Kevin Drum - 2013

Gun Control Bill Is Dead

| Wed Apr. 17, 2013 7:53 AM PDT

It looks like background check legislation is dead:

The chief architects of the background check proposal, Sens. Joe Manchin III (D-W. Va.) and Patrick Toomey (R-Pa.), acknowledged Wednesday morning that they still don’t have the votes necessary to pass their amendment.

Signaling that his amendment could be near-dead, Manchin told NBC, “We will not get the votes today.”....In an interview Wednesday with the National Review, Toomey also said “As we sit here this morning, we don’t have the votes.”

Keep in mind that this was (a) a very watered-down proposal, and (b) included a whole slew of goodies for gun owners. And it still couldn't get 60 votes. And while its failure is obviously partly the fault of the filibuster rule, any bill that can only get about 55 votes in the Senate never had any chance in the House anyway.

How did this happen even though, as liberals remind us endlessly, 90 percent of the American public supports background checks? Because about 80 percent of those Americans think it sounds like a reasonable idea but don't really care much. I doubt that one single senator will suffer at the polls in 2014 for voting against Manchin-Toomey.

Gun control proposals poll decently all the time. But the plain truth is that there are only a small number of people who feel really strongly about it, and they mostly live in urban blue districts already. Outside of that, pro-gun control opinion is about an inch deep. This is a classic case where poll literalism leads you completely astray. Without measuring intensity of feeling, that 90 percent number is meaningless.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Elena Kagan Writes an Awesome Dissent

| Tue Apr. 16, 2013 10:07 PM PDT

Four years ago Laura Symczyk filed a collective action against Genesis Healthcare Corp., alleging that it broke the law by automatically deducting 30 minutes per shift for meal breaks even when employees worked during the breaks. Genesis made a $7,500 settlement offer to Symczyk personally, but admitted no liability to the rest of its workforce. It was an obvious attempt to make the case go away cheaply, and Symczyk declined the offer. Her suit then went to trial, where Genesis put up an odd defense: By allowing its offer to lapse, Genesis said, Symczyk no longer had a personal stake in the case, which was therefore moot and should be tossed out. A district court agreed, as did the Third Circuit Court. Eventually the case made its way to the Supreme Court, and today, Elena Kagan, writing in dissent, made her view plain:

That thrice-asserted view is wrong, wrong, and wrong again.... When a plaintiff rejects such an offer—however good the terms—her interest in the lawsuit remains just what it was be­fore.

....After the offer lapsed, just as before, Symczyk possessed an unsatis­fied claim, which the court could redress by awarding her damages. As long as that remained true, Symczyk’s claim was not moot, and the District Court could not send her away empty-handed. So a friendly suggestion to the Third Circuit: Rethink your mootness-by-unaccepted-offer theo­ry. And a note to all other courts of appeals: Don’t try this at home.

That's some fine opinion mongering there. But wait. Why was Kagan writing in dissent? Because the conservative majority, for hypertechnical reasons, decided that Symczyk had tacitly accepted that her claim was moot, and based its entire decision on that premise. Kagan again:

But what if that premise is bogus? The decision would turn out to be the most one-off of one-offs, explaining only what (the majority thinks) should happen [] when something that in fact never happens [] is errantly thought to have done so....Feel free to rele­gate the majority’s decision to the furthest reaches of your mind: The situation it addresses should never again arise.

Shazam! Anyone who can write a Supreme Court opinion like that is OK in my book. (Via Eugene Volokh.)

New Conservative Pet Rock is Born, Dies Before Any of You Even Got a Chance to Hear About It

| Tue Apr. 16, 2013 6:08 PM PDT

At 2 pm on Sunday I was over at a friend's house playing Settlers of Catan, a game I first heard of at 2 pm on Sunday. This obviously says something about my gaming acumen (Wikipedia informs me that 15 million copies have been sold since 1995), but at least I still have my political acumen, right?

Not so fast. About halfway through the game, another friend's iPhone alerted him to some breaking news: Democrats were blocking a resolution to honor Margaret Thatcher. "Idiots," he muttered, and I couldn't object. I'd never heard of this, even though I usually try to keep up with conservative pet rocks. We eventually joked that there must have been some fine print in the resolution ("...an inspiration to us all. Oh, and Obamacare is hereby repealed.") and continued playing. I lost.

