By far the most heart-breaking outcome was the defeat of the Toomey-Manchin compromise proposal for expanded background checks.  Knowledgeable gun control supporters, myself included, have known for some time that the measures calling for restoration of the assault weapons ban and limiting the size of magazine clips were doomed to failure.  We had reason to be hopeful, however, concerning prospects for passing the background checks proposal.

When push came to shove, however, the carefully crafted bipartisan proposal by Senators Toomey (R-Pa.) and  Manchin (D-W.Va.) was defeated by a voting block consisting of all but four Senate Republicans and five Democrats who chose to break rank.  Ironically, both Senators are viewed as conservatives within their own respective parties.

The one bright spot emerging from yesterday’s voting was the courageous decision of Arizona’s own Sen. John McCain to break rank and join three other Republicans in voting in favor of expanded background checks.  Unfortunately his colleague Sen. Jeff Flake, cast a No vote, presumably caving in to pressure from vocal guns rights extremists.

Gun control advocates speak out

Seated in the Senate spectator gallery, Patricia Maisch, who helped disarm Jared Lee Loughner during the January 8, 2011 shooting of Gabrielle Giffords and 18 others, shouted down to the Senate floor “Shame on you!”  Roxanna Green, mother of 9-year old Christina Taylor-Green who was killed in the Tucson shooting, told reporters “I can’t believe we’ve come down to this.”  Knowing full well that she will never have her precious daughter back, she vowed to continue to fight until reforms are made, stating “We’re in this to the end – It’s not going to stop us.”

Speaking on behalf of the people of Connecticut, where 20 children six adults who brutally slain by a gunman last December, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) exclaimed “There’s never been a bigger disconnect between where the American public is on an issue and where the Senate ended up.”  His colleague, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), added “Tragically, it may take more mass killings!”

Sen. Joe Manchin, co-sponsor of the bipartisan background checks proposal, vowed to continue talking to other senators concerning whether additional changes could be made to attract their votes.  Speaking at a breakfast sponsored by The Wall Street Journal, he proclaimed that the proposal would have succeeded if the Senate had taken it up quickly after the Newtown shootings.

Speaking at a White House press conference, flanked by former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and Neil Heslin, father of a 6-year-old Newtown victim, President Obama decried the Senate votes, stating that “This was a pretty shameful day for Washington.”  Speaking from the nation’s Capitol, Carlee Soto, younger sister of slain Sandy Hook Elementary School teacher Vicki Soto, stated “We elected these people – I have no idea whose voice they were speaking for today.”  Indeed, recent polls have shown that the preponderance of Americans, including the majority of NRA members, favor expanded background checks (see “Recommended Reading” below).

NRA’s unholy alliance

As stated in a recent post, the National Rifle Association is staunchly opposed to any efforts to promote responsible gun control, including the expanded background checks bill, which would have closed the loophole exempting purchases at gun shows conducted  between “private parties”.  Gun show purchases, together with internet sales which are also predominantly exempt from background checks, constitute 40 percent of all gun sales!

Flying in the face of the majority of its members, who reportedly favor background checks on all gun sales (see “Recommended Readings”), the NRA remains vehemently opposed to all gun control proposals in deference to the gun manufacturers, from whom the organization derives the lion’s share of its financial support.  That being the case, I am convinced that the NRA leadership will not rest until every man, woman, child, dog and cat in this nation is “armed to the teeth”.

Arguably, the NRA is the most powerful interest group in the nation.  Indeed, many lawmakers on both sides of the aisle count on support from the NRA when election time approaches, as they see this as constituting the difference between winning and losing.  Sadly, in recent years growing numbers of Democratic contenders for office have chosen to bend over backwards to appease the NRA in their bid for election or re-election.

Obviously the gun show operators are staunchly opposed to expanded background checks as the freedom to buy guns without  background checks constitutes a major draw for gun show attendees.

Concerning the sensibility of gun show operators, I was appalled that in January, 2012, Crossroad America chose to operate a well-attended gun show in Tucson on the very weekend that marked the first anniversary of the horrific shooting of Gabrielle Giffords and 18 others – a massacre that claimed six innocent lives.

A request for civil dialog

Sadly we live in a nation and a world marked by an increasing escalation of wanton violence.  I believe that the frightening  spread of violence across our planet coincides with the erosion of wholesome qualities, including good manners and common decency, that most of us were brought up to adhere to.

As a “Christian Buddhist” I have a great deal of respect for the biblical admonition  to “beat our swords into plowshares”.  By the same token, I have no desire to tamper with valid Second Amendment protections under our Constitution concerning the right to bear arms.  As is the case with millions of other gun control advocates, I am simply seeking to bring people together to stem the ceaseless violence and mayhem through promoting responsible debate and dialog concerning the adoption and enforcement of responsible gun control measures.

In this column I have attempted to present my views in a responsible and respectful manner.  I am aware that many readers  may choose to disagree with my views on this particular subject.  I submit, however, that no good purpose is served by inflammatory rants and name-calling.  In this spirit, I invite you to join me in a mutually respectful dialog concerning this vitally important issue.  Let’s strive to learn from one another!

In peace,

John Newport (Dr. John)

Recommended reading:

Associated Press/Arizona Daily Star, “Senate defeats major gun curbs”, April 18, 2013.

Associated Press “Gun-control backers: Senate defeat won’t stop us”, April 18, 2013.

The Truth-O-Meter “Says 90  percent of Americans and 74 percent of National Rifle Association members support background checks for gun purchases”.  April 4, 2013  (www.politifact.com).

Walter Hickey, “Here’s Who the NRA REALLY Represents”, Business Insider. December 19, 2012. (www.businessinsider.com)

The treaty was approved by 154 of the 193 UN member nations, with Iran, North Korea and Syria voting against the treaty.  While the United States, by far the world’s largest arms exporter, voted in favor of the treaty, Russia and China, the world’s second and forth largest arms exporters, abstained.  Reportedly, the 23 abstaining nations include a large number of countries with dubious human rights records, such as Bahrain, Myanmar and Sri Lanka.

