NRA Refuses to Meet With Obama on Gun Control

Blogs

WRITTEN BY THE BLAZE

On Tuesday, officials at the Justice Department met with gun control advocates, answering President Obama’s call to put aside “stale political debates” to begin “a new discussion” on ways to better enforce and strengthen America’s existing laws in the wake of the Jan. 8 shooting in Tucson. Missing from the dialogue, however, was the National Rifle Association (NRA) who pointedly responded to the president’s invitation: thanks, but no thanks.                                                                                   (Video: NRA News)

“Every single day, America is robbed of more futures. It has awful consequences for our society. And as a society, we have a responsibility to do everything we can to put a stop to it,” Obama wrote in an op-ed published Sunday in the Arizona Daily Star.   “Now, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. And the courts have settled that as the law of the land. … However, I believe that if common sense prevails, we can get beyond wedge issues and stale political debates to find a sensible, intelligent way to make the United States of America a safer, stronger place.”

In an open letter (pdf) delivered to the White House Monday, Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox, Executive Director of the NRA‘s Institute for Legislative Action criticized Obama’s call for a renewed dialogue on gun control and encouraged him instead to crack down on crime, not gun rights.

“[T]o focus a national dialogue on guns — and not criminals or mental health issues — misses the point entirely,” LaPierre and Cox wrote.  “If you do in fact believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right, we suggest you demonstrate that in your policies and those of your Administration, which you have not done to tdate. Simply saying that you support the right to keep and bear arms is mere lip service if not put into action.”

“The government owes its citizens its most vigorous efforts to enforce penalties against those who violate our existing laws,” they continued. “The NRA has members proudly serving in law enforcement agencies at every level. Rank and file law enforcement wan to arrest bad people — not harass law-abiding gun owners and retailers.”

As the gun control debate fires up, the New York Times noted Monday how Obama‘s gun control message attempts to borrow from the NRA’s own rhetoric:

For example, a White House adviser on Monday said Mr. Obama wanted to redefine the gun debate to “focus on the people, not the guns.” The president, in his column, cited the same policy areas Mr. LaPierre mentioned as fertile ground for consensus. And Mr. Obama emphasized, “First, we should begin by enforcing laws that are already on the books” — a line long used by the gun lobby.

Mr. Obama’s column in The Arizona Daily Star reflected his continued political caution toward an issue that for decades has polarized the country. In past weeks, aides had suggested he might give a public address expanding on his views about gun safety — an option that has now been put aside.

NRA EVP and CEO Wayne LaPierre

Mr. Obama spoke at a memorial service in Tucson four days after a gunman on Jan. 8 killed six people and wounded 13, including Representative Gabrielle Giffords. But gun safety advocates, including a group of mayors headed by Michael R. Bloomberg of New York, called on Mr. Obama to do more, including endorsing legislation to ban high-capacity magazines like those used in the Arizona attack.

“Why should I or the NRA go sit down with a group of people that have spent a lifetime trying to destroy the Second Amendment in the United States?” LaPierre rhetorically asked during an interview with the Times Monday.  “It shouldn’t be a dialogue about guns; it really should be a dialogue about dangerous people.”

Visiting Capitol Hill on Tuesday, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg joined congressional Democrats in announcing legislation to expand the nation’s gun background check system.

But gun control legislation may be the least of the NRA’s concerns. According to one Huffington Post report, the Obama administration is exploring ways to implement new gun control regulations through executive actions, bypassing Congress.

The Department of Justice held the first in what is expected to be a series of meetings on Tuesday afternoon with a group of stakeholders in the ongoing gun-policy debates. Before the meeting, officials said part of the discussion was expected to center around the White House’s options for shaping policy on its own or through its adjoining agencies and departments — on issues ranging from beefing up background checks to encouraging better data-sharing.

Administration officials said talk of executive orders or agency action are among a host of options that President Barack Obama and his advisers are considering. “The purpose of these discussions is to be a productive exchange of good ideas from folks across the spectrum,” one official said. “We think that’s a good place to start.”

Sponsored Link: Why would a geologist risk his life for a penny stock in one of the most isolated regions on the planet? To meet with the CEO of the tiny gold firm, which could pay you 390% or more in the next 12 months. For the incredible story, click here.

