The Imbalance Between Work Visas, Job Growth and US College graduates

Sen Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)

Certain high tech computer companies have sent a letter to President Obama recently complaining about the rejections of some visa applications.  In the past rejections were nearly absent but apparently the rejection rate has gone up.  This infuriates these large international corporations.  It seems like they are on the verge of collapse if they cannot hire foreigners.  Or maybe it's just that they are so use to getting their way that government intervention in their policies gets them mad.  In any case, their actions seems to have received the attention of Orrin Hatch.

Recently immigration legislation has been put on hold, largely due to amendments introduced by Senator Hatch (R-Utah), which would ease limitations on US companies to hire foreigners for US jobs in the Computer and Engineering disciplines.

For example, Mr. Hatch would like to increase the number of foreign H1-B visas allowed even above the 180,000 number which has already been offered (a nearly three fold increase over previous years.)  He would also like to eliminate the requirement that US Companies look for qualified Americans for the job before hiring a foreign worker.  He suggests permitting an honor system where US companies are simply trusted that they have looked for and not found any American worker who can do the same job as their visa candidates.

With all of the talk about a lack of jobs in America, the high unemployment rate and the difficulty college graduates are having finding jobs, it seems contradictory for Republicans to find new ways to reduce the job market for American citizens, especially in the face of their so-called pledge to focus on "jobs, jobs, jobs."

Are American college graduates too stupid to do the jobs that these huge American Corporations are offering?  Are the number of qualified graduates so low in comparison to the number of new job offerings that these Corporations must use the visa system to find qualified workers?  Are American Corporate managers too busy to find and train American workers?  Are there any cost differences that make a foreign worker much more desirable than an American worker?  How does the government audit the fact that American workers are not qualified or available before they issue visas?  The answers to these questions would help shed some light on the subject.

First, let's review a high level picture of the types of visas available.

There are a number of different pathways that a high tech company can use to employ foreign workers in the United States.  These pathways vary by the kinds of visa available.  These include H1-B, L-1B, L-1A, B-1 and OPT.  Although the H1-B visa is the most well known, the other visa pathways serve the same purpose in that the applicants are foreigners and can take jobs in America.

The H1-B, B-1 and OPT allow foreign workers to be hired and work for the US company in the United States.  The L-1A and L-1B allow foreign workers who are already hired in a foreign office of the US company to be transferred to the United States office of that company.  The L-1A is for management positions while the L-1B is for non-management positions.

All visas have duration limits but for foreigners of some countries the duration can exceed 10 years with extensions.  Once a foreign worker has taken an American based job, they can remain there for a long time and each year new foreign workers can obtain new visas.  When viewed from a duration aspect, the number of high-tech H1-B foreign workers in America increases each year by 65,000 to 85,000 workers.  It will be even more after 2013.  Over ten years, this means that on average 750,000 American jobs have been filled by foreign workers.  Looked at in a different way, this means that the number of college graduates who major in Computer Science will not have much luck finding jobs, especially when the number of foreign H1-B visas is increased to 180,000 per year in 2014.  It is little wonder that college students have turned away from science, technology, engineering and math majors.

L-1B and L-1A visas appear on the surface to be an expected entitlement of major Corporations.  Since the employees that apply for these types of visas already belong to the mother corporation, although in a foreign office, why shouldn't they be allowed to transfer freely between countries?  One reason is for the protection of American workers who are also working for the same corporation.  Another is in  fairness to American workers who might want to work for the corporation.

H1-B and US Workers Salary Comparison

Under current US law, using their own foreign workers, American corporations can hire in the foreign office and transfer the worker to the American office after one year.  In this way, the company can plan to replace or displace American workers each year simply by hiring in the foreign country.  Although H1-B visa law suggests that corporations pay the visa worker a wage that is competitive wage to US workers, the L-1B and L-1A visas have no such provision.   When a foreign worker is hired, the salary of that worker in his own country is usually tens of thousands of dollars less than their American counterpart.  It's then just a matter of economics for the American corporation to take jobs away from Americans.  Patriotism doesn't pay the multi-million dollar salaries of the C-level  executives of such companies.

Looking at the Bureau of Labor Statistics findings for the annual increase specifically for new Computer related job opportunities since 2010, we find expected job growth is about 72,000 jobs per year.  This compares to 85,900 computer graduates from American colleges each year.  That is less growth in the computer job market than there are college graduates on an annual basis.  This does not give any support to the idea that American companies must look to foreign countries for job applicants.

When you combine all of the visa pathways available to American Corporations, the number of US jobs filled by foreign workers far outweighs the availability of new jobs.  This gives evidence that US Corporations are not just filling new jobs, they are back-filling jobs being taken away from American workers.  Perhaps through attrition or outright layoffs, American corporations are reducing their costly American workforce while at the same time screaming for more visas for foreign workers.

American Corporations are also using 3rd party foreign consulting agencies to find H1-B contract workers at reduced cost.  In this way, the American corporation avoids having to give a competitive salary since the H1-B holder is not their employee.

When Republicans claim that increasing work visas helps bring prosperity to America they are really talking about the wealth of their constituents.  America to a Republican in office doesn't have the same definition as it does to 99% of us.

Why the Republican Party is destined to become extinct

Extinct Dodo Bird

As certain as the extinction of the Dodo bird, so is the imminent extinction of the Republican Party.

"What!??" you say.  The Republican party has survived the test of time and is a powerful machine that can't be stopped.  How can the party be destined for extinction?

Glad you asked.

The decline of the Republican party popularity is obvious in the polls and related to their obstruction in Congress for the most part.

Although the radical right wing of the Republican party, called the "Tea Party" deserves much of the blame for the party's loss of popularity, the acceptance of that faction by the moderate Republican membership is being seen by outside observers as the new direction of the Republican party as a whole.

In many respects this is probably a correct perception since the Tea Party Caucus still exists and some members of Congress who have been members of the Tea Party Caucus hold powerful positions on some committees.  I don't think the majority of voters know who in the Republican party is a Tea Partier, yet a large number of Tea Partiers lost seats in the last election.   From the stand-point of the American voting public, the Tea Party and hence the Republican Party may be losing support.

A lot of the personality of the Republican party is still coming from Tea Party members.  The party is inflexible.  It is obstinate and over-reaching.  It does not keep promises.  It is deceitful.  It is bigoted.  It is self-serving.  It is anti-intellectual.  It is uncaring.  It is war-mongering.  It is misogynistic.

