Am I Missing Something?

As I have been saying all along, Obamacare has very clear incentives, and they are not directed in a way that will make young healthy people buy more expensive health insurance than they did before. In fact, the law provides even stronger incentives to not buy insurance, because the policies they have to buy now are more expensive and with higher deductibles. Meanwhile the fine is a joke (less than $300 max versus health insurance premiums that will crowd, if not exceed $2,000.)

But step back and think about it. The whole reason for the individual mandate was to force young people to buy more insurance and more expensive insurance because they were not doing so in large enough numbers to balance out the actuarial tables. So in an effort to “make” them buy more, they managed to raise the price of the premiums while simultaneously making the fine virtually insignificant. Does anybody see this as helping accomplish their goal? If they wouldn’t buy it before, what on Earth makes them think they will now? Oh and remember the reason you used to want insurance? You know, how you would buy a policy in case you got cancer or some other serious disease? We all did so because you can't buy insurance after you get sick, right? Wrong. Now you can't be denied no matter how sick you are! So why buy "insurance" ahead of time?

Well, maybe they will all buy insurance out of loyalty to Obama. After all, they voted for him.

Getting Personal

I used to think that the tendency of liberals to vilify their enemies with such ferocity, was due to the threat that person posed to them. So for instance, Sarah Pailin represented a threat because she was a conservative woman. Worse, was that she was on the Republican running against an all male ticket of Democrats. They had to take her down HARD. Ted Cruz is Hispanic with better academic credentials than Obama. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law, clerked at the Supreme Court and was an international debate champion. So naturally he is a crazy radical.

But now, I'm starting to think that it's all because they need to personalize it. They have a hard time defeating ideas. They are not very good at fighting an idea. You have explain yourself, you have to use facts. They are much better at provoking emotions. And it is much easier to manipulate one's feeling about another person, than it is to manipulate their feelings about a concept.

The Liberal Arsenal

• pkbormes
• Brookline, MA

Time for Dems to remind people who caused the shutdown, wasted 24 billion taxpayer dollars, and risked the full faith and credit of the United States. That should overpower Republican lies about an effort which, after all, is intended to HELP the average American.

This is just a typical post from a NYT article about the Koch brothers efforts to hang the ACA around the necks of Democrats. But it contains everything in their pathetic arsenal. First is the shutdown. Some liberal think tank conjured up that $24 billion number as the "cost" of the shutdown (not taxpayer cost.) It was one of those studies extrapolating economic ripple effects where a family is not driving to Yellowstone, not buying gas, and not staying in a hotel. Then they look at the hotel and gas station not buying supplies and not paying staff and the staff not going grocery shopping. You get the picture. they can come up with any number they want. Then there is the threat of default, conveniently ignoring that only the executive branch could cause default to happen. And finally, the last refuge of liberal scoundrels: He had good intentions.

New Attitude

I had been suffering through a period of political depression, if you will, where I was loathe to get into "debates" on internet message boards because I felt as if nobody was looking at the serious fundamental issues with Obamacare. Not the web site mind you, but the basic economic incentives that were in it and what effect they were going to have on our economy, our healthcare system and our insurance industry. I was constantly poo-pooed as not knowing what I was talking about, and had to endure lectures from Paul Krugman fans on why I was so wrong about rates going up, people losing their coverage or just plain old meddling by the government in the economy.


