Chutzpah!

The nearest English translation of the Yiddish word, “Chutzpah”, is unmitigated gall. The translation does not do justice to the Yiddish expression. It is usually accompanied by histrionics suggesting disgust, dismay and derogatory views of the action taken by the person at whom the word is thrust. There is an old joke. A teenager murders both his parents and throws himself on the mercy of the court, pleading that he is an orphan. Now that’s chutzpah!

This morning, I use the word to describe the actions of the Republican leadership of the House of Representatives. Just a few weeks ago, Congress approved the increased US government S1.1 trillion budget for 2014. Let me make it clear: the Republicans in both the House and Senate supported the measure.

My blog of January 19^th set out the important changes to the tax structure. I wrote: “It ought to follow that the US government spending limit will be raised without condition because the Republicans have agreed new spending initiatives.”

According to most polls, the blame for the government closure last year was fixed on the Republican Party, or to be more accurate, its right wing. Therefore, it ought to be reasonable to conclude that the US debt limit, which must be approved by Congress, would be raised to meet the expenditures that Congress has voted for.

Let me elaborate. This is not a situation where the White House has power. The Constitution gives power to the legislative branch: “To lay and collect taxes,…to pay the debts…of the United States and to borrow money on the credit of the United States.” All the administration can do is use its power to persuade Congress and the public at large that the debt ceiling should be raised, so that the government can borrow sufficient funds to pay its debts as they fall due. The decision to do so rests with Congress.

What the government currently faces is a cash flow problem. Anyone who has run a business or a home knows that you need ready cash or borrowing facilities to pay bills when they arise. If you don’t pay, there are consequences, including removal of supply of goods and services, not to mention litigation. In the case of a government, failure to pay debts will damage its credit rating and make future borrowing more expensive, as well as bring its reputation into disrepute.

It is not easy to regulate a government’s cash flow. Its revenue arises from borrowing and taxation. Tax money comes in at irregular times and in sums which it cannot predict with absolute accuracy. As the work force and business profits rise and fall, the tax revenue changes. Therefore, it is possible for the government to have sufficient funds one day, followed by a default position the next day, and back in the black the following day, unless it has borrowing facilities to rely on.

In the case of the US, the Treasury has warned that it could start to face payment problems at the end of February. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA 7) has scheduled time this week for “possible consideration of the legislation related to the debt limit.” Some House Republicans have said that “possible conditions are under discussion,” including the elimination of military pension cuts, which I would remind you, were agreed by the Republicans in December last year, i.e. just six weeks ago. So, the Republicans might agree to allow the government to pay its debts if the government agrees to increase its spending on military pensions! I thought the Republicans were opposed to increases in government spending.

There are only seven legislative days left before the government might have to default or close down. Surely, the taxpayers haven’t voted for this kind of grandstanding. Congress has already approved the expenditure which the administration has to make next month. It really has to stop politicising the debt ceiling issue and do the job it is meant to do.

If Congress fails to legislate on the debt ceiling, causing the government to shut down again, I trust the voters remember this next November. In the meantime, I hope I have persuaded you that the actions of the House Republicans come within the definition of chutzpah!

The State of the Union Revisited

Biden and Boehner. 

I stayed up in the small hours of Wednesday morning to watch President Obama deliver his State of the Union message. It is a splendid occasion. The Chamber of DC’s House of Representatives and its members play host to the Senate, the Supreme Court Justices, the army, navy, air force and marines Chiefs of Staff, members of the cabinet (bar one) and senior members of the administration. In the gallery the First Lady and Mrs Biden are with many invited guests, some of whom get a mention from the President.

The event may not have the pomp and circumstance of the British Opening of Parliament ceremony but what it lacks in colourful show it makes up in American hoopla. The facial expressions of Vice President Biden and Speaker Boehner were amusing, a sort of Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee as good news for one meant bad news for the other.

The President’s entrance is like that of a prize fighter as the entire chamber stands and provides a standing ovation. This year, Mr Obama took a good five minutes to get to the podium. That’s a long time to stand, clapping. One year, I must count the number of times during the speech that legislators and others rise to applaud something said. Of course, roughly half the chamber stays seated and doesn’t applaud at all. It looks really odd. The speech always contains references to the military, always complimentary, at which moment all the Joint Chiefs stand, clap and smile. Occasionally the judiciary gets a mention but the justices never rise. Presumably there’s a legal precedent requiring them to stay seated.