The party refuses to accept or pass most Democrat introduced legislation.  They have become famous for being the party of obstruction.  Their overall approval rating in most polls is devastatingly low and around 20% as of this writing.

If you are a politician and the people don't support you, then you should be worried about losing your job.  The fact that most are not worried and continue to act the same way could show how anti-intellectual they are, but because the Republican side of the House has gerrymandered state voting districts, they are fairly sure that their actions represent the majority of people in their districts and they will be re-elected.

The party is populated with leaders who constantly re-invent the wheel and make it a lot less round each time.  Republican political leaders have re-written the workings of the female reproductive system.  They refuse to accept any scientific findings about climate change.  They believe science manipulates data to derive their own self-serving facts.  Needless to say, an overwhelming number of scientists do not belong to the Republican Party.

Republican leaders like John Boehner have said the number one issue for Republicans is "jobs, jobs, jobs."  Yet republicans have done nothing to create jobs.  They stick to the claim that Corporate America would create jobs if we don't tax them, even though Corporate America has given away millions of jobs to third world nations and incoming third world nationals over the last thirty years.  This is deceitful and just another way that Republican leaders show that they do not really mean what they say.

Republican leaders have recently publicly announced bigoted remarks such as calling gays "filthy homosexuals" and calling immigrants "wetbacks."  The White Student Union recently attended the Conservative Action Council where it's leader supported segregation and slavery.

KKK emblem

Without even thinking about the number of Republicans in the KKK, Republican bigotry is becoming more obvious since President Obama has been elected.

The Republicans in Congress appear to hate the fact that a black man could be the President.  They met even before President Obama's inauguration in 2008 to agree to block all legislation he introduced to make him a "one term President."  Failing that, they have continued their obstructionist actions to deny the President any successes.  They are now attacking the Affordable Care Act by voting for a 37th time to repeal it and in the process wasting $55 million of taxpayer money that could have otherwise gone to other more fruitful uses.

Their obsession with causing harm to President Obama includes casting rumors and suspicions of his personal involvement with recent controversies concerning the Benghazi attacks, the IRS review of 501(c)4 tax exempt organizations and Department of Justice obtaining AP members telephone records.

The uncaring attitude of Republican leaders is aptly represented by the introduction of the Ryan Budget which slashes social programs in favor of tax advantages for the wealthy.  Mothers and children who have little to eat rank far below the Republicans favorite person, the wealthy Corporate CEO.  In order to save America with so-called jobs, Republicans will ensure that their favorite persons increase their wealth while much of America starves.  Meanwhile Corporate coffers have become overflowing with cash while jobs are nearly non-existent.

The Bush administration brought us the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.  Had Mitt Romney won the 2012 Presidential election, Iran may already have been invaded.  We saw the clamoring in Congress when it was suggested that Iran might already have or very soon acquire nuclear weapons.  Republicans see war as a means to benefit their wealthy supporters who happen to own and operate companies involved in the weapons of war.  This explains their anxious dialog about going to war and funding war, while their legislation prevents the American victims of war and the veterans of war from getting assistance in returning to civilian life.

Republican leaders, where they control state legislatures and governorships have shown their misogynist side.  Republicans in Congress have stood against the Violence against Women Act.  Other Congressional actions to obstruct or defeat certain social programs will have an impact on women and children.  Wisconsin has passed repeal of equal pay for women.  North Dakota's Governor and other state governors have signed bills which many consider unconstitutional, to reduce women's access to reproductive rights services.  Even though Roe v Wade is law, Republicans in Congress and in the States have managed to restrict the intention of the law.    

Many Republican policies can be explained by what they are against.  They are anti-middle-class in their favoritism to the wealthy at the expense of the middle class.

They are anti-women in their fights against women's rights.

They are anti-gay rights in their opposition to marriage equality legislation.

They are anti-student in their votes against funding Pell grants.

They are anti-urban voter in their fight to make voting more difficult with reducing voting hours and requiring voter ID cards.

They are anti-student voter in their legislation to prevent students from voting in the state where their college is located.

They are anti-labor by their fights against the national labor relations board membership.

They are anti-jobs by their activities to block President Obama's American Jobs Act.

They are anti-consumer by their blocking the Presidential appointment of a Director for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

They are anti-Christian by insisting that social programs for the weakest of society be cut in favor of tax breaks for the wealthy.

They are anti-elderly by their demands for changing Medicare and Social Security which will hurt the elderly.

They are anti-poor people for fighting to repeal the Affordable Care Act which covers millions of formerly uninsured persons and improves patient treatment by insurance companies.

They are anti-veteran by preventing government aid to injured veterans and blocking assistance in finding jobs after serving their country.

They are anti-immigrant by failing to pass immigration reform.

They are anti-family by failing to protect children and families from gun violence by their actions to prevent improved background checks for firearms.

My guess is that the total number of people who Republicans are failing to represent amounts to nearly 98% of the country.  The reason they have not been voted out of office yet, I blame on the "one-issue" Republicans who continue to vote them in.  One-issue Republicans are those voters who dispel any other adverse effects of having a Republican represent them provided they cover their one major (usually social) issue of concern.

Remember Romney

The specific social issue may vary from voter to voter.   Republicans have done a good job in recognizing and appealing to those issues.  These issues include but are not limited to such things as gun rights, right to life, small government lie, no new taxes lie, the moochers syndrome and the job creators lie.

Convincing the voter that Republican policy will benefit them is greatly assisted by the Republican knack for lying to the public guiltlessly about anything that advances the Republican cause.  Fox news and other radical right wing talk show hosts contribute to this and may actually be hurting the Republican party more than it knows.  Lest you forget, remember the lies of the Romney campaign?  The same political infrastructure that led Romney is still leading the Republicans in Congress.  Romney lost the election but we are still being inundated by his policies...because they are Republican policies.

Ultimately, once the majority of one-issue Republican voters start to realize that it is in their best interest to evaluate all of the issues, the extinction of the Republican party will begin.  I think this process has already started and expect that we will see some of the results of this in the 2014 Congressional elections.

I'll bet you $10,000.  (Not really.  That's how I remember Romney ;-)

Can we learn anything from Republican accusations about Benghazi?

Serious concerns or political posturing?

