Skip to content

Month: April 2019

Get those tax returns fergawdsakes

Get those tax returns fergawdsakes


by digby

My Salon column this morning:

There were plenty of scandals among the presidencies before Richard Nixon and Watergate, but probably the most serious was the Teapot Dome scandal in 1924. It was a bribery scheme involving government officials taking payoffs to lease oil on public land. One of the ancillary scandals that emerged from that investigation was the suspicion that Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon, who did not divest himself of his vast private holdings, was benefiting from his position. Congress was rightly concerned that the tax legislation Mellon was proposing was designed to benefit his personal interests So it demanded to see Mellon’s tax returns and also determine if the IRS had given him special treatment.

Presidents had long had the right to access any citizen’s tax returns, but as these scandals unfolded, Congress realized that this allowed for a cover-up. This led to the passage of a law that allows the House Ways and Means Committee, the Senate Finance Committee and the Joint Committee on Taxation the ability to demand any tax returns from the Treasury Department. The idea was to equally match the power the executive branch had to access this information. There were some slight modifications to the law two years later but other than that it has remained on the books ever since.

The most significant use was during Watergate when the Joint Committee investigated Nixon’s taxes and released them to the public. He had been suspected of substantially underpaying by wrongfully claiming charitable deductions after the law had been changed. The press turned up more suspicious tax evasion schemes as the months went on, with questions over whether he’d paid capital gains taxes on a land deal. Finally, the Providence Journal-Bulletin got hold of Nixon’s returns for 1970 and 1971, which showed he had barely paid any federal taxes at all.

Knowing that Congress was going to evoke the law and obtain the rest of his tax returns, Nixon voluntarily turned them over and asked the Joint Committee to audit them and tell him how much he owed. He ended up paying back $465,000 in 1974. Failure to pay taxes was one of the two articles of impeachment against Nixon that didn’t pass out of committee after nine Democratic members voted against it.

Since the Watergate investigations had revealed the president grossly abusing his power with the IRS, shortly after Nixon’s resignation Congress passed a law that severely limited the president’s access to IRS information and barred him from disclosing it to the public. But it left the 1924 law untouched.

All presidents and major party nominees since Nixon have released their tax returns. That is, until now. President Trump has still not released his, sporadically claiming that he will do it as soon as the IRS is finished “auditing” them. This is, of course, nonsense. Every year would not be under audit and, in any case, there is no law against releasing a tax return that’s being audited. It’s very likely that Trump is lying about this, since he lies about everything.

All presidents should be required to release their returns, but especially one who claims to be vastly wealthy and has refused to divest himself of his private family business. It’s an outrage that he has refused to do it and for any number of reasons, it’s in the public interest that they be released.

Trump’s overseas financial dealings have such clear appearances of conflicts of interest that they could be compromising regardless of whether they actually are. The Moscow Trump Tower deal alone raises alarms that Trump is still secretly involved in business deals in places that put him at risk of being leveraged. The national security threat of a president hiding foreign financial business from the public is obvious.

There are numerous reports of possible money laundering and other nefarious financial dealings with organized crime. He is currently benefiting from the profits of his company despite the constitutional prohibition against the acceptance of foreign emoluments. And the blockbuster New York Times exposé of the Trump family’s decades-long tax evasion scheme downright requires that his current taxes be reviewed. If there has ever been a case where oversight was more necessary, I haven’t heard of it.

So why aren’t the Democrats moving on this? I think most people who voted them into the majority last fall expected it would be one of the first things they did. They have the power to do it. Certainly, Trump’s financial shenanigans are no less suspicious that Nixon’s were. And Republicans demanded confidential IRS information during the Obama years in their quest to prove bias against conservative groups — and they got it, even releasing some portions to the public.

So far, there has been no movement from the House Ways and Means Committee under its new chair, Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass. According to Politico, Neal is worried about exercising this congressional prerogative without a firm legal rationale and has asked numerous committees to provide one. Evidently he’s very concerned about the fact that the Trump administration will fight the release so he’s slow-walking it, telling people that it might not be done until after the 2020 election.

This is nuts. As the Center for American Progress points out, there is no legal recourse for the administration. The law is clear. George K. Yin, professor of law and taxation at the University of Virginia and a former chief of staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, says that the committees can review the returns and — if they deem it in the public interest — can release them to the House and Senate, which would be tantamount to making them public. Neal’s excuses make little sense.

