Why Is NBC Sports Sponsoring America’s Largest Gun Show?

Next week, thousands of gun dealers, traders, and enthusiasts will gather in Las Vegas for the annual Shooting, Hunting, and Outdoor Trade (SHOT) Show, which touts itself as the largest trade show of its kind in the world. When it does, NBC Sports will be a lead sponsor.

NBC Sports, which has struggled to make its mark in the world of daily televised sports, showcases hunting, fishing, and outdoor shows on its network throughout the day, so its original interest in a trade show aimed at the people who participate in such sports isn’t shocking. But according to some accounts, the SHOT Show is hardly that sort of show. While it bills itself as a huge gathering of hunting and outdoors enthusiasts, the reality is far different, according to a 2011 report from Media Matters, which sent reporters to that year’s event:

The reality of SHOT was thousands of yards downrange from the image projected by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association that owns SHOT and celebrated its 50th anniversary this year. The NSSF portrays SHOT as representing the business interests of family-friendly, outdoors recreation-focused “shooting sports” like elk hunting and clay target shooting. These sports are represented at SHOT, as they are in the firearms industry as a whole, but they’re vastly overshadowed by handguns, assault rifles, sniper rifles, home defense shotguns and the like, along with hollow point bullets, concealed carry holsters, tactical clothing and other “personal protection” accoutrements.

This year’s show has an even deeper meaning to its attendees. In the wake of multiple mass killings, with lawmakers at the federal, state, and local levels pursuing sensible restrictions on guns in an effort to curb gun violence, SHOT’s organizers are pitching the event as a show of “industry unity,” as Media Matters’ Matt Gertz noted today:

SHOT Show is billed as the “the largest and most comprehensive trade show for all professionals involved with the shooting sports, hunting and law enforcement industries” and “the world’s premier exposition of combined firearms.” But it is more than just a trade show; according to its organizer, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (the trade association for firearms manufacturers and dealers), “Any SHOT attendee will tell you the show is more than about selling and buying; it’s a powerful display of industry unity and its resolve to meet any challenge affecting the right to make, sell and own firearms.”

It’s one thing for NBC Sports to promote the safe and responsible ownership of guns used in the type of outdoor sports it broadcasts. The SHOT Show, though, seems less a place for hunters and outdoorsmen and women than it does a place where attendees can buy, trade, and otherwise gawk at the high-powered, military- and law-enforcement grade weapons and ammunition that, frankly, have no place in a rational society.

There is a marked difference between those types of weapons and the firearms used by hunters and people who shoot for sport. That distinction is often covered up by organizations like the National Rifle Association, which has instead resorted to promoting the paranoid and absurd belief that liberal politicians in Washington are coming after everyone’s guns. Blurring that distinction is profitable for it and possibly even the National Sports Shooting Foundation (which puts on the SHOT Show), the types of groups that often deny the role of guns in mass killings and America’s high rates of gun violence, because the paranoia that results brings larger crowds to gun shows and pads the bottom line.

But that explanation doesn’t work for NBC Sports, which, as a media organization, shouldn’t just want to promote that distinction but has an obligation to. No one is targeting the guns used in hunting and sport-shooting, because we can curb gun violence in this country without attacking the people who are able to safely and responsibly own and operate firearms for sporting purposes. Those guns, and those gun owners, aren’t the root of America’s gun violence problem, and that’s a fact recognized by everyone involved in the debate over how to prevent gun violence in America (yes, even the NRA). By making that distinction clear, NBC Sports could go a long way in making that debate smarter, sharper, and more accurate. It’s a shame it has chosen not to.

View the original article here

Rep. Gingrey: Todd Akin 'partly right' about rape and pregnancy

Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.) said former Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) was "partly right" when he made controversial comments that women cannot become pregnant from a rape.

Akin, then the Republican Senate nominee in Missouri, said a woman cannot become pregnant from a "legitimate rape" because the female body can "shut that whole thing down."

Gingrey, who is an OB-GYN, said in a town-hall meeting that Akin was partially correct, according to a report in the Marietta (Ga.) Daily Journal.

