Category Domestic Policy

Why I’m Skeptical About #MintTheCoin

Danny Vinik Leave a comment

The big conversation topic over the past week has been about whether or not President Obama should instruct the Treasury to mint a trillion dollar platinum coin, deposit it in the Treasury’s bank account at the Fed and thus avoid a nasty debt ceiling fight with Republicans. Steve Randy Waldman has more technical details on it. It’s an incredibly interesting idea and at first, I was on board, but over the past few days, my mind has changed.

I still believe its legal and would not have any economic impact outside of avoiding a default. It wouldn’t cause massive inflation. And of course the coin doesn’t need to be actually made out of a trillion dollars worth of platinum.

But, I’m skeptical about it for two reasons:

1. Right now, we have two parties in this country: one crazy (Republicans) and one sane (Democrats). Think about what would happen if we actually minted the coin:

Republicans would probably file a lawsuit against the President, claiming its illegal. And then they would spend the next four years making the President’s life as hard as possible. Forget about new gun regulation. Forget about immigration reform. Congress is inept right now, but it can get a lot worse. Mitch McConnell can bring the Senate to a stop. John Boehner can spend the next two years only passing bills to repeal Obamacare. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if House Republicans tried to impeach the President for such a move. The government would grind to a halt. And, we also need to pass a new Continuing Resolution for the federal budget in March so that our government is actually funded. How do you think that would go if Obama mints the coin?

2. It also sends out an image to the rest of the world that America’s government is fundamentally broken. I know – our image is already in the garbage since we’re debating whether we should pay our own debts. Bear with me for a second.

Congress may be incompetent, but the President actually did accomplish a lot in his first term: the ACA, Dodd-Frank Act, ending the war in Iraq, etc. House Republicans can spend all the time they want opposing everything Obama proposes but it doesn’t mean nothing happens. Bills still do pass (even if it’s at the slowest rate ever) and laws are signed. Believe it or not, Congress can actually do a lot less. Other countries, international companies and foreign investors know this. They may also hit the panic button if we mint the coin. Who wants to invest in a country where they need to mint a trillion dollar coin to not default? Who would have any faith that that country could accomplish anything? I’m not sure if the international world would finally lose faith in America, but it’s a risk that I’m unwilling to take.

However, there is a big caveat here. If the option is between going over the debt ceiling and defaulting or minting the coin, I’m on #MintTheCoin’s side. Defaulting is still worse than McConnell and Boehner shutting Congress down. It’s still worse than the international world losing all faith in America’s political institutions.

But right now, there’s a third option: negotiations.

I know the President has said he won’t negotiate over the debt ceiling, but he doesn’t have a choice here. The negotiations aren’t going to be fun. Republicans have the leverage and are going to use it. Some are crazy enough that they actually want us to default. However, Republican leadership understands how horrible that would be. They know they can’t let it happen. They also know that their image is a disaster and the public will largely blame them if we default. They have a number of incentives to negotiate and work towards a deal.

It’s a terrible, horrible standard to set, but we don’t have a choice. Get ready for an ugly couple of months.

An Easy Mistake to Make on Potential Gun Policies

Danny Vinik Leave a comment

Dave Weigel makes a mistake that I’ve heard frequently since NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre’s speech post-Newtown:

But this isn’t an entirely new idea. You probably don’t remember the name of Neil Gardner, a sheriff’s deputy in Jefferson County, Colo. He was the armed guard assigned to watch Columbine High School who usually ate lunch with the students, so he could be in the school.

Wonkblog’s Brad Plumer made a similar error as well in a very interesting post about the research on the effects of armed security in schools:

And what about mass shootings? It’s worth noting that Columbine High School had an armed “community resource officer” on duty the day that two students shot 12 of their peers and one teacher. So armed security guards can’t stop every death. On the other hand, it’s worth noting that the same can be said about some of the gun-control legislation being discussed right now — the federal assault weapons ban was also in effect during Columbine, after all.

I ranted about this on Twitter. The fact that armed security and the federal assault weapons ban did not prevent the Columbine shooting is not  a reason for not implementing those policies.

Certainly, it’s useful to examine how such a policy would have impacted past events. But looking at one event, especially a high-profile one, as a way of evaluating a potential policy is a cheap way to score political points. Yes, having armed security at Columbine High School did not prevent that tragedy, but maybe it would have helped prevent the shooting in Newtown or could help prevent a future one. Same with an assault weapons ban. Both conservatives and liberals have been using this type of argument the last few days and it just muddies the water. We need to examine the pros and cons of each argument overall, not how they impacted isolated events.

Now, I happen to be skeptical of LaPierre’s idea. As Plumer writes, armed security in schools may make students feel less safe and hurt learning and it’s unclear whether it reduces crime. That’s a good argument for not putting a cop in every school. The fact that Columbine High School had a security guard is not.

S.E. Cupp’s Absurd Argument

Danny Vinik Leave a comment

I rarely have time to watch TV during the day, but over break, I caught a bit of MSNBC’s The Cycle yesterday. At the end, conservative host S.E. Cupp gave her take on the current gun control argument in America. It’s online as well. Here’s the most infuriating part:

If you truly believe that guns are the problem, then the only intellectually honest argument is to eliminate them all. Focusing only on assault weapons is a cop-out. In 2010, a mere 2.8% of homicides were committed with an assault weapon, while 42.6% were committed with handguns. And during the 10-year federal ban on assault weapons, numerous mass shootings–including Columbine–still took place. Making it harder to obtain a gun is (sorry about the wording) half-assed. Adam Lanza apparently stole his guns from his mother, who legally purchased and owned them. Gun control advocates should want her guns, and all legal guns, banned, too.

“Gun free” zones don’t cut it either. Because would-be murderers like Cho Seung-Hui, Lanza, and Major Nidal Hassan, don’t respect those artificial boundaries. But aside from the constitutional impossibility of eliminating all guns, prohibition hasn’t proven to be useful in eliminating, well, much of anything, including illicit drugs and, yes, illegal weapons. There are mass shootings even in countries with the strictest of gun laws. And someone intent on killing a lot of people doesn’t need a gun to do it. So if we know that banning certain guns won’t stop gun violence, that gun-free zones don’t protect the people inside them, and that eliminating all guns is impossible and ineffective, then what workable solutions are gun control advocates actually bringing to the table when they say they want to have a “real conversation?”

She then goes on to focus on mental health care for a bit. But hearing that part made my blood boil.

First off, it’s not intellectually dishonest to argue for stricter gun control policies without trying to eliminate them all gun. It’s a remarkably idiotic remark from Cupp (normally I refrain from name-calling, but Cupp’s argument is just too insulting). Her argument basically boils down to “If stricter gun regulations won’t eliminate all shootings, why even bother?”

No gun control advocate is arguing that guns are the only cause of mass shootings. Nor are they arguing that gun control measures will eliminate all gun violence. The goal is to reduce shootings while protecting second amendment rights. And Cupp asks for some workable solutions. Well here you go:

  • A ban on high-capacity magazines accomplishes that goal.
  • Stricter background checks and closing the “gun show” loophole accomplishes that goal.
  • An assault-weapons ban accomplishes that goal.
  • Better access to mental health care accomplishes that goal.

In addition, there are gun-control advocates who want to eliminate all guns (I’m not one of them). But they understand that the elimination of all guns is, as Cupp says, a “constitutional impossibility.” So, instead, they propose realistic policies. What is intellectually dishonest about advocating for a practical, realistic policy to reduce gun violence, even if it’s not your preferred policy?

And just because a policy wouldn’t stop certain past mass shootings is not a reason for not adopting that policy. That argument is what’s really a cop-out.