Give the people what they want

The maths are not my strong suit but this not hard arithmetic. Our national economy is 70% dependent on consumer spending. You know who spends all their money in Murika? Poor people. They don't go anywhere. They don't have offshore accounts to hide their obscene corporate and casino capitalist profits. They spend their money in the local stores. You know -- small businesses. So my dear befuddled Democrats. Listen to Sherrod Brown. When GOPers say cut Social Security, you say screw that. Increase Social Security payments.

Brown argues that if Republicans push for Social Security benefits cuts as part of any deal, Dems should counter with the Harkin proposal to shift the terms of the debate in a Democratic direction. Democratic priorities, he said, should be centered on the idea that declining pensions and wages (and savings) are undermining retirement security, and added that the public strongly opposed gutting social insurance.

“The situation for seniors is only going to get worse, because the assault on pensions and wages is making it more and more difficult for a worker to save for the future,” Brown said. “Why are we having a debate over how much we are going to hurt seniors? The debate should be over how we should structure a pension for seniors that will help them. Why would we play on their playing field? Democrats need to play offense here. Force Republicans to say what it is they really want to do. Republicans just don’t like social insurance.”

All over the "Christian" Nation of Murika, we have old people standing in line at the grocery store counting out loose change at the end of the month to buy a box of biscuit mix to get them through until the next check comes in. The cost of living never goes down. So how are they supposed to live on less money? Seriously, what then? Rooting in the trash bins out back to get enough food to last a month? An extra $50 a month would make a big difference.

Call me a dreamer but I have a feeling the party that came out strong for giving the real builders of America a few extra bucks, instead of taking it away, would be popular. They might even win all the elections.

Seriously. Thanks Obama

Busy with real life stuff so outsourcing all my posts today. Betty Cracker finds a bucket full of good news:

1. Colorado, Washington get OK from feds on marijuana

2. Federal Tax System Will Recognize Married Gay Couples Even If Their States Do Not

3. HHS Extends Medicare Benefits To Married Gay Couples

Plus the executive order on guns. Not a bad day’s work. Thanks, Obama!

The gun order closes a loophole that allowed convicted felons to subvert background checks by taking possession of firearms through a corporation and shut down the reimportation of military weapons from abroad. Click over for the supporting posts.

Give the people a living wage

Alec MacGillis asks a good question:

Liberals have spent years now agonizing over why it is that many working-class white Americans vote for the party whose policies on taxes, organized labor and much more work against their own economic interests—the "What's the matter with Kansas" problem. Well, here is an issue where lower-income people who vote Republican are quite clear about what's in their own interest—that is, they state a preference at direct odds with their party's line. Maybe it would be a good idea for Democrats to try to peel them away by actually talking up that issue?

Raising the minimum wage polls well with pretty much everybody except crackpot cons who are against anything that doesn't piss liberals off and the people who make a living exploiting minimum wage workers. All the focus inside the Beltway bubble is on the well off and reasonably secure but the working poor are the fastest growing demographic in our country. They're not feeling any grass shoots recovery in those circles.

Championing this demo could not only win back the House but a successful push to raise the damnably inadequate wage would actually help all the people. Hell, it might even restore the people's faith in government.

Farm bill fails in the House

Boehner blames the Democrats for not delivering the votes for him.

In a blow to House GOP leaders, the House on Thursday rejected a five-year farm bill.

Members voted down the $940 billion bill in a 195-234 vote that only won 24 Democratic votes. Most Democrats voted against the bill because it cut food stamp programs by more than $20 billion.

The 62 crackpot cons voted against it because it didn't cut food assistance enough. The crackpots think they might pass it if they make bigger cuts. In which case Boehner better have all the votes on his side because they'll likely lose the 8 Dems that voted for this abomination.

Still would be a horrible outcome, but let the damn GOPers own their own inhumane policy. No reason for a single Dem to help them do it.

Yes, austerity kills economies

Just when you think there's no hope left for this country, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) does something spectacular:

So it was a little striking to see her using the Senate Budget Committee, which she chairs, to hold a hearing on the negative effects of austerity. This isn’t a flip on policy; her budget does, after all, include some stimulus spending. But instead of the usual routine of emphasizing the importance of medium-run deficit reduction, while paying lip service to the need to prevent premature cuts, Murray used the hearing to focus almost exclusively on the latter concern.

The CBO’s latest projections and the Reinhart-Rogoff debacle, she argued, “make it clearer than ever that now we need to focus above all else on our fragile economic recovery, and that the case for austerity in a time of economic weakness is simply wrong.”

