12.16.12: Today' Meet The Press Sandy Hook Elementary Special Coverage (Column Untitled)

Twenty children, ages six and seven, and 6 adults are dead.  This is the horrible reality that we're faced with at this moment, trying to find any reason in the utterly unreasonable.  It's our hearts that all rest heavier in our tightened chests that place all of us in Newtown, CT at Sandy Hook Elementary.

It is also the angry frustration in repeatedly asking the question, how many more times is this going to happen?  A large part of this frustration, articulated most clearly by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, is due to the fact that it is all too easy to obtain guns in America, specifically assault-type weapons and the large capacity magazines that go with them.  Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) called them 'weapons of war' that are on our streets.  To this point, the senator offered a news item in as much as that she will be introducing a bill on the first day of the new Congressional session that will call for the ban on assault weapons.  Of course there will be opposition to such a bill but as AFT President Randi Weingarten said, this is a tipping point for the nation and the direction of the conversation, and when presented with twenty names and ages those who oppose such a bill will have to take the temperature of their heart.

Mr. Bill Bennett, former Education Secretary, representing a conservative view certainly stood on a weak platform in defending 'pro-gun' views [The reason for the quotations is that it is a simplified descriptor and doesn't fully encompass an individual's or entity's viewpoint.], one of which proposed during the program that there should be someone in the school with access to guns in such an event.  The base flaw in this argument is that bringing more guns into the situation is the solution when really the goal is to eliminate guns from the equation.  However, being able to bring guns into more situations is happening on all levels in this country.  The President made a genuinely tearful statement on Friday about the shooting, but he has signed laws to allow guns into national parks and on Amtrak as noted by Mayor Bloomberg.  Mr. Gregory noted that when the Democrats passed the previous assault weapon legislation that they paid a political price for doing so, losing seats.  However, that was in 1994 and since then circumstances have changed dramatically over those years with more mass shootings more frequently culminating in Friday's tragedy.



But let's be clear, this event will change things.  Frankly, Republicans in the House will have a difficult time defending unregulated gun ownership in the face of these events, that are piling up.  To that point, New York Times columnist David Brooks thought that the New York City mayor would be the wrong person to spearhead firearm regulation because of the very frustration that Mr. Bloomberg shows for any other point of view, and because he would spend mass sums of money to counter the National Rifle Association's 'pro-gun' arguments, an organization that he clearly called out during his interview challenging the organization's financial resources and it's actual power versus its perceived power.  

Mr. Bennett couldn't hold up his argument to hold off the heaviness that was palpable in the studio that was evident even through a television screen.  Everyone has been psychologically effected by this and while some would say that you need to distance yourself mentally before you decide to start legislating or changing things, but that would be the wrong time.  In terms of Congress and legislating, they need to have it fresh in their minds as to why they are discussing what they are in terms of gun laws.  Mr. Bennett also said that he wasn't sure how effective the assault weapons ban was when it was passed as if to bring up a speculative air that it is unnecessary - a passive aggressive argument that was ineffective.

The other part of the equation is our overall attitude toward mental health and its treatment.  But the fact is that if you are a person who has taken medication for mental health and you put it out there for public consumption, you will be stigmatized.  It's the unfortunate fact of the matter, but we need to step up the awareness effort and bring the discussion out so if anything, this could be a big step in that process.  We've started to embrace and accept the notion a bit with the military and our soldiers coming home - the post-traumatic stress - so we are ready as a society to open up about it.

In the grieving process and dialogue, of which today's program was a part, Mr. Gregory mentioned that they reached out to the 31 'pro-gun' Senators and none would accept the invitation to speak on the program. That none of them could or would speak on the issue presumably because they are afraid of answering questions they find difficult makes us ask, why are you a public figure in the first place?  Only lead when you want and not when the situation demands?  Frankly, we find it reprehensible.  This is the time we need to hear from them, especially them to help with reconciliation.

During the program, it was mentioned that in the wake of the mass shooting in Aurora, CO the state legislature called for more education, which standing by itself is a bit flippant, but when you heard Ms. Weingarten say that they have frameworks in place for more guidance and wrap around programs, but haven't been implemented because of budget cuts predominantly initiated from the right side of the aisle, we think about what they say on the debt crisis, and that is we're failing our kids in the future.  However, aren't we failing them right now by not providing as many resources as we could? 

Lastly, one question that Mayor Bloomberg asked rhetorically is sticking with us because we can see no rational reason for the answer to be 'yes,' and that is - do we need guns everywhere?  Because tragically, they are.


Round Table:  Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA); NY Times columnist David Brooks; President of the American Federation of Teachers, Randi Weingarten; Former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge; Former Secretary of Education Bill Bennett; and Sociologist Michael Eric Dyson.

