This is a parody, right? Elite Manhattanites at a cocktail party, pinkies raised, competing with each other to see who can be more condescending to views not shared outside the Upper West Side. Surprised it didn't make it to Shouts and Murmers and was relegated to these pages.
6
“Yeah, remember when we thought he (Trump) might be someplace between Mitt Romney and Bernie Sanders?” Who is this “we” of whom you speak?
8
Of COURSE not!
1
Stephens is getting points for being reasonable on guns by saying we should repeal the Second Amendment. So we could elect Democrats who might appoint Justices who would interpret the Second per the intent of the Framers and as it was before 2008. But instead Stephens wants us to launch an impossible quest to repeal an Amendment. Explain to me how this is reasonable.
4
Don't people realize that the Second Amendment does NOT protect the right to own an assault weapon? This fact needs to be widely disseminated. Justice Scalia outlined the fact that handguns are protected by that amendment, but not assault weapons. His comments were part of the Heller v. District of Columbia court decision upholding "the right to bear arms." Since it is apparently impossible to stop an AR 15 bullet with Kevlar, and AR 15 bullets travel faster than handgun bullets, even the police think twice about going up against a shooter armed with assault weapons.
8
Trump’s conducting of his private business in office even as he fails to bother to learn what he needs to know to do a competent job, while giving top jobs to family members who are also preoccupied with doing their private businesses really is the most blatant expression of contempt for this country and it’s institutions in our history. It’s truly amazing to hear his supporters spinning facts and ignoring his actual behavior because they love how he approves right wing arch-conservative policies and legislation contrary to all his populist rhetoric, the perfect plutocrat. He is a person without conscience and without any virtues, and he manages to have anyone who deals with him losing their integrity, too.
10
Completely agree with repealing the Second Amendment. It's the basis for the gun rights position. Take it away and they collapse. Of course, anyone who can read at an elentary school level who reads it, will discover that it has absolutely nothing to do with having a gun for self-protection. That word "militia" is hard to ignore.
10
Speaking of political games, I just read about Ben Carson's 31,000 dollar dining room table for his office which he bought while cutting programs to house the elderly poor. The game all the people associated with Trump is called Let's Get Ours While Taking Away Yours. Pruitt with his expensive travel and 25,000 phone both. Mnuchin and his military jets to fly his wife around. Melania who spent 68,000 dollars for a military jet to fly her to her spa at Mar-A-Lago. Trump wanting a 30 million dollar military parade while cutting Meals on Wheels which feeds a few million disabled or elderly veterans a day.
Lots of us are sick of Trump's staff and family living high on government money while sticking their feet the the faces of the rest of us.
25
Yes!!! Lift the cap on the payroll tax - how simple is that??? Absolutely no one will miss that money - it's been taken away from day one, and the folks in the upper limits seriously don't even know it's there. And, BTW, I'm so sick of the word "entitlements" used in a derogatory way - we ARE entitled to it - we INVESTED in this program, and we should be reaping what we sowed. As for the guns, I'm pinning my hopes on the kids - they're superb!
23
Does anyone else notice how the Republicans and Democrats are switching opinions? Suddenly the Republican party is all about adding trillions of dollars to our debt and trusting Russia and the Democrats are the opposite. We can't agree on anything except that we can't agree on anything. Come on America, let's get our act togethor!
1
Dems were never particularly about "trusting Russia". Nice try, though Ivan.
4
Maybe if people hear it all the time "the second amendment has to go" it'll become normal thought, the kind of thing no reasonable person could disagree with. say it loud, say it often, repeal the second amendment!
14
Congratulations on a much deserved award. Please keep the humor coming -we really need the relief.
8
The Second Amendment is within the original Bill of Rights added to the US Constitution at its origin. We have never repealed an amendment within the Bill of Rights, of which there are ten. I wonder if it is even legal. Repealing the second amendment is not same as repealing an amendment that we all voted for, like the amendment that repealed the prohibition of alcohol amendment. On top of that, amendments (whether or repeal or not) are notoriously difficult to achieve. Congressional action is the better bet.
1
Keep the 2nd amendment, enforce it as written. No law will be enacted to sell guns to a well-regulated militia (no, the KKK doesn't count). Everyone else is subject to whatever regulations are needed. Good for all those "conservative Constitutionalists out there!"
1
#1- The 2nd amendment sates that the "militia" should be regulated. The gun folks use this amendment so they are defined as "militia". Now, with 30,000 gun deaths per year they definitely need regulating.
#2- Defense spending has been shown ,by various studies over a number of years , to be at least 40% wasteful. We need regulation and oversight not throwing more money down a hole. China has 2 Carriers we have 11.
#3- Single payer heath care, control of drug prices would reduce medical care costs by billions.
We need better government oversight , not more money.
23
Congratulations on your award, Gail. Richly deserved.
A conservative calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment? I must go find my smelling salts!
After passage a huge tax bill that benefits the very wealthy and threatens looming deficits, now we hear the inevitable cries, "Raise the retirement age, cut Social Security and Medicare, and block-grant Medicaid! Spend even more on defense!" The cries are drowned out only by the evil cackles.
16
Bret, I want to try to make two points about entitlement spending. Social Security is entirely funded by the regressive payroll tax. If you cut SocSec spending AND the payroll tax, you've done nothing for the balance sheet, so you must intend to slide payroll tax receipts into the general fund. Huh??? Raise the retirement age? Get real, incipient old age is tough enough without another problem. Second point -- medical care costs about twice as much as it should, judging by costs in similar countries. Fix that and Medicaid becomes a profit center.
7
People who object to "entitlement" spending need a dictionary review of what "entitlement" means. I paid, I'm promised it, I'm entitled to it. Period.
5
Three cheers for Gail and her Polk! This Bret character is turning out to be not half bad also!
7
A Polk award for Gail? Well deserved! Congratulations.
4
lovely banter back and forth.
one of my most enjoyable reads every week.
4
Not at all sure, if this was a joke or wrongly appeared in sports pages.
I was offended by comparison of Ms Trump and Mr Pence with athletes - at cost of denigrating them.
Come on, Mr Pence was elected a governor and now elected a VP. Not sure of the exact count, but he is probably only 60 th or so - an American occupying this high position. And could be a POTUS one day.
That is not an accomplishment to be pooh poohed about. Ok, not an Olympian but definitely up there in our American society.
As to Ivanka - don't hold it against her if she just happens to be a daughter. It was not her fault who her father is. And she has definitely represented America abroad well - she could have easily botched it.
Compared to her siblings, she is a cut above.
Put any young woman or a man in that position - you will find how difficult or challenging it would be to operate at that level.
Now, having my daughter work for me (even without a pay like Ivanka) may not be my cup of tea.
But in this age where we pride ourselves in promoting fairer sex - least you can do is give her a break.
Very disappointed in this so called conversation. Shove it to Op-ed pages - no problem.
1
If Ivanka didn't put herself with her father we would give her a break.
6
To Neil M:
Women are "the fairer sex?" This is so patronizing. And does that make men the unfair sex?
2
You need to know what the Democratic tax plan is ? That smells like willful ignorance in pursuit of making a political point. Why not just look at what the last two democratic presidents did. Really.
7
Bret doesn't think Democrats are talking about infrastructure? Maybe because he only learns about what Democrats are talking about by reading reporters who ignore most of what Democrats are talking about?
So, Bret, if you are interested in Democrats talking about infrastructure, for starters listen to this:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?440922-1/house-democrats-unveil-infrastruc...
7
For aging Americans like me it is offensive to hear that Social Security and Medicare are entitlements. Having paid into both since the 1960’s, I believe I am absolutely “entitled” to receive these benefits.
In order to ensure that there is sufficient funding the cap on the salary amount that is taxed should be raised significantly or removed entirely; in addition, the mandate to sign up for Medicare should be changed from 65 to the date of one’s retirement for those who are already receiving employer provided health insurance.
When an individual reaches retirement age after a long career and diligent planning that includes Social Security and Medicare as part of an overall financial strategy, s/he should not have to live with the fear of losing those benefits that were paid for by payroll deductions.
17
So, if we remove the income cap for SS tax, are you also for removing the cap on benefits?
2
Gail: Please, in this kind of situation, please talk about belief systems. What kind of belief systems do the people who love guns more than people have? What kind of person values money more than the lives of children? What kind of values does someone who professes to be a "good Christian" have if they take money from a group that exists to promote selling more weapons. Weapons have one purpose -- they kill. Is that part of the 10 Commandments? Have they ever heard "Do unto others....?" Shoot first, huh?
We had decades of people buying hunting guns without mass killings. Changing the laws to make it easier to buy assault weapons sees more innocent people dead. Why is this hard to understand??
Only those who are truly blind can read the second amendment, written oh so long ago, and think it applies to the weaponry we have now. The men who wrote the Constitution were concerned (mostly) with the general good of all and those who came generations after. The sad excuses for the reps of the GOP in Congress are greedy, shallow, cowardly, egotistic, self-interested, power hungry and profoundly duped by Crazy Wayne.
Oh, and Mr. Stephens, I guess you don't need Social Security, Medicare or other "entitlements." Good for you. Too bad for those of us who do. And, the Democrats have said lots of things about what needs to change. We just complain about Trump because he needs to be complained about!!
6
So, Jeanie, does the First Amendment also not apply to communication methods we have now?
I could not agree more with Bret on both the repeal the second amendment strategy and the Democrats need to stop whining and become acquainted with policy.
With 45 at the helm and Democrats perpetually lost and afraid these are dismal times.
4
"AR" -- as in Assault Rifle.
Assault, as in NOT for hunting.
Assault, as in NOT for self-defense.
Assault, as in NOT for target practice.
Assault, as in Assaulting someone, offense not defense, attacking, aggression.
Only 14 million people actually belong to or support the NRA. (Pew)
The NRA only spends millions -- not billions -- on lobbyists and supporting candidates. (NRA website)
But its influence on politicians is out of proportion to these low numbers.
WHY?
Consider the messages on the Instagram page of the 14 year old girl from Parkland who had 4 of her best friends killed.
She made a comment on her Instagram that this must be stopped.
What happened?
Death threats.
The police are helping the family find another place to live.
Death threats.
The crazy people who threaten those who want to control gun violence are intimidating and threatening and silencing those who represent the majority.
Death threats -- that is why so many are mute.
13
If you want to know what is wrong with the Times opinion page, it is the fact that few of you do what David Brooks just did, which is to get out of New York and the other elite prisons, and talk to real people.
I don't like his conclusion necessarily, because he always insinuates that people are really just lacking community and that it has little to do with our institutions and traditions, that people are just not making proper connections anymore.
Nevertheless, at least he's talking to real people. But I certainly hope he gets outside of the Ivey League soon.
What value does your opinion page bring if it doesn't spend some money and force its writers into the field? Anybody can sit in an office an pontificate. It's not worth paying for.
Krugman was worth reading for a while because he was providing real economic information. But when it comes to politics, political economy and how economics is or is not serving real people, you have to send people into the field often.
We're sick of hearing echoes of the voices of political parties and the elites.
2
Thank you, Brett, for sharing about Gail's award and congratulations to Gail on her well earned win.
4
Repeal the Second Amendment?
No chance, won't happen!!? Well, what about amending the Amendment, to return - as Bret would like - to a strict construction of the Founding Fathers' original intent? Here's the amendment: "...being necessary for the preservation of the Republic, the right to bear A SINGLE-SHOT RIFLE shall not be infringed."
Actually, to be REALLY strictly constructionist, it should say, "...to bear a muzzle-loading musket" since in 1783 rifles were still very rare, but let's not quibble.
The NRA couldn't possibly object, could they, them being adherents of the "original intent" of the Constitution! Now, all we need is for a billionaire to fund the amendment push in all 50 States. Step up Mark Zuckerberg?
4
Will, should we also clarify the First Amendment so that freedom of the press is just that, an 18th century hand-operated press? And freedom of speech does not protect any communications beyond the spoken voice?
No. we should just repeal the second amendment.
3
We won’t and we shouldn’t stop with the political games. When the Congress and the presidency are under Republican control , and when they show no interest in the minority’s opinion, the democratic viability of this country depends on being as disagreeable as possible.
Attempting bi partisanship or “working together “ is completely futile in the current political environment.
2
I am with Brett on the repealing the Second Amendment. It was really meant for a totally different age and time. It should be at least put on the table for debate.
Here's my argument:
Guns, whether it's a hand gun or an automatic are weapons and shouldn't be allowed as a "right to carry". They should be restricted to the defense of the nation. Ban all guns except guns for sport. These should licensed and tracked. People who are provided these guns for sport will have to meet high standards in order to get the license. Set the bar high and again we need to enforce it. They also need to be able shoot straight. Get the hunters to report for periodic target practice and psychological evaluations.
There is absolutely no need for all the guns for individual "protection", as some people claim, because now no one else except law enforcement will be armed. Moreover, incidents of police brutality, and shooting to kill, by law enforcement officials that are so prevalent these days, will no longer exist, as the officers will not have any excuse to shoot. Criminals can be apprehended more easily and without violence. Murder rates and gun accidents will drop drastically. What we really need are good, well trained law enforcement officials who will protect all, and treat all people equally.
And yes, the government will have to pay for all the guns surrendered.
Sounds like Utopia, but it can be achieved. Most civilized nations operate like this.
7
Did not know about Gail Collins' award--richly deserved for so often finding humor in the darkest corners.
8
Well, on the close-to-a-trillion defense budget that nobody seems to be against, I have a question:
What is it that we're defending against? Nuclear attack on the homeland? Invasion of the homeland? Attacks on and invasions of our allies?
Or what?
We've got an extremely capable nuclear deterrent force, an extremely capable navy, and probably enough ground forces to defend the borders against invasions from Mexico and Canada.
So what are we talking about here?
21
Re "We hear too much from Democrats about how awful the president is, as if he doesn’t do a fine job by himself of proving the same point. " Good point, but if Trumps behavior isn't challenged, how will younger people know that the behavior is not normal , both for a president of the US and an everyday person?
Don't let there become a "new normal".
12
I agree that the 2nd Amendment has been perverted into the false idol of a nihilistic death cult that demands periodic human sacrifices.
But let's keep it real. The 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights and I oppose tampering with the Bill of Rights on principal.
And any serious attempt to eliminate the 2nd Amendment fills me with absolute dread and utter horror. It would be the worst possible strategic mistake that gun control advocates could possibly make, because it would be playing ball on the NRA's turf. It would validate all the worst fears of the extreme right, which would only make them stronger.
Please, don't make Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity right about something!
2
The Constitution is not, nor is it meant to be, immutable. To those who think the original text shouldn't be changed -- remember that the original document contained the Three-Fifths Compromise, states were free to regulate voting rights such that only white, male landowners could vote, etc. Times change, and we do ourselves a disservice to use "originalism" as a cop out.
4
Maybe Bret has a point on guns. Maybe the answer is to stop talking about what might pass if the Democrats get control of COngress or the NRA releases its death grip on Republicans, and talk about what SHOULD pass. A repeal of the Second Amendment would be appropriate, especially if opponents of gun violence work hard at educating the American people about the real intent of the Second Amendment, protection of souther slave hunting militias, rather than the popular myth created by Scalia and the NRA. Change the framing, change the perception, then there is no limit on what can be done.
And once the Second Amendment is repealed, proceed immediately to confiscation.
7
If we take our communications out of the hand of big corporations, and perfect reporters who do their job and make it clear it's not their job to curry favor with politicians then maybe, just MAYBE, we can get back on the right track. Every time I see that liar of liars, Ms. Sanders, I often wish some of those great reporters of old were around to chew her up and spit her out for the lies she promotes for her boss. It doors without saying, I wish the same for him.
7
Congratulations, Gail! You are one of the few commentators who amuses me while discussing extremely important issues. That means that I read the entire column every time.
I was unaware that some conservatives would like to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Here in South Carolina, all I hear is "you aren't going to take my guns away from me." I don't want to take the weapons from responsible gun owners, but I do want a way to determine who they are. I do want to ban automatic weapons of all types and large magazines as well as bump stocks and similar items.
The right to LIFE is more important than anyone's right to play with guns. Seventeen year olds shouldn't worry about being shot at school. Concert goers shouldn't worry about being shot at concerts. Women shouldn't worry about being shot during domestic violence, or domestic violence itself for that matter. People who live with mental illness shouldn't have to worry about being blamed for gun violence, as they are far more likely to be victims than perpetrators.
It is time for this country to return to civility and decency. More people are pleasant than are not, but we have isolated ourselves with our large houses, multiple cars and wireless gadgets.
When we are less isolated, we are also less violent.
7
What a waste of my time. Gail and Bret can blather together in some effort to make the NYT look progressive by way of letting both sides be heard, but nothing at all matters in end in the face of human caused climate change.
We keep buying trucks. We keep producing new consumers. We keep sucking up water. Everyone keeps screwing around with petty politics - and EVERYTHING is petty politics in the face of our upcoming catastrophe - as though we have the luxury of arguing and being "cute" in NYT OpEd pieces. I'm sick of the unwillingness of humans to encounter the breath and depth of out destruction of the planet.
Why isn't our rape of our home the single most important news item and lede every single day?
23
Marie
Corporations make billions on the destruction of our planet and since we have citizen united and corporations are people( even though they don't have to breath toxic air or drink lead filled water) thank you republicans and their radical Supreme Court Justices we won't see any significant change to stop the destruction of the only viable planet in the solar system.
Greed over Logic is the republican and corporate way.
7
Political games are the only way the top .1% that owns and runs both parties can keep bamboozling enough voters to get their tax cuts, slash the safety net, and do all the other things they need from the political system to enrich themselves further and screw the rest of us. So the answer is "no." Political games are the only politics in town, the only politics the rich dare to allow.
5
Oh, please, Brett: Lindsey Vonn may be an inspiration to women everywhere even if she just one a bronze medal in her last Olympics. But Ivanka Trump is being criticized (as usual by the media) just for being there because she happens to be the daughter of America's most unpopular president. Why not give Ivanka a break every now & then. She is probably the most liberal person in the White House, together with her husband, also a butt of media ire. They are both guilty by association with the president.
Lindsey Vonn may indeed be inspirational but she certainly got too much attention from the NBC broadcast in consideration of her relatively poor performance on the slopes. NBC apparently chose a half dozen athletes that they were going to follow, come hell or high water, and those selected Olympians got most of the American media attention.