The treaty’s significance

The treaty is scheduled to go into effect after 50 nations have ratified it.  Diplomats anticipate that obtaining the 50 ratifications will take two or three years, a relatively quick time frame for an international treaty.  Even though enforcement will be solely at the discretion of the countries that ratify the treaty, it will create an international forum of nations that will review published reports of arms sales and publicly name violators.

The need for this treaty is underscored by the fact that deals arranged by unscrupulous international arms brokers account for a large proportion of guns employed in civil wars in the Congo, Angola, Sierra Leona and Sudan.  As the death toll has been in the millions, African nations have been enthusiastic backers of the treaty.

Proponents state that if enough countries ratify the treaty, it will effectively become the international norm, and its standards will be used immediately as political and moral guidelines in reference to global arms trade.  Prompt ratification from the United States and other key powers, including Britain, France and Germany, would provide a powerful boost to the treaty’s effectiveness.

Opposition from the Senate

Ratification of the treaty is currently under debate in the US Senate.  Under constitutional law, a two-thirds majority vote (67) is required to ratify a treaty.

The line-up is a cliff-hanger at this point.  According to a recent Daily Star article, 35 Senators have endorsed a resolution of opposition, leaving only 65 potential votes in favor unless two or more Senators can be persuaded to change their minds.  Senate opposition to the treaty appears to be driven by widespread paranoia among many gun owners concerning the Obama-Biden gun control proposals, together with strident opposition by the NRA.

The NRA strongly supports a Senate resolution sponsored by Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kansas) to block ratification.  For years the NRA has consistently opposed any and all international arms control measures.   This is in stark contrast to views of its membership, as numerous polls indicate that the majority of NRA members support background checks on all gun sales.  To cite a few examples, results of a national survey published in the March 21, 2013 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine indicate that 84 percent of gun owners and 74 percent of NRA members support universal background checks.  A CBS/New York Times poll conducted of 1,110 adults between Jan. 11-15, 2013, showed that 85 percent of respondents living in a household containing an NRA member supported universal background checks.

I unequivocally believe that the NRA’s staunch opposition to any and all international arms treaties is totally reprehensible.  While in its early days the NRA was a grassroots organization that prided itself on independence from corporate influence, that most definitely is not the case today.  According to a  Business Insider article titled “Here’s Who The NRA REALLY Represents”, less than half of the organization’s current revenues come from program fees and membership dues.  The bulk of revenues now come in the form of contributions, grants, royalty income and advertising, much of it originating from the gun manufactures.  While to my knowledge the American gun industry does not directly sell weapons abroad to parties sanctioned by the UN treaty, they can, and do, sell large quantities of assault weapons to international arms brokers who transfer these weapons to rouge states and other parties engaged in unconscionable mayhem.  Meanwhile the NRA conveniently overlooks the complicity of its primary constituents in these heinous transactions.

Many Senators and Congressional representatives facing tough reelection battles are beholden to the NRA for financial support.  Take, for example, Sen. Max Baucus (D – Montana), up for reelection next year, who recently announced that he will not accept a treaty that “undermines the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Montanans.”  He will, of course, be richly rewarded by the NRA for his stance.

Simply put, the arguments that the UN treaty threatens to undermine the Second Amendment right of U.S. citizens are totally ludicrous!  As Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Menendez (D-New Jersey) correctly asserts, the UN Global Arms Treaty “would in no way infringe on the rights of American citizens under domestic law or the Constitution to bear arms.”  First of all, the  scope of the UN accord is strictly limited to international arms sales, and in no way addresses domestic gun sales within a sovereign state.  Furthermore, a long-standing legal principal asserts that no treaty can override the Constitution or U.S. laws.

Of particular concern to myself and others who support international accord is the inflammatory rhetoric coming from Presidential hopeful Sen.  Rand Paul (R-Kentucky).  Quoting from a fund-raising letter that Senator Paul recently sent out on behalf of the National Association for Gun Rights:   “On November 7th, (Obama’s) administration gleefully voted at the UN for a renewed effort to pass the “Small Arms Treaty.  I don’t know about you, but watching anti-American globalists plot against our Constitution makes me sick…That’s why I’m helping lead the fight to defeat the UN “Small Arms Treaty” in the United States Senate.  And it’s why I need your help today…Ultimately, UN bureaucrats will stop at nothing to register, ban and confiscate firearms owned by private citizens like YOU.”

Beyond a doubt, these inflammatory assertions by Sen. Rand Paul and others of his ilk constitute complete distortion of the facts, designed to mislead both American citizens and our elected representatives – misrepresentations that could carry dire consequences affecting the outcome of the Senate vote on this  extremely important international issue.

What needs to be done

As of this writing it is completely up for grabs as to whether Senate Arms Treaty supporters will be able to muster the full 67 votes needed to ratify the treaty.

It is imperative that leading figures within the Obama administration pull all stops to indicate their unwavering support for ratification.  In particular, President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry must each personally present a resounding case to the Senate that fully addresses the urgent need for treaty ratification.  If at all possible, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon should also be urged to testify before the U.S. Senate.

Indeed, if our country aspires to fulfill its traditional role as champion of the free world, we must quickly ratify the treaty and turn our focused attention to convincing leaders of states throughout the world to ratify and embrace this global accord.

With particular regard to Russia and China, which both abstained from voting on the treaty, we must fully employ our country’s international stature and moral suasion in imploring both nations to ratify the treaty and agree to be governed by its terms.  This will not be an easy task, as both Russia and China have been heavily complicit in brokering transactions that have placed vast supplies of armaments into the hands of unscrupulous leaders and warriors throughout the world.

In conclusion, the U.N. Global Arms Treaty constitutes a critically important step in promulgating international political and moral guidelines governing global arms trade.  Our nation cannot afford to shirk its duty to fully embrace this treaty and diligently work to ensure its acceptance by nations both large and small, and weak and powerful, throughout the world.

Recommended reading:

Donna Cassata, article released by Associated Press on April 4, 2013 titled “Global arms treaty appears dead in Senate”.

