JustOneMinute

Reality Overtakes The Times

Only a few days ago acting CIA chief Mike Morell broke a bit of news on enhanced interrogation, taking a different view than the party line espoused by Sen. Diane Feinstein.

In their reporting back then, the Times pretended the boat was not rocking. Now, however, the Senators are squawking and trying to get the CIA back on board. From the AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Lawmakers accused the CIA of misleading the makers of the Osama bin Laden raid film "Zero Dark Thirty" by allegedly telling them that harsh interrogation methods helped track down the terrorist mastermind.

...

A Senate Intelligence Committee investigation into the CIA's detainee program found that such methods produced no useful intelligence.

The CIA's acting director, Michael Morell, recently contradicted that finding. In a statement last month to employees, he said that while the film was wrong to depict harsh techniques as key to finding bin Laden, those interrogations did produce some useful intelligence.

"Some came from detainees subjected to enhanced techniques, but there were many other sources as well," Morell said.

In a letter to the CIA this week, Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., John McCain, R-Ariz., and others asked Morell to back up his claim and to share documents showing what the filmmakers were told.

It will be interesting to see this cleared up. Or hushed up. I think the CIA has an institutional bias towards justifying its past behavior. On the other side, Ms. Feinstein et al knew their answers about the efficacy of enhanced interrogation before they began their investigation. As to the truth, who will know?

 

Kevin Drum On Lead And Crime

Kevin Drum wrote himself onto the cover of Mother Jones with an article about the link between environmental lead and crime, and what we ought to do about it. Some of it is not news - the NY Times and the WaPo noted some of the key articles back in 2007 while bashing Rudy Giuliani for taking unwarranted credit for the drop in crime in New York City. (Instapundit readers and longtimers here surely remember.)

That said, the intellectual ball has advanced and Kevin has interesting points about both abatement possibilities (lead dust doesn't just walk away) and the non-embrace of this theory amongst the criminologist community.

However, on that latter point this struck me as strangely unreflective:

My own sense is that interest groups probably play a crucial role [in ignoring the lead-crime connection]: Political conservatives want to blame the social upheaval of the '60s for the rise in crime that followed. Police unions have reasons for crediting its decline to an increase in the number of cops. Prison guards like the idea that increased incarceration is the answer. Drug warriors want the story to be about drug policy. If the actual answer turns out to be lead poisoning, they all lose a big pillar of support for their pet issue. And while lead abatement could be big business for contractors and builders, for some reason their trade groups have never taken it seriously.

Hmm. And why have liberals progressives, the people of science, not been trumpeting these discoveries? A plausible intrepretation of these results is that America has a generation of lead-poisoned, brain-damaged urban blacks who are old enough to be less violent but still afflicted with reduced IQ and reduced impulse control. Is that where MSNBC wants to go? Is there a prominent Democrat who wants to stand up and tell us that one of the pillars of the Democratic Party is disproportionately brain-damaged, through no fault of their own?  I don't think so.

And heaven help any Republican who suggests we need to spend billions getting the lead out of our inner cities so we can stop damaging the brains of the urban poor. Science notwithstanding, it sounds racist. Maybe Mayor Bloomberg could have pulled it off, but he is leaving.

Kevin does waltz near to this problem in noting the reasons for a lack of public discussion:

One of them was put bluntly by Herbert Needleman, one of the pioneers of research into the effect of lead on behavior. A few years ago, a reporter from the Baltimore City Paper asked him why so little progress had been made recently on combating the lead-poisoning problem. "Number one," he said without hesitation, "it's a black problem." But it turns out that this is an outdated idea. Although it's true that lead poisoning affects low-income neighborhoods disproportionately, it affects plenty of middle-class and rich neighborhoods as well. "It's not just a poor-inner-city-kid problem anymore," Nevin says. "I know people who have moved into gentrified neighborhoods and immediately renovate everything. And they create huge hazards for their kids."

Based on a quick word search of his article that is the only mention of "black" or "African-American". No profiles in courage here.

It will be hard to come up with the money to fix this without an explanation of why we need it, and that explanation is fraught with PC peril.

