WMT and Photo ID (Yikes - Again?) May 27, 2011March 24, 2017 WMT Tom Cuddy: “I would never underestimate Wal-Mart’s ability to diversify, expand, and, lately, get back to basics, but I think it will be hard for them to increase their earnings by 10% [per yesterday’s rumination]. I don’t know much about the numbers; am merely using my ‘Peter Lynch’ skills in my neck of the woods here in the upstate of South Carolina. The last few years have seen a proliferation of Dollar General, Family Dollar, Freds, and other players with neighborhood stores that are easy to drop by on the way home from work without the hassle of going to a Wal-Mart super store which often means driving ten miles or so and battling the inevitable traffic associated with their store locations. You can’t swing a dead cat without hitting one of these shiny new dollar stores. They are already very well entrenched. A lot of these stores have really cleaned up their acts and are much more organized than they used to be….and they beat the pants off Wal-Mart prices. I see the new Wal-Mart commercials where they ‘match the prices’ of other stores, and I have read that they intend a foray into small stores which will emulate the dollar stores. But I’m not sure they can be so aggressive with lower prices and increase their profits anytime soon.” ☞ I’m not sure, either. And have no insight into their enormous global operations – their difficulties in South Carolina might (or might not!) be offset by opportunities elsewhere in the world. But at what multiple of earnings should shares in a well-managed company sell if that company has the likely ability, over the long run, to at least keep up with inflation (which savings accounts cannot)? The speculation I suggested yesterday – buying January 2013 $60 calls – is, no question, very risky. There’s a strikingly real chance of losing 100% of the bet. But if the market decides that the stock should command a higher multiple of earnings, it could work out. Dale McConnell: “I like your idea, and one might even sell a like number of January 2013 $45 puts to fund the call position.” ☞ Interesting-er and interesting-er . . . in a truly scary sort of way. What Dale suggests is that you sell someone the right to “put” 100 shares of Wal-Mart to you at $45, if they choose to do so. As of yesterday’s close, you would pocket about $225 for assuming this risk – and could then turn around and use that $225 to buy the aforementioned January 2013 $60 call. So the whole thing costs you nothing and – chances are – you either break even (if WMT closes between $45 and $60 on January 18, 2013) or you make money (if WMT closes above $60). But there’s always the chance WMT, currently $54 or so, will dip below $45. Which is no big deal if it’s, say, $43 that it dips to – you’d lose $200 on each 100-share contract (because you’d be required to pay $45 each for 100 shares of a $43 stock). But what if there’s a collapse in the market, or even just in WMT? Quite unlikely, but you have at least the theoretical risk of a $4,500 loss on each $225 contract. PHOTO ID Harriet E.: “Come on – people can easily get an ID if they want to function in the world and certainly to vote.” Richard Stanford: “Is showing a photo ID a large burden? No, I don’t think so. But unlike driving or getting into a nightclub, voting is a right (and a privilege). I find it quite interesting that, in general, the people trying to make it harder for poor people to vote are those arguing that checking to see whether someone is a convicted felon before selling them an assault weapon at a gun show violates their civil liberties. It gets even worse in Texas, by the way. A bill about to pass there says that if you’re born before 1932, or if you have a concealed handgun permit, you don’t need to show a photo ID. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that both of those groups (at least in Texas) historically vote heavily Republican.” Jeffrey K.: “Here in Minnesota, a state-issued ID card costs $18 and must be renewed every 4 years. For those individuals who would otherwise not have the need for a government issued ID except to vote, doesn’t this amount to a de facto poll tax? Unless I’m mistaken, this is unconstitutional per the 24th Amendment.” ☞ A “fee” may arguably be different from a tax. But either way, I keep coming back to the folks who, unlike us, don’t have Internet access to voice-google the regulations on getting photo ID; or who, unlike us, might have trouble understanding those regulations or might not have handy the two forms of identification required; or who might have trouble getting their wheelchairs onto the correct bus to get them within rolling distance of the nearest DMV office. For them, the $18 every four years could be the least of it. Alan Wenker: “Obtaining a government-issued photo ID can be a huge problem for many. My mom is elderly and no longer drives a car, we’re all safer for that, and lives in a small town in central Minnesota. To obtain an id card from the state, she would need to be driven by someone 20 miles to the town which has a motor vehicle licensing department which would issue the id card. This someone will be one of her kids who live two hours away and need to take a day off of work to accomplish this task. All that effort so my mom can vote in the same small town she has lived in her entire life and where everybody knows her by name. Minnesota has had really close state-wide elections in recent years with agonizing recounts. At the end of the day, even the losing sides admit that fraud was not part of the process. Voter id is nothing but Republican code for attempting to keep lower income people from voting. If voter fraud was evident, that would be another matter, but the facts are that there is little to no fraud. And you are right, WMT is a bargain.” ☞ Famous last words. James Musters: “To get an ID, one needs to go to the DMV. There is one in my city but not near public transportation. My friend’s daughter went, by bus, it took her 3 hours, two bus trips and a final walk. Then there is the wait. In some places I hear you can just turn up and get served in 20 minutes or so. Not here, normal wait times are up to 4 hours. I know, I have done it. Then you have to get home. Luckily, I have a car. Most people who have to go to the DMV to get ID to vote don’t have cars and driving licenses. That, dear friend, is why they have to go get photo ID. This takes a full day of work for most people in this town. I was in and out in of the DMV office in just under 5 hours. Most young people don’t go get state issued ID until they get their driving licenses. Which for the rich is when they turn 15, and for the poor without cars, when they need ID to drink at 21. Not only that, photo ID here costs $25. You should not have to pay $25 or even $1 for the right to vote. Unlike driving, which is a privilege, voting is a right, be you poor, homeless or just a non-driver. Charging $25 to vote as a poll tax. We did away with that years ago. Now it is back. Not only that, if your Birth Certificate and all the other paperwork you need to pass the REAL ID check is not up to snuff (to make sure terrorists don’t vote), you have to do it all over again. You can’t get Florida ID unless you pass the new REAL ID requirements. Getting certified copies of your birth certificate and other ID, necessary for obtaining a state ID, will cost you too.” SUMMER! Seriously: is there anything better? Have a great weekend, even as we take time Monday to remember all those who have died in service to our country.
14 Times Earnings? Well, it's not impossible May 26, 2011March 24, 2017 WMT LEAPS What if a year and a half from now Wal-Mart were earning 10% more than it is today, and the market were valuing the company at 14 times earnings instead of 11.92 times? I’m not saying any of that will happen – what the heck do I know? – but if it did, that would push last night’s $54.56 share price up to $70.48. Which would push the value of the January 2013 option (that gives you the right to buy 100 shares at $60) up to $1,048 ($70.48 minus $60 times 100) . . . compared with the $225 you would have paid for it last night. Will you in fact quadruple your money with this speculation? I do not know. Is it worth considering with a little of the money you can truly afford to lose – if you have any such money? Just might be. DELTA – AMEX Apparently, I spoke too soon. For those who’ve never transferred AMEX points to Delta miles, the deal good through the end of this month is now a 50% bonus (not 40%) and, on transfers of 50,000 or more, 25,000 Medallion Qualification Miles. Go to delta.com/getmore to register and learn more. PHOTO ID Lyn A.: “On the question of Photo ID . . . I have struggled with whether or not this requirement should be put in place. I have finally decided that showing a photo ID is not a burden. As Alvin Bluthman pointed out yesterday, everyone can get a photo ID through their state. Is it a bit of a bother? Will it take some time? Will it take a little research? You bet! But don’t we want voters who will take some time to research and understand the issues and candidates? If they can’t be bothered to get a photo ID, then maybe they aren’t really all that interested in being an informed voter after all. Oh – and on the question of how someone knows about a state photo ID, inform them when they register to vote.” ☞ Lyn asks, “But don’t we want voters who will take some time to research and understand the issues and candidates?” We do, but if we made that a requirement, I’d guess much of the electorate would be disenfranchised. I agree that if there were a fraud problem, we should make people find what bus goes closest to the DMV office – and is outfitted for their wheelchair – and then have them find someone to take care of the grandchildren they are looking after (because the parents are at work) and go wait in line at the DMV to get a government-issued photo ID. But otherwise, I’d be a small-government guy on this one. So the question is: Is voter fraud a real problem, as the Bush Administration was hell-bent to prove it was? And the answer seems to have been: nope. Not really. To which – stunningly in a world of dug-in heels – Lyn replied: “I agree. There is no real fraud problem, so I would rather we spent our energy fixing some real problems.”
ID, GLD, CVV May 25, 2011March 24, 2017 PHOTO ID Sarah Johnson: ‘Regarding Harriet E’s observation that ‘I have to show a photo ID to fly, at the library [etc.]’ and that ‘nothing’ gets shown when she votes, I have a few observations of my own. 1) Every time I have gone to vote, my signature has to match. This is not only in New York City, but was also in Minnesota, and Vermont. [In Florida, too – A.T.] A signature is a form of ID. It is still used on checks for my bank to release funds to my creditors when I write them one. The poll workers in my district certainly DO check the signatures closely. . . . 2) I don’t have to show a photo ID at the library. In order to get a library card in every town I’ve lived, I provided a piece of mail with my address to prove I live or work there and I filled out a form and signed it (the signature thing again). The library card is a convenience, not ID. There have been a couple of times I’ve forgotten my card and, because I know it by heart, I’ve given the librarian my number and that was enough. . . . If we were all provided ID equally, and for free, I wouldn’t think it was discriminatory. However, as you outlined, getting official government ID can be a big undertaking. In addition, all the proven cases of voting fraud I’ve read about have been on the side of excessively partisan poll workers who do things like dump returns from poorer (therefore more likely to be voting Democrat) districts at the local waste facility. Now THAT requires some kind of prevention!’ Alvin Bluthman: ‘You are misinformed about State photo-IDs. These are universally available through the DMV office, and because you are NOT licensed to drive (obtaining such permission today is actually an ‘add-on’ to the ID card), you need not pass driving tests of any sort. Of course, you must show up at the DMV with proof of birth (or other acceptable proof of identity), stand on line, fill out forms, and have your photo taken, but all of this is also required for a driver’s license as well.’ ☞ Exactly. If I am misinformed, imagine how many others are; how many disabled folks are; how many folks who have no easy way to get to the DMV are. If there were a need to add to their burdens and make it harder for them to vote, then I might be for it. But no need has been shown despite a concerted effort by the Bush Justice Department to find one. GOLD I hate that I own some GLD, the exchange-traded gold fund, and that it’s done so well, up more than 60%, since first suggested. As explained here a couple of weeks ago, I’d rather gold did poorly – but I’m not sure it’s seen its peak. This Wall Street Journal story about the booming demand for gold in China is one of the reasons (thanks Joey). CVV Aristides’s Chris Brown: ‘CVV did a secondary about 8% below yesterday’s close. Pricing a deal only 8% below the pre-deal price is pretty good for a company this small. I will be surprised if the stock doesn’t find a firm floor at or above $10.50; the prospect of a secondary has surely been somewhat of an overhang, and now that is done.’
Money Tips for High School Grads May 24, 2011March 24, 2017 RICH REPUBLICANS AND PHOTO ID Harriet E.: ‘I am tired of the phrase Rich Republicans. I am a registered Democrat…whoops just changed that to independent a few months back. However, all totaled up I am sure there are just as many Rich Democrats. It is not a crime to work hard and get rich. I also think that every voter in the nation should have to show a photo ID in order to vote. Nothing is checked when I vote. I just have never understood that. I have to show a photo ID to fly, at the library, now at nearly every doctor’s office or medical facility, often when I use my credit card and at other times. Certainly asking for an ID when you vote is not discriminatory. It seems logical and correct to me and possibly would limit fraud.” ☞ Rich Democrats mostly want to go back to the Clinton tax rates and protect the social safety net and see campaign finance contributions limited. Rich Republicans mostly do not. That’s the distinction I’m drawing – not that Republicans are rich and Democrats are poor. For the record, I totally agree it’s no crime to work hard and get rich! Thanks for eliciting the clarification. Photo ID, meanwhile, is just one of many ways Republicans are trying to suppress the vote in Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida, and elsewhere, as those clips I linked to yesterday suggest. I hope you might agree with me on the rest of them, if not on the photo ID requirement. But as regards that one, my own view is that we should only put up fraud-prevention obstacles if/where there is fraud to prevent. Under George W. Bush, U.S. Attorneys nationwide were instructed to find such cases but could not. The truth is, it’s not easy to get people to go vote even once. America is noted for its poor voter turn-out among legal voters. (Illegal immigrants, I should think, would be loath to risk deportation by showing up to commit a felony at a polling place filled with official-looking people, poll watchers, and police.)* If one agrees with what appears to be the factual premise that instances of voter fraud are exceedingly rare, then I think one has to look closely at the other side of this. Most Americans don’t have passports. Many don’t own cars. Of course, you don’t have to own a car to get a driver’s license. But you can’t just take half an hour to breeze into the Department of Motor Vehicles and get one. Chances are, just getting there and back via public transportation and waiting your turn in line could take half a day. And in most states, you need to pass a written test and a vision test and a driving test – which makes sense for driving, but not for voting. There may be other kinds of acceptable government-issued photo ID, but if I don’t know what they are or how to get them, I’ll bet a lot of folks without driver’s licenses or passports don’t know either. So – as fraud is not a problem – I’d rather err on the side of making it easy to register and vote. *The problem of phony registrations, by the way, is quite different. People who are paid to register new voters have a monetary incentive to invent nonexistent voters and cash for each one they do. But that in no way affects the outcome of an election. Nonexistent voters don’t vote. Bill Kistler: “Where are you on the movement to restore rights (including voting) to convicted felons who have served / fulfilled their obligations to society? I would guess the Republicans are not in favor of it. I’m not sure where I stand, but I’m sure it would be worth a discussion.” ☞ I’m for it and yes, you’re right, Republicans oppose it. It seems to me we want to rehabilitate felons and, insofar as they are interested in assuming the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, encourage that. GREAT ADVICE FOR HIGH SCHOOL GRADS From my friend Zac Bissonnette, the most widely emailed Wall Street Journal article yesterday.
Well Regulated May 23, 2011March 24, 2017 This is America: Republicans believe we should make it as difficult as possible to vote. Here in Ohio (a 39-second Rachel Maddow clip), here in Wisconsin (debunking the voter-fraud myth) – here in Florida (where “Gov. Rick Scott quietly signed a sweeping rewrite of Florida election law Thursday that will cut the number of early-voting days nearly in half”) . . . and pretty much anywhere else Republicans have won control. It’s just politics, which is to say it’s just about power, which is to say it’s mainly about money. Who gets what piece of the pie. Rich Republicans like the Kochs want Republicans elected. Republicans will appoint Justices like the ones who stopped the vote count in Florida and installed George W. Bush, who cut the tax rate on their dividends from 39.6% to 15%. Republican-appointed Justices who will decide the Citizens United case in favor of more power for the rich to influence future elections to elect more people to try to cut the minimum wage for low-income people while cutting taxes for high-income people. It’s not that Republicans like the Koch brothers have anything against the poor or struggling middle class. They just think the rich and powerful don’t have enough wealth and power. Fair enough. They’re entitled to that view. Why more than a small handful of folks agree with it, I fail to grasp. GUNS – IV Russell Bell: “The First Amendment doesn’t grant freedom of religion to well-regulated churches or freedom of speech to well-regulated debating societies but to everyone. The Second Amendment refers specifically to well-regulated militias. States ought to be required to organize militias to which any mentally-capable, non-felonious citizen can belong as long as s/he participates in well-regulation – and strictly regulate gun ownership by those who refuse to join the militia.” ☞ Yes! Yes! UPDATES Guru reports: “The cancer abstracts were out last week. AMRN’s details look really good and one analyst continues to peg fair value at $25. YMI’s abstract showed no difference from what was reported in April. More details will be available at the meeting in June, but their agent continues to look as good as INCY’s with a better adverse event profile – and it corrects anemia, something INCY causes. This anemia effect is the big differentiator and it is holding up. Stay the course. We got the data we were looking for on SUPG. They can make a case to have Dacogen become the first approved drug to treat elderly patients with AML (acute myelogenous leukemia). Dacogen is already approved to treat MDS (myelodysplastic syndrome) and it was approved on response rate. However, there is risk to getting the survival claim because the benefit was seen in the second, not the first, analysis, although the median survival difference is the same in both cases. We’ll see. There will be a panel meeting sometime later this year I’m sure. Europeans are likely to be more favorable towards this type of analysis than the US.
Well Regulated? Well, Regulate It! May 20, 2011March 24, 2017 NEWS FLASH The world will not end Saturday. GUNS – III Bill G. (not Gates or Gross, another one): “I do not own a gun. I have shot them. I understand their power and danger. I live in an urban area and would not have one in my house because of my children and because I believe that if it were known that I had firearms in my house, I would probably be a greater rather than a lesser target for a break-in. I am politically way left of center. All that being said, I pretty much agree with the NRA. The fact that most anti-gun people overlook is that the right to bear arms is constitutional. We can argue about the ambiguity of the Second Amendment, but that has pretty much been settled. Guns are different than tobacco because we have a constitutional right to keep and bear them. We need to look beyond guns and address the real social problems that lead to urban violence. As a practical matter, I really do not believe that the passage of additional restrictions will make any difference. Gang members and other criminals will continue to get illegal guns and will continue to use them illegally. They should be fully prosecuted for the crimes they commit. We do not need other laws or restrictions on people who wish to lawfully exercise their constitutional rights. The Second Amendment should not be eroded just as the first and fourth should not. There is no hierarchy in the bill of rights.” ☞ But does that mean you’d be okay with no limits, licensing, or safety requirements? Even for children? Ex-cons? The mentally ill? How about surface-to-air missiles? Okay to bring them to the visitors’ gallery at the Capitol? If any limits are acceptable, then it seems to me it’s a matter of finding a sensible balance. Which may be different in Pittsburgh from what it would be in Wyoming. And I disagree that the Constitutional question is settled. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” To me, that says it’s about the Militia necessary to keep us secure. Well, we now have a gigantic professional militia, on land, sea, and air, employed and well-armed to keep us secure. I also note the phrase “well regulated.” So can we at least regulate it a little? (The First Amendment notwithstanding, we regulate the right to assembly when public safety is threatened. We require a permit to demonstrate in public spaces. The fire marshal can restrict assembly when overcrowding threatens safety. We restrict speech when public safety is at risk – the right to yell “fire” in a theater. Heck, the quiet car of the Acela has not been ruled unconstitutional. I think it’s hard to argue that assault weapons don’t threaten public safety in Homewood.) ANOTHER 100 PEOPLE JUST GOT ONTO THE TRAIN And only three of them had 4G? Bob Fyfe: “I watched the 3-minute clip about the 100 people on Earth. It stated that only three people have Internet access. I believe that worldwide Internet usage is greater than 25%. This website puts the figure at 28.8%. I’m not sure why there is such a disparity but that’s a pretty sizeable difference. I was also surprised that they listed the number of hungry or malnourished people at twelve. I thought that closer to a third of the world was hungry or starving.” ☞ I found those same things odd. I figured that, for the first, maybe they meant a fast broadband connection in an individual’s home. And on the second, that they must have meant really dangerously hungry. But I share your hunch that numbers are either wrong or misleading.
Column 3762 May 19, 2011March 24, 2017 EIGER Hard to believe I am even of the same species as this guy. (Thanks, George.) And as heart-palpitating as it is to watch, the thought of how he would get down from there, if it’s not via the aircraft filming him, is just too scary to contemplate. IF THE WORLD WERE 100 PEOPLE . . . Marge: “This 3-minute clip is one of those, ‘if there were only 100 people on earth, X number of them would have enough food, etc.” But it’s quite well done.” HAVE I LOST MY MIND? Jeff Schwarz: “Why don’t you talk anymore about big, solid companies and regular old financial advice? You’ve only been talking about speculations lately, which is contrary to what your book advises.” ☞ For the really GOOD advice you have to buy the book. (And I’d point out that shares of “big solid companies” like General Motors and Citicorp and AIG have done less well over the last decade than shares of Borealis.) But what I’ve suggested here periodically is that for someone with, say, $300,000 he or she can prudently expose to the risks of the market, it can make sense to invest most of it through equally-weighted index funds (and, if in a tax-deferred account, the Formula Investing funds) . . . but, say, $30,000 of it in five or six speculative stocks of the kind I do from time to time suggest. Because . . . . . . First, that may be enough fun to satisfy a need that would otherwise express itself in lottery tickets or Atlantic City, where the odds are worse. . . . Second, it gives you “tax control.” You can come out ahead even if you only break even: Use your winners to fund the charitable giving you would have done in the course of the year anyway (funding an account at the Fidelity Gift Fund, for example, with appreciated securities that would otherwise have been subjected to long-term capital gains tax); and your losers to lower your taxable income by up to $3,000 a year. . . . Third: it’s just possible that, even without the tax advantage, you’ll do better with these speculations than you’d have done with an index fund. (A researcher is in the home stretch of looking back over 3,762 columns, picking out the suggestions, and attempting to calculate how a hypothetical reader would have fared investing in them all.)
Can Arnold Shoot His Way Into Heaven? May 18, 2011March 24, 2017 IT’S NOT HIS CALL So we had a memorial service for my mom Sunday that was pretty kick-ass, if I say so myself. It included Baba au Rhum miniatures that made me think I had died and gone to heaven . . . an amazing video (let me know if you’re doing a big birthday party or wedding anniversary and I’ll show you what this guy did for us and give you his email) . . . and Charles’ brother, a Catholic priest, who, when he got up from the audience to speak to the largely Jewish crowd, said he imagined my mom and dad and stepfather (also Jewish) and Charles (Catholic, but lapsed, and gay) – were now all likely in paradise having a fine and stylish old time together. As he returned to his seat, I couldn’t helping noting (with a smile, of course) that according to the Pope it was not at all clear any of them would gain admission. To which he shot back – with a quiet conviction I get a little choked up recalling – “It’s not his call.” ARNOLD Opines People for the American Way president Michael Keegan: “I am angry at Arnold Schwarzenegger. Not because he hid a personal secret from the public and from his own family, but because he did so while working to deny thousands of California citizens the right to have legal families at all. . . . [N]obody in state office has done more to hold back marriage equality for more people.” GUNS – II Mike M.: “I watched both the first and second Maddow from yesterday’s post and was amazed at the constant chant that guns were responsible for the problem. Not one peep about the myriad of issues that are destroying black communities across the US (far too many to mention here, but all aptly documented and known, if not acknowledged, by all). I guess it’s easier to blame inanimate objects (and the companies that sell them) than to tackle the real causes of the problem. It makes me sad for our country when I see everyone dodging the tough issues (the ones that need to be addressed for us to succeed as a nation) for the easy out ‘blame the gun not the person using it.’ I am not a gun owner or fan of them, but even I can see the misdirection of this story.” ☞ No question, the story did not attempt to list – let alone solve – all the complex and inter-related issues that lead to poverty, misery, addiction and crime. But the NRA was in town and the story – which never purported to be all-encompassing – was about what its efforts had done to a large number of its residents. Did Mike come away from the story thinking Pennsylvania, and the other states that do this, are right to block cities from passing more restrictive gun laws? To keep the gun show loophole open? To allow anyone to buy semiautomatic weapons with 31-bullet clips? (Even nuclear weapons are not THEMSELVES a problem, but does anyone doubt that it’s a good idea to try to keep them from proliferating? Especially in certain neighborhoods?) If Mike was already on my side of these issues when he watched the clips, as I suspect he was, then we’re in total agreement – and certainly as regards guns being just one piece of the problem. But to me, those clips showed guns are, in places like Homewood, a really important piece. What would be the downside of allowing the people in the affected area, if they so chose, to attempt to tackle that piece? How dare the NRA fight so hard to prevent sensible balance when it comes to gun safety? The same way the tobacco industry fought so hard so long to prevent restrictions on marketing the leading cause of preventable death – that’s how.
A Mind-Changing Tour of Homewood, PA May 17, 2011March 24, 2017 NABI Guru says, “They have a vaccine against nicotine for smoking. I’ve reviewed all the clinical data and this has a very high chance of succeeding. Data in Sept-Oct of this year. Target = 10 – 12 on the news.” Guru worries the market may be in for a few bumps, near-term; but for money you can truly afford to lose NABI at $5.50 could be an interesting speculation. GUNS If Congress is so high on allowing concealed weapons in bars and churches and college classrooms – it would make us all safer, argues the NRA – why not make the Capitol safer, too, by allowing concealed weapons there as well? Asked columnist E.J. Dionne, a couple of years ago: 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 building? I’ve been studying the deep thoughts of senators who regularly express their undying loyalty to the National Rifle Association and 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? . . . [Congress] voted earlier 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? . . . 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. ☞ I thought of this a couple of weeks ago when 70,000 gun enthusiasts were attending the annual NRA convention in Pittsburgh, not far from the city’s Homewood section. This tour of Homewood, with the district’s councilman, and its continuation after the commercial break, makes the case better than I’ve ever seen for allowing cities to have gun laws different from those in rural areas. Yet Pennsylvania, acting at the behest of the NRA, is one of the states that forbid it. If you think there is any merit to the NRA position, you will find your mind changed by the end of that second segment. Or so I believe anyway. Let me know if I’m wrong.
Newt? Really? May 16, 2011March 24, 2017 ONE SINGULAR SENSATION A Monday morning smile. What I think I love most is that the traffic just keeps flowing down Broadway even as this is going on. NEWT IN A NUTSHELL From my pal Bill Press about the latest Republican who feels we should entrust our futures to his good judgment: No, No, Not Newt! By Bill Press Tribune Media Services . . . Forget the personal stuff about Newt Gingrich. . . . No, it’s not his personal life. It’s all the other baggage that’ll sink the Newt. Our memories are not that short. This is the guy who shut down the government in 1995. This is the guy who whined because President Clinton wouldn’t let him sit up front on Air Force One — only to have the White House release a photo of Newt actually chatting with the president, up front, on Air Force One. This is the guy who was reprimanded by the House of Representatives, 395 to 28, and ordered to pay a $300,000 fine for violating House ethics rules — when he was Speaker! And this is the guy who was forced to resign as Speaker after Republicans lost five seats in the 1998 midterm elections. And now he wants to be president? This is the guy full of bad ideas, then and now. In 1993, Gingrich insisted that President Clinton’s economic plan, which included higher taxes on the wealthiest Americans, would be a disaster. “I believe this will lead to recession next year,” he predicted. “This is the Democrat (sic) machine’s recession, and each of them will be held personally accountable.” Instead, Clinton’s plan led to a record eight years of economic growth, the creation of 23 million new jobs and the only balanced budget in recent memory. Newt’s record is no better today. This is the guy who, on March 7, called for bombing Libya immediately. Yet, two weeks later, after President Obama had actually ordered the bombing of Libya, Gingrich declared it was a mistake to intervene. And, yes, this is the same guy who’s actually campaigning on a pledge to abolish the Environmental Protection Agency, created by Republican President Richard Nixon. Meanwhile, according to The Daily Beast, in 2010 his American Solutions organization received $1.5 million in contributions from oil, coal and power companies who want to continue polluting the environment. And now he wants to be president? And, yes, this is the same guy who introduced the politics of personal destruction to Washington. Gingrich alone turned the Congress from a place where, in between elections, members of both parties would sit down together and try to solve problems — to a place known for its non-stop campaigning and partisan political sniping. It was Gingrich who gave Republicans a list of words to describe themselves: “courage, dream, opportunity, vision, freedom, strength, moral.” And a separate list for Democrats: “incompetent, sick, radical, destructive, shallow, liberal, anti-flag, traitors.” In fact, there is no one in American politics more guilty of sliming his political opponents. Overlooking his own ethical problems, Gingrich blamed Democrats for producing “the greatest political corruption ever seen in modern America.” He declared that the Obama administration “represents as great a threat to America as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union once did.” He accused gay rights advocates of trying to impose a “gay and secular fascism.” And he slammed Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor as a “Latina woman racist.” And now Newt wants to be president? Bill Press is host of a nationally syndicated radio show and author of a new book, “Toxic Talk,” available in bookstores now. You can hear “The Bill Press Show” at his Web site: billpressshow.com. His email address is: bill@billpress.com. © 2011 Tribune Media Services, Inc.