The speech itself could be equated to a diplomatic declaration of war. The President threatened to veto any legislation which would undermine negotiations with Iran! I assume that implies the talks are going well? Syria hardly got a mention. So, genocide is okay? As for the economy, the President laid his cards on the table. Executive orders will be the dish of the day if Congress can’t get it together. Mr Obama mentioned specifically raising the minimum wage and Myra, i.e. “my Retirement Account”, an initiative where savings will be treated like IRAs for tax and “guaranteed” by having the funds invested in US government bonds. CEOs will be pressured to end discrimination against the long-term unemployed. And so it went on, with the President announcing measures that had already been tabled, for example limits on carbon pollution from power plants.

I confess that I am an Obama fan when it comes to speeches. He is a great orator and sometimes becomes folksy. That would woo anyone. However, the style of the speech cannot cover the lack of substance. The President knows this year is his last hurrah, the final chance to change for the better lives of ordinary Americans. Too soon, he will find the nation embroiled in November’s mid-terms and his presidency descend into two years of lame-duck, if his ratings aren’t there already. One wonders if the Framers of the Constitution would like the kind of politics coming from Washington?

The Budget Sausage

I have mentioned before that there are two things you never want to see made: a sausage and a political deal. To my surprise, Congress has made a political deal by coming to grips with the 2014 Budget. A deal has been done. Last week, the House of Representatives which, I would remind you, has a Republican majority, approved a massive spending bill amounting to $1.1 trillion (“the Bill.”) The Senate approved the Bill yesterday (Thursday.) Provided the President doesn’t exercise his veto, the Bill will become law and I know of no reason for the veto to be used. Accordingly, the threat of a US federal government shutdown next month disappears. Also, it ought to follow that the US government spending limit will be raised without condition because the Republicans have agreed new spending limits.

The amount to be spent this fiscal year is mind-boggling. I cannot work out how many noughts go after the one. It should be remembered that the $1.1 trillion relates solely to federal government spend. In addition, fifty states have their own budgets. Also, cities and towns have the right to levy funds for their expenditure. One day, I might design an App to let people know how much America spends on government.

I have researched some interesting elements of the Bill. The pro-lifers will have lobbied hard to continue the ban on the use of federal funds for most abortions, including abortions for federal prisoners. However, pro-choicers will be pleased that the so-called Global Gag Rule, which bans non-governmental organizations in receipt of federal funds from counselling women on certain “health programs,” i.e. abortions, has not been codified.

The Bill does not provide new funds to implement the Affordable Care Act but maintains current funding levels for Medicare and Medicaid Services Centres which oversees the law. However, the Prevention and Public Health Fund has suffered a $1 billion reduction. The Republicans argue that the Obama administration will now be prevented from using this fund to pay for elements of the new Act. I suspect the President will have much to say about healthcare in his State of the Union speech.

Homeland Security will take a $336 million cut in funding but the Bill increases funding for private security contractors, capping the Transport Security Administration to 46,000 screening personnel. This is a win for the Republicans, who seek a reduction in government employment but like their friends in the private sector to benefit from public funding.

The Bill cuts the appropriation for military operations in Afghanistan by $2 billion in light of troop reductions. It also withholds funds from the Afghan government until security conditions are met. Despite concerns for embassy security, following the attack in Benghazi, the Bill reduces security appropriation by $224 million. Also, the Bill bans construction of the new London embassy. Interestingly, Matthew Barzun, the US Ambassador to the UK, has gone on record that the new embassy will be funded by the sale of US government properties in London, not through appropriated funds. Who will win this battle? We Londoners will be hoping that we do not have to look at “The Bunker in Grosvenor Square” indefinitely! Thank you, Mr Ambassador for fighting the fight.

$6.55 billion has been set aside for the Disaster Relief Fund managed by Federal Emergency Management Agency, for use when a state of emergency is declared. Democrats blocked attempts to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions and repealing new clean water regulations. However, the Bill delays premium increases for states, triggered by changes to FEMA’s flood insurance programme. What damage will this cause?

Increases in spending on border security are approved. The Bill authorises $10.6 billion for Customs and Border Protection, an increase of $220 million on the previous year. Interestingly, the Bill bans the Obama administration from transferring terrorism detainees from the facility at Guantanamo Bay. The new facility to be built in Illinois is stopped. GITMO will continue to be a political embarrassment. There are numerous provisions relating to Immigration. The one that caught my eye was the Democrats’ blocking of GOP attempts to prohibit the Justice Department using federal funds to mount legal challenges to state immigration laws.

