrowers who are on the fence and let them know they just got a gift that won’t last forever.
Does this change what the Fed will do on Tuesday and Wed? Probably not. The consensus seems to be a taper of $10 billion a month, which will be Treasuries and not MBS.
We have some industrial numbers today, with the Empire State Manufacturing Index, Industrial Production, Capacity Utilization, and Manufacturing Production. Later this week, we will get housing starts, building permits, and existing home sales. All important data for us.
The CFPB made some changes to the QM rule. Here is a summary.
Filed under: Morning Report |
All Things in Moderation 
Ezra makes the case for Yellen, of course it’s much easier now that Summers is out, but he also notes that Summers wasn’t as bad as the left perceived him.
In addition to getting the big calls right, there’s this and more.
3) We still need someone who cares — and cares a lot — about unemployment. According to the best data we have, the economy added 169,000 jobs in August — which if sustained would mean we’ll close the jobs gap sometime in 2023. We also learned that we’d added 74,000 fewer jobs than we thought in June and July. The share of adults who are in the labor force is also at a scary low.
We desperately need a Fed chair who is serious about combating unemployment, rather than one itching to get the Fed back to its traditional role as a quiet, technocratic inflation fighter. In recent years, Yellen has been the Fed’s strongest and most persistent voice in favor of doing more to fight unemployment. Appointing her would be a signal to the markets — and everyone else — that the Fed isn’t simply going to accept the status quo as America’s new normal.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/15/five-reasons-obama-should-name-janet-yellen-to-chair-the-federal-reserve/
LikeLike
lms (from Ezra):
We desperately need a Fed chair who is serious about combating unemployment,
I’d say we desperately need a political class that is serious about combatting unemployment. As longs as we have a government whose priorities are things like raising taxes and increasing the regulatory burden on businesses, unemployment will remain a problem.
LikeLike
I was tempted to make a snarky title like Summers withdraws as the Left votes for higher income inequality…
Which is true – QE targets asset prices, and who owns assets? The rich. QE has been a big driver of the increase in inequality…
LikeLike
The old Phillips curve idea that the Fed can magically end unemployment by printing more money seems a bit dated in light of the results of QE 1 – Infinity.
LikeLike
Hi all — just FYI, i’m not leaving the blog, but i’m likely not to be around for awhile.
bit of a circular firing squad going on within the firm .. i’m okay though. for now.
LikeLike
nova:
Good luck. Sounds like a ‘mare.
LikeLike
Take care Nova…………..we’ll look forward to your return. Thanks for letting us know so I won’t worry………seriously.
LikeLike
thx all. keep you all posted.
LikeLike
This is some really breathless reporting regarding chicken from China, but as someone who became nearly deathly ill from eating chicken, I suggest you read it anyway.
China – it’s not just about killing your dog, and selling you dangerous drywall. Now China will be processing chickens for consumption across the US. And under the new rules, your local grocery store, or your local McDonald’s, won’t have to disclose if their chicken has been processed in a country that has had chronic problems meeting basic quality standards on food in particular.
What, you might ask, could possibly go wrong?
Last year, Chinese chicken sickened or killed 1,000 American dogs
You might recall that China is the country that a few years back killed your dogs, a few different times actually, including last year when Chinese dog treats reported sickened and/or killed American dogs.
Oh, and guess what was in the jerky treats that killed our dogs? Chinese chicken.
Speaking of chicken, did you know that a few years back nearly 3 million Americans ate chickens that were fed poisonous Chinese pet food?
But the fun hardly stops there. Consumers have been plagued with Chinese poisonous toothpaste, dangerous tires that leave out a special safety feature, tainted baby milk, tainted pork, toxic rice, kidney-damaging cookies, cake and candies, bird-flu infected chicken, dying pigs, and toxic fish.
Mmm… toxic fish.
Well, now China will be processing US-produced chicken that will then be shipped back to the US market, and no one will bother letting you know which chicken you’re buying got processed first in beautiful China!
http://americablog.com/2013/09/china-chicken-safeway-jewel-costco.html
The above links back to an NPR story that isn’t quite as breathless.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/09/05/219377718/was-your-chicken-nugget-made-in-china-itll-soon-be-hard-to-know
LikeLike
A glimpse into our future? Only skinny Mexicans will be granted amnesty.