Lots of charts and wonkery at the link, but the other important point is The Heritage Foundation has devolved under DeMint from a pseudo think tank that at least made some attempt to advance logical argument into a hotbed of pure conservative crackpottery. Steve Benen makes the case for why any remaining pundits of good conscience should be embarrassed to afford Heritage any credibilty at all.

Ambulatory turds

Apparently I owe the GOP a small apology. While Republicans certainly deserve blame for slashing food assistance, I just found out they were not alone in this inhumane act against hungry Americans. This Kos petition reveals an alarming number of Democrats voted against restoring food aid as well.

Last week, the U.S. Senate voted down an amendment by Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) to restore $4.1 billion in food stamp cuts—by reducing corporate welfare to a handful of crop insurance companies, mostly based overseas. Only 26 senators voted “yes.”

Here are the Democrats who voted against the amendment:

Sens. Baucus, Bennet, Cardin, Carper, Coons, Donnelly, Durbin, Feinstein, Franken, Hagan, Harkin, Heinrich, Heitkamp, Johnson, Kaine, Klobuchar, Landrieu, Manchin, McCaskill, Mikulski, Nelson, Pryor, Rockefeller, Shaheen, Stabenow, Tester, Mark Udall and Warner

Hard to think a bigger betrayal against the people and the apparently former values of the Democratic party. Call them out if your Senator is on that list. And even if they're not, shame them in every venue you can find. [Blog title shamelessly stolen from Mike Finnigan]

Don't want to go to war no more

Second day analysis is coming in on Obama's foreign policy speech and this NYT editorial sees what Obama did there:

President Obama’s speech on Thursday was the most important statement on counterterrorism policy since the 2001 attacks, a momentous turning point in post-9/11 America. For the first time, a president stated clearly and unequivocally that the state of perpetual warfare that began nearly 12 years ago is unsustainable for a democracy and must come to an end in the not-too-distant future.

Our POTUS effectively declared the war on terror over. No more axis of evil. No more existential threat to justify deploying combat assets to fight a ground war that doesn't have a home ground. Obama is calling for a return to law enforcement and intelligence gathering for such preventative measures as are possible in fighting small cell groups and radicalized individuals.

Unsurprisingly, Charlie Pierce has the most astute analysis of Obama's speech. Definitely read it all but here's the punchline:

The process of making the presidency an office with far more power in foreign affairs than the Founders intended took decades. The process of putting a sharp edge on that office took less than one. Give this president some credit. At least he knows what a deadly weapon his office is.

Yes, Obama's speech was only words but I believe this counts as the use of the bully pulpit his critics so often claim he refuses to use. He's calling for an end to the forever war. He's asking America to calm down and restore some of those freedoms we gave up for supposed security. He's asking to have some of the executive war powers rescinded. But he can't make his rhetoric come to fruition alone. Congress needs to do its part, so maybe targeting them for some criticism would help acheive the goals Obama laid out. It's worth a try.

Sure as death panels and no taxes

Who could have predicted?

1) GOP says no budget deal without "entitlement" cuts.

2) Obama gives them "entitlement" cuts.

3) Republicans say no budget deal because:

Well Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) — who also happens to be chairman of the House GOP’s re-election committee — just showed how it’s done, saying Obama’s budget “lays out a shocking attack on seniors.”

“I’ll tell you when you’re going after seniors the way he’s already done on Obamacare, taken $700 billion out of Medicare to put into Obamacare and now coming back at seniors again, I think you’re crossing that line very quickly here in terms of denying access to seniors for health care in districts like mine certainly and around the country,” he said on CNN Wednesday afternoon.

White House strategery team really can't be the only ones who didn't see this coming. It's equally clear the GOP crackpot caucus won't buy any deal -- ever. Even if he gave them every single thing they wanted and didn't ask for a thing in return the crackpots wouldn't take the deal because, if Obama wants it, they don't want him to have it. So what's the point of pissing off the entire rest of the electorate except for Very Serious Pundits who nobody listens to outside of the Beltway bubble?

Think Obama needs better consultants.

Chain of fools

In the interests of my blood pressure, decided long ago to save my outrage for things that are clearly imminent. So I'm not all that exercised about Obama's new budget even though it's said to offer up the chained CPI on Social Security. Matt thinks it's dangerous but it's not scaring me yet. Looks like just another deal that isn't meant to happen.