12.2.12: Political Theater

From listening to all the conversation today, it boils down to this: Republicans want entitlement reform and the Democrats want an increase on taxes (35% to 39.4%) for incomes over $250,000.  One is certainly more complicated than the other, but everyone - Mr. Geithner, Congressman Van Hollen, Senators Corker and McCaskill - seemed to think that a deal will get done.  The reason is that one has to get done.  It would be the height of irresponsibility if they didn't get a deal done especially since it was noted that the economy grew 2.7% in the 3rd quarter.  It's in everyone's best self-interest to make to make this politically theater end its run.

However, when asked about a tax rate increase on the wealthiest Americans, Senator Corker would not answer that question directly, reason being that no Republican can be seen or heard as raising tax rates, optically/politically it's goes against the Republican orthodoxy and if anyone of them said publicly they would do as much, then the party would lose any leverage it has.  Even Grover Norquist, when asked directly by David Gregory if there were going to be new tax rates, he wouldn't answer. 

He wouldn't answer because what Grover Norquist wants is unrealistic and he knows it.  Understand that the pledge that he has Republicans sign is for no tax increases of any kind and that means no closing loopholes, no increasing individual rates, no elimination of corporate tax subsidies, farmer subsidies ($23 billion a  year) and no increases on dividends or capital gains.  Given that, Senator Corker has already violated this pledge saying that his proposal closes loopholes, which isn't enough to get the job done.  And to be clear about the pledge that Republicans sign - Mr. Norquist says that it is a pledge that representatives make to the citizens of their states and constituents, and not to him or Americans for Tax Reform, the organization that he heads.  There are two basic problems with this and the first is that the pledge to the oath of office - to the country as a whole - trumps a special interest pledge.  This is something that a number of Republicans have been falling back on as their way to circumvent the signing.  The second problem is that the pledge doesn't realistically represent all of the electorate, only the conservative part of the constituency, and we're not really sure if even all those people would go along with every provision of the Norquist pledge.

So is Mr. Norquist's influence over?  His response to that was that the headlines that suggested that were last week's news, and additionally that Republicans were briefly seduced by the President and Democrats into violating the pledge, but in the end it won't happen. Mr. Norquist said that the President has unreasonable positions because he won't budge so they won't hold.  Always being in full debate mode, Mr. Norquist basically attacked the President using his own weakness, indeed it is Grover who really has the unreasonable positions that won't hold. Statements from Republican politicians lately suggest otherwise - Senator Corker is today's upfront example - and they are certainly trying to marginalize Mr. Norquist's influence in the negotiations.  That much is clear. Secretary Geithner believes that the climate in Washington has changed because Republicans realize that there has to be new revenue, thus pushing Grover Norquist to the sidelines as much as they can.  What they also push aside it should be noted are the big monied interests that fund American for Tax Reform. 

It's because of those monied interests that would prompt CNBC's Jim Cramer to say to Mr. Norquist that Republicans are afraid of his views. Mr. Cramer is more of an overt partisan toward the President and Democrats but the bottom line is still money.  Unlike his colleague, Maria Bartiromo who strikes us as socially liberal, but who is very fiscally conservative (a true New York business person) was calling for structural changes to the entitlement programs while warning that dividends and capital gains shouldn't be touched in tax reform.  Capital gains were something that Senator Corker specifically mentioned during the program as something on the table. But Ms. Bartiromo has a point that in those capital gains and dividends are 401K accounts and pensions.  However, the drastic nature of her alarm is a bit of crying wolf because an increase on capital gains, even a modest one, wouldn't adversely effect markets in the long term, perhaps for a quarter or two, but the market would adjust.

It's a banal fact that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are the biggest drives of our debt, but we disagree that structural changes are necessary, reform for sure but to structural change these programs is to eliminate these programs all together.  These are too big and complex to get done sufficiently in the next 29 days so sticking to tax reform, which is big enough, would be the right call.  There are some things that can be done around the margins such as means testing which Senator McCaskill and Secretary Geithner mentioned - something that everyone seems to think makes sense.  However, to avoid this fiscal cliff, these programs should be left until after the 1st of the year.  And despite what Mr. Norquist says about Obamacare being a big tax increase, the savings in payments to providers (the $716 billion) are real.  And as Congress Van Hollen mentioned, the focus should be on quality of care and not volume/quantity.  That's the right course but is still tricky because Tort reform would have to be part of that.  What Mr. Van Hollen is referring to is that hospitals adopt a Mayo Clinic model where doctors are paid a salary instead of paid by procedure.  The savings in that alone would be huge, by the way.

Senator Corker said that it wasn't Speaker John Boehner's political base that was holding up a deal but a willing partner on the other side, meaning the President.  Secretary Geithner said that the only thing standing in the way of a deal is a tax rate increase on the top 2% of Americans, and Jim Cramer heatedly asked Mr. Norquist if he would like to see a recession instead of said increase.  (His answer unfortunately is probably yes.) As Ms. Bartiromo stated, the time for opening salvos is over, which means that special interest representatives such as Mr. Norquist and pundits such as herself have to get out of the way if anything is going to be done.


Round Table:  Grover Norquist, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), and CNBC’s Jim Cramer and Maria Bartiromo