Greg Sargent at the Washington Post observed that this may be a case of Neal being intimidated by the ambiguous conclusion of the Mueller report and falling for the absurd narrative being pushed by the Republicans that it’s time to “move on.” That would be sadly typical but, as Sargent says, it’s the opposite of what must happen. Indeed, other House committees are moving forward at a brisk pace, knowing that oversight has been nonexistent for the last two years.

I also suspect that Neal, and the leadership that’s letting him drag his feet, are concerned that whenever Republicans are back in the majority they will use this power to release the tax returns of Democratic lawmakers and wealthy donors. (This is the same lame logic that compels Democrats to defend the filibuster despite the ongoing bad faith of the Republicans.)

If that’s so, it just makes the argument for people to be transparent and lawful with their finances. All public officials should release their tax returns, not just the president. And who knows? Maybe forcing wealthy donors to be transparent with their finances might be the best way to get big money out of politics.

There is no excuse for this delay. If Richard Neal won’t do the job, Nancy Pelosi should find someone who will.

.

No trust at all by @BloggersRUs

No trust at all
by Tom Sullivan

Republicans are not “the party of health care” except on the president’s Twitter feed.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s reluctance to engage the issue points to worry that the sitting president’s focus on repealing the Affordable Care Act could hurt Republican election chances in 2020. The president’s claims that “Republicans are developing a really great HealthCare Plan with far lower premiums (cost) & deductibles” than the Affordable Care Act led to pressure on the White House to back off until 2021.

That pressure may not hold the president’s attention. Amid recent threats top close the U.S. border with Mexico and to eliminate the Affordable Care Act, during an Oval Office meeting Tuesday with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, Donald Trump repeated that Republicans “will become the party of healthcare.”

He promised Republicans would unveil their replacement plan (that is nowhere in evidence) “at the appropriate time.”

The Financial Times reports:

The importance of healthcare in US politics was demonstrated in the 2018 midterm elections. Exit polls showed that 41 per cent of US voters — a plurality — identified healthcare as their top issue of concern — marking the first time it had been a number-one issue for voters in more than a decade.

Those numbers have only climbed. In a Gallup poll released April 1:

Fifty-five percent of Americans worry “a great deal” about the availability and affordability of healthcare, topping Gallup’s list of potentially worrisome issues for the fifth straight year. A majority of Americans have said they worry a great deal about healthcare in each of the 18 years the question has been asked since 2001, more than twice as often as any of the other 12 issues most often measured.

What’s more, 55 percent of Americans support improving rather than replacing the U.S. health care system, a Quinnipiac University poll found last week:

People were in favor 55% to 32% of improving the current health care system instead of replacing it with something new. But when asked whether to remove the current system and replace it with single-payer through an expansion of Medicare to cover all citizens, 43% called it a “good idea” while 45% said it was a “bad idea.” By political party, 69% of Democrats and 42% of independents supported it while only 14% of Republicans did.

As for whom they trust to make those changes, Republicans are not voters’ first choice. A Politico/Morning Consult poll finds nearly 3 in 5 ranked their faith in Republicans for improving the system “not much” or “none at all.” In the March 29-April 1 survey, 53 percent of voters said they had “a lot” or “some” trust in Democrats.

Forty-six percent of voters had “no trust at all” in Donald Trump.

Few of those polled likely know he has named Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) to lead his healthcare effort, a move Michael Hiltzik views as going “over the line into self-parody.” As governor of Florida, Scott presided over a sharp decline in the state’s insured rate and refused the Medicare expansion “depriving 1.4 million residents of coverage.” That, after a Medicare/Medicaid fraud investigation into Scott’s Columbia/HCA led to “the largest government fraud settlement ever reached by the Justice Department.”

Americans borrowed $88 billion in the last year to pay health care costs. ABC News reports a Gallup and West Health survey taken between Jan. 14 and Feb. 20 found that 15 million Americans deferred prescription drug purchases and 65 million declined medical treatment because of costs.

So when, when would be an appropriate time?

Graham says Barr may be ready to go after Clinton

Graham says Barr may be ready to go after Clinton

by digby

Is he lying like his Dear Leader? Maybe. But it’s clear that he thinks this is a red-meat electoral winner for himself. And he has the power to hold some very dramatic hearings.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said Attorney General William Barr is “pretty upset” with how the FBI handled the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s unauthorized private email server.

