Common Sense Gun Reforms

Stymied for 7 years -- it is enough to make a man cry!

Obama and the Democratic leadership are perplexed beyond words over their inability to leverage mass murders in support of gun control. No matter how horrific the crime, they seem to be unable to rally public opinion to the notion that increased gun control will make us safer.

Of course, that is for good reason, since keeping weapons out of the hands of law-abiding citizens will not make us safer, and the Democratic leadership has shown a predilection for legislation that directly infringes on the rights of legal gun owners, which has cost them the trust of the majority of Americans when it comes to this particular topic.

They support measures such as legislation that would permit the victims of gun violence to sue the manufacturer of the weapons used as well as a 50% levy on ammunition, two measures that would effectively put the gun industry out of business.

Which is a shame, because there are basic, common sense steps that can make us safer, and on which our representatives should be able to reach a consensus.

For example, it is clear that the mentally ill, as defined as anyone who has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution or deemed unfit by way of legal proceeding, should not be permitted to own a gun. However, as demonstrated by the mass shooting at a Lafayette movie theater, all that a shooter has to do is cross state lines in order to conceal the fact that he is mentally ill. Therefore, it is imperative that we establish a national registry of the mentally ill so that this information can be made available to the federal background check system and law enforcement, with penalties for those states that do not comply with the law. A provision must be put in place for an individual to petition a judge for removal from this list once they can be deemed fit.

Similarly, anyone who has been the subject of a protection order should be immediately added to a national database which would prevent them from owning a gun until they can convince a judge that they are no longer a threat.

Finally, it seems clear to me that all gun sales, including transfers of ownership between individual owners, should be subject to the background check provision. A system that effectively keeps guns out of the hands of convicted felons, the mentally ill and those who have been subject to protection orders must not be compromised by loopholes that facilitate straw purchases and transfers.

Such measures would do little to infringe on the rights of the vast majority of law-abiding citizens, but would go far to help keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them.

Time to Reverse the Exploding Income Disparity Trend

Source: https://acivilamericandebate.com/2011/04/10/the-30-year-growth-of-income-inequality/

There is one simple explanation for the explosion in the wealth of the top 1% of U.S. earners, and it is the long-term capital gains tax rate.

This rate, currently at 15%, insures that the wealthiest Americans, who earn the largest percentage of their income in the form of long-term capital gains, will pay a rate comparable to single filers earning up to $37,450 per year.

For example, in 2011 (the last year in which his tax information was made public), former presidential candidate Mitt Romney earned $13,709,608 from a combination of capital gains, ordinary dividends, taxable interest, speaking fees and corporate directorships, but paid only $1,912,529 in taxes for an effective tax rate of 14.1%.

While itemized deductions in the amount of $4,681,842 helped reduce his taxable income significantly, the 15% rate applied to long-term capital gains in the amount of $6,810,176 played the largest role.

Since the rate was lowered to 15% by G.W. Bush in 2003 in the wake of 9/11 (Osama Bin Laden's indirect gift to the super-wealthy), the after-tax income of the top 1% of earners has gone up over 2.5x, while the income of the highest fifth of earners has merely doubled and the income of the middle fifth has stagnated, barely keeping up with inflation.

The principal reason for this is that the the lower your income, the more likely you are to earn it by way of a paycheck or business income, subject to payroll deductions and a tiered tax rate system with a peak rate of 39.6%.

How this is even remotely fair is beyond my comprehension, but fairness issues aside, income disparity on this level is dangerous to our democracy and strains the fabric of society. Therefore, I propose that we begin treating all long-term capital gains like regular income.

If this had been the law in 2011, Mitt Romney's effective tax rate would have been 26.3%, even after itemizing $4.6 million in deductions (including $2.3 million donated to charity). This, I believe most people would agree, would have been a fairer and more fiscally sound outcome.

It's Time to Replenish the Strategic Petroleum Reserve

With crude oil prices getting close to all-time lows (when adjusted for inflation), now is the time for the Obama Administration to put the strong dollar to work and refill the SPR, and to consider adding a new site to increase the total storage capacity to the original target of 1 billion barrels.

Wild swings in commodities prices are not good for the economy overall. While the drop in the cost of oil and gasoline translates to more cash in consumer's pockets, which can translate to increased consumer spending and economic activity, crude prices that are two low can have negative impacts.