Gingrey said a rush of adrenaline can prevent the female body from ovulating — something he's seen a lot in women who are tense about trying to conceive, he said. 

“And I’ve delivered lots of babies, and I know about these things. It is true," Gingrey said. "We tell infertile couples all the time that are having trouble conceiving because of the woman not ovulating, ‘Just relax. Drink a glass of wine. And don’t be so tense and uptight, because all that adrenaline can cause you not to ovulate.’ So he was partially right, wasn’t he?"

Gingrey's office said he was only commenting on the political implications of Akin's August comments, and that he does not agree with them.

"At a breakfast yesterday morning, I was asked why Democrats made abortion a central theme of the presidential campaign. I do not defend, nor do I stand by, the remarks made by Rep. Akin and Mr. Mourdock. In my attempt to provide context as to what I presumed they meant, my position was misconstrued," Gingrey's office said in a statement.

Former Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock (R) lost his election following a controversy over his statement that "even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."

Here's the full quote from Gingrey, as reported by the Daily Journal:

“And in Missouri, Todd Akin … was asked by a local news source about rape and he said, ‘Look, in a legitimate rape situation’ — and what he meant by legitimate rape was just look, someone can say I was raped: a scared-to-death 15-year-old that becomes impregnated by her boyfriend and then has to tell her parents, that’s pretty tough and might on some occasion say, ‘Hey, I was raped.’ That’s what he meant when he said legitimate rape versus non-legitimate rape. I don’t find anything so horrible about that. But then he went on and said that in a situation of rape, of a legitimate rape, a woman’s body has a way of shutting down so the pregnancy would not occur. He’s partly right on that.

“And I’ve delivered lots of babies, and I know about these things. It is true. We tell infertile couples all the time that are having trouble conceiving because of the woman not ovulating, ‘Just relax. Drink a glass of wine. And don’t be so tense and uptight because all that adrenaline can cause you not to ovulate.’ So he was partially right wasn’t he? But the fact that a woman may have already ovulated 12 hours before she is raped, you’re not going to prevent a pregnancy there by a woman’s body shutting anything down because the horse has already left the barn, so to speak. And yet the media took that and tore it apart."

“That the Chairman of the Republican Doctors Caucus shares former Congressman Todd Akin’s extreme, offensive views on women and rape is both alarming and telling,” said Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Communications Director Jesse Ferguson. “Last November women across the country sent the message loud and clear that they are not interested in electing men who don’t take women’s health and safety seriously, but House Republicans have apparently still not gotten that message.

"As long as Republicans have extremists like Congressman Gingrey leading their health care policy, the Tea Party House Republicans will be too extreme for women."

— This report was originally published at 10:55 a.m. and last updated at 3:41 p.m. 

View Comments

View the original article here

Statement by the President on Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis

Statement by the President on Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis | The White House Skip to main content | Skip to footer site map The White House. President Barack Obama Get Email UpdatesContact Us Go to homepage. The White House Blog Photos & Videos Photo Galleries Video Performances Live Streams Podcasts 2012: A Year in Photos

A unique view of 2012

Briefing Room Your Weekly Address Speeches & Remarks Press Briefings Statements & Releases White House Schedule Presidential Actions Executive Orders Presidential Memoranda Proclamations Legislation Pending Legislation Signed Legislation Vetoed Legislation Nominations & Appointments Disclosures Visitor Access Records Financial Disclosures 2012 Annual Report to Congress 2011 Annual Report to Congress 2010 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff A Commitment to Transparency

Browse White House visitor logs

Issues Civil Rights It Gets Better Defense End of Iraq War Disabilities Economy Jobs Reform and Fiscal Responsibility Strengthening the Middle Class A Plan for Refinancing Support for Business Education Energy & Environment Ethics Foreign Policy Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Taxes Tax Receipt The Buffett Rule Rural Urban Policy Veterans Joining Forces Technology Seniors & Social Security Service Snapshots Creating Jobs Health Care Small Business PreK-12 Education Women Americans Spoke Out