Still, I kept wondering what was up with the Thatcher resolution. Politicians of all parties can be petty, but this really didn't sound like something Democrats would bother with. Today, I finally learned what was going on. It's a Senate thing (the House has already passed a resolution), and apparently it started making the rounds in conservative circles last Wednesday when a Heritage Foundation blog reported that "Democrats have a hold on the resolution." But The Hill reports today that it was all the result of a phrasing dispute between Mitch McConnell for Team R and Bob Menendez for Team D:

According to Democratic aides, the two senators were working together on language late last week, when Menendez made suggestions about a proposal from McConnell. These aides say Menendez was looking to remove language that could have been seen as "swipes" against other countries, and proposed those changes to McConnell.

....By late last week, there were reports that Menendez was "blocking" McConnell's resolution....But Democratic aides say they are not aware of any formal attempt to bring McConnell's language to the Senate floor, and that they thought they were still engaged in an effort to negotiate a final resolution. They also said they never heard back from McConnell's office about their suggested changes, and were "surprised" to read accounts that Menendez was blocking the resolution formally.

....As a result of the dispute, Democratic aides said that at least for now, Menendez is no longer working with McConnell on a resolution. Instead, Menendez introduced his own proposal on Tuesday, one that is longer than a resolution the House approved last week. While it does not mention the Falkland Islands dispute or nuclear weapons in Europe, Menendez's resolution does say that Thatcher "stood shoulder to shoulder with United States leaders against the Soviet Union and the threats posed by communism."

....GOP aides said that as of Tuesday, McConnell was expected to continue pressing for a vote on his proposal. That proposal does mention the Falklands Islands and U.S. weapons in Europe, while Menendez's resolution is silent on those issues. As of Tuesday, it was unclear which proposal, if any, would get a vote, or whether Senate leaders would look to find some compromise. The Menendez spokesperson said Menendez would not block McConnell's resolution if it came up now.

So I was right the first time: politicians of all parties can be petty. But only a truly in-depth investigation of this incident will reveal just which politicians are being the most petty.

As for the resolution itself, the Senate passed McConnell's version late today by unanimous consent. But I have no doubt that it will become a permanent part of conservative legend that Democrats once tried to block a resolution honoring Margaret Thatcher after she died. A hundred email chains and a thousand fundraising pitches will bloom because of this.

Yet Another Media Blackout

| Tue Apr. 16, 2013 3:24 PM PDT

Yesterday I linked to Jonathan Cohn's "The Hell of American Day Care," whose title pretty much speaks for itself. However, I didn't mention the framing device for his piece: a young mother named Kenya Mire, who was desperate to find day care for her daughter Kendyll and eventually put her in the hands of a woman named Jessica Tata. It turned out that Tata had a history of negligence, and one day left the children at her day care center alone while she went shopping. A pan of oil on a hot stove caught fire while she was gone, and the resulting blaze killed Kendyll and three other toddlers. It's a horrific story about the death of four small children and a neligent bureaucracy that allowed it to happen.

Today, Dylan Matthews interviewed Cohn about his story:

DM: How did you hear about the Tata case? How did you find Kenya Mire?

JC: I remember hearing about it when it happened. The topic was on my mind, so I followed it closely — along with some other stories like it from around the country. I was actually surprised the Houston story got so little national coverage. The local television stations were all over it. Two reporters from the Houston Chronicle did a terrific reconstruction of the day. But almost nobody outside of Texas seemed to notice.

As I learned later, the lack of national coverage was typical.

Very typical, I imagine. There was no partisan axe to grind, so nobody at the national level ever wrote a column about how the mainstream media was ignoring this grisly and obviously important case. Like a thousand other similar stories, it was a local story that stayed local. After all, poor kids get the shaft in dozens of different ways from a country that doesn't care enough to fund decent services for them. Where's the news value in that?

Quote of the Day: Excel Error Destroys the World

| Tue Apr. 16, 2013 11:08 AM PDT

From Mike Konczal, summarizing a new study that says Carmen Reinhart and Ken Rogoff made a coding error in a famous paper claiming that economic growth slows down in countries with debt levels above 90 percent of GDP:

If this error turns out to be an actual mistake Reinhart-Rogoff made, well, all I can hope is that future historians note that one of the core empirical points providing the intellectual foundation for the global move to austerity in the early 2010s was based on someone accidentally not updating a row formula in Excel.

In an update, Konczal tries to be a killjoy:

People are responding to the Excel error, and that is important to document. But from a data point of view, the exclusion of the Post-World War II [data] is particularly troublesome, as that is driving the negative results. This needs to be explained, as does the weighting, which compresses the long periods of average growth and high debt.

Yeah, yeah. The authors of the study suggest that R&R's paper has three separate problems: (a) exclusion of some high-growth/high-debt years following WWII, (b) weighting of slow-growth episodes in a dubious way, and (c) the Excel error. I assume that Reinhart and Rogoff will respond to all of this at some point.