During an interview on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures,” Graham, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he hopes Barr will appoint a special counsel to look into potential political bias.

“So it seems to me that she was interviewed not under oath. She had a couple of her staff people with her. People in her campaign were given immunity without anything in return. Nobody in the Clinton investigation went to jail for lying about the process because there was no process,” Graham told host Maria Bartiromo.

“I know Bill Barr pretty well, and he’s pretty upset about the way all this was handled,” he added, noting he’s not sure how Barr will act.

“I don’t know if he’s going to have a special prosecutor to look at the probability of criminal misbehavior,” Graham said. “I’m going to look at what happened from an oversight role. But I hope there’s a special counsel appointed to look at DOJ corruption and political bias, you know? Because Mueller did his job against Trump. Nobody’s really looked at the Clinton campaign, the FISA warrant abuse or the counterintelligence investigation for criminality yet and somebody should.”

He’s not going to let this go. It’s obviously how he expects to stay on Trump’s good side and appeal to his right-wing base in South Carolina. 

.

This awful person could easily become the first woman president of the United States

This awful person could easily become the first woman president of the United States

by digby

Here’s a nice soft-focus profile of the most dangerous woman in America, Liz Cheney:

Controversial former Vice President Dick Cheney, who was castigated by liberals as the evil genius behind former President George W. Bush, is now a steady, quiet, and influential force behind his daughter Liz Cheney’s climb to the highest echelons of GOP politics.

A political duo since Dick Cheney, 78, left the West Wing in 2009, their partnership has extended to the House of Representatives, where Liz Cheney, 52, was elected the No. 3 ranking Republican after winning just her second term last year in the at-large seat her father once held. The Wyoming congresswoman’s chief of staff is a longtime Dick Cheney aide, and the former veep is a ubiquitous presence at strategy sessions and at fundraisers for her political operation.

“The vice president has been Liz’s top adviser during her brief congressional career,” said Cesar Conda, the elder Cheney’s former chief domestic policy adviser in the White House and now a partner at the Washington lobbying firm Navigators Global. “I can see her dad’s influence.”

Liz Cheney is focused on the job at hand — driving the party’s message on Capitol Hill as House Republican Conference chairwoman and helping the GOP win back the majority. But knowledgeable Republicans say she is not content as the House Republicans’ No. 3 and doesn’t see herself as limited by the pecking order that puts her behind House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., and House Minority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La.

She broke with McCarthy and Scalise on an anti-hate resolution initiated by House Democrats, voting against it in a power move that raised eyebrows among Republicans and was interpreted as a signal that Cheney doesn’t plan to sit idle waiting for a leadership post above her to open before she makes a move. Republicans who know the congresswoman believe her sights are set on House minority leader, speaker — or even national office.

To realize her lofty aspirations, Liz Cheney has moved to establish credibility apart from her father and her prominent name, attempting to become a go-to resource for colleagues seeking messaging and policy expertise. The congresswoman also has assembled a kitchen cabinet of experienced Republican operatives, anchored by her father, whose experience in high-level national politics spans five decades, with stints as White House chief of staff, congressman, defense secretary, and vice president.

“She and her dad are very close. She values his advice and counsel,” Jeff Larson, a veteran Republican strategist who advises Liz Cheney, said. “But she is her own person.”

The two Cheneys are like-minded on key issues, especially having to do with U.S. foreign policy and national security, co-writing a book on the topic in 2015. Their advocacy for hawkish American global leadership, in the Republican tradition of former President Ronald Reagan, put them at odds with President Trump’s populist noninterventionism.

More than that, as Liz Cheney’s Republican colleagues in the House have discovered, the former vice president and his daughter are similar in temperament and personality.

Like her father, the congresswoman is outspoken, with little regard for niceties or protocol. And she prefers pulling the levers of power behind the scenes to public showboating. She is hardworking, accessible, and inquisitive, but not the most gregarious or social of politicians. “She has all the warmth of her father,” chuckled a senior House Republican…

Don’t kid yourself. She will run in 2024. She could be the first president of the United States. And I think she’s even worse than her father. She came up in a crazy era.

Democrats should work very hard to keep the loyalty of women who have left the GOP in recent years. Cheney or Haley could potentially get them back if they are perceived to have failed them.

.

Orange you glad he’s the president?