To prevent a $2K tax hike on middle-class families

7 Things You Need to Know

About the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012

The Administration We the People

Create and Sign Petitions Now

President Barack Obama Vice President Joe Biden First Lady Michelle Obama Dr. Jill Biden The Cabinet 2010 Video Reports White House Staff Chief of Staff Jack Lew Deputy Chief of Staff Nancy-Ann DeParle Deputy Chief of Staff Alyssa Mastromonaco Counselor to the President Peter Rouse Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett Executive Office of the President Other Advisory Boards About the White House White House On the Go

Download our mobile apps

2012: A Year in Photos

A unique view of 2012

Our Government The Executive Branch The Legislative Branch The Judicial Branch The Constitution Federal Agencies & Commissions Elections & Voting State & Local Government Resources E-Gov Strategies and Guides E-Gov Circulars E-Gov Memoranda /* Maximize height of menu features. */if(typeof(jQuery)!='undefined')jQuery.each($('#topnav'),function(i,v){var o=$(v),oh=o.height(),sh=o.siblings().height();if(oh Home • Briefing Room • Statements & Releases   The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release January 09, 2013 Statement by the President on Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis

Over her long career in public service – as an advocate for environmental justice in California, state legislator, member of Congress and Secretary of Labor - Hilda Solis has been a tireless champion for working families. Over the last four years, Secretary Solis has been a critical member of my economic team as we have worked to recover from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression and strengthen the economy for the middle class. Her efforts have helped train workers for the jobs of the future, protect workers’ health and safety and put millions of Americans back to work. I am grateful to Secretary Solis for her steadfast commitment and service not only to the Administration, but on behalf of the American people. I wish her all the best in her future endeavors. 

Blog posts on this issue January 11, 2013 4:50 PM ESTPresident Obama Hosts President Karzai

We'll soon reach a milestone in Afghanistan -- when Afghan forces take full responsibility for their nation's security and the war draws to a close.

January 11, 2013 12:00 AM ESTWest Wing Week: 01/11/13 or "The Interests of Our Country" January 10, 2013 4:30 PM ESTPresident Obama Nominates Jacob Lew as Treasury Secretary

The President asks Jacob Lew -- the current White House chief of staff -- to serve as the next Treasury Secretary.

view all related blog posts ul.related-content li.views-row img {float: left; padding: 5px 10px 0 0;}ul.related-content li.view-all {padding-bottom: 3em;} Stay ConnectedFacebookTwitterFlickrGoogle+YouTubeVimeoiTunesLinkedIn   Home The White House Blog Photos & Videos Photo Galleries Video Performances Live Streams Podcasts Briefing Room Your Weekly Address Speeches & Remarks Press Briefings Statements & Releases White House Schedule Presidential Actions Legislation Nominations & Appointments Disclosures Issues Civil Rights Defense Disabilities Economy Education Energy & Environment Ethics Foreign Policy Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Taxes Rural Urban Policy Veterans Technology Seniors & Social Security Service Snapshots Women The Administration President Barack Obama Vice President Joe Biden First Lady Michelle Obama Dr. Jill Biden The Cabinet White House Staff Executive Office of the President Other Advisory Boards About the White House Inside the White House Presidents First Ladies The Oval Office The Vice President's Residence & Office Eisenhower Executive Office Building Camp David Air Force One White House Fellows White House Internships Tours & Events Mobile Apps Our Government The Executive Branch The Legislative Branch The Judicial Branch The Constitution Federal Agencies & Commissions Elections & Voting State & Local Government Resources E-Gov Strategies and Guides E-Gov Circulars E-Gov Memoranda En español Accessibility Copyright Information Privacy Policy Contact USA.gov Developers Apply for a Job

View the original article here

Top Biotech Trades

 Highlight transcript below to create clipTranscript:  Print  |  Email Go  Click text to jump within videoThu 10 Jan 13 | 05:53 PM ET Biotech stocks are outperforming the major indices, and are up 3 percent over the past week. CNBC's Seema Mody is tracking which stocks are trending on Twitter.