Like Mitt Romney before them, Republicans in Congress would like to turn the deaths of four Americans serving their country in Benghazi, Libya into fuel to burn the Democrats in the next election.

Despite the public statements of Darrell Issa that Republicans are not targeting President Obama or Hilary Clinton, the outrage of Republicans is aimed at the so-called "cover-up" which the Republicans claim that the Obama administration is pursuing and not in finding ways to prevent such a tragedy in the future.

Presented below is a brief description of the Benghazi incidents at the US diplomatic offices and the CIA annex.  Perhaps we can learn from this information to focus on prevention and escape the disgraceful accusations that Republicans are making for political gain, at least for a little while.  I have highlighted in red font any sections that we might learn from for later discussion.  

There were about seven Americans in the US diplomatic offices in Benghazi, Libya when 125 to 150  armed terrorists attacked the building on the evening of September 11, 2012 around 9:40PM local time.  That night four Americans would die.

A Diplomatic Security Service Agent sounded the alarm that an attack was underway.  DSS special agent Scott Strickland secured Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith, an information management  officer, into a secure area.  Other agents left for another building to retrieve their weapons but could not return because of enemy gun fire.

Benghazi Consulate

The attackers entered the main building and set fires with gasoline.  The thick smoke made Stevens, Smith and Strickland move to a bathroom but the smoke made them decide to exit the safe area.  Strickland left through a window but Stevens and Smith did not follow.  Although Strickland returned several times he could not find them.  Strickland returned to the roof where he radioed for help.

Three agents returned to the building and found Smith's body but could not find Stevens.

The Regional Security Office placed calls for help to the CIA building in Benghazi and the embassy in Tripoli but the calls were cut off.  The Global Response Staff at the CIA office, led by Tyrone S. Woods, made a plan to mount a rescue operation into the Benghazi diplomatic compound.  By 10:05 PM they embarked on the rescue operation.

When arriving at the diplomatic offices, the rescue team found Sean Smith who was unconscious and later died.  They could not find Stevens and decided to return to the CIA annex with the survivors and Smith's body.  On the way back they were attacked by an armed force but were able to make it back.

Around 1:00  AM Ambassador Stevens was found by local citizens and taken to a hospital where he was administered CPR for about 90 minutes but died from smoke asphyxiation he incurred while trapped in the building.

After midnight, a second attack on the CIA annex began.  CIA defenses were able to withstand the attack until the early morning hours.  At that time Libyan government forces met up with seven American reinforcements from Tripoli at Benghazi airport.

Around 5:00AM the Libyans and American forces arrived at the CIA annex to deliver 32 American  survivors back to evacuate through Benghazi airport.  Minutes after arriving, they were met with heavy enemy fire.  They took up defensive positions.

With a lull in the gun fire, Glen Doherty began searching for his friend Tyrone Woods.  He found him manning an MK46 machine gun on the roof of the annex.  Minutes later Woods was hit by mortar fire and killed.  After retaking a new position Glen Doherty was killed by a second mortar explosion.  

The remaining survivors escaped serious injury although fired upon while leaving as they were being evacuated to the airport.

The CIA had successfully rescued six members of the State Department, evacuated about thirty Americans out of Benghazi and recovered Smith's body.

Some sensitive documents remained in the diplomatic offices.  Some listed the names of Libyans working with Americans and some relating to oil contracts.

Here are some quick and easy things I think I have learned from this.

Agents that might have helped Stevens and Smith left the building where Steven's was hiding in order to get their weapons which were stored in a separate building.  My learning:  US embassies and diplomatic buildings should have a mini-arsenal conveniently located in each building where personnel are located.

The attackers entered the building and set fires.  These fires were apparently not put out by any fire extinguishers or automatic sprinkler systems in the buildings.  My learning:  US Embassy and diplomatic buildings should all be built with fire sprinkler systems.

Stevens and Smith were overcome by smoke inhalation.  There were no respirators or air supply lines in the safe area.  My learning: American Embassy and Diplomatic building safe areas should all be stocked with respirators and self-contained oxygen supplying units as standard safety equipment.

Sensitive documents were left behind.  This may endanger some of the allies of America.  My learning: Sensitive documents should be scanned and stored on computer storage devices and then destroyed.  The storage devices should be stored in specially constructed file cabinets that can safely self destruct at the push of a button.

These things would all cost money, so the Republicans in Congress will probably block any such ideas as they did once already.  People should not forget that it was the Republicans who denied the State Department $300 million in order to beef up Embassy security around the world.  This should also be a lesson learned: Republicans in Congress are willing to put American heroes in harms way and then when the inevitable worst thing happens, they are the first to point fingers away from themselves.

Of course, there may be other lessons to be learned from the attack on the diplomatic buildings and CIA annex in Benghazi, but trying to place blame on the Obama administration for the attack or for a cover-up serves no good purpose for America.  But then Republicans have demonstrated over and over, that they are the party that stands for no good purpose.

Republicans have proven that they hate this President with all their thoughts, words and deeds.  They are willing to push this story for any damage it can do and will insist that there is a link directly to the President, even when the facts prove otherwise.

        

A love affair with guns



Cricket Rifles

By now I imagine most people have heard of the death of a two year old girl at the hands of her five year old brother who used his birthday present, a "Cricket" rifle, to commit the act.  A horrible tragedy that could only occur because of the availability of and parental approval of lethal weapons for children.  This is not the only case of an innocent child being killed by a gun.  There are thousands of others.

The "Cricket" rifle is sold by a Pennsylvania company called Keystone Sporting Arms.  The target market for these rifles is children.  There are no laws preventing this company from marketing rifles for children because the child does not purchase the rifle.

This loop-hole allows the manufacturer to escape following the existing Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, that prevents gun sales to minors.

The minds of young children are very impressionable.  Unsuspecting children are being trained by their gun-loving parents to develop the same love affair with guns as their parents.  Result...increased profits for the weapons manufacturers like those that make the"Cricket" rifle and a large number of children who lose their lives to guns. 

The NRA itself could not have thought of a better way to prolong the demand for guns.  Once parents have indoctrinated their kids into the culture of guns, firearm companies will see their profits continue to roll in for generations to come as the parental reinforcement cycle repeats itself over and over again.

Although the actions of the NRA in opposing recent background check legislation is disappointing, it is understandable since they must keep up the guise that they are protecting the second amendment in order to give their blood lust for gun sales a more legitimate justification. 