Both Ivanka and Lindsey are inspirations to all of us, but especially to young women, who can see that opportunities are now open to them like never before. Why not celebrate that fact?
1
Ivanka Trump does not get a break because she does not have any qualification to be representing my country in any way in an international setting. Being the child of an elected official is not a qualification to represent my country.
10
Charming as ever (okay, more so).
1
The potential is there. VOTE!
4
Sometimes, it takes a conservative like Bret Stephens to state the obvious for Democrats like Pelosi and Schumer, who seem bound and determined to lose the next election, and possibly even lose to Trump again, by focusing on NONE of the following:
"... the Democratic tax plan, infrastructure investment ideas and so on. I know there’s probably a paper on a D.N.C. website somewhere, but it’s not what the party is talking about. And it’s what people need to hear."
Instead, Pelosi shut the government down for three days to demand...more illegal immigration. Pelosi spoke on the House floor for eight hours to demand...more illegal immigration. While I agree with a path to citizenship for Dreamers, this focus is not going to win over any Trump voters, and has the rest of us Americans scratching our heads over what exactly the Democrats hope to do for us, for example, repealing the Abominable Tax Giveaway to Corporations.
If Pelosi and Schumer don't change or resign soon, we risk losing to Trump again. Against all odds. What our Democratic leaders do best.
7
Great discussion! Humorous and so on point about the DNC needing to be more than "the resistance" which seems to be little more than a few marches and lots of counter point commentary and lamenting about how awful Trump is. Perhaps the DNC can start by revamping their website. I am sorry, but having the first call to action on the homepage to "donate" is a total turn off.
As a side note and speaking of a monumental waste, this whole notion of a US manned missioned to Mars or creating an atmosphere on Mars via a nuclear explosion (Elon Musk) is a total boondoggle. The mission to the moon in its heyday consumed close to 5% of US GDP; are we really saying we have that kind of cash laying around with no other possible use?
1
Now that we given corporations and the wealthy a tax break of rather stunning proportions, we must trim entitlements? Starve the Beast 101. Do Republicans think we're all amnesiacs?
16
I think I've agreed with Brett once before in my life but I can't remember when. But dissolving the second amendment--I'm amazed he agrees on what I even consider one of my most extreme positions. But Gail is wrong about the time it takes to pass an amendment. It's true the last one was first considered over two centuries ago, but the 26th, to lower the voting age, took two months start to finish! If we wanted to we could be civilized again in two months time. Let's go Brett, it's you and I.
9
I grew up an Army brat. Whenever I read a conservative telling us that entitlements are the big monkey wrench in the budget, but that military spending needs to go up, I'm mystified...and I know they didn't grow up in a military family.
Our defense budget goes to a few large individual categories, but primarily: Very expensive weapons and technology - lots of those things; and support of military personnel, including free healthcare and housing for them _and_ lifelong medical benefits for veterans. A lot of the money that goes to families also goes right to businesses in towns and communities that support military bases. I don't really find this objectionable on its own, as the way we should care for and support our military, but why is this somehow more reasonable than doing less of it to support war readiness and more of it to support regular citizens? Why is providing welfare to a military dependent something more useful than providing welfare to a non-military citizen?
Soldiers put their lives on the line and receive a paycheck. Why should we have more of these at the expense of a much larger portion of people who are just poor and have little security of any kind in life?
13
Trump says he's in favor of raising the age at which someone is allowed to buy an assault rifle. Talk is cheap, so I don't take him at his word. But regardless, what is the logic here? Raising an age for some sort of qualification implies that prior to that age, an individual hasn't attained the maturity for the privilege in question. So, are we being asked to believe that someone becomes responsible to handle an AR-15 at 21, but has been adult enough to handle every other category of firearm for the prior 3 years? This makes no sense. Either you're mature enough to handle weapons or not; the type of weapon, though more or less lethal - and don't forget that a handgun is plenty lethal as well - is inconsequential. Trump's position on this has been as well thought out as his encouragement of arming our educators. In other words, absolutely no thought at all has been given to this. Because at the end of the day, Trump. Does. Not. Care. His 'listening' session was one big charade.
5
I wonder if we changed "entitlements" to "basic survival payments to avoid death" we could get Mr. Stephans and conservatives to go back and re-examine their position.
With Mr. Trump giving our country, our elections and our geopolitical place in the world to Russia and China what do we need a stronger military for? We've already surrendered in spite of the presence of Mad Dog Mattis and Adult Kelly.
Also, in Trumperica there's about as much likelihood of scuttling the Second Amendment as there is of Trump running into the school building unarmed, or running anywhere.
As for the rest of the conversation, pleasant enough but takes-up-space boiler plate at this point.
6
Well Bret you have to realize that most people don't know what FICA stands for. It's our money, not theirs and Gail you are right Trump and Sanders had similar ideas on helping workers. The only difference Trump was lying, remember when he said that we probably wouldn't see him again because he'd spend all his time in the White House working for them while Sanders had to fight off the three Clintons and the DNC. Somebody should have alerted Hillary that it's hard to succeed when you never try.
2
It it is all about money.
4
I do not trust having a constitutional convention until the right wing crazies are runout of the gop. I'd there were a CC now it would be dominated by big money and ALEC and folks like the Kochs.
And I agree with Gail there is a simple fix for entitlements, raise the cap. Again Big moneyed republicans will resist. All they think about is themselves.
4
Gun sales during the Obama yrs were sky high as we're profits. Currently, sales and profits are down considerably. It's counterintuitive, but electing leftist Democrats result in more guns...bet gun makers secretly wish Hillary had won.
1
If I could be sure that Gail would be writing a column at least once a week I know I could weather the president fits and starts at least until his first term is over. I know it means hyper ventilating the rest of each week but at least I would enter that very bleak period with a smile on my face and my humor intact.
I also know it would be hard for the supporters of the president to read Gail Collin's articles but it might help their sense of humor and they could stop screaming "lock her up" about Hillary Clinton. Like the "in" crowd says:
"It's so 2016."
2
Very fine passage by Bret on the other priorities in the Constitution of the USA, such as the three he cites, and their relevance to what happened in Parkland, Las Vegas and elsewhere. When this is contrasted with the Second Amendment, it means that there were, at least potentially, "original" (as in original construction) internal conflicts in the Constitution, now realized in the mass distribution of weapons of mass destruction, something that didn't exist in the USA in my own childhood. Should this be examined by the Supreme Court?
Is Bret bipolar or something? Why does he say something reasonable like "we need to amend the Constitution" and then shift right into "social security is an entitlement"? I've been paying into social security for 35 years. It's not an entitlement. I paid for it with a separate tax. Why do you want to take away something that I own?
5
If we had two rational political parties the answer would be yes. However, we don't.
4
Not until Trump and his entire family are in Leavenworth.
3
Two things, Bret. First how about means testing for Social Security and Medicare? My GI benefits are means tested with a ceiling of 34,000. And as to the military needing more money, that is only because the Pentagon wants to be prepared for all contingencies, no matter how remote. When was the last time we were in a war with Canada or Mexico? Or any cross state war? Most of the military hardware is unnecessary for the asymetrical warfare we are engaged in and likely to be engaged in in the foreseeable future. You and the generals are still fighting WWII, the good war where the good guys and the bad guys were clearly defined and we had fronts where troops amassed, etc. Them days are gone.
JD
4
How wonderful to repeal the second amendment ans start again about how we deal with all these guns. Dreaming for things that never were and maybe couldn't be is what and RFK and MLK great and many of their dream became reality. at the very least the conversation needs to begin as does real research about the gun issue. I also wonder why we cannot have both better mental health care and gun control. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and defense spending should be looked together and in a problem solving non-partisan way. If all of these issues are not honestly dealt with the the nation is headed towards a great civil crisis.
3
It's totally right that we need to focus on what we'd do. We should not wait for an election. It would be effective to make proposals that the majority vote down just to have them on record and to show the customers what's at stake. Enough whining about Trump until Mueller has some evidence.
1
This was a very entertaining discussion. How I hope our public discourse was as civilized and yet spirited as these two managed. We must start by assuming that we all want what is best for our communities, even if we held antithetical beliefs. The paralysis of our political system is but a reflection of the epistemological encroachment of society at large, which grew thanks to the bubbles of information we live our lives surrounded by. Thanks Gail and Bret. Could we get David Brooks in here too?
2
I started paying taxes at 15. When I retire at 68 that will be 53 years.
I don't think of that as an entitlement.
I don't see why my Social Security should be cut just to give the billionaires a lower tax rate and accumulate more billions that their never going to spend.
And people on Social Security are spending their money. No need to worry about will it trickle down into the economy with them.
24
Lifting the cap on the payroll tax is such a no-brainer that Congress can never be expected to pass it. What would the Republican party do if they couldn't complain about not having the funds for Social Security, a target entitlement program? But it's a great suggestion and should be mentioned over and over again.
25
Because then it becomes a welfare-like form of economic distribution, which it was never intended to be.
CHM,
Why is some income worthy of taxation, yet others aren't?
My total earnings are subject to the payroll tax. As it should be.
Why the cut off at $118,000?
Not only are Social Security payroll taxes not scaled as income increases, they stop completely beyond a given level, making them quite regressive. Very high wage earners pay far less of their income in payroll taxes than lower wage earners do.
Our society is approaching a catastrophe of Boomers retiring without enough to live on. It will not be pretty for those that follow.
Something needs to be done SOON! We've known about the pending doom for decades, and have done nothing but borrow from the system.
3
Every time "doing something about entitlements" is mentioned, many, including me, point out that SS and Medicare are insurance, not entitlements in the welfare sense Stephens and other conservatives use the term.
I never hear the conservatives' response to that. So Mr. Stephens, how about taking that up in a future column? On what basis should the insurance benefits I paid into for 40 years be curtailed?
36
Highs and lows.
I was smiling with Bret at the thought of amending the 2nd.
Then he counters with the need to make our MIC larger and more $$$.?!*&^&%$!!!
The US is already larger than the next 12 countries, COMBINED! Who exactly are we fighting? Dudes in Toyotas (NSTV) with a gun in the bed?
Better yet, what are we defending?
A populace that is rapidly impoverished?
40% of all American workers (39.6% to be precise) make less than $20,000 a year.
49.7 million Americans are living in poverty. That is a brand new all-time record high.
The homeownership rate in the United States is at an 18 year low.
U.S. families that have a head of household that is under the age of 30 have a poverty rate of 37%.
43% of working-age families have no retirement savings at all.
45,000 Americans die each year because they cannot access HealthCare.
Tell me again Bret, what/who are we fighting for?
It certainly isn't the hoi polloi.
Could in be the 1%, the Corp., the MIC itself?
Raise the Soc. Sec. Cap and enact Med4All, then will talk about the need for the largest military the world has ever seen.
35
Your numbers are individual earnings, not household income. Using individual earnings, you could be in the top fifth and make $61K. But I would hardly suppose that Times readers would consider individuals making $61K to be rich or even affluent. Even the top 10% in individual earnings starts at only $88K, and the top 5% starts at $120K.
Tell me you support enforcement of our immigration laws.
Then, let’s talk.
Melvin,
Yes I support enforcement.
I also think those DACA should be grandfathered in.
Still willing to talk?
I hope so.
This Kleptocracy Gov. needs to be returned to The People.
Left and Right. We are losing our Democracy.
Jonathan,
Sorry I don't follow...?
Care to dumb it down for me?
2
Only people who have comfortable office jobs support raising the retirement age. Ask the regular Joe who works in the streets, on their feet, with their hands, on their knees, or anybody engaged in labor that sucks the energy from the soul, if they want to keep doing this work until they're 70, and you'll get a vote against Social Security "reform." Most people who tap SS at 62 don't do this because they're greedy, they are TIRED and their bodies ache.
Why modify away the only decent pension program working people have in this country? Gail is right - raise the SS and Medicare cap and tax people like me with nice cushy retirement plans.
31
Very compassionate and empathetic.
This Joe thanks you.
Spot on!
3
Amen on the military spending, Gail. More than half the federal budget goes to it, and more billions thrown in, and the Pentagon regularly disappears the money we send to the IRS down the military toilet. Talk about gun fetishes! https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/05/pentagon-logistics-agency-revi...
19
Here’s a hot news flash. Resistance works. Eight years of resistance to obama. Neil gorsuch. Where you been.....Russia.
4
The 2nd amendment does not address whether the well-regulated militia to which it refers allows individuals to own hand grenades, mortars, howitzers, biological weapons, napalm, and, most of all, fully automatic weapons.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."
So how come the National Rifle Association doesn't push for individual's rights to keep and bear flamethrowers, fully automatic weapons, and more? Might it have to do with who funds the NRA?
The Supreme Court's ruling on the 2nd Amendment that opened the floodgates - that and the expiration of the so-called "assault weapons ban" - were terrible decisions that made it possible for us to have these recurring massacres using 'legal' semi-automatics. One might have thought that the US military and US proxies around the world were a big enough market for the manufacturers, but greed knows no limits.
70
Congratulations Gail and to the NY Times for courageously standing up to the bully president and his sycophant enablers.
13
Regarding repealing the 2nd amendment, that's a lost cause, one the NRA would love to see us spinning our wheels on. The words "well regulated" are ignored, but have not [yet] been removed: let's actually regulate guns and ban assault weapons.
Congratulations, Gail. and thanks for all you do.
13
Congrats, Gail! Your choir is thrilled to bits with news of your Polk Award. And hey, you and Bret, there's not going to be any action on guns in this antidiluvian 2018 G.O.P. Congress. The N.R.A. president sure put the kibosh on that and Wayne LaPierre's tentacles reach into Republicans' pockets, fattening their wallets. Tell us, dear Gail, when will the N.R.A. be toast? And we were all howling when the orange melon head said he'da run into the florida massacre shooting unarmed! What a crock! When will our Cheeto-in-chief become toast? Time to energize the American base and talk about repealing the Second Amendment. 300,000,000 guns in America's homes will never "promote the general welfare" of anyone. We sadly await the next school-shooting. The past, alas, is prololgue.
6
If Democrats actually talked about their tax plan, infrastructure investment ideas, etc., would the media actually report on it? No? I didn't think so. Democrats are saying things besides "Trump sucks," but it never makes the news.
16
Here’s what I think you should be talking about.
The electorate must demand real and significant gun law reform. They must insist that any person running for political office on any level must stand first and foremost on that platform. The media has a role to play in keeping the public focused on the goal and in moving public opinion toward that direction. The electorate must not be distracted by the machinations of the powerful influences who feel otherwise.
8
This is just a pedantic aside, and I hate to take issue with people with whom I am in basic agreement, but what is the problem with the word "entitlement"? Social Security and Medicare are entitlements. All of us who got a paycheck have been paying into those systems for our working lives. We are damn well entitled to expect the benefits. That's what the word means.
15
Because the word has come to mean a charitable handout rather than an earned benefit. I like the word pension because that is something these Congressmen could understand. You take my pension and I'll take yours.
3
You seem to be oblivious to the dog whistle effect that the word has--it is intended to conjure images of welfare freeloaders sitting around collecting checks. EARNED BENEFIT WITH A RETURN ON INVESTMENT is the proper way to frame it.
4
I am not oblivious. I am defending the English language. SS, Medicare, and veterans' benefits are entitlements, nothing else I can think of at the moment.
Yay Gail! You're awesome!
4
Entitlement reform should start by only granting citizenships to children of legal residents. Seriously, of course children from undocumented are "poor" because their parents cannot report incomes legally. For all the arguments of benefits of immigrations, I really think the outcome will be very different if we separate legals from illegals and when we count the entire costs. Besides, the current policy really encourages more child births from undocumented. Once having US born children, they are more or less protected. At least they have the sympathies. Therefore, this country is browning and we have more urban sprawling. The entire thing is plain stupid. And the fake liberals (who live in their "segregated but equal" communities, sending their kids to elite schools through legacy, protected at work by glass ceilings and funded by tax payers) only care because undocumented serve their interests. Just look at CA, white people are escaping and the state is permanent blue now. CA should not be the model of this country. We must reform entitlements by introducing common sense, decency and work ethic. I am willing to pay my fair share but I hate to support "free riders"!
1
Ms Collins is the one can't miss columnist on the Times. Bravo!
4
"We don’t hear nearly enough about the Democratic tax plan, infrastructure investment ideas and so on."
You mean you don't listen to the geriatric Dem leadership in Congress? You don't hear Chuck droning on and on looking down at his pile of notes? You don't hear Nancy struggling to form a coherent sentence? You don't hear the excitement from the Dem leadership?
Neither do I.
3
Stephens is as delusional as Trump. He wants to cut health care for children and old people in the United States so we will have more money to buy bombs to drop on children and old people in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria.
Stephens is a burned out old Neocon with no real ideas about anything
8
Wow, the "Poke Award," Gail! Nobody deserves it more than you do, Gail. Remember all those hilarious columns about Romney's dog in a poke on the roof?
What's truly sad is that you and fellow poker, Bret, can't see you are poke-marked with the same disease you accuse your own liberals of not having. All you do is poke the Presiden,t whilst you present "no tax plan, infrastructure inventory" and well, you know.
Good luck on getting some worthy candidates for November. There aren't anymore since "Mr. Smith Went to Washington." That blush on your cheeks isn't an "aw shucks", it's more of a "shame on me" for having failed "my people."
1
The "political games" sell newspapers, including the one you both work for.
2
Leave it to Ivanka to doll herself up like an Olympian, without actually doing any of the work to actually be one. So typical of this family of rich kids whose focus is solely on looking a part while someone else does their homework. What was is that Bannon said of Ivanka? Looks the part of a professional but dumb as a brick. These people do more harm with their images than good.
7
why doesn't the trump family - including his daughter - wear bags over their heads -
7
Ivanka Trump pretending to be one the "people" at the closing Olympic ceremony brings to mind an even dumber Marie Antoinette.
9
These Liberal/Conservative conversations are so yesterday. They confirm what we already know.
What we are really looking for is Evil/Good-- say Wayne LaPierre and Gail. Or maybe Stephen Miller and Bret.
