What Senate Dems Want Before Funding DHS

Senate Democrats are refusing to fund DHS through September unless some changes are made about how ICE is doing deportations. Here are the changes they want (from The Washington Post): 

Tighter rules on warrants

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has advised agents that they can enter homes to make arrests without a warrant from a judge, outraging Democrats, who say such arrests are unconstitutional. Democrats are seeking to bar federal immigration agents from entering private property without a judicial warrant. They also want agents to verify that people are not U.S. citizens before detaining them.

Bar agents from wearing masks and military-style uniforms

Democrats also want to bar federal immigration agents from wearing face masks. The idea is more controversial than requiring judicial warrants to enter homes but is broadly popular, with 55 percent of Americans in favor and 33 percent opposed, according to the Economist/YouGov poll.

Require agents to wear identification and body cameras

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi L. Noem announced Monday that agents would start wearing body cameras immediately in Minnesota, with plans to do the same across the country. But Democrats want legislation requiring agents to wear cameras, along with identification that includes their agency, ID number and last name.

Restrict where and how agents can operate

Democrats want to bar agents from operating near medical facilities, schools, child care facilities, churches, polling places and courts, among other places. They also want to stop agents from “conducting stops, questioning and searches based on an individual’s presence at certain locations, their job, their spoken language and accent or their race and ethnicity,” according to the letter.

Coordinate on investigations

Democrats are seeking provisions to make sure states and local jurisdictions can investigate and prosecute potential crimes committed by agents and excessive use of force. They also want to mandate that states and localities consent to “large-scale operations outside of targeted immigration enforcement.”

New rules on using force and detention

Democrats are pushing to force DHS to adopt “a reasonable use of force policy, expand training and require certification” of its agents.

Fire Noem and remove agents from Minnesota

Democrats did not demand that Trump fire Noem — who has come under criticism from Democrats as well as Republicans — and end the surge of agents in Minnesota. But they wrote that both moves would “show good faith.”

Return to menU.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has advised agents that they can enter homes to make arrests without a warrant from a judge, outraging Democrats, who say such arrests are unconstitutional. Democrats are seeking to bar federal immigration agents from entering private property without a judicial warrant. They also want agents to verify that people are not U.S. citizens before detaining themBar agents from wearing masks and military-style uniforms

Return to menu

How The Senators Voted On Ending The GOP Shutdown

 

The Republicans Know It's A Terrible Bill - But They Will Pass It

A few days ago, the House passed a massive reconciliation bill. The bill would continue the Trump tax cuts of 2017, adding more than $3 trillion dollars to the national debt. It also kicked about 12 million people off the health insurance roles (cutting funding for both Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act). It also cut Snap funding, which would drop about 4 million people from the food program.

It was a very bad bill, and some hoped that the Senate would improve it. They didn't. They made it worse by increasing the number of people who would lose health insurance to about 17 million. With help from VP Vance, they passed the bill and it now goes back to the House.

The media is now full of stories about GOP House members who don't like the Senate changes to the bill. Several members don't think enough has been cut. Several members don't like the Medicaid cuts. Some others are upset with a provision that eliminate renewable energy subsidies. All of them are crowing loudly that they cannot vote for the bill now.

Don't believe them!

Trump wants the bill, and he wants it now. Those GOP House members currently complaining are just engaging in some political theater. When Trump calls them to cajole and threaten, the yellow streak on their backs will shine brightly and they will fold like a cheap suit.

The Republicans know this is a really bad bill, which will hurt their own constituents, but Trump wants it - so they will pass it. Ethical conservatism no longer exists in the Republican Party. It has given way to the cult of Trump.

Vance Cases The Tie-Breaking Vote To Pass Trump's Big Ugly Bill

Three Republican senators voted against the bill - Susan Collins (Maine), Rand Paul (Kentucky) and Thom Tillis (North Carolina). All Democrats and Independents voted against the bill.

The bill must now go back to the House because of changes the Senate made to the bill passed previously by the House.

The Republicans passed a bill that a majority of the voters don't want. They passed a bill that takes desperately needed funds from the poor and working classes to give it to the rich (who don't need it). And they did it to please a narcissist who doesn't care about them or their party.

They knew what they were doing. It is the most blatant example of cruelty and political cowardice I've ever seen!

Senate Balks At Passing The House Bill (But Don't Expect Them To Make It Better)

The GOP-controlled House of Representatives has passed it's "big beautiful bill". While it may not be beautiful to most Americans, it certainly is big. And it will increase the national debt by trillions of dollars over the next decade.

That huge increase in the national debt is caused by extending the Trump tax cuts that were passed in his first term and an increase to the already bloated defense budget. The Republicans claim they will partially pay for the bill by doing away with waste and fraud in social program spending.

But what they have actually done is make huge cuts to Medicaid, SNAP (food stamps), and probably even Medicare (because the huge deficits it creates will force across the board cuts). That means between 8 and 13 million people will lose their health insurance. And millions more will lose help to buy the groceries they need to keep themselves and their children healthy.

What the Republicans have actually done is to take from the poor and working classes to give more to the rich (the only group that doesn't need any government help).

There is opposition in the Senate to the bill, and there may be enough opposition to change the bill. But don't expect those changes to make the bill better or more fair. The sad fact is the Senate Republicans don't care about the poor and working class Americans any more than the House Republicans.

Those opposing senators say the bill increases the national debt too much. But they aren't taking about lowering or eliminating the tax giveaways to the rich. They want to keep those. They don't think the social programs cuts aren't deep enough. They want to take health insurance and food from even more millions of Americans.

It's too early to know exactly what the GOP-controlled Senate will do with the bill, but they won't make it any better for most Americans. They could make it much worse though.

Caroline Kennedy Asks Senators To NOT Confirm RFK,JR As HHS Head

 

77 Nobel Laureates Ask Senators To Vote Against Confirmation For RFK,Jr

 

From The New York Times

Gaetz Is Gone - Hegseth Is Almost Gone - Is Gabbard Next?

Some of Donald Trump's cabinet choices were OK. They were right-wingers (who I believe will help the rich and hurt everyone else), but they are somewhat qualified - and a president deserves to nominate qualified individuals of his choice.

But some of Trump's picks were ridiculous (and unqualified). I'm talking about Matt Gaetz for Attorney General, Pete Hegseth for Department of Defense, Tulsi Gabbard for Director of National Intelligence, and Robert Kennedy, Jr. for Health and Human Services. These nominees were shocking even to Republicans in Congress.

Why did Trump choose these four? I believe he was trying to demonstrate his absolute power over Congress and the Republican Party. He was daring the GOP senators to oppose him.

Well, it's not going as well as he thought it would. Gaetz is already gone and replaced by Pam Bondi (former Florida AG). Now it looks like Hegseth is in trouble. He has an alcohol and womanizing problem, and has failed at leadership of much smaller organizations. Word is that Trump will soon replace him with Florida Governor DeSantis.

That leaves only Gabbard and Kennedy -- and two months before a vote could be taken on their confirmation. That's plenty of time for senators to get cold feet about both. There is already concern about putting Gabbard in charge of all the nation's intelligence services, with her Russian leanings. I believe she will be the next to go.

We'll have to wait and see about Kennedy. I think he may survive, even though he's a conspiracy nut and vaccine denier. He's dangerous and incompetent, but after killing the other three nominations, GOP senators may be afraid to deny another Trump nominee.

I expected the GOP senators to give Trump any crazy thing he wanted, but maybe there is a limit to what they'll do.

These Two Trump Picks Are Totally Unacceptable (Even To Many Right-Wingers)

If I said I approved of Trump's picks for his cabinet, I would be lying. I think he's made a lot of bad picks - picks that will damage the country. Pete Hegseth will damage our military, Lee Zeldin with damage our environment. Linda McMahon will damage our education system. Howard Lutnick is a tariff supporter, which will increase inflation. Robert Kennedy, Jr. will do harm to this nation'a health. And Marco Rubio will happily go along with Trump's denigration of our allies and kowtowing to dictators.

Having said that, I do believe any president has the right to make his own nominations - even a narcissistic right-wing radical. And he has the right to pick nominees who agree with him.

But Trump has made two picks that are unacceptable even to many right-wingers - Matt Gaetz and Tulsi Gabbard. Note in the image above that The New York Post (owned by Rupert Murdoch who also owns Fox News) is opposed to both of these picks.

Gaetz is a known sex abuser (including under-age girls) with the morals of an alley cat. He is far more interested in retribution (for both Trump and himself) than in justice. It would be a national embarrassment to install him as Attorney General.

Gabbard is well known for being a Russian sympathizer and for passing on Russian propaganda. The whole world should shudder at the thought of her heading the U.S. intelligence network.

The Senate has an advice and consent responsibility to approve or disapprove of presidential picks. They should deny these two picks!

It will not hurt Trump to deny him these two picks. He will just nominate others with his political bent, and they will be approved. But hopefully, they will not be immoral sex abusers or a danger to our intelligence agencies.

It's Important To Vote For Down-Ballot Democrats

Most political commentary these days is on the presidential race between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump - and it deserves the attention. It's important.

But we must not forget the down-ballot races. They are equally important.

If Kamala Harris is elected, she will need a Democratic House and Senate. If Republicans control either house of Congress, then nothing can get done. The current version of the GOP has no interest in compromising for the good of the country, and will block anything Harris tries to do.

If Donald Trump is able to squeak out another electoral college win, it will be even more important to have Democrats controlling Congress. He has already told us what he wants to do. His agenda is dangerous - both for the country's democracy and its economy.

Trump could still do some damage with executive orders, but a Democratic Congress could any new laws to take away citizen rights or curtail our democratic system.

Make sure to vote for down-ballot Democrats!

Representatives/Senators With Longest Time In Office

 From The Washington Post

Some Senators Have Become "Hostage Takers"

The following is part of an editorial by the editorial board of The Washington Post:

Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) announced during former president Donald Trump’s arraignment in federal court on Tuesday that he will use what are known as “procedural holds” to stop the confirmation of Justice Department nominees. “We have to grind this department to a halt until Merrick Garland promises to … stop going after his political opponents,” he said in a video posted to Twitter. To decry what he wrongly claims is the politicization of law enforcement, Mr. Vance is, well, politicizing law enforcement.

Mr. Vance is not the only senator taking hostages. Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) is blocking more than 200 military promotions, typically approved by unanimous consent, in a gambit to stop the Pentagon from reimbursing service members who need to travel out of state for abortions. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, said Monday that he’ll block President Biden’s pick to lead the National Institutes of Health, as well as any other health nominee, until the White House releases a comprehensive plan to cut prescription drug prices. Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, announced blanket opposition last month to every nominee for the Environmental Protection Agency until the Biden administration rescinds proposed power plant regulations. . . .

Holds cannot ultimately stop confirmations, but breaking through them requires significant and valuable Senate floor time — typically two or three days per nomination — that is better used, for instance, to confirm judges to lifetime appointments. While we might like to see Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) keep the Senate in session seven days a week and cancel summer recess to force the hands of obstinate members and push through the president’s nominees, that’s not realistic.

Senators in both parties need to respect a president’s right to make appointments. It’s unconscionable to treat the people charged with keeping us safe, whether career prosecutors or generals, as pawns in partisan fights. These senators should drop their holds.

The Senators Voting For And Against The Debt Ceiling Bill

 

Senate Passes The Respect For Marriage Act

The U.S. Senate has passed the Respect for Marriage Act. The bill now goes back to the House of Representatives, where it is expected to pass. President Biden has already said he will sign the bill into law. Here is part of how Amy B. Wang and Mariana Alfaro reported this in The Washington Post:

The Senate on Tuesday passed the Respect for Marriage Act, which would enshrine marriage equality in federal law, granting protections to same-sex and interracial couples.

The bill passed in a 61-36 vote, with 12 Republicans joining Democrats to vote for it. Three senators did not vote. The bill includes a bipartisan amendment that clarifies protections for religious liberties, and it will now return to the House for another vote before it can go to President Biden to sign into law.

The 12 Republican senators who voted “yes” were Roy Blunt (Mo.), Richard Burr (N.C.), Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.), Susan Collins (Maine), Joni Ernst (Iowa), Cynthia M. Lummis (Wyo.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Rob Portman (Ohio), Mitt Romney (Utah), Dan Sullivan (Alaska), Thom Tillis (N.C.) and Todd C. Young (Ind.).

Before the final vote, Collins stood to “thank all of the Republicans who have supported this. I know that it’s not been easy, but they’ve done the right thing.”

Biden celebrated the passage shortly after the tally was announced.

“With today’s bipartisan Senate passage of the Respect for Marriage Act, the United States is on the brink of reaffirming a fundamental truth: love is love, and Americans should have the right to marry the person they love,” the president said in a statement. “For millions of Americans, this legislation will safeguard the rights and protections to which LGBTQI+ and interracial couples and their children are entitled.”

The Respect for Marriage Act would not force states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples but would require that people be considered married in any state as long as the marriage was valid in the state where it was performed. The bill also would repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman and allowed states to decline to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. That law has remained on the books despite being declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling in United States vs. Windsor and its 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which guaranteed same-sex couples the fundamental right to marry.

Dems Are Wrong To Delay The Respect For Marriage Act

Senate Democrats are delaying a vote on the Respect For Marriage Act in the hope that it will be easier to pass after the midterm elections. They are wrong. 

Here's part of what Pamela Paul has to say about the delay in The New York Times:

Why is it always on the Democrats to compromise?

To be the nice ones? To take the high road to nowhere?

On Thursday, the bipartisan group of senators behind the Respect for Marriage Act, which would have enshrined federal protections for same-sex marriage, announced a delay on putting the measure to a vote, which had been expected to take place this week.

According to the bill’s lead sponsor, Senator Tammy Baldwin, Democrat of Wisconsin, postponing the vote until after the November elections would increase the likelihood of getting the 10 Republicans on board necessary to push it through today’s filibustery Senate, where 60 votes would be needed for it to advance.

Baldwin, and Democrats generally, are essentially conceding that it will be hard to get Republicans to commit to a measure that’s anathema to their base prior to the midterm elections. That in the interest of actually passing the bill, as opposed to putting Republicans on the record with an unpopular, anti-same-sex-marriage vote, Democrats should be generous and allow Republicans more time to muster support.

Really? We’re supposed to believe it will be easier to bring Republicans on board after the election? If the Democrats retain the Senate post-election, Republicans will have little reason to vote against their base. If the Republicans retake the Senate, they’ll have less incentive still.

Please. This just makes things easier on Republican lawmakers: A vote would force them to dissatisfy either swing voters, with whom same-sex marriage is highly popular, or their extremist base, with whom (to put it mildly) it is not. Easier for Republicans to scurry away from a proposal that’s politically risky, just as they did earlier last week with Lindsey Graham’s unpopular bill on abortion. And they’re doing this at the expense of the many Americans in same-sex relationships — married, engaged or on the cusp of commitment — for whom this just makes life harder and more precarious.

This is exactly the moment to hold Republicans’ feet to the fire. It’s the moment for those Republicans who are in favor of gay marriage to stand up for what has become a clear majority position in the country, or to cave spectacularly to the prejudices of their base. As Senator Elizabeth Warren put it: “Every single member of Congress should be willing to go on the record. And if there are Republicans who don’t want to vote on that before the election, I assume it is because they are on the wrong side of history.”. . .

If that right is no longer settled law, as had previously been assumed, it’s certainly a settled moral principle. Over the past seven short years and following the course of many long ones, same-sex marriage has reached the status of a basic and bedrock civil right. Currently 71 percent of Americans support same-sex marriage. This not only includes the vast majority of Democrats, but as of 2021, 55 percent of Republicans according to Gallup. That is the definition of bipartisan consensus. . . .

When it comes to polarizing culture war issues, gay marriage may be the most unifying policy there is. Even under the capacious L.G.B.T.Q. umbrella, where disparate issues around sexual orientation, gay rights and gender identity split Americans across the political spectrum, you can’t get much closer to consensus than same-sex marriage. It may be the one clear-cut policy here that unites people rather than divides them. . . .

What’s on Democrats here is the failure, once again, to play hardball — in the same way Republicans have done repeatedly and without remorse. . . .

Democrats are effectively joining Republicans in putting politics ahead of principle — and purely on behalf of Republicans.

The Senate Should Pass The Respect For Marriage Act

The following is from the editorial board of The Washington Post: 

The American public overwhelmingly supports marriage equality. More than 70 percent believe same-sex marriage should be legal, according to Gallup, and a bipartisan bill codifying these protections easily passed the House, with support from 47 Republicans. So it’s disappointing the Respect for Marriage Act is facing inexplicable pushback in the Senate. We urge conscientious Republican senators to work across the aisle to pass a measure that is popular, common-sense and, above all, moral.

In July, after nearly one-quarter of the House GOP caucus joined with Democrats to pass the act, many observers hoped it would herald a rare bipartisan breakthrough on LGBTQ rights. The Senate version of the bill, co-sponsored by Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio), was also backed by Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) did not publicly commit to the legislation, but she indicated support for same-sex marriage.

Unfortunately, the early momentum could be fading, with no other GOP senators coming out in support of the bill. Worryingly, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) — who in July said he saw “no reason to oppose it” — seems to have changed his position, telling constituents he considered the matter settled law and would need to look at amendments.

The act, which is currently less than 500 words, is fairly anodyne: It would repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman. It would also require state governments to recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other states. The legislation was written to offer the same protections to interracial marriage.

Though versions of the bill had been introduced previously, it became a priority after the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade this summer. The court’s willingness to reverse years of precedent raised fears it could also strike down Obergefell v. Hodges, the 5-4 ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in 2015. Heightening that worry was Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion, which specifically took aim at Obergefell.

The Respect for Marriage Act would enshrine a right that 55 percent of Republicans support. Yet many GOP senators have been reluctant to endorse it or have rejected it outright. Some have argued it is unnecessary, even though it would provide millions of LGBTQ Americans with clarity and relief going forward. Others cite unjustified concerns that the bill would allow for polygamous marriages or infringe on religious liberties.

The bill’s sponsors are working on amendments to clarify its scope. The suggested tweaks — which include specifying that marriage is between two people and making clear the measure does not undermineconscience or religious liberty protections — would do no harm. If Republicans are sincere about their concerns, these modifications should reassure them — and leave no room for further excuses.

Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) has said he intends to hold a floor vote on the bill “in the coming weeks.” He also indicated Democrats would prefer to vote on it as a stand-alone measure, rather than inserting it into must-pass vehicles. This appears to be the right approach for now, politically and strategically: GOP senators seem to have more appetite to support the bill on its own, and the vote would force them to go on the record with — and defend — their position on marriage equality.

Let’s hope a filibuster-proof majority of senators does the right thing and votes to protect Americans’ right to marry whom they love.

Who Is The Worst GOP Senate Candidate? Take Your Pick!

Donald Trump may have given Democrats a gift -- control of the U.S. Senate. He did this by backing several incompetent and extremist candidates that may well lose races the Republicans thought they could win. Here's is how Eugene Robinson describes this fiasco in The Washington Post:

The race for the title of most incompetent, least electable Republican candidate for the Senate has become a real competition. Thanks, Donald Trump.

The former president’s endorsements led enough bad Senate nominees to primary victories that the GOP’s hopes of seizing control of the chamber — in what should be a Republican year — are fading. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) acknowledged ruefully last week that “candidate quality” is an issue. The “lack thereof” might have been implied, but his point was obvious.

Former football star Herschel Walker, whom Trump muscled his party into nominating against Democratic incumbent Sen. Raphael G. Warnock in Georgia, had an early lead in the contest for hands-down-worst Republican standard-bearer. His across-the-board incoherence remains unmatched. But while Walker trails in the polls, he is actually doing better than some of his Trump-endorsed counterparts in other states.

Take Mehmet Oz, who trails Democratic Lt. Gov. John Fetterman by 7½ points in the RealClearPolitics polling average in the battle for retiring GOP Sen. Patrick J. Toomey’s Pennsylvania seat.

It makes sense that Trump, a former reality television star, backed a reality television physician. But Oz’s supposed media savvy hasn’t made up for his other problems, chief among them, a lack of connection to the state he wants to represent.

Oz, a longtime New Jersey resident, only moved to Pennsylvania two years ago. Fetterman’s campaign has made gleeful, social-media-friendly hay from that fact, pushing for Oz to be nominated to the New Jersey hall of fame and spotlighting the number of Oz’s residences.

It certainly didn’t help last week that a video of Oz going grocery shopping and complaining about inflation went viral. Oz was trying to portray himself as Joe Average. He did not succeed.

In the video, first he gets the name of the store wrong — it was a Redner’s, a well-known Pennsylvania-based chain, not “Wegner’s,” as he called it. He then examines some raw broccoli, asparagus and carrots, and explains, “My wife wants some vegetables for crudités.” Fetterman, a cargo-shorts and hoodie-wearing Joe Average in everything but height, responded: “In PA, we call this a veggie tray” and issued a bumper sticker with the slogan “Let Them Eat Crudité.”

Then there’s Blake Masters. In Arizona, Republicans had high hopes of defeating incumbent Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly, who looked vulnerable. But Trump pushed the GOP to nominate Masters, a venture capitalist and political novice who has disturbing support from far-right extremists, and who backs Trump’s false claims about the purported illegitimacy of the 2020 presidential election.

Masters has also attacked McConnell as being “not good at” legislating and has called for him to be replaced as GOP leader in the Senate. While Kelly’s political skills are seen by Democratic strategists as less than dazzling, a Fox News poll last week found him leading Masters by eight points, 50 percent to 42 percent.

In Ohio, the GOP ought to have had a lock on retiring Republican Sen. Rob Portman’s seat; Trump won the state by eight points in 2020. But a mid-August poll by Emerson College showed Republican J.D. Vance ahead of Democratic Rep. Tim Ryan by a mere three points, and a string of earlier polls by the nonpartisan Center Street PAC consistently showed Ryan in the lead.

Vance might have gotten rich writing his best-selling memoir, “Hillbilly Elegy,” but Ryan has deep roots in the state’s post-industrial Youngstown area. Vance was stridently anti-Trump before he became stridently pro-Trump, and — like Walker, Oz and Masters — he is a political novice.

Meanwhile, Republican Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, a MAGA true-believer, trails Democratic challenger Mandela Barnes by four points, 50 percent to 46 percent, in a recent Fox News poll. Even Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida is suddenly running for his political life against his likely challenger, Democratic Rep. Val Demings. The polling averages have Rubio ahead; but the only recent survey, by the University of North Florida, showed Demings with a four-point lead. These races are close. And given polling errors in Democrats’ favor in recent elections, the contests might be even fiercer than these figures indicate.

Still, if the GOP snatches defeat from the jaws of victory and falls short in the Senate, Trump will be to blame. It is not clear what impact the Supreme Court’s decision striking down Roe v. Wade — made possible by the three justices Trump appointed — will have on Democratic turnout. But if voters across the country come out in huge numbers to support abortion rights, as they did in the recent Kansas referendum, then all bets are off.

Could Democrats even keep their majority in the House? Still unlikely. But watch this space, because it looks impossible to overestimate the damage Trump can do to his own party.

Georgia Races Are Turning Toward Democrats

The charts above are from the Quinnipiac University Poll -- done between June 23rd and 27th of a sample of 1,497 registered voters in Georgia, with a 2.5 point margin of error.

Senate Passes "Gun" Bill - But It Won't Reduce Gun Violence

 

On Thursday night, the Senate passed its gun bill (the Safer Communities Bill) on a 65 to 33 vote. The bill now goes to the House, where it is expected to pass, and then to President Biden (who has said he would sign it).

Politicians are celebrating the passage, and telling Americans the bill will save American lives. I believe they are wrong. The bill is not a lifesaver, but a bit of political theater designed to get votes in November.

The bill did do one thing that was badly needed -- it provided more money for treatment of the mentally ill. The mentally ill have been shortchanged for decades, and hopefully, it will allow many more to get the treatment they need. But don't expect that to reduce gun violence. Most of the mentally ill are not dangerous, and most people committing gun violence are not mentally ill.

The bill also provides money to help states create and administer red-flag laws. But it does not mandate those red-flag laws, and most red states will not pass such laws.

The bill also allowed the examination of juvenile records for background checks, and closed the "boyfriend" loopholes in the background check law. Neither of these actually mean anything, since the bill does NOT close the loopholes in the background check law. Anyone who cannot buy a gun from a registered gun dealer can still get one at a gun show or from a private individual.

The Seante could a passed a bill that really would reduce gun violence. They could have closed the loopholes in the background check law. They could have banned assault-style weapons. They could have banned high capacity ammunition magazines. They could have raised the age to purchase a gun. They could have created a federal red-flag law. They could have extended the waiting period for buying a gun. 

But they did none of those things (all of which are supported by a significant majority of Americans). So don't be fooled. The Senate bill was just a bit of feel-good political theater, accomplishing nothing.

This chart is from the Gallup Poll -- done between June 1st and 20th of a national sample of 1,015 adults, with a 4 point margin of error.

The Senate Gun Deal Is As Close To Nothing As Possible

The paragraphs above are from The New York Times. They tell us what is in the Senate plan to address gun violence.

Many politicians and cable news pundits are praising the Senate group that came up with the "compromise". I can't be that generous. To me, the plan is as close to doing nothing as it is possible to do.

Look at what is NOT in the plan:

* It does not close the loopholes in the background check law.

* It does not ban the sale of assault-style weapons.

* It does not raise the age limit for buying an assault-style rifle.

* It does not mandate the creation of red flag laws.

* It does not ban the sale of high capacity ammunition magazines.

Frankly, it does nothing that could be truly effective in preventing gun violence. Even if this plan is passed and signed into law, anyone will still be able to buy any kind of gun they want (using the current loopholes in the background check law).

It does provide some money to boost school safety (whatever that means), but ignores the fact that most mass shootings take place outside of schools -- in churches, theaters, synagogues, stores/malls, nightclubs, and anyplace else considered a soft target. 

It provides money for states to create red flag laws, but does not mandate they do so. I expect most states with a GOP government will not do so.

It does provide more money for mental health. This needed to be done, but will have little effect on gun violence. As much as Republicans want to blame gun violence on the mentally ill, it's just not true. Most of the mentally ill are not violent, and most mass shooters are not mentally ill.

The only thing this plan provides is false hope. It gives the appearance of doing something (so politicians can claim they did something), but it will not save many lives (if any).

Shakespeare said it best in MacBeth: "Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing."