At
The Los Angeles Times,
James Mulvaney writes about the NRA's illogical, counter-productive gun-in-every-school plan:
The NRA-funded study proposes placing an armed security guard or staff member in every American school. It suggests that armed staff members at schools would need 40 to 60 hours of training at a cost of $800 to $1,000 per officer. By contrast, NYPD cadets get 13 days of weapons training (more than 100 hours). Federal air marshal trainees are required to take 155 hours of firearms training. Do we think that the "school resources officers" proposed in the study would be more accurate shooters with less training? And, if they're not, do we really want two out of three shots fired by security to be ricocheting down school corridors?
Another unanswered question is who will fill these jobs. According to a national survey, the average armed security guard makes $21,000 a year in major urban areas, and closer to minimum wage in most of the country. That's less than one-third the pay of a veteran NYPD officer. So we are going to compete with McDonald's for top talent, give a person a gun and $1,000 worth of training and put them into a crowded elementary school? As schools across the country are making do with less, will they buck market trends for more expensive security guards?
For more analysis, head below the fold.
Walter Shapiro at Yahoo! says that for Obama, "gun control is more than just a feel-good gesture":
The NRA’s clout in Congress rests primarily on its exaggerated reputation for invulnerability rather than on anything more tangible. During the 2012 political campaigns, the NRA spent $25 million on TV ads and $3 million more on lobbying. While these may sound like impressive numbers, in reality they amount to little more than chump change in a $6 billion campaign year.
The implicit logic on Capitol Hill is that the gun lobby can’t be beaten because it hasn’t been beaten. No major gun legislation has made its way through Congress since former President Bill Clinton’s first term.
With an estimated 300 million firearms in private hands, universal background checks for new gun purchases are far from a panacea. Obama is gambling that investing time and effort in the cause is more than just a feel-good gesture. For if the NRA cannot be beaten on this limited front—even after the horrors at Sandy Hook Elementary School—then we will never limit gun violence.
Brad Bannon at
US News & World Report:
Is it any wonder that Americans dislike Congress so much? It shouldn't be a surprise because our representatives in Washington ignore public opinion. Gun control is the perfect example. A clear majority of people favors a ban on assault weapons (57 percent favor and 41 percent oppose, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll). But members of Congress can't even agree on universal background checks which just about every living and breathing American favors. (91 percent according to ABC News/Washington Post.) [...]
The debate over the federal budget is just another example of congressional indifference to public opinion. For years, the debate over the federal budget has mainly been about the federal budget deficit to the exclusion of any meaningful discussion about job creation. When President Obama formally introduces his budget for the 2014 fiscal year on Wednesday, it will be business as usual. We'll have a lot of talk about deficits but little debate about jobs.
Everyone in Washington talks about the deficit but Americans outside our nation's capital worry about jobs. Not that anyone in Washington cares but the public disagrees with the tone of the budget discussion in D.C. A new Marist College poll shows that Americans want Congress to focus on creating jobs (62 percent of them anyway) more than they want deficit reduction (only 35 percent want that). If that doesn't work for you, the national Election Day exit poll showed that a lot more voters were worried about jobs (59 percent) than they were the deficit (15 percent).
Over at
The Nation,
Rick Perlstein pens a must-read:
For liberals, generally speaking, honoring procedures—means—is the core of what being "principled" means. For conservatives, fighting for the right outcome—ends—even at the expense of procedural nicety, is what being "principled" means. Think of it it, allegorically, this way: imagine in Washington DC, near Capitol Hill, a little old lady is crossing a hazardous street. A fastidious liberal congressmen, proud of always acting in a principled way in all things, stops to help her across the street—even though that means he might be late for a key vote (the sacrifice of an end, in itself, confirms his principled nature). A fastidious conservative congressman, on the other hand, leaves the lady to her fate and makes the vote (because the upholding of the end, in itself, is where honor lies—and dishonor rests, in the ultimate term of derision righties reserve for each other, in being a "squish").
In short, if you're a conservative, isn't the point of an election to win, so you can bend the world to your will, no matter the means it takes to get there? Even if you don't necessarily have the majority's support?
The New York Times in Margaret Thatcher's legacy:
The capitalist revival she sparked did not slow the over-financialization and deindustrialization of the economy, with clear and negative consequences in the 2008 financial crash. Her weakening of the unions also led to a regressively skewed distribution of wealth and, her critics said, a widening gap between rich and poor.
Arguably, Mrs. Thatcher’s popular military successes made it easier for Mr. Blair to carelessly and recklessly follow George W. Bush into Iraq. But Mrs. Thatcher knew how to stand up to Ronald Reagan when she needed to — for example, over the ill-considered United States invasion of Grenada.
She was one of the first Western leaders to recognize the reformist intentions of Mikhail Gorbachev, showed remarkable foresight on the dangers of climate change, and in general managed Britain’s global role more deftly than her successors.
More from
Ned Resnicoff at
MSNBC:
The hallmarks of Thatcher’s legacy—the spending cuts, erosion of social democracy, union-busting and privatization—are alive and well within the Republican Party, particularly in GOP-controlled governors’ mansions. Following the Iron Lady’s death, Fox News’ Chris Stirewalt said hopefully that “there might be a Maggie Thatcher or two out there for the GOP.” In fact, he’s in luck: There are several.