LikeLike
Regarding Yellen, I read a speech she gave from Feb earlier this year (pre-sequestration I think) and I just believe she gets it. It took me awhile to find it again. I don’t expect to understand all of it but at least I try to.
The first tailwind I’ll mention is fiscal policy. History shows that fiscal policy often helps to support an economic recovery. Some of this fiscal stimulus is automatic, and intended to be. The income loss that individuals and businesses suffer in a recession is partly offset when their tax bills fall as well. Government spending on unemployment benefits and other safety-net programs rises in recessions, helping individuals hurt by the downturn and also supporting consumer spending and the broader economy by replacing lost income. These automatic declines in tax collections and increases in government spending are often supplemented with discretionary fiscal action–tax rate cuts, spending on infrastructure and other goods and services, and extended unemployment benefits. These discretionary fiscal policy actions are typically a plus for growth in the years just after a recession. For example, following the severe 1981-82 recession, discretionary fiscal policy contributed an average of about 1 percentage point per year to real GDP growth over the subsequent three years.
However, discretionary fiscal policy hasn’t been much of a tailwind during this recovery. In the year following the end of the recession, discretionary fiscal policy at the federal, state, and local levels boosted growth at roughly the same pace as in past recoveries, as exhibit 3 indicates. But instead of contributing to growth thereafter, discretionary fiscal policy this time has actually acted to restrain the recovery. State and local governments were cutting spending and, in some cases, raising taxes for much of this period to deal with revenue shortfalls. At the federal level, policymakers have reduced purchases of goods and services, allowed stimulus-related spending to decline, and have put in place further policy actions to reduce deficits. I was relieved that the Congress and the Administration were able to reach agreement on avoiding the full force of the “fiscal cliff” that was due to take effect on January 1. While a long-term plan is needed to reduce deficits and slow the growth of federal debt, the tax increases and spending cuts that would have occurred last month, absent action by the Congress and the President, likely would have been a headwind strong enough to blow the United States back into recession. Negotiations continue over the extent of spending cuts now due to take effect beginning in March, and I expect that discretionary fiscal policy will continue to be a headwind for the recovery for some time, instead of the tailwind it has been in the past.
A second tailwind in most recoveries is housing. Residential investment creates jobs in construction and related industries. Before the Great Recession, housing investment added an average of 1/2 percentage point to real GDP growth in the two years after each of the previous four recessions, considerably more than its contribution to growth at other times.
https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20130211a.htm
LikeLike
Scott
Fat people, among countless other conditions or illnesses, couldn’t even get health insurance in the individual market before ACA. There’s your death panel.
LikeLike
lms:
Fat people, among countless other conditions or illnesses, couldn’t even get health insurance in the individual market before ACA.
I bet they could, they just had to pay the right price for it. Insurance is all about pricing risk. Every risk is insurable at some price.
LikeLike
Good luck Nova.
With regards to immigration and amnesty, I’d set a higher priority on these people for visas:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-united-states-disservice-to-afghan-translators/2013/09/15/83f1e1b6-1bbf-11e3-a628-7e6dde8f889d_story.html
LikeLike
“Brent Nyitray, on September 16, 2013 at 7:53 am said:
I was tempted to make a snarky title like Summers withdraws as the Left votes for higher income inequality…”
Brent, just use Taibbi’s quote. It works well for QE arguments:
“The reason QE is “good for the rich and bad for the poor” is obvious: by pouring trillions in jet-fuel cash into the inequity engine that is the banking sector, we’ve seen massive increases in share prices and corporate profits, without any resulting increases in wages.”
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/rick-perry-vs-ben-bernanke-round-one-20110816
LikeLike
Godspeed Nova.
LikeLike
Scott
I bet they could
Actually no they can’t. It’s just one of a number of pre-existing conditions that precludes people from purchasing insurance on the individual market. No amount of money will get them to accept you. There is no policy available for people like this. I don’t understand why that is so difficult to accept or believe.
There are some scams out there though that will take your money and essentially give you nothing in return. We found a lot of those when we were looking for insurance for our asthmatic daughter before the PCIP became available in CA through the ACA.
I tried like crazy to get insurance as an individual last year when I thought we were going to lose it because of my husband going on medicare. I couldn’t even get close to a policy because of my back and illness last year (even though I was cured).