The Truth-O-Meter “Says 90 percent of Americans and 74 percent of National Rifle Association members support background checks of gun purchasers”. Posted April 4, 2013 (www.politifact.com).

Walter Hickey, “Here’s Who The NRA REALLY Represents”, Business Insider. Posted December 19, 2012. (www.businessinsider.com).

David Weigel, “Read One of the Fundraising Letters Rand Paul is Sending on Behalf of a U.N.-Skeptical Gun Rights Group”. Posted April 3, 2013 (www.slate.com/blogs/weigel).

Unfortunately, while political momentum favoring responsible gun control reached a crescendo in the weeks following the Newtown massacre, it has flagged as the Senate prepares to debate gun restrictions next month.

Quoting from an article in yesterday’s Daily Star:  “Thanks to widespread Republican resistance and a wariness by moderate Democrats from southern and western states – including six facing re-election next year – a proposed assault-weapons ban appears doomed and efforts to broaden background checks and ban high-capacity ammunition magazines are in question.”

At the heart of the Obama – Biden strategy is a proposal to expand federal background checks to private sales at gun shows and on-line sales.  While background checks are required when guns are purchased from licensed dealers, some 40 percent of all gun sales take place in “person to person” transactions conducted at gun shows and over the internet - where no background checks are required.

Recent polls have repeatedly shown that the majority of Americans favor requiring background checks for all gun sales; those favoring universal background checks include a majority of NRA members.

The National Rifle Association, however, staunchly opposes expanding the background check requirement.  The reason why the NRA is so vehemently opposed to expanded background checks is easy to decipher – all one needs to do is follow the money.  Rather than espousing the wishes of the majority of its membership, the NRA remains beholden to the gun manufacturers, from whom it receives the lion’s share of its support.  That being the case, it is not terribly surprising that the NRA leadership will not rest until every man, woman, child, dog and cat in this nation is “armed to the teeth”!

Upcoming Senate vote

Democratic sponsors within the Senate will most likely need a super-majority of 60 votes to prevail.   Why the super-majority requirement is being imposed is totally beyond me; that requirement, however, will pose a daunting hurdle since Democrats have just 53 of the Senate’s 100 seats, plus two Democratic-leaning independents.   And sponsors of the expansion proposal cannot rest assured that all Democratic senators will back the proposal.  Witness the following quote from Senator Heidi Heitkamp (D-North Dakota) earlier this week: “I do not need anyone from New York City to tell me how to handle crime in our state.  I know that we can go after and prosecute criminals without the need to infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding North Dakotans.”

Open letter to Senators McCain and Flake

As polls repeatedly indicate that the majority of Americans favor background checks for ALL gun sales, it is difficult to fantom why this common-sense measure is in jeopardy of passing on the Senate floor.  In light of this reality,  we must implore all Senators to support its passage.  Toward that end I am sharing with you the following open letter to our two Arizona senators, John McCain and Jeff Flake:

Senator John McCain

Senator Jeff Flake

Russell Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20002

Subject: Gun Background Checks

Dear Senators McCain and Flake:

Last December’s massacre in Newtown, Conn in which 20 first-graders and six staffers were murdered was a brutal wake-up call to our nation and the world.  In  the wake of this tragedy millions of Americans and governmental leaders at all levels are calling for decisive action to stem our nation’s epidemic of gun violence.

As you are  aware, our President’s proposal for universal background checks to apply to all gun sales is currently under debate in the Senate.  Recent polls have repeatedly shown that the majority of Americans favor universal background checks, a common sense measure that is totally in keeping with Second Amendment provisions concerning the right to bear arms.   Indeed, those supporting universal background checks include the majority of NRA members.

As Arizonans, we are still recovering from the tragic shooting in Tucson on the morning of January 8, 2011 that took the lives of six innocent people and injured 19 others.  We are deeply saddened that this senseless shooting cut short the political career of a brilliant Congresswoman, Gabrielle Giffords, a highly effective and compassionate public servant  with a heartfelt commitment to reaching across the aisles to make things work.

Senators McCain and Flake, decency demands that we honor the victims of the Newtown and Tucson shootings and their families members, together with the 32,000 Americans who die each year due to gun-related violence and accidents.  In this spirit I urge you to lend your wholehearted support to passage of the Senate proposal for universal background checks applying to all gun sales.

Respectfully yours,

John Newport, PhD

Tucson, AZ

Author: The Tucson Tragedy: Lessons from the Senseless Shooting of Gabrielle Giffords

Tucson Citizen Columnist “Healing Tucson and Our Nation”

A call to action

Gaining senate approval is the necessary first step toward enacting the President’s proposal for universal gun sale background checks.  It is critically important that we do everything possible to gain the full support of this measure from our two Arizona senators.

Accordingly, I urge you to contact the offices of both senators TODAY urging them to support this vitally needed legislation.  If you wish to reference this column in your email, the link is  http://tucsoncitizen.com/healing-tucson/2013/03/30/gun-checks-an-open-letter-to-sens-mccain-flake/

Below is the contact information for both senators:

Senator John McCain, access email contact form via www.mccain.senate.gov

Senator Jeff Flake, access email contact form via www.flake.senate.gov

Let’s stand up and make our voices heard!

###

• Restore cuts to Arizona’s Medicaid program made in 2010 as an austerity measure – at no expense to the state!
• Infuse $1.6 billion of federal funding to Arizona to restore these cutbacks to our program – again at no cost to the state,
• Enable an estimated 300,000 additional low-income Arizonans (many of whom are members of the working poor) to access quality health care, dramatically increase their quality of life and save thousands of lives in the process,
• Provide a substantial boost to our state’s economy by creating 21,000 jobs, many of which will be high paying jobs in the health care sector, and
• Protect both rural and urban safety net hospitals (including several Tucson hospitals) from being pushed to the brink of bankruptcy by growing costs of uncompensated care following the 2010 Medicaid cutbacks.