Orange you glad he’s the president?

by digby

He really tore it up in his press avail today. The lies were as usual. The ideas underlying them are just … scary.

He also had a weird senior moment as he was railing about Mueller failing to probe the “oranges” of the investigation:

As I have aged I find I sometimes struggle a little bit locating a word that when I was younger would come to me instantly. I’m told this is normal — it’s called “blocking” — so I stopped worrying about it. But I’ve never substituted a word with a completely different meaning that sounds like the one I mean to use. I don’t know that this is normal. Maybe it is. But it’s mighty strange for a president to be doing it.

I wonder how often that happens?

.

State TV is saying the quiet part loud

State TV is saying the quiet part loud

by digby

Authoritarians R us:

Remember, Trump is a big, big fan.

Maybe you think that this is all hot air. Maybe so. But words do matter. They change the way people think. And the right wing is being indoctrinated into believing that it’s legitimate for their Deal Leader and his acolytes to use their power to illegitimately destroy their political enemies to “make and example” of them.

Maybe it won’t happen right now. But it is not unthinkable to tens of millions of Americans who believe this is completely normal.

.

It’s time to rein in the presidency. Again.

It’s time to rein in the presidency. Again.

by digby

After Nixon, people understood that the imperial presidency had gotten way out of hand and they instituted some laws to dial back presidential power. It didn’t last. The cold war and then the terrorist threat ratcheted up the Commander in Chief power and the rise of the conservative movement, which acted in bad faith by pushing presidential power during GOP presidencies and hobbling it during Democratic ones, eroded those restrictions. And now we have the most unethical and unfit president in history and he is running wild.

Former White House Counsels Ian Bassin and Justin Florence wrote this op-ed in the New York Times:

It’s therefore up to Congress and the 2020 presidential candidates to step in and harden the policies that for 40 years prevented improper political interference in law enforcement.

They can do this by enacting comprehensive legislation to codify rules and practices that were previously voluntary. Those who subscribe to the Barr memo view of expansive executive power might claim that such legislation would violate the Constitution. On the contrary, such legislation would help enforce it.

First, Congress should restrict when and how the White House intervenes in law enforcement actions, giving teeth to the norms of the post-Watergate era. One model for such legislation is a reform born out of President Richard Nixon’s abuse of the I.R.S. to target enemies. Congress made it unlawful for certain officials, including the president, to “request, directly or indirectly,” any I.R.S. officer or employee to, in effect, weaponize a taxpayer audit. Congress could apply that approach by prohibiting a president from intervening in individual law enforcement proceedings — or at a minimum require notification when a president or members of the White House staff do so. Such a rule would have imposed an additional bar, for example, on the president trying to get the Department of Justice to block the AT&T-Time Warner merger in retaliation for CNN’s coverage, or from trying to investigate or prosecute political opponents.

Second, Congress should ensure that if the president issues or even dangles pardons in an attempt to block an investigation into his own interests, legislators will receive documents regarding the underlying investigation (once it’s concluded). This will both ensure accountability and deter bad faith behavior. Representative Adam Schiff’s Pardon Abuse Prevention Act provides a good start; it could be supplemented to apply to so-called dangled pardons and to force disclosure of discussions with pardon seekers in investigations implicating the president.

Third, Congress can make it harder for the government to mislead the public. A little-known law called the Information Quality Act creates a requirement that federal agencies ensure the quality, objectivity, utility and integrity of information they provide to the American people. Strengthening the act so that it applies to the president would help expose disinformation and make it more difficult for presidents to take executive actions based on false “determinations” and “findings.”

Finally, Congress should prohibit the president from using federal law enforcement powers to interfere in an electoral campaign. Procedures designed to check some such activity exist in the United States Attorneys Manual, but that merely compiles prudential guidelines. Congress should harden these rules and expand them to cover other law enforcement agencies (such as the Department of Homeland Security). It could require a Civil Service process to approve sensitive actions around campaign season.

An even stronger measure could require early-stage confidential judicial approval before a law-enforcement action that might impact the outcome of an election could be taken. Such reforms would make it harder for a president to abuse power — such as by timing investigations or announcements to affect a political campaign, using the security clearance process to silence critics, sending immigration authorities to polling places or intervening in Secret Service activities to protect candidates and events.

