The View from Right Field

Banning Semi-Automatic Weapons Doesn’t Solve the Problem (Even If It’s a Good Idea)

After the murder of 50 people in Christchurch, New Zealand, by a white nationalist will not be named in this blog, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern immediately called for a new strict gun law, which will be passed next month because all of the major parties in New Zealand support it.  Also, by issuing a new interpretation of what kind of a license is required to possess a semi-automatic weapon, the New Zealand government effectively banned the possession of semi-automatic weapons right away.

Gun-control fans praised Prime Minister Ardern and asked why we can’t do that here.  I already talked about that a little bit back in July of 2014, after another summer weekend of violence in Chicago.¹

But the most important response to people who want to “solve” the problem of gun violence in the United States by outlawing semi-automatic weapons or instituting some other kind of strict gun control is: Okay, fine.  But what we do with all the semi-automatic weapons, and other guns, already out there once we outlaw semi-automatic weapons (or institute some other kind of strict gun control)?

#MedicareForAll – How It Will Really Work

While New Zealand has been in the news for other reasons lately, a hearing before the health select committee of the New Zealand Parliament last week should be of interest to those who think “Medicare for All,” or some other form of government-run single-payer health plan, is the answer to our problems with health care.

At the hearing, women with advanced breast cancer asked for pressure to be brought on Pharmac, the government-run drug-buying agency, to fully fund two additional drugs for breast cancer, Kadcyla and Palbociclib (also known as Ibrance).

The pleas of the women were very moving.  One of the women said that Ibrance was a “game-changer” in other countries for conditions like hers.  She asked why women in New Zealand had to travel to Malaysia or move to England or Australia to get access to cheaper life-extending drugs.  Another woman said that she was alive only because she had paid for the drug herself.  “This would … be impossible if I had to rely on Pharmac.” 

Jacinda Ardern Gets It Right

In the New Zealand parliament today, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern got it right with respect to how to respond to the murderer and terrorist who killed 50 people at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, on Friday.  This is from the New Zealand Herald:

“Ardern told Parliament the Australian man accused of carrying out the atrocity was seeking notoriety.

‘That is why you will never hear me mention his name.  He is a terrorist.  He is a criminal.  He is an extremist.  But he will, when I speak, be nameless. 

A Tragedy in Christchurch

You can find my most recent post on my other blog, “A Different New Zealand,” here.

Who Is Going to Cause More Problems for New Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker? His Opponents – Or His Supporters?

The question for new Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker is who is going to cause him more trouble in the upcoming legislative session: the people who supported him last November or those who didn’t.  While it may not be logical, I’m going to go with the former: the people who supported him. 

Lots of state programs, state agencies, and groups funded by the state have had a tough four years.  The fighting, during the last four years, between Republican Governor Bruce Rauner and the Democrats in the state legislature, especially House Speaker Michael Madigan, resulted in long periods with no budget and other periods with limited funding.  Many of the people affected by these cutbacks supported J.B. Pritzker last November, and now they are looking for him to deliver the things they supported him for.

“An American Appreciation of Bill English”

This is the title of a new post in my other blog, “A Different New Zealand.”  I have written about Bill English and his “social investment” approach before (see, inter alia, here and here).  This post is about his retiring from the New Zealand Parliament.

The Risk of Government Just Goes On and On

Megan McArdle rips, fairly, on the tax bill for, inter alia, fiscal irresponsibility (is this the time to be increasing the deficit and the debt?) and the way the individual tax cuts are being passed and then being repealed in 2025 (or so).  It is my understanding that, to be able to pass the bill without a filibuster in the Senate, the bill has to, among other things, not increase the deficit ten years out.  Therefore, the bill provides for the individual cuts to expire before the end of the ten-year period – but with the expectation that they will be extended at that point.  Which is what happened to the George W. Bush tax cuts passed in 2001.  The Democrats extended them in 2010.

Still, this is lousy way to write a tax bill.  While it is perhaps likely the cuts will be extended, who knows.  Is it fair to expect people to plan for the future when they don’t know what tax rules are going to be?  It is hard enough with Congress changing the tax laws every couple years.  The tax bill adds even more to Congress’s normal, somewhat scatterbrained approach.

Mosul and Hillary Clinton’s Campaign: Winning, Losing, and Figuring Out Why

On Saturday, The Wall Street Journal reported on an assessment prepared by U.S. and British military officers of the successful effort to take Mosul back from Islamic State forces.  The top U.S. general in the effort, Lt. Gen. Stephen Townsend, ordered the review.  The Journal noted:

“It is common for the military to analyze the lessons of its operations, but its examination of the hard-fought Mosul campaign has particular relevance.  The battle was a test of a new type of warfare the U.S. has employed in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan in recent years – one in which most ground combat is done by indigenous forces with Americans providing advisers and firepower.”

While the campaign was successful, the report looked at not only what worked, but also what didn’t.  For example:

Thoughts Upon Germany's Election: Perhaps a Way for Parties to Win Votes Is to Have Good Leaders

As The Wall Street Journal predicted on Saturday, while Angela Merkel has won re-election in the German elections today, the parties on the fringe of German politics have grown.  With the established center-right and center left parties¹ getting a combined total of less than 55% of the total vote², Germany seems to be following the trend in other European countries.  As the Journal noted:

“In swaths of Continental Europe, the established center-right and center-left parties have suffered far more dramatic collapses, while populist movements from the nationalist right to the anticapitalist left have become strong enough to aspire to power.”

The Journal tries to identify the reason(s):

Medicare for All (Or At Least More): Will It Mean Political Campaigns Based on More Knee Replacements?

Democratic Representative John Conyers, Jr., from Michigan has introduced a bill that would allow anybody, of any age, to buy into Medicare.  The theory is “everyone loves Medicare,” so why not let people buy into it if they want to.  Last year Hillary Clinton proposed letting people over 55 buy into Medicare.

Megan McArdle explained the problems with this idea.  Among others, there was this:

“If we followed Clinton’s plan, and lowered the Medicare eligibility age, one effect would be to take some pressure off Obamacare’s exchanges, by moving the sicker and older patients out of the pool.  But that cost has to go somewhere, and where it’s likely to end up is in hospitals, as their patient load shifts dramatically toward lower-reimbursed Medicare patients.