This is precisely the proposal that Governor Brewer introduced in her January 14 State of the State address, and more recently rolled out as a legislative proposal at a press conference on March 12.

To anyone looking at the situation rationally, the Governor’s proposal to take advantage of funding available under the Affordable Care Act to restore the cuts to our Medicaid program would appear to be a no-brainer!

While Gov. Brewer was staunchly opposed to passage of the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare, she is a pragmatist and a shrewd fiscal manager who simply wants to do the best thing for the people of Arizona.  On January 14 she acknowledged that the Affordable Care Act is clearly the law of the land, together with the fact that on two separate occasions our citizens have voted to expand our Medicaid program to cover several hundred thousand medically indigent Arizonans.  Given these realities, she contends that it would be fool-hardy for our state to walk away from the opportunity to recoup a sizable portion of our federal tax dollars to restore  our Medicaid program to the level that existed before the 2010 cut-backs.

Furthermore, the Governor’s plan will raise the $220 million needed to access the federal funding of $1.6 billion through imposing an assessment on hospitals, which they will readily recoup from the infusion of federal funds.  And finally, her proposed legislation contains a “circuit breaker” clause to ensure that if at some point in the future the federal government reneges on its promise to cover 80 percent of the costs, our state will automatically opt out of the expansion.

So, what’s not to like?

Governor’s proposal faces formidable opposition

Earlier this week I learned from a colleague with the Grand Canyon Institute that the bill is being introduced into the House by Heather Carter (R-District 7), Vice Chair of the House Health and Human Services Committee.  Most likely the first step will be forwarding the bill to the House Appropriations Committee for vetting.

While Democrats are largely supportive of the bill, they hold only 24 of the 60 House seats and 13 of the 30 Senate seats.  To date Brewer has been  unable to persuade a majority of legislators from her own party to support the bill.  She is pulling out all stops in attempting to turn votes her way, one by one, through personal persuasion and building support among constituents of recalcitrant lawmakers.  Fortunately for those of us who support this common sense measure, our Governor has a reputations of not taking “NO” for an answer!

Despite the Governor’s status as a  strong statewide Republican leader and the fact that the bill enjoys widespread support from the hospital/health care community, chambers of commerce, informed voters and the Arizona Medical Association, proponents of this landmark legislation face heavy opposition in our struggle to successfully gain approval by both houses.

Unbelievably, Speaker of the House Andy Tobin has pronounced the draft bill “dead on arrival”, stating that he is unlikely to allow the measure to be brought to the floor of the House without the blessings of the majority of the GOP caucus.  Likewise, both Tobin and Senate President Andy Biggs are trying to ensure the measure’s defeat by playing the “Prop 108 card” (more on this later). Exasperated by Speaker’s Tobin’s negative stance Gov. Brewer asked “What does Speaker Tobin want?”

What does Tobin want?

Tobin has candidly stated that he wants assurances that hospital bills will stop going up if the Medicaid cut-backs are eliminated.  Quoting from a front page article in Wednesday’s Daily Star (March 13), Tobin wants the legislation to contain assurances that if the hospitals have less uncompensated care they will agree to stop cost-shifting to the private sector.  Cost-shifting, whereby privately insured and self-pay patients are presented with inflated charges in order to cover losses from uncompensated care, is a common practice in the hospital industry.

Having worked in the hospital/health care field for over 40 years in a variety of administrative capacities, I believe that Tobin’s position here constitutes a reasonable point for negotiation.   In regard to fiscal management, the hospital industry presents a rather schizoid posture in regard to billing and collections practices.

While many non-profit hospitals, such as St. Mary’s, St. Joseph’s and Tucson Medical Center are hemorhaging  from an excessive burden of uncompensated care following the 2010 Medicaid cut-backs, excessive profiteering is also rampant among many members of the hospital community, including both for-profit hospitals and many so-called “non-profit” institutions.  (For a detailed discussion of this frightening phenomenon, see the 40-page lead article featured in the March 4 issue of Time Magazine titled “Bitter Pill”.)

This being the case, I believe that Tobin is completely justified in wanting to build into the Medicaid Restoration bill reasonable assurances from the hospital community that they will substantially reduce cost-shifting if the bill is passed.  I urge that the Arizona Association of Hospitals and Health Care Providers assume a leadership role in working with our legislature in negotiating a resolution of this vital point.

Playing the Proposition 108 card

Proposition 108 is a voter-generated issue that passed overwhelmingly in the 1992 statewide general election.  This proposition added a provision to the Arizona Constitution that requires a 2/3 vote of each House to enact a bill that will provide for a net increase in state revenues IF the increase falls within one of seven enumerated categories.  The items that attract the most attention are the imposition of new taxes or increases in already existing taxes or the elimination of a tax credit or deduction.

Both Tobin and Biggs are attempting to block passage of the bill by treating the proposed hospital assessment as a tax increase, and arguing that a 2/3 super-majority in both houses is thereby required under terms of  Prop 108.  Governor Brewer’s office contends that a super-majority requirement does not apply, as the proposed $220 million dollar contribution from the hospitals represents an assessment.  Furthermore, the hospitals will easily recoup these funds via reductions in uncompensated care if the bill passes.

Does Tobin’s and Biggs’ contention that Prop 108 requires a super-majority for passage hold water?  To respond to this question we need to examine the proposition’s intention.

Clearly, the intent of this constitutional amendment is to safeguard the people of Arizona by  preventing the legislature from pushing through any unsound tax increases.  I strongly contend, however, that the intended purpose of Prop 108 does not apply to the Medicaid Restoration Bill, as the additional assessment on hospitals will not represent an increase to be borne by taxpayers.  Clearly, the intent of the Medicaid Restoration Bill is to serve the best interests of the people of Arizona.  As stated earlier, passage will be a boon to the state’s economy – creating an additional 21,000 jobs – in addition to restoring Medicaid coverage to an estimated 300,000 Arizonans.

Steps we can take to ensure passage

While the Medicaid Restoration bill’s passage will be an uphill battle, there are many steps you and I can take to ensure the measure’s passage.