View the original article here

The Project to Replace ObamaCare Begins Now

As 2013 begins, encouraging a discussion about how to replace the president’s health-care law might strike some observers as a case of particularly bad timing. After all, in the year just ended, the Supreme Court upheld most of the provisions of the law and the president won reelection. As a consequence, the best opportunities to remove the law from the books before it ever really got started are now gone. The tough reality now is that Obamacare is not going to be undone during the next four years. So why bring up an alternative plan at this point?

The answer is that replacing Obamacare is by necessity a long-term project; you have to start somewhere. Moreover, it remains essential. Like it not, health-care policy is central to the struggle over the size and scope of governmental power. Without a better approach than Obamacare, there will be no success in limiting government or in lessening the dependence of citizens on the state.

It is also going to take a lot of work and political effort to build the political coalition necessary to move health-care policy in a different direction. Indeed, one of the reasons Obamacare passed in the first place is because opponents of government-dominated health care never coalesced around a serious and workable alternative in the years prior to 2009. Moreover, those efforts that did take place to promote a real alternative, such as Senator John McCain’s proposal from the 2008 campaign, fell far short because they were not preceded by the necessary policy and political groundwork.

But all is not lost. Obamacare is flawed legislation that is already forcing employers to cut back their hiring and limit their employees’ hours. It will soon send premiums sky high for many Americans who already have insurance. Promises about the law’s coverage and cost-control effects were greatly exaggerated. There will come a time — sooner rather than later — when Americans will be ready to hear again about an alternative to Obamacare’s government-heavy approach. At that moment, which might coincide with the 2016 presidential contest, Obamacare’s opponents must be ready with a viable, center-right, market-based alternative that can win public support. And the only way to be ready for a debate on health care in 2016 is to get to work now on the alternative plan. It takes that long to develop a workable framework, get it analyzed with credible numbers, and refine it to ensure it has broad appeal.

In that spirit, I am circulating again two essays on this subject from 2012. The first, co-authored by myself and Robert Moffit of the Heritage Foundation and published in the journal National Affairs, describes what we see as the fundamental principles of an effective, market-based reform plan. The second — a sequel of sorts to the first — is my effort to provide more detail on some of the key features of a workable alternative plan. It was published last month by the American Enterprise Institute in its Health Policy Outlook series.

Advocates of expansive governmental power are always more comfortable than their limited-government opponents talking about health-care policy. It is far easier to sell “the government will take care of it” than to explain why a decentralized, market-driven approach will be better for voters anxious for certainty about their health-care needs. Nonetheless, this fight cannot be avoided. Health care is too important to fiscal policy, to the American economy, and to the concerns of voters to be set aside as an unwinnable issue.

It is of course true that full replacement of Obamacare with a workable, market-based alternative will be an extremely difficult undertaking. But it is also true that a new direction in health care is crucially important for the country. And so, that being the case, it’s far better to get started on the effort now than to delay and thereby handicap the possibility of future success.

View the original article here

Effective Marginal Tax Rates for Low-Income Workers Are High

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report on effective marginal tax rates for low-income workers.[1]

An effective marginal tax rate as defined by the CBO is the change in taxes and change in government benefits associated with increases in income. Because tax rates and government benefits change as income changes, an individual’s effective marginal tax rate can rise and fall drastically as he works more hours.

While much focus in the past two years has been on the top end of the income scale—the “Buffett Rule,” the “1 percent”—the effects of taxation and government benefits are severe among the bottom 1 percent as well. With marginal effective tax rates exceeding 60 percent in many cases, the tax and benefit structure actively discourages earned success.

There are five lessons from the CBO report that policymakers should learn.

Lesson #1: Unintended Consequences Are Important.

The architects of policies such as Section 8 housing or food stamps never intended to create a poverty trap. But as benefits are added up, the combined effect is to steadily devalue earned income.