Stupid, evil people have appropriated our government with our help. Let's have the conversations openly. Let Mr. miller explain to Bret why someone who has lived in America all his life should be forcefully deported to the country of his parents. I'd like Mr. La Pierre to have a conversation with Gail about how our founders intended for us to massacre each other with weapons they could not have imagined.
Tell me something I don't already know.
12
Poor Ivanka Trump. She doesn't think it's appropriate to be asked about her father's self-proclaimed boasts of sexual abuse. Why then did Ms. Trump take a position in her Daddy's administration. There she was, representing the United States, at the Olympics, in the same way Pence did.
Ms. Trump is not a minor, and most definitely not one to shy away from the spotlight. She bathes in it when it suits her. She agreed to be interviewed. What did she expect? Considering she is the daughter of the worse president in history she should always be prepared comment on the actions of her father. Let us not forget, she is one of his most valued principle advisers, along with her idiot husband Jared.
Otherwise, she and Jared should "quit" their jobs, go back to New York, and hold up in their ivory tower till their father is kicked out of the White House. Ivanka should know this. She will have the legacy of her father's horrible term as president to live with the rest of her life.
DD
Manhattan
12
The more I read nonsense like this, the more I loath liberals.
1
Too bad Southern Boy. You are missing out on some really interesting and funny people. Give it a try. Beats handing out with a bunch of humorless, mean-spirited right wingers. Invite a liberal home to dinner.
Congrats, Gail - well deserved!
3
There are a lot of people in their 50's and 60's who voted for trump and are now silent witness to the gutting of every government program meant to aid and assist their own demographic. If the Dems, this fall, can't explain the GOP's destruction of these programs, and the impact it will have on this same class of voters, then they deserve to lose.
8
Now that Donald's bone spurs have healed, he should enlist in the army and go through basic training so that he will be ready to defeat the next mass shooter.
10
I think that trumps pick for VP in 2020 should be Wayne Lapierre. Both nuts. Both have small guns. Seriously even pre teens recognize the need for serious gun laws because they seem to have targets on their backs. Since trumps election it has become obvious to most of the world that the inmates have taken over the asylum. Now if they pass the kook aid, what is known as Medicaid in Kentucky, call it an Olympic hat trick. You can’t make this up.
1
Wait a minute.
Why should Gail Collins blush because she received what Bret Stephens sort-of acknowledges is a well-deserved award?
Would Bret Stephens blush receiving such an acknowledgment? Would he announce an award given to a male colleague saying it gave him "a chance to make [him] blush at the outset" of their conversation?
Come on, New York Times. That is blatant sexism, and if your commentators can't resist saying they like having an opportunity to make their female colleagues blush in print, the least the Times could do is edit it out.
8
I guess this section is now titled 'comic relief.'
To your question: will we ever, . . . ?
Er. No.
Because we don't have to. And we don't need to. And, with our best intelligence, we plain cannot, and will not. Everything important is obfuscate-able, white washable, camouflage-able. And then there is the absolute sense of disconnection and loneliness that haunts people, where it is plain easy to slash and burn something (e.g., Obamacare), than build something (e.g., healthcare, education, infrastructure).
Oh yes, I forgot, . . . also because we are religious nuts. People assembling to lynch people, give Nazi salutes, and yell lunatic slogans are "good, decent people." High school students protesting because of horrors caused by a nut with an assault weapon are coached pawns of the left wing.
American politics is now the theater of the absurd of a new kind, because 63 million people voted for Trump. You try fixing 63 million people.
This will continue until it plain cannot.
In a nutshell.
8
There is absolutely no world in which we need to raise defense spending. We already have more power than the next 15 nations.
Give me a break Bret. Does the Military Industrial Complex fund your existence?
That said, I think you are spot on about Democrats. They need to shut up about Donald Trump and his horrible deplorables and start talking policy.
Not that the media will cover it. It's not sexy.
9
Only a dope or a con-man would be in favor of increased defense spending while pretending to despair over gun violence at home. Rank hypocrisy!
9
Gail / Bret - You forgot to mention that Mar-a-Lago means --- stop me before I run into the building where there are guns being shot...
TRUMPMAN...
3
Let me help the left here to get a blue wave going for 2018: Run on raising taxes, repealing the 2nd amendment and open borders to all. Throw in impeaching Trump and your victories are guaranteed-LOL please do this, we conservatives would love you for it.
1
"Yeah, remember when we thought he might be someplace between Mitt Romney and Bernie Sanders? As opposed to where we find him now, which is someplace between a weekend replacement talking head on Fox and a professional wrestling villain."
Gail Collins--you truly have a way with words. Congratulations on your Polk Award-well deserved. Thank you for informing me as well as brining a little wit to my life.
1
The root cause of the entitlements problems- Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid- is the two-fold reality that too many people in America are getting older and healthier while living longer and too many people are poor and unhealthy.
It is all their own fault for not having the wisdom of Donald Trump of picking a wealthy father to inherit wealth and privilege. Nor the smarts of lifetime government benefits and employment welfare dole kings Speaker Ryan and leader McConnell to be elected office politicians.
Any meaningful impact on the gun death debate must begin with the truth that of the 33,000+ American gun shot deaths each year about 2/3rds are suicides. And 80% are white men who tend to use a handgun.
If we wanted a Princess Ivanka Trump and a Prince Jared Kushner we could have stayed with the British Empire.
11
"especially in an administration that wants to spend more of its discretionary dollars on defense. As I do."
You have a harsh dehumanized society. You have a rampaging military. Somehow assault rifles used to shoot up a village by imperial US forces [something Bret often enthusiastically supports] is continually posited as their proper use in all the talk about gun control. The police kill an endless number of people, many unarmed. The society is violent. Its leaders are violent. Somehow organized official violence is considered sane. Any serious talk of gun control would include the disarming of the police and military also.
2
Diane Feinstein is on record as having said Donald Trump could be a good president if he would only change his personality. She is now paying a heavy price for that nonsensical statement. Please, let us not pretend that Trump is or ever was different from the ignorant, narcissistic racist that we see before us.
However, Trump is but a symbol of our broken political system which has become a one-party fascist state under Republican control.
Trump was placed in office by 29% of the voting population. Let us hope that citizens including those that have the most to lose, the Millennials, will work to get out the vote and overcome the voter apathy that the GOP depends on to stay in power.
8
Feinstein is correct. A rational version of Trumpism, without the actual Donald Trump, would be quite popular. The GOP was too stupid to adopt this sort of policy until Trump came along, but instead went for the globalist free-trade line.
More on defense Bret?
No no No!
8
Yah, where is the domestic tranquility? Mr. Hoax must have skipped that part in 5th grade, probably in the office during that time.
2
The Supreme Court has ruled that cities can enact tough legislation on guns, so that is what cities need to do. Cities need to keep guns out. That is our best current hope.
As for the Dem's message, it is hard to spread given the lack of Dem talking heads out there. There is not just the number of angry Dems on TV to match the angry fascists. We will wait for elections to hear them.
7
In the rush to get clicks and ratings on the latest dirt... or to dig up the street and make some dirt, everything is political now. We not only won't stop, we're just getting warmed up.
It doesn't take an Olympic athlete to explain why Ivanka Trump should not have been 'invited' to the closing ceremony.
7
They took money out of paycheck for decades - talk about WAGE THEFT!
2
Really, Ivanka was there? With that long blond hair and big bleached smile I just assumed it was another American female skier.
Mr. Stephens, are you really in favor of the government somehow going about taking all of those millions of guns from throughout the country? I mean, what could possibly go wrong? How many people would die in that process? The general unrest that would result would be terrifying.
How about some discussion on what is being proposed by some at the National Review: a a gun-violence restraining order? Would love to hear the Times address some of the legitimate concerns that supporters of the 2nd amendment have instead of painting the bulk of supporters and child-killers and profiteers.
A plan in which a judge can rule a particular person is too unstable to own guns? If there are safeguards, it might pass as a constitutional law.
1
You should listen to today's "The Daily" podcast then. They addressed exactly this.
Congratulations (again) to Gail! Best wishes to Bret for recruiting many co-sponsors to the idea of 2nd Amendment repeal!
Not even the most intelligent and wisest leaders of this country ever conceived of an electorate so complacent about the powers wielded by a President of the United States to have elected someone who is so blatantly corrupt and contemptuous of law and liberty as has Donald Trump proven to be. We just do not have the laws to protect this country's best interests from someone lacking all conscience and convictions as Trump and his family. They basically are giving the people of the country the raspberries as they exploit the discretion given the President in every way that they can find.
6
US defence spending is being raised by the Donald and the GOP such that it will be larger than the twelve next biggest spenders on defence combined and you want to raise it further Mr Stephens? Personally I am inclined to believe it could be halved without risk to the US and its allies. As a conservative aren't you against "socialism" even if it is in the US military, and government intervention in the economy even if it is purchases from American weapons manufacturers? Are you of the view that increased US defence spending increases the level of fear in Beijing? I'm confident it increases the level at mirth at Uncle Sam's expense. No pun intended.
And you want to reduce social security entitlements for the bulk of Americans to pay for this largesse on behalf of the shareholders of Lockheed Martin, Boeing and co? Have you not heard of the benefits the Communist Party of China is providing its citizens with? It seems to me you don't want the United States defended - just its wealthiest enclaves. Do you not appreciate that democracy is presently on trial? The disgrace of the United States is not consistent with its defence - do you not understand that? Are you even American at all? Perhaps you'd rather be Russian?
2
Ugh. I just couldn't get past the Ivanka stuff -- what is her role again? Why was she at the Olympics? Was she "representing" the USA in some way? This is just appalling -- she (and Kushner) are the face of the Trump corruption, the profiteering on the backs of all of us. It's disgusting.
Sorry, Bret & Gail, I didn't get much further in your written dialogue, and I needed to vent a bit, and now I need calm... breathe in; breathe out; breathe in...
6
Thank you for the interesting conversation, and congrats to Gail for the Polk!
An example of Bret Stephen's hypocrisy:
"We don’t hear nearly enough about the Democratic tax plan..."
Say what?? I know exactly what the Democrats want to do.
The Republicans want to raise the retirement age (I guess 68 isn't too old to be on your feet all day lifting dirt and dishes) and cut medicare. Democrats want to raise the cap on the payroll tax so that billionaire's secretaries don't pay a higher social security tax rate than the billionaires themselves.
What we have from the Republicans is a huge tax cut for the 1%, a tiny or non-existant tax cut for everyone else, and a huge budget deficit that they say "don't worry about because it's fine to have a deficit if billionaires pay lower taxes but not so make sure that poor children have food and medicine." I sometimes wonder how anyone can call themselves a Republican anymore without feeling some shame at ignoring the suffering of the poor while enriching the very rich. History will judge them harshly.
9
On SSN -- it's basic math. When the program began, life expectancies were much shorter and you had many employees funding the retirement payments for a few. No the ratio is far lower and recipients are living longer. The status quo is not going to succeed and spending on SSN and Medicare will eventually eclipse discretionary spending if they remain on this path.
Gail and Bret, I believe the tone here is just wrong. We are witnessing a political cataclysm the likes of which we have not seen for generations. I believe the Trump Republicans would do literally anything to stay in power. The president and his administration is the worst we have ever had. For example, he would if he could dismantle the foundations of our democracy. He could very well be the first president who is also a traitor. Yet House and Senate Republicans persist in supporting him. Under cover of an unprecedented degree of bad faith, the Republicans are seizing trillions in assets and programs from the working and middle classes, on behalf of the very rich. Inequality has not been this bad for a century, but Republicans are making it worse.
8
I hope the Olympics pushed back the danger of N.Korea hurting the relatives in S. Korea through a nuclear or non nuclear war.
To Bret, my favorite conservative of the NYT: Yes, when I'm Empress of the USA, the first royal decree will be abolishing the unholy Second Amendment. Also known as a license to Kill. In the meantime, the only practical and effective way to stop Gun Murders is to VOTE out ALL members of the NRA/GOP Party. There is no longer any such thing as a moderate Republican. They vote in lockstep, or goose step.
November, folks. Vote like our Children's lives are at stake, because they ARE. No excuses, no infighting, no silly protest votes. Seriously.
7
I don't know who thought Trump had the possibility of being between Mitt Romney and Bernie Sanders? His presidency and the entirety of the Republican congressional delegation are an unmitigated disaster. You really don't talk enough about the environment and the unbelievable damage the Republicans and the Trump administration are doing to the water, air and the natural world. At least you brought up whooping cranes.....
3
they [Democrats] need to start acting more like a normal political opposition and less like “the resistance.”
A. Not sure what "the resistance" is supposed to mean
B. Pretty sick of conservatives telling me how I should act.
6
Bret and Gail,
I appreciate and agree with your thinking. However, this snarky, echo chamber of a supposed dialog of intellects is perishable with no shelf life.
You both can weave a political narrative of penetrating insightfulness, craft an argument with deep foundations of historical context, and spice the outcome with searing wit.
Do it.
Not this forgettable, self-congratulatory, parallel monologue so characteristic of New York City "intelligencia".
You both are better than that. It isn't your place on the rostrum of NY clever that needs your efforts, it's the rest of America so bereft of intellectual leadership, the force of logic, and argumentation they can grasp.
1
The barn comment reminds me of the story of the barn with lot of circles on it and bullet holes in the middle of each. the visitor asks the farmer to show him how it's done. The guy shoots at the barn and draws a circle around the bullet hole. This is a perfect summary of the Trump approach to everything.
5
Dear Bret, Welcome to "the resistance."
"Entitlement Reform" my hat! If we let the "spend-but-cut-taxes for the rich" "conservatives" get away with that kind of dishonest language, we deserve to go back to eating dog food at the end of the month, not filling the heating oil tank, working part-time at Walmart, skipping doctor appointments and not filling prescriptions because we can't afford the co-pays.
2
Talking about political games, I have seen a tendency to pretend, especially here at the NYT, that everything bad comes from Trump and everything that comes from Trump is bad.
The world is not so simple. And indeed, the neocon-progressive coalition has browbeaten candidate Trump away from his view that when dealing with Syria and Russia, peace is better than war. Candidate Trump was right, I fear.
President Trump is much more hawkish towards these two countries than candidate Trump was. Reminds me of Baldwin's novel, written in another context, The Fire Next Time.
The ceaseless attacks on Trump seem to have convinced him that being a hawk is the best way to be safe from impeachment. But Trump's safety might be bought by sacrificing some of our own safety.
"if liberals want to preserve those programs"
It is not preserving programs to cut off recipients or reduce benefits. It's hardly saving, for example, Social Security, to pursue lower cost of living adjustments, which amounts to assuming retirees will eat less in the future. That's preservation in name only, leaving citizens these programs were developed to assist to suffer while politicians claim they have saved programs to those remaining who have not been cut off or cut back. Talk about politics. This kind of "preservation" is just a cynical electoral numbers game rather than genuine public policy.
2
Let's question the "relevance and legitimacy" of the NRA. Last time I looked, they were not elected to an official position, or a governmental bureau, yet they seem to rule us all in the realm of firearms.
6
Brett says: “We don’t hear nearly enough about the Democratic tax plan, infrastructure investment ideas and so on.”
Yes, and the DNCC is hard at work making sure no Dem with ideas will become a candidate. They are actively smearing Laura Moser in Texas because they think she’s too progressive. And we see how they are actively beating down the Sanders/Warren programs that might actually get the Dems a reputation for ideas (and maybe spine).
1
“Will we ever stop with the political games?“
Did it occur to anyone on the copy desk that this particular headline is horrifyingly tone deaf? The former president of the United States is wondering aloud about the future of democracy, and indeed whether it has one. Yet, perfectly in tune with the headline, Gail and Bret continue, week after week, treating politics as an amusing spectator sport. Are you folks that out of touch? Is your bubble that immune to the outside world? Bret JOKES about cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. What’s funny about that? It’s not particularly funny after a $1.5 trillion tax cut benefiting only the wealthy. It’s not particularly funny to suggest that one of the most massively wealthy societies on the planet can’t afford a retirement income or medical care for its citizens. Call me humorless but this kind of banter is no longer funny or charming. The most important part of this sad dance is the assessment of the Democratic Party as being useless in the face of the collapse of the republic, but that, too, is treated with bemusement.
Why even bother to comment? Gail and Bret will be doing the same thing the next time they get together. I hope they’re amusing themselves but I’m reminded of Neil Postman’s description of American culture; however amusing they are, they’re amusing themselves to death. This reader, for one, is astounded that this comedy act is still playing.
4
Thank you. Well said. Needs to be said.
3
Bret's not joking. Only pretending to joke.
Can't wait for the presidential candidates to start talking up infrastructure et al. Candidates at the state and local levels need to be doing that now, with an eye on Nov. 2018
1
Notice how Mr. Stephens jumps immediately to cutting Social Security and Medicare while completely dismissing defense spending as a spot for reform. This is exactly how the debate would go should the Democrats propose reforms. The cuts would be irrevocable and bogus threats would require that no defense project be cut. Conservative insatiable desire for upper class tax cuts and bloated defense spending is what drives the deficit up and that serves as justification for the cuts to these programs that they hate. Sorry, this isn't our first rodeo Mr. Stephens.
7
I’d like to hear Mr. Stephens address the monstrous and totally unnecessary tax bill that will add $1.5 trillion to the deficit over the next ten years while hugely favoring a small percentage of well off Americans, which was promptly followed by gop calls for cutting entitlements because : “there isn’t enough money”. This is the same gop which has railed against tax and spend Democrats for the last fifty years while it has demonstrably been the party that has increased the deficit exponentially more than the Dems.
7
Will 38 states ratify any changes to the Second Amendment? Seems unlikely, whatever its merits.
" I think Lindsey Vonn is an inspiration to women everywhere and Ivanka Trump is not. I think Chloe Kim is awesome and Mike Pence is not."
I stopped reading at this point. I have already had my daily quota of partisan screeds. I can surely do without one more!
The women's ice hockey victory brought the first smile to my face in a long time. It was the first time I felt unity in a country torn apart by hermetically-sealed divisiveness.
2
Our Constitution needs repair, and not just in the 2nd amendment. Congress has become completely dysfunctional, with all their self-imposed rules creating either majority fiat or minority obstruction. We need to change the rules so that voters can hold our representatives accountable for how they voted. Heck, they duck most of the tough votes by asking the majority leader to keep them off the agenda. When was the last time Congress voted on any gun measure?