Some think that the key to preventing gun accidents with children rests with parents and to a large extent it does.  But that specific parental responsibility is required because society is forced to live with the availability of guns for young children.  Not everyone in a civil society agrees that children should be allowed lethal weapons. 

At one time the NRA was a gun safety organization but in today's world they seem to have gone the way of most large corporations and forsaken human decency for the profit motive. 

James Porter

On Monday, May 6, 2013 James Porter will become the new President of the NRA.  Radical gun owners rejoice.  If a war is needed with the government over gun regulation then Mr. Porter will ensure that one happens.  His harsh rhetoric, accusations and bigotry will guide his reign as the presiding NRA President.  Having chosen Mr. Porter as their new President, I'm thinking that the reason for the NRA's opposition to back-ground checks is because their new President would never pass one.

But in truth, the reason that Mr. Porter is the new NRA President is because Satan refused the position.

Easter thoughts: Christianity and Republican politics

Jesus ascends into Heaven

Happy Easter to my Christian friends and family.  Christians across the world celebrate Easter Sunday in memory of the life of Jesus Christ and His ascension into Heaven.  It was the culmination of the actions of Jesus' entire life that led Him to the cross and eventually brought Him to His holy Father.

Jesus' ultimate sacrifice was done knowing that He would die.   Although He was a man of peace, His teachings were seen as quite belligerent by some members of society at the time.  It is useful to review some of those teachings if we are to learn from history.  Here I would like to compare those teachings to the current Republican party thinking to shed some light on how religion has been used to capture votes from unsuspecting middle class Christians.

Although stories of Jesus' performance of miracles abound during His lifetime, in this dissertation I would like to focus only on Jesus' philosophical views as a human.

Crucifixion

We must begin this story at the end, with Jesus' self sacrificing nature and death.  He so loved the people of the world that he gave his life to help reform them.  He was a man that preached "love thy enemy" and "treat your neighbor as you would have them treat you."  He taught that bettering the world starts with each of us learning to love one another.

He defended the helpless and served them.  He taught that each human being is valuable and one's status in life does not make them any more or less valued than anyone else.  On occasion he taught us that love of money over people makes it more difficult to enter the gates of Heaven.  He said "It is easier to thread a camel through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven."  He reminds us in the parable of the rich fool that storing wealth for ourselves is offensive to God when some of that wealth could be used for the less fortunate.

Forgiven Prostitute

He did not love sin but helped sinners find a way out of their condition.  He did not forsake sinners as too unclean or too low to be helped.  He reminded a crowd of people who were ready to stone a young prostitute that they were probably no less guilty of their sins than the girl when he said "Let those among you who is without sin cast the first stone."  He washed the girl's feet before directing her to "go and sin no more."

Ultimately, the lesson is that Jesus overwhelmingly cherished people over worldly goods.  He  encourages people to raise their view of life beyond earthly possessions.  He asks people to believe in each other and support each other.  He directs us to help those less fortunate.  He reminds us that greed is offensive to God and can be detrimental to its possessors.

Let us turn now to Republican political policy.

Republicans have proclaimed themselves as the party of Christians, but do the current policies of the Republican Party seriously represent the teachings of Jesus?

We know that Paul Ryan believes in the anti-Christian policies of Ayn Rand which advocate that entitlements must go to the worthiest people and be denied to those less fortunate or those incapable of contributing to their own welfare.  Survival and advantages are only deserved by the fittest in society per Ayn Rand.  Ryan has admitted his strong acceptance of Ayn Rand's philosophy in public interviews.  His budget offerings that tear away the social safety net from the weakest of Americans gives evidence of his true beliefs.  His tax favoritism to the most fortunate among us show that he views money more favorably than the people in the lower classes of society.  All Republicans in Congress support this budget.  I think Jesus would have been furious with the Paul Ryan Republicans.

But that's not all of it.

Republicans have obstructed bills intended to help students with government money for Pell Grants.  They have opposed increasing the minimum wage.  They have refused to give women equal pay for equal work.  They have voted against aid to military veterans.  They would like to tear down social security and medicare which assists elderly Americans.  They believe that government efforts to help the defenseless should be reduced while government spending to give the wealthy special entitlements should be increased.  They have brought the government to a near shutdown.  They have brought us to the brink of default.  They held up disaster relief funding.  They have held up most of the provisions of the American Jobs Act.  They have prevented passing a violence against women act.  They held up middle class tax breaks insisting that they be tied to tax cuts for the wealthy.  They have stood in the way of gun safety legislation.  They are trying to tear down the consumer financial protection bureau.

Republican policies have been directed against the very essence of what Jesus firmly believed in...those less fortunate people who need our help.  Republican politicians are very anti-Christian indeed.

Sequestration: How has it affected you?

On March 1, 2013 Congress allowed the United States to fall victim to one-sided, across the board government spending cuts.  The sequester is one sided, because revenue is not an element.  It is across the board, because most government spending accounts will be cut back without consideration for the importance of the spending.

Ironically, Congressional salaries are unaffected by the cutbacks even though that element of government spending is assumably one that most of America would agree should be cut.

The effects that the sequester will have on American society and the economy has been varied depending on the source of the observation.

Democrats, including the President have expressed grave concerns that society and the economy will suffer as a result of the cuts.  Although the President has said  the economic effects will not be catastrophic, he issued concerns about a sluggish recovery and has pointed out that certain individuals will suffer as a result.  Being a President of all the people, he has concern for those who depend on the government for essential services.

Republicans, including House speaker Boehner, have essentially welcomed it and expect it will go a long way to reigning in the wild spending that the government has supposedly become accustomed to and which otherwise would have, in their opinion, ruined our economy.  Never mind that the facts prove otherwise.  Republicans have been planning the sequester in their arsenal of tools to eliminate government for a few years now.  A powerpoint slide prepared by John Boehner shows this was a Republican plan since 2011.

With Boehner being a leader of the Party that protects the assets of the rich, he expressed his demands in Congress that any substitute for the sequester would not include an increase in taxes or closing tax loop holes for the rich.  In my opinion, Republicans in Congress follow two philosophies that are essential to their existence; a "head in the sand" philosophy and an "out of sight, out of mind" philosophy.

Regardless of the opinions of others, I want to give you a chance to record the impact that the sequester has had on you.  For that reason I have created the poll at the top of the side-bar.