1. Contact your three state legislators, urging their support of this measure that will serve the best interests of the people, in addition to giving our economy a much-needed boost.
2. Contact Speaker of the House Andy Tobin (atobin@azleg.gov) and Senate President Andy Biggs (abiggs@azlez.gov), urging them to respond to the will of the people by supporting passage of the Medicaid Restoration bill.
3. Contact Gov. Jan Brewer (azgovernor.gov/contact.asp) and Rep. Heather Carter (hcarter@azleg.gov), the bill’s sponsor, congratulating them for supporting this vitally needed measure and offering to help in any way you can.
4. Spread the word to your friends and community via group emails, facebook, letters to the editor, etc.  Follow the publisher’s guidelines, focus on one or two key points and bring them across succinctly and emphatically.

As the saying goes, “United we stand!”  Let’s all band together to ensure enactment of this vitally important measure for the people of Arizona.

Recommended Reading and Viewing:

1. “Will AZ legislature support Medicaid expansion proposal?” www.tucsoncitizen.com/healing-tucson (January 23, 2013).
2. “Brewer’s Medicaid details are revealed”, Arizona Daily Star, March 13, 2013.
3. “Bitter Pill”, Time Magazine, March 4, 2012.
4. Arizona Public Media Television (PBS, Channel 6), Arizona Week, March 15, 2013, 8:30 pm.  Special broadcast featuring a panel on Medicaid Expansion including Gov. Jan Brewer, Rep. Heather Carter, Senate President Andy Biggs, Rep. Victoria Steele and others.  Visit the Arizona Public Media website (www.tv.azpm.org) for other scheduled times, or view this presentation anytime by accessing “Play PBS” – Arizona Week via the AZPM website.

Concurrently the committee approved a separate measure, HCR 2026, sponsored by Rep Paul Boyer (R-Phoenix), which would eliminate public funding for candidates who elect to forego private financing for their campaigns.  This would be accomplished through defunding the Citizens Clean Election Commission, created in 1998 to help level the playing field in elections for state offices.

If passed and signed by the governor, these measures will further erode the power of  individual voters to determine election outcomes, thus perpetuating the existence of a government  “by and for the well-heeled vested interests”.

As you are undoubtedly aware, both houses of the legislature are dominated by arch conservative ideologues who by and large gain access to office via the largess of wealthy contributors and PACs.   Being acutely aware as to whom they are beholden to, these vocal extremists are strident in their efforts to defeat common sense  measures proposed by conscientious legislators with the peoples’ interest at heart.

Clearly HB 2593 and HCR 2026  pose a serious threat to our ability to maintain any semblance of representative government in Arizona.  The heavily funded vested interests will tighten their grip on the legislature and the governor’s office, and citizens of Arizona will once again be left holding the bag for “the best government that money can buy”.

Current Status

Both measures will  move on to the House Rules Committee, which will assess their constitutionality.  Provided that the bills pass muster, they will be forwarded to the full House for a vote.  If they pass the House they will go on to the Senate and ultimately to Gov. Brewer for approval once they have passed both houses.

If HCR 2026 passes a proposition will be placed on the 2014 ballot to strip the Citizens Clean Elections Commission of all funding sources, thus eliminating the option of public funding for candidates who choose to forego private financing.

Todd Lang, Executive Director of Clean Elections, charges that the language of HCR 2026 is clearly deceptive.  While the measure proposes to divert to public education all public funds now going to candidates, the wording ignores the fact that the preponderance of these funds do not come from taxpayers.  Rather, the funds allocated to candidates are generated by surcharges on civil, criminal and traffic fines.  Lang also points out that even if voters ultimately reject Boyer’s proposal to defund Clean Elections, passage of HB 2593 will trigger an astronomical increase of funds flowing to selected candidates from PACs and other vested interests.  That, in turn, will effectively eliminate all efforts to level the playing field in future elections.

What you can do

Passage of these measures will strip away the ability of individual votes to determine the outcome of elections for state offices.  I urge you to call or email your representatives in the state house and senate, expressing your strong opposition to both HB 2593 and HCR 2026.  Even better, also communicate your opposition to Governor Brewer and the leaders of both houses.  Their email addresses are: Gov. Jan Brewer azgov@az.gov; Speaker of the House, Andy Tobin (R-District 1) atobin@azleg.gov; President of the Senate, Andy Biggs (R-District 12) abiggs@azleg.gov.  You can also reach the sponsors of both bills at the following addresses:  HB 2593, J.D. Mesnard (R-Chandler), jmesnard@azleg.gov; HCR 2026, Paul Boyer (R-Phoenix), pboyer@azleg.gov.

We must stand united on this one – we cannot afford to let either of these ill-conceived measures pass!

Recommended reading:

“Legislators seek boost in gifts to campaigns”, Arizona Daily Star, February 22, 2013

Attorney General Tom Horne and Rep David Stevens (R-Sierra Vista) are advocating passage of HR 2656, which would allow school districts to designate employees who would have access to a gun that is kept in a secure firearm locker at the school.  In the event of a shooter coming onto campus, such a designated employee could get the campus gun and respond.  Significantly, the bill requires that these employees would only be required to complete 3 days of weapons training focusing on an active shooter scenario, together with “mental conditioning on the use of deadly force”, marksmanship and use of prudent judgement in responding to potential threats.

In a February 20 editorial titled “Arming teachers, principals won’t make schools safer”, the Arizona Daily Star describes the bill as “an attempt at school safety on the cheap”.  The editorial recalls that school resource officers, who worked from schools, were common in Tucson districts until budget cuts eliminated these positions.  The author goes on to state that arming teachers or other employees – especially when only 3 days of training are required to assume this role – is not a replacement for properly trained officers on campus.