But suddenly, the message boards are just delicious. I have gotten almost giddy reading the liberal responses to all the things I had been predicting for months. The best ones are when some conservative (or increasingly, a moderate Democrat) will rip into Obama for lying about not losing your coverage, doctor etc. Talk about changing the subject! It usually goes like this:
Conservative: He didn't mince words. He said you could keep your insurance NO MATTER WHAT! But he knew all along they were going to get dropped.
Looney Liberal: Oh yeah? Well Bush said there were WMD's.It's so pathetic it's funny.But the best one was the guy who got infuriated that Obama was being called a liar. He tried to say that Obama had merely been talking about what he hoped would be attained. You can't expect to hold him to a campaign promise.No, that would be more like Scott Walker saying he would create 250,000 jobs. That would be a hoped for goal. Saying you won't lose your health care "no matter what" when you know that's not true, is lying about a fact. But they cannot stop spinning and the results are just hilarious. There are several strategies they are trying. the first is to claim Obamacare is actually a Rebublican bill. They wanted something else entirely but got this forced on them by Republicans, who weren't able to add a single amendment and consequently did not give it a single vote in either house. Fallback position number one is to say that the coverage you are losing was really awful and you should be glad to be rid of it because your new policy wil cover so much more and be so much better for you. Cost? Oh, why worry about that? It's better! Don't you want better insurance? If you get that cheap stuff it won't pay for your drug rehab or maternity coverage. Well yes, it is true that being a young Amish man might lead you to believe you don't need that, but somebody's got to buy that expensive stuff so we can cover all those existing conditions. but their ultimate ploy will be to blame the insurance companies.  Just read this from the Huffington Post where they try and explain that Obama didn't lie about keeping your coverage.



 "In other words, your plan is grandfathered in unless your insurer explicitly makes it worse by jacking up your deductible or otherwise monkeying with your coverage in an attempt to screw you, which is the basic stated business model of insurance companies."

Of course he conveniently glosses over the fact that it was Obamacare that REQUIRED all these changes, which in turn invalidated your ability to keep it. They really have no respect for your intelligence.

Ideas Versus Personalities

Have you ever noticed that liberals hate to argue about or attack ideas. They much prefer to target people. So they will avoid a debate about whether or not it is a good idea to allow public unions, but can't wait to sling some shit at Scott Walker. The more a conservative worries them, the harder they attack. This is particularly so whenever the conservative is from one of their affinity groups. The most vicious and sustained campaign they ever ran was against Sara Palin. How dare they!! A woman? Gotta take her down hard. Herman Cain. A black conservative?? No way. He had barely made it to the top of the polls before they nailed him in the sleaziest way possible. Ted Cruz is Hispanic and has better academic credentials than Obama. So the label they slapped on him was "radical." He might even be CRAZY.

For eight years nary a word was spoken against conservatism. But George W. Bush  was regularly designated the worst person in the world. And when conservative ideas are implemented, they will redefine the reasons for you. So when Paul Ryan says he opposes Obamacare because it's fiscally irresponsible, they say he just doesn't want poor people to have insurance. It's all so much easier if you can start with the premise that he is just a bad person to begin with.

The Hostage Fable

Once upon a time, there was a man who owned a home. And on this home, he had a mortgage.

Actually, he had a mortgage, a home equity line of credit, and a couple of credit cards. He and his wife had been living in the house for years. They had refinanced a couple of times. And they had taken out the equity line of credit a few years back before the real estate market crashed. When home values did fall, they found themselves, not "under water," but close. They were treading water. They were making all their payments on all the debt. And they were covering their regular bills as well, they just weren't putting a dent in the debt.

The decided that what he really needed in order to get himself out of debt, was to borrow some more money, invest it and increase his income such that he could start to pay down some loans. So went to the banker who held the mortgage, the equity line and his credit cards. He told them of his plan and asked if he could get another $25,000 to fund his new venture. But this was something he had done before.

He had originally taken out the line of credit in order to fund his investment, but later decided to remodel the house instead with the first $25,000. Then he had taken another $25,000 (on his line of $50,000), but bought a new car and went on vacation. Now his line was maxed out. So he asked the bank if they could see their way to increasing his line of credit. The bank took a look at his history and his balance sheet, and said, "We don't think more debt is what you really need right now. We think you should look for ways to cut your spending, and try and work that debt down first. If you were to do that for a year or two, maybe prices recover and we can find a way to increase your line later."

To which the man said, "Oh, yeah? Well, I'll tell you what, if you do not give me another $25,000 loan right now, I will stop making payments on my mortgage, my line of credit and my credit cards. I will default on all my debts and I will immediately file for bankruptcy. You'll be stuck selling my house at an auction, and I will make sure you spend big legal fees to pursue my other debts."