Luckily I found a good agent who helped us figure out an exemption to our small group insurance that has kept me insured. They’re trying to cancel me this year but our agent went to work again and saved my butt. Even with guaranteed acceptance as an employee of our business my cost is very high but only because of age, same as everyone else my age.
LikeLike
lms:
I don’t understand why that is so difficult to accept or believe.
Because it makes no sense from a business perspective. If there is money to be made from insuring fat people, then it stands to reason that someone will do it. And at the right price, there is money to be made. I can only think of two conceivable reasons why insurance companies wouldn’t insure fat people. First, fat people won’t pay the premium required to make covering them economically viable. Second, there are regulations preventing the insurance company from providing an economically viable service.
LikeLike
Best photoshop ever.
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=651637331513733&l=50b46d2b70
LikeLike
LMS, Yellen is repeating conventional wisdom. She is a garden-variety liberal Fed type.
LikeLike
Brent, as a garden-variety (for the most part) liberal I guess that’s why I like her. My portfolio was happy this morning as well, thanks to Larry Summers.
LikeLike
Scott, the only regulations I’m aware of deal with either the pre-existing conditions policies some states enacted pre ACA which only covered about 200,000 out of anywhere between 2 and 4 million known people who can’t get insurance on the open market because of health issues, or HIPPA requirements. Even AEI recognizes this as a problem and believes it needs to be funded through the government at the state level with investment federally and a more uniform system for addressing it.
Obviously the employer system we have now has skewed the risk pool away from adequate underwriting at the individual level. In other words there is no financial benefit in insuring people who are either sick or have health problems they determine will cost more down the road.
I’m not saying the ACA is by any means a solution to our health care issues here, but the problem of what to do with these people is one even conservatives recognize as tricky.
LikeLike
lms:
the only regulations I’m aware of deal with either the pre-existing conditions…
Fatness shouldn’t be conflated with a pre-existing condition. I understand why people with pre-existing conditions can’t get insurance. But fatness is just a risk factor, not a condition that in itself carries known costs, and as such should simply increase any premium, not preclude insurance altogether.
In other words there is no financial benefit in insuring people who are either sick or have health problems they determine will cost more down the road.
True, because such people don’t need insurance, they need a financial benefactor. Like I said, I understand why people with existing conditions can’t get insurance.
Obviously the employer system we have now has skewed the risk pool away from adequate underwriting at the individual level.
That may certainly be true. The solution, as I have been saying for over 4 years now, is to remove the incentive that led to the employer system in the first place. And, that, of course, is government regulation (ie tax laws).
edit: corked by jnc
LikeLike
“Brent, as a garden-variety (for the most part) liberal I guess that’s why I like her. My portfolio was happy this morning as well, thanks to Larry Summers.”
Don’t get me wrong – Yellen is the Street’s choice…. She is much more likely to spike the punch bowl than to take it away…
LikeLike
“ScottC, on September 16, 2013 at 10:43 am said:
Because it makes no sense from a business perspective. ”
I think you two are arguing past each other. Being fat, aka obesity is a risk factor, not a preexisting condition.
The usual reason why a lot of insurers won’t cover preexisting conditions is because the chance of it happening is 100%, thus you aren’t insuring against a possible risk but a known condition.
LikeLike
Cuccinelli is apparently against no fault divorce.
http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2013/sep/16/terry-mcauliffe/mcauliffe-says-cuccinelli-tried-make-it-harder-mom/
LikeLike
JNC, it also makes you uninsurable in the individual market. I’m talking about what they call morbid obesity which is where the discussion began, with the article Scott linked re NZ.
I will admit that Scott and I argue past each other rather frequently though.
LikeLike
lms:
I’m talking about what they call morbid obesity which is where the discussion began
It was? This is the first time I’ve heard the term. I thought we were just talking generically about fat people.
From the article:
Most states allow obesity to be used to adjust rates in the small-group and individual markets and to deny coverage in the individual market.
The key word there is “allow”. Allowing an insurance company to refuse to cover fat people doesn’t mean that fat people can’t get coverage. And, of course, if insurance companies are allowed to adjust rates for obesity (what justification might there possibly be for disallowing it?!?), then it is all the more likely that insurance will be offered to fat people. Of course, if the government disallows insurance companies from adjusting premiums for obesity, then as I said originally, that is one instance in which it does make sense not to offer insurance to fat people.