While I tend to support allowing school districts to authorize school personnel who are highly trained in weaponry to respond to a shooter’s presence, I have serious qualms concerning the can of worms this would open up.  For one thing, do we really want our teachers and principals to put their lives on the line in this manner?  And suppose that the “designated gun” is kept in a safe in the principal’s office on the third floor, while the designated “responding employee” is on the first floor on the opposite side of the building.  In this scenario numerous students and teachers would most likely be slain before the employee could effectively confront the shooter.  And I totally agree with the Star’s questioning the wisdom of entrusting volunteer school employees with this awesome responsibility – especially when they have received less that one week’s training in this vitally important area.  And how would a teacher feel if in he or she inadvertently misfired and killed a child while attempting to target the shooter?  My advice to the bill’s sponsors – back to the drawing board on this one.  As the Star’s editorial wisely concludes, “Our efforts should be on preventing attacks from happening in the first place.”

Significantly, Rep. John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills), has proposed three bills dealing with gun safety, two of which are concerned with preventing shootings.  All three bills were approved by a House panel this Wednesday and have been forwarded to the full House for a vote.

In advocating passage of HB 2555, which would require teachers and health professionals to report potentially dangerous people to the police, Kavanagh correctly cites that teachers and officials at Pima College were fully aware of Jared Lee Loughner’s bizarre behavior before he killed six innocent people and wounded 13 others, including Congresswoman Giffords, two years ago.  Despite the fact that college officials ruled that Loughner’s aberant behavior constituted grounds for suspension, they failed to notify the police or order a mental health evaluation.

The legislative panel also approved HB 2618, also sponsored by Kavanagh, which would require additional training for police cadets to be able to assess persons for signs of serious mental illness so that a psychiatric team could be called in to conduct a thorough mental health status evaluation.

Significantly, existing law provides a precedent for the required reporting of potentially dangerous persons by teachers and health professionals.  Currently, health professionals,  social workers and mental health professionals are required to report to authorities any communication with their clients that provides grounds for suspicion that the client may be guilty of either child or spousal abuse.  And in California, and possibly other states, under the duty to inform doctrine  psychotherapists are required to inform the possible intended victim of any communication with a client that suggests that the client may intend to harm that individual.

I  support both bills proposed by Rep. Kavanagh as responsible measures to protect the public safety.  In support of these measures, Kavanagh has assured lawmakers that the Department of Health Services would distribute information instructing teachers how to exercise due discretion in identifying true problems that warrant reporting.  I would also recommend that the measures be expanded to require in-service training for teachers, health professionals and police officers on appropriate and responsible reporting as a safeguard against abuse.

The panel also gave the go-ahead to a third Kavanagh measure that would make it easier for persons to bring their guns into public buildings.  Under HB 2554,  Kavanaugh proposes that a government agency seeking to keep armed citizens out of designated buildings would need to provide lockers within 200 feet of the building entrance for individuals to store their guns.  Critics of this proposal consider it an overreaction, and express concern over requiring taxpayers to foot the bill for mandated gun lockers as a prerequisite for declaring a public building a gun-free zone.

In response to these criticisms, Kavanagh states that agencies or communities that don’t want to install gun lockers can simply allow people to carry their guns into the building.

I wholeheartedly disagree with Kavanagh on this particular measure.  In these trying times in which all governmental agencies are subjected to serious financial pressures, an agency that wants to designate any of its buildings as a gun-free zone should be free to do so without having to install lockers for the convenience of those carrying weapons.  A prominent sign banning weapons should be sufficient – and persons carrying guns should either leave their weapons at home or store them elsewhere before entering a building designated as a gun-free zone.

Recommended reading:

Arizona Daily Star Editorial, February 20, 2013, “Arming teachers, principals won’t make schools safer”

Arizona Daily Star front page article, February 21, 2013, “Teachers, clinics are asked to spot next Loughner”

Commenting on the measure’s passage, co-sponsor Karin Uhlich stated “The response to this measure has been overwhelmingly in support of reasonable, safe guns for the public.  It is very clear to me that Tucsonans want us to take any and every step that is within our power until there are safeguards in place and reasonable laws put in place [and enforced] at the national level.”

I strongly agree with the editorial in this morning’s Daily Star,  urging the county to follow suit and require gun-sale checks at all gun shows conducted on county-owned or managed property.  These measures are not treading on anyone’s second amendment rights.  To the contrary, they will simply impose a reasonable requirement for background checks for gun show sales,  to make it more difficult for felons and other persons legally barred from gun ownership to procure  these deadly weapons.

As year ago January I was appalled that the Crossroads organization, which operates gun shows throughout the west, held a widely-published gun show at the Pima County Fairgrounds on the very weekend that marked the first anniversary of the tragic shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and 18 others.  This massacre perpetrated by a deranged individual, which took the lives of 6 innocent people, in all likelihood cut short the political career of a brilliant, fair-minded and extremely dedicated public servant.   Again, I am appalled by the arrogance and insensitivity that the proprietor of this event demonstrated by staging a gun show in our community on the  first anniversary of that  horrific  event!

I personally believe that the greater majority of gun owners are responsible, law-abiding citizens who advocate both responsible  gun use and responsible, common sense restrictions to ownership of these deadly weapons.  Along these lines, it is interesting to note that the Associated Press recently reported a  survey of NRA members, whose findings  indicated that the majority of NRA members are in favor of background checks for all gun sales!

In closing, the City Council’s unanimous vote in favor of the background check requirement for all gun shows held on city-owned or managed property represents an important victory that all Tucsonans should rightfully be proud of.

Last Monday at her State of the State address, Gov Brewer presented a practical proposal for expanding Arizona’s Medicaid program to take advantage of funding available under the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare.  Her proposal was greeted by stunned looks from many members of her own party.

Brewer recounted her strong opposition to the President’s health care plan, which led her last year to join a coalition of states that sought to block the program in court.  She candidly acknowledged, however, that the law was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, Obama was re-elected and his party now controls the U.S. Senate.  These realities have prompted her to acknowledge that “the Affordable Care Act isn’t going anywhere – at least not for the time being.”

She also acknowledged that residents of Arizona have voted on two separate occasions to expand our Medicaid program to cover several hundred thousand medically indigent Arizonans.

