Buddhists stole my clarinet... and I'm still as mad as Hell about it! How did a small-town boy from the Midwest come to such an end? And what's he doing in Rhode Island by way of Chicago, Pittsburgh, and New York? Well, first of all, it's not the end YET! Come back regularly to find out. (Plant your "flag" at the bottom of the page, and leave a comment. Claim a piece of Rhode Island!) My final epitaph? "I've calmed down now."

Monday, July 27, 2009

Arm the Senate!

Isn't it time to dismantle the metal detectors, send the guards at the doors away and allow Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights by being free to carry their firearms into the nation's Capitol?

I've been studying the deep thoughts of senators who regularly express their undying loyalty to the National Rifle Association, and I have decided that they should practice what they preach. They tell us that the best defense against crime is an armed citizenry and that laws restricting guns do nothing to stop violence.

If they believe that, why don't they live by it?

Why would freedom-loving lawmakers want to hide behind guards and metal detectors? Shouldn't NRA members be outraged that Second Amendment rights mean nothing in the very seat of our democracy?

Congress seems to think that gun restrictions are for wimps. It voted this year to allow people to bring their weapons into national parks, and pro-gun legislators have pushed for the right to carry in taverns, colleges and workplaces. Shouldn't Congress set an example in its own workplace?

So why not let Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) pack the weapon of his choice on the Senate floor? Thune is the author of an amendment that would have allowed gun owners who had valid permits to carry concealed weapons into any state, even states with more restrictive gun laws. The amendment got 58 votes last week, two short of the 60 it needed to pass.

Judging by what Thune said in defense of his amendment, he'd clearly feel safer if everyone in the Capitol could carry a gun.

"Law-abiding individuals have the right to self-defense, especially because the Supreme Court has consistently found that police have no constitutional obligation to protect individuals from other individuals," he said. I guess that Thune doesn't think those guards and the Capitol Police have any obligation to protect him.

He went on: "The benefits of conceal and carry extend to more than just the individuals who actually carry the firearms. Since criminals are unable to tell who is and who is not carrying a firearm just by looking at a potential victim, they are less likely to commit a crime when they fear they may come in direct contact with an individual who is armed."

In other words, keeping guns out of the Capitol makes all our elected officials far less safe. If just a few senators had weapons, the criminals wouldn't know which ones were armed, and all senators would be safer, right? Isn't that better than highly intrusive gun control -- i.e., keeping people with guns out of the Capitol in the first place?

"Additionally," Thune said helpfully, "research shows that when unrestricted conceal and carry laws are passed, not only does it benefit those who are armed, but it also benefits others around them such as children."

This is a fantastic opportunity. Arming all our legislators would make it safer for children, so senators could feel much more secure bringing their kids into the Capitol. This would promote family values and might even reduce the number of highly publicized extramarital affairs.

During the debate, Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) quoted a constituent who told him: "When my family and I go out at night, it makes me feel safer just knowing I am able to have my concealed weapon."

Why shouldn't Vitter feel equally safe in the Capitol? Why should he have to go out on the streets to carry a gun?

The pro-gun folks love their studies. Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) offered this one: "A study for the Department of Justice found 40 percent of felons had not committed certain crimes because they feared the potential victims would be armed."

That doesn't tell us much about the other 60 percent, but what the heck? If it's good enough for Barrasso, let the good senator introduce the amendment to allow concealed carry in the Capitol.

Barrasso already dislikes the District of Columbia's tough restrictions on weapons. "The gun laws in the District outlaw law-abiding citizens from self-defense," he complained. So go for it, Senator! Make our nation's Capitol an island of firearms liberty in a sea of oppression.

Don't think this column is offered lightly. I want these guys to put up or shut up. If the NRA's servants in Congress don't take their arguments seriously enough to apply them to their own lives, maybe the rest of us should do more to stop them from imposing their nonsense on our country.

ejdionne@washpost.com

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, May 14, 2009

Democrats who want 30 percent credit card rates

I've been posting some stories on the Senate defeating the cap on credit card rates at 15%, a very fair rate in these times, or any. They want it to stay at a usurous 30%, a rate which, in times previous to Reagan's usherance in of deregulation, may have been illegal if not usurous. These were rates that were once only found with loan sharks, and street corner thugs who kept families in debt to them, calling favors for those debts. It's right out of The Dead End Kids.

Now, these Senators are protecting their states where Credit Card companies and banks operate without supervision, free to do as they please. Those states are Delaware, South Dakota, and Connecticut. among others.

Thanks you (tongue in cheek) Senators Chris Dodd, John Thune, Tim Johnson (South Dakota), Tom Carper, Ted Kaufmand (Delaware) and lone Democratic Rep Stephanie Herseth Sandlin of South Dakota for joining the Republicans to soundly defeat such a bill that would actually help the consumer. It is now clear who represents the banks.

Perhaps, as I note those states looking for help from the rest of us - such as Delaware wishing for money to aid its film industry - it is up to the rest of us to call our Senators and Representatives to let them know we are watching their votes on such bills to see if there is some sort of line that says "We're for the consumer, not the banks, who already make so much on our backs."

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

S.D. senators wary of credit card reform plan

May 14, 2009

LEDYARD KING
Argus Leader Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON - Both of South Dakota's senators are expected to vote against a sweeping credit card reform bill unless significant changes are made to protect industry jobs in the state.

Democrat Tim Johnson and Republican John Thune told reporters Wednesday they've been talking with Senate banking committee leaders about the need to ensure that the roughly 20,000 workers in South Dakota tied to the industry don't lose their jobs.

"I'm hopeful that there will be language that protects South Dakota jobs," Johnson said. "This is a bipartisan bill, so the possibility of blocking this is not great."


Johnson and Thune sided with 58 other senators Wednesday in a procedural vote against an amendment to cap interest rates on credit cards at 15 percent.

The Senate bill is considered to have stronger protections for consumers than legislation that passed the House last month and than Federal Reserve regulations that would take effect July 1, 2010.


It would give consumers 45 days' notice before rate increases and allow them to pay by phone without additional fees. It would prohibit rate increases in the first year after an account is opened, prohibit interest charges on paid-off balances from billing in the previous cycle and protect young people from aggressive solicitations.

President Obama strongly supports credit card reform and wants legislation on his desk by Memorial Day weekend.

Thune, Johnson and Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, the lone Democrat to vote against a House credit card reform bill last month, say the Federal Reserve rules should be given a chance to take effect because they were crafted after years of careful study and treat both lenders and borrowers fairly.


Thune said the plan in Congress is "swinging the pendulum too far in one direction. It will put a lot of jobs in South Dakota in jeopardy if it passes in its current form. We're trying to work with the sponsors of the bill to see if we can get some of those issues addressed."

The three members of South Dakota's delegation also say the Senate and House versions would penalize responsible consumers and restrict access to credit at a time when America's struggling economy needs a boost.


Contributing: Nicole Gaudiano, Gannett Washington Bureau. Contact Ledyard King at lking@ gannett.com.

Labels: , , , , , , ,