Let's change the rules so that the minority can force a floor vote on any matter. Let's eliminate the filibuster. Let's force the Senate to vote on presidential appointments within 120 days, otherwise they stand as confirmed. Let's allow the citizens to enact legislation via national popular vote referendum. These and other changes would make the Federal government more accountable to the voters. Maybe we'd vote for a different Congress if we could see what they're actually not doing.
2
These rules are not part of the Constitution, and can be changed by Congress at any time.
Jonathan, you are correct and that is the problem. Congress doesn't want to change the rules because they favor the party in power. Party trumps country. That's why we have to embed them in the Constitution.
Whoa there, Nellie! This conversation was quite sane, reasonable, fair, and agreeable. But sacrificing Social Security and Medicare for more "discretionary dollars on Defense"? No, no, no, Mr. Stephens.
Let me put it this way. Do you plan on growing old, sir? I mean, we all do not in our hearts "plan" on it, or even desire it. But if perchance, Mr. Stephens does plan on retiring some day, growing more gray hairs, visiting doctors way more than any of us ever would want to, and keeping up with rising costs, I would venture to say he will depend on that SS check and Medicare card.
Here's the sum of what I am saying: The above are not entitlements. They instead are our rights as tax-paying citizens of a nation going down the tubes under Republican (non) leadership..starting with the King-in-Chief. Second, as a GOP president once said, although for more self-serving interests, "Read my lips." To which I add, "No more wars."
8
"Monumental. Amounts. Of. Waste."
This certainly seems to be the case. If the US adopted the approach to healthcare used in the rest of the developed world (a government run, single payer system) you could cut healthcare costs by at least 40% and get better healthcare than you currently have.
Elsewhere in today's paper there is a comparison of two US airports, one run by the government and one by corporate America. Guess which one couldn't stay open in a snow storm.
The American love affair with free enterprise is misguided. Some things are better run by the government.
3
The problem with the US government sending reps to events like the Olympics is the last time I checked, the US government contributes zero support (money or otherwise) to these athletes. The athletes pay for everything. And then these reps use taxes to watch these wonderful athletes who get nothing. At least go over there and pay for your own tickets.
3
Media must shoulder a responsibility to stop using polarization for marketing so called news to fit a consumer taste. We all know what this means. How can democracy work without a responsible press? And term limits, to remove perks and pay from a Congressman's refusal to do the "right thing." I am speaking of the NRA's effect on Congress. PBS Newshour had a piece not to miss on how an NRA lobbyist acts like a legislator in the Florida house or senate.
2
The hydra headed schematic of defense plants, with a presence of some sort in virtually every state prevents elected leaders from ever opposing reductions in the defense budget. But that's where the problems is Bret. Until the bloated and ravenous spending on more and more military hardware is controlled then everything else in the national interest takes a back seat.
2
Allow me to echo the sentiments expressed by so many others: Brava, Gail!
Your Polk Award is justly deserved, even if I've always considered you less of a gale and more of a refreshing breeze...
Keep up the good work, and the good fight.
2
Here in Hawai`i, in range of North Korea's nuclear missiles, we're worried about the possibility of war now that the Olympics is over. The good soldiers at Fort Shafter, a few miles from my apartment are reportedly working overtime on a plan to evacuate American citizens from South Korea. Missile tracking ships in port a couple of weeks ago---the ones with the white geodesic domes on deck---have put to sea again. Rumors are swirling that a "bloody nose" strike is scheduled after the paralympic games close in mid-March.
We've learned that North Korea is capable of detonating a weapon that destroys everything in an 8 mile radius. Assuming that Pearl Harbor is the target and that the North Koreans have decent aim, my apartment and workplace are both toast.
Here in Hawaii we're hoping talk of war doesn't get normalized to the point a bloody nose strike seems either rational or moral.
It is always immoral to start a war.
3
I love this conversation. Thank you, Gail Collins and Bret Stephens. Dark humour and a dose of reality.
Brett Stephens is emphatically in favor of preserving the whooping crane as a safe and thriving species yet by advocating cuts to Medicare and Social Security he denies this same protection to the human species. These programs are perfect examples of promoting the general welfare (which he apparently seems to care so much about).
He also opposes MC and SS because of the rising cost of these “entitlements” which are self funded by payroll taxes. But he's perfectly OK with the military-industrial complex being entitled to more money every year, the financial sector being entitled to tax payer bailouts, big pharma entitled to publicly funded research to develop new drugs which they then patent to reap windfall profits, big business' entitlement to dump toxic waste into the environment or the top 1% of income earners entitled to lower and lower taxes. If you want to truly “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity” it's time to open your eyes to the fact that corporate entitlements are a far bigger problem than SS and MC.
3
Some argue there is an absolute right to possess weaponry to sustain the right to rebel against government. When the Constitution was enacted, an armed militia of musketry placed government and citizenry on an even keel. A means to effect a purported inherent right to rebel was readily available to the citizenry. Today, some would rationalize, therefore, automatic rifles are a small price to pay to continue such a purported inherent right. Carried to its logical conclusion, why not the inherent right to privately own nuclear tipped ballistic missles ? If you can afford them, it is your “right” to acquire them. Fortunately, we are not (yet) there. The Rule of Law is not bereft of common sense. Perhaps we should be more democratic and avail everyone to own just a howitzer or only a bazooka. Or not. A Constitution condoning its own destruction is not sustainable. If a strict constructionist prevails, there is only one indubitable weaponry: Muskets ! Anything else is subject to review.
2
I so wish people would actually read DC vs Heller. It basically says that you have a right to a gun "of the power available when the bill of rights was ratified", but it practically invites at least regulation on anything more powerful. Go with the power argument and place limits on caliber and magazine sizes on all couple semi-automatics. And sell it by pointing out that gun-manufacturers will make so much money in sales to replace what would become illegal.
4
Hey, Bret, you are advocating that we reduce Medicare and Social Security "entitlements" -- including moneys paid in by citizens across their working lives -- in order to spend even obscenely more on defense. I am truly puzzled: what are your values? If America's citizens are rendered ever more desperate, unhealthy, and insecure, why bother defending them?
7
The biggest obstacle Trump has in getting the NRA to budge even .223" (or 5.56 mm) on gun control, the AR-15 variety in particular, is that Trump's hardcore base makes up 99% of the purchasers of those guns. Trump will pressure the NRA just until he has them right where they want him.
2
Oh, if only I could have been a well-known American athlete competing at the 2018 Olympic Games, and thus had a chance for a photo-op with prez's daughter.
It would have been sublime. Ivanka would have approached with her stiff self-serving smile. Suddenly we would have been standing together, side-by-side. And up would have gone my smart phone for a selfie.
Only, my photo would not have been a still shot. The video feature would have have been in full mode -- capturing, in full living, moving color, my scowl of disgust as I walked away.
1
We're not going to get anywhere if we keep lumping all guns into one wheelbarrow. Hunting rifles are one thing. Bret is right that handguns are behind most of the gun deaths, by far. Those need to have a different age requirement and a different waiting period than hunting rifles. And then there is the weapon of choice for mass shootings. Military-grade assault weapons are very different, and their use is very different. Most of the people killed by handguns are known to their shooters. Not so with assault weapons. They are used to kill randomly. There is no reason on God's green earth that civilians should have military weapons. If hobbyists want to shoot assault weapons, let them rent and fire them at licensed shooting ranges, the way we rent bowling shoes. That way they can get their jollies, but only in a place that is filled with other armed people.
51
Unfortunately for this line of argument, there is little functional difference between an AR-15 and a hunting rifle. They look different, but they shoot about the same.
How many hunting rifles are semi-automatic? I come from a family of hunters; none of them sprayed their game with multiple randomly placed shots. In fact, a skilled hunter is able to take down game with a single head shot. None of them hunt anymore; their sons do not hunt, even with bows and arrows. Hunters who shoot game in order to feed their families, or to give meat to shelters, are performing a public service. What is the purpose behind shooting an animal for no reason, other than "sport"? The infamous dentist who murdered endangered species next to game parks thought of himself as a "sportsman".
Raising the retirement age makes sense mathematically, but try applying for a job over the age of 60.
12
The cash value of entitlement reform is cutting the living standard and health options of those who depend on entitlements, so that they eat cat food, freeze in winter, or steam in summer more often. They can also play Russian Roulette with their pills, choosing to skip one that relieves pain or one that reduces the risk of, say, a heart attack. Those with some savings will see them shrink faster.
Basically, what we are asking is how much misery and worry we want to add to the lives of the old, sick, and disabled so we can afford to allow the superrich to keep their tax cuts without exploding the national debt. Talk about entitlements is a way of framing the issue so its human dimension is obscured and we can take actions and ignore their consequences (except, of course, the ones we like). This talk is dishonest and morally reprehensible, a product of public relations at its finest, only marginally more respectable than making Idi Amin or the former strongman of Ukraine look good, and therefore hugely popular among conservatives.
8
Gail Collins is the best. Last time I saw you at the 108th Steet Nail Salon I personally told you of my admiration - and that was prior to the 2016 Election.
I am 67 working in a post-Recession job that is way below my former pay grade, My earnest search for a job commenserate with my skills and experience was stymied in 2009 by being at the latter end of 50. It seems the only place where being on in years is the US Congress and Senate, albeit not all of the elders there are at the peak of mental acuity. My retirement plan is to continue to work as long as I am able to and hope that I can count on Social Security and Medicare. Without those supports my husband and I will be sad statistics. Our tenuous situation keeps me up at night.
10
I'd like to remind Bret that the U.S. accounted for 37 percent of the world's total defense spending in 2015, and U.S. military expenditures are roughly the size of the next seven largest military budgets around the world, combined.
Certainly defense spending is important, but its also possible to have too much of a good thing. How can he argue that we have not reached tat point on this topic? Perhaps it would be better to spend more wisely, than just more.
And since he chose to cite the Constitution's preamble, how can he defend not making good healthcare for all the highest priority when discussing how best to “promote the general welfare”?
21
"But since he’s incapable of broadening his base, he’s going to become ever more dependent on its hardest and most extreme core."
A succinct and accurate assessment of this president's political abilities. I heard today that he's already selected the chairman of his re-election campaign. Since he's in that mode, he could co-opt a modified version of Bill Clinton's slogan from 1992: "Putting People First--all 39% of Them."
"Return to Normalcy" (Warren G. Harding, 1920) is reserved for the Democratic nominee in 2020.
Better yet, "Make America Great Again--This Time."
5
My retirement age has already been raised by Social Security to 67 and realistically, since virtually no one has a pension anymore (except public employees) most of us will end up working well past our actual retirement age. Congress needs to raise the Social Security cap and increase the Medicare tax. I am against Medicaid block grants as these will be used to further punish poor people for being poor. But how about increasing capital gains taxes to recapture some of the wealth that has been siphoned from taxpayers over to shareholders with these gigantic tax cuts to corporations?
45
Krugman once observed that -looking at the budget- the Federal government is basically just an insurance company with its own army.
25
Insurance for whom??
I am 66, and i am starting to transition to "retirement." It won't be empty of work, I don't expect to truly stop working until I am incapable, but it will be slower paced, less demanding, and of different kinds.
I've been a scientist; it's not a job like "pouring concrete," but I recognize I am not able to do somethings as well as I used to, nor do I have the stamina I did. Part of this I can compensate for with the increased knowledge and experience, but only so far.
There is truth to the fact that it is time for those younger than I (a few of whom I have trained) to replace me, step into my shoes.
Major league baseball is not filled with 66-year-old guys camping on their positions. There's a reason for that.
The time in one's life when one is at the peak of ability is a bit later in other lines of work, and the decline a bit slower, but reality nonetheless. We have retirement for reasons other than just a benefit to the retired. Retirement is a benefit to society, broadly.
The issue for the retired is how and what they can do, to still make a contribution.
48
I suggest that the issue for older people (and I mean older than 65) is whether they can stop working full time and sustain themselves in reasonable comfort and dignity. Stealing from Medicare and Social Security to protect the very rich from having to pay a fair tax rate is not the answer Mr. Stephens.
23
After 65 years of age, one deserves a break from work. From my own experience, it seems best to retire in gradual steps if one can, otherwise it's a shock to the brain and physique that takes a while to recover from. This sudden departure from daily work routine can cause confusion, despondency, lack of cash, and other reactions. It happened to me.
3
Snarky and jokey, ha ha ha.
Yes, it's a circus. But it is also deadly serious.
More and more countries are moving in increasingly autocratic directions. The world desperately needs American leadership. But our current government is corrupt, ineffective, and ultimately more sympathetic to the dictators and would-be dictators of the world, while treating more than half of of our citizens as un-American and traitorous.
Meanwhile, the noise from the circus drowns out the administration's corruption and its substantive moves to gut social protections, environmental regulations, civil rights, and free elections. Republicans are working as hard as possible through state legislatures and the courts to disenfranchise brown and urban populations in an attempt to maintain power forever.
And it's not funny.
45
"........ we should start by challenging him to hit the side of a barn"
If he could be loaded in a canon, a big barreled canon, maybe.
34
According Ivana any socio-political credibility is akin to granting the same to Gingrich or Norquist.
Wait, what?
9
Total USA guns went from 200M to 300M in just 8 years under Obama. THAT is how effective the anti gun crowd is. Repeal the 2A idea should take that to 400M quite soon.
Tens of millions of people value high personal freedom and high personal responsibility. They are vehemently opposed to more power to government.
One day liberals, and anti gun folks will figure this out. Meanwhile, they remain the best gun salesmen in the world.
2
No, that's the NRA that has you and much of the voting public hoodwinked. Much, but not most. A majority favors strong sensible gun control.
Plus, most of those guns you mentioned are owned by a tiny percentage of the public!
No civilian needs to — or should be allowed to — own rapid-fire assault style weapons, accessories, or magazines. Anyone who owns, acquires, or buys any gun must be first pass an extensive background check and go through mandatory training and licensing.
It really is that simple.
1
A "liberal" President guided us through most of WWII; he developed alliances and kept England alive; he also gave us, and you, Social Security, a bottom line safety net for the working poor. His VP gave us Medicare, and managed to end the Korean war. A "liberal" managed to get some form of health insurance for all, despite the GOP's fight to the Supreme Court. I can think of only one Republican, Eisenhower, who gave the American people something they needed for commercial enterprise to flourish: the Inter-State Highway system. He would not win a Republican nomination today. The GOP has devolved into a branch of whichever corporate enterprise gives its members the most donor dollars. Gorsuch is the latest outrage, after the Mitch McConnell stopped the nomination of a moderate, much respected Superior Court judge. That judge, Garland, was unanimously supported for a Superior Court position. He was not fit for the Supreme Court? If population gun count defines the United States, rather than our Constitution, we will indeed cede our leadership to Germany.
1
Both sides value freedom. One side values the freedom to live without being murdered by firearms. The other side values the freedom to own something that they enjoy. Speaking of responsibility, I think our society has the responsibility to ensure a safe environment free from needless murder by firearms, which is possible based upon the experiences of other developed nations. That's the kind of responsibility I could get behind.
Lest you think this murder only happens rarely, I personally know people shot during a firearms-based massacre, and I would wager that most people know someone who's life has been changed by firearms.
29
Hillary Clinton had reams of position papers and complex policy proposals...and all the press cared about was the emails. Trump had four word slogans that appealed to the reptilian part of the brain and he won. Brett, please don’t complain that all the Democrats do is complain about Trump when you know full well that this is always how the party out of power sneaks back in during the midterms.
41
Bret, raising the retirement age again? Too many of us were just plain tired by age 65-66. It would be different if our employers would grant us some kind of gradual easing away from 50 hours a week, but in senior positions, that’s not possible. For heavens sake, raise the ridiculous ceiling on FICA contributions. It is way too low. My last years before retirement, it was just stupid that I was not taxed on the last few thousand dollars of my income before I began collecting.
20
The problem no one is talking about is age discrimination. Many, many people over 65 enjoy work and are good at it. But employers don't want to pay for experience. They want lots of cheap young people. My father was forced out after decades at a job he was great at. They made him sign an agreement that prevented him from seeking legal recourse in order to obtain a severance. This is business as usual in America- we have no universal healthcare, no laws with any teeth against age discrimination in the workplace , we're taking away "entitlements" and then we want to call it freedom??
1
Bret: Raise the retirement age so older people can work until they reach serious old age? Seniors are working because Pension Plans were destroyed, and 401K Plans became nothing more than savings Plans with low interest rates. Rather than young people having a path into decent employment opportunities, you would prefer to keep old people behind the counter, in entry level jobs offered by the few corporations now existing, or just living in a spare room with their children? You would be willing to give up the social progress achieved through much hard work, and against strong opposition? I don't know what the Times pays you, but it is too much. If you have any benefits, you ought to never use them, rather than contribute to the evil they represent.
1
The last time I heard anything about whooping cranes was in the famous environmental joke of the forest ranger catching a man shooting loons and fining him for violating the Environmental Protection Act. The hunter's defense was that he shot loons because they tasted good. When asked by the ranger how they tasted, his reply was somewhere between a bald eagle and a whooping crane.
I am with Ms. Collins on this one. Let's continue saving the whooping crane, and the bald eagle, and the loon. The only problem though is that we have to find a way to first get rid of Scott Pruitt. Mr. Mueller, can you help?
21
We don't really need to get rid of the Second Amendment.
Especially since the very mention of the Second Amendment sends gun nuts into a frenzy, where all frontal lobe activity is bypassed and their amygdala turns fire-red and kicks into overdrive. So, leave the Second Amendment in place, to appease the frothing-at-the-mouth NRA crowd.
But, like more "advanced" nations, we should pass reasonable gun laws that allow hunters to hunt, and target shooters to target practice, and antique gun collectors to collect.
This way we would get our priorities in order, which is the safety of citizens and children--not the sales of guns for the greedy gun manufacturers and Neanderthal NRA.
The NRA must answer: Why is it other far safer nations for children going to school seem to be able to make the determination that: (1) there is no need for the ready availability of military style rapid firing weapons and thus the ammunition that goes with them; and (2) some violent people should never have guns??
So pass gun safety laws for the citizenry, but leave the Second Amendment in place for the NRA as a quaint reminder of the early days in this country when communities relied on well-regulated militias for the safety of the citizenry.