Campaign season shouldn’t bring government to a halt, and law enforcement shouldn’t ignore actual wrongdoing in an electoral context. But given the abuses we’ve seen in the past two years and others that might easily take place in the future, we ignore additional protections at our peril.

Some of these ideas already have bipartisan support. Clear statements by Congress implementing constitutional principles would also provide standards by which courts and the American people could judge the president’s conduct.

The Constitution commands that the president “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” At its core, this commands the president to act in good faith. The founders thought this directive was so important they put it in the Constitution not once but twice: in the “take care” clause and the president’s oath.

As the founders understood, the only reason We the People would delegate sovereignty to elected officials is if we were assured they would exercise that power in the public interest. If our legal system were to approve of the president exercising that power instead to protect his own interests, as the Barr letter does, we may find that our democratic experiment won’t extend much longer.

I think we need to make some laws about presidential nepotism, divestiture of personal businesses, revealing tax returns, unfettered power with respect to security clearances and declassifying information and failing to report advances by foreign powers offering to sabotage elections too.

You wouldn’t have thought any president would need laws to tell them how to behave in regards to all those issues but I think we know now that we do.

.

Trump’s most dangerous base strategy

Trump’s most dangerous base strategy

by digby

A little reminder:

TRUMP, when asked if he views white nationalism as a rising threat worldwide: “I don’t really. I think it’s a small group of people that have very, very serious problems. I guess if you look at what happened in New Zealand, perhaps that’s the case. I don’t know enough about it yet. They’re just learning about the person and the people involved. But it’s certainly a terrible thing.” — remarks Friday in Oval Office.

THE FACTS: Both data and many experts who track violent extremists point to white nationalism as a rising threat in the U.S. and abroad.

According to data released this month by the New York-based Anti-Defamation League, for instance, white supremacist propaganda efforts nearly tripled last year from 2017. Reports of the propaganda — which can include fliers, stickers, banners and posters that promote hateful ideology — rose 182 percent to 1,187 cases. That’s up from the 421 reported in 2017.

The number of racist rallies and demonstrations also rose last year, according to the group. At least 91 white supremacist rallies or other public events attended by white supremacists were held in 2018, up from 76 the previous year.

The Anti-Defamation League in January said domestic extremists killed at least 50 people in the U.S. in 2018, up from 37 in 2017, and noted that “white supremacists were responsible for the great majority of the killings, which is typically the case.”

Separately, the Southern Poverty Law Center reported the U.S. had more hate groups last year than at any point in at least the past two decades. The organization, which tracks white supremacists and other far-right extremists, said the 1,020 groups it counted in 2018 amounted to the highest number since the center broadened its survey of such groups in the 1990s.

The center said it was the fourth straight year of hate group growth, representing a 30 percent increase roughly coinciding with Trump’s campaign and presidency. That came following three straight years of decline near the end of the Obama administration.

And the Justice Department reported in November that hate crimes across the U.S. spiked 17 percent in 2017 — marking a rise for the third straight year. There were 7,175 reported hate crimes that year, up from 6,121 in 2016, according to the FBI report. More than half of the crimes were motivated by bias against a person’s race or ethnicity. Anti-Semitic hate crimes increased 37 percent.

Among the episodes in the last few years: a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017 after which Trump blamed “both sides” for violence, and last October’s shooting at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh in which the gunman accused of killing 11 people allegedly drew inspiration from white nationalism. Authorities last month arrested a Coast Guard lieutenant, an alleged white supremacist who appeared interested in attacking top Democrats and network TV journalists.

That’s sobering. But Trump doesn’t agree that it’s a problem so the US government isn’t going to do anything about it:

The Department of Homeland Security has disbanded a group of intelligence analysts who focused on domestic terrorism, The Daily Beast has learned. Numerous current and former DHS officials say they find the development concerning, as the threat of homegrown terrorism—including white supremacist terrorism—is growing.

In the wake of this move, officials said the number of analytic reports produced by DHS about domestic terrorism, including the threat from white supremacists, has dropped significantly. People in and close to the department said this has generated significant concern at headquarters.

“It’s especially problematic given the growth in right-wing extremism and domestic terrorism we are seeing in the U.S. and abroad,” one former intelligence official told The Daily Beast.

The group in question was a branch of analysts in DHS’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A). They focused on the threat from homegrown violent extremists and domestic terrorists. The analysts there shared information with state and local law enforcement to help them protect their communities from these threats.