It's a budget proposal. A political document that has more to do with messaging than policy. I do agree with Charlie Pierce though. Offering up yet another dismal grand bargain with these kind of optics is stupid politics and reinforces the false choices that should belong solely to the Republicans.

This is what Jim DeMint believes, after a few years in a sweet government job, from which he will derive a sweet government pension, and which enabled him to move sweetly into a quasi-governmental job at which he produces nothing at all except hot air. Nice work if you can get it. This is what they all believe. They believe that the problem with Social Security is that...it...works. This is why any economic compromise with these people is guaranteed to hurt all the wrong people.

I'm guessing the White House consultants decided Obama needed to piss off the liberals to appease the Village elders with a show of making tough choices. That may work. Twitter told me E.J. Dionne loved it. But the hundreds of millions of voters who get their news in 30 minutes on the teevee, all they're going to internalize is newscasters very seriously telling them -- again -- Obama wants to cut Social Security. After he and Joe explicitly promised not to touch Social Security. If there's some eleventy dimensional chess strategy here which leads to energizing the Democratic vote in 2014, I'm not seeing it.

Look at all the hungry people

Wall St. Journal is concern trolling about the rise in use of the food assistance. Some well fed genius is appalled to learn the number of enrollees aren't falling along with the unemployment rate. Well you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure it out. There's a simple answer:

There are record numbers of Americans on food stamps today because there are record numbers of Americans in poverty (records begin in 1959.)

As of 2011, there were 46.2 million men, women, and children living below the U.S. poverty line. There isn't much reason to believe that the last year of mediocre job growth has dented that number. And until it plunges, the food stamp rolls are going to stay full -- plain and simple.

The jobs being created are minimum wage positions that often only offer part time hours. Minimum wage in this state is $7.25 and most of the jobs in that range won't give any one person more than 24 hours of work in a week. The price of everything from food, to fuel, to clothing to shelter has risen far faster than wages, which we already know have been basically flat for over a decade. Every private food bank is seeing an astronomical rise in clients who were formerly secure in the middle class.

Furthermore the vast majority of the weath that's been created during this stubbornly slow recovery is being sucked up by the already wealthy 1% at the top. But sure, let's demonize the poors. You know, you give those people too many free ramen noodles and they'll never want get off the dole. Better we should let their kids starve than ask the wealthy to kick in a few more tax dollars to help them out. [graphic via Class Wars]

Voters support stimulus spending for job creation

More proof nobody cares about the deficit. When it gets down to specific policy voters support "government spending" to create jobs. Even Republican voters:

Americans widely support each of three job creation proposals, including offering tax breaks to businesses that create jobs in the U.S. and a program that would put people to work on urgent infrastructure repair projects. Support for these programs is only slightly lower in a variant of the question that asks respondents if they are in favor of spending government money to pay for the programs.

Greg breaks out the figures:

* 72 percent support a “federal government program that would spend government money to put people to work on urgent infrastructure repairs.” This is also backed by 71 percent of independents and 53 percent of Republicans.

* 72 percent support a “federal jobs creation law that would spend government money for a program designed to create more than 1 million new jobs.” This is backed by 69 percent of independents and 52 percent of Republicans.

So why does the polling always show deificit concern in the abstract you ask? It's all that other spending that's wasteful.

More than two-thirds of Americans think the budget deficit is largely a result of waste and fraud? But wait! It's all explained by a deeper dive into the poll results:

A more detailed look at which programs were named by Democrats and by Republicans suggests that for many, waste is indeed defined as "money spent on some government program I don't like."

It has always been so. Voters like spending when the money goes to their priorities. I believe this is called "enlightened self-interest" by conservatives and glibertarians. An old liberal like me calls it selfishness and quite often greed. Doesn't help that we have an entire political/corporate/media system dedicated to promoting that mindset as an appropriate definition of morality.

The grand bargain is dead

May it rest in peace forever. The damn grand bargain that so obsesses our POTUS is neither grand, nor a bargain. Never understood why he keeps trying for a deal that is the effective equivalent of political suicide. In any event, doubt we have to worry about that much. I don't think Corker means what Think Progess does. They're billing it as his being open to increasing revenue, but that's not what I read in this:

Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) believes Senate Republicans would be open to increasing revenue through tax reform as part of a “grand bargain” to reduce the deficit.

Chris, I think Republicans — if they saw true entitlement reform — would be glad to look at tax reform that generates additional revenues. And that doesn’t mean increasing rates, that means closing loopholes. That also means arranging our tax system so that we have economic growth. And I think we’ve been saying that from day one.