RNC considers selling TV rights of presidential primary debates

By Mark Preston and Robert Yoon, CNN

March 15, 2011 7:50 p.m. EDT

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Republican National Committee looking at selling broadcast rights of GOP debates
• RNC is more than $22 million in debt left over from the 2010 midterm elections
• "It is hard to tell what the FEC would do, because it is not very aggressive these days," attorney says

RELATED TOPICS

• Republican National Committee

Washington (CNN) -- The Republican National Committee is considering sanctioning the GOP presidential primary debates and then selling the broadcast rights to news outlets, two Republicans with knowledge of the idea tell CNN.

The proposal was mentioned last week during a meeting of top RNC officials and a handful of political operatives representing potential GOP presidential candidates.

In February, the RNC disclosed it was saddled with more than $22 million of debt left over from the 2010 midterm elections. At that time, newly elected Chairman Reince Priebus acknowledged the committee has "a lot of work to do" to pay off its obligations so it can focus on raising money for the 2012 presidential election.

It is unclear if it is legal for the RNC to sell the broadcasting rights or whether it would constitute a prohibited political contribution in the eyes of federal law.

Also unknown is whether news outlets would pay to exclusively air a presidential primary debate. CNN and several other news organizations have already announced plans to hold presidential primary debates in 2011 and 2012.

Kirsten Kukowski, an RNC spokeswoman, confirmed that the issue was mentioned but added, "There isn't a proposal in front of the RNC to do that."

Larry Noble, an election law attorney with Skadden, Arps, described it as a "novel" concept but also said it raises a "serious question" as to whether it is even "possible under the law" to make such a payment beyond the federal contribution limits. Federal law caps an individual's and a political action committee's annual donation to a national party committee at $30,800.

"The parties would have to show that this was in the ordinary course of business, and the media outlets would have to show it's in the ordinary course of their media business or news business to pay for this type of event," said Noble, a former general counsel of the Federal Election Commission. "They have to show that this is not a prohibited contribution to the party."

"It may be that the presidential debates and their coverage are so inherently political that there is no justification for networks paying for putting on the debate and any receipt of money would be seen as prohibited contributions," he added.

Noble noted it is not clear if the federal government's election enforcement arm would even weigh in on the matter if the RNC decided to sell the broadcast rights.

"It is hard to tell what the FEC would do, because it is not very aggressive these days," said Noble.

When the idea of selling the broadcast rights was suggested at the meeting, there was neither support nor opposition to it, said the two Republicans, who both requested anonymity to speak freely about the discussion.

"I can't say I didn't do a quick blink when I first heard it," said one of the Republicans. "I did think about it later. I know where these guys are coming from. The RNC is facing a huge hole."

The other Republican described the suggestion as "pretty distasteful, I think." But the GOP political operative also acknowledged the financial peril the RNC is in after former chairman Michael Steele's rocky two-year term.

While Republicans captured the House, made gains in the Senate and picked up additional governorships during Steele's tenure, he was widely criticized for his stewardship of the committee, particularly fundraising.

"I understand where Priebus is coming from," said the Republican. "He is staring at $23 million in the face. How does he deal with it?"

At greater stake for each of the potential presidential candidates is not necessarily if the RNC is able to sell the rights to the debates, rather what is in their personal interests as they seek the nomination. Lesser known candidates are more inclined to want as many debates as possible, while the top tier is likely to be in favor of fewer nationally televised events.

Also, if the RNC sanctions the debates, the candidates and the news outlets will want to know how much influence the national committee would have over each event from invitations and questions to format and ticketing.

Noble noted that the proposal opens up the possibility for a group of deep-pocketed Republican donors to create a news website, pay the RNC a large fee for the broadcasting rights and stream the debate over the internet.

"One of the hard issues is with the broader concept of what is the media that has developed over the years," he said. "It would be very hard to draw a line (between) a news organization that pays for a debate as a news matter and another organization that just pays for it as a way to get money to a party committee."

The Democratic National Committee sanctioned their party's presidential primary debates in 2007 but did not charge the TV outlets to air the events.