ERRATA: Let me quote the Times from 2007:

No matter how suggestive the economists’ data, it takes a doctor to show that some of the people most damaged by lead are out there breaking the law. Herbert Needleman, the University of Pittsburgh psychiatrist and pediatrician whose work helped persuade the government to ban lead in the 1970s, recently studied a sample of juvenile delinquents in Pittsburgh; the group had significantly more lead in their bones than their peers.

And here is a paper by Rick Nevin, who had this idea early.

AS WE AWAIT THE RESPONSIBLE DISCUSSION: Obama's former minister Jeremiah Wright backed the notion that the US was behind the AIDS virus; Michelle Obama encouraged black patients to distrust pharmaceutical companies. What will these two make of the white-led conspiracy to poison blacks by way of leaded gasoline?

FURTHERING FANNING THE RACIAL FLAMES: Just how will the notion of poisoned blacks track alongside the logic of affirmative action? If urban blacks are disproportionately IQ impaired, just what is the right target representation in colleges, police departments, fire departments and so on?

I see an incredibly awkward and divisive national conversation, I am not surprised we have ducked it, and I won't be surprised if we continue to duck it.

Social Security Denialism

Dean Baker contributes to the progressive oeuvre to be filed under "Social Security Denialism", assuring like-minded NY Times readers that there is no Social Security crisis, there will be no crisis, there never was a crisis, and all this talk of a crisis is merely a Republican scheme to oppress the oppressed.

Do tell. Back in reality, Social Security is contributing to the growth of our publicly held national debt and is projected to do so for the foreseeable future, so yes, if we have a long term debt problem Social Security is part of it.

Over to Dean Baker:

Millions of people are rightly outraged to hear that Social Security is in the gun-sights of both Speaker Boehner and President Obama in their budget negotiations. There is no reason that our political leaders should be discussing cuts to the country’s most successful social program.

We will come to the reasons soon enough. Dean Baker segues to a discussion about the transient nature of our current recession-induced deficits and admits that even the Evil Bush Tax Cuts didn't permanently scuttle out fiscal ship:

The budget deficit was just 1.2 percent of gross domestic product in 2007. Before the collapse of the housing bubble the deficit was projected to remain low for the next decade and the debt-to-G.D.P. ratio was actually falling. This would have been the case even if the Bush tax cuts were allowed to continue.

I am not finding the conclusion about the Bush tax cuts in the CBO link he provides but I welcome assistance in support of my own fantasies.

In any case, Dean Baker enters into Social Security Denialism here:

Record low interest rates on government bonds demonstrate that the current deficits are not a real problem. But even if they were, it is difficult to see how cutting Social Security could to be part of the solution. Under the law Social Security is not supposed to be part of the budget. It is an entirely separate program financed on its own.

This is not just a rhetorical point. We can talk about Social Security facing a financing shortfall in the future precisely because it is solely financed by its own revenue stream.

That is not just a rhetorical point and it is not just a factual point either. Due in part to the stimulative cut in the payroll tax (which I supported), Social Security ran deficits in 2010 and 2011. Looking forward, even with the payroll tax restored Social Security is projected to run a primary deficit (benefits paid exceeding taxes collected) for the foreseeable future. Let's hear from the Social Security trustees:

Social Security’s expenditures exceeded non-interest income in 2010 and 2011, the first such occurrences since 1983, and the Trustees estimate that these expenditures will remain greater than non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period. The deficit of non-interest income relative to expenditures was about $49 billion in 2010 and $45 billion in 2011, and the Trustees project that it will average about $66 billion between 2012 and 2018 before rising steeply as the economy slows after the recovery is complete and the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers.

But what about the Social Security Trust Fund? What indeed? Accountants will insist that as the Trust Fund collects interest and redeems principal (accumulated in prior years when tax receipts exceeded benefits paid) the program remains in balance. Economists will note that transferring money from the Treasury is only an accounting device; to make such a transfer either the Treasury issues new debt to the public or it collects more taxes or it de-funds other programs. Let's hear from the CBO (p. 140):

Excluding interest, surpluses for Social Security become deficits of $45 billion in 2011 and $547 billion over the 2012–2021 period.