Chart 1, adapted from the CBO report’s Summary Figure 1, shows the futility of work for a single parent with one child. If he does not work at all, he receives $19,300 in government benefits. If he instead earns a salary of $30,000—which is full-time work at $15 per hour—he has disposable income of $28,000. This means that he is working full-time for only $8,700 per year more than if he did not work at all, making his effective take home wage $4.35 per hour ($8,700/2,000 hours per year). Is it rational to expect someone to work hard for such a low wage?

Lesson #2: Policymakers Should Think Dynamically.

Most government benefits aimed at the poor have “static” justifications. That is, a program to provide health care to the poor is predicated on their current poverty. But it may have important prospective effects. Once the program comes into existence, it changes the costs and benefits of staying in school, working, and even marrying. Some of the worst policies of the 20th century were those that penalized responsible fatherhood, as the Moynihan Report[2] famously addressed in 1965.

Lesson #3: The Main Argument in Favor of the Minimum Wage Is Weak.

Those who favor raising the minimum wage generally appeal to the idea that those working low-paying jobs need to increase their consumption more than others. But the CBO’s research shows that in the relevant income range, the marginal effective tax rate is above 65 percent for the example single parent (Chart 2, adapted from the CBO report’s Figure 2, page 7). Thus, a minimum wage increase of 10 percent would increase the single parent’s take-home pay by less than 4 percent—if he kept his job, which is no sure thing, since increases in the minimum wage hurt the job prospects of such workers.[3]

Meanwhile, the arguments for lowering the minimum wage are strong: Competitive wages employ more people, keep more businesses open, and employ those in greatest need of a job.

Lesson #4: Obamacare Makes the Problem Worse.

The phase-out of “Premium Assistance Credits” significantly raises the marginal effective tax rate for a single parent earning between $22,000 and $62,000 per year (see CBO, Figure 7, page 26). This is an example of a program that raises marginal tax rates without “raising taxes.” The government collects less revenue than before—in fact, it pays out a handsome benefit—but discourages work even more.

Lesson #5: Poverty Is Poorly Measured.

As The Heritage Foundation has argued elsewhere,[4] poverty statistics that measure only earnings are poorly defined. The CBO report shows that even for some of those with no earnings at all, social programs in the U.S. provide enough disposable income to elevate them above the poverty line. The example single parent, when earning nothing at all, receives benefits worth 128 percent of the federal poverty line.

Technical Insights

Beyond the substantive lessons that can be drawn from the report, note four technical insights:

This year is even worse than 2012. With the expiration of the temporary payroll tax cut, marginal tax rates rose 2 percentage points for most earners.The CBO’s calculation of government benefits overstates the benefit. Many government benefits are distributed by means other than cash: health care, housing, and food stamps, for example. While there are good reasons for doing so, economics shows that people would prefer to receive cash. If they chose to spend the cash in exactly the same way, then they would be no worse off. If they made other choices, they would (by revealed preference) be better off. Thus, the benefits of government programs are less than the total spent on behalf of recipients. That means that the real effective marginal tax rates presented here might also be overstated. At the same time, there are non-monetary costs to government programs and ample non-government costs to work, all of which interact with the costs measured by CBO.Income is not the only variable. Tax and benefit policies are extraordinarily complex. The interaction of income, taxes, and benefits can vary by number of children, student status, age, and state, to name a few. Policies can have dynamic effects on choices other than how many hours to work—people may be more (or less) likely to move, marry, or commit crime depending on policies.Composition matters. Not everyone who files a tax return on earnings of $10,000 is similar. The CBO report wisely uses the example of a single parent with one child to avoid compositional fallacies when comparing different income ranges. A single adult earning $20,000 may be more affluent than a married couple with children earning $30,000.

Common Sense from the CBO

The high marginal effective tax rates, and their effects on regular people, have long been noted by economists.[5] In the United Kingdom, experts recognized the poverty trap created by government policy and initiated a major reform of the social welfare system, which will begin taking effect in 2013.[6] Casey Mulligan has contrasted the British simplification of welfare with growing complexity in the United States.[7]

With the tax code ripe for reform, policymakers should remember: Marginal tax rates are dangerously high for some on the lower end of the pay scale.