The economy has been bad to both public and private-sector workers

Posted at 02:24 PM ET, 03/15/2011

By Ezra Klein

Source: Economic Policy Institute

The great trick of the last few years has been convincing private and public-sector workers that their interests somehow diverge from one another. Public workers look at the rising pay in the private sector and ask why they can’t have that. Private workers look at the benefits in the public sector and fume about the underfunded 401(k)s they’ve been left with. But as Larry Mishel and Heidi Shierholz write, the truth is both more upsetting and less divisive. “Neither private-sector workers nor state and local government employees have seen their pay rise much over the last two decades, and what meager pay growth they have experienced has been far outpaced by growth in productivity — the increased goods and services that they themselves have generated.”

The numbers are pretty stark. Between 1978 and 2009, the hourly wage for the median worker grew by only 10.1 percent — and most all of that came between 1996 and 2002. Meanwhile, productivity grew by 80 percent. More growth hasn’t translated into better wages, and that’s been true for both private and public-sector workers, and both skilled and unskilled workers (as you can see in the graph above).

There are a number of reasons for this. A lot of the money that would’ve gone into wages went into health-care costs — but our health didn’t improve by very much. The rich began demanding bigger salaries and lower taxes and managed to get both. Unions have weakened. Profits in the economy tilted away from sectors that shared gains widely, like manufacturing, and towards sectors, like finance, that concentrated them narrowly. Some think central bankers have been so obsessed with inflation that they’ve hewed to overly tight policies for most of the last 30 years.

But whatever your explanation, or bunch of them, it’s been happening to workers in both the public and the private sectors. The effort to raise one or another up as a privileged class is smart politics on the part of those who want elections dominated purely by corporations, but it doesn’t point toward any answers for either group. Quite the opposite, in fact. The Walker agenda — which plenty of other governors would like to emulate — is to take both benefits and power away from public-sector employees, and then use the political space opened up by weakening unions to tilt policy toward corporate interests and away from poorer constituencies. That’s a world in which both private and public-sector workers end up worse off.

On RedCounty.com: Boehner Says House Will Slash ObamaCare Slush Funds

Posted by Don Seymour & Michael Ricci on March 15, 2011

RedCounty.com is featuring a new video from House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) highlighting Republican efforts to repeal and defund the job-destroying health care law – including upcoming legislation to repeal “mandatory spending slush funds in ObamaCare.” Watch Boehner here:

Since January, the new House majority has voted to fully repeal the $2.6 trillion ObamaCare law; to defund the law as part of H.R. 1; and to repeal the job-destroying 1099 small business mandate. The House has also started the process of replacing the health care law with common-sense solutions that would protect jobs and bring down costs for families and small businesses.

RedCounty noted yesterday that the upcoming effort to repeal ObamaCare’s slush funds is “part of a broad assault on wasteful mandatory spending programs that began last week with passage of two bills saving taxpayers as much as $9 billion.” One of last week’s bills, for example, began the process of shutting down the TARP bailout program. There’s a similar bill on the House floor this week that makes additional cuts – and there are many more to come.

Why aren’t these slush funds repealed in today’s short-term continuing resolution? Because, RedCounty explains, continuing resolutions “can only be used for discretionary spending cuts and not changes to mandatory spending accounts.” In other words, it would require “resorting to Pelosi-style rules abuses of the sort that enraged Americans last year” – remember “we have to pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it?”

Repealing this wasteful mandatory spending can happen without resorting to the sorts of abuses Speaker Boehner and the new majority pledged to end. In the video, Speaker Boehner said, “[i]f the Senate won’t join us in passing a bill that repeals ObamaCare all at once, we will work to repeal it step-by-step” and “do everything we can to stop this gravy train and ensure this job-crushing health care law is never fully implemented.” Read more onRedCounty.com.