Or we can turn to Alice Rivlin, also writing in the Times:

Social Security currently adds to debt, because it pays out more benefits than it receives in taxes. While it accumulated credits when the higher ratio of workers to retirees was bringing in excess funds, Treasury has to borrow to redeem these credits.

This is simply not controversial. Even the NY Times admitted that there was less to the Trust Fund than met the eye during the Social Security scuffle of 2005:

...The truth, Mr. Holtz-Eakin [then director of the Congressional Budget Office] said, is somewhere in between. The trust fund is more than an empty promise, he said, and less than a solemn obligation backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.

A main reason for the confusion is that from the creation of Social Security, politicians have used the trust fund to mask several realities.

...Once benefits exceed annual tax revenues, the government will have to increase taxes, cut spending elsewhere or issue more bonds if it decides to pay full Social Security benefits.

But trust fund or no trust fund, bonds or no bonds, Social Security is only one program with a claim on the federal budget.

There will be highways to build and, perhaps, wars to fight. There will be expenses for education and health care and many other government activities. And there will be citizens - voters - who do not want their taxes to be raised.

Maybe because of the trust fund, the politicians will decide that Social Security has the strongest claim.

But if so, that will be a political decision, not a legal one.

And if Congress and an Administration decide not to "honor" the Trust Fund, there is no need to default on the Trust Fund obligations - they will simply legislate a new, lower level of benefits that restores the program to balance. No defaults necessary, despite wishful thinking and handwringing from the usual suspects.

As to the notion that Republicans invented this crisis, well, those of us with a bit of a memory will recall that Bill Clinton was warning of the eventual doom of Social Security and exhorting the nation to Save Social Security First rather than submit to the siren song of Republican tax cuts. The Big Dog, 1999:

So, with our budget surplus growing, our economy expanding, our confidence rising, now is the moment for this generation to meet our historic responsibility to the 21st century.

Our fiscal discipline gives us an unsurpassed opportunity to address a remarkable new challenge, the aging of America. With the number of elderly Americans set to double by 2030, the baby boom will become a senior boom.

So first and above all, we must save Social Security for the 21st century.

Early in this century, being old meant being poor. When President [Franklin D.] Roosevelt created Social Security, thousands wrote to thank him for eliminating what one woman called "the stark terror of penniless, helpless old age." Even today, without Social Security, half our nation's elderly would be forced into poverty.

Today, Social Security is strong, but by 2013, payroll taxes will no longer be sufficient to cover monthly payments. By 2032, the trust fund will be exhausted and Social Security will be unable to pay the full benefits older Americans have been promised.

The best way to keep Social Security a rock solid guarantee is not to make drastic cuts in benefits; not to raise payroll tax rates; not to drain resources from Social Security in the name of saving it. Instead, I propose that we make the historic decision to invest the surplus to save Social Security.

In other words, supplement Social Security out of general revenue. It was a plausible suggestion, and it is exactly what we are doing now in an economic sense if not a Trust Fund accounting sense.

But there is a lot of denial out there.

 

Red States Versus Blue States In The New Tax Deal (Blue Seems To Win)

The new tax deal raises rates for couples earning more than $450,000 but... it also begins the phase-out of various deductions at $250,000.

One might think that deductions are more valuable (and hence, the phase-out would hit harder) in the Blue States with high state, local taxes and property. But, as the NY Times explains, its complicated since at that income level the Alternative Minimum Tax can come into play as well.

The net effect, per the example they found an expert willing to climb a limb - for couples grossing just under the new $450,000 threshold the new deal apparently hits harder in Texas than in New York. Go, Obama and Boo, Boehner.

We thank, and the Times cites, Mark Luscombe, principal analyst with CCH, a tax information provider [link]. From the Times story comes this explanation of the chart above:

Much will depend on your own situation. CCH ran two hypothetical cases for me, which you can see in the accompanying graphic. The first examined a family of four in New York with $400,000 in adjusted gross income and $79,000 in total itemized deductions. The household pays the A.M.T. in both 2012 and under the new tax rules in 2013. They pay just $790 more in 2013, but that includes $1,350 in new Medicare taxes. (The total does not include the Social Security payroll tax that has been restored to its prerecession level.)