So. Who is holding whom hostage? Who is being the proverbial "suicide bomber?" The banker or the man?

How Did We Let This Happen?

After reading an article in Forbes today, I have been asking myself that question. When Obama said that his Affordable Care Act would lower health care costs, lower the cost of coverage and extend free coverage to 50 million uninsured while not affecting your choice of doctors or your coverage, some of us knew that to be impossible, and said so. We were, of course, dismissed as bigoted extremists whose hatred of a black man in the White House, has caused us to lose all reason.

This has all left me puzzled over both how people could have believed these blatant lies, and how I could have become such a racist. I'm still trying to figure it out.

Gathering Storm

Lost in all the hand wringing over the government shut down and "avoiding default" has been the growing mountain of evidence that Obamacare is a disaster. It is NOT looking like it's just some technical issues, that any start up would experience. They tried to sell it as the site being slammed by unexpected traffic from the 45 million people they expected to use the site.

Stay tuned. There is a theory gaining credence that says the web site is purposely not giving out rates. They are just delaying the bad news. They told everybody the rates would go down, and now all the young, healthy gen X-ers they were counting on to sign up, are about to learn differently. The few people left defending this pig are about to abandon ship. But they might make the captain walk the plank first.

In a Nutshell

There are many story lines running about on the subjects of Obamacare, the debt ceiling and the government shutdown. They are all related of course, and the various story lines crisscross each of these. But as we begin the process of living our lives under this new system and it's sometimes shocking consequences, I keep thinking back to the ludicrous concept that was used to sell this pig to the American public.

I'm not talking about the blatant lies that our Commander in Chief told. But it is worth repeating them since they all were spawned by what I call, The Big Ludicrous Lie. Here is a partial list:

"..if you already have health insurance, the only thing that will change for you under this plan, is the amount of money you will spend on premiums. That will be less."

"I will sign a universal health care bill by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family's premium by up to $2,500 per year."

"If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what."

"For people with insurance, the only impact of the health care law is that their insurance is stronger, better and more secure than it was before. Full stop. That's it. They don't have to worry about anything else."

Those were from Obama, but Nancy Pelosi had to add that under Obamacare, "everybody will have lower rates, better quality care and better access."

Notice that there is no equivocation in those statements.They are pretty much absolute. "Everybody." "Period." "Only impact." "No matter what." "That's it."

But the reason people even thought these things to even be possible was the Big Ludicrous Lie. The BLL was that government could extend health insurance to 45 million previously uncovered people, and simultaneously reduce the overall costs of health care. They had all kinds of scenarios about people neglecting their health because they didn't have health insurance. These poor wretched masses would avoid the doctor until their condition was desperate and then show up at the emergency room. Their point was that treatment was now much more expensive, and furthermore the hospital was going to end up stuck for the bill, and we'd all end up paying for that when those costs were passed along to patients who could pay.

Don't get me wrong. That scenario absolutely plays out exactly like that.

Occasionally.

But do you really believe that there are enough on those precise scenarios, with such monumental savings that they could pay for complete coverage for 45 million people? That's ridiculous.

Who in their right mind could believe that the added cost of treating people in that situation would exceed the cost of not only providing those 45 million people with insurance coverage, but insurance coverage that mandates all sorts of things that aren't in a normal, affordable policy, Think about that. You'd have to be delusional to think those numbers are even in the same zip code. Remember, all the time that that emergency room guy is supposedly making his  situation worse, he is also not incurring ANY medical costs. When he's now covered, he'll likely go to the doctor a lot more often, right? Is that going to cost anything? Yeah, I know preventative is better, and better for him, but he used to not cost us anything! And there is no guarantee that he won't still come to that same desperate situation where he has to have that same costly procedure.