Obama lies low in deficit debate

By: Carrie Budoff Brown March 14, 2011 07:18 PM EDT

When President Barack Obama opened the first meeting of his fiscal commission last April, he promised to be “standing with them” as they produced recommendations for curbing the nation’s escalating debt. Republicans and Democrats say they are still waiting. While Obama has said he’s committed to deficit reduction, he has also has made clear it is secondary, at least for now, to his “winning the future” agenda. And that reflects a strategy driven by what his senior aides believe voters care about most — jobs, not deficits. Obama’s reluctance to join the debate in a sustained way has provoked rising frustration among lawmakers from both parties, who are speaking more forcefully about what they view as his absenteeism on one of the most pressing issues before them. But until House Republicans join their Senate GOP counterparts in appearing open to raising revenues, the administration is reluctant to weigh in too heavily, believing that a grand bargain that would inflict bipartisan pain will be difficult to attain. So, Obama has kept at arm’s length a group of six Republican and Democratic senators working on a deficit-reduction framework, not yet convinced that their efforts will be the vehicle by which a deal is struck. “The president’s approach to the larger set of budget issues raised by his own fiscal commission is very, very cautious up to now,” said William Galston, a policy adviser to former President Bill Clinton and a senior fellow at Brookings. “He has not embraced it, not by a long shot. It is clear that whatever he wants to accomplish, he doesn’t want to accomplish it alone and he doesn’t want to step out first.” Obama’s light touch isn’t winning over the Hill. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) made the latest attempt to draw Obama into the debate sooner than the president would like, threatening to withhold Republican votes on the administration’s request to raise the debt limit unless it is coupled with a “credible” effort to rein in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid spending. McConnell’s move followed a nudge by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to broaden talks on the short-term budget to include entitlements and revenue increases, a scathing speech by Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) for Obama to get more involved in budget issues and increasing calls by Democratic lawmakers for presidential leadership. Administration aides said Obama fully supports efforts to tackle the country’s long-term budget problems but that it is Washington — not the public — that is agitating for the president to wade into every legislative debate. This is a subtle shift in strategy from the past two years, when the president could be mistaken for a prime minister, expending much of his political capital in ushering bills through Congress. The gripes, which have flowed steadily from Capitol Hill regardless of the level of White House immersion, are really more a plea by lawmakers for presidential cover on tough decisions, aides have said. “This is a process. It is not a one-act play,” said Geoff Garin, a pollster who has done messaging work on the deficit debate for Senate Democrats. “We are early in Act 1 of a four-act play.” But the growing divide between Congress and the White House isn’t simply about presidential involvement. Often, the president doesn’t seem to be speaking the Hill’s language. After the Senate deadlocked last week over how to cut billions from the budget, Obama on Monday called for a rewrite of the federal education law — and made a full-throated pledge to shield education from the budget knife. “I’m determined to cut our deficits. But I refuse to do it by telling students here who are so full of promise that we’re not willing to invest in your future,” Obama said during a visit to Kenmore Middle School in Arlington, Va. “I’m not willing to tell these young people right here that their education isn’t a priority.” In the eyes of deficit hawks, Obama has passed up several opportunities to push the issue to the center of his agenda. He convened the fiscal commission last February, a move cast as an attempt to start an adult conversation about a metastasizing problem. It was quintessential Obama — the professor who likes to take the long view and serve up a bit of castor oil because it’s the right thing to do. “Everything is on the table,” he said at the time. “That’s how this thing is going to work.” When the commission chairmen offered their final recommendations in December, several months after Obama promised that he would be “standing with them,” the president declined to endorse the report, saying only that it was important work that he would study closely. The State of the Union address and his 2012 budget request came and went without Obama embracing any major components of the commission’s plan, which called for raising the retirement age for Social Security and cutting Medicare and Medicaid benefits. He did adopt some elements, including an overhaul of the corporate tax code and a freeze in pay for federal workers. Now, with lawmakers suggesting a look at entitlement reform during the short-term budget negotiations, White House aides said they aren’t ruling it out, but their preference is to finish the continuing resolution first and deal with the long-term budget issues later, once the threat of a government shutdown is averted. The administration has also signaled that it wants an unfettered vote on the debt-limit increase — the next major spending vote, as early as April, after the short-term budget is finished — rejecting McConnell’s threat to withhold Republican support unless the vote was coupled with a broader deficit-reduction plan, “The president believes it would be reckless and irresponsible to put the full faith and credit of the U.S. at risk by refusing to increase the debt limit,” White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage said in a statement. “Failing to act would have devastating consequences for our economy and middle-class Americans, and Republicans agree.” White House attempts to put off the debate will work as long as House Republicans go along on the debt limit, which isn’t clear yet. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has said defaulting on the country’s debt would be a “financial disaster,” suggesting that he would avoid such an outcome at all costs. But with a caucus anxious to make real progress on spending cuts, Boehner will face pressure to link it to deficit-reduction measures — finally forcing the administration’s hand. Boehner has promised to release a budget soon that tackles entitlement reform, but even he has acknowledged that the public isn’t ready to accept the tough medicine and that lawmakers need to educate voters. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) agreed. A leader of the bipartisan Senate negotiating group, Conrad said its biggest obstacle is public opinion. A recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News polls found that Americans across all age groups and ideologies, including tea party supporters, believe it was “unacceptable” to make significant cuts in entitlement programs as a way to shrink the deficit. Conrad joked that he isn’t in “huge demand on a lot of the comedy shows” — the kind of forums to which politicians turn in order to reach voters who aren’t glued to cable news programs. “There is only one president,” Conrad conceded, when asked whether Obama was the one who should be doing that. “The question is, when does he wade in? I believe, as I have said a lot of times, it needs to start [in Congress] on a bipartisan basis and at some key moment, I’m confident the president will lead.”