—Salim Furth, PhD, is Senior Policy Analyst in Macroeconomics in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation.

[5]Harvard professors Jeff Frankel and Jeff Liebman relate one woman’s experience to the economic research on the “poverty trap” created by government policies. See Jeff Frankel, “Effective Marginal Tax Rates on Lower-Income American Workers,” Jeff Frankels Weblog, February 2008, http://content.ksg.harvard.edu/blog/jeff_frankels_weblog/2008/02/08/8/ (accessed December 20, 2012).

View the original article here

Oil Giant’s Rig Crash Could Be A Tax Dodging Attempt Gone Wrong

The latest of a series of Shell mishaps in the Arctic occurred on New Year’s Eve, when Shell’s drilling rig, Kulluk, ran aground while being towed out of Alaskan waters. Harsh weather conditions began shortly after Shell began towing, causing the rig and its 150,000 gallons of fuel and drilling fluid to wash up on an island along the Alaska coastline.

Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) challenged the suspicious timing of Shell’s decision to move despite the harsh conditions. If Shell had kept its rig stationed in Alaska waters on January 1, the company would have potentially paid $6 million in state taxes:

Shell could have been exposed to potential state tax liability on the Kulluk drill rig if it remained in the state on January 1st. Chapter 43.56 of the Alaska Statutes states that an annual tax of 2 percent can be assessed each tax year on January 1st on “the full and true value of taxable [oil and gas] property taxable under this chapter” Shell had reportedly spent $292 million just on upgrades to the Kulluk since purchasing the drill rig in 2005. That would mean that Shell could have potentially been exposed to state tax liability on the Kulluk in excess of $6 million.

Shell’s official response maintains that the “two-week window of good weather” prompted the decision to move out of Alaskan waters.

Shell has a history of tax dodging. For example, it has offshored pre-tax profits to avoid UK taxes. At the federal level in the U.S., Shell also lowers its tax bill with $200 million in annual tax breaks.

View the original article here

Corporate Lobby Threatens A Blizzard Of Litigation Attacking Wall Street Reform And Environmental Protection

Yesterday, U.S. Chamber of Commerce president Tom Donohue delivered his “State of American Business” address, in which he laid out the wealthy corporate lobbying group’s agenda for the coming year. After using several questionable statistics to attack regulations intended to protect the environment or prevent Wall Street from triggering another economic crisis, Donohue’s speech includes a promise to unleash a barrage of well-compensated lawyers to help immunize corporate America from these regulations. “You are going to see us significantly expand the expertise in our law firm, the National Chamber Litigation Center and in other areas of our institution, in order to deal with regulations. Our preference is always to work within the legislative and regulatory processes and we do that on a daily basis. But when rights have been trampled on, or regulators have overstepped their bounds, we’ll take the necessary legal action.”

So long as the Supreme Court’s current majority sits, the Chamber’s threat needs to be taken seriously. One of the Chamber’s top attorneys, Supreme Court litigator Carter Phillips, claimed in 2007 that “[e]xcept for the solicitor general representing the United States, no single entity has more influence on what cases the Supreme Court decides and how it decides them than the National Chamber Litigation Center.” If anything, this understates the corporate lobby’s success before the Roberts Court. According to a 2010 study by the progressive Constitutional Accountability Center, the Chamber’s victory rate before the Supreme Court spiked 15 points once Chief Justice Roberts took the Court’s center seat. In total the Court favors business interests 61 percent of the time.

Indeed, the Roberts Court is so favorable to the corporate lobby’s position that every single justice examined by the study was more likely to favor the Chamber’s position that the one who held that seat 25 years before:

If anything, the Roberts Court has become even more favorable to corporate interests since this study was conducted. In the term that concluded earlier this year, the Chamber went 7-0 before the justices — the first time since 1991 that the Chamber was undefeated in the nation’s highest Court.

View the original article here