“You hear this administration say how domestic terrorism is a clear priority. But you can’t say that and then all of a sudden get rid of the unit that’s there to detect threats. You can’t have it both ways.”
— Former DHS official Nate Snyder

Then the Trump administration’s new I&A chief, David Glawe, began reorganizing the office, which is the DHS component that has a place in the Intelligence Community. Over the course of the reorganization, the branch of I&A focused on domestic terrorism got eighty-sixed and its analysts were reassigned to new positions. The change happened last year, and has not been previously reported.

“We’ve noticed I&A has significantly reduced their production on homegrown violent extremism and domestic terrorism while those remain among the most serious terrorism threats to the homeland,” said one DHS official.

Former officials pointed to a spate of domestic terror attacks in recent years as evidence that DHS erred by shuttering this branch. From the massacre that left 11 people dead at a Pittsburgh synagogue to a shooting targeting Republican members of Congress in June 2017 to bomb threats that a deranged Trump fan directed at prominent Democrats and CNN, violent attacks informed by homegrown hatred have left Americans increasingly terrorized.
[…]
Pressed on whether DHS disputes this reporting, a senior DHS official pushed back.

“The same people are working on the issues,” the official said. “We just restructured things to be more responsive to the I&A customers within DHS and in local communities while reducing overlap with what the FBI does. We actually believe we are far more effective now.”

But Sgt. Mike Abdeen with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department told The Daily Beast that his office used to receive a significant amount of material from I&A, but that the communications have dried up in recent months. For the last six months, he said, I&A has been mostly silent. He added that this has been consistent with broader changes in how the department communicates with his office.

“It’s been very quiet lately,” Abdeen said. “It’s changed with the new administration. It doesn’t seem to be as robust, as active, as important—it is important, I’m sure, but it’s not a priority. It doesn’t seem like engagement, outreach, and prevention are seen as a priority as we used to see in the past. There were roundtable meetings in the past, there was more activity, more training, more seminars. Now it seems like it’s gone away.”

Of course it isn’t. Just as they don’t care about foreign actors interfering in the election, they are fine with domestic terrorists because 99% of them are right wingers. In other words, it’s just another aspect of Trump’s base strategy.

.

Florida House to vote on giving more teachers guns, just days after armed teacher injured child @spockosbrain

Florida House to vote on giving more teachers guns, just days after armed teacher injured child

by Spocko

On Thursday, March 21, the Florida House Education Committee passed out of committee a broad school safety bill (HB 7093) that would expand an existing guardian program to allow classroom teachers at private and charter schools to volunteer to carry weapons on campus if local school boards approve. (link)

On Friday, March 22,  Henry Rex Weaver, 74 a substitute teacher at Blountsville Elementary School discharged his gun inside his pocket. A child was injured, treated at the scene of the crime, and released. (link)

Henry Rex Weaver, Teacher at Blountsville Elementary School in Blountsville, Alabama.
Mug shot from Blount County Sheriff’s Office/Facebook page and WBRC video

On April 3, the bill, HB 7093 on School Safety, goes to the full house. A key part of the bill allows charter schools and private schools to have the Guardian program. If that passes, more teachers will be legally allowed to carry guns in classrooms.  If people  want to stop that, ALL members of the House need to see this story and other examples of failures of armed teachers.  (See more examples below.)

Sadly, the Guardian program is already law, 49 school districts said NO to it, but 25 said yes and there are now 743 Armed Teachers employed in Florida.  People should contact the legislators first, but as the education committee pointed out, school boards decide whether or not to implement the program. School boards need to hear about failures.

If the part of the bill that allows private or charter schools to arm teachers passes, school board members for those schools will need to hear about the problems, failures and costs of armed teacher programs, so they won’t vote to implement them.

This ongoing education about day-to-day gun failures is very necessary because after the next mass shooting the uninformed public will say again, “We should arm teachers!”

The public doesn’t see the daily stories of gun accidents across the country. But I do since I get 3 to 5 every day from my Google Alert. These cases of armed individuals failing need to get to people making decisions about putting guns in the hands of teachers. Just because a legislator or school board didn’t hear something bad, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

I expect some people in communities to make uninformed statements like, “I haven’t heard anything bad happening, so it must be fine.”  But it’s especially distressing when legislators and school board members are ignorant of the evidence of problems with teachers carrying concealed weapons in school.