A family in Texas, however, might have the same income but lower property taxes and no income tax and thus lower deductions for its federal tax return. Their deductions are just $43,700, but they end up being hurt more by the new rules. They would have no A.M.T. liability in 2013 and would end up paying $3,852 more, or about $2,500 if you don’t count the $1,350 from the new Medicare tax.

Wow - setting aside the new ObamaCare tax, the New York family pays less under this new "soak the rich" reform.

Until They Repeal The Law Of Unintended Consequences...

From Reuters:

Gun checks soar 39 percent, set new record: FBI

December broke the record set in November, the month of Obama's re-election. Christmas always spurs sales but the renewed talk of legislation lit the fire.

ObamaCare - The War On Marriage Continues

The IRS has finally issued rules for the affordable implementation of ObamaCare. Sparking controversy is this:

WASHINGTON — In a long-awaited interpretation of the new health care law, the Obama administration said Monday that employers must offer health insurance to employees and their children, but will not be subject to any penalties if family coverage is unaffordable to workers.

...

The new rules, to be published in the Federal Register, create a strong incentive for employers to put money into insurance for their employees rather than dependents. It is unclear whether the spouse and children of an employee will be able to obtain federal subsidies to help them buy coverage — separate from the employee — through insurance exchanges being established in every state. The administration explicitly reserved judgment on that question, which could affect millions of people in families with low and moderate incomes.

Many employers provide family coverage to full-time employees, but many do not. Family coverage is much more expensive, and the employee’s share of the premium is typically much larger.

This was kicked around last summer (and details of the new rules are here and here.)

The gist is that employers are not obliged to weigh a worker's family status in deciding his total compensation, which makes sense - because the family insurance can cost an extra $10,000 per year, an employer would have a strong incentive to avoid family guys and gals when hiring for lower paying jobs.

Unfortunately, this means that a stay-at-home spouse becomes a tremendous financial burden due to lost federal subsidies; the employed partner's income can make the couple ineligible for Medicaid but the federal subsidy for health insurance may not be available either. Better never to marry - its the worst that could happen from a financial planning perspective, despite plenty of social science suggesting it has other benefits.

Well, we see through this game - Team Obama will eventually announce an interpretation of the rules such that families are eligible for the federal subsidies even if the employed partner is being offered affordable individual insurance. Delaying the announcement of that "unexpected" expense as long as possible is just part of the current budget imbroglio.

Remember - we had to pass the bill to see what was in it.

NO TIME LIKE THE FUTURE FOR BAD NEWS:

From Via Meadia:

So: will the new law bust government budgets, crush business under unaffordable costs or make health insurance prohibitively expensive for millions of working families? The wording of the law seems unclear on this point, and the Obama administration doesn’t want to give an answer. The new regulations seem to suggest that the administration realizes that business can’t pay these costs; at a time of fiscal cliff negotiations and massive public anxiety about deficits it doesn’t want to point to the potential new costs its cherished health care law could impose on the government. It is therefore waiting until a more opportune moment to take on the question of how the American health insurance system is going to work.

We still don’t know what kind of a health care system Congress created back in 2010. We still don’t know whether it will work or how much it will cost — and who will pay how much of the bill. The Affordable Care Act is not a solution to America’s health care problems.

ObamaCare - one more headwind for the US economy, which already has to contend with the frequent Washington cliff dives.

Happy New Year

In the latest installment of The Perils of Pauline our heroes avoid the fiscal cliff... for now.

Obama got higher taxes on "the rich" in part by moving his difinition of "the rich" from $250,000 to $450,000. Republicans also got concessions on dividends and the estate tax.

But the current bill punted the question of spending cuts so a new Congress can calmly take it up in the shadow of a debt ceiling fight. Ezra Klein is interesting on this point - Republican leaders are selling this deal as tax hikes today and spending cuts to follow; Obama is now selling it as a tax hike down payment, with more tax hikes to come along with any spending cuts. Both sides can't be right.