© 2011 Capitol News Company, LLC

Office of the Press Secretary

The White House

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

March 08, 2011

Statement by the President on the 100th Anniversary of International Women’s Day

On this 100th Anniversary of International Women’s Day, we celebrate the extraordinary gains made by women over the past century—and the women pioneers who made them possible—and we reaffirm our unwavering support for the rights, security, dignity and opportunity of all women around the world.  Today reminds us that across countries and cultures, people everywhere, women and men, share rights and aspirations that are universal, among them the freedom to chart their own destiny, to raise their children free from violence and to live in societies that value their voice and respect their will.  
 
History shows that when women and girls have access to opportunity, societies are more just, economies are more likely to prosper and governments are more likely to serve the needs of all their people.  That is why my administration has stood up for gender equality and women’s empowerment around the world and demanded an end to sexual and gender-based violence.  It’s why we’re developing a plan to promote women’s meaningful participation in conflict prevention and resolution in war torn societies.  And it’s why we are working to advance these goals and our national interests by strengthening the role of women in every aspect of our foreign policy.  In the United States and around the world, we will not rest until our mothers, sisters and daughters assume their rightful place as full and equal members of a secure, prosperous and just world.

Japan and Government Spending with Larry Kudlow - 3.15.2011

Uploaded by senatormikelee on Mar 16, 2011

Larry Kudlow asks Senator Mike Lee and Senator Rand Paul about the aftermath of the tsunami in Japan and how they plan to cut government spending in the US

Sessions Questions Witnesses on Final Report to the President on BP Oil Spill

Uploaded by SenatorSessions on Mar 16, 2011

Senator Sessions, a member of the EPW committe, questioned former Senator Bob Graham and the Honorable William Reilly, co-charis of the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling.

On First Anniversary of ObamaCare.....

  Roberts Calls it a Misguided, Critically Flawed Law

Uploaded by SenPatRoberts on Mar 16, 2011

On March 16, 2011, during a Senate Finance Committee hearing regarding the one year anniversary of Obamacare becoming law, U.S. Senator Pat Roberts said health care costs are still soaring for patients and the misguided and critically flawed law needs to be addressed to actually improve access to affordable, quality health care in America.

Ensign Questions Sebelius on Ineffectiveness of Healthcare Law

Chairman Johnson Holds Housing Finance Reform Hearing

Uploaded by SenateBanking on Mar 15, 2011

Senate Banking Committee Tim Johnson (D-SD) held a hearing entitled "The Administration's Report to Congress: Reforming America's Housing Finance Market."

 

Hoyer Statement on Re-Introduction of the Full-Service Community Schools Act

March 15, 2011

WASHINGTON, DC – House Democratic Whip Steny H. Hoyer released the following statement after introducing the Full-Service Community Schools Act of 2011 today in the House. This bill was introduced in the Senate today by Senator Ben Nelson. Click herefor a fact sheet on the bill.

“I am proud to introduce the Full-Service Community Schools Act today. Full-service community schools are part of re-imagining how we can make sure our children get the education they deserve. These schools tap into community resources to ensure that when children go to school, they are ready to learn and their families are prepared to support learning. Students and their families are able to access a wide range of services – from early childhood programs, to health clinics and dental care, to English lessons and career advice for parents. These services remove serious obstacles that would prevent children from succeeding.

“The bill I’ve introduced today aims to expand these schools across the nation. The results speak for themselves: these schools see higher student achievement, better parent participation, and higher attendance. This innovative concept has support from President Obama, Education Secretary Arne Duncan, as well as leading educators. I believe that full-service community schools should be a key part of our plan to out-educate the rest of the world, and I hope that the full-service community school model will be included in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act which is under discussion.”