The Journey Continues

When I started out riding the bike and dieting, I was not looking to simply lose weight. I wanted to change the shape of my body. I wanted to go from a pear to an apple, from an A to a V. But I did of course track my weight, it's one of the few things you can quantify that easily when measuring progress. When my weight loss hit 25 pounds, I could easily see that I could stand to lose that again and then some. When it hit fifty pounds, people would call me "skinny," but in a teasing sort of way. When I lost 65 pounds the teasing was gone when they said "skinny." In fact, I thought I looked skinny. Problem is, "skinny" wasn't what I was going for. "Buffed" was more what I was thinking. And in my book, Younger Next Year  one of Harry's Rules is that you begin serious weight lifting.

So I joined a health club for the first time in my life. Once again, I'm more surprised than anybody. I could never have predicted that I would take up weight lifting at the age of sixty, or that I would like it, but I did and I do. I had scrupulously avoided a health club because of the inevitable long term contract. I was too afraid of losing interest and having to continue paying. But I found some great motivation at the gym that one cannot really get anywhere else. You see the one that I am going to is near some of the best real estate in Madison. And consequently every morning that I go to lift, the parking lot is full of Audi's and BMW's and the gym is full of old white men, most of whom appear to be there under doctors orders. There are a few old gym rats, who look as if they are maintaining their fitness. But the vast majority are there trying to improve their sorry state. And I do mean sorry. I can look at them and tell which ones are close to my age. And seeing how much they struggle to simply move about the room, or climb the stairs, is all the motivation you'll ever need.

It's True!

For as long as I can recall being in poor physical condition (and that's a long time,) I have heard people say that if I would exercise, loose weight and get more physically fit, that I would feel better, have more energy, and even have a stronger sex drive. This by the way, was told to me repeatedly, by people who themselves were not in top shape, nor had they really been in recent years. So it makes it you wonder how come they were so sure, and it turns out, so right.

Last summer I  began riding my recumbent trike daily, and was able to lose 50 pounds before I had hernia surgery in late November, the end of riding season for me. But after Christmas I resumed riding every day on the stationary bike. It was incredibly boring but I kept at it, largely by taking inspiration from my friends Heidi and Jim who had related their own relationship with their chosen piece of exercise equipment, a treadmill.

"Yeah, I hate that fucking thing, but I get on it every day anyway."

That's perfect for me. That was exactly what I told myself each morning, all winter. Then spring came and I began riding outdoors again, but on my upright bike. Now, I'm riding anywhere I can, every chance I get. This is quite a ways from when I used to let the air out of my tires in third grade, so that Mom had to drive me to school. I'm actually pretty amazed. I never really thought that I'd get to a point that I enjoy the actual act of exercising. I don't mean that I've never enjoyed doing anything that was also exercise. But this time, I'm actually enjoying the exercise, and I do feel better. And at 60 years old, I may not end up fighting for the light heavyweight title, but it's nice to know I can make the weight.

Scandal Wars!

Right now there is a war going on in the opinion sections and comment boards of every major and not-so-major paper in the country. The two positions are the IRS, Benghazi and AP snooping scandals are bad and will damage both Obama and Hillary Clinton, politically, while the other side says this all much ado about nothing. But the complete disconnect on the comment boards is just astounding. I am reminded of a story that Barry Farber, one of my favorite radio hosts told. He was on a tour of Moscow during the height of the cold war. Their official state Russian tour guide was showing them a new modern train station. He was going on and on about all the features and amenities the trains would have. Then Barry Farber raised his hand and asked, "Where are the trains?" The guide was visibly irritated but ignored the question and continued on with his canned presentation. So Farber asked again, "Where are the trains?" Now getting red in the face and sputtering the guide finally spewed, "Well what about blacks in the souithern United States!!?"

That's a little bit of how those "debates" are going.