Also, the Second Amendment, as written, is an excellent example for English teachers teaching the importance of sentence construction to communicate clearly what is meant and intended, so as not to cause mass confusion.
31
Yes, it's an excellent of how NOT to write a right.
But repealing it would permit us to right a wrong.
2
Nice juxtaposition of your very sensible comment after the one by "J."
1
Sadly, most Americans are illiterate in the only language they supposedly know.
1
Yes, for every single negative statement about GOP's policies, Dem Leaders need to give two positive inspiration messages about what they will do for middle class america with the focus on Healthcare, Gun Safety, Medicare and SS.
Highlighting DJT's daily deranged behaviors can be left to the press.
10
Agreed, but let's hear it from the next generation of Dem leaders and NOT the dinosaurs: Chuck, Nancy, Bernie, Liz, etc.... They will not win the next election for us.
1
U.S.A. U.S.A. U.S.A.
Gold in Curling!!! Yes Yes Yes....
I can't believe Stephens could be this cold hearted to pooh pooh curling.
We don't need to repeal the 2nd Amendment. What we need to do is read the whole thing. You know, the part about the "well regulated militia".
Wanna play with semi-automatic weapons. Join the Army or the Marines. Then after basic training in the use of those weapons you get to play with them. When you get out of the service and want to keep playing with them keep going to Reserve meetings and military shooting ranges.
There. Problem solved.
Gail, Congratulations to an honor richly deserved. You are truly the best of the best.
Now on with the mid terms.
24
Does our second amendment truly fulfill its declaration to be a "Well regulated militia..." DJM
6
After reading The New Republic review of “Loaded,” a book that argues that the origins of the Second Amendment were rooted in racism against Native Americans, literally permitting a genocide of the people’ who lived in America first, I’m ready for the abolishment of the Second Amendment or a major rewrite of it. I’m surprised that Gail Collins sees such a move as such a far-out possibility. We’re obviously misinterpreting it’s original meaning. Ah, where’s Scalia when we need him!
https://newrepublic.com/article/146190/brutal-origins-gun-rights
3
Really? We totally don't need Scalia.
6
I wish Bret was capable of complimenting Gail on her accomplishments without resorting to belittling and sexist comments about blushing. His fragile ego can’t handle the presence of a successful woman and he feels the need to assert his dominance.
10
Eve - Get over it. It's not sexist. Men blush, too. Being hypersensitive is not the path to a solution.
I completely agree that we must get to the root of the gun problem, which is the 2d Amendment. I would remind all that the Constitution is also not a suicide pact. We need not keep it intact if by doing so we kill ourselves. It can and should be amended.
The 2d Amendment is subject, commas notwithstanding, to too much screwy interpretation. Make it clear in light of the fact that muskets are very much out of fashion that the right to bear arms no longer applies to any and all guns.
And, yes, it is about money, specifically that which goes to the NRA. Who pays them? And why are they so insistent that all guns can be sold to everyone; who's interest does that no-holds-barred position benefit? Answer: the gun manufacturers and sellers. So change the 2d Amendment and the NRA will change and lose its effectiveness.
We must do this for the children who are now targets!!!
12
Democrats don't listen to Mr. Stephens, play the Trump game--"lock him up."
2
What an amicable couple of minutes trying to counter reciprocal niceties about unsolvable problems...as long as republicans hold on to power...and abuse it to no measure. About the 'military', how would that make us stronger (assuming no waste and abuse) if domestic programs, to assure peace in society, are dumped into a stinking swamp of despair and uncertainty? Do we need to be physically present, neocolonial-style, in so many countries, to assure dominance and imperial control? If the rich continue to steal from the poor, recently augmented by the corporate tax cuts? Should we continue to call 'entitlement' the stingy amounts we receive (Social Service, Medicare), which we went on paying during our working years? I know we may exceed that amount as we go on living much too long for any treasure to last, but still. Insofar the irrational love for guns in American society, it is 'criminal' to allow the N.R.A. to dictate their terms...to continue the unrestricted mowing of our own people with the most sophisticated lethal weapons available, usually confined to the battle field, and dedicated exclusively for the fastest and efficient way to kill. I know there are whole segments in 'rural America' demanding guns at will, but for no good reasons, certainly of little use, thus far, for domestic protection. It is high time to grow up and become responsible, don't you think? And crooked lying Trump is the most immature and insecure thug in memory....to give advice.
9
Can gun sellers market grenade launchers? Anti-tank weapons? No. These are weapons of war. AR-15's are modified weapons of war, meant to kill multiple people at one time. The perfect weapon to murder civilians at an outdoor concert, in a movie theater, in a school hallway, or any other public space. We really need to tie this weapon back to the Founding Fathers, at the same time we tie slavery back to them, or the right to vote only given to those who own property. Hopefully, we won't force women to learn how to churn butter, or make lace.
Cadet Bone Spurs RUNNING??? Please, Gail. I'm currently home alone. Who will do the Heimlich when I aspirate my coffee? Mercy, please.
17
The conversation which needs to be started on gun deaths and mental health is one that focuses on the inability of the American Mental Health System (which is NOT a "system" at all - all apologies to JFK and his dream of a functional community mental health system).
We "mental health professionals" need to raise our expectations, yesterday, on policing the QUALITY OF OUR TRAINING, as we continue to produce way too many, fruit case, cuckoo-for-cocoa-puffs (apologies to any and all contributors to our fabulous DXM V) mental health "professionals".
I've not seen any such discussion in the NYT, Washington Post or any of these so-called liberal papers. But I, too, am a "mental health professional" so...
Donald Trump did not want or intend to become president. His candidacy was a put-on, hos presidency is a put-on, and he no doubt was taking notes during his brief professional wrestling appearance.
Assault weapons should be banned. The fact that most firearm violence is done with handguns notwithstanding, assault weapons have no place in the general public full stop. NRA phony anguish over how this or any other law would have prevented this or that tragedy also not withstanding, had gun control been enacted a generation or 2 ago we would not have the proliferation that we have now where the "2A" is no longer a right but a responsibility. Similarly if we pass gun control now it may come to fruition in a generation or 2. Or perhaps not if we have passed the point of no return as with climate change.
For that matter defense spending may be another place where the point of no return has been reached. Our misadventure in Iraq and other past misadventures where we installed puppet governments such as in Iran, and destabilized other regimes around the world, contributing to the rise of terrorism and general destabilization to the point where we must now devote our entire budget to the military.
2
While Bret seems subdued today (he didn't advocate for anything truly horrible other than a ton of unnecessary military spending) let's look at one aspect of his annoying self. Castigating dems for not acting enough like a sober political party is more of the guy who killed his parents pleading for mercy because he's an orphan.
4
Until we actually fight the inevitable bloody class war, the games that rely on idiotic wedge issues will continue.
3
Bret Stephens, thank you for having the courage to state the need for amending the grossly troublesome 2nd Amendment, that undermines the fundamental purposes of the Constitution itself:
Bret: I don’t think of my proposal [to amend the Constitution] as radical at all. I think of it as the essence of conservatism, coming from someone who sees himself as a strict constructionist. The Constitution provides, in Article V, a method for amending itself. Let’s use it! Let’s use it to repeal an amendment that, having left us awash in 300,000,000 firearms, is defeating the larger purposes of the Constitution as they are spelled out in the preamble: to “insure domestic tranquillity”; to “promote the general welfare”; and to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”
What is “posterity” for the parents of the children massacred in Parkland, Fla.? Where are the “blessings of liberty” for those who were mowed down at a concert in Las Vegas? Where is the “domestic tranquillity” for the relatives of the 11,000 people murdered with a firearm in 2016?
5
What if 10 million, or so, gun control advocates joined the NRA and elected Bret Stephens its president so he could use it as a platform to advocate repealing the second amendment? I'm in.
Mike Laine
Menlo Park, CA
10
Your best chance for gun control laws changing in the near future is under a Trump administration.
Let me lay down my gauntlet right now: if the next presidential race is between Trump and Biden, I won't vote for president.
Both party establishments will end their current form.
To "Retired" -- That's how Trump was elected last time. You Bernie folks stayed home or actually voted for Trump. Now you are threatening to do it again. Thanks.
3
Exactly whose entitlements do you want to reform, Bret? The already shrinking numbers of/by&for the poor's OR the unaccountable privileges of the so-called rich not even solvent when it comes to background checks for security clearances for White House work for his daddy-in-law big shot whose own four-bankrupted "fortunes" are more cantilevered than the pulled-out carpet on his head whence scattered egg shells render both the biggest welfare queens in the nation?
2
I'm sorry Bret.
How about starting your "entitlement reforms" by rescinding the $1,500,000,000,000 tax-cut to the top 1% of households?
257
Why have we allowed the pundits and the politicians to completely ignore the fact that the Republicans just reduced revenues by a huge amount. I am (or was) all for entitlement reform, but since the tax cut, I have become a raving liberal socialist who thinks that NONE of the entitlements should be reformed until the Republicans PUT THE MONEY BACK. Distributive Justice is an ancient concept about how to run a society. Taxing the rich is not only moral, it's imperative to our survival as a culture. How can it be that in a discussion such as Gail and Bret just had that NOBODY mentioned that we have a lot less money to do what government is supposed to do now because of the tax cut. It infuriates me!
7
Who asked Mike Pence and Ivanka Trump to lead the US Olympic team? The US Federal Government has nothing to do with the US Olympic effort; no funds are provided and no oversight is done including who is placed on the team.
On the subject of guns, did anyone see the sandwich-style sign posted outside the CPAC meeting place in Maryland stating the firearms are banned from the meetings. Talk about hypocrisy.
9
The NRA has narrowed its mission to be nothing more than the lobbying arm of the gun industry. It has purchased enough members of Congress to make it their mission too. It also owns the President despite his campaign claim that he would be indebted to no one but rank and file voters. As a side benefit, it's great to have a leader who views the movie Death Wish as an instructional video on home security.
Explain to me how this coalition can support any solution to gun violence that does not involve manufacturing more guns. When you're looking for opportunities to grow the industry, arming teachers seems made to order.
11
I can remember when the Democrats were last in the majority in Congress and approached the Republicans for their input on various issues that came before Congress. What they got from Republicans, then in the minority, is that they would join in legislation only if everything that they wanted was put into the bill. Now mind you, they just lost the last election and did not have majorities, but would not co-sponsor bills unless everything they wanted was in the bill, making it a partisan Republican bill. The Democrats wouldn't surrender their electoral victory by not including anything that the people had just said they wanted in such policies.
So the bi-partisan effort failed. With Republicans in the majority, they do not even consult with Democrats before ramrodding partisan bills through congress and to the President's desk. There is not even the pretense of bi-partisanship. It is why government is broken. Congress is no longer a legislative body. The members spend more time out on the lawn in front of cameras and their supporters demonizing the other side rather than participating in the legislative process. So, in the end, only a handful of aids write these CRs on which government operates and this is as the big donors want. They do not want a democratic legislative process where all get their say. They want fiscal crises where a few handpicked people write the bills and everyone else just votes, many times without having read the bill at all.
4
The recent tax bill was written in the middle of the night behind closed doors with only Republican Reps in the room. They wrote a bill to repay their large donors; the small tax cuts given to the middle class and working poor will sunset in 2027. The large tax give away to corporations will be permanent. Revenue required to run the Federal government will be reduced. Where will Congress look to recover lost revenue? They have already made that clear: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. This is the most corrupt Congress ever experienced in a long life time.
I'd love to hear how Bret Stephens talk about how his proposal has been received. I, for one, find it terribly appealing. It will take a long time to absorb the idea in our culture so we should keep talking. It won't happen in my lifetime, I suspect, but I am hopeful. And hopeful that my grandkids stay safe. I try not to worry, but I do, and wonder why gun hobbiests have more rights to play with their guns, than I or my family has to be unafraid. No one needs an assault weapon or AR-15 or any automatic weapon. If they want to play with them, then how about we set up regulated and secure gun ranges where they can rent them by the hour and shoot their little hearts out, sparing us the worry and fear for our safety.
2
Mr Stephens is indeed correct that the Progressives are going to have to "start acting more like a normal political opposition and less like 'the resistance'." The wailing and the gnashing of teeth have gone on for far too long. That is, if Progressives are interested in regaining office rather than just stroking their bruised egos.
But they must hope that it is not too late already. The never-abating storm of vilification for former Democrats may have hardened attitudes to the point that Progressives will have to keep consoling themselves, as Tom Lehrer sang about Irish rebels, that: "they won all the battles but we had all the good songs."
So we repeal the 2nd amendment. What happens to the 300,000,000 guns currently in the hands of mostly law-abiding citizens?
1
Ask the Australians.
2
That would not make gun ownership illegal. It would be up to the states to pass whatever laws they want.
"We don’t hear nearly enough about the Democratic tax plan, infrastructure investment ideas and so on."
Before That Election I have visited Hilary Clinton's web site and found a long list of the issues facing the US. It's a shame more people didn't as it might have convinced enough to forget about email and other trivia and vote on the issues. The list is still on the site and could serve as a road map for candidates looking for talking points in the next election. Almost without exception the issues on the list, tax reform, health care, gun violence, affordable housing, infrastructure, substance abuse, immigration, national service, represent areas where there is a clear difference between those who would like to see real government action addressing real problems instead of deliberate inaction or retrograde policies meant to undermine the public welfare. The site is wonky and not sexy but I think any candidate who honestly cares about and can talk intelligently about these issues will find voters flocking to elect them.
7
It's the 2005 "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)" that should be repealed. Without it firearms makers could be sued when their products were used in crimes.
2
Bret,
We've all known Social Security and Medicare expenses were going to balloon for longer then I've been alive. That has always been the demographic legacy of the greatest generation. Boomers eventually retire. Instead of funding the programs ahead of time though, conservatives have spent four decades attacking government revenue rather than securing fiscal growth for social retirement programs.
What is so bad about not wanting my aging parents to have some safe guard against poverty in their old age? There's already a financial incentive to retire later than retirement age. You get a larger benefit the longer you wait. If you're healthy and employed, great! For everyone else, there's a safety net.
Speaking of incentives, your advocacy for reducing accrued benefits and retirement ages actually distorts my economic behavior now. Instead of having children or participating in the consumption economy, my discretionary income goes to retirement saving because I can't trust in the viability of our public retirement program thanks to people like you. On top of all that, I've been paying my entire life for a program you want to gut.
You better hope Congress repeals the second amendment Brett. You'll fair better if the angry mob at your door is only armed with pitchforks.
6
I don’t remember thinking Trump might turn out to be a cross between Romney and Sanders. Was that supposed to be part of his much-anticipated, never-achieved “pivot”?
4
Yes, congratulations to Gail.
I too liked the Olympics before the coverage was about who scowled at whom.
So, Bret, in Germany, where you live, what is the coverage like? Is it about sports?
1
I would like to see Trump hit the side of a barn - by running into it just like he'd have run into the school, gun or no gun. If he runs through it like a cartoon character I'd have some respect for him.
2
Bret, conservatives keep talking about the percentage of federal spending represented by Social Security and Medicare, but you never talk about the percentage of federal REVENUES brought in by payroll taxes to fund Social Security and Medicare specifically. In contrast, the military spending increases you have favored--under Reagan, Bush II, and now Trump--keep going up and up and have never been backed by a tax increase to PAY for them; indeed you keep cutting taxes and increasing spending and increasing borrowing. I understand that we need some reforms to keep Social Security and Medicare going for the next generation, but when are you conservatives going to acknowledge your deficit-mongering problem? Clinton handed Bush II a balanced budget; Bush handed Obama a monster deficit, and Social Security didn't add a dime to that deficit.
10
“We don’t hear nearly enough about the Democratic tax plan, infrastructure investment ideas and so on.”
Well, Sanders and Warren have been trying. But the Dem leadership thinks chameleons are in, and it’s hard to raise money with a visible plan that not every big donor likes.
1
Concerning the lifting of payroll caps to fix social security. That remedy is the most rational way to solve social security funding. Couples who have no children pay school taxes all their earning lives. And rightly so, because all people benefit from an educated society. Similarly, all people benefit from senior citizen's financial independence. An independence which also allows the seniors to end their days with a measure of dignity while relieving society, and family, of the burden of caring for needy people no longer able to fend for themselves.
Even self supporting workers, who are financially responsible, can not always find the means to build a adequate nest egg for retirement. Without a safety net many aged people would become wards of society at great cost to the nation. This situation would be a disgraceful condemnation of the wealthiest nation on earth--its politics, government and economic system. Only fools
wearing partisan blinders, can't understand this fact.
4
Social Security came in under FDR as a way to give people who could no longer a basic safety net. Prior to that, old people relied on public charities or families; many died in abject poverty after working all their lives. Medicare came in under Truman to ensure basic medical care for those too poor to pay for medical care. These have been in place for decades; I would like to see the Republican Rep who publicly states he/she wants to gut those programs; re-election chances would drop to 0. I have never seen a Republican refuse his perks or benefits; I have never heard a Republican advise his constituents, or immediate family, to refuse to access SS or Medicare. Corporations with insurance benefits require their employees to use Medicare before they use those benefits; then, they reduce benefit payments if the employee has access to Medicare. Disability benefits are also reduced by the same calculation. Pension Plans are now defunct; Savings Plans are basic, low interest savings plans. We are slowly returning to the time before FDR. Corporate welfare for the richest among us; tax increases for working people when the bill for corporate welfare comes due. Remember how many jobs the Bush tax cuts were going to produce, once corporations had more money? None; the benefits were given to shareholders; no investments in new manufacturing venues, no job creation, paid for by those who still had paychecks open to FICA. The rich had accountants.
''We don’t hear nearly enough about the Democratic tax plan, infrastructure investment ideas and so on. ''
Something more than just not trump.
You guys do know that the Second Amendment is essentially irrelevant to the individual's right to carry heat, don't you? Many state constitutions have a provision guaranteeing individuals' rights to own and use firearms. Even if we could repeal the Second Amendment tomorrow, those provisions would still stand. You'd have to draft yet ANOTHER amendment--and the language for that one would be problematic--specifying exactly how the Federal government could control gun ownership. Try to get THAT one passed. To quote Trump on health care: "who knew it could be so complicated?"