The poll questions are intended to be answered by American citizens, however citizens of other countries may respond if they believe the American sequester has an impact on them.

A few explanatory notes about the poll questions:

You can only select one answer, so please try to select the most accurate answer for your situation.

I used the term "essential" to describe government services, without which you are severely affected either physically, medically, psychologically, educationally or financially.

I used the term "nice to have" to describe government services, without which you suffer some form of minor inconvenience, such as waiting longer in TSA screening lines at the airport.

I realize that the effects of the sequester may become worse on particular individuals as time goes on, so if you have not voted, please feel free to take the poll at any future date.  You can see the results of the polling at any point in time by visiting any blog on my site.  I will record the results over time and report back on the time related results in a future blog.  In the past, blog polls have not received a lot of responses, but I encourage you to participate in this important research.

Thank you for your participation.

Sequester: How to take action by inaction or how Congress seems to work now

Government domestic and military budgets will be slashed by a total of $1.2 trillion ($109.33 Billion per year) with cuts coming as soon as March 1, 2013 for some areas.  The automatic cuts will come as a 50/50 blend between defense and non defense spending.  This means $54.667 billion per year for each of these categories.

Although it was never intended to occur, it is nearly a certainty that the sequester will occur.  With the date quickly arriving, the Republicans in Congress have decided to go on recess for the next ten days and will not return in time to do much of anything to avert sequester.

Although Republicans blame President Obama for the sequester, in August of 2011 bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate voted to allow the threat of sequestration to force Congress to act on deficit reduction.  It was thought that the drastic, across the board cuts would be viewed as something that Congress would want to avoid at all costs, thereby forcing them to compromise in a bipartisan way to identify and agree on deficit reduction actions.  This proved to be misplaced optimism.

Recently both parties have put forth proposals to avert the sequester.  House Budget Committee ranking Democrat member Chris Van Hollen has offered an alternate plan that would eliminate excessive agriculture subsidies; apply the Buffett Rule (making 30% a minimum income tax rate on the wealthy) and eliminate tax breaks for big oil.

The Republicans have refused any deal that means an increase in taxes or revenue increases from reduction of special interest tax breaks.  The Republican's alternative to sequestration has proposed strict social program cuts and Corporate tax breaks in exchange for  plugging some tax loop holes. This offer doesn't sit well with Democrats and the President who insist on a balanced approach that includes revenue increases as well as spending cuts.  So we are in a stalemate that will result in sequester.

Some areas of government are exempt from sequester.  These include entitlements such as social security, railroad retirement benefits, Department of Veterans Affairs, pension and special compensation programs.  The Farm Credit System Administration and crop insurance and the FDIC Deposit Fund are exempt.  Some low income assistance programs are exempt such as ACG/SMART Grants, Child Care entitlement grants to States, All Child Nutrition (except special milk programs), Children's Health Insurance Program, Some Pell grants (for first year of cuts only), Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Supplemental Security Income Program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.  Medicare cuts are limited but not absent.

Military Sequester

All other areas of government are impacted.  The sequester percentage cuts applied across all remaining government accounts is between 7.6% and 9.4% of their existing budgets.   The military takes huge cuts in all branches of service.   These cuts are sure to impact defense industry contracts, cause lay-offs of civilian labor, the closing of bases, etc.

Social safety net programs such as Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Woman Infants and Children (WIC) will eliminate $543 million per year and in effect remove hundreds of thousands of families from the rolls.  Low Income Home energy assistance reduction of $285 million will leave hundreds of thousands of elderly and poor Americans fending for themselves to keep warm during the winter months.  The list goes on and on.

Democrats have published a listing of the effects they believe the sequester will have.  See that report here.  The obvious effect of the sequester is that government services will be reduced.  The government has indicated that 750,000 jobs could be affected.  Some economists have stated that the stock market may be affected.

Once the domestic program cuts go into effect I believe they will be here to stay.  I do not see our Congress working out any compromise deal at a later date.  I say this based on Congress' proven lack of ability to do their jobs and their propensity for taking time off.  More importantly Republicans know they would never get Democrats to cut the social safety net so severely  in any other way and they are not going to start being concerned about the poor or helpless now.  That is their mantra.  Only the wealthy deserve entitlements.

There is a very good likelihood that Republicans will re-introduce bills to return military budgets back to pre-sequester levels and Democrats may be forced into voting for the increases either through fear of public embarrassment or falling for Republican false promises for future tax loop hole legislation.  I know that the President will continue to push for tax law reform, but believe it will never happen given the nature of our obstructionist Republicans in Congress and their uncompromising defense of the wealthy, even at the expense of the less fortunate.

The less apparent effect of the sequester is going to be the magnitude of the down-stream effects that these budget cuts will have on our economy and the adverse effect on Americans who depend on government services that will be cut.  We are about to find out.

Whatever happens, remember this day if you are still a member of American society during the 2014 Congressional elections.  In our vote is the power to reverse the damage done.  It is time for middle-class Republicans to voice their opposition to the leadership of their party which has proven that they do not represent you.

Rubio's response promotes Romney's policies as a winning approach even though America rejected it once already

Marco Rubio

Cloaked by a different look and different approach, Mitt Romney's policies don't sound any better when Marco Rubio espouses them.

In presenting the Republican response to the President's 2013 State of the Union address, Mr. Rubio had a difficult assignment.  In a nutshell, he had to convince the American people that the Republican approach to economic freedom, as framed by Mitt Romney, is better than the President's plan.

As with most Republicans, Rubio continues to believe that Republican policies are correct and fails to realize that the majority of Americans rejected those policies when they re-elected Barack Obama.   But you can't blame him for trying.  Or can you?

Rubio focused on big government not being the answer.  He claimed that increasing taxes and government spending are not the correct path.  He implied that the growth of government was President Obama's plan.  

Apparently, Rubio is not familiar with the fact that the size of government and the deficit has been reduced during the President's term.  He obviously is sticking by Republican claims that revenue is off the table during deficit talks, despite serious belief by economists that revenue increases must be had for the deficit to be brought under control.  He isn't listening to the President's talk about a balanced approach to deficit reduction.  He has not heard or does not believe that the President has already offered $2.7 trillion of the $4 trillion in cuts that economists believe necessary.