That’s really why Obama’s comments posed a threat to a deal. The GOP’s congressional leaders want to tell their members that if they just vote for this modest tax increase now, then they can move onto the debt ceiling, where their enhanced leverage will let them force a deal that’s all spending cuts. Obama, in effect, said that’s not true. He said if Republicans raise taxes now, he’s going to pocket that tax increase and demand tax increases in the next deal, too.

Obama likely needed to say that. Republicans have had so much trouble wrangling their members in recent years that we forget that congressional Democrats can stage revolts, too. Earlier Monday, it seemed plausible that angry Senate Democrats would oppose the McConnell-Biden deal. Obama’s public explanation of his strategy was meant to persuade them that he really means it when he says he won’t permit further spending cuts without more revenues. By committing to that principle in front of the cameras, he made it much likelier that he’d stick to it in future negotiations.

But Obama’s remarks exposed the inconvenient truth that the two sides are selling the deal to their members by making mutually exclusive arguments about what will happen next.

Part of the problem is that Obama just is not very good at these negotiations, which is odd for a guy whose resume suggests he might actually be a watchable talk show host or effective group facilitator. Taking a victory lap before the deal was signed was arrogant and foolish. Or (dare we say it?) Obamian.

SO WHO IS HAPPY? Liberals Progressives are lining window ledges, and I think Paul Krugman is right about this:

OK, now for the really bad news. Anyone looking at these negotiations, especially given Obama’s previous behavior, can’t help but reach one main conclusion: whenever the president says that there’s an issue on which he absolutely, positively won’t give ground, you can count on him, you know, giving way — and soon, too. The idea that you should only make promises and threats you intend to make good on doesn’t seem to be one that this particular president can grasp.

And that means that Republicans will go right from this negotiation into the debt ceiling in the firm belief that Obama can be rolled.

At that point he can redeem himself by holding firm — but because the Republicans don’t think he will, they will play tough, almost surely forcing him to actually hit the ceiling with all the costs that entails. And look, if I were a Republican I would also be betting that he’ll cave.

So Obama has set himself and the nation up for a much uglier confrontation than we would have had if he had set a negotiating position and held to it.

 And somewhere in here we need to find time in January for the Biden effort on gun control to be met with derision and disdain.

Bill Ayers/Bernardine Dohrn Wanna-Bes Busted

The NY Post provides a classic tale from the not-so-mean streets of NYC:

The privileged daughter of a prominent city doctor, and her boyfriend — a Harvard grad and Occupy Wall Street activist — have been busted for allegedly having a cache of weapons and a bombmaking explosive in their Greenwich Village apartment.

Morgan Gliedman — who is nine-months pregnant — and her baby daddy, Aaron Greene, 31, also had instructions on making bombs, including a stack of papers with a cover sheet titled, “The Terrorist Encyclopedia,’’ sources told The Post yesterday.

People who know Greene say his political views are “extreme,” the sources said.

His views are "extreme"? Does anyone out there care to bet his views are extremely conservative? I don't see any hands...

Cops found the stash in the couple’s West Ninth Street home Saturday when they went there to look for Gliedman, 27, who was wanted for alleged credit-card theft.

A detective discovered a plastic container with seven grams of a white chemical powder called HMTD, which is so powerful, cops evacuated several nearby buildings.

Police also found a flare launcher, which is a commercial replica of a grenade launcher; a modified 12 gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun; ammo; and nine high-capacity rifle magazines, the sources said.

Cops also allegedly uncovered papers about creating homemade booby traps, improvised submachine guns, and various handwritten notebooks containing chemical formulas.

Hmm, high capacity rifle magazines but no rifle. Que pasa?

Since this is New York City I can predict the lessons Mayor Bloomberg and the NY Times will take from this:

1. We need stricter gun laws.

2. Darn that violent, deranged Tea Party and those angry white men.

3. Drat that crazy NRA.

Other libs will also bemoan evil 1 percenters such as these.

Gliedman, who grew up on Park Avenue, graduated from Dalton in 2002. Her dad, Dr. Paul Gliedman, is director of radiation oncology at Beth Israel Hospital, Brooklyn Division.

Greene is a cipher:

Greene attended Harvard as an undergraduate and did his graduate work at the university’s Kennedy School of Government.

He has five prior run-ins with the police, with the charges including, assault, and weapons possession, sources said.