1
I think Brett is in bed with the gun lobby. On the surface, talk of 2nd amendment repeal sounds useful, but you just know that John next door, already with a small armory in his basement, will run out to buy another gun or two, and stock up on as much ammo as he can afford. John hoards in anticipation of a complete shutdown of production, and wants to be prepared when Armageddon begins. We all have a John or two in our neighborhoods or families. I'm serious.
3
It's easy for people who sit behind desks to talk nonchalantly about raising the retirement age. I'm sure work at 70 looks different for a bricklayer, laborer, house cleaner, and all the other jobs that are hard on joints and bones.
8
Politics is an ongoing low-level war.
Sadly the type of people that go into
national politics are concerned far more
about themelves than they are about
our Country or us.
1
Our nation was founded in a violent overthrow of our sovereign rulers. Our founding fathers fired the shot heard round the world, in Concord, Mass, that started the rebellion which became a revolution. The colonists were divided about 60-40 between rebels and loyalists; many from each side killed each other during the war, and after hostilities were ended, many loyalists were tried and punished, often by death.
The term 'American exceptionalism' includes, if one examines it, the belief that conflicts can be resolved with guns. As a culture we have mythologized criminals as well as lawmen; we refer to our military men as 'heroes' because they wear a uniform. Not all are heroic. All are paid volunteers whom we train and furnish weapons to kill.
Von Clausewitz defined war as the extension of politics by other means. Our current President seems anxious to short-circuit the politics of diplomacy so he can get on with the exciting business of war.
He was elected, to be sure, by a minority of the 53% of eligible voters who showed up to vote in 2016, those of us who are interested enough to make the effort to go to the polls or fill in an absentee ballot, roughly 25%. But that does in no way de-legitimize his victory. We have met the enemy, and it is us.
2
Yeah, the Democrats sure are behind in putting together a coherent, cohesive, and consistent policy agenda that presents their vision for the country. If only they were as far along as the Republicans at this point in 2014.
Oh. Wait.
35
Bret, please remember that when other spending gets cut, spending on everything else naturally becomes a larger percentage of total spending. Because, math.
6
A great conversation between two very good journalists.
One of the most significant points was the one Gail Collins made about lifting the cap on the payroll tax. That would eliminate the need for " reforming " entitlement programs that sustain the low and middle income elderly. The Democrats need to advocate strongly for this. Reform to the Republicans means cuts to or privatizing Medicare,Social Security and Medicaid.
Gun Control is a must,but I agree that Trump will not do anything the NRA and his base oppose. Other than insert himself as a Super Hero who runs into buildings to save the day, which contrasts starkly with Cadet Bone Spur's history as 5 time draft deferment recipient and his statements about his disgust for an 80 year old man who had an accident at Mar-A-Lago. Bret Stephens keep beating the drum for the repeal of the Second Amendment !
Military spending is often, as Gail Collins remarked , riddled with vast amounts of waste and excess.
Increase the number of these conversations now that curling and luge are behind us.
3
Wait! Medicare isn't an entitlement. I've been paying into it for 51 years. Now I receive it, but still pay nearly $3K/year for the co-pays and medigap plan. At 66, I can't even think about retiring. I'd like to see real infrastructure funding - Pittsburgh desperately needs big water/wastewater/bridge/road help. Trump is so completely shockingly awful/illegitimate/unqualified that I can't stop, without apology. Love your debates, however and THANK YOU Mr. Stephens for your op-ed on the Second Amendment.
2
I love these conversations, because they illuminate something truthful that is rarely acknowledged; people are individuals, too!
All of us have friends, colleagues and neighbors with whom we have plenty of political differences, but when it comes to counting on a few eggs we forgot when we started cooking or a ride to the vet with our whimpering pet, we know they will be there for us. These are the moments when we realize what we have in common; we aren't politicians so we don't have to adhere to an entire platform. We can have our own idiosyncratic opinions and further, we can talk about them without coming to fisticuffs. Phew.
Bravo to both. I too would like to see more details about the Democrats' tax plans, infrastructure priorities and how to get a working health care system back on track after being derailed by the GOP. I would also like to see more details about who is paying for the Trump family's legal bills. I believe the RNC paid his lawyers $230,000, stopped paying them in September butnow spends $37,000 a month "rent" on a fictitious office in Trump Tower. Please NYT, keep following the money wherever it leads.
2
We could fix Social Security tomorrow if we wanted to. All you would need to do is eliminate the 127k cap and program solvent As far as medicare, the sooner we do like other countries do with some form of Single payer health care the better off we will be. Yeah yeah, I know "socialized medicine", but it works. Most other countries have better health outcomes with less cost.
11
I don't think so. Only about 3% of the workers have a salary greater than $127K.
According to my seat-of-the-pants calculation, assuming an average salary for this 3% of $350K, only an additional $140 billion a year in additional revenue would come in, over and above the $950 billion that is already being collected. That's less than a 15% increase.
My calculations are based on casual research on the internet, but seem reasonable.
$140B could help fund school lunch programs for poor children; it could help Meals on Wheels for the financially stressed old; it could help provide computers to poor inner city school districts; it could help provide more polling places in rural areas and transportation to get those without cars there so they can vote; it could help to provide adequate staff in national parks, and so on. $140B is not a negligible amount of money.
I just wanted to add my voice in congratulating Ms. Collins on her Polk Award. She is my voice of sanity in these troubled times.
1
Yeah, painting Hillary as corrupt was so unsuccessful. The Clinton campaign tried in vain to present the most progressive platform in decades. The media didn't buy it as they aired American Idol season like campaign coverage. Did any network devote any coverage to the plans of the wonky candidate. Not really. Did the media talk about the ramifications of a conservative judiciary on the working class. Did the media cover the siege on civil rights under a repressive AG? Did the media cover the effect of a climate denier on the environment? Minimal. It was daily Trump this and that. Hillary's email problem. The Dems, yes need to concentrate on a platform. And messaging. How to create jobs...the best welfare reform program there is. Nothing wrong with polishing up a platform of free community college, and presenting a New Deal like infrastructure initiative.
4
A lot of commenters today are shouting "eliminate the annual cap on salary." I'm poor so I have no skin in that game, but is it fair to tax the already heavily taxed rich people? Does the government own their income and lets them keep only so much? To a certain extent, probably yes, but where do you draw the line?
I knew a rich guy once -- probably worth $5-$6 million in the 1980s. He complained bitterly that he had to pay $350,000 that year in taxes. That's onerous, methinks: He drives the same roads, uses the same public facilities, etc., as I do, someone paying, back then, maybe $1,500 in taxes. He was poor in the Great Depression (no father at home) and was shot down over Germany in WWII, so he's paid some American dues. Afterwards, he started lots of companies that hired lots of people. Okay, so what? He benefitted from public schools, etc. He thought that everyone should pay 10% of their income and that's that, which from his enriched point-of-view seems eminently fair; but poor people would suffer even more if we didn't sock it to the rich, right? How much should it cost to live in America? What's the cover charge? Justice and mercy seem at great odds here. (Yet Plato said they boiled down to the same thing in a just society, which we aren't, so that doesn't apply very stringently.)
1
Stephens is getting some notice for the call to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Interesting idea worthy of discussion, but with 0.01% chance of happening. Of course, I gave the same odds in 2015 for a Trump presidency. By the time Michael Moore and Katy Tur were predicting a Trump win in the general, I realized we were in a new era. So anything could happen.
More likely, I believe, is the notion of more arms in schools. The Feds will leave this to states and counties to implement, thus absolving themselves of responsibility for the fallout.
The fallout will be (with 100% chance) that a student, teacher, or other innocent will be killed by an armed protector. Never mind that the total number of innocents killed in an incident might be reduced by an armed protector who kills the terrorist - who has three full clips in his belt - but also kills or maims two kids.
The public will not stand for that. The protector will be prosecuted. And that will be all for more arms in schools.
Too bad, that. I detest DJT, but I believe his idea to arm a school employee is the only suggestion that might reduce the terrorism, albeit briefly. A new prohibition - forget constitutionality for a moment - will not work. It did not work for alcohol or non-FDA drugs. Why do we think it would work for weapons?
Yes, we are living too long, especially when taking quality of life into account. But we do need to remember that seniors are struggling, sometimes eating pet food to get by. And we want to cut them further out of the loop?
I do truly love the thought of repealing 2nd amendment. It has no relevance given where we are now. We are indeed countering the majority of our constitution with this in place.
2
Would you both care, some time soon, to talk about our broken electoral system, most particularly the concealed, computerized process by which we count our votes?
Feel free to consult with me or my election forensics colleagues about how the vulnerabilities of that counting process to systemic fraud have driven the veer of our politics in the computerized vote-counting era (c. 2002 - present). It has pushed government (at both state and federal levels) to the right and out of sync with the public will. But I think Bret would agree not to a healthy right, but towards, and perhaps across, the borderline of corporate fascism. Certainly to the majority power to cynically enable a very dangerous president.
So how about addressing the dangers of continuing to count votes in the partisan, proprietary, pitch-dark of cyberspace? And perhaps even batting around ways to restore public, observable counting of votes to our country? At least letting people know how much this matters?
Thank you both.
1
Congratulations to Gail. Well deserved award. As a fiscal conservative I tend to agree with Bret on fixing the so called entitlements (and curling). Anyone who wants to destroy whooping crane preservation programs is way beyond the pale and should be closely monitored. I hope some Democrats were reading your conversation today since it is painfully obvious they are not talking about the right things. They cannot win on "I'm not Trump". I have no idea where they stand on how to accomplish infrastructure restoration or on real tax reform. You guys just keep on talking, there are many of us who find it helpful and entertaining,
I really enjoy this exchange. I know it's not easy to talk when so many topics are strongly disagreed upon, but I appreciate it nonetheless. So thanks, and congratulations to Gail - I always enjoy the levity you bring to your work.
1
How can Bret Stephens be so reasonable about so many things and so wrong about climate change? Why that particular blind spot? Sigh. Well, this was delightful, and a useful road map for civility as we lurch along in this polarized hellscape. Thank you, at least, for that.
Funny how commentators always accuse “the Democrats” of not having any legislative proposals to offer, and they always the actual legislative proposals that Democrats campaign on.
Why does “Repeal&Replace” count as a legislative proposal but the specific health care policies proposed by Obama in his JAMA article or Clinton in her 2016 campaign get ignored?
Why does Trump’s call for spending a trillion dollars on infrastructure (in private investment; it actually does not increase government spending on infrastructure at all) count as a legislative proposal, but Clinton’s detailed proposals to spend hundreds of billions of dollars 2016 campaign got no coverage?
Democrats are offering specific policy proposals on every major policy area (civil rights, defense, deficits, the economy, education, energy, the environment, foreign policy, guns, immigration, taxes, trade, etc. etc.), whereas the Republicans offer only slogans and grandstanding. That’s because Democrats believe in the possibility of functional government, whereas Republicans believe all government is inherently dysfunctional.
My proposal: try covering the actual debates in a substantive way for a change. You’ll find that Democrats have some serious proposals for how to make life better for ordinary Americans; Republicans have some talking points about individual liberty, personal responsibility, and the need to cut taxes for the rich.
The GOP today wants to Know Nothing and do nothing. The Dems want to govern.
9
I worked 51 1/2 years.
Social Security & Medicare is what I paid for so I have it in my "golden" years.
4
I don't agree with Bret Stephens the 2nd Amendment should be repealed, but I do believe the language and meaning needs serious, national debate and clarification.
Instead of debating the archaic language and punctuation of the amendment and trying to imagine what the framers originally meant when they wrote it, what should the 2nd Amendment say in clear, modern language?
A well-regulated militia in each state is desireable, for sure. Unrestricted arms for everyone obviously isn't.
3
I agree, Bret, that Democrats need to talk policy. Loudly. It is difficult when every day Trump drops an astonishing tweet or comment, or flat out lies. Being outrageous and distracting is what Trump does, creating ongoing chaos. Let's mostly ignore Trump and talk about issues calmly. The circus that is the Trump "administration" is keeping us distracted from important executive actions being taken against our environment, the CDC, education, scientists, Justice, and State, et al, ad nauseam. Democrats need to start playing offense.
7
I am disgusted that Republicans think Social Security and Medicare, which I paid for all my life, are things they can loot to support their tax cuts for the rich and our corrupt foreign adventurism.
The casino on Wall Street would be less of a problem if there were a teensy transaction tax that kept gamers from taking value out of the system with microtrades. And working income should be taxed at the same rate as unearned income, so gambling would not be so appealing.
We need a government that works for all of us, and working together to solve problems, more than ever before.
Otherwise, earth will enact "bye-bye" to its apex predator. Burking the facts claiming "the poor" benefit from pollution, rising seas, and a more chaotic climate, and claiming we can all get rich and fix it then are profitable and attractive, but they lack even common sense.
23
Also, I'm tired of people giving Ivanka a pass for her evasive and entitled expertise with hair and makeup, while she is hard as nails and part of the problem, not part of the solution. Being "pretty" seems to be a good disguise in our media-addled idea of what is worth valuing.
7
Susan,
Thank you.
Sadly, I fear, nothing will be done to tame
the "Wolves of Wallstreet" or the Carpetbaggers of Congress.
3
Another fine conversation, and a hearty congrats to Gail.
Now, speaking of the Olympics, it’s the downhill events that the U.S. in which the U.S. should excel. Under Trump, we’ve been going downhill for a year and the U.S. should have beaten every other country in getting there.
And, as a citizen (still; I haven’t left yet) I am concerned that they would ban bump stocks from the biathlon event. But I do see Trump’s point. Note his perverse reasoning: bump stocks don’t produce a tight group. They are ineffective, so let’s ban them.
Evidently we want effective killing weapons on the market. Trump is trying get the NRA to accept some sort of weapons ban, so he claims that one is not that useful. The argument might work with a sixth grader, but many parents complain to me that their kids are smarter than that.
Speaking of that controversial Second Amendment, how about *emending* it to fix its awful grammar. No one knows what it means. Were I to have written something like that in high school, my English teacher would have shot me.
On a less violent topic, Ivanka raises the question, is she actually saying that we can’t ask her about her father’s behavior because she’s a woman? Interesting. She should have just honestly responded, “Look, my old man made me wealthy. Would you criticise him if he made you wealthy?” Enough said.
I think that whooping cranes can be cured with antibiotics. At least they won’t be endangred by bump stocks.
13
Bret mentions raising the retirement age near the end. I am a liberal and I used to believe it would be fair and just to do so--Americans are living longer after all. However, I then dug a bit deeper. Not ALL Americans are living longer. The ones who are not are the ones who rely on Social Security the most, and who have the most physically demanding jobs.
While I could put up with coming into the office a couple years longer, someone who hauls bags of cement around for a living cannot do that until they're 70.
86
Bret, speaking of Medicare and healthcare reform in general: #1 on the list of healthcare reform, and rarely mentioned, is capping what the healthcare industry can charge. Presently, the price of healthcare is outrageous and includes the whole caboodle: hospitals, doctors, physician's assistants, lab, and of course pharmacy, and on and on!
And speaking of BigPharma costs: The other day I picked up an Rx at Walgreens for an 87 year old family member (who has Medicare and a Supplemental Rx policy). The medicine was Vesicare, 30 tablets for a 1-month supply. The co-pay was $30. I looked closely at the receipt and was shocked to read "Retail Price: $415.99 - your insurance saved you: $385.99." No wonder insurance premiums have skyrocketed. Outrageous!
30
The insurance company didn't pay $385.99. The "Retail Price" is fictitious. No one pays it. The insurance company negotiated a price with the manufacturer and pharmacy, and it was probably not much more than $30.
5
Jonathan Katz, and there was probably some fiddle that allowed the insurance company to profit from the inflated price, and (if they pay any) deduct it from their taxes.
5
Yes, Jonathan, I have often wondered about that fictitious price scheme. I think it's intended to make people really grateful to have insurance. People without insurance never pay those inflated prices either. So it's basically egregious deceptive advertising. A lie.
"And most firearm violence is done with handguns, not rifles."....Which completely ignores the point, that the assault rifle has become the weapon of choice for mass slaughter, and that there is no defensible reason for any member of the general public having a need to own one. We absolutely know that another mass slaughter with an assault rifle will happen. So what if halting the sale of assault rifles to the public will not stop all deaths from firearms; it it will stop some, and since there is no justifiable need to have one, it is criminal not to take action.
96
W.A.S. Don't blame Bret for saying truth; the overwhelming fraction of gun murders are committed with handguns.
I am however with you on being a proponent of severe restrictions on "assault rifles" -- meaning semi-automatic rapid-fire weapons with detachable (or large capacity) magazines.
Don't forget that the Virginia Tech massacre was done with a pair of semi-auto handguns.
"Assault rifles" have become the mass-murder's weapon of choice because they are the best weapon the militaries of the world have invented for the job. The muzzle-velocity from a short carbine is usually almost twice that of a handgun, even when firing the same round. They are more accurate, fire at much longer ranges (Paddock's massacre in Las Vegas could not have been done with handguns), easier for an inexperienced gunner to use, and usually less jam-prone.
But there is also the matter of fad, copy-catting, and the sad gun-pornography of these "black weapons" and the attachment the deranged have to them. Suppose these weapons only came in "My Purple Pony" versions -- with bright tassels and spangles? Would our loser males want them to go commit mass murder?
Like you, I see no civilian justification for these weapons, and would either ban them, or require much stricter licensing requirements, including substantial insurance under strict liability. But why not acknowledge the obvious: treat semi-auto handguns for what they are: "pocket assault rifles."
I am giving my own Polk Award to Gail for locating Trump "someplace between a weekend replacement talking head on Fox and a professional wrestling villain." Now I have this image of Trump as one of those masked Mexican wresters. Of course, those hombres don't have a nuclear button.
67
I'm with you, Richard. Congrats, Gail, on winning the Swanson Award
I agree with all of the sentiments expressed here by Gail and Bret, except for the Medicare and Social Security parts. These are not entitlements. These funds are pensions and most times the only pensions that the elderly have.They have been paid for by both employee and employer in a separated form. The Congress has raided it time and tine again for other things. It was never meant to be part of the General Tax Fund. These two programs were designed to stand alone. To be there for the people who, when retired, would have some income they could depend on, that they and their employers paid for separate from Federal taxes withheld.