LikeLike
JNC & Scott
Results
Eight state Medicaid programs appear to cover all recommended obesity treatment modalities for adults. Only 10 states appear to reimburse for obesity-related treatment in children. In the small-group insurance market, 35 states expressly allow obesity to be used for rate adjustments, while 10 states do so in the individual market. Two states expressly allow obesity to be used in eligibility decisions in the individual market. Five states provide for coverage of one or more treatments for obesity in both small-group and individual markets.
Conclusions
Very few states ensure coverage of recommended treatments for adult and pediatric obesity through Medicaid or private insurance. Most states allow obesity to be used to adjust rates in the small-group and individual markets and to deny coverage in the individual market.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2882611/
LikeLike
Fascinating stuff on Science and Scientists.
http://crypto.junod.info/2013/09/09/an-aspiring-scientists-frustration-with-modern-day-academia-a-resignation/
http://crypto.junod.info/2013/09/09/an-aspiring-scientists-frustration-with-modern-day-academia-a-resignation/
LikeLike
I understand the difference you guys, but the point is, whether it’s a risk factor or pre-existing condition, if it’s a reason to deny coverage, it doesn’t seem to matter that much to me. Age and smoking are risk factors that cause rate adjustments, obesity is apparently a reason for denial. I’m not actually sure that age and smoking aren’t actually reasons for a denial of coverage as well in the individual market.
LikeLike
lms:
I understand the difference you guys, but the point is, whether it’s a risk factor or pre-existing condition, if it’s a reason to deny coverage, it doesn’t seem to matter that much to me.
It matters to me. Like I said, I can understand why people with pre-existing conditions would have difficulty finding an insurance company to cover them. That makes sense to me. What doesn’t make sense to me is that no insurance company would provide insurance to fat people. It’s just another risk factor which, providing it can be priced correctly, is precisely the kind of service that insurance companies exist to provide.
LikeLike
Scott
It was?
Wasn’t the guy in the article you linked morbidly obese?
[Added] definition of morbid obesity…..”Obesity means having a BMI (body mass index, a ratio of weight to height) of 30 or higher. Severe obesity — also called morbid obesity — begins at a BMI of 40. That’s a weight of about 235 for a person who is 5 feet 4 inches tall and a weight of about 280 for a person 5 feet 10 inches tall.”
LikeLike
lms:
Wasn’t the guy in the article you linked morbidly obese?
I don’t remember seeing the term, but I guess it might have said that. It did give his weight, but it was in kilos and “stones” (damn British!) rather than pounds so I really had no sense of just how fat he was.
LikeLike
The article quoted him as 130 kg (approx 286.6 lb).
LikeLike
For what it’s worth, I have friends who weigh that much who have had individual insurance policies.
What I suspect from reading lmsinca’s link is that Scott’s position is closer to being correct.
Where the insurers in individual market are allowed to price for obesity as they see fit, then coverage is available.
If there’s some sort of state insurance limitation on the pricing of the policy for obesity, then insurers opt not to offer it at all rather than lose money.
LikeLike
Choices like what to major in are irrelevant apparently. Every outcome in life is determined by the equilivent of a random lottery:
LikeLike
jnc:
Choices like what to major in are irrelevant apparently. Every outcome in life is determined by the equilivent of a random lottery
Despite the stupidity of the author’s justifications, and despite the fact that he gets so much wrong/backwards, I actually think it is a good idea and could be a great financing program that private schools should consider, at least on a small scale to start with an eye towards expanding it over several decades.
I would start it out as a selective program aimed at a small number of students in a specific area of study. Sort of like a scholarship program. Over time it could be expanded, as it proved its success.
I think one huge upside to such a system is that it would actually put the universities themselves on the hook for graduating people with useless degrees (which might be one reason why they would object to it). This system would give incentives to the universities to provide degrees that ensured some reasonable prospects of financial success. And of course it could develop into an optional method of financing…pay X amount up front, or X% of your income for Y years after graduating. And it could be degree specific, where useful degrees have the % of income option, while useless degrees would have to pay up front.
I think there are a lot of possibilities as financing method for private universities. For public universities, it probably makes less sense, as it would become a political tool for social engineering.