He claims that the opportunity to join the middle class comes from investing your own money to open a business.  By his definition, if you don't have the money, resources or ability to operate a business, then you don't belong in the middle class.  So I guess you are on your own because Rubio claims government help is not the way to the middle class.  He says this even though he received government loans to attend college, he has a government job that pays him $174,000 a year, he has government health care and a government retirement plan, his parents received social security and medicare helped his father die with dignity.  While he was alive, his father had opportunities to create and maintain his restaurant with the help of the government's small business administration.  This is so common of middle class Republicans who privately take from government programs while denigrating these government actions in public.  It must be impossible for a Republican to admit that the government might help anyone.

Rubio attempted to sway America away from the negative image that Democrats have painted of the Republican Party's allegiance to rich people by proclaiming that he (Rubio) still lives in a middle class neighborhood.  Could he have thought of anything else for a little more convincing argument?  No.

How many times did we hear Romney say he would cut Obama Care on his first day in office?  That wasn't enough for Rubio, because he essentially reiterated it by casting fear into the hearts of naive Americans who might believe him.  Let me paraphrase the Republican stand on the affordable health care law:  "Obama Care bad."  We've heard it all before and we rejected the idea when we rejected Romney.

It seemed apparent to me that Reince Pribus was still in control of the Republican party.  Mr Pribus was the architect of the Romney loss and is the newly re-elected Republican National Chairperson.  As Rubio mouthed policies that were exactly the same as those America rejected during the Romney campaign, I kept thinking "there you go again."  

Putting Rubio in front of the camera to represent Republicans is nothing more than a Republican tactic to improve public perception of the party.  We are seeing the repackaging of the Republican party where a softer, gentler party is presented, however Republican policies have not changed at all.  

Why Republicans in Congress are Guilty of Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice

In 2010 Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act which establishes the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) as the agency with enforcement power over the Financial industry.  This agency has an important role in preventing another financial disaster as created by a financial industry that enjoyed excessive liberation from regulations during the Bush administration.  The Act is now the law.  

Republicans, in their carefree joy for obstruction of all of President Obama's policies, have decided to take on the CFPB and the Dodd-Frank Act by preventing the approval of Richard Cordray as the CFPB Director.   You may ask, how is this conspiracy to obstruct justice?

We know that crimes were committed that caused the meltdown of financial markets prior to the 2008 crash.  The white collar criminals who committed those crimes are still free.  Although their criminal methods may have become dormant, there is still a public outcry that justice be done by finding and   incarcerating these criminals.  The CFPB is the agency that could make that happen, but their enforcement power is nullified without a Director.  It is the Republicans who are obstructing the actions of the CFPB.  

Congressional Republicans who have sent a letter to President Obama explaining their demands, admit that they are taking the action to reject the President's choice of a Director because they want to weaken CFPB's power.  In using their power to reject the Director, they have lied about their real intentions.  They don't disapprove of Richard Cordray.  They have stated that they will not approve of any Director until the powers of the CFPB as are legally established by the law are changed.  They have conspired to create this fraud against the CFPB and the United States with the admitted intention of obstructing it's legal authority.  This is conspiracy to obstruct and conspiracy to defraud.

The following is the legal explanation of "Conspiracy to Obstruct" (18 U.S.C. 371).

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

The following is the legal explanation of "Conspiracy to Defraud" 

Section 371 contains both a general conspiracy prohibition and a specific obstruction conspiracy prohibition in the form of a conspiracy to defraud proscription. The elements of conspiracy to defraud the United States are: (1) an agreement of two or more individuals; (2) to defraud the United States; and (3) an overt act by one of conspirators in furtherance of the scheme.  The "fraud covered by the statute ‘reaches any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful functions of any department of Government” by “deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest.” The scheme may be designed to deprive the United States of money or property, but it need not be so; a plot calculated to frustrate the functions of a governmental entity will suffice.

It is true that Congress has immunity from prosecution for acts they commit in the normal operation of their duties as legislators.  It does not protect them from committing crimes or violating existing laws.  A case could be made for this obstruction being a criminal act where the department they are obstructing is a federal agency and the actions these Republicans are taking is protecting criminals from prosecution and has done so now since 2010.  These Republicans have certainly over-stepped their normal authority and entered the realm of disobedience of law.

At the very least, every one of the 43 members of Congress who signed Mitch McConnell's conspiracy letter should be fined.  But wouldn't it be great if we could end this obstruction by putting them all in jail.  

How Republicans plan to transform the President's budget into the Paul Ryan budget

Republicans in Congress still can't seem to realize that their Party did not win the Presidency in 2012.  And by that I mean they still do not understand and do not represent the expectations of the American people.

One example of this is HR 444 REQUIRE A PLAN Act that was discussed today in the House.

Parenthetically the Act also adds the insulting attack remark erroneously directed towards the President, that it can also be called the "Require Presidential Leadership and No Deficit Act."  My guess is that the Republicans see leadership as making strong cuts into social programs to hurt the Americans who can least afford it and who most depend on it.  This would follow right in step with the Ryan budget and Republicans misguided thinking that revenue is off the table in budget talks.

Mr. Price

The Act introduced by Republican Mr. PRICE of Georgia (for himself, Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin, Ms. JENKINS, and Mr. SESSIONS) requires that, "if the President’s fiscal year 2014 budget does not achieve balance in a fiscal year covered by such budget, the President shall submit a supplemental unified budget by April 1, 2013, which identifies a fiscal year in which balance is achieved, and for other purposes."

It goes on to require that the supplemental budget include budget information required by US code but also include the Republicans wish list of items.  These are (a) An estimate of the fiscal year in which the supplemental budget is not expected to result in a deficit; (b) a detailed description of additional policies needed to accomplish no deficit; and (c) detailed description of the differences between the President's FY 2014 budget and the FY2014 supplemental budget requested.

There is no constituional requirement for a President to offer a budget which will balance by some future date.  Since the 1920's there have only been about three occassions where a budget actually did balance.  However Republicans appeared to be confused about the President's intentions.  They made it seem that this was a simple request that would help them understand where the President stands on balancing the budget.  But what are they really trying to do?

The reason that the Republicans imply they are proposing this Act is because the President's actions during his first term have shown he is not a good financial stewart.  The Act's section on "Findings" indicates that the President can't keep to his promises and has caused the deficit to rise during his term.  It's almost as if the President has authority over financial and budgetary policy and total control of the money that he was charged to spend and spent it unwisely.  Oh wait, that is the job of the Congress!