The Atlantic wonders whether anyone actually used the phrase "baby daddy" in describing Greene; I am wondering about the racial disparities of crime and 'stop and frisk' in New York, and the odds of a whitebread Harvard kid having assault and weapons charges on his record. Well, the whole scenario defies the odds anyway.

Leaving Immigration To The Real Estate Developers

The Times describes a new twist on a long-dormant scheme held over from Bush I: foreign investors who put up $500,000 in a jobs-creating venture in the US skip to the head of the line for green cards:

JAY PEAK, Vt. — At this remote outpost by the Canadian border, Bill Stenger is overseeing what he says is the biggest economic development project that Vermont has ever seen.

He is expanding the Jay Peak ski resort, which he co-owns, but he is also building a biomedical research firm and a window manufacturing plant, extending the runway at the local airport and rehabilitating much of the nearby town of Newport, where he lives. There, he is developing the waterfront, adding the town’s first hotel and a conference center and rebuilding an entire downtown block. He is also creating what he says is the largest indoor mountain bike park in the world and a state-of-the art tennis center.

The price tag for the entire project, which Mr. Stenger says will create 10,000 direct and indirect jobs over several years, is $865 million.

I know what you are thinking. OK, actually, I know what I was thinking - who in their right mind would back this white elephant which is many, many hours from anywhere?

But even more unusual than the size of the undertaking is the method by which Mr. Stenger and his business partner, Ariel Quiros, are financing it. They have tapped into a federal program that gives green cards, or permanent residency, to foreigners who invest at least $500,000 in an American business — the reward for the investment is a chance at United States citizenship.

Mr. Stenger has already attracted 550 foreign investors from 60 countries to put up $275 million for the first phase: a hotel here at the Jay Peak ski complex, an indoor water park the size of a football field, an ice hockey arena, condominiums, restaurants and stores.

The second and third phases, now under way, require 1,000 additional foreign investors to put up $500 million to overhaul Newport and to develop the nearby Burke Mountain ski area.

Mr. Stenger and Mr. Quiros are putting up $90 million themselves. But even at $785 million, this is one of the single biggest projects in the country financed under the investor program.

Congress created the visa program in 1990 to help stimulate the economy. Because of a cumbersome process and complaints of fraud and corruption, it was long underused.

Obviously. with the current problems challenges facing real estate developers this is a slick way to bring in a new pool of investors who are a bit less focused on their investment return and a bit more focused on buying a new life for themselves and thier kids in the US.

I actually like the basic program, which is a plausible way to recycle foreign wealth into the US and bring talented enterpeneurs to our shores. However, the scheme being described makes me worry about the viability of the projects being financed.

If one foreigner (or a small group) bring their capital and their hard-working selves to the US to start a small business, it is their money and their effort. Even if the primary attraction was the residency it seems less likely they will start a business with no legitmate prospects.

But this real estate venture amounts to writing a check and getting a green card while an American entrepeneur builds something for which financing would otherwise be unavailable. I don't see how that ends well. And yes, the American developer has his own money in the project, but I am sure he is also collecting huge management fees, so maybe he wins either way.

So, I suggest a modification of the program - for larger investor pools limit the 'green card' involvement to, say, 50%. If investors and lenders can't be found who will back the project on a stand-alone basis, then the project won't go forward.

Feelin' Good Is Good Enough For Dianne...

We have a moment of candor from a gun control advocate quoted in the Times at the conclusion of a discussion of Joe Biden's latest attempt to ban assault weapons:

Ms. Feinstein plans to reintroduce the assault weapons bill with a more inclusive definition, banning even those with just “one or more military characteristics.” It identifies 120 guns by name whose manufacture and sale would be banned, and it would outlaw certain modifications used to bypass the last law.

Mr. Kaufman acknowledged that actually banning guns was difficult. As soon as one gun is outlawed, another pops up. But he argued that symbolism itself was important. “You send a message,” he said, “when you don’t do anything.”

They are not getting their comedy from the late Andy Kaufman; that is "former Senator Ted Kaufman of Delaware, a longtime Biden adviser who was appointed to fill out his term". And the message Dianne Feinstein and Joe Biden want to send is to their fundraisers and financial backers, who need to see their pet politicians Doing Something. Damn the polls, full speed ahead.