When people say they haven’t heard anything bad happening with the teachers carrying guns, we need people in the room to stand up and say,

“Really? Well you must not be reading the documents and emails I get. For example I’ve got multiple cases of failures of armed teachers, police and staff on school Campuses (link) and almost 200 failures of trained police and school resources officers vs one success (link)

Using the Gun Violence Archive I can show you right now the last 3 months worth of cases of negligence with guns in our city and state as well as throughout the country.  Using the Center for Homeland Defense and Security K-12 School Shooting Database I can show you how each school shooting incident ended 

I can also show you what works. I have documents showing past and current cases where shootings were prevented by alert mental health professionals, social workers or families like the one right before the Parkland shooting In states that have Red Flag laws, like Maryland, I have examples of how they were used to remove weapons from people who threatened to shoot up a school.

For those repeating the falsehood that only good guys with guns can stop bad guys with guns, let me show you cases of shootings stopped by people without using guns. (Here is one by Jason Seaman, a former defensive end now a science teacher who ‘immediately ran up to a shooter, “swatted the boy’s cocked gun out of his hand before tackling the pupil to the ground.”

And, finally, before you vote to bring a new liability to the schools in your district, let me tell you about the multi-million dollar lawsuits that school boards, school districts and insurance companies seal and don’t want to talk about.  Heck, I can even direct you to the Tumblr page on guns left in bathrooms.

I’ve watched a LOT of hearings, town halls and panels on guns in schools. I watched how people pushed to get more guns in schools with misinformation, slogans and fear. The people who are in decision-making positions need to be constantly shown that armed teacher programs are failures. For some boards it will be a reminder they did the right thing to not implement the program, for others it can provide more evidence not to start an armed teacher programs.  

Last year I watched a lot of smart people go to school boards to convince them not to implement the Armed Teacher Program.  Last week I watched as Education Board Chair Jennifer Sullivan implied that because nothing bad has happened in the Florida program in 7 months, people are being unfair to not trust the newly armed teachers.

Florida House education panel advances ‘school guardian’ bill that will arm teachers -Sun Sentinel March 22, 2018

One of the other things that I’ve learned about legislation and the decision-making process of school boards is that you need multiple ways and types of people to counter the incorrect statistics and bumper sticker logic used by the believers of the “more guns are the solution to gun violence” message.

People read, but most don’t absorb everything without multiple personal exposures to the information.  It’s time for school boards and legislators to hear from the teachers and trained police who failed when it came to using a gun in schools. Florida could start with Sean Simpson, a Parkland chemistry teacher who left his gun in a restroom. (Who pays for armed teachers gun accidents?)

Sean Simpson, Parkland school chemistry teacher, told deputies on Sunday
 that he forgot his Glock 9 mm in a stall at a restroom at the Deerfield Beach Pier.

I don’t think Henry Rex Weaver will come in voluntarily, but it would be good to track down those teachers who shot themselves in the bathroom and have them speak to school boards who are considering the program.  Antonio White, 1st Vice President United Teachers of Dade, gave examples of failures at 26:10 in the hearing.  Scott McCoy, senior policy counsel for the SPLC Action Fund mentioned these gun teachers at 57:36 in the hearing.

Also, for those providing the evidence. I suggest you be prepared for the feelings of board members, since those often don’t respond to facts and evidence. I recommend in-person meetings to show them the evidence and address their questions and concerns before public sessions.

I’ve learned that sometimes you need to be polite and other times you need to push back, in real-time, against a disingenuous narrative.  Please watch the excellent testimony of Nicolette Springer, M.S., Legislative Advocate from the League of Women Voters. Here is the link to the whole committee session, Springer starts at 33:40.

Then watch at 38:30 as Springer pushed back on a disingenuous talking point by Rep. Randy Fine on teachers vs police. Fine, whose bullying of others is so egregious the editorial board of Florida Today called him out on it last year, continued to use multiple bullying techniques throughout the session.

Multiple members of the Florida house will vote on the amended bill this session. If it passes, charter and private school boards will have the ability to implement an Armed Teachers Program. If they have the opportunity what will their boards be basing their decisions on? Real evidence of the increased danger of more guns in schools, or hopes and prayers?

In my next piece I’ll talk about evidence and presenting it to school boards and legislators. Basic Math: More People With Guns Equals More Gun Accidents.