So what are the Republicans really trying to do by placing this Act into consideration?  I think they have a somewhat sinister plan in mind indeed.

CBO estimates of deficit causes

First, they are trying to create an image in the eyes of Americans that removes themselves from any blame they may have for the country's financial condition.  They won't admit  that it was their Party's administration that got us into the financial situation we are in and largely responsible for the deficit.  The graph at the left is the Congressional Budget Office's estimates of the factors leading to the deficit.  One can see that the largest contributors to our present deficit are the wars and Bush era tax cuts.  But deficits were not that important to Republicans when their guy was President.

Republicans pretend to be the only Party concerned with future generations who will be responsible for the deficit's payback.  While he was Mitt Romney's running partner, Paul Ryan's first budget plan would not balance the budget for thirty years.  And that one was considered harmful to the poor in society and the economy because of the magnitude of its cuts to social programs while at the same time cutting taxes for the rich.  Recently Ryan has been tasked by John Boehner to write a budget that will be balanced within ten years. Without considering revenue increases (as the Republicans believe), Ryan's new budget would start hurting people immediately.

It seems to me that with HR 444 and the previously passed HR 325 that temporarily raises the debt limit with stipulations for "No Budget/No Pay", Republicans are trying to force the President into cutting the social safety net, voucher-izing medicare and medicaid and making changes to social security that would not benefit the American worker.  All of these were Romney-Ryan policies that Americans rejected when they ended Romney's political career in the last election.

Ryan's Budget paves the path to
increased Prosperity for the wealthy

Republicans are really putting the cart before the horse if they think that the President can create a supplemental unified budget without Congress first acting on modifying the tax code and closing loop holes. The President cannot know the impact that new revenue will have to paying down the deficit  until Congress acts on tax law.  So once again Congress needs to understand that tax revenue must be considered and they have a more urgent role in addressing that than the President has to give them a supplemental unified budget.

Fortunately some Democrats understand that Republicans are trying to force a budget that looks like the Ryan budget and have added amendments to the Act to counteract this intention.  Unfortunately none of them was allowed during the actual rules committee session.

Mr McGovern of Massachusetts, a member of the committee made it clear that the members were only made aware of HR 444 on Thursday and the act was not entered until Friday last week.  He felt that there was not enough time to enter amendments.  He also made the point that the rules committee did not have any meetings, markups or open discussion around the need for the act and requested that it was entered into open rules.  That was voted down.

Mr Connelly of Virginia had submitted an amendment that prohibits "additional solutions" in the unified supplemental budget to include conversion of Medicare into a voucher program. However that amendment was not allowed.

Mr. Deutch of Florida submitted an amendment that removes social security from the definition of "Unified Budget" however that amendment was not allowed.

Jackson Lee of Texas submitted two amendments.  One protects the safety net of the most vulnerable in society.  It was not allowed.  The other proposes ending the estate and tax provisions so the applicable exclusion amount is allowed to revert to $1 million and the tax rate is allowed to be 55%.  It was not allowed. 

Chris Van Hollen from Maryland submitted an amendment to replace the entire sequester for 2013 which would cause deep cuts to domestic priorities and defense with a savings from specific policies that reflect a balanced approach to deficit reduction.  He wants to protect the most vulnerable and asks people making over $1 million to contribute more.  He wants to eliminate agriculture direct payments and cut subsidies to large oil companies.  Because he was not present due to his father's death, his substitute for sequester was voted down.

An amendment was submitted by Mark Takano of California which makes changes to the "Findings" section of the act.  He wants clarification that Congress holds responsibility for passing budgets and appropriating funds.  A responsibility that some Republicans have attempted to side-step.  That one was allowed.

Four Republican amendments were approved.  All of them require additional work from the Presdient to present more detail in the supplemental unified budget.

President Obama

As the President has stated publicly, like the Republicans, he also understands that the deficit should be brought under control.  Actions taken since his administration started have reduced the Bush deficit each year and the CBO expects that the deficit will be below $800 Billion by the end of 2013.

But in the President's case, his concern is that deficit reduction be done in a balanced approach with revenue increases and program cuts that do not harm the economy, that do not hurt Americans and are done fairly.

The divergence in the President's policies and Republican policies are fairly obvious to middle class Americans.

That's why he won the election.

McConnell partners with Crapo and other obstructionist Republican Senators hoping to flush CFPB down the toilet

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was created as a new government bureau in 2010 and is tasked with the important role of enforcing laws in the financial industry.  Its founding is the recommended cure for the recklessness in the financial industry that caused the financial disaster of 2008.  Its enactment is legislated through the Dodd-Frank Act.

Crapo (rear) and McConnell

It appears that the Republican obstructionists in Congress do not believe that they have demonstrated well enough their lack of support for the American consumer.  Led by Mitch McConnell and Mike Crapo (pronounced cray-po), forty-three Republican Senators have signed a letter to President Obama indicating that they will not approve Richard Cordray as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's Director unless their demands are met.  (Sounds like something a terrorist group might say.)  According to Senator Crapo, it is not Richard Cordray that they oppose, it is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) in general.

This same scenario happened last year.  The Republicans blocked Richard Cordray so the new Bureau operated without a Director.  But the bureau has no enforcement power under the Dodd-Frank Act unless it has a Director.  So  President Obama assigned Richard Cordray as Director once again, but this time while the Senate was in recess.

A President is constitutionally entitled to make such recess appointments and many of both Parties have done so in the past.  The controversy this time is about the Republicans claim that they were really working and in session at the time of the appointment.  To prevent President Obama from making this appointment, on their way out the door for intersession vacation, Republicans indicated that they were in a "pro-forma" session.  That supposedly means that they are in session and working so they must approve Presidential appointments.  But no one was present or working in the Senate.  It was simply a tactic that Republicans used to block the President's constitutional authority.

In a similar case concerning the National Labor Relations Board appointments, the US District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the President can not be allowed to make a determination that the Senate is in recess because it could allow him to make recess appointments at any time.  It is my opinion that this decision proves our judicial system is fallible.  Perhaps they do not follow politics, but it should have been obvious or very easy to check that the Senate was in recess.  The mere statement of a "pro-forma" session does not make it so.  The court's decision actually gives license to another example of Republican obstruction tactics where the constitutional rights of a President can be blocked by intentionally lying about being in session.  The decision is expected to be reversed in future court appeals.

