On March 13, and with a mere 5 days left in the 2023 legislative session, two major bills met their final fate in the New Mexico House of Representatives.  The bill killed in committee  was the  Paid Family and Medical Leave Act family and the bill passed by the full House was the Voting Rights Act.

SENATE PASSED FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE ACT KILLED IN HOUSE COMMITEE

On March 13, the House Commerce and Economic Development Committee voted 6-5  to table Senate Bill 11 known as the Paid Family and Medical Leave Act.  Senate Bill 11 had already passed the Senate.

Senate passage of  the Paid Family and Medical Leave Act  resulted in a strong, organized onslaught of opposition from business owners and organizations and was fiercely  opposed by  Republican legislators who described it as a tax on both workers and employers alike.  Several days of negotiations between bill supporters and skeptics failed to produce a compromise both sides could accept.

The House Committee vote blocks the bill from advancing any further in the House thereby effectively killing it.

HOW IT WOULD HAVE WORKED

Senate Bill 11  was written  by a task force featuring advocacy groups, business owners and labor union representatives that met last summer and issued a final report in October.

The program if enacted would have provided up to 12 weeks of paid time off for an employee who has a new child,  is a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking or has a serious medical illness or to care for a family member with a serious medical illness.  The Department of Workforce Solutions would have administered the program. Employees would pay $5 for every $1,000 of income and employers with 5 or more employees would pay $4 for every $1,000 of income into a fund. Businesses with fewer than five employees would be exempted.  About two-thirds of the state’s roughly 44,000 businesses with more than one employee would not have to pay into the fund, though their employees would be required to do so.   Starting in 2026 the fund be used to compensate employees who qualify for the paid leave.

The formula to be paid the benefits would have been 100% of minimum wage plus 67% of wages above minimum wage. Only minimum wage earners would earn their entire pay during the paid leave. The employee requesting time off would have to show documentation to establish the request for the leave and the Secretary of Workforce Solutions can impose fines on anyone who tries to commit fraudulent claims. $36.5 million in nonrecurring funds from the general fund over the next 2 years would have been provided.  Once the program was  up and running by January 1, 2026, it  would begin paying back the state the money and it was  expected to take a full 6 years.

ATTEMPT TO SALVAGE  

Opponents of Senate Bill 11 said  it was too broad and too burdensome  on small  business and questioned  whether a state fund that would be created to make leave payments could end up facing insolvency in future years.

Sponsors and supporters of Senate Bill 11 did attempt to rescue it from defeat by meeting with opponents and agreeing  to several changes before the House Commerce and Economic Development Committee met.   The concessions included clarifying that paid leave would be calculated over a rolling 12-month period and not a calendar year and limiting the size of annual adjustments for employer contributions into the fund.  Bill sponsors rejected the far-reaching changes of allowing businesses to opt in to the paid leave program.

The concessions did not satisfy opposition concerns.  Republican Rio Rancho Representative Joshua Hernandez  said during the committee hearing:

“This is just not enough to make this [bill] palatable.”

Representative Hernandez and other opponents argued the bill would be another body blow for employers, after the COVID-19 pandemic, a paid sick leave mandate on private employers that the legislature enacted last year and now in effect and the increase to the state’s $12 per hour minimum wage.

TWO DEMOCRATS JOIN REPUBLICANS TO VOTE NO

What came as a surprise to some was that 2 Democrats joined the 4 Republicans on the committee to vote to table the measure

Albuquerque North East Heights  area Democrat Representative Marian Matthews said she received phone calls from hundreds of people about the bill. It was Matthews  who cast the deciding vote to table the measure after meeting with bill sponsors over the last several days. Mathews  said this:

“This was a one-size-fits all approach. … It didn’t feel right for New Mexico.”

The other Democrat who join with the 4 Republicans to table the measure Gallup Representative Patricia Lundstrom, D-Gallup, who said of the bill:

“It’s not ready for prime time.”

DISAPPOINTMENT EXPRESSED

Santa Fe Democrat Representative Linda Serrato said after the vote:

“It deserves to be voted on. … My goal is that this coalition keeps growing and growing.”

Allen Sánchez, president St. Joseph’s Children Hospital, which operates  the states largest home-visiting program said sees first hand the need for paid family medical leave. Sánchez sad this after the vote:

“We have recently heard legislators talk about protecting women of color [but] the tabling of [Senate Bill 11] lets down women and infants. … We assure you, we’ll be back [next year].”

NEW MEXICO VOTING RIGHTS ACT PASSES AS DID PROTECTIONS FOR ELECTION WORKERS

Last year during the 2022 legislative session, a short 30  day session, the Voting Rights Bill failed in the Senate after passage in the House despite endorsement from Governor Michell  Lujan Grisham, Secretary of State  Maggie Talouse Oliver and Democratic leadership.  It was  Republican Senator William Sharer, R-Farmington, who effectively killed the measure last year with a filibuster on the Senate floor.

This year,  New Mexico House voted 42 to 25 to enact House Bill 4, the Voting Rights Act and  to concur with the Senate’s amendments to the bill.  The voting Rights  bill is now forwarded  to the to  Gover Michelle Lujan Grisham where she expected to sign it.

The enacted Voting Rights Act  does  the following:

Phases  in a system of automatic voter registration, such as during MVD  transactions, for citizens who are qualified to vote but aren’t registered and provided enhancements to voter registration systems and voter data privacy.

Creates a permanent absentee voter list. Voters will have the option of opting in to receive ballots by mail before every election rather than  having to apply each time.

Provides for automatic restoration of voting rights for inmates exiting prison. Under the current system, they must complete probation or parole before registering to vote again. There are 21 states that automatically restore voting rights after incarceration. Another 16, including  New Mexico, require someone convicted of a felony to complete their entire sentence, including probation and parole, before registering to vote.

 Establishes  a Native American Voting Rights Act intended to better coordinate access to the polls on tribal land and allow the use of tribal buildings as a voter-registration address for people without a traditional  address.

 Calls  for election day as a school holiday.

The  House also passed Senate Bill 43 a bill to protect election workers with broad partisan support which would make intimidation of election officials and workers a fourth-degree felony, is also headed to the governor’s desk.

The link to the quoted news source is here

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/new-mexico-voting-rights-act-heads-to-governors-desk/

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The 60-day legislative session ends March 18. Democrats in the 2023 legislative session hold a 45-25 majority in the House and a 27-15 in the Senate. Given the fact that there is a mere 4 days left in the 2023 legislative session, time has  run  out on passage of other significant legislation, especially all the gun control measures,  as  legislators  are now forced to move more aggressively to complete their work. Expect Republicans to rely on the filibuster in the last few days to kill Democrat initiatives remaining to run out the clock and the Democrats have only themselves to blame given their majorities in both chambers.

Links to related news coverage are here:

https://nmpoliticalreport.com/2023/03/14/committee-tables-paid-family-and-medical-leave-bill-likely-ending-bills-hopes-this-year/

https://nmpoliticalreport.com/2023/03/13/voting-rights-expansion-bill-heads-to-governors-desk/

On March 10, the City of Albuquerque Office of Inspector General released an investigation report that found that the Albuquerque Parks and Recreation and the Mayor Keller Administration spent $236,622 to purchase artificial turf  for the Rio Rancho Events Center. The purchase was for the benefit of the privately owned New Mexico Gladiators to play their home football games.

The Inspector General found that the purchase of the artificial turf “appears to be a donation/ gift” to benefit the privately owned Gladiators and found that the team’s logo with colors is emblazoned on the field reflecting ownership.  The Inspector General noted in no uncertain terms that the New Mexico Department of Finance (DFA) found the purchase of the turf violates the  New Mexico Constitution clause commonly referred to as the “anti donation clause” which strictly bars public government entities from donating to private corporations.