In addition, I agree with Gail about Defense spending. It has been proven time and again that the Defense Department does a poor job of managing their budgets and the bidding process.
I am not anti military. I am anti waste. I am all for taking care of our men and women in the military. Give them living wages and great heath care. Keep your promises to educate them. Keep the promises to many of them, that if they re-enlist they will be paid bonuses promised.
Get our economy really going, not just for the 20 %, but for everyday working people, by improving our infrastructure. This would give millions Americans the chance for a middle class life.
The Republicans have proven time and time again that every day citizens do not matter to them. They have not proposed one program that would help the less fortunate. Blinders are still on.
180
The government cannot "raid" Social Security. The money collected in FICA taxes for Social Security is used to pay people currently receiving benefits, and any excess money collected is, by law. used to buy interest-bearing U.S. government bonds. So the government gets the money when the bonds are purchased. If in the future not enough money is collected from FICA taxes to pay the current recipients some of the bonds will have to be cashed in and the government will therefore have to repay the money it got from the sale of the bonds.
5
"Entitlement" is a technical term meaning they do not depend on annual appropriations. It is not a moral judgement about the recipients' right to them.
1
The politicians use it as a perjoratve word
And it is taken by their supporters as a welfare program not as “the people who paid into it own it”. It is why I think the word”entitlement” is not accurate in describing Medicare or Social Security benefits
2
We'll get back to a functioning government when Democrats have control again. In the brief time Democrats controlled Congress, we got Obamacare (20 million covered at affordable prices by raising taxes on the top 5% so the deficit wasn't affected), Dodd-Frank to regulate the banks (they still made good money, but taking far less risk while lending sufficiently to fuel a boom) and stimulus to make sure the Boom happened.
All over Republican opposition. Republicans did their best to stop the economy from recovering, essentially freezing spending at 2009 levels through 2014 (unheard of, when historically spending goes up 5% per year).
You want a functioning government, you vote for the party that sees government as a force for good, to balance the interests of workers against owners. If not, vote Republican and see just how much wealth can be transferred upward to the 1%.
116
Add my congratulations to Gail. Good job!
And to Brett, I find myself agreeing with him very (too) often. Either I have to check my liberal credentials or he has to check his conservative credentials OR there are many issues that we can agree on. Might be a starting point for Congress - if they cared at all about working for anyone beyond their wealthy donors.
68
"We don’t hear nearly enough about the Democratic tax plan, infrastructure investment ideas and so on." Right on, Mr. Stephens. I am continually dismayed by the absence of fresh alternatives on such issues from the Democrats. It's as though they consider those matters settled and beyond reach, as if they've decided to just simmer with rage against Trump until 2020, praying for a House takeover in the mid-terms. Not a good strategy, if you can call it that.
56
Is the "not hearing" due to an actual lack of plans, or a lack of media coverage?
I have a feeling a similar situation occurred during the last election campaign.
1
Yes. Dems will never get votes without something to vote For, and if they think they can hide under rocks taking money from big donors and nagging and shaming and frightening voters into voting for them, I suggest they look back at the last election, and compare Sanders' methods to her Highness' methods.
The Democrats talk about these things. They have detailed plans. The media doesn't cover theme except to jeer at them (see the Times response to the D's Better Deal announcement). But the smallest utterance from any member of Congress with an R before his name and the media is there to record every utterance as if it was Moses come down from the mountain. That imbalance still goes on, even after the disaster of the 2016 elections.
And about that "simmering with rage." If you aren't angry about how Trump, his administration, and his Quisling lackies in Congress are making life worse for all but the richest of us—from the denial of facts, the demonization of science, rollbacks in regulations protecting our water, air, and public lands, etc (I could go on and on)—then you are not paying attention.
"Putting entitlements on the must-take-up-in-future list, too. Only whispering that we could start by lifting the cap on the payroll tax."
Amen to that, sister! Then make it progressive and funding problems disappear for a millenium. While we're at it, let's make the income tax progressive again. Let's treat capital gains the same as income somebody actually did some work to earn and no more carried interest deductions for hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars-a-year hedge fund managers.
Then invest all that money in infrastructure and education that pays dividends for a century or two and then . . . yeah, I know. But ya gotta have a dream.
158
It is progressive. Low earners receive a larger fraction of their income in Social Security benefits than higher earners, and Medicare benefits are the same for all enrolees, however much they have contributed in taxes.
@Jonathan Katz - And furthermore, high-income retirees pay higher Medicare premiums. Ordinary people pay $140 a month, but high-income retirees can pay up to $420.
1
Don't need to repeal the Second Amendment, but I do suggest reading it, along with what the founders stated they had in mind. They were concerned with creating a national army, that states would be powerless against the feds. So they compromised -- create the army but protect the states' ability to protect themselves, hence a "well armed militia." Absolutely nothing to do with individuals keeping assault weapons to make it easier to shoot rabbits. The Supreme Court voted "Republician" not "law" and it well knows it.
131
“WELL REGULATED” militia.
Doesn't say anything about the quality of militia armaments. It says ' a well-regulated militia'; something which private ownership does not inculcate.
And there are rabbit hoards waiting to take over your gardens! Stand your ground! Resist!
1
I suggest reading it again. The "free state" is the democratic United States. The 2nd amendment is about defending IT against foreign aggressors, IN THE ABSENCE of a large standing army, not defending US states against THEIR federal and democratic government. And it's a "well regulated militia".
Don't mind me I'm just an Australian.
2
Quit talking about programs I've paid into my whole life as an entitlement. It is insurance and the fact that our politicians elected to spend it in lieu of taxes is criminal and you should discuss it in those terms. If we found an insurance company misappropriating funds at the same level we would be taking action against them not the insured.
743
Well said. But those programs ARE "entitlements" precisely because we've all paid into them. It's just that the right wing has so successfully demonized the word that it sounds negative.
1
Yeah, but a country is not a business, and can't be run like one. Desperate times call for desperate measures: No one wants to pay more taxes, so Congress, knowing its customers, borrowed from Social Security, which is objectively wrong, but subjectively pleasing to most people. It's easy to criticize, but hard to hit the homerun yourself.
Why not talk about it as an entitlement? That's what it is - something that you are ENTITLED to by right of having paid into it. This is where the pundits and - evidently - the education system in the country have done us all a huge disservice. They have turned a perfectly good descriptor into a dirty word and muddied everyone's thinking about government programs like Social Security and Medicare, that have done more than anything else to drastically reduce poverty in the elderly. Social Security and Medicare are entitlements. We, the People, pay for them via a specific portion of our federal taxes and we have a RIGHT to the benefits that were promised to us in return for those tax dollars.
3
Social Security and Medicare provide health coverage and some guaranteed minimal income so elderly people aren't starving or freezing on the streets. That's "on the endangered list" according to Mr. Stephens so the government can spend even more of our tax dollars on defense, a position of which he apparently approves. Nice.
90
Good point here. Where we need to cut spending is the ridiculous and ugly military budget and the glorification of the military’s endless wars. We would then have the resources for the good things that a country should provide to its citizens.
1
Murders committed with rifles account for about 2 percent of all murders in the United States. Murders committed with so-called "assault" rifles are even rarer. You are far more likely to be murdered with a knife than with any type of rifle. So why are we even discussing an "assault" rifle ban? Perhaps it is because gun control proponents are irrational.
6
The reason to ban assault rifles is because they have obviously become the weapon of choice for mass slaughter, and there is no justifiable reason for a civilian to own one. We know without question that there will be another mass slaughter by some deranged person with an assault rifle. To argue against a ban because there is a 99.99% chance that any individual will not be killed by one, ignores the fact that those people who will be killed by an assault rifle will be 100% dead. The only people who are irrational, are those that oppose an assault rifle ban; and more to the point, they have blood on their hands. Tell us, how does it feel to have blood on your hands.
41
Because our mass shootings, largely of CHILDREN have been committed by people who shouldn't have any kind of gun in the first place with assault rifles that are all too available and have no other purpose but to kill people.
Meanwhile, criminal acts by immigrants are less than 2% of all criminal acts committed in the United States, however we are very busy banning them.
25
Actually we were talking about repealing the second amendment. Because gun owners are irrational.
1
Yes, Gail! Trump would definitely run into the school the second he heard gunfire. With his "Art of The Deal" negotiating skill, he would easily have tempted the shooter to surrender his weapon and join him in a bowl of mashed potatoes. He's done that before, you know!
I was born and raised in Brooklyn, but I've lived in Texas for the last 31 years. They ain't givin up their almighty right to own an A-15. Civil war first!
Coincidently, I came to Texas to work as an engineer and then as an engineering manager in defense electronics. The company I worked for had 25 weapon systems in the Gulf War. Being able to take down a character like Sadam Insane with 25,000 tanks ain't cheap. So, I respectfully disagree about military spending. If you think we have a bunch of goons running the show- just look around: NK, Russia, Venezuela and more.
Congrats to Gail, but around this old house, we know how wonderful she is!
13
How much does the Treasury owe the SS trust fund? Can we get that back before talking about cutting Social Security?
152
That's in the calculations, and at present tax and benefit rates it will run out.
1
I hate the word "entitlement" which has the connotation of something undeserved. What I get via Social Security is fully deserved. I uge Gail Collins to begin pushing back at the use of that term in her conversations and columns.
Do you know who are entitled? Members of the Florida Congress. They, within two weeks of the shooting, a period that they call as too soon to talk about guns, have a bill legalizing teachers bringing guns. Teachers packing heat, wow! I don't care if you have a Master's in history or math or science, but do you know how to shoot? You're hired!!
Now that is being entitled. Not just talking about the untalkable, but acting on it as well. Will enough Floridians get woke and kick these folks out of Congress?
82
No "entitlement" has the connotation of something deserved. Simply by being a citizen of the US you are entitled. Well - you should be. Republicans disagree.
Social Security is an entitlement. The average person receives far more in benefits than they paid in.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/feb/01/medicare-and...
"Mandatory spending on things like Social Security and Medicare keep rising as a percent of spending..."
Well, yeah.If you keep reducing the amount of revenue, and cut out everything else, like research and government employment, and pass most programs back to the states, then Social Security and Medicare are going to increase as a percentage.
Remember please, that the necessity for Social Security has grown, because the government has already enacted entitlement reform by allowing companies to donate to a retirement account rather than provide a pension. People forced to spend their retirement to buy healthcare and housing when they are 50 and unemployed need Social security later in life more as well.
And remember that Medicare (and Medicaid) increases are driven by mining profits out of our poor and middle class citizens - obscene drug costs, foolish hospitalizations, and the overall failure to have alternatives for families to handle their elderly without nursing homes are just some examples.
You make your whole nation poorer, you need entitlements more. Huge transfers of wealth to the wealthy drive entitlements.
So we want to reduce entitlements? Expand the wealth of the people who need them.
124
It is tiring to see people treat gun violence as natural disaster like earth quake or tsunami where one feels sad but helpless. As such, the forefathers, creators of the Constitution, must be crying drops of blood seeing their own children dying of senseless violence. Yet we are doing nothing about it. Humans wrote the Constitution and humans can unwrite it or modify it, NRA’s money not withstanding.
39
Ditto on Mr. Eisenberg's Kudos!!!
4
Shhh! about the whooping cranes! One assault rifle could take out a whole migratory flock, now that you've spilled the beans, with enough ammo left over to shoot us in our posterity.
14
The Polk Award is well deserved. Gail's column is the reason many of us look forward to reading the NYT on Thursdays and Saturdays. These days the news is dire and she can usually bring at least a small smile to my face. Although I do miss the days when her description of the latest adventures of Seamus brought a laugh out loud response. Her command of language is only matched by her dedication to the principles of journalism. These days she has a column where she is free to share her views but she has background in straight reporting and always demonstrates a respect for facts and truth. Thank you, Bret, for bringing this to the attention of her many fans.
29
Bret is right. The 2nd must go. Even if it were repealed, because we are so egregiously awash with guns, it would take several generations for any measure to eliminate the citizen-arsenal to achieve success. The best we can do is to plant the seed for that change.
And yes, the Democrats need to sell raising taxes to the country as citizens helping fellow citizens. Unfortunately, a united country is required for any substantial support of their programs for the common good. Americans have become both divided and selfish. The Republicans must have realized they could kill Democratic programs by selling selfishness and getting citizens to hate one another. They succeeded. It's up to the Democrats to unite the country.
Good luck.
284
There is a harsh rich white right wing plutocracy going back at least a century. They profess rugged individualism and want to repeal New Deal Benefits that protect people. I imagine so the people will have to kowtow to them for a decent existence. Same as it ever was, no maybe worse.
3
How to take the House back in 2018-abolish the 2nd amendment and raise taxes-let's add open borders to really make the wave happen. Does anyone, besides me, who reads the NY Times, or writes for it, have a clue why Trump was elected?
1
The evidence from Australia and England is that strict gun regulation greatly reduces gun crime long before the reservoir of guns is depleted.
This is not a surprise, and it is in fact something that gun advocates point to, without understanding the implications: those who have had a gun for a few years and not committed a crime with it are not so likely to start. (Yes, there are exceptions.)
In Australia and England there are still illegal guns being turned in; usually when grandpa dies and the kids go through his property. Grandpa never shot anybody.
What the law achieved is that Grandpa kept that gun; didn't sell it into the pipeline that brought the gun to somebody who would kill with it.
6
It will get better. It will get better. Having been a child of the sixties, I believe it will get better. And I think some of us--an "east coast liberal, here, having been born in Harlan County to a poor but brilliant man with an eighth grade education and hard times all the way--will have more respect for actual conservatives like Mr. Stephens, having seen what faux conservatism hath wrought upon our country.
20
Here of course is where Mr. Stephens and I part company. Both my parents died at 72. My father had to stop working earlier to take care of my very ill mother. When he became ill, she had already died earlier in the year and he had only his own social security. They raised six children--a community college teacher, an occupational therapist, a factory worker, an office worker, a son who retired as a Command Sgt. Major from the military after serving in both Bosnia and Iraq, and a daughter who died of complications from childhood cancer at 47. He had $500 a month to live on, but some equity in his mobile home, so one of those children was able to help pay his $450 mortgage and get a sitter so he could die at home, then recoup the money when the trailer was sold to use the money to help pay for their own children's college. Wealthy people are waiting until 70 to draw out their social security because they an afford to. People like my father would not have lived long enough to collect anything on their payroll taxes. When Republicans say to raise the retirement age, they are not thinking about the concrete finisher whose body will wear out at 60. Forgive me if I cynically believe this is the goal. Unfortunately, wealthy people need to again see their taxes as an investment in the country they claim to love. If the poor can send the children to die, surely they can emulate Warren Buffet. Get health care costs down but have universal health care and social security.
362
The wealthy right wing want us to suffer so we have to beg.
5
If we stop waging stupid wars and tighten up the Pentagon's ultra-leaky procurement process, we could easily -- and safely -- cut $100 billion in military expenditures and maybe direct that money towards more socially pressing needs. Or fixing some roads and bridges.
4
Wanda, you live in KY, home of Mitch McConnell. What are you doing to replace him with a Senator who will act on your behalf?
2
I almost choked on my coffee .... !! Curling ...is not ... amazing??
True, it seems like bocce on ice. But it's so much more. It requires clever strategy, balance, agility and both individual and team coordination. Plus those rocks must come from one little remote seabird colony in the Atlantic. I beg you to try it if you haven't before you comment again on this truly unique and amazing sport.
8
While we're bringing sense to the Constitution by repealing the 2nd Amendment, can we also do away with the Electoral College? Donald Trump lost the election. The GOP would still own their gerrymandered districts, but at least one exercise of our franchise would hew to the principle that each person's vote counts the same as everyone else's.
How 'bout it, Bret, you radical, you?
28
Even more unlikely. To ratify, you need 3/4 of the states. Will the small states give away their power to control the election of the President? The short answer is, no way.
Bret, you are winning me over! I used to think repealing the 2nd amendment was a pipe dream. No longer. My memory of the last significant amendment was when I was being called on to be drafted to fight in a war on the other side of the world that I thought was wrong AND I was not even able to vote for the politicians making that policy. I do not know the exact details, but the young folks today should know that we passed that amendment to allow voting at the age of 18 and passed it quickly!
I sure hope the younger folks today look to that example. There are lots of parallels. Kids today are being killed by bad policies, as they were then. The majority of Americans are on their side, etc.
16
Bret's argument, using the preamble to the Constitution, is the best I've heard.
'Insuring domestic tranquillity' could also be relied upon to shut down all the organs of propaganda that are fostering the radical discord we are experiencing, notwithstanding the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech.
10
Trump has embraced 100% of NRA's platform because he thinks that's where his base is. We have to convince him that he will lose public support and future elections unless he changes. NRA means No Regulation of Arms. We're in a war with armed men and boys and we're losing.
6
Could the NYT hire another conservative columnist? I feel like most of the opinion pieces on the NYT website are written in a vacuum. For example, abortion is a fraught issue. I won't pretend that my opinion is the correct opinion. But if you have a quote "conservative" columnist that is pro-abortion, anti-gun rights, and an unfettered capitalist (free trade, pro-immigration), then you aren't describing most conservatives (sound more to me like a silicon valley liberal). I live in a collar county of Chicago that is historically Republican, but has leaned Democrat in presidential elections. I think that we would like to more moderate and diverse views were represented.
As a country, it doesn't help to have the NYT, be just an echo chamber of liberal views. I would like to see some real honest disagreement on the editorial page, perhaps even with moderate proposals to solve difficult issues.
As a conservative, I feel like Trump (who I don't like), has removed all pretense of impartiality. There are no mainstream conservative or moderate editorial pages anymore. Realistically, the WSJ editorial page is conservative, but focused on "donor" issues. Once Trump is gone, where will dialogue in this country be?
6
Kudos to Gail for the Polk Award! Another Ohio native from the West Side of Cincinnati does well.
There are no simple solutions for America's budget problems, but eliminating tax shelters and taxable earnings caps on Social Security that give preferential treatment to the wealthy would be a good start. The GOP has become the party of a Free Lunch For The Wealthy and Super-Wealthy over the past three decades, enacting retrograde legislation and eliminating policies that once contributed to the greater good of all citizens.
Democrats have lost sight of what they once stood for, trying to be all things to all citizens. They now find themselves tarred and feathered for devolving into "identity politics".