In the meantime, though, I prefer to think of this as the Excel Error Heard Round the World.

Public Service News Update on the Boston Marathon Bombings

| Tue Apr. 16, 2013 10:19 AM PDT

A quick update on yesterday's bombings at the Boston Marathon:

Just thought you'd like to know. For more on what did happen, check out our ongoing explainer here, which is being updated regularly. In the meantime, read Bruce Schneier on how we should think about all this.

UPDATE: Dana Liebelson and Tim Murphy have a longer, more detailed version of this list here. Plus a bonus sixth report that turned out to be false!

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Immigration Reform Bill Finally Goes Public Today

| Tue Apr. 16, 2013 9:41 AM PDT

The Gang of 8 finally plans to unveil their compromise immigration reform bill today. The Washington Post provides a summary:

The measure would allow most undocumented immigrants who arrived in the country before Dec. 31, 2011, to immediately gain “registered provisional” status after paying a $500 fine and back taxes, provided they have not committed a felony or three misdemeanors.

They could then apply for permanent resident status in 10 years after paying additional fees. Three years later, they could apply for citizenship, according to the plan summary. The fastest path to full citizenship would take 13 years, according to the legislation, but it could take longer in some cases, Senate staffers said.

The bill will also require the government to implement strict new border-control measures — including up to $7 billion in new surveillance drones, fencing, border guards and workplace tracking systems — before the undocumented immigrants are granted green cards. The bill stipulates that the government must surveil 100 percent of the border and apprehend 90 percent of the people trying to enter illegally in high-risk sectors.

According to the Post, the bill includes provisions to clear the huge waiting list of foreigners who have applied for visas that would allow them to be reunited with relatives in the United States, but going forward it would cut the number of family-based visas and instead "put more emphasis on 'merit-based' work skills than on family ties."

At this point, though, I imagine the precise details don't matter too much since they'll be amended to death anyway. The real question is whether we can get anything passed at all. The fate of the almost comically weak gun bill currently working its way through Congress doesn't provide me with a lot of hope, but immigration is an issue that even a lot of Republicans would genuinely like to see addressed. So maybe Marco Rubio can give them the conservative cover they need to support a comprehensive bill. Stay tuned.

A Cheap and Easy Way to Treat Drug Overdoses

| Tue Apr. 16, 2013 9:04 AM PDT

Every year, tens of thousands of people die of prescription drug overdoses. Lynne Lyman tells me something today that I didn't know: there's a cheap, simple, and very effective way of reversing an overdose, one that's been around for more than four decades:

Naloxone (trade name: Narcan) is a low-cost, generic drug approved by the FDA in 1971....The drug is easy to administer, either as an intramuscular injection or through a nasal spray, and it has no negative side effects....It's not a narcotic and has no recreational use. You can't get addicted to it. Its only purpose is to reverse an opiate overdose, which it does by ejecting opioids from receptors in the brain, thus reversing the respiratory depression that can lead to death.

Lyman says anyone using either licit or illicit drugs should have some naloxone on hand:

People using prescription painkillers to treat chronic pain — along with those who might misuse drugs — would be taught to keep naloxone on hand and to make sure someone in the household knows how to use it. It would be a bit like people with life-threatening bee allergies carrying EpiPens, which deliver a single dose of easily administered epinephrine in case of a sting.

So what are the barriers to its routine use? The first is that most physicians aren't trained to offer it, even when they are treating people who abuse drugs or when prescribing opiates to those in severe pain....Another barrier is that naloxone is not on the state Medicaid formulary....Even some emergency personnel don't have access to naloxone.

....One way to remove barriers would be to make the drug available over the counter, something Nora Volkow, head of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, has said she supports. Last year, when the FDA held hearings on the drug, only one person spoke against that idea. But regulatory hurdles along with marketing issues must be addressed before it can happen.

Marketing issues? Right. It turns out that naloxone, being a generic drug, isn't very profitable. So nobody really feels like making it (it's frequently subject to shortages), and the two manufacturers left have jacked up the price considerably. This is from a conference report a couple of years ago:

In a world of multi-billion dollar blockbusters, naloxone is virtually an orphan drug. By 2007, only three companies — Hospira, International Medications, and Endo Pharmaceuticals — were marketing naloxone....Endo recently closed its manufacturing facility and exited the market. Hospira subsequently increased prices in a move apparently unrelated to any real increase in production, distribution, or marketing costs. For its part, International Medications phased out the production of the single-dose 1 mL of a 0.4 mg/mL solution....The decision to discontinue the production of the smaller bottle significantly raises supply costs of programs designed to equip lay responders with emergency doses of the drug.