The executive summary of the Inspector General report states as follows:

On December 7, 2022, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) received an allegation that the City’s Parks and Recreation Department (P&R) violated the NM Anti-Donation Clause through the purchase and installation of indoor stadium turf for the Duke City Gladiators (DCG) resulting in a misuse of taxpayers’ dollars. The OIG determined that the allegations contained elements of potential fraud, waste, or abuse and that it was appropriate for the OIG to conduct a fact-finding investigation. The purpose of the investigation was to determine if a violation of Article IX, Section 14 of the New Mexico Constitution occurred concerning the purchase and installation of stadium turf for the Duke City Gladiators.

As a result of the investigation, the OIG was able to substantiate the allegation that the City’s Parks and Recreation Department violated the NM Anti-Donation Clause through the purchase and installation of indoor stadium turf for the Duke City Gladiators resulting in a misuse of taxpayers’ dollars. In part, this allegation was able to be substantiated based on a statement in a letter from the New Mexico Department of Finance and Administration (NM DFA), whereby, NM DFA’s legal counsel determined that the use of the funds would violate the terms of the appropriation and that if the City were to use the funds in the proposed manner it would also violate the New Mexico Anti-Donation Clause, N.M. Const, art. 9, § 14.

It has been reported that the Attorney General’s Office is now reviewing the Inspector General’s report.

The link to review the entire Inspector General report is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/inspectorgeneral/documents/22-0203-c-report-of-investigation.pdf/view

PRESSURE FROM HIGHER MANAGEMENT

The report in detail describes as a “rushed” acquisition process to buy the artificial turf.  The report states that documentation reviewed by investigators shows that there were numerous City of Albuquerque employees involved in the turf purchase including at least one city attorney and the turf vendor.   The report states all knew the field turf was being purchased for use by the Gladiators in Rio Rancho. There is no mention of any City of Albuquerque employee questioning or attempting to stop the purchase

One of the most revealing interviews conducted by the Inspector General was that of an employee with the Parks and Recreation Department involved in the procurement process for the artificial turf.  The city employee said that management made it clear there was an urgency to procure the artificial turf quickly and the employee felt “absolute pressure”. The employee said that upper management “wanted this done yesterday” and indicated that there was a “big push to make it happen”.  The city employee stated that City attorneys, procurement personnel, and upper management said to “make it happen”. The employee told the Inspector General  feeling  “queasy” knowing the artificial turf  was to be installed in Rio Rancho.

A DEPARMENT DIRECTOR MISLEADING CITY COUNCIL

A very serious finding in the Inspector General’s report was that Albuquerque Parks and Recreation Director Dave Simon provided incorrect information to the Albuquerque City Council at the January 8 meeting of the City Council. City Hall observers say it was lying.  Multiple city councilors were aware of the purchase likely because of a November, 2022 Channel 13 Larry Barker investigation report.  At the January 8, 2023 city council meeting,  councilors questioned why the City of Albuquerque would pay for artificial turf with city of Albuquerque funds and then turn around and  install it a City of Rio Rancho facility.

Simon told the city council the City of Albuquerque had contributed $74,000 to the turf purchase while the State of New Mexico contributed the $162,622 remaining balance.  The Inspector General found Simon’s representation was not true and cited records showing the city paid the entire sum and was never was reimbursed by the state for any amount.

In the 2022 legislative session, state lawmakers appropriated  $160,000 for artificial  turf playing fields at park and recreational facilities in Albuquerque. Financial documents reviewed reflect the city paid for the turf and its installation in April 2022 and prior to the City receiving the state money for its own use.

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE FINDS VIOATION OF ANTI DONATION CLAUSE

Article IX, Section 14 of the  New Mexico Constitution provides in part as follows:

“Neither the state or any county, school district, or municipality, except as otherwise provided in this constitution, shall directly or indirectly lend or pledge its credit or make any donation to or in aid of any person, association or public or private corporation … .”

The single most damaging finding in the Inspector General report involved the City of Albuquerque asking for state reimbursement of the funding for the purchase and the New Mexico Department of Finance and Administration (DFA) denying the request.  State finance officials ruled the appropriation was not legal because public money cannot be used for the benefit of a private business as per the anti-donation clause contained in the New Mexico Constitution. The DFA told the City of Albuquerque its use of the funding violated the terms of the New Mexico legislature’s appropriation to the City of Albuquerque.

The DFA told city officials, including the city attorney that if the city used the funds for the artificial  turf purchased in the manner stated  it would  violate the state’s Anti-Donation Clause. For that reason, the city’s Inspector General found it violated the state’s anti-donation clause and was a misuse of taxpayer dollars.  The Inspector General also found that the City of Albuquerque used voter approved bond money allocated for City of Albuquerque  parks and recreation facilities.  The Inspector General   concluded officials failed to make sure the purchase was cost-effective and benefited the citizens of Albuquerque.  A Parks and Recreation Department employee also told investigators there was pressure from high up in the Keller Administration to push the purchase through.

CITY RESPONSE TO INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT

Mayor Tim Keller’s administration, the City Attorney Office, the City’s  Parks and Recreation Department  and the Gladiators’ owner disagree with the Inspector General report. According to City of Albuquerque officials, the city retains ownership of the artificial turf which also has the Keller Administration publicity logo “One Albuquerque”  on it.

City Attorney Alan Heinz wrote in a letter in response to the OIG report that City of Albuquerque  is  merely allowing the Gladiators and Global Spectrum,  the private company that operates the Rio Rancho Events Center,  to temporary use the artificial turf in Rio Rancho in exchange for “valuable consideration.” managing

The “valuable consideration” is outlined in the City of Albuquerque’s agreement with Global Spectrum and the Gladiators  and requires the team  to host and staff 14 youth events per year and for the team to provide the city 50 free tickets to each home game. The Inspector General’s investigation raised serious doubts  about whether Global Spectrum and the Gladiators were meeting those terms.

According to the Inspector General report a city employee who was supposed to know about the youth events said none were scheduled from April 2021 to January 2023  and multiple city staffers somehow involved in the turf purchase said they had never personally seen the free tickets.

Franchesca E. Perdue, a city spokeswoman with Department of Finance, said the city’s purchase of the artificial turf was done properly and said this in a statement:

“The cursory OIG report was misinformed. Under their logic, CABQ could not buy a track for the Lobos, netting for the Isotopes, or turf for the United; all of which we have done for years.

This is a City-owned resource sponsored by Albuquerque legislators. It was not a gift to a team and the City Attorney agrees it is not a violation of the anti-donation clause.  We are more than willing to work with the OIG to update their findings.”

Perdues statement “The cursory OIG report was misinformed” totally omitted the fact the it was the New Mexico Department of Finance  legal counsel that determined that the use of the funds would violate the anti-donation clause .

GLADIATOR OWNER DISPUTES INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT

Gladiators owner Gina Prieskorn-Thomas disputed the Inspector General report.  She said her team has met its obligations “and then some.” She said tickets are distributed to “various youth organizations affiliated with the city” and that the youth camps have occurred as required. The Albuquerque Journal reported that  Prieskorn-Thomas said  she provides camp attendance reports directly to Albuquerque Parks and Recreation Director Dave Simon, but told the Journal should could not furnish the for review until she’d consulted with an attorney because the documents  contain children’s contact information.

Prieskorn-Thomas said she lobbied state legislators for the turf field and that it was initially supposed to go into Tingley Coliseum, a state-owned facility where the Gladiators previously played. When the pandemic prevented them from using the venue in 2021, they relocated to Rio Rancho. While there is no agreement yet to return to Tingley, she said she is in discussions with property representatives to move back.  Prieskorn-Thomas said this:

“There was never any intent for that field not to be in Albuquerque.”

Prieskorn-Thomas never said why it was alright to install the artificial turf purchased and owned by the City of Albuquerque in a State Facility such as Tingly Coliseum and  not installed in a City of Albuquerque owned facility.

Review of Keller campaign finance reports reveals that Prieskorn-Thomas donated $1,250 in her name and $250 under a company named Dark Horse Investments INC for a total of $1,500 to past Keller election campaigns.

The link to the quoted news source is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2580625/albuquerque-bought-artificial-turf-and-installed-it-in-rio-rancho-a-new-investigation-found-the-purchase-violated-the-nm-constitution.html

https://www.koat.com/article/gladiator-turf-purchase-albuquerque/43353709

CITY COUNCILLORS REACT

It was in November of 2022 that KRQE 13’s  Investigative Reporter Larry Barker first uncovered the city’s questionable spending on artificial turf for the Duke City Gladiators.  Barker contacted Democrat  Albuquerque City Councilors Louie Sanchez and Republican Brook Bassan for their reaction to the Inspector General’ report finding  that the purchase violated the state constitution.

City Councilor Louie Sanchez said this:

“That money should be spent for Albuquerque taxpayers within the Albuquerque city limits or at an Albuquerque facility.”

KRQE Investigative Reporter Larry Barker ask city Councillor Brook Basaan if the artificial turf  transactions was “by the book?”

ABQ Councilor Brook Bassan responded:

“No. No, not at all. I think that there’s nothing by the book about this. As councilors, as a mayor, as public servants to the city of Albuquerque, we are under obligation and law to make sure that we don’t break the anti-donation clause, and this clearly does that.

City administrators claimed the people of Albuquerque still benefit from that turf because the facility hosts youth activities, but the Inspector General  found that was not enough to make the purchase above board, and recommended the city try to recoup the misspent money from the Gladiators and the events center.”

The Attorney General’s Office is now reviewing that report.

https://www.krqe.com/news/albuquerque-metro/albuquerque-inspector-general-buying-turf-for-rio-rancho-events-center-violated-state-rules/

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Review of the Inspector General Report reveals that the purchase of the artificial turf was so very wrong on a number of levels.   It does not pass the smell test for the following reasons:

FIRST: The NM anti donation clause is clear that no municipality shall directly or indirectly make any donation to or in aid of any person, association or public or private corporation in aid of any private enterprise.   The acquisition of artificial turf for the benefit of a private entity falls squarely into the very definition of what is prohibited. If the artificial turf is in fact owned by the city of Albuquerque, then the city should be charging the Gladiator’s football team and the City of Rio Rancho a fee or rent for use of the artificial turf.

SECOND: Upper management in the Keller Administration exerted immense pressure on lower-level employees to “make it happen” and Keller Administration upper management “wanted this done yesterday”.  Higher ups in the Keller Administration insisted on the purchase.

THIRD: The City’s voter approved bonds were clearly meant for spending the money raised  on City of Albuquerque facilities, but the funding was spent on an asset installed in a City of Rio Rancho facility. The field is located in the City of Rio Rancho and any proceeds or gross receipts tax on ticket sales, concessions, or merchandise are not benefiting the citizens of the City of Albuquerque but providing  a benefit to the citizens of  the City of Rio Rancho.

FOURTH: All the documents reviewed by the Inspector General clearly show  that the $260,00 was used to buy artificial turf  for use by United New Mexico with its logo on the turf even though it had no ownership interest in the turf. The City of Albuquerque , Global Spectrum L.P., and the Duke City Gladiators (DCG) documents reflect that the artificial turf playing field would be an asset of the City, the City would retain ownership, yet it was installed in a City of Rio Rancho facility  and not a City of Albuquerque  facility.

FIFTH:  All City of Albuquerque employees, especially those in the Parks and Recreation Department, knew the artificial turf would be going to Rio Rancho but they said nothing nor did they question or resist  it or make any effort to stop it from happening. Feeling “queasy” does not cut it when no attempt was made to stop the transaction or object to or sign off on it with documented  protest.

SIXTH: The City’s response to the Inspector General’s report was lame at best as it attempts to down play what happened by saying “OIG report was misinformed”.  The city  totally ignored the fact that New Mexico Department of Finance and Administration  legal counsel determined that the use of the funds would violate the terms of the appropriation and that if the City were to use the funds in the proposed manner it would also violate the New Mexico Anti-Dnation Clause, N.M. Const, art. 9, § 14.

SEVENTH: It’s painfully obvious that the Keller Administration at best mislead the City Council and at worst down right lied to the city council at the January 8 meeting when councilors questioned why the City of Albuquerque would pay for artificial turf with city of Albuquerque funds and then turn around and install it a City of Rio Rancho facility. City Councilors Louis Sanchez and Brook Basaan now raise objections in a Larry Barker interview yet do not do a  thing demanding accountability or disciplinary action for being lied to or mislead by the Keller Administration at a city council meeting. It is getting to the point that the City Council needs to place under oath Keller officials to testify truthfully before they make presentations to the city council.

Eighth: Mayor Tim Keller is a former New Mexico State Senator and a former New Mexico State Auditor. He is very familiar knows damn well how the “anti-donation” clause works and how very serious it is to violate it.  When the Inspector General reports that a Parks and Recreation Department employee told investigators there was pressure from “high up” in the Keller Administration to push the artificial turf purchase through, there is  very little doubt that pressure came from the Office of Mayor Tim Keller, perhaps even Keller himself or  Chief Operations Officer Lawrence Rael doing the Mayor’s bidding.  After all, that’s what any influential football fan and supporter of the Duke City Gladiator’s would do.

MAYOR TIM KELLER

Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller makes it known to the press and the public, and even brags about, being a former St. Pius High School Quarterback. He enjoys living his glory days on the football field, so much so that he has actually showed up to LOBO Football practice field to give a “pep talk”  to the UNM football team players as the coach introduced him and then watched with glee.  Keller has also “suited up”  in a Gladiator Football Team uniform to throw around a football with the New Mexico Gladiators.  Keller has had numerous  “publicity shots” of himself  posing in a Gladiator football uniform holding a football with one head shot of him with a very serious look of determination on his face like any high school football jock would do for a year book.

In 2017, when then New Mexico State Auditor Tim Keller first ran for Mayor, he was swept into office by a landslide.  He ran for Mayor riding a wave of popularity he carefully crafted as a white knight who proclaimed he stopped “waste, fraud and abuse” of taxpayer money.  He relished uncovering “waste, fraud and abuse” by government and referring cases to authorities for prosecution.

Since becoming Mayor, Tim Keller he has virtually  ignored “waste, fraud and abuse” within city hall thereby condoning it.  On more than one occasion “waste, fraud and abuse”  has been found within the Keller Administration, especially within the Albuquerque Police Department with overtime pay scandals and Mayor Keller has never denounced it and has done nothing to curb it.

Now this. The Inspector General has “determined that the allegations [in the complaint] contain elements of potential fraud, waste, or abuse” and found that that the purchase of the artificial turf was a violation of the State’s anti-donation clause. More than a few city employees who were involved the $236,622 purchase need to be removed.  Despite what is going on, Keller is nowhere to be found, he has not been interviewed as to what he intends to do to make this right.  His silence is so typical of Tim Keller to keep low not to be seen during controversy involving his management team and it reflects his failure as a Mayor.

 

Over the last 10 years, New Mexico children have been subject to the most heinous acts of depravity that have shocked the conscious of its citizens that has resulted in deserved severe criticism of the NM Children Youth and Family’s Department.

In 2013 it was 9 year old  Omaree Varela who was beaten to death by his stepfather a full 6 months after child abuse was reported to the Children Youth and Family’s Department and the Department did nothing to intervene.  In 2016  it was 10 year old Victoria Martens who was raped and murdered and then dismembered and her body burned in a bathtub as an attempt to dispose of her body.   In 2017 it was  the  torture-murder of 13 year old Jeremiah Valencia who was confined in a dog crate and tortured for  weeks that left him hobbling on a cane with broken ribs and numerous other injuries. In 2019 it was murder of 4 year old James Dunklee Cruz  who had suffered severe physical  abuse all 4 years of his life. In 2021 it was the  fentanyl death of 12 year old Brent Sullivan.  In February,  a 10-year-old foster child was sexually assaulted by a 14-year-old foster youth in a bathroom of CYFD’s main office building in Albuquerque.

These 5 children, and many more not making the news, suffered abuse, injuries and death at the hands of those who were supposed to care for and protect them.    Each time the deaths made it into the news with reports of the  horrendous abuse, law enforcement and  the New Mexico Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD), and other agencies promised to do better to keep this from happening again,  but it keeps on happening.

New Mexico State Senator Joeseph Cervantes, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said during a recent committee hearing on CYFD reform legislation:

“I don’t have a nice way to say this any more. …  I’m beyond frustrated. … We’re telling CYFD to get off their ass.”

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

Saying enough is enough with the mismanagement of the New Mexico Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD), the 2023 New Mexico Legislature has taken very aggressive action to demand more oversight of  the CYFD Department. During the 2023 New Mexico Legislative session, more than 30 bills have been filed that would impact CYFD’s operations.

PENDING LEGISLATION

A few of the most notable  bills that would impact CYFD operations include the following:

SENATE BILL 150 would require CYFD to conduct a family assessment when a newborn suffers from drug withdrawals and parents don’t comply with a hospital-issued plan of care.

SENATE BILL 107 gives CYFD up to three days, not two days, to file petitions in cases where the agency has taken custody of a child.

HOUSE BILL  434 would change self-care plans for newborns.

BILLS GETTING SIGNIFICANT TRACTION

Three bills that have gained significant traction in this year’s legislative session are House Bill 10 and House Bill 11 and Senate Bill 373.  HB 10 and SB 373 are identical calling for the creation of an independent office to oversee CYFD.

House Bill 10  would relax some of the confidentiality restrictions in the Children’s Code, allowing CYFD’s Child Protective Services division to disclose more information to more entities. The bill has the support CYFD and child advocacy groups.  The House Health and Human Services Committee voted to approve it by unanimous vote. HB 10 would  greatly expand information that can be released about child abuses cases resulting in death or where a child has almost died.  The information that could be released would include the child’s cause of death, where the child was living at the time and all prior reports of abuse or neglect made to CYFD. House Bill 10 will  also allows for more information to be given to a foster parent, prospective foster parent, grandparent, sibling or relative being considered for placement of the child.

House Bill 10  also requires that CYFD create a portal on its website disclosing mandated reports and basic data such as the number of fatalities or near fatalities of children in CYFD custody and the number of abuse and neglect complaints that lead to investigations.

House Bill 10  sponsor Rep. Marian Matthews, D-Albuquerque, had this to say about the legislation:

“When a child who is alleged to have been neglected or abused dies, the public asks ‘how could this have happened,’ and, unfortunately, almost always there have been no public answers. …This is truly a sea change in the role of the agency in helping people understand in providing answers to important questions when we have children who are hurt or die when in custody of the department.”

HOUSE BILL 11 AND SENATE BILL 373

House Bill 11 and Senate Bill 373 are identical and both create the Office of The Child Advocate that will result in aggressive legal oversight for CYFD. The function of the  outside office would be  to  oversee CYFD and investigate complaints, order changes and prosecute if necessary.  The Attorney General will be in charge of the oversight office. The new office would operate an electronic portal and telephone line to accept complaints, investigate and attempt to resolve complaints, and evaluate CYFD policies and procedures.

On March 8, both bills passed their respective chambers. The state House voted 56-9  in favor of House Bill 11 and the Senate  passed Senate Bill 373 on a 30-8 vote with  both bills establishing  an Office of the Child Advocate within the state Attorney General’s Office.  Last year a similar bill passed the House but died in a Senate committee.

Lawmakers they took a different approach this year and  are hopeful one of the bills in fact be enacted.  If either bill passes, it will make New Mexico the 44th state with an ombudsman-like office for its child-welfare system.  Maralyn Beck with New Mexico Child First Network said this:

“This is our fifth year introducing this bill and it’s just so important. 43 other states have a similar office, and Idaho and Louisiana are attempting to introduce it as well. So this is a national best practice.”

Albuquerque State House Representative Marian Matthews, co-sponsor of the House bill  11, said the Legislature should seize the chance in the final days of this year’s session to strengthen oversight and operations of the CYFD. Mathews said this:

“We really have an opportunity this session to make some substantial changes in the laws that govern CYFD and those changes I believe will make it a more effective and responsive agency.”

Democrat State Representative Tara Jaramillo said this:

“This year we did a concerted effort to work with the department and to see what their concerns were. Being heard is important. They heard us as well. So that may have been one of the changes or it may just be time.”

Republican Sen. Crystal Diamond of Elephant Butte urged her colleagues to pass their version of the measure, Senate Bill 373 and said:

“We have a crisis going on in New Mexico. .. We’re seeing the most horrific cases of child abuse in the nation. … If [the Attorney General] is committed to pushing back against CYFD to make sure that our vulnerable children are protected, we want to work with him, someone who is passionate, who will do the job and will provide the oversight that CYFD has failed at for so long. ”

Republican New Mexico state Senator David Gallegos said this:

 “I would love to be invited when the governor signs this because I’ve been fighting this for years, we just need to make sure that our children are our priority and not the adults in the room.”

The House and Senate must sign off on identical legislation to grant final approval to a bill.  One chamber or the other must approve the other’s CYFD bill to send it to the Governor.

GOVERNOR’S OPPOSITION TO HOUSE BILL 11 AND SENATE BILL 373

Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham has recognized and  acknowledged CYFD is “dysfunctional.”   Notwithstanding the Governor  has been very resistant to any separate oversight of the CYFD proclaiming that would lead to a confrontational relationship between government offices and make it harder for CYFD to hire new social workers. In February, Lujan Grisham  announced a “shakeup” of CYFD that entailed creating an “office of innovation” within the CYFD, a new advisory council and a national search to hire several new top agency officials. U,

Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham has already voiced her opposition to creating an outside office to  oversee New Mexico’s troubled CFD called for in house bill 11 and senate bill 373 and has indicated she will veto the legislation.  Notwithstanding the Governor’ opposition and the Governors Executive Order, legislators have advanced both House Bill 11 and Senate Bill 373.   Although  both bills have received wide bipartisan support,  there are still  9  Democrats and Republicans opposed the  legislation.

Mesilla Democrat Representative Micaela Lara Cadena opposed the House Bill 373  said the bill didn’t adequately reflect the importance of reuniting families and supporting mothers who have struggled. She said this:

“We have thrown away these mothers and these families where these kids came from.”

Links to quoated news sources are here:

https://www.koat.com/article/two-bills-cyfd-oversight-moving-forward-office-of-child-advocate/43266675#

https://www.abqjournal.com/2579670/house-approves-bill-creating-new-nm-child-welfare-oversight-office-even-as-veto-threat-looms.html

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

One thing is for certain.  The legislature and the general public have reach a level of frustration and downright hostility towards the Children Youth and Family Department that goes beyond the headlines, beyond the excuses and way beyond the empty  promises to do better.

There is no denying it. The Children Youth and Families Department has been a failure for too many years in protecting the state’s children. The abuse and the resulting body count is a tragedy beyond belief. Too many of our most vulnerable  children have fallen through the cracks, too many have died.  The Governor is  politically blind and foolish not to recognize the hostility.

Democrats in the 2023 legislative session hold a 45-25 majority in the House and a 27-15 in the Senate. The 60-day session ends March 18. Given the fact that there is a mere 6 days left in the 2023 legislative session, time is running out and is now of the essence.  Now is the time  for legislators  to  move aggressively forward and do something and mandate oversight of the CYFD.

Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham  should sign the legislation  immediately upon passage and get on board with stronger oversight of the Children Youth and Family Department. Too many children’s lives are at stake.

 

With a mere 7 days left of the 2023 New Mexico legislature, things are heating up with major bills being acted upon. Following is what has happened in Santa Fe over the last few days:

“BENNIE’S BILL” PASSES

On March 8,  House Bill 9, commonly known as “Bennie’s Bill”  passed the New Mexico House after passage in the Senate. It is now goes to Governor  Michelle Lujan Grisham for her likely approval and signature to become law. “Bennie’s Bill” is named after 13-year-old Bennie Hargrove. A classmate shot and killed him using a parents gun  at their Albuquerque middle school in 2021. 14-year-old Juan Saucedo Jr. used a parent’s gun from home in the shooting.  On March 2, Saucedo plead no contest to second-degree murder, and will stay in custody until he’s 21.

House Bill 9 deals with unlawful access to firearm by minor. The legislation is sponsored by  sponsored by Rep. Pamelya Herndon, Sen. Mimi Stewart, Rep. Joanne Ferry, Sen. Antoinette Sedillo Lopez and Rep. Patricia Roybal Caballerro.  The bill was originally written as a safe gun storage bill, but was amended  to secure  more support.

House Bill 9 makes it a crime to store a firearm in a way that negligently disregards the ability of a minor to access it. Criminal charges could be brought only if the minor later brandishes or displays the firearm in a threatening way or uses it to kill or injure someone. Senate Republicans succeeded in amending the bill by a narrow 20-19 vote to exempt hunting and other recreational activities involving firearms from being covered by the bill.   House Bill 9 would make it a misdemeanor to negligently allow a child access to a firearm, and would make it a felony if that negligence resulted in someone dying or suffering great bodily harm.

Bennie Hargrove’s grandmother, Vanessa Sawyer said this about passage of  the legislation:

“It’s a preventative measure. It’s not something that’s going to solve the problem, but it’s a start. I’m glad that New Mexico was willing to take that start. It may save lives and it will hold people accountable for not being responsible with a gun. … This is amazing, very moving and emotional. I’m happy that a change is about to take place for New Mexico. It’s a very important law and the family can’t believe it has happened. … We’re sorry that it happened this way following his death. I feel Bennie is going to rest now. He’s going to be satisfied and just as excited as I am.”

Rep. Pamelya Herndon, the primary  sponsor of House Bill 9,  had this to say about its passage:

“While life will never be the same for Bennie’s family, House Bill 9 will help prevent other families in New Mexico from experiencing the same unthinkable tragedy.  … This bill is the result of years of hard work by the families and students who have been affected by gun violence, and I am so happy to see it finally cross the finish line in the legislature and head to the Governor’s desk.” 

https://www.koat.com/article/roundhouse-bennie-bill/43267048

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/bennies-bill-clears-house-heads-to-governors-desk/

VOTING RIGHTS ACT PASSES FULL SENATE

On March 8, House Bill 4, the Voting Rights Act, passed the NM Senate on a 27 to 14 party line vote after 3 hours of debate. The major provisions of House Bill 4 are as follows:

1. Phasing in a system of automatic voter registration, such as during MVD  transactions, for citizens who are qualified to vote but aren’t registered.  Supporters say it would include an opt-out for those who don’t want to register, similar to what’s used in Colorado.

 

2. Creation of a permanent absentee voter list. Voters would have the option of opting in to receive ballots by mail before every election rather than  having to apply each time.

 

3. Automatic restoration of voting rights for inmates exiting prison. Under the current system, they must complete probation or parole before registering to vote again. There are 21 states that automatically restore voting rights after incarceration. Another 16, including  New Mexico, require someone convicted of a felony to complete their entire sentence, including probation and parole, before registering to vote.

 

4. Establishing a Native American Voting Rights Act intended to better coordinate access to the polls on tribal land and allow the use of tribal buildings as a voter-registration address for people without a traditional  address.

 

5. Calling for election day to be a state holiday.

It was  Republican Senator William Sharer, R-Farmington, who effectively killed the measure last year with a filibuster on the Senate floor. In order to run out the clock on the legislative session, Sharer talked about San Juan River fly-fishing, baseball rules, Navajo Code Talkers and the celestial alignment of the sun and moon during his lengthy filler buster on the Senate floor. Sharer’s antics are a prime example of the lengths Republicans will go to in order to interfere with a person’s right to vote and make it as difficult as possible  to vote and to disenfranchise people.

Albuquerque area Democrat Senator Katy Duhigg, a former Cit of Albuquerque City Clerk and sponsor of the bill had this to say during debate:

“Our democracy, our sacred right to vote is under threat and this requires a strong community driven response. That’s why this bill is before this body today.   The most significant— or the biggest part of this bill— is the Native American Voting Rights Act.  As you all know, Native Americans have only had the right to vote in New Mexico for 74 years. And while we recognize the courage and perseverance of [Native Americans], we must also recognize our role in disenfranchising native voters in New Mexico and the long way we have to go in eliminating double standards for our states original inhabitants. … [House Bill 4 seeks to align]  precinct boundaries so that they honor the existing political boundaries of tribes and pueblos by requiring translation services at the polls, allowing voters living on tribal lands to designate tribal government buildings as mailing addresses to facilitate absentee voting, and giving tribal governments more ability to administer elections in ways that makes sense for their communities honoring local expertise and tribal sovereignty.”

Farmington area Republican Senator  Bill Sharer offered a floor substitute that included an update to the Native American Voting Rights Act which included broadcasting in native languages of nations, tribes and pueblos and allows the nations, tribes and pueblos to determine their own precinct and polling locations. The floor substitute failed on a 14 to 27 vote.

Duhigg found the floor substitute interesting but opposed it  and said this:

“I’ll say I think there are actually some interesting ideas in here that, had I seen them at anytime before we were in the middle of the floor debate on the bill, I probably would have been interested in integrating them into the bill and I’d be happy to work in the next session on continuing to bolster our Native American Voting Rights Act. …  But at this time, this is unfriendly because it would deprive New Mexico voters of all the other protections in the bill.”

REPUBLICAN OBJECTIONS

Republican Senators repeated many of their of the same objections and criticism of the almost identical Voting Rights Act that the voted against last year. Those objections included:

1. The voluntary permanent absentee voter list which allows people to choose to sign up to be put on a list to receive an absentee ballot through the mail for each election. Currently, voters must request an absentee ballot for each election. Under the permanent absentee voter provision, a voter would fall off the list if they did not vote in two consecutive elections.
2. Restoring the right to vote for felons released from prison and updating the process for automatic voter registration so that it is an opt in process rather than an opt out process. The issue with the opt-in-opt-out question is that some religious faiths reject involvement in politics.  Sen. Greg Baca, R-Belen, said that he had been in contact with lawyers for the Jehovah’s Witnesses, which are a faith that remains politically neutral based on biblical teachings.
3. Republicans objected to the monitored, secured ballot drop boxes and argued they would be subject to easy theft. The boxes are monitored by motion sensor video surveillance which are public records. Duhigg responded that the boxes are anchored to the ground to prevent theft, Duhigg said.

House Bill 4 will now be referred  to the House for concurrence since the bill was amended in committee. If the bill is signed into law, the bill would go into effect January 1, 2024.

The link to quoted news source material is here:

https://nmpoliticalreport.com/2023/03/09/voting-rights-bill-passes-senate-nears-governors-desk/

BILL BANNING FIREARMS FROM POLLING PLACES ADVANCES TO HOUSE FLOOR

On March 7, Senate Bill 44  which will  bar firearms from being brought within 100 feet of a polling place of from taking a firearm inside a polling place passed the House Judiciary Committee on a 5-4 party line vote with all  Democrats voting YES in favor and all Republicans NO in opposition.

Mason Graham, the policy director for Common Cause New Mexico, a group that supports the legislation, said at least one report was received during last year’s election cycle of an individual armed with a firearm at a polling place. Graham said  such instances can deter some voters from casting a ballot.

Senate Bill 44 was opposed by all  Republican lawmakers on the committee  who questioned whether it could apply to businesses or homes located adjacent to a polling place.  Clovis area Republican Andrea Reeb, a former District Attorney, had this to say:.

“It seems like it’s going to cause a lot more issues than it’s going to solve.”

Democratic House Judiciary Committee supporters of the bill said common sense would prevail in such situations  comparing the bill to a current prohibition against bringing guns into school zones.

HOUSE BILL 306 PROHIBITING PURCHASE OF FIREARMS FOR FELONS

Currently, there is no law in New Mexico to punish someone who gives a firearm to a convicted felon.

The House Judiciary Committee endorsed HOUSE BILL 306 that would make it a fourth-degree felony to knowingly buy a firearm for someone who is not eligible to possess the weapon, such as a convicted felon or a minor. House Bill 30  is sponsored by House Minority Leader Ryan Lane, R-Aztec, and backed by Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham. It passed the committee without dissent on a 9-0 vote.

On March House Bill 306 passed the New Mexico House with a 62-3 vote with bipartisan support.

Democratic New Mexico state Rep. Raymundo Lara said this about its passage:

“The loophole is that the law does not exist. So, this is the very first time something like this has happened. And I’m very happy to see that it’s a bipartisan effort. House Bill 306 is a bill that will hold people accountable when they purchase a firearm for another person who shouldn’t have it. And we were careful to include the purchases and the transfer of firearms.”

New Mexico House Minority Leader Republican Rep. Ryan Lane and Democratic Rep. Raymundo Lara worked together on the bill. Lane said this:

“It’s important in New Mexico because right now our state prosecutors and our state police officers can’t pursue these types of crimes. And so, it gives our law enforcement another tool to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.”

House Bill 306 will now be forwarded to the Senate for consideration.

https://www.koat.com/article/new-mexico-house-passes-bill-felons-guns/43277590

The measures are among a gun safety bills that are still in the mix as lawmakers enter the homestretch of the 60-day legislative session that started Jan. 17.

Senate Bill 44  and HOUSE BILL 306 are among numerous  firearm regulations proposals that are under considerations.  However, the majority of the others  have stalled in committee  including the  proposed ban the sale of automatic firearms and hollow-point ammunition the proposal to establish a 14-day waiting period before the completion of a gun sale.

On March 8, Senate Judiciary Committee voted  to approve Senate Bill 427 a waiting period bill with an exception for buyers who have a permit to carry a concealed firearm, sending it on to the full Senate.  Senate Bill 427 is  sponsored by Democratic Senator  Joseph Cervantes of Las Cruces and it  is similar to another bill awaiting action by the House, though the House version doesn’t have the concealed-carry exemption.

The link to quoted news source material is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2579845/bill-banning-firearms-from-polling-places-advances-to-house-floor-while-other-gun-bills-also-advance.html

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The 60-day session ends March 18. Given the fact that there is a mere  8 days left of the 2023 legislative session, it is becoming painfully obvious that there is much legislation, especially gun control legislation, that  is  not going to get enacted and it’s a damn shame.

Democrats in the 2023 legislative session hold a 45-25 majority in the House and a 27-15 in the Senate. New Mexico Democrats are looking very foolish not enacting their priorities, especially reasonable and responsible gun control measures, as New Mexico Republican legislators continue with obstructionist tactics.

 

On March 6, the New Mexico House of Representatives released a massive $959 million tax package. House Bill 547 is  nearly 70-pages long. The Omnibus Tax policy bill  offers a number of credits and relief for most taxpayers across the state but it falls short of Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham’s efforts to offer much larger rebate checks to state residents battling inflation and the after-effects of COVID-19.

The House Taxation and Revenue Committee, chaired by Rep. Derrick Lente, D-Sandia Pueblo, voted 9-5 to approve the bill on a  party-line vote, with all  Democrats voting in favor and Republicans in opposition, before it was released to the public and Lente held a press conference on the bill.  House Bill 547  would provide $300 rebates for New Mexico taxpayers, further reduce the state’s gross receipts tax rate, increase alcohol taxes and expand a child tax credit so that parents could get up to a $600 per child tax break.

House has been in the works for a number of weeks. It is a consolidation of more than a dozen different tax proposals.  The ultimate goal is to use the state’s $3.6 Billion surplus from oil an gas  revenues to make New Mexico’s tax code more progressive in reducing overall taxation in the state.

DEVIL IN THE DETAILS

The major provisions of House Bill 547 are as follows:

NEW TAX BRACKETS: House Bill 547 would create 2  new tax brackets in the state’s personal income tax system including a new top tax  bracket of 6.9% which is an  increase  from the current 5.9% top bracket. The top tax bracket would apply to income over $500,000 per year for married couples filing jointly. Those who fall in the highest taxable income bracket of  married couples filing jointly who are earning $500,000 or more  will see an increase from 5.9% to 6.9% in tax payouts.

REDUCED REBATE CHECKS:  Rebate checks of $300 for individual taxpayers and $600 for married couples are provided for in the House Bill 547. The $300 are less than half the $750 rebate amount that Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham proposed. About $440 million, half of the initial cost of the tax package, would go toward issuing rebates issued to all New Mexicans who filed tax returns in 2021, perhaps by as soon as this spring.

According to  Rep. Derrick Lente, D-Sandia Pueblo, the bills sponsor,  the size of the rebates were scaled back during  legislative negotiations because lawmakers have $1 billion to enact tax changes under a $9.4 billion budget bill approved by the House last month which is  still awaiting final approval in the Senate. “  Lente claims the governor’s initial plan  would have completely extinguished the legislatures ability to do anything tax-wise for the state.

LOW INCOME TAX REBATES: A low-income tax policy component is included  that offers a series of tax rebate exemptions for individuals, those over 65, blind residents and children.

RURAL HEALTH CARE CREDIT: A rural health care practitioner credit for up to $5,000 for physicians, dentists, podiatrists and other medical professionals and up to $3,000 for pharmacists, dental hygienists, nurses and midwives and other medical professions is provided.

CHILD INCOME TAX CREDIT: A child income tax credit, depending on the gross income of the taxpayer, of up to $600 per child is provided. House Bill 547 provides Child Income Tax Credit of up to $600 for low income families, which is an increased from $175,  and $400 to $200 for higher earners. President Joe Biden increased  the federal child tax credit during the pandemic and government studies found it  reduced childhood poverty. The increased federal credit has now  disappeared with the pandemic.

ELECTRIC VEHICLE INCOME TAX CREDITS: A refundable electric vehicle income tax credit of $2,500 for every electric vehicle purchase or $4,000 for households under 200%  of the federal poverty level is provided.  An additional $300 credit would be allowed for car-charging equipment and installation.

ALCOHOL TAX: House Bill 547 contains an alcohol tax provision that would raise the tax on beer, wine and spirits by 15 cents per gallon.  Local microbreweries, distilleries and wineries would be exempted from the tax hike. The increased alcohol tax would generate close to   $36 million by the 2025 budget year for a new state fund. The new  fund would be used to pay for expanded alcohol treatment and prevention programs, as well as support for victims of alcohol-related crimes including domestic violence. At 86.6 deaths per 100,000 people in 2020, New Mexico has the nation’s highest alcohol-related death rate.  There have been some lawmakers have during the 2023 legislative  session  an even bigger  alcohol tax hike aimed at reducing consumption.  All increases in the alcohol tax have been effectively  opposed by alcohol industry lobbyists  who argued such a policy would hurt local New Mexico businesses.  Jimmy Bates of Premier Brewing Company told the committee  the tax could increase the cost beer by  as much as 37% in taxes for beer alone.

CORPORATE TAX:  Currently there are two corporate tax rates: 4.8% and the 5.9%. House Bill 547 would make the corporate tax a flat 5.9%.

CAPITAL GAINS TAX:   Capital Gains Tax from the sale of stocks and businesses  would be increased.  House Bill 547 proposes that the  40% deduction on unearned income be capped at $2500, bringing New Mexico  in-line with 41 other states.

NO TAX  “PYRAMIDING” PROPOSAL

What is glaring from reading House Bill 547 is the widely discussed  proposed tax exemption for accountants, architects and other professional services that had been proposed as a way to reduce tax “pyramiding,” or taxes being levied several times on the same goods or services.  The tax “pyramiding” legislation has bipartisan support and the Governor’s support. The tax pyramiding provision proposal has drawn fierce opposition from Albuquerque and other New Mexico cities and counties, however, as city officials argued it would reduce their revenue streams and complicate efforts to hire more police officers.

DEMOCRATS DEFEND TAX PACKAGE

During the  March 6 news conference announcing House Bill 547, House Taxation and Revenue Committee Chairman  Representative Derrick Lente, D-Sandia, said the process of putting together HB 547 included combining some of the best elements of roughly 50 separate tax policy bills that came into play during this year’s 60-day legislative session. He said all committee members and the Legislative Finance Committee analysts played a role in shaping the bill.

Representative Derrick Lente had this to say about HB 547:

“The tax rebates are only a small portion of the entire tax omnibus bill here. At this point in time, what’s in a tax package is that if passed, as is — New Mexicans would receive, if they filed taxes in 2021, they would receive a rebate of $300 for a single filer and $600 for those that are married. Another part of it is that it provides tax decreases for a number of our middle- and lower-income tax brackets that will receive and enjoy that benefit of a reduced tax rate.

It also reduces the total tax rate within the state another .5%. So, if you look at that, in addition to the point to the quarter percent tax rate that was reduced last year, it’s a three-quarter of a percent tax rate reduction in GRT, which is going to be huge for the state of New Mexico,” he continued. “We also look at ensuring that alcohol is paying their fair share to help encourage and provide resources for programs that help with alcoholism and substance abuse issues. We look at other aspects of childcare tax credits that have been increased—a number of things that help working families throughout New Mexico.”

“We’re trying to be creative and yet responsible in giving back dollars to hardworking New Mexicans—But in doing so, we want to make sure that if this is generational income we’re working with now, we want to make sure we’re creating generational outcomes for those in the way that we use this money for tax purposes and tax policy. “

The tax proposal fails to meet Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s $1 billion tax relief plan from the state’s $9.4 billion budget — $750 for single filers and $1,500 for joint filers. Lente said this:

“As a committee, we were given $1,000,000,000 of tax capacity to work with, and so had we accepted the proposal by the governor of $750, that would have completely extinguished and gone over our budget of $1,000,000,000 just by providing those tax rebates to New Mexicans.”

House Speaker Javier Martínez, D-Albuquerque Martínez  for his part said during the committee hearing lawmakers had to bring various tax policy bills together into one package. Otherwise, he said “it’s almost impossible to keep track of how it impacts the capacity of House Bill 2”,  the state operating budget legislation.

Democrats on the committee defended the tax package. They all contended  it will help New Mexicans across the state by offering tax exemptions for lower- and middle-class earners, child income tax credits for eligible taxpayers and also will drop the state’s gross receipts tax by .5%.

House Speaker Javier Martínez, D-Albuquerque insisted the proposed tax package would help businesses while defending the process used to bring the bill forward. Martínez said this:

“It’s a small number but it’s a lot of money. … I think this is very good for business. …There’s nothing in here that’s not fully-vetted, fully-baked and fully-fried.”

During the  March 6 news conference announcing House Bill 547, House Taxation and Revenue Committee Chairman  Rep. Derrick Lente, D-Sandia Pueblo had this to say about House Bill 547: 

We believe this affects positive change for the working families of New Mexico. … [I predict  families]  making the state’s median household income of about $54,000 per year [will]  see about $200 in yearly tax savings from the gross receipts tax cut alone.”

To those who might face a tax increase under the personal income tax code changes, Lente suggested that doctors, engineers and other high-wage earners could afford the increase.  Lente  also said the proposed gross receipts tax reduction that would take the state’s base tax rate on goods and services from 5% to 4.375% , starting in July 2024,  would be a boon for businesses.

Representative Lente  acknowledged that Governor Lujan Grisham  is not on board with the cut in rebates and he said:

“We scaled that back to the $300 per single filer, $600 per married couple filer, which brought our total cost to about a little under $500 million, which will then allow us to do these other creative tax structure policy changes. …  She’s not OK with that. … There was discussion that their sweet spot, I believe, was going to be at $500 per single and $1,000 for married couple. That being said, we are a couple hundred dollars away from that goal. … But nonetheless, we think that the initiatives as we target rural health care, as we target other initiatives in this tax package, far outweigh those one-time payments.”

Amber Wallin,  the executive director of the Albuquerque-based advocacy nonprofit New Mexico Voices for Children, said this  after the committee vote:

“[House Bill 547] is a big win for the whole state. It is really smart tax policy that will improve economic opportunity and equity for New Mexico families, workers, and communities with improvements to the Child Tax Credit, personal income taxes, and a rebate for low-income earners.  …  All of these things improve fairness in the tax code and level the playing field. ”

Wallin  called the Gross Receipts Tax  cut “significant” and said it is one that will “benefit all residents and businesses in the state.”

OPPOSITION AND DISAPPOINTMENT EXPRESSED

The 5  Republicans on the House Taxation and Revenue Committee voted against House Bill 547. The  Republicans said the bill has some  positive elements within it, they also said it does not specifically help small businesses or address job growth initiatives that are necessary to help businesses still reeling from the COVID-19 pandemic. Rep. Jim Townsend, R-Artesia said this:

“What we are doing is helpful to  [New Mexicans]  but it’s putting a Band-Aid on the issue [of taxation.]”

During the March 6  meeting of the House Taxation and Revenue Committee Representative Jason Harper, R-Rio Rancho,  said that House Bill 547 could mean a tax increase for small businesses who pay taxes under the personnel income tax code. Harper  lamented that Democrat sponsors  of the bill omitted a proposed tax exemption for accountants, architects and other professional services that had been proposed as a way to reduce tax “pyramiding,” or taxes being levied several times on the same goods or services. Harper said this during the hearing:

“Are we just talking the talk or are we serious about real reform?”

Not at all surprising, Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Terri Cole called  House Bill 547 very  disappointing. Cole described the bill  as the latest in a string of measures backed by the Democratic-controlled Legislature that make it harder for businesses to stay open in New Mexico. Cole said this:

“The last thing we need is capital flight out of New Mexico.”

Governor  Lujan Grisham’s  spokeswoman Maddy Hayden said House Bill 547  falls short of the governor’s expectations and Hayden said this:

“The governor has made it clear to leadership that hard-working New Mexico families deserve more than $300. … She will continue to fight to get more dollars in the pockets of New Mexicans, and fully expects the Legislature to boost that number up to at least $500 for single filers.”

The links to quoted news sources are here:

https://www.koat.com/article/proposal-tax-bill-million/43240240

March 7  New Mexico Political Report  “Lawmakers unveil massive omnibus tax policy bill” at  https://nmpoliticalreport.com/

https://www.abqjournal.com/2579039/a-tax-package-unveiled-at-roundhouse-includes-300-rebates-expanded-tax-credits-and-overhaul-of-personal-income-tax-code.html

 https://www.scdailypress.com/2023/03/07/lawmakers-unveil-massive-omnibus-tax-policy-bill/

https://www.kunm.org/local-news/2023-03-06/massive-nm-tax-bill-contains-smaller-direct-payments

COMMENTARY AND ANALSIS

New Mexico in the Top 15 highest tax rate states in the nation, placing it at a distinct competitive disadvantage with such neighboring states as Texas, which has no state income tax.  State income tax reform has been long overdue and this years  $3.6 Billion dollar surplus provides an unprecedented opportunity to offer substantial tax relief for small businesses, the middle class and for economic development. Simply put, House Bill 547 falls short and needs more work.

House Bill 547 has some very positive elements to it including expanding the state’s child tax credit to up to $600 per child, the $300 rebates to residents, extending  the sunset date on the military retirement pay tax exemption to 2031, adopting  a “single sales” factor apportionment for corporate taxes that could incentivize multi-state companies to expand and hire more people in New Mexico, and reducing  the state’s gross receipts tax base rate by 0.625%.

House Bill 547  also has some very negative elements to it including  overhauling  the personal income tax code so that many small-business owners who file personal income tax returns will pay higher taxes by creating two new tax brackets, including a new top bracket of 6.9%.  It also penalizes personal savings, investment and wealth creation by increasing taxes on all capital gains.

Representative Derrick Lente, D-Sandia, said the process of putting together HB 547 included combining some of the best elements of roughly 50 separate tax policy bills that came into play during this year’s 60-day legislative session.  However House Bill 547 totally ignores and omits the well crafted proposal of Democratic Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham and Rio Rancho  Republican  Representative  Jason Harper, R-Rio Rancho as embodied in House Bill 367 which would lower the gross receipts tax  and  address pyramiding which is when taxes are levied several times on the same goods or services. The tax exemption is a sure way to reduce tax “pyramiding” or taxes being levied several times on the same goods or services.

House Democrats essentially caved into the New Mexico Municipal League and the larger cities of Albuquerque, Santa Fe and Las Cruces by omitting the  much-needed proposed tax exemption for accountants, architects and other professional services that would reduce “tax pyramiding. ” There is little doubt the  provision would have provided significant relief to small businesses. Several lawmakers have worked on this issue for a number of years and it has bipartisan support and the governor’s endorsement in this session, yet that is ignored in House Bill 547.

The final version of  House Bill 547 will likely  advance quickly to the House floor for a final vote  after passing the House Taxation and Revenue Committee. There is no doubt that it will face heavy opposition from Republicans and additional scrutiny and possible changes  in the Senate in the final days of the 2023 Legislative  session. One change that should be included by the Senate are the   tax  “pyramiding”  prevention provisions.

Democrats in the 2023 legislative session hold a 45-25 majority in the House and a 27-15 edge in the Senate and this year’s session is a 60 day session.  The session ends March 18.  With just 10 days  left of the 2023 legislative session, Senate and House Democrats need to get their act together and  move as quickly and as aggressively as possible to get a final votes on all of their pending legislation in order to avoid embarrassing Republican filibusters as what happened last yeat. If not, they will have only themselves to blame.

 

Below is a guest opinion column submitted by Dr. Michael Baron for publication on www.PeteDinelli.com. The article is a very in depth, researched and straightforward  discussion of gun violence in the United States concluding with recommendations on what laws are needed to curb gun violence and mass shootings. It is being published now because the 2023 New Mexico legislature is in session.  There are numerous pending gun control bills pending that have been reported upon in this blog with a discussion of a possible special session being convened to consider an Omnibus Violent Crime and Gun Control Act. The article has been forwarded to all New Mexico House and Senate members  and Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham.

Michael Baron, Ph.D. has been a licensed psychologist in the state of New Mexico since 1979. Born in Brooklyn, New York, he received his B.A. in Psychology in 1972 from Syracuse University, and his Ph.D. in 1978 from the University of New Mexico. In private practice since 1980, Dr. Baron fancies himself a “hardnosed humanist,” and has provided individual child and adult, couple, and family therapy services (www.michaelbaronphd.com). After about half a million miles consulting with New Mexico’s schools (1981-2011), he jettisoned his “Road Warrior” role, expanding his home-based practice in Corrales. Since 2017 Dr. Baron has written a column, “Open Mike,” touching upon the ridiculous and the sublime for the New Mexico Psychological Association’s quarterly online newsletter. The Columbine shooting in 1999 led Dr. Baron to become an advocate ever since to reduce gun violence in America. After needing to replace his office furniture, Dr. Baron’s love of artistic creation was resurrected, has been in a number of art shows since (www.artofdowel.com), and featured on the cover of America Psychologist (http://www.artofdowel.com/bio#images-2).

EDITOR’S DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this guest column are those of Dr. Michael Baron and do not necessarily reflect those of the www.petedinelli.com blog. Dr. Baron has not been paid compensation to publish the guest column and has given his consent to publish his column on www.PeteDinelli.com.

Following is Dr. Baron’s guest opinion column:

“Please envision the following headline:

“TODAY’S MASS SHOOTING IN THE UNITED STATES: 463 victims: 134 dead, 329 injured”

 That could be any newspaper’s headline, except these tragedies are geographically distributed throughout the country, hardly garnering any media attention. In 2021, 48,832 firearm deaths (of which 26,320 are suicides) occurred in the United States according to provisional data from the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention and about 120,000 firearm injuries occur each year on average in the US. For comparison’s sake, in 2021, while we had 48,832 firearm deaths, Japan had only ONE shooting death.  Our death rate is over 500 times greater than theirs per 100,000. It is no coincidence our private gun ownership rate is also 500 times greater than theirs per 100,000 (total guns owned: US 393,300,000, Japan 377,000).

Mass shooting deaths, incidents where four or more people are killed or injured, totaled 513 in 2020, accounting for a very small percentage of firearm deaths: 1%. All told, with over 45,000 deaths and 120,000 injuries each year, it is safe to say one American “takes a bullet” every three minutes, and as many die from a bullet in 14 months as American soldiers died in the Vietnam War over 20 years, about 58,000.

The links to source materials for review are here:

https://www.thetrace.org/2022/09/gun-deaths-cdc-2021-record/#:~:text=More%20than%2026%2C000%20people%20took%20their%20lives%20with,more%20exposure%20to%20firearms%2C%20especially%20among%20first-time%20owners

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/pdfs/mm7140a4-H.pdf

https://www.pennmedicine.org/news/news-releases/2020/december/study-shows-329-people-are-injured-by-firearms-in-us-each-day-but-for-every-death-two-survive

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1319230/japan-number-gun-fatalities-shooting-incidents/

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-ownership-by-country

https://www.dailywire.com/news/us-had-a-record-number-of-mass-shootings-in-2020

PREVALENCE OF GUNS IN THE United States

In 2023, it is estimated we now exceed 400 million guns.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/fact-there-are-400-million-privately-owned-guns-us-72936

There are 53,267 gun shops and only 15,876 Macdonald’s in the U.S