Krugman And Structural Deficits

Paul Krugman has yet another post explaining that conservatives and Republicans are evil and stupid. Yeah, yeah, but the gem is his graph demonstrating that deficit fears are overblown and that we needn't worry about five years of temporary trillion dollar deficits under Obama.

As a number of commenters point out in a rollicking Reader Revolt at the Times (what, the usual moderators are on holiday break?) there was, per this analysis, no structural deficit in 2007, despite the non-repeal of the dreaded Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich (and the rest of us, apparently, based on the current breathless fiscal cliff maneuverings).

But we all know that the Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich were irresponsible and that taxes must go up, up, up. Why? Move on.

 

If They Can Bust Bobby Unser They Can Bust David Gregory

Glenn links to a fine piece by Mark Steyn, who discusses David Gregrory and describes some recent examples of absurd over-criminalization that did not get a pass from law enforcement officials.

However, Mr. Steyn does not mention the bizarre story of racing legend Bobby Unser, who got lost in a snowstorm for two days while snowmobiling, was rescued, and was charged with trespassing on a Federal wilderness area. He was eventually fined $75 dollars and convicted of a misdemeanor, so he carries a modest criminal record.

If a celebrity like Bobby Unser can be busted as an inspiration to the rest of us, so can David Gregory. The Washington DC prosecutors have a wonderful opportunity to publicize their law and demonstrate that they take it seriously. And we can all imagine the outrage Mr. Gregory would muster if a prominent Republican used his influence to duck accountability for a clear criminal act.

As a matter of full disclosure, I should add that David Gregory's role in the Valerie Plame affair was complex and he has never found an opportunity to bring clarity to the part he played. He hasn't said enough about this to qualify for full "Lying Weasel" status, but I don't trust him.

FWIW, we have some follow-up on the cases Mr. Steyn did cite. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service backed down in the face of public outrage and dropped their attempt to go after eleven year old Skylar Capo, who had committed the crime of saving a (Federally protected) woodpecker from a housecat.

And Andrew K. Despres, the expelled college student who was taken down hard for wearing an ammunition belt (sans weapon) had his bail reduced from $50,000 to $500 so he is back on the mean streets and, per the local prosecutor, is the next Adam Lanza just waiting to go off. Because no college kid anywhere ever displayed an interest in guns or ammo without eventually killing twenty people.

The Despres case sounds like selective zero tolerance run amuck (he claims he wore the belt to school on other ocassions without comment or mass murder) but post-Newtown he might have wanted to show more sensitivity to the school officials' likely over-reaction.

When You Can't Even Figure Out Who Is On Your Side...

Writing at Hot Air, 'Jazz Shaw' pretends to read Megan McArdle's evisceration of proposals to institute some sort of meaningful requirement for gun-owner's liability insurance and comes away imagining she supports the idea. Maybe he was confused by her conclusion:

The legal changes needed to use insurance to make a dent in criminal possession and use--which so often go together--would be enormous, far reaching, and subject to gimlet-eyed review by appellate court.  And the very political forces that you are trying to end run would rise up and obstruct at every turn. To put it another way: if you could get support for widespread gun registration, you probably wouldn't bother thinking up ways to use insurers as substitute regulators.

Of course, proponents might say that it doesn't have to be a full solution, only a partial solution. And fair enough.  The problem is, it's not clear to me that any law which could actually be enacted would even a partial solution to gun crime.  The people who will buy insurance will, by and large, be the people who have assets and social respect to lose by breaking the law . . . which is precisely why they're quite unlikely to commit a gun crime. The people who are most likely to use the guns to a bad end will simply do without. 

Mark Kleiman thinks individual liability has flaws but maybe liability can be pushed back to the manufacturer. I read his last paragraph as skeptical even of this:

Now go back to Megan’s piece to read about all the issues that would raise. And then think about how hard it would be for anyone living in a poor African-American neighborhood to buy a gun.

Well, Jazz Shaw probaly will call that an endorsement.