One negative impact is in that it takes the wind out of the sails of efforts to conserve. For example, at $2.20 per gallon for regular unleaded it takes over eight years for the owner of a typical hybrid automobile to recoup the added cost of the vehicle. Since that is longer than most people hold onto a car, there is essentially no financial incentive to buy the most energy-efficient vehicles.

And, since low oil prices feed through to energy prices overall, including the price of electricity, we can expect planned investments in wind and solar generation to be subject to re-evaluation.

Finally, it is the best interest of the United States to maintain the largest stockpile of crude oil possible to shield us from future supply shocks.

Therefore, Obama should authorize new additions to the SPR to help underpin crude prices and to provide us with an increased reserve against for the future.

Domestic Gun Control is Not the Correct Response to Acts of Terrorism

Syed Rizwan Farook, ISIS sympathizer

Once again, the Democratic leadership is immediately latching onto the cowardly San Bernardino shooting as a justification for increased gun control. In fact, at the time their statements were read, it was not yet clear if this was a workplace shooting or an act of terrorism, which bears significance in terms of its implications for gun control.

A workplace shooting, by a disturbed or disgruntled employee, is something completely different from an act of terrorism. A workplace shooting is most commonly a spur-of-the-moment action in which the shooter reaches a certain point and decides that "enough is enough". An act of terrorism is usually something that is planned well in advance, often with the support of associates foreign and domestic, by individuals who are driven by ideology and hell bent on destruction.

The workplace shooter will typically make use of whatever weapons he happens to own, with whatever ammunition he happens to possess at the time. The terrorist will carefully select their weapons and will amass a cache of ammunition. The terrorist will get the weapons by whatever means necessary, and will not think twice about buying guns on the black market if that is the only route open to them. Or, finding it difficult to obtain weapons, the terrorist will plan to commit acts of terrorism by other means, such as with explosives, with unpredictable consequences.

For example, in France it is completely illegal for private citizens to own fully-automatic Kalashnikov rifles of the type used in the Paris assaults. However, that is exactly what the attackers used. And, since concealed carry permits are not available to Parisians, the victims had to wait for the authorities to arrive to repel the attackers. That extra time resulted in over 130 dead.

Therefore, more stringent gun laws will not stop the determined terrorist, and this is something the Democratic leadership should have considered before they went public with their responses to the San Bernardino shooting.

What will help minimize casualties are more weapons in the hands of those trained and able to use them, be they private citizens or law enforcement officials. Gun laws that make it harder for law abiding citizens to obtain weapons of self-defense will leave us all vulnerable.

It is no coincidence that the attackers selected a "soft target" such as a community center for the handicapped and disabled as the site of the attack -- they knew that they would be unlikely to face armed resistance there.

By the time the police entered the San Bernardino community center the shooters had already fled. What might have happened if several of the employees had been armed that day? Could they have held the shooters at bay, buying valuable time? Could they have stopped them? I can envision a future in which law enforcement trains and deputizes tens of thousands of regular citizens nationwide so that they can be equipped to intervene and stop acts of terrorism and violence in time to save lives.

Allow Egypt to Absorb the Gaza Strip

Credit: Khalil Hamra for the Associated Press

In the image above, smoke rises from the Egyptian side of the border with Gaza, as the Egyptian Army destroys buildings to create a buffer zone which will help prevent smuggling into Gaza.

I want to repeat this: the Egyptian Army is engineering a buffer zone with the main objective of preventing weapons and rocket parts from getting into the hands of Hamas.

Therefore, I reiterate my question: Why doesn't Egypt simply absorb the Gaza Strip? The Gaza situation is untenable for Israel and for the residents of Gaza; an Egyptian solution seems like the most obvious path.

Similarly, we should be looking toward Jordan to absorb the West Bank and bring some order to that territory, as well.

A Jordanian Solution

The King of Jordan could ensure peace and prosperity in the West Bank

The same broken, fractured and thoroughly discredited paradigm based on the concept that Israel and whoever is in charge of the Palestinians can somehow negotiate a lasting peace is STILL the only solution that is being discussed.

This is ridiculous and absurd. The Palestinian people are fractured, chaotic and in no position to speak on their own behalf about anything. During the period of Arafat the Palestinian Authority was corrupt and showed little interest in truly building anything of value for the Palestinian people. Mahmoud Abbas is weak and barely controls the West Bank. Gaza is controlled by a bunch of thugs and stark raving madmen who live only to play out the violent fantasies of wealthy Qatari and Saudi sheiks.