By "true entitlement reform" Republicans mean transforming Medicare and Social Security into something that has no resemblance to programs as we know them now. And by "arranging our tax system so that we have economic growth" Corker means, perhaps closing loopholes in order to further lower the tax contributions of the super wealthy. Maybe to zero. Zero would be good for them.

But even if Senate GOPers really are amenable to some sort of deal, Boehner made clear any revenue raisers are D.O.A. in the House.

Said Boehner: "The president believes that we have to have more taxes from the American people. We're not going to get very far. The president got his tax hikes on January 1. The talk about raising revenue is over. It's time to deal with the spending problem."

More interesting, is this admission our hapless Speaker made on the Sunday bobblehead show.

“We do not have an immediate debt crisis – but we all know that we have one looming,” he said. “And we have one looming because we have entitlement programs that are not sustainable in their current form. They’re going to go bankrupt.” [via}

Too bad Republicans couldn't muster the same concern about the looming disaster of climate change. They're perfectly willing to roll the dice on destroying the planet by ignoring that. And this was a curious aside in Boehner's interview.

Boehner reiterated his trust in the president, despite a relationship defined by legislative deals that have fallen apart.

“Absolutely, there’s no issue,” he said.

Can only assume Boehner believes the base doesn't watch the bobbleheads to admit that out loud. Feel rather certain he'll be wailing about Obama dealing in bad faith and moving goalposts and such the next time he's forced to try to bring something to the floor -- and fails -- because he has no control of the crackpot caucus.

Obama schools the GOP

President Obama took a stroll over to the Hill and addressed the House GOPers today. How it went depends on who you ask. The interpretations "according to unnamed sources close to the proceedings" ranged from the Drudge baiting Tense meeting between President Obama, House GOP (broken into 3 page clicks for your inconvenience) to ABC's Jon Karl who heard President Obama got two standing ovations.

Jon Karl had the best report on the questions. This one was the most important:

Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan, the chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, asked if Obama and Republicans agreed on some entitlement reforms (specifically, means-testing for Medicare and reducing annual cost-of-living increases for Social Security), why couldn’t those things be done now? The president said he would agree to those reforms only if Republicans agreed to raise tax revenues by closing loopholes, because we have to ask “everybody to sacrifice.”

Wrong answer Mr. President. Adding to my earlier post, this is why Obama's numbers are slipping. Yes, everybody needs to share the sacrifice but the working class has already sacrificed more than enough for the last five years. They don't want Obama to kiss the crackpots' ass for some dismal grand bargain, they want him to kick their ass.

Obama has walked back his tough talk one too many times. I see the future and unless Obama walks his campaign talk this time, I see 2010 happening all over again in 2014.

Why Obama's approval is sinking

I truly hate when the internets make me talk about polling but I've seen this pushed for long enough that it's worth addressing. The usual suspects are harping on their tired refrain about Obama's failure to reach out to GOPers. That's not the reason. Nobody outside the Beltway bubble gives a flying leap about whether Obama makes nice with the crackpots. Rather the opposite. It's because instead of standing firm on the platform he won the election on, he's back to trying to cajole concessions by giving into their demands.

Greg Sargent, in an especially good morning round-up, nails down Obama's real problem in this one graf:

To summarize: People say they agree with the GOP about spending cuts in the abstract. But when you get specific, solid majorities disapprove of the sequester cuts and think they’ll harm the economy — rejecting the conservative argument about the relationship between the economy and spending cuts. Solid majorities oppose replacing the sequester cuts with cuts to major social programs the poor and elderly rely upon — rejecting the conservative argument about the safety net. (In fairness, Obama is also prepared to cut entitlement benefits as part of a grand bargain, but more judiciously.) Solid majorities support asking for more revenues from the rich, rather than cutting social programs, to replace the cuts — rejecting the conservative argument about taxes.

Bold is mine and let's review that sentence again. "In fairness, Obama is also prepared to cut entitlement benefits as part of a grand bargain, but more judiciously."

Judicious or not, this is at the core of Obama's sinking approval. It breaks a very specific promise he made on the campaign trail. I would go as far as to say it was the most important promise he made. The mainly unengaged voters aren't following the nuance. They don't care about grand bargains. All they hear is "Social Security cuts" and all they feel is betrayed in their trust.