Now, for the legal eagles out there - my murky memory tells me that the trial lawyers had targeted Big Guns for the same treatment as Big Tobacco, with the notion that gun manufacturers had somehow put out a defective or misleading product (guns are dangerous, even fatal?!?). However, Congress legislated that door shut in 2005.

So, if a new Congress created manufacturer's liability, could it possibly apply to guns sold while the 2005 law was in effect? And does the 2005 law protect all guns sold prior to its enactment, or could a new law create manufacturer's liability for all guns sold before 2005 and after enactment of the new law? Depending on how much grandfathering we are talking about, manufacturer's liability may not mean much in a nation with a current stock of weapons exceeding 300 million.

SINCE YOU ASK, AND SINCE I AM LOOKING AT IT: 2012 is nearly in the books and the NY Times sneak-previews 2012 crime statistics, highlighted by a decline in homicides:

Of the 414 murders, 14 deaths from previous years were counted as homicides for the first time, like in the Patz case. In many of these cases, victims of long-ago shootings died of sepsis in hospitals, the police said.

Of the 400 murders in 2012, 223 were gunshot victims, 84 victims were stabbed to death, 43 died of blunt trauma and 11 died of asphyxiation. The majority of the 400 homicides occurred on a Saturday, followed by early Sunday morning. Most occurred at 2 a.m. People were more likely to be killed outside than in. Nearly 70 percent of the victims had prior criminal arrests, the police said.

Domestic-related homicides dropped to 68, from 94 in 2011.

The likelihood of being killed by a stranger was slight. The vast majority of the homicides, Mr. Kelly said, grew out of “disputes” between a victim and killer who knew each other.

The NYPD prepares a detailed homicide report each year. Back in 2011 the most common homicides were young black men shooting each other. Some stats:

Blacks were 23% of the NYC population but 68% of the homicide victims; 38% of all victims were black males aged 16-37; 86% of black male victims aged 16-21 were shot.

On the other side, 59% of suspects were black. 83% of black suspects had a black victim.

Among all suspects, 34% were aged 16-21; 41% were aged 22-37.

And a stat I would like to know more about: 42% of suspects and 38% of victims had prior arrests for drug sales or possession.

An arrest for drug sales is probably serious. However, an arrest for possession might be total BS (e.g., a result of a stop-and-frisk that turns up nothing else) or partial BS (the cops get a 'known' bad guy for whatever they can make stick; think of it as the street equivalent of Al Capone and tax evasion).

Without more detail (and street savvy) I can't look at these NYPD reports and come away confident that "real" criminals make up a big part of the criminal and victim pools. However, their numbers point that way, which suggests some good advice for avoiding homicide - don't get caught up in the drug trade, as either a seller or buyer.

But do let me add: Mayor Bloomberg manages to leaf through these reports and come away convinced that the solution to gun violence is to impose more rules on middle-aged, middle-class gun owners in suburbia and rural America.

Man Bites Dog Advocate

The ASPCA is paying Ringling Bros. & Barnum and Bailey Circus to settle a RICO-related counterclaim by the circus act:

VIENNA, Va., Dec. 28, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- Feld Entertainment, Inc., the producer of Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey^® Circus, announced today that the company has reached a legal settlement with the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) in connection with two federal court cases. Under the settlement, ASPCA has paid Feld Entertainment $9.3 million to settle all claims related to its part in more than a decade of manufactured litigation that attempted to outlaw elephants in the company's Ringling Bros. ^® Circus.  This settlement applies only to the ASPCA.  Feld Entertainment's legal proceedings, including its claims for litigation abuse and racketeering, will continue against the remaining defendants, Humane Society of the United States, the Fund for Animals, Animal Welfare Institute, Animal Protection Institute United with Born Free USA, Tom Rider and the attorneys involved. 

"These defendants attempted to destroy our family-owned business with a hired plaintiff who made statements that the court did not believe.  Animal activists have been attacking our family, our company, and our employees for decades because they oppose animals in circuses.  This settlement is a vindication not just for the company but also for the dedicated men and women who spend their lives working and caring for all the animals with Ringling Bros. in the face of such targeted, malicious rhetoric," said Kenneth Feld , Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Feld Entertainment.

Related background here.