As for the matter of Presidential nepotism, Ivanka, Jared, and Junior have no portfolio of past education and experience for the undeserved posts they are inappropriately filling. Their escapades over the first year beg the question of how would America (and the GOP) have reacted if Chelsea Clinton or the Bush43 twins had acted as representatives and ambassadors at functions of state?
Evidently they are made of teflon, not just coated with it, as is Cadet Bone Spurs.
15
Thank you, Bret, for raising the issue of the Democrats behaving like a 'normal' opposition party. Enough with the "resistance." Let's see some real ideas, real leadership, real vision emerging from this battered, divided batter. It's not enough to be anti-Trump, and it's become mind numbingly depressing to consult libral news organizations only t find the same echo chamber, the same common refrain that Trump is a monster. At the moment there is a vacuum on the national stage where solid, moderate, visionary Democrats' voices should be (not another spark plug like Kamala Harris who will only further the divide). The DNC has a real chance here to win over Never Trumpers and other moderate GOP who are horrified with the level of extremism that has come to define the modern Republican. Instead, we, as liberals all behave like a bunch of traumatized, victimized children complaining to one another about our parent on national TV and in the 'paper of record. Enough! Time for the next JFK to emerge, maybe even in the form of a woman. It's time for inspirational leaders who can captivate a society in serious flux.
13
Dude, you need a cold shot of reality:
"Hope springs eternal in the human breast,
For man never is, but to be, blest."
-- Alexander Pope (1688-1744)
We dwell in a Sisyphean hell. All progress is a temporary aberration.
What a breath of fresh air - to read the comments of two adults discussing the issues of the day, including their differences of opinion, without the sort of all-caps shouting that currently prevails.
I've had it up to here with the humorless, rigid tribalism of today's politicians - especially the congressional stooges who fear that Trump's rabid base will turn on them if they dare to oppose our Loony Tunes prez.
Thanks, thanks, thanks Gail and Bret for the grown-up conversation. Would either of you consider running for any high office? One of Oregon's most respected and effective governors was Tom McCall, a former newscaster.
7
I for one will feel much better sending my high-schoolers into a crossfire between heavily armed misfits and liberal arts teachers than waiting for the cops. It would be nice if there were other choices, though.
4
I feel much better now that at least one of my two sons has moved to Australia, taking my beloved grandchildren who are now able to go to school and focus on their education without worrying about heavily armed misfits or go to a concert and be able to enjoy it without wondering whether they will live through it.
3
First, Congrats to Gail. Well deserved.
I just want to point out that while everyone, myself included, has pounced on the inherent hypocrisy in President Five-Deferments' self-aggrandizing claim that he would have entered the under-siege school armed or not, I see no one pouncing on the inherent hypocrisy of his call for the (presumably involuntary, and thus potentially illegal) preemptive commitment of mass shooters to mental health facilities while simultaneously cutting funds for mental healthcare.
24
Not a game. The rules are rigged and the poor are the losers.
Out here, living in HUD senior housing, waiting to see if Trump's deadly cuts to public housing, senior housing, food supplements, health care for the poor, one has to wonder why our own government has declared war on the poor and the powerless.
Packing the Supreme Court, strutting across the world stage with stupidity on display, the Trump family is terrifying to many of us.
I understand that America is a falling empire, and is falling as just about all empires fall, with the ego wrapped super rich stealing all and buying off the politicians, but there is nothing funny about taking away health care from my low income neighbors, and certainly nothing funny about the thought that public housing in this time of insane rents, might be devastated. We are becoming Putin's Russia, with a few billionaires running things, and when Putin took power, it was the pensioners and war veterans who stood on street corners begging. Just as many do today across America.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene Oregon
429
Too many seniors have a blind spot for the GOP and its social Darwinism. Perhaps it's just habit. That's understandable. But these folks need to wake up and start voting in their own interest.
2
What a great comment! Thank you.
Your various levels of government, in effect, causing and encouraging paranoia of one's fellow citizens - all a ploy to distract from the truth that the government is not governing.
I feel sorry for American citizens.
Thank you, Hugh. Well said.
2
We shouldn't have to wait for Democrats running for president to hear their policy proposals. Those running for Congress this year should present their ideas for governing, and many are. A major problem for the Democratic Party over the past ten or twenty years is that its leadership seem to believe that all of its resources should be focused on winning the presidency. That strategy worked so well that a Republican is currently president.
18
Mr. Stephens, I would love to read your argument for why we need even more military spending given all we spend already and the wide range of other issues with which we need to deal.
17
"Last I checked, it amounted to more than half of federal outlays, if you take Medicare to stand for mandatory health care spending generally. So the programs you mentioned are inevitably going to be on the endangered list, especially in an administration that wants to spend more of its discretionary dollars on defense. As I do."
Oh sure. Let's up the ante, Bret, on the military industrial complex which is not exactly the most efficient arm of the US influence sector. The more money they have, the more they can waste, and we're already awash in military hardware.
Yeah, rob seniors, the disabled, and the most unfortunate among us to fund another military toy Trump can parade down Pennsylvania Avenue to the tune of $30 million.
Charles Blow in his excellent column yesterday asked, "where the hell are our priorities?" when it comes to guns.
He might as well have added defense spending and entitlement "reform" the priorities that seem to consume Republicans.
This is a nation awash in killing machines increasingly aimed at school kids, more military toys than the DOD knows what to do with, and a GOP led Congress itching to snatch social welfare from the needy.
"Where the hell are our priorities?" indeed.
82
Both healthcare are way too expensive. Why doesn't the Congress work on making them both less costly. We spend amazingly more on both than the rest of the world combined!!!!!
2
What, exactly, constitutes "bear arms?" Does it cover knives? Probably. Does it cover sling-shots? Again, I believe it does. Was it intended to mean muskets? I think most reasonably would agree, that's most likely what it meant as they were the weapon of the day. Does it mean highly lethal military weapons? That's the question isn't it.? The ambiguity of the Second Amendment does not lie in the "right," it is in the right to bear what? The NRA would have us believe that access to anything that can be bear is sacrosanct. Mr. Stephens is calling for repeal, Ms. Collins thinks that's impossible. Perhaps we can settle in simply clarifying the meaning of "arms."
5
Repealing the 2nd Amendment basically requires a proposal from 2/3rds of both houses of Congress, and ratification of 3/4ths of state legislatures (38 states).
We should certainly go for it, but currently both houses of Congress and a majority of the state legislatures are controlled by Republicans. So, that would either require a widespread change of heart on the Republican side regarding guns and/or voting out Republicans on a massive scale. Either way works for me, but the short-term prospects aren't great. This is just another example of why EVERY election at EVERY level matters.
12
We had such a nice conversation and then Bret says:
Anyway, my second point is that if liberals want to preserve those programs, they need to start acting more like a normal political opposition and less like “the resistance.”
Isn't this what the "R's" have been doing since 1994, demonizing in the strongest terms anything that comes from the "D's", even though it was a previous Republican platform point.
Americans pay for the Medicare and Social Security, it is not an "entitlement". If we need to pay more, either lift the cap on salaries, increase the amount deducted, or stop using the money we contribute in the General Slush Fund!
Time for all parties to work harder. Time for Democratic voters to lead.
176
Bret is absolutely correct - The Dems need to communicate their plans for 21st century society and our citizen's well-being. DACA support and anti-Trump positions are NOT sufficient for winning national elections. The Dems have the uncanny ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory - and I worry they will do an admirable job of that again in 2018 mid-terms and 2020 national elections.
7
Gail is the best, and now the whole world knows it. Kudos to Bret as well for grappling with how out of hand the gun problem in America has become. This reader is incredibly heartened by the pure grit and sticktoitiveness currently being demonstrated by students not only in Florida but right across the US - now is the time for like minded people, as they say, to have their backs.
17
Calling for the repeal of the 2nd amendment is absurd. It will never happen. It's nearly impossible to get the Constitution changed, which was of course the Founders’ intent. To repeal the 2nd Amendment you would need a 2/3 majority vote in both the House & the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by 2/3 of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. While the 2/3 majority approval to propose amending isn't rare (11,623 have been proposed), only 33 such proposals actually made it through all the Congressional debates & votes to make it out of Congress to the states for ratification. There any circulated amendment proposal faces an even bigger challenge, as per the Constitution 3/4 of the states must vote ‘Aye for the proposal to become an actual Amendment. Only 27 have been ratified, but the first 10, The Bill of Rights, were ratified before the end 1790. In the 226 years since then, only 17 of the 1,192 proposed amendments have made it all the way through proposal, debate, vote, distribution to the states, debate, vote, & ratification (1.4%). And two of those were about alcohol. The result of that was organized crime and general lawlessness. The gun control crowd should be very careful what they wish for, if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. There's simply no way a Prohibition era-type period of violence could be avoided. It would be easier to pass good gun control laws.
3
save social security, eliminate the annual cap on salary which I believe is going to $127000 per year. Just tax all income with no ceiling. Simple and effective
73
Not only simple and effective, but also fair. Studies have shown that the wealthier you are the longer you will live. So, the poor pay a larger percentage of their income into SS but collect less as they die earlier than the coherts above them on the income scale. It is only right that the cap be lifted on SS contributions.
11
George Polk was a 34-year-old CBS correspondent who was murdered while covering the Greek Civil War in 1948; the Polk Award is named for him.
Edward R. Murrow eulogized Polk for his honesty and integrity and reverence for fact.
Polk's coverage revealed the corrupt, authoritarian nature of the Greek regime, which was supported by London and Washington in its struggle against communist insurgents including partisans who fought against the fascist occupiers in World War II.
Other 2018 Polk Award Winners:
Stephanie McCrummen, Beth Reinhard and Alice Crites of The Post won the political reporting award after disclosing allegations of sexual harassment and misconduct with teenagers when Roy Moore was a district attorney.
The local reporting award went to Melissa Segura of BuzzFeed News, who documented allegations that a Chicago police officer had framed dozens of innocent people for murder.
For the 2nd consecutive year, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, a global network of more than 200 journalists who collaborate on reporting, won the financial reporting award for investigating how wealthy people and companies evade taxes.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/us/politics/george-polk-journalism-aw...
Support your local, state, national and global journalists, America.
Subscribe, donate and read their courageous, vital words exposing truth and exposing human rot while bending the arc of history toward justice.
Take a bow, Gail Collins.
446
Socrates, may I just say post-Valentine's, that you are a Mensch!
9
I am always at your service, annpatricia23....sweet valentine !
3
Befitting the Socrates pseudonym, you are an articulate writer with an encyclopedic knowledge of factual information. Bravo.
1
Agree that there is no clearly defined Democratic plan. Disagree on Social Security as an entitlement given that it has always been a pay go plan until congress decided to borrow from it and endless commissions since the 1970's have pointed out fairly simple methods to solve it's budget balance without getting money from the general budget that Congress recklessly ignored. Totally concur on the federal budget. The Republicans have been in charge of the House for 17 of the last 21 years and have the constitutional duty to propose budgets. The last time the House passed all 13 departmental spending bills in regular order was Newt Gingrich in 1996. The budget battles can be laid directly at the feet of the Republican party. Just read the history and look at the actual votes.
30
The Social Security discussion sent me off in search of facts. Check Politifact first to understand what has been going on with the SS funds since 1935. If blame is to be assigned, it should be given to all of Washington and all of Congress and all administrations since its inception.
What is clear to me is the recently passed tax act for the rich is going to raise the problem exponentially for how we go forward as a solvent country. We are teetering on bankruptcy now. To even propose more military spending at this juncture is ludicrous. China will probably end up buying us at a fire sale so be prepared for a new dictator.
2
the real work discussing social security started around the time of the inception of medicare. The best solution I like for social security is raise the cap and phase in a 0.15% rise in the employee and employer tax over three years. It guarantees over 96% of the social security benefits problem with the least pain. At least 5 commissions or studies have recommended it.
2
Bret, I strongly object to your suggestion of raising the retirement age. Already there are a lot of people in their 50s who are too physically broken down to do hard labor and aren't trained in modern technology to land a cushy office job. The only good part about getting old is finally qualifying for Medicare! And Social Security is the only retirement income that a lot of Americans depend on. How about raising the cap on Social Security contributions, raising the monthly Medicare contribution based on ability to pay and make the rich pay their fair share of taxes to maintain this country which they seem to prefer to live in.
324
I agree with Mary about the undesirability of raising the retirement age. Doing so harms most those least able to cope with it, people who have been doing jobs involving heavy manual labor all their lives for example. If Social Security is inadequately funded, raise the limit on the amount of salary/wages subject to the tax. That used to cover 90% of salary/wages, but because of inflation, it's down to 80%. Even better, remove the cap entirely.
One other point. Looking at life expectancy tables is misleading, because they are determined from birth. There have been tremendous gains in life expectancy from birth due to our greater ability to get children through a dangerous childhood to adulthood. But the increase in expectancy of those that attain age 65 has been very modest and is likely to remain so. This means that raising the age for full Social Security benefits actually has very little benefit actuarially, and as I pointed out above, does considerable harm to those that can least afford it.
7
The soft underbelly of Bret's take on the federal fisc and how we spend it is the simple fact that tax revenues as a percentage of GDP have steadily eroded during the modern, GO-dominated era. We were better equipped to pay for everything, even wasteful wars, when that percentage was just a few points higher.
This is the great endgame of Lewis Powell's sinister roadmap for delivering our society to big corporate business and wealthy elites. They're now, in the fourth quarter, coming for the safety net of a civilized society, turning our fiscal pockets inside-out as if there just isn't any money to spare. It's a con and a lie, and they're very close to pulling it off.
3
Life expectancy is longer, yes, but that hardly means the elderly are fit to work into those extended years. My father lived to 96 1/2; the quality of those last years was hardly a blessing, and they did not bring him joy. To make people work longer, until they hit 20 years of deteriorating health that robs them of the independence they most value, is a cruel sentence.
1
You first.
Congrats to Gail for the Polk Award.
Bret’s half-wrong: BOTH the double-luge AND curling are for the birds, and half the world is still wondering where the soccer ball is in all this, “winter” Olympics or not. Only they call it a “futbol”.
Frankly, I thought Peter Alexander’s question of Ivanka was outrageous, and that Ivanka, who actually came off pretty intelligent in that interview, nevertheless was dumb to have given it to anyone not named “Sean Hannity”. Of COURSE it was an outrageously inappropriate question to ask a daughter of her father – and also both value- and content- free, as what conceivable relevance to anything does a daughter’s view of such things have in the real world; but, then, this is the U.S. press, and she had no reason to expect anything more civilized. The only thing dumber than going on “Today” would have been to sit down with the British press, who are even worse.
On guns, I guess I was misled: I thought “The Conversation” was supposed to be point-counterpoint. Although I’d love to see enough maturity among the people and Congress, on BOTH sides of this issue, to come up with rational compromises, the truth is that I wasn’t expecting to read two liberals going at it. The only balanced actor in the whole national magilla was Donald Trump, because he IS offering compromises – as is Rick Scott of Florida.
1
It’s par for the course (my little hat-doff to Mar-a-Lago) that Gail wouldn’t mention what’s happening on guns in Florida, because it’s Republicans who are doing it; but Bret? Do I hear accusations of Manchurian Candidates?
But, then, Bret saves his own bacon by coming out in favor of entitlement reform, defense spending and Democrats finally taking some REAL responsibility in our governance by doing their JOBS – seeking to bend an extremist arc of conservative legislation with ideas that actually HAVE a dream of being enacted, or at least moderating a conservative agenda.
Not unexpectedly, it’s at this point that we run out of real estate.
2
These days false equivalences parading as pleas for compromise make me...........yawn.
2
@Richard Luettgen:
What conceivable relevance to anything does a daughter’s view of such things have in the real world?
From her lofty and powerful perch in the White House, Ivanka recently tweeted: “Just saw @Oprah's empowering & inspiring speech at last night’s #GoldenGlobes. Let’s all come together, women & men, & say #TIMESUP ! #United”
She apparently considers her views on the issue of sexual harassment and assault highly relevant.
If any other celebrity male had bragged on tape about intimately groping women without their consent and had then been accused of doing so by 16 women, Ivanka would have believed the women.
She’s a hypocrite. She’s also lying. Like everyone else, she knows that Trump is a disgusting pig.
5
Agree, Gail - seems like we would be calling her Ms. Kushner or Ivanka Kushner if she wanted to put herself outside/above "inappropriate questions" doesn't it ?
After all, she's past 35, they've been married for close to a decade, have 3 kids together, and she changed religions to marry him.
64
I've been married more than 20 years and I am way past 35, and I'm still Ms. Not-My-Husband's-Name. And my father's name was a "brand" only in a town of 2,000 souls. It just happens to be the name I was born with, and when I became a wife, I added that role to my identity—I didn't surrender the independent identity I had.
The last name Ivanka chooses to use is the least relevant issue to raise about her answer or the propriety of the question.
16
@C Wolfe - Normally we would agree with you in all respects, except in Complicit Ms. Trump-Kushner's case (in this specific discussion) where the article highlights her playing of 'the daughter' card, which is conveniently disregarded when she's parading on the international stage in the global Hot Spot, supposedly briefing a head-of-state who's our ally - whilst it is well known neither she nor her husband can get their White House clearances after more than a year.
If she's going to play 'daughter', she can't conveniently pretend she would be where she is otherwise, especially since she still goes by her maiden name; which is fine, more power to her, lots of people do, it's her brand - kewl.
But for purposes of this discussion, we were merely trying to point out her illogic.
11
R
It is appropriate because she is an advisor to the president.
Why would she have to give up her birth name? Why must women give up their identity to any man? I certainly didn't and gave my children my name as well and I am older than Ivanka.
Although if I was Ivanka I would have changed my name as soon as I was 18 to get away from my vile father.
Trump' alternate Universe
Five deferments hid what he’d have done
Under fire though he hadn't a Gun,
The Nation should settle
The Congressional Medal,
Given the chance, Don would have won.
86
Kudos to beloved Polk Winner Gail!!!
176
O, come on, Larry! You must have a poem for this! Hope you are well -
a fan
12
Yeah, if that was really an ad lib conversation, it was, uh, I can't even finish the sentence. That conversation was heavily edited, but, still, they are very interesting and well-informed young people. (Everybody is young to me nowadays.)