Saving Social Security

Scissors wielding austerity addicts have been circling around the social safety net like vultures at a garbage dump for years now. They're salivating at the opportunity to use the deficit to shred the social contract made decades ago with the working people. They want that pot of money and they're more than willing to lie about earned benefits to get their grubby claws on it. But the truth is, Social Security is not a driver of debt. Indeed, "Social Security can be financially tweaked by changing its tax or benefit structure, or both," and deliver full benefits for many years to come.

Yet the austerity addicts drive the conversation. Even President Obama, who promised not to touch the program, offers up shady cuts in his futile search for a ill-advised grand bargain. Surprisingly, the very conservative Josh Barro comes forward to say don't cut SS:

Back in December, I wrote that applying chained CPI to Social Security is the wrong solution to our budget problems: It’s just a way of dressing up a cut to retirement benefits at a time when retirement insecurity is rising. Despite its problems, Social Security is the best-functioning component of the U.S.'s retirement-saving system. Instead of cutting, the federal government should be expanding its role in retirement saving.

Exactly right. GOP has solidified their "cuts only" position on government spending. That very much includes destroying Social Security as we know it. If Democrats were smart they would be pushing for expanding the program instead of adopting the austerity framing on earned benefits.

Sadly, so far few of our Congresscritters have realized how winning a position this is. Bernie Sanders leads the charge to protect the safety net with The Keeping Our Social Security Promises Act.

Under Sanders' legislation, Social Security benefits would be untouched. The system would be fully funded by making the wealthiest Americans pay the same payroll tax already assessed on those with incomes up to $106,800 a year. The idea follows through on a proposal that President Obama made when he was running for office in 2008.

It's a damn shame Bernie doesn't get any attention, from anybody. Neither the establishment progressives nor the netroots left promote his work nearly enough.

Progressive agenda is popular with Republicans

Really try not to avoid encouraging poll mania, but this was such an interesting stat, it's worth sharing. Business Insider commissioned poll testing on alternatives to the sequester showed the Progressive Caucus’ plan was the most popular of the three choices by a rather unimpressive margin. However, this was surprising:

– Shockingly, 47 percent of Republicans preferred the House Progressive plan to the sequester. This means that Republicans supported the House Progressive plan just as much as they supported their own party’s plan. [...]

The CPC’s plan involves replacing the sequester with $960 billion in new revenue — raised via closing loopholes that benefit the rich and corporations, as well as ending wasteful subsidies — $278 billion in defense cuts, and investment in new job creation measures, including spending $160 on America’s crumbling infrastructure. The House Republican plan, meanwhile, replaces the sequester with a basket of cuts to food stamps, Medicaid, and the social services block grant (which, among other things, funds Meals on Wheels).

The downside is the other half support the Republican's slash and burn agenda, but I'd like to think they just don't really know what it is and only chose it because it said Republican. Either way, it feels like we're making a little progress.

Please Mister Postman, look and see

The United States Post Office has been in deep trouble for a long time. For many it seems its imminent demise is no big deal. In the upscale, urbane world where the demand for instant information grows as fast as kudzu in Georgia, "snail mail" feels as quaint and outdated as hoop skirts and stagecoaches. They see no problem with the local P.O. going the way of the buggy whip.

The other world of people who depend on the USPS is largely invisible to them. The elderly who don't have a clue about computers still depend on it. The homeless and other poor transients who need an affordable PO box in order to establish an address. The vast tracts of rural America private delivery corporations don't want to service because, no profit. These people could probably survive without Saturday delivery, but it's just the first step towards the ultimate demise of the USPS altogether. And even if dropping Saturdays saves the postal service for now, there are about 25,000 to 30,000 employees who would lose their jobs. These people are unlikely to find jobs with equal pay and benefits. It all contributes to weakening our national economy.

John Tierney thinks the problem is Congressional interference in downsizing because no Congresscritter wants their districts little podunk PO to be abolished. But saving those little outposts is the only good thing Congress has done. It provides employment in areas where there are few jobs and a local gathering point for rural communities.

Which is not to say the GOP in Congress isn't the reason the USPS is in trouble:

In 2006, the GOP Congress passed a bill that required the Postal Service to fully fund future retiree health benefits for the next 75 years and to accomplish this within a 10-year period. Republicans are always insisting that the USPS be run like a good capitalist enterprise, but few, if any, private businesses could bear the burden of funding three-quarters of a century of retired employees’ medical costs over just one decade.