LikeLike
In the MSW program at UT, my daughter was recently assigned a monograph to criticize.
The monograph claimed that income inequality kept talented smart poor kids from doing well in college because of the crushing debt they faced and the need to work.
In my daughter’s critique she cited a Chicago Public School Study, a study of community college results, and a USDOE study. These three studies all pointed to a simple resolution to helping poor smart kids: HS guidance counseling that would help them with FAFSAs, and with decision making about getting through college on the cheap, because these kids had no serious parental guidance.
The TA, while conceding it was a good critique with well regarded references, commented that she did not think it was “fair” that poor smart kids had to jump through more hoops or go to community colleges or live at home while attending local public colleges, while rich kids got to live in the dorms. Wow. Suffice to say my daughter thinks social work is about finding solutions to individual problems; about opportunity, not leveling. She is concentrating on non-profit management after having worked part time the last few years doing fund raising analyses/research. Previously, before the twins were born, she was for four years a circulation specialist/manager for Gannett. I suggested she talk to the TA, who is younger than my kid and who may never have held a paying job.
LikeLike
This is from the industry as far as I can tell.
Is Being Overweight a Pre-Existing Condition?
Many factors contribute to your health insurance premiums. This includes age, race, and gender. Another factor that can contribute is a pre-existing condition. A pre-existing condition is defined as a medical condition that already exists before you obtain your health insurance. Some insurers may not cover the pre-existing condition for the duration of the said condition. The exclusion period of the pre-existing period varies from one insurance company to the other. It also varies according to the state in where the policy is issued, because state law regulates the terms and the conditions of insurance policies.
Pre-existing conditions are usually chronic conditions and conditions which require a large sum of money. Some examples of these conditions are diabetes, heart problems and asthma. And, for some policies, simply being overweight can be considered a pre-existing condition. An insurance company may possibly exclude you from purchasing a policy if you are overweight.
Insurance companies use a system for determining whether your height and weight calculation fall under the acceptable range. They calculate for your BMI, or your “body mass index”. This gives an estimate of body fat. Those who have a BMI of over 43 are more likely not to be considered for traditional health coverage. If your BMI falls between 29 and 43, then you might be offered a health insurance with a higher premium.
Basically, the lower your weight and BMI, the lower your health insurance premium will be. If you wish to look for a lower quote, you may discuss weight loss options with your doctor. Your health insurance company may also be able to provide you with information about what you can do to lower the costs.
While most overweight people can still get individual health insurance, those who are morbidly obese are more often than not denied because of the higher risk that they carry. Nonetheless, there are still a number of options for getting insured even if you are morbidly obese. One of these options is to join a group plan. By law, group plans may not reject applicants because of pre-existing conditions. Unfortunately, the benefits that you may receive from a group plan may be significantly less than an independent health care plan.
Why is being overweight considered a pre-existing condition?
It has been shown through studies that excess weight is dangerous and can lead to different kinds of diseases and conditions. It can lead to heart conditions, diabetes, and many more. Because of this, a number of insurance companies have decided that insuring overweight people may be a risk for the business. These insurance companies predict that people who are overweight will have a larger number of medical issues, and will need to make more claims. As mentioned, some insurance companies will not exclude an overweight person from purchasing a premium, but the premium may have a higher cost to be able to compensate for the extra claims.
Even if you are overweight, it is not impossible to find a reasonable insurance quote. Be sure to get several quotes from different companies, as the quotes that you will be given will most likely vary.
http://www.usacoverage.com/health-insurance/is-being-overweight-a-pre-existing-condition.html
LikeLike
It’s always nice to see someone like Alan Grayson honestly characterizing the Republicans arguments without the “They just hate Obama” BS.
See also:
LikeLike
That may well be true, but this statement stand as particularly stupid:
“It is instead stipulating that no student knows who will win and who will lose America’s job-market lottery ”
Because art history could be tomorrow’s engineering degree.
LikeLike
jnc:
Because art history could be tomorrow’s engineering degree.
LOL….yes, you are right, it was particularly stupid.
LikeLike
Taranto has an interesting response to the ridiculous framing of the USA Today’s polling and article on the immoral Obamacare.