The price increase is substantial. The Harm Reduction Coalition surveyed naloxone programs in Fall, 2008. Programs reported increases in the price of naloxone ranging from 30% to as high as 400%. On average, programs reported that the price for their naloxone supply had tripled in recent years.

I don't really have anything to add to this—aside from the fact that I'm hardly surprised by any of it. Nevertheless, I'd never heard of naloxone before reading this, so I figure lots of you probably haven't either. Price increases or not, if you or a family member takes prescription painkillers, you might want to ask your doctor about naloxone. Better safe than sorry. 

Whining About Being White About to Get New Lease on Life

| Tue Apr. 16, 2013 8:08 AM PDT

From Rand Paul, complaining to a black audience about his reception at historically black Howard University last week:

I think some think a white person is not allowed to talk about black history ... which I think is unfair.

Um, yeah. That's been a real problem for whites. Son of the South Ed Kilgore comments:

Those of us who wondered whether Paul in going to Howard was engaged in legitimate "minority outreach" or just playing to the white galleries, have a lot more reason to suspect the latter motive now that he's openly posing as a victim of racism against white folks.

....Paul seems to be peddling the highly revisionist take on civil rights history laid out last year in National Review by Kevin Williamson, which holds that Republicans alway were and always will be the party of civil rights while Democrats have consciously switched their white supremacist tactics from Jim Crow to "plantation" socialism. It's a hallucinatory approach to developments too recent and too well known to fool people about, and for that reason, it's a line of argument that tends to offend people, particularly those being told they are fools for voting Democratic.

I got an email from a reader along these same lines, basically saying that Democrats didn't so much bravely embrace civil rights in the 60s in the full knowledge that it would be electorally disastrous, but instead, cynically "started the new racism of political favoritism built upon race. Group think and group privilege. All kinds of statistics about how many of each race attain what social standing and income level." I thought of this as the Glenn Beck version of history, but maybe I was failing to give credit where it's due. I'll refer to this as the Williamson version of history from now on.

This version of racial history has been an undercurrent within the conservative movement for years, but it's never really been out and proud, so to speak. At least, I don't think it has. I wonder if the efforts of Williamson and Rand Paul are going to change that? Is this going to become a genuine thing among conservatives, once they decide that a few months of being nice to minorities and the young is quite enough, thank you very much, and they might as well give up on these malcontents? I can't wait to find out.

Who Donated $11 Million to Proposition 30?

| Mon Apr. 15, 2013 2:30 PM PDT

On the off chance that there are still a few people out there looking for something to read about other than the explosions in Boston, here's an interesting story for you. But first the backstory.

Last year, Californians voted on Proposition 30, a ballot initiative to raise taxes. (It passed.) As you'd expect, Prop 30 attracted plenty of opposition within the state, but as you might not expect, it also attracted a huge amount of opposition from outside the state. In particular, an organization called Americans for Responsible Leadership donated a stunning $11 million to oppose both Prop 30 and Prop 32 (a union busting initiative). But who was behind ARL? Therein hangs a story. Here is Andy Kroll writing on the day before the November elections:

Americans for Responsible Leadership, the Arizona nonprofit that made the $11 million donation, had refused demands by California's Fair Political Practices Commission to name its donors. So the state watchdog sued ARL, and judges agreed that ARL needed to fess up. ARL relented Tuesday, but its response is far from satisfying: ARL's $11 million originally came from...another shadowy group called Americans for Job Security, which is run out of an office in Alexandria, Virginia. To complicate matters more, Americans for Job Security had funneled the $11 million through a third nonprofit, the Center to Protect Patient Rights, before it finally landed in ARL's coffers.

Did you get that? The money was funneled from AJS to CPPR to ARL. So when, after losing a relentless, scorched-earth court battle, ARL was finally forced to reveal the source of the money, they had the last laugh. It was just another anonymous organization. You can almost hear the smirks.

But guess what? California is still fighting to get the names of the donors. Here's Andy today:

As the probe progresses, some conservatives are nervous that more details—such as the identities of actual donors—could be publicized. "This case has got very, very deep and significant implications," says a conservative lobbyist with knowledge of the investigation. "A lot of folks are going to have their dirty laundry hung out, and it's not going to be pretty. Why would money go through such a circuitous route if not to conceal the donors?"

And the FPPC isn't done. Investigators recently issued a dozen more subpoenas to individuals and nonprofits in connection with the case, the Huffington Post reported....After initially balking, the nonprofits are now cooperating with investigators.

Read the rest for a few guesses about who's involved with this. And stay tuned for more. This could get interesting.

Advertisement