In truth, the Republicans who crafted the bill were not interested in turning the Postal Service into a better business; they were seeking to run the post office out of business. With all those unionized employees working for a quasi-governmental operation that competes with private sector enterprises, the Postal Service is an affront to those who hate government, hate unions and hate to think that there is anything that government can do better than the private sector. The post office may be mandated by the United States Constitution, as clearly as freedom of religion or the right to bear arms, but it does not fit with modern Republican dogma and, therefore, has been targeted for extinction.

For millions of Americans, the mail delivery is an important lifeline and the highlight of their day. It would be a shame to allow it to be destroyed out of political spite. [image via]

Tarnished future for golden agers

This column by Duncan Black on bleak prospects for retirees is a longer form version of Atrios' newest hobby horse which might be summed in the shorter as: bail out the people. I've been saying stuff like this myself for a long time now, but nobody listens to me so it's good to see a very popular sucky blogger trot this into the public discourse:

We need an across the board increase in Social Security retirement benefits of 20% or more. We need it to happen right now, even if that means raising taxes on high incomes or removing the salary cap in Social Security taxes.

Read it all, especially if you're younger and are depending on a 401K plan to ensure your comfort in your golden years. Because if you are, you're likely to be disappointed.

Meanwhile, if you're on the cusp of retiring or in that over 55 and lost your job demographic, you're pretty much screwed and apparently invisible to the powers that be. And that's just SS benefits. If you add in the current mania to "fix" Medicare by foisting the costs back onto the olds, you're probably going to face an early death.

Which as Matty Yglesias points out is a great cost saving scheme:

… It really can’t be emphasized enough that this is the precise inverse of the entitlements problem. Failure to provide adequate social services to unemployed 61-year-olds not only saves money because you don’t need to pay for the benefits, it saves even more money when it leads to that guy dying at 71 rather than 74. To some, those are three extra years to spend with your grandkids. But to the Congressional Budget Office, that’s just more Social Security checks and more Medicare bills.

Oddly, I was just thinking the other day, this austerity fixation (being perpetrated mainly by millionaires) is the modern day equivalent of throwing us olds onto ice floes and sending us out to sea. As the kids say, sure looks like a feature, not a bug.

[photo via]

President Obama takes a stand for D.C.

I imagine there was a good reason for it once, but this is 2013. It feels like it's long past time for the District of Columbia to have fair representation in Congress and unrestricted self-governance. So I was happy to see President Obama put this plate on his president limo.

[Susan Walsh photo/AP]

President Obama’s motorcade sported “Taxation Without Representation” license plates for the first time on Saturday. [...]

The White House decision earlier this week to use the license plates was considered a victory for D.C. statehood advocates. Obama had avoided using the plates during his first term as president.

“President Obama has lived in the District now for four years, and has seen first-hand how patently unfair it is for working families in D.C. to work hard, raise children and pay taxes, without having a vote in Congress,” the White House said in a statement earlier this week.

In fact, "In the financial year 2011, D.C. residents and businesses paid $19.6 billion in federal taxes; more than the taxes collected from 19 states and the highest federal taxes per capita." Yet they have no meaningful say in how it's spent. That's just not right.

Sure the limo license plate is merely symbolic support but it's a first and it's a start.

Trigger happy

David Keene is right about mass panic buying of high caliber guns and high capacity ammo clips happening because gun hoarders are afraid President Obama going to take their guns away. But the NRA President is surely lying when he denies the NRA is actively fostering the fear of everything in service of their bottom line. Their own fundraising pitches make a mockery of that absurd claim.

Fear drives sales. The NRA gained somewhere around 100K memberships post Sandy Hook. And let's not forget the benefits to the rest of the gun industry. Panic buying drove up pricing at least fivefold. Gun shops across America are literally empty. Sold out to the last damn bullet.

Profit. The gun industry is making a killing. Unfortunately, literally in the somewhere around 700 gun deaths just in the weeks since Sandy Hook happened. Some were murders; more often they were tragic accidents. Many of those deaths were children. But the answer for Mr. Keene is certainly not less guns.

Keene dismissed policies that would limit the availability of assault weapons or high-capacity magazines, two proposals that are likely to be included in the recommendations of Vice President Joe Biden’s gun task force. “We don’t think any of those things work,” he said. “You should absolutely be able to compromise on things that accomplish the purpose. Our objection to those things is that they interfere with people’s rights without doing anything to solve the problem.”

Hard to convince a guy whose fortunes depend on accelerating gun sales that sensibly restricting access to his product is the solution to firearms abuse.