All The News That's Fit To Print

During the past week, I've been reading some articles and columns out of The New York Times. I used to read all the Times columnists back when they still had Bill Safire on staff as a token conservative. But then they switched to Times Select, which was a failed attempt at a pemium on line subscription. And then they replaced Safire with faux conservative David Brooks, who I consider a cancer on the conservative movement. So reading Dowd and Rich et al, was interesting. Actually it was the comments that I found so interesting. that's because the columns and articles that I am reading there are about either Benghazi or thew targeted IRS audits of Tea Party type organizations. See, the Dems are dead wrong on both issues, and have been caught red handed.So what's interesting is both the take of the columnist, making sure he or she doesn't appear to be glossing over wrong doing by Democrats, while also insuring that no lasting damage ( defined as a shelf life that extends into 2016 ) befalls one Hillary Clinton.

So far the pattern seems the one where the columnist takes on the wrong doing in a way that either minimizes the bad aspect, or declares that it is nothing more than Republicans conducing a witch hunt. So for instance Maureen Dowd chooses to write about Benghazi, but she write strictly about the aspect of not sending a rescue team and being unprepared for a terrorist attack that should have been anticipated. This is a little like writing about the burglary aspect of Watergate. The fact is, Richard Nixon didn't plan or even know about the attempt to place a listening device in Democrat headquarters. Had he not jumped in knee deep to try and save the burglars he would probably not have ended up resigning from office. Everybody knows it was the cover up that did him in. And the story on Benghazi is all about the cover-up. Or rather, the disinformation campaign Obama and Clinton ran. It's somewhat ironic that Frank Rich declared that Benghazi was no Watergate. He was taking the tack that this is much ado about nothing. But nobody died at Watergate.

But the real treat has been in the comments section, coming from the true believers amongst readers of the NYT. There are two and only two, types of comments on these columns. The first type is from your little brother, it's called "He started it!" This guy will post facts that "counter" the wrong doing with a Republican deed of equal or worse skulduggery. They will not, under any circumstances, even address the mealy mouthed criticism the writer directs at a Democrat. The other path is to faintly criticize the logistics but not even mention the cover up. So they will criticize Obama for not beefing up security, but then unload on Republicans blaming them and the sequester cuts for the lack of security. There is a complete lack of ability to see Democrats in any kind of negative way.

Then Obama put the cherry on it when, after sonewalling on the matter for eight months, refusing to answer any questions about it because they were busy "gathering facts" so that they would know "exactly" what went on, he complained that Republicans were dredging up Benghaazi "again," as if it was a settled issue.

Not that There's Anything Wrong With It

On Monday of this week, NBA center Jason Collins came out as gay and became the first openly gay player in a major professional sport. And instantly, the conservative community recoiled in horror and lamented about where we are as a society. Lots of Bible waving and talk about morality's role in society. More than few people feel the need to declare that the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman, only. They are absolutely brimming with confidence that they are on solid ground when it comes to who is right about this matter. That should be your first indication that they are in fact dead wrong. And I believe that this issue, and not immigration, is the thing that will help or hurt Republicans the most in the near future. Being opposed to gay marriage and open homosexuality, is a losing position that will only get worse as more and more people "evolve" on the issue, as our President has. Of course, I don't really believe he "evolved" as much as he simply saw a political opportunity. But regardless, he beat us to the issue and is on the right side. Now, the GOP is locked into opposing him and consequently his stance on gay marriage. God, I wish they wouldn't. Where are the Liberterians when you need them?

The real problem as I see it is that marriage was a cultural invention that provided a framework for the orderly function of our society. And that's perfectly fine. In fact it served that purpose very well and got along with politics just fine, right up untill we put it in the tax code. We should have never done that. Now we have two aspects of marriage, the cultural and the economic/political.

When they designated married people to get special treatment on taxes, it was seen as promoting a good thing. But they failed to recognize that they were picking winners and losers based on something that people had no control over. Now, there are those who don't believe that. They contend that it's a lifestyle choice. And I think that's one of the key points where I diverge, and leave the conservatives. I don't think it's a choice any more than having blue eyes is a choice. As a gay man I know once asked me, "Who would choose this? Considering what one has to deal with being gay, why would you choose to be so? So that I could be harrassed, assaulted and reviled by people who don't even know me?"