But in this case the overall direction of causation is clear, and it is the opposite of what Page suggests. ObamaCare has lacked broad public support from its inception in 2009, when there were not enough Republican lawmakers to stop it from being enacted. The Republican House majority is an effect of ObamaCare, not the other way around.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323981304579079231749604694?mg=reno64-wsj.html?dsk=y
I don’t think Obama’s re-election was a repudiation of repealing the odious Obamacare anymore then Democrats believed Bush’s reelection demonstrated that they should have gone along with his ideas about SS/infinitesimal privatization.
LikeLike
George, apparently the Washington Naval Yard shooter was born and raised in NYC and left there as an adult to join the Navy. Apparently he lived in Seattle and then Ft Worth in the Navy and as a reservist. Then he took a job with Hewlett Packard as a Navy contractor and was living in metro DC.
But the media immediately described him as “from Texas”.
LikeLike
Mark I read a piece somewhere last night that the media was a complete failure again yesterday reporting on the shooting. In a race to be first they seem to jump at any and all unverified information. In addition to missing the fact that he was actually from NY, NBC and CBS had to retract the name of the shooter they originally identified. Someone picked up an ID and thought it was the shooter because he looked similar to the actual shooter and released his name. The guy had simply dropped it.
And also, that’s interesting re your daughter. My cousin was a high school English teacher at Fremont High, inner city in Los Angeles, for over 20 years. In addition o teaching AP classes and coaching girl’s basketball his primary goal was to get his brightest students into college. He had a pretty decent success rate when bypassing the parents.
Nice to hear from you btw.
LikeLike
I think it’s depressing that we’ve had yet another mass shooting but if Sandy Hook couldn’t change anything I doubt this will. I had a call last night from one of my cohorts who traveled to AZ with me to lobby Jeff Flake. He wanted to know if I was going to get back on the bandwagon………………………nope, I give up. Of course, this is about the fourth time I’ve given up on this issue over the years so I guess you never know.
I read this piece from The Guardian and thought it matched my underlying attitude on the subject.
If this isn’t a matter of national security, what is? When 13 people end up dead at a US military base, that surely crosses the threshold – putting America’s problem with guns into the category reserved for threats to the mortal safety of the nation. At its narrowest, Monday’s massacre at the Washington navy yard is a national security issue because it involved hostile entry into what was meant to be a secure military facility. Plenty will now focus on how a man twice arrested in gun-related incidents was able to gain such easy access to the nerve center of the US navy. There will be inquiries into the entry-pass system, use of contractors and the like.
But that would be to miss the wider point. America’s gun sickness – which has turned massacres of this kind into a fairly regular, rather than exceptionally rare occurrence – endangers the US not solely because it can lead military personnel to lose their lives, nor even because it can lead to the murder of schoolchildren, as it did at Sandy Hook elementary school last year, or the death of young movie-goers, as it did in Aurora, Colorado, also last year – dreadful though those losses are.
But the US stays stubbornly where it is, refusing to act. When President Obama last tried, following the deaths of 20 children and six staff at Sandy Hook at the end of 2012, his bill fell at the first senate hurdle. He had not proposed banning a single weapon or bullet – merely expanding the background checks required of someone wanting to buy a gun. But even that was too much. The national security pundits who worry how a US president is perceived when he is incapable of protecting the lives of innocent Syrians abroad should think how it looks when he is incapable of protecting the lives of innocent Americans at home.
On guns, the US – so often the world leader in innovation and endeavour – is the laggard, stuck at the bottom of the global class. Bill Clinton perfectly distilled the essence of soft power when he said in 2008, “People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power.”
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/17/americas-gun-disease-is-a-national-security-issue/
LikeLike
I will say again that I am in favor of the same gun regulations the FBI has favored for more than fifty years. But I have no illusion that gun regulations would have a measurable effect on gun violence until the current crop of Saturday night specials have rusted out. The crazies with AK-47s are not, statistically, the issue. Statistically the issue is cheap handguns in the hands of young males.
The mental health issues in this nation are real. And in this context they are beyond anything more complex than a registry or database of persons who have committed violent acts. That database, which pretty much does not exist, could help within a gun licensing system.
LikeLike
What I’m reading is that he came in with a shotgun and picked up the pistol and AR-15 from law enforcement people he shot.
LikeLike
“America’s gun sickness”
As always, it’s part of the broader culture war, not about the regulations themselves.
LikeLike