Under the Affordable Care Act, the federal government will provide generous financial assistance to states that opt to expand Medicaid eligibility to families and individuals with incomes at or below 133 percent of the current federal poverty level.  The governor’s plan will impose a tax on hospitals to raise $220 million a year, which she claims will cover the state’s share of costs of expanding Medicaid eligibility under the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS).  The federal share will amount to $1.6 billion a year, enabling our state to provide Medicaid coverage to about 240,000 additional  residents.  Other key features of the governor’s plan include:

• It will protect both rural hospitals and urban safety net hospitals from being pushed to the  brink of bankruptcy by their growing costs of caring for the uninsured.
• By taking advantage of the infusion of federal funds, it will inject close to 2 billion dollars into the state’s economy, saving and creating thousands of jobs.  According to analyses conducted by the Grand Canyon Institute, a bi-partisan think tank, the proposed Medicaid expansion would create some 21,000 jobs and increase Arizona’s growth by nearly 1 percentage point!
• And most importantly from a human perspective the expansion will avail hundreds of thousands of low-income Arizonans to quality health care, dramatically increasing their quality of life and saving thousands of lives in the process.

Viewing the governor’s proposal strictly from a business perspective, the resultant 1:7 cost/return ratio represents a phenomenal return on the proposed up-front investment, to be covered by a tax levied on hospitals rather than through dipping into the state’s coffers.

To anyone looking at the situation rationally, the Governor’s proposal to take advantage of funding available under the Affordable Care Act to expand our Medicaid program would appear to be a no-brainer.  Under the current system, Arizona has a disproportionately large number of uninsured residents who already present themselves at doctors’ offices and hospital emergency rooms – an extremely expensive source of care.  Hospitals throughout the state, which have been providing an unsustainable amount of uncompensated care, have been hemorrhaging financially to the point where some facilities are considering closure.  Here in Tucson the Carondelet Health System, which operates St. Mary’s and St. Joseph’s Hospitals, has been hit particularly hard and Tucson Medical Center reports that its burden of uncompensated care has close to tripled over the past 18 months.

In unveiling her proposal, Brewer correctly pointed out that the uncompensated care burden that hospitals and other providers are forced to bear results in major cost-shifting as insurance premiums rise to cover the difference.  Dramatizing her point, Brewer stated that these premium increases amount to a hidden tax estimated at nearly two thousand dollars per family per year!

Prospects for passage

The Medicaid expansion proposal is receiving strong support from the healthcare community and the Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association.  Chambers of commerce throughout the state can also be counted on to be overwhelmingly in favor of the Medicaid expansion due to the boost that passage would provide to communities throughout the state.  Democrats overwhelmingly support the proposal and centrist/moderate legislators should be supportive of passage – one does not need to be a rocket scientist to do the math!

As readers are well aware, however, both houses of our state legislature have sizable contingencies of conservative members, a number of whom are prone to oppose Medicaid expansion on ideological grounds.

The current State Senate President, Andy Biggs, has told the press that he opposes the expansion, while the Tucson Weekly reports that in 2011 he actually sponsored legislation to eliminate Arizona’s Medicaid program.  When recently interviewed Senator Al Melvin (R-District 11, Oro Valley) stated “Frankly I hate to see it…I wish she would stand shoulder to shoulder with her fellow Republican governors and resist this as much as we can.”

Thus, despite the many merits of the Governor’s proposal for Medicaid expansion, its passage is by no means a slam-dunk.  There are, however, a number of hopeful signs, including:

• Governor Brewer is well liked among Republicans, and I believe she can be counted upon to wield considerable clout in persuading her colleagues in both the  house and senate to see the light.
• When viewed solely from a common sense perspective, the Medicaid expansion makes overwhelming sense in both economic and humanitarian terms.
• For obvious reasons, passage enjoys strong support from both the hospital/health care community and chambers of commerce throughout the state.
• I believe there is a growing contingency of bright legislators in both parties who are primarily concerned with providing what is best for the people of Arizona.  As such, I hope and pray that they will focus their wholehearted efforts on convincing their colleagues to do the right thing.
• I also believe that the greater majority of Arizona voters will strongly support Medicaid expansion, provided that they are made fully aware as to what is at stake!

Be a part of the solution

As concerned citizens we must band together to ensure that expansion of our state’s Medicaid program passes both houses.  Presented below are some suggestions on how to become proactively involved in furthering this cause:

• Contact Gov Brewer’s office and congratulate her on bringing this important issue to the front burner, while urging her to do whatever it takes to get her colleagues in the legislature to stand fully behind her.  The address for the Governor’s website is www.azgovernor.com and the phone number is 602-542-4331.
• Contact the two representatives and senator from your own district, expressing your strong support of the Medicaid expansion proposal.  Especially be sure to contact Republican legislators who may be either opposed to the proposal or sitting on the fence.  Be courteous – highlight your selling points: be sure to emphasize the tremendous boost that passage will bring to our state’s economy, together with the humanitarian aspects.  Appeal to their better nature and tell them that you hope they will support this measure and work with their colleagues to garner their full support.
• The House Health Committee and the Senate Health and Human Services will each play a vital role in determining the fate of the Medicaid expansion proposal.  I urge you to send an email to members of each of these committees, expressing your strong support of this proposal.  Members of each committee and their email addresses are listed below:

House Health Committee:

Chair: Heather Carter (R-28) hcarter@azleg.gov

Vice Chair: Paul Boyer (R-20) pboyer@azleg.gov

Kate Brophy McGee ((R-28) kbrophymcgee@azleg.gov

Sally Ann Gonzales (D-3) sgonzales@azleg.gov

Phil Lovas (R-22) plovas@azleg.gov

Eric Meyer ((D-28) emeyer@azleg.gov

Victoria Steele (D-9) vsteele@azleg.gov

Kelley Townsend (R-16) ktownsend@azleg.gov

Senate Health and Human Services Committee:

Chair: Nancy Barto (R-15) nbarto@azleg.gov

Vice Chair: Kelli Ward (R-5) kward@azleg.gov

David Bradley (D-10) dbradley@azleg.gov

Judy Burgess (R-22) jburgess@azleg.gov

Katie Hobbs (D-24) khobbs@azleg.gov

Linda Lopez (D-2) llopez@azleg.gov

Kimberly Yee (R-20) kyee@azleg.gov

• If possible, arrange a small group meeting with a targeted legislator who has either stated that he or she is opposed to the expansion proposal, or is sitting on the fence.   All legislators want to be perceived as being attuned to the needs of their constituents, and you can count on having their undivided attention!  Again, be polite, present your selling points – especially those that will appeal to their constituency – and appeal to their better nature.
• And last but by no means least – do whatever you can to educate your friends, neighbors and other members of your community concerning the importance of this issue!  Talk with your minister, priest or rabbi and ask to make an announcement on this topic at your church, synagog, mosque or other religious institution.  Many if not most religious leaders will embrace the humanitarian appeal of educating their congregation on this vital issue.  Letters to the editors of the Daily Star, Arizona Republic and other papers are critically important as they provide an excellent vehicle to make sure that your points are noted by thousands of concerned citizens!

In summary, Gov Brewer’s proposal to expand our state’s Medicaid program is a classic example of a win-win proposition.  Let’s all join together to ensure passage of this vitally important measure!!

Returning briefly to the NRA, I applaud their pushing for measures to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, until the person desiring to purchase a gun is able to submit convincing evidence that he or she has been restored to an appropriate level of mental-emotional stability.  I remain, however, staunchly opposed to the NRA’s posture of intimidation in going all-out to block reinstatement of the federal ban on assault weapons.  As I stated in a recent post, the law banning assault weapons was passed in 1994 under the Clinton administration and expired in 2004 under the Bush administration, when supporters were unable to garner sufficient support to extend the ban.

OK now – what about my claim that the majority of Americans want strong gun controls?  The Associated Press issued a release carried in this morning’s papers that contained a sidebar summarizing findings of a recent Pew Research Center survey to assess the level of support for various gun control proposals.  The Pew Center is a highly credible opinion research organization and their report is based on findings of a poll of 1,502 adults conducted over January 9-13, 2013.

Findings of the Pew Center survey include:

• 85 percent of respondents support background checks for private and gun show sales.  (According to the Brady Committee, a full 40 percent of all gun sales take place either at gun shows or via the internet, and are currently exempted from background check requirements.)
• 80 percent believe that people with mental illness should be barred from purchasing guns.
• 58 percent support a ban on semi-automatic weapons, and 55 percent support a ban on assault-style weapons.
• 54 percent support bans on high-capacity ammunition clips, and 53 percent support a ban on on-line sales of ammunition.

Significantly, while 64 percent support presence of armed security guards or police in more schools, only 40 percent responded that they would like to see more teachers and school officials with guns in schools.  I suspect that many of these respondents might believe that serving as part-time guards may compromise the teacher’s primary role as an educator, and question whether teachers and school officials should be expected to put their lives on the line in the event of a threatened shooting.

Commentary

It is evident from these findings that in the heels of the recent Newtown tragedy, the greater majority of American are now in favor of strong gun control measures.  Members of both houses of Congress who may be timorous to buck the NRA on this issue should take heed to the desires of their constituents!  While the NRA clearly supports placing armed guards or police in schools, I suspect that they will be staunchly opposed to the other reform measures requiring Congressional approval covered in the Pew Center survey.  This obstructionist stance is clearly out of step with wishes the majority of Americans and, I suspect, a large proportion of the NRA’s own membership base.

I personally have mixed feeling regarding the NRA’s proposal to protect our children by placing armed guards or police in our schools.  I am OK with this, as long as costs of stationing these guards on campus do not come out of education budgets and are covered by other sources, such police or sheriff’s department budgets.  Lord know our country has fallen way behind many other industrialized nations concerning the quality of education in our public schools: we most definitely cannot afford any further teacher cutbacks!

The take-home here is that if we truly want our federal Representatives and Senators to support the strong gun control measures that our President unveiled earlier today, we must take very seriously the words of our President at this press conference: “I will put everything I’ve got into this and so will Joe [Biden], but I tell you the only way we can change is if the American people demand it!”

To date the NRA has successfully blocked efforts to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 under the Bush administration.  Appearing on CCN’s “State of the Union” this past weekend, NRA President David Keene stated that he believes his association’s powerful gun lobby has garnered enough support in Congress to block passage of a law to ban assault weapons, which President Obama has pledged to deliver.  Significantly Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) echoed Keene and gave an unequivocal “no” response when asked on CBS’ “Face the Nation” whether Congress would pass a ban on assault weapons.

It is a well known fact that the NRA’s deep pockets make significant contributions to their allies in Congress while punishing lawmakers who buck them.  Adding insult to injury, when interviewed on CCN’s “State of the Union” NRA president Keene unabashedly stated that the NRA represents the gun manufacturers in addition to its members.  He even went so far as to say that he would like to see the gun manufacturers contribute more to the association!  Well, at least we know who’s in bed with who on that one.

I don’t know about you, but I am outraged by the NRA’s arrogant “in your face” tactics to thwart the desires of the administration, key leaders in Congress and, I believe, the majority of Americans who believe it is time to enact and enforce truly effective gun control measures.  Let’s face it, assault weapons and extended magazines are designed for one purpose – to enable the shooter to rapidly kill large numbers of people.  These are clearly military weapons, and there is absolutely no justification for continuing to make these weapons of mass destruction available to rank and file citizens – period!

Countering the NRA’s bullying tactics

Those of us who favor truly effective gun control need to make our voices heard loud and clear.  Some suggestions:

• Notify your Congressional representatives in no uncertain terms that you strongly support the administration’s objective of banning assault weapons and extended magazines.  Also let them know that you resent the NRA’s bullying tactics, and implore your representative not to cave in to their demands.
• It is especially important that gun owners send a loud and clear message to their Congressional representatives that drives these points home.
• It is equally important that we contact conservative lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, urging them to take the moral high road and “just say no” to the NRA on this one.