The simple fact is that there is no Palestinian government with which to negotiate, and certainly no Palestinian government that would be capable maintaining a truce with Israel against Palestinian forces of violence both internal and external. Therefore, attempts to seek a resolution on these grounds is simply a formula to perpetuate the status quo ad infinitum.

The only solution I see is for the bordering nations to make the Palestinian lands their own. Frankly, it shocks me that no one I know of is also promoting this argument. NO ONE. Bizarre.

Jordan is a peaceful country with a benevolent monarch who is an ally of the U.S. Egypt is a huge nation that has gone through major upheaval but which has remained oriented to the West and supported by Washington. Placing the West Bank in the hands of Jordan and the Gaza Strip in the hands of Egypt would be like pouring buckets of water on a smoldering fire.

In Gaza, the influx of Egyptians (and exodus of Gazans to other parts) would completely change the character of Gaza. Hamas would have to overcome the daunting Egyptian military before they could successfully launch their rockets into Israel, and would invariably quit. Gaza would become a tourist destination for people from around the world.

In the West Bank, the stability that comes from being part of Jordan would lead to foreign investment into factories that take advantage of the large, relatively low-wage workforce in the region to supply Israel and the world with manufactured goods. Israeli settlement expansion would cease, since further expansion would infringe on internationally-recognized borders of an existing nation-state.

Therefore, once and for all, PLEASE STOP TRYING TO GET THE PALESTINIANS TO TALK TO THE ISRAELIS -- IT IS A HUGE JOKE! Instead, get the Egyptian, the Jordanians, the Israelis, and a U.N. representative around a table and negotiate things like demarcation lines, water rights and electrical supply rates.

While the Palestinians may grumble about not getting a nation-state as they may aspire, they know that they never had one and that anything that creates territorial and economic stability in the region is in their, and the word's, best interest.

An Egyptian Solution

Life in the Gaza Strip has not been going well.

Its 1.8 million occupants live crammed into a tiny parcel of land, fenced in by Israel and Egypt and unable to leave. For the past six years, Israel has had the Gaza Strip under a constant siege, blockading travel and supplies from air, land and sea. Only items that Israel approves can be brought into Gaza (for a detailed list, click here), and many basic necessities of life are restricted. Hardly anyone is ever allowed in or out, and fishing boats are prevented from going out to sea.

In other words, the Gaza Strip is essentially a prison camp, and has been for over fifty years. The international consensus is that enough is enough.

The people of Gaza need international status, they need passports and the ability to travel. The fishermen of Gaza need to be able to sail to sea to seek their catch. The workers of Gaza need the freedom to move to where the jobs are. The relatives of Gaza residents need to be able to come to Gaza to visit their loved ones.

However, Israel needs a Gaza Strip that it can live with. It needs a Gaza with whom it can trade goods without fear of bombings or rocket attacks. It needs a good neighbor.

It seems clear to me that an autonomous Gaza Strip will not be able to peacefully co-exist with Israel, even in the context of a broader Palestinian peace agreement. Quite simply, there has been too much suffering by the Gazans at the hands of Israel and Israelis at the hands of Hamas; and, the presence of Hamas inside Gaza virtually guarantees that the Gaza Strip will serve as launching pad for attacks on Israel as long as Hamas is in control of the territory.

Therefore, I propose that the Gaza Strip be integrated into Egypt, and that the residents be granted Egyptian citizenship.

Although Egypt has been at war with Israel twice, most recently in 1967, there have been no overt hostilities between Egypt and Israel since that time. In fact, Egypt has worked cooperatively with Israel to try to prevent the flow of restricted goods (such as rocket parts) into Gaza. Unlike governments in other parts of the Middle East, Egypt does not overtly foment conflict in the occupied territories.

If Gaza becomes part of Egypt, and its residents granted Egyptian passports, the Egyptian Army can establish peace and order within Gaza, taking control away from Hamas. Gazans will be able to leave Gaza and travel around. Fishing boats will be able to once again ply their trade on the open seas. And, the Gazans will not have their lives controlled by Israel, but instead be members of a predominantly Muslim country,

Importantly, Israel, with the backing of the international community, will hold Egypt responsible for what goes on inside Gaza. It will be in Egypt's interest to prevent terrorists from launching attacks on Israel from within Gaza, since those attacks could risk sanctions or even another Israeli-Egyptian war. Based on the way that the Egyptian military has maintained control in Cairo I have no doubt that order can be maintained in Gaza, as well.