To be fair, Republicans have two major demands that would change the autonomous intent of the bureau.

First, they are demanding that the structure of the CFPB be changed.  They believe that there is too much power in the control of one person, namely the Director.  Republicans would prefer to see a board or commission in charge.  My guess is that the Republican's goal for the commission would be to staff it with the same financial experts who helped bring on the financial crises or at least staff it with people whose business interests conflict with the bureau's autonomous role.  Sort of like having gangsters run the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Second, they want Congress to have oversight of the Bureau's budget.  They claim that the Director can tap into the Federal Reserve System to get any money he feels necessary at any time.  In actual fact however, the Director must submit a budget request to the Federal Reserve with justification and evidence of actuals from prior years.  Legislators have approved this procedure as acceptable when passing the Dodd-Frank Act.  In passing Dodd-Frank they have also approved a discretionary $200 million in Fed funds to be available if necessary, but that discretionary amount must be approved by the  Congressional appropriations process.  Perhaps Republicans don't like Dodd-Frank, but it is the law and they can't simply not abide by its rulings.

In summary, here is my assessment of the situation.  The Republicans do not disapprove of Richard Cordray, yet they are willing to reject him or anyone that the President selects so that they can accomplish their primary political goal of bending the structure of the CFPB into one that benefits their wealthy supporters instead of the American consumer.  I wouldn't expect anything less.

You can have my gun when you can pry it from my psychotic lunatic hand and cold dead heart...or something like that

Ever wonder what kind of person would make a statement like the one used to show the fervor which gun advocates mimic when they are faced with legitimate regulations that would make public gun ownership safer?  "You can have my gun when you can pry it from my cold dead hand."  The visual you get from the statement obviously explains that the spokesperson is willing to die without ever giving up his or her gun.

Of course it was an important member of the advertising committee of the National Rifle Association who got the phrase started.  From there, Charlton Heston, that great patriot and holy man of the movies, serving as the President of the National Rifle Association, uttered these words in rebellion to that terrible American government who obviously wanted to take away guns from ordinary citizens so that they (the government) could become a militaristic dictatorial monarchy.  A little deluded, don't you think?

Have you seen the lunatics like Alex Jones who have come out as a leader for gun advocacy on the Piers Morgan show?  How about James Yeager, the CEO of Tactical Response?  He is not just a gun advocate, he is also a civil war advocate and is willing and ready to start killing people as soon as the government does anything to reduce his access to guns. (Of course just yesterday he pulled a Mitt Romney and reversed his position by saying it was not the right time yet for such actions.)

In an effort to sell more guns, the NRA found a way to raise gun ownership to a level equal to patriotism.   In so doing, it gave a lot of people who could not, to that point in time explain their fascination with guns, a worthy reason for having them.  They are patriots.  Just like the founding fathers who created the second amendment.

Now don't get me wrong.  I don't think that all gun owners are psychotic lunatics.  Only those who think the United States Government, with all its checks and balances, it's constitution, being a government of, for and by the people, would ever consider of its own volition, turning into a militaristic dictatorial monarchy.

Reasonable gun owners exist everywhere and recent polling shows that a large majority of American citizens want some sort of gun controls legislated by the United States government.  So why does the Republican Party leadership appear to be as adamant as the lunatic gun owners in their statements against gun regulation?  Why does the Republican leadership do anything anymore?  Who knows?  I warned you about them in earlier blogs.  Rand Paul has recently come out against gun control, calling the administration a monarchy if they think they can control guns.  Another Republican accuses President Obama of exceeding his constitutional rights making him impeachable if he uses his Presidential power of Executive Order to initiate gun control.

Is the concern over the so-called entitlements of the second amendment so important that we should allow psychotic idiots guns?  Should we not require background checks on individuals who want to buy guns and ammo?  Do gun owners require automatic weapons used in the military for maximum kills?  Should we allow all guns to be sold to anyone?  It would seem to me that if the purpose of arming citizens is to protect them from their own government, then we should allow anti-tank and anti-aircraft guns to be sold.  Why not a nuclear bomb for every family so they can retaliate in case the government goes nuclear on its own citizens?  Perhaps the Republicans can legislate government subsidies to allow private wealthy persons to purchase their own air force.

And I say "so-called" entitlements because there is still confusion about the true meaning of the second amendment.   I believe an interpretation of the second amendment that does not extend individuals rights to guns.  The amendment as adopted by Congress states:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Supreme Court Building

From the moment the 2nd Amendment was enacted until 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in a number of cases, that the 2nd Amendment did not protect individual gun ownership.  With the arrival of the NRA and conservative Supreme Court judges influenced by them, in 2008 the Supreme Court completely reversed their prior rulings in a case called District of Columbia v Heller.  So the current law of the land is that the 2nd Amendment does protect an individual's gun rights.  I believe the modern Supreme Court of Antonin Scalia was wrong and I believe they were influenced by the campaigning of the NRA.

The first words of the Amendment's text "a well regulated militia" show the focus of the amendment's creators.  A militia is an organized group of armed individuals with a paramilitary purpose, intended to physically defend the people under their jurisdiction.  When our early fragile government was first created, there was concern that the Loyalists or some other group loyal to the King of England might rise up to take the country back for the British.  The second amendment creates the establishment of a militia to help prevent that from happening.  Since the subject of the second amendment is the militia, we can assume that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" stated in the latter part of the amendment is meant to define the right to such a militia and not individual gun ownership rights.  I believe that this was how the founding fathers intended it to be.  Only if every member of the citizenry was a member of the militia, could the second amendment imply that they would all have the right to guns.  I don't believe the creators thought that all members of the citizenry would be members of a militia.

Even if I am wrong or if the creators intended for the second amendment to grant individuals rights to guns, it leaves open how the states should regulate the whole process.  We still need to define who should be allowed to possess guns and which guns they should be allowed to possess.  So regulations of this type at least, should not be considered infringement.

The NRA represents weapons manufacturers.  Weapons manufacturers are large corporations that operate wholly on the profit motive.  As a general rule, corporate America strongly fights against anything that might affect their profits.  The deaths of innocent children might have been avoided if gun regulations had already been in place that prevented a lunatic from getting hold of a military type weapon.  Gun regulation will help.  Let's not make it necessary for others to die so that the weapons manufacturers can prosper.