We Need Bi-partisan Solutions

What’s wrong with bi-partisan solutions?

Compromise produces solutions.

Ever since Newt Gingrich instituted the current GOP “take no prisoners” political strategy, bi-partisan solutions to the nation’s problems have gone nowhere.

Healthcare is the latest victim.

After the Senate failed in several attempts to repeal and replace Obamacare, President Trump issued an executive order purporting to end the subsidies paid to insurance companies that enabled lower premiums for coverage. The resulting outcry was swift and merciless.

Without the subsidies to make premiums affordable for millions of middle class folks, many would have to go without coverage. It turned out that as many as 70 percent of those receiving the subsidized premiums live in states that voted for Trump. Betrayal is a brutal political move.

Part of Trump’s message when he issued his order was that it was up to Congress to fix the problem. Congress is stuck. Not enough republicans can come to agreement on a fix. Ultra conservatives are still holding out for Obamacare repeal. GOP moderates are willing to look reality in the eye and reach across the aisle for help. Many democrats are stuck on a single payer, Medicare for All, plan and oppose anything less. Some are willing to cross the aisle to forge a short-term solution that at least maintains the status quo until a more comprehensive fix can be forged.

Enter Senators Patty Murray (D-WA) and Lamar Alexander (R-TN) who put together a short term fix that would extend the premium subsidies for two years to keep people insured until a better plan can be enacted. It was a truly bi-partisan effort and gained co-sponsors from both parties, including one of our own Senators, Tammy Baldwin.

Trump initially supported the idea in phone calls with Sen. Alexander and public comments on Twitter, his favorite platform, and elsewhere. After pushback from those in the ultra-right like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and others, Trump appeared to switch course, claiming he could never support bailing out insurers.

It remains to be seen if the Murray-Alexander bill will command enough support to get out of the Senate and over to the House for a vote where it will have a much tougher row to hoe for passage. It does represent, at least, a ray of hope that bi-partisan solutions can still be found.

Our government works best when the people we elect to represent us are willing to compromise. We have a lot more in common and than our leaders think and are willing to recognize. Ideological purity is the single biggest impediment to progress and the ability to find solutions to common problems.

No single bloc in the American body politic commands a sufficient majority to exert total control over the reigns of government. Even with simple voting majorities in both houses of congress and a president of the same political party, republicans cannot command enough votes to advance an effective agenda. There is too much of a spread in the spectrum of the conservative right to get it done. Even with extreme gerrymandered congressional districts to support continued GOP rule, the spectrum spread will prevent a totally unified response to the issues we face.

It is time to put aside the labels of conservative, liberal, republican and democrat and to ask candidates who want to represent us in the halls of government how they plan to govern. Are you going to hew the party line or listen to all the voices? Are you going to seek real solutions to our common problems or let your personal preferences govern your decisions? Are you willing to work with all of your colleagues or just those in your party?

Our new era needs leaders committed to public service, not personal aggrandizement. They need to listen to the diverse voices of the nation, not just their isolated constituents. The need to work to see   the pressing issues of our time, not merely to align them with their own world view, but in a way that allows for input from all points of view to find a workable solution.

It is easy to stake out a position and claim its validity to the world. It is much harder to consistently re-examine that position in light of new facts or arguments and to be able to admit you were wrong and change your mind. We deserve leaders and representatives who are up to that challenge and willing to embrace it wholeheartedly.

Waring R. Fincke is a retired attorney and serves as a guardian for the elderly and disabled.

Enough is Enough

Enough Carnage

Guns are a Public Health Menace

When is enough gun-inflicted carnage sufficient for American lawmakers to ignore the bribery from the NRA and other purist 2^nd Amendment groups and enact sensible reforms to limit access to firearms whose purpose is to kill people? 

To listen to most republican leaders and even some democrats, the answer is, unfortunately, not yet. 

As of October 1^st, data compiled by the Gun Violence Archive tells us that in the past 1,735 days there have been 1,516 mass shootings in the United States. That averages one shooting that injured or killed four or more people in nine out of every ten days. At least 1,715 people were killed and over 6,000 were injured in those shootings.

Is that enough? Evidently not.

Las Vegas is but the latest in the string of American mass executions that has failed to move Congress into action. The carnage inflicted by unregulated fully automatic weapons left 58 dead, the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. History. What we got from Congress were empty thoughts and prayers.

What do we know about American gun violence from a public health perspective? Very little. This is primarily because Congress, at the bidding of its death-dealing lobbyist masters, has prohibited the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) from conducting research on the pubic health implications of gun violence. 

The CDC can study and make recommendations on every other public health menace, but it cannot even look at why Americans are obsessed with guns or why so many are used to maim and kill. 

Studies conducted by universities and medical researchers shed some light on the death walking our streets untouched. 

The Guardian recently published 17 charts reflecting some of that research. Here are some of the important conclusions.

1. America has six times as many firearm homicides as Canada and 16 times as many as Germany. A Harvard study indicates the increased rate is primarily due to the number of guns in circulation in the U.S., 
2. America has 4.4% of the world’s population and almost half of the civilian owned guns on the planet. They have not made us safer.
3. Under a broader definition, there is more than one mass shooting each day in America. We are told in the aftermath of each that then is not the appropriate time to talk about gun violence. Under this rationale, it is never the right time to talk about gun violence. 
4. Multiple studies show developed countries and U. S. states with more guns have more gun deaths. 
5. States with tighter gun control laws have fewer gun related deaths. Epidemiologists looked at the worldwide research and concluded that with new gun regulations comes a drop in gun violence.
6. Even though mass shooting incidents are horrific and command attention, a majority of gun deaths are suicides, not homicides. Suicide researchers have demonstrated that greater access to guns dramatically increases the risk of suicide. 
7. The states with the most guns report the most suicides. Guns allow people to kill themselves much more easily. It follows that limiting access to guns reduces the number of suicides. An Australian study demonstrated that buying back 3,500 guns per 100,000 people correlated with a 50 percent drop in firearm homicides and a 74 percent drop in gun suicides.
8. In states with more guns, more police officers are killed on duty. The American Journal of Public Health study supports this conclusion. Every 10% increase in gun ownership correlated with 10 more officers being shot on duty.
9. Mass shootings have done little to change public opinion about gun ownership. Most still support gun rights. 
10. Specific gun control measures are fairly popular. 89% support preventing the mentally ill from buying guns. Over 80% support not letting those on no fly lists buy guns. Over 70% support background checks for gun show and private gun sales. More than 50% would ban assault weapons. A similar number support a federal database tracking gun sales. 

Other public health menaces that killed or maimed have brought swift legislative responses even though opposed by powerful lobbyists.

In 1980, the MGM Grand Hotel in Law Vegas caught fire killing 85 and injuring more than 500. What followed were stricter fire codes, improved construction and building safety regulations. 

The Tylenol tampering scare in 1982 led to and immediate recall and prompt implementation of sealing procedures we now take for granted even though far fewer were killed.

Horrific roadway accidents led to seat belts, automobile safety regulations, texting while driving laws and other highway safety measures. 

When is enough carnage enough? I’ve had enough. Have you? Call your lawmakers and write them letters. End it now.

Waring R. Fincke is a retired attorney and serves as a guardian for the elderly and disabled.