With very few exceptions, most gays I've heard from, will tell you they knew they were gay from childhood, and that choice had nothing to do with it. It was a bit ironic though when TV star Cynthia Nixon declared that she did chose to be gay. All the other gays denounced her. I think it's probably like Masters & Johnson theorized, that everybody is on something of a sliding scale between being 1% gay and 99% straight, and being 1% straight and 99% gay. If you were in that 50-50 range it would probably seem like a choice.

But this is not about my theories on sexuality. It's about real people.Take a look at how people's attitudes change when a friend, or better, a relative, comes out to them. Dick Cheney now supports gay marriage. Of course his daughtetr is a lesbian. But I notice how people like Rush Limbaugh won't go after him about it, nor will they voice support for him. They just kind of ignore it while criticizing Democrats for "pushing the gay agenda," whatever that is.

But guys like Rush have this thing about homosexuality being, well, wrong. And I really get irritated when Rush, who I don't believe to be religious at all, will simply state that it's a sin, or that it is specifically condemned in the Bible. It never fails that some clown will remind us that "The Bible says it's an abomination!" Yes, and the Bible also says that you can buy your slaves from neighboring countries only, and that if a master kills a slave by striking him with a rod, the slave shall be avenged. That is unless the slave lingers for a day or two before he dies, in which case, vengence is off the table. So am I dissing the Bible now? Well let me just say that while I believe the word of God is in there, I'm not so sure every word in there came directly from him. I think that translations and compilations that took place thousands of years ago were not neccessarily under the complete control of a divine being. Otherwise, I'm going to have problems with a lot of things that are in there.

The Boston Bomber

It's a bit unusual to learn that the surviving Boston Marathon bomber came to the US as a nine year old and spent 10 years here before revealing himself as a murdering terrorist. I have to think his older brother's influence was paramount. They interviewed his high school classmates and they described him as a happy-go-lucky, regular guy. But apparently the older brother was most unhappy with life in America. Here's hoping they both find death in America a more fulfilling experience.

Scare Tactics, or Experience?

The weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth continues in the wake of gun control defeat. What gun control advocates characterized as the "weakest measure possible," went down to defeat in the US senate and Obama was pissed. He was not pissed because the law was defeated, he already knew that was a certainty. But he didn't get it sent to the House for a vote and that was where he wanted it go down in flames. That way, he could have targeted specific Republican congressmen who would have faced a tough choice. Ther targets would have been easily identified: any Republican who voted against it where the polls say his district is close to 50-50 on the issue.

The gun haters like Michael Bloomberg, or our own former mayor, don't seem to realize that their latest talking point is more revealing of their true agenda than it is useful as a tool to damage the opposition, which is how they appear to be using it. It goes something like this.

"We are not trying to take guns away from anybody. We are simply trying to bring COMMON SENSE and REASONABLE measures to what has become an INSANE and UNREASONABLE system that does not control guns at all. Laws to restrict assault weapons, high capacity magazines and extended background checks are the minimum measures we need to pass. Nobody is going to do anything beyond that, we even put that in the law itself."

That last part is a reference to a provision that said it would be a felony for anybody to use the information gathered on gun background checks, to start or maintain a gun registry. Of course changing that provision would be no more difficult than passing a law to supersede it. So we might be OK until the next legislative session.

But they don't seem to realize that most people see that argument as evidence that they are lying. And if you just get one of them in a candid moment they will virtually admit it. When pressed on the actual impact of such a law,  thoughtful liberals will admit that these changes would not have prevented any of the high profile shootings that gave rise to the law (Arizona, Colorado, Newtown.) But then they will say something to the affect that "At least it's something." And if they are really unguarded they will add, "It's something we can build on." And THAT is what reveals their duplicity. The American people have been observing how government operates all their lives. And one does not have to be the greatest observer to see that no government program gets smaller. No remedy is ever regarded as adequate. Social Security and Medicare did not arrive on the scene completely discombobulated and bankrupt. It took a lot of work to do that. There was a famous quote from one of the original promoters of Social Security, whose name escapes me. He said something along the lines of, "It will only be 1% of the first $3,000 that you earn each year. You will never pay more than $30 per year."

He was right about everything except the "never" part.  In short order they began lifting the cap and the rate and expanded benefits and expanded the groups to whom those benefits were paid. Of course today, that $30 per year has turned into $7,049 per year for those who max out at $113,700 at 6.2%. Medicare nolonger has a cap. So don't even suggest that this measure would satisfy any gun control advocate for a length of time longer than it would take to sign the bill. It's the camel's nose under the tent and any gun control advocate who says otherwise is lying. And I say the proof is in the fact that they are willing to accept the smallest action possible while admitting that it will also be ineffective. You wouldn't accept that deal, unless you thought you could change it later.

The Assault Weapon Debate

I love the debate about whether we should ban assault rifles. Not because I own one. I really have no interest in having one. And I'm really not that perturbed at the thought of not ever being able to have one. I do want to protect my right to get one should I change my mind. But frankly if they did ban their sale in the future, I wouldn't get that worked up. I'm really not a gun guy. So, why would I love the debate?

Because it's perfect for exposing the dishonest manner in which liberals debate.

I've said for years that what gun control proponents should do is forget all this stuff about restricting gun sales, or registering guns, or taxing bullets. Those things are a distraction at best. But the assault weapon ban epitomizes their strategy and their dilemma. I would tell them that if they were honest with everybody, including themselves, they would see that what they really want is to repeal the second amendment. They don't believe in it. They think it's wrong, and they simply don't believe the populace should be armed. But you will only get that admission out of the most politically naive amongst them. Because the ones that clearly see it's a non-starter with a majority of Americans, simply shift gears and concentrate on getting that camel's nose under the tent. And the assault rifle ban is the perfect nose.

So when the shootings happened at Sandy Hook School in Newtown, they saw their opening. It was perfect for them. An assault rifle with an extended magazine (that did not jam, as most do) was used to kill 26 innocents. It was perfectly horrible. And you know the motto of the guys at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, "Never let a crisis go to waste."

They came out swinging. "You don't need a 30 round clip to hunt deer." "These weapons are only good for killing humans." "We are not trying to ban guns. This is just common sense gun control." "We respect that the second amendment is an individual right." But they're lying, particularly that last one.

And the proof of that is right there in their arguments. If they were not trying to ban all guns eventually, doing so for just assault rifles makes no sense. They represent a tiny, tiny fraction of gun deaths. In Chicago, that bastion of strong gun control laws, they had over 500 gun deaths in 2012. That was far more than any other American city including those that are bigger than Chicago (NY & LA.) I can't say for sure, because they don't give enough detail, but it looks like of the 500, less than 3 percent involved "long guns," which includes the far more popular shot gun. So if we give them the benefit of the doubt, something like 7 or less might have been committed with a rifle. How many of those do you think involved an assault rifle? Half? So we're down to 3. And had extended magazines? Probably none.

So why go after them? Why would they exhaust what little political capital they have on this issue, on something so ineffective and inconsequential? They know this is going to be a fight, but they just want to "do something." They want action.

So try to imagine taking them at their word. Okay, you say, let's go ahead and ban these assault rifles. And while we're at it, we are going to outlaw the big clips too. Are you happy now? Are you going to just accept this small step? Didn't you say that's all you wanted? So we fast forward a year, and it turns out that we had another 500 dead in Chicago. Oh, and instead of a guy with an assault rifle shooting 3rd graders, we have a guy with two semi-automatic pistols (carrying only 7 rounds each) walk into a grade school and kill 30 kids by simply changing clips and alternating guns.

Do you think it will matter to them when you remind them that they said the rifle ban was all they wanted? Do you really believe they will say "Well a deals a deal, I said I wouldn't go after all the guns and I WON'T." Really?