Contractors bidding for government contracts will not have to disclose campaign contributions. This is a slap in the face for the Obama administration. Obama has considered issuing an executive order requiring disclosure. It is very unlikely he will do so now but campaign funding is already a scandal, courtesy of the Supreme Court.

There is a boost for education funding with more than a $1 billion increase, especially to help the very young. Early Head Start and other pre-school programs are supported. The Bill also provides the Agricultural Department with sufficient funds to provide 5.6 billion free or reduced-price school lunches. More than 30 million school children are eligible for this benefit.

The Bill is more than two thousand pages. No doubt, there is something for everyone. And when the President sets out his legislative agenda for 2014, we can expect the Congressional amity to disappear quite quickly as the “Business as usual” signs are hung on the doors of the House and Senate. What a pity. Wouldn’t it be nice to see more Congressional sausages?

A Bridge Too Far

The lexicographer, Doctor Samuel Johnson, wrote how death concentrates the mind wonderfully. So, it would seem, does presidential politics, whether or not related directly to the White House. Just a mere whiff of a story sets the American media concentrating on a quarry like a pack of hunting dogs. Suddenly, Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey finds himself in the role of the fox being pursued by the pack.

Last week, The Bergen Record, a publication of which few of us were previously aware, blogged about lane closures from Fort Lee to the George Washington Bridge last September. It claimed they were politically motivated. Christie’s deputy chief of staff, Bridget Kelly, ordered “some traffic problems.” Mayor Sokolich of the town of Fort Lee was being punished, supposedly by Christie because the mayor had not endorsed Christie in his campaign for re-election last fall.

On any view, this is bush league politics. Why would people caught in traffic jams associate the cause solely with the Democratic Party? Would drivers really blame Sokolich for his way of running Fort Lee? Additionally, Sokolich is a Democrat. Why would he endorse a Republican candidate in any event and why would the latter need the endorsement? Initially, Christie brushed the story off but he soon realised his error and took action by firing Kelly, removing close adviser Bill Stepien from his political organization and answering 94 questions at a lengthy press conference.

According to most polls, Christie is the front runner in the race for Republican nominee for president in 2016. David Axelrod, Obama’s long-time chief political strategist, believes Christie will survive “Bridgegate” but I disagree. First, Republican politicos have stayed silent for the past few days. Unlike the ordinary voters, they don’t seem to want to support Christie. Perhaps the influence of the Tea Party can be seen.

Second, history is against Christie. Ever since President Lyndon Johnson lied about the conduct of the Vietnam War to the American public, the media has treated Presidents and contenders for this office as targets on a political firing range. There are so many examples. In his 1988 run for office, George Bush promised “no new taxes.” He didn’t break the promise but the media characterised increases in tax rates during Bush’s administration as “new taxes.” In 1992, his opponent Bill Clinton, who was mired in a sex scandal, romped home, with phrases like “it’s the economy, stupid,” as he castigated Bush for new taxation.

The Democrat nominee in the 1988 race, Michael Dukakis, ran into trouble with the media over law and order issues. After a stump speech, he was asked what he would do to the killer of his wife and children. He fluffed the answer, trying to be fair and reasonable. Thereafter, he was portrayed by the media as weak on crime and ineffective. His campaign was damned.

Some presidential hopefuls get laughed out of the race, courtesy of the media. 1988 was a vintage year. Gary Hart, a contender for the Democrat nomination, was conducting an extra-marital affair with Donna Rice. The press took a photograph of the pair on a yacht, aptly named “Monkey Business.” Goodbye Gary.

The 1972 campaign was replete with dirty tricks. The Democratic contender most feared by President Richard Nixon was Ed Muskie. Nixon’s people played politics to remove Muskie from the race, using Muskie’s wife as bait in an episode known as “The Canuck Letter.”

The author of the letter claimed to have met Muskie and his staff in Florida and to have asked Muskie how he could understand the problems of African Americans when his home state of Maine has such a small black population. A member of Muskie's staff was said to have responded, "Not blacks, but we have Canucks". The author claimed that Muskie laughed at the remark. "Canuck" was a term often considered derogatory when applied to Americans of French-Canadian ancestry, especially in New England.

One night before a primary, Muskie delivered a speech in front of the offices of the Union Leader who had published the letter, calling its publisher, William Loeb, a liar and lambasting him for impugning the character of Muskie's wife, Jane. All mainstream newspapers reported the event and that Muskie cried openly. Muskie’s conduct was not considered to be presidential and his campaign was over. These examples are evidence that just one slip by a candidate is sufficient to end a campaign. Sometimes the slip is minor but in others it is serious, such as Nixon’s cover-up of the Watergate burglary.

There are parallels between “Bridgegate” and the Watergate scandal. Nixon did not approve or have knowledge of the Watergate break-in before the event. Similarly, I do not believe Christie either ordered the bridge lane closures, or had prior knowledge. Unlike Nixon, I don’t believe Christie has lied to the press and he has taken decisive action to remove staff. So, why do I think Christie’s campaign for president is holed below the waterline?

The American voter will focus on the kind of administration Christie runs because the media will eventually ensure it by moving onto the larger picture. “Bridgegate” may not be an isolated incident. Either Christie encourages his staff to play dirty politics or he is unaware that his staff does this kind of thing behind his back. If the latter, presumably the staff thinks that this is the sort of thing that Christie likes. Either way, the voters may decide that this is the kind of conduct that will dominate Christie’s White House, in which event they will not support him.

Even in the cynical and politically divided America of the twenty first century, the majority of American voters expect a great deal from their president, including respect for the office and doing what is morally right. I believe it is this factor which will end Christie’s run. Put simply, people won’t believe he is clean.   

The Alternative State of the Union Message.

On the 21st January, 2014, the President will make his way to the Capitol to deliver his State of the Union address, as required by Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution. Traditionally, the speech sets out America’s position in the world, as well as domestically, and highlight’s the Executive’s agenda for the next twelve months. It would be sensational, downright fanciful, if Mr Obama did not predictably pander but really “told it as it is.”

 “My Fellow Americans,

 “In this year, the sixth of my presidency, I cannot tell you the state of our union is strong. While pretty well all my predecessors in this job have made this claim, how can I do so when our nation is so divided politically, economically and culturally? I know some of you would say our country is strong because we all want the same things for our people. But do we? Is there any real evidence of this? What the past five years have taught me is that we want the best for ourselves. It’s called enlightened self-interest.

 “There are powerful vested interests, and a vast lobbying industry in support, close to the legislators of this nation. All seek self-advancement. Let me give you examples. The National Rifle Association wants to support its members. These people sell guns, all kinds of guns, automatic and semi-automatic weapons, some of which cost several thousand dollars. It is a Big Business. There have been far too many shooting atrocities during my presidency. Who can forget the children of Newtown, only a year ago? And the NRA response was, “arm the teachers.” When a member of this body was shot at point blank range, the NRA reaction was to suggest armed guards. What message is sent to our children and future legislators? Sadly, the Supreme Court, when given the opportunity to do something positive to limit citizens’ rights to own armed weapons has sat on its hands time after time. The Second Amendment is misconstrued time after time. The militia to which the Framers referred is now our armed forces!

 “And Big Oil has upped its prices at the pumps. In many states, gas costs more than four bucks a gallon. One reason for the increase is simple economics, the law of supply and demand. Many more people in China, India and emerging nations now drive motor cars. People around the world are flying in increasing numbers. But why do the oil companies need tax breaks? It is outrageous for them to have such benefits at the taxpayer’s expense but my efforts to change the rules came to nothing as Congress rejected the proposals.

 “Why does Congress support the NRA, Big Oil and other large institutions at the taxpayer’s expense? The answer is simplicity itself. The NRA, the oil industry and similar entities provide our legislators with financial support. You don’t bite the hand that feeds. What chance do hard-working American families have of getting a fair deal when their DC legislators are in the pay of special interests?

 “Last month, your legislators here in Congress, in a rare show of bipartisanship, possibly encouraged by a risk of delay to their Christmas break, reached a budget compromise. The deal meant the sequester largely remains in place. I admit the sequester is ugly. It was one of those two things you never want to see made, a political deal. The other, by the way, is a sausage.

 “The new budget means airline tickets will be more expensive, and the price of milk will rise, a tax on children. If you’re long-term unemployed, you’ll be on your own. It’s what my political opponents used to call “rugged individualism.” It’s what I call a life of hell. And if you’re a federal government employee, your pension could be cut, depending on age. And this last deal relates not just to civilians but to the armed forces too.

“Am I pleased with this budget? Of course I’m not but it was a political deal I had to take to keep the federal government open. And we’re not finished yet. Sometime in February/March, we face another government shutdown if the Debt Ceiling is not extended by Congress. I now look my political opponents in the eye. You can try to make political capital out of this issue but hear me clearly. I will not budge one inch. I demand a clear, unconditional increase to the Debt Ceiling so America can pay its debts as they fall due. May I remind those of you of the Tea Party persuasion, that many of these debts were incurred when a Republican occupied the White House?

 “There are other domestic issues to cover. First is immigration. Last year, the Senate passed a measure that got nowhere in the House. May I remind you that The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act was a broad-based proposal for reforming the U.S. immigration system. The bill addressed all aspects of the immigration process from border and enforcement issues to legal immigration reforms. I call upon you legislators to look at narrower bills if you really must but let’s not declare war on people who have lived, worked and paid taxes in this country, granted that these men and women are not properly documented. I want my administration to pass legislation to help immigrants who have played the game and deserve legitimation.

 “Second is healthcare. The new Affordable Healthcare Act was passed by a majority in Congress and approved by the Supreme Court. It is now the law of this country and should be accepted as such. The attacks through the back door made on it by my extreme political opponents are to be deplored. Don’t use the Debt Ceiling to try to get your way on other laws. Instead, be democratic. By all means, debate the issue in the forthcoming mid-terms. If you win a majority in both Houses, so be it but I will veto any change in the law that seeks to deny our poorer citizens access to affordable healthcare. Why do I say this? Simply, it is the right thing to do.

 “The third issue is interest rates. The economy is showing clear signs of improvement and there will soon be pressure to raise rates to keep inflation under control. The nation’s savers have had to bear the brunt of low rates for too long and it is time they caught a break. However, a rise in rates will hurt working families who are buying their homes with the benefit of a mortgage. If rates rise, I will ask Congress to pass a law protecting from foreclosure for a reasonable period those people who invested more than 20% of their own money in their homes.

 “Upward movements of interest rates will not be limited to USA. We live and work in a global world and all G20 countries will be affected. This brings me to considering America’s place in the world and our leadership. You cannot expect me to lead if Congress constantly cuts the ground from under me. Just a few weeks ago, the Assad regime in Syria used chemical weapons on its own citizens, a heinous crime. This administration stood ready to punish the government of Syria for this atrocity. Congress got cold feet and there was inadequate political will to support the executive. How can you people, sitting in these rows in front of me, expect America to show leadership when you act so cowardly? The Middle East Spring of two years ago seems to have descended into winter. Civil wars, oppressive regimes pervade a sense of hopelessness.

 “Surely, these are instances where the United Nations should lead but it has become a toothless body. I want to confer with the leadership of both sides of the aisle as to whether the USA should serve notice to the UN to act as required by its charter or find another home. I am fed up with diplomats’ parking tickets and other petty abuses of our system of government while they line their pockets with American dollars provided by our taxpayers, as they act against the interests of those oppressed for purely political reasons.

 “We are in a very different world now to that which I found in 2009. Last year, Secretary of State Kerry negotiated a deal whereby Iran could be welcomed back into the fold of lawful nations. Predictably, some nations including Israel, as well as several members of this body, shouted and screamed at the terms agreed. What they failed to do was read the agreement. It is a process and nothing will be given away until Iran has met its side of the bargain.


 America must change its way of doing business in the world and lead in a series of coalitions with other nations to achieve peace. This will be at the forefront of John Kerry’s policies for the rest of my presidency. That said, we should try the same medicine at home. I call upon all legislators in this body to act in the interest of all Americans, not just those who voted for them. Let’s become truly bipartisan, to fulfil the dreams of the Founding Fathers.”

Politics and Religion: A Disastrous Combination.

This will be my last blog of the year, partly as my daughters who live far away are congregating at the family home and partly because I am frustrated by what I see in American politics. The Senate remains the scene of a potential filibuster to pass the budget! Hopefully, I’ll be refreshed for the New Year.

Last week, I said I would put my head in a noose and write about religion American-style. This is a first for me. In all the years that I have written about the American scene, I felt that religion was the third rail, i.e. touch it and you die. However an article in the Sunday Times of 8^th December has changed my mind. Columnist Andrew Sullivan suggested that in America, religion and politics tend to be fused and religious doctrine is wielded as a political weapon.

Sullivan poses an interesting argument. He suggests that the extreme right believed the Pope, thus the entire Catholic Church, was on its side, as opinions on abortion and contraception and its anti-communist hatred were shared with the Pontiff. Shock jocks like Rush Limbaugh invoked Pope John Paul II as a Catholic who “had no truck with leftie criticisms of capitalism.” However, recently, tea party followers like Sarah Palin – remember her, she could see Russia from her bedroom – are now questioning the ideology of the Catholic Church, suggesting it has become liberal, thus weak. Sullivan concludes that the Pope’s message of Love needs to be shared by materialistic Republicans and Democrats alike.

To ram the point home, in a message this week entitled Fraternity, The Foundation and Pathway to Peace, Pope Francis criticised injustice, human trafficking and organised crime as deterrents to the path to peace. He attacked policies of big salaries for the rich while the poor survive on crumbs and that governments should do more to close the gap. Previously Pope Francis has made his views known on trickle-down economics, financial speculation and the idea that the market knows best. He believes all are wrong and damaging to society.

Why some Republicans would think that the Catholic Church only supports their views is unmitigated gall. Do these people really think there are no Democrat Catholics in America? Is it their opinion that the Pope would support right-wing Americans who want to impose “family values” on the rest of the country? A certain Senator from Pennsylvania stood on this platform not long ago in a run for the Presidency. He was soon cast aside.

Some time ago, I came across an article in the American Sociological Review. It looked at church attendance and found that, at least in a Chicago suburb, of those interviewed who said they attended church weekly, only half actually did. If anyone wants chapter and verse for the article, they have only to ask. I don’t suggest the article proves anything except the peculiarity that a number of Americans felt too embarrassed to tell researchers they did not attend church regularly. Was there a political connection? Possibly peer pressure was in force. 

What is my position? Simple, religion and politics don’t mix. I learned this lesson well from the Founding Fathers. The first amendment to the Constitution spells this out loud and clear: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” I accept that religion plays a big part in American life. One has only to drive through any number of cities and towns to see the vast numbers of churches that are supported by the local populace. But politicising religion is a different matter and it leads to some of the grief America is experiencing now.

May I close this blog by wishing you a Merry Xmas, a Happy New Year and may your God go with you.

What About Newtown?

Over the past forty five years of travelling to the United States, I have found that there are two topics which one raises with locals only with extreme care, namely religion and gun laws. But it’s Christmas time, so this week I’m writing about guns; next week, I’ll take my chances on the power of religious interests.

One year ago in Newtown, Connecticut, there was an appalling outrage when more than twenty young children were murdered. The outcry both locally and in the United States was predictable. “How could this be allowed to happen?” was the question asked often by parents and relations as their grief was televised to the American public. It took only two days for the National Rifle Association to wade in with their solution: arm the teachers!

I have grown up in a country where arming police is a rarity. Citizens have no right to arm themselves. Indeed, it is a crime to do so except in specific situations, such as being a member of a shooting club. At large, the western world does not arm its police except in rare circumstances. As a result, are murders rife in the west? America is the murder capital of the west by a country mile. Here in the UK we are not exempt from murderous outrages but they are few and far between. However, shootings like those in Connecticut have been the norm in the US during 2013, albeit not on quite the same scale. Every month, one reads of yet another outrage.

I believe one of the real difficulties is that many Americans have a love affair with guns. I know several Americans who live in peaceful states, yet have an arsenal at their disposal in their homes. Added to this, American television is rife with violence. At all times of the day and night, you can watch people killing one another using handguns and shotguns. Indeed, one might suggest that being armed is the default American position.

Since Newtown, there has been no real debate about guns. There was a half-hearted effort by Congress to tighten up the period of time and other rules before a gun might be sold. Senate Republicans threatened to filibuster the legislation and that was that. No change. It is not surprising the members of Congress don’t want to alter the feeble gun laws. A phenomenal percentage of legislators are supported by the NRA and the latter are not shy about telling those they sponsor that not only will that sponsorship be withdrawn but the NRA will support a rival candidate.

What confuses me is that Americans really believe that they have a Constitutional right to be armed. On any sensible reading of the Second Amendment, the argument cannot hold water. The Amendment is specific; weapons may be held by people who are forming a militia. The Supreme Court in its lack of wisdom has interpreted the Amendment in a way that is contrary to common sense. I suppose with lawyers, it was ever thus.

Those who know me understand how much I love my American trips. My wife and I have friends and relations in many states. A majority of the people with whom we associate do not want to see the public weaponised. For them, it is sufficient for the police and the armed forces to be armed.

What is certain is that there is no political will to have America’s gun laws changed. I find it sad that safety is not an issue for the American public when it comes to guns but it is paramount on manufactured goods. Arguably, I am out of touch with ordinary Americans on the right to bear arms. Somehow, I don’t think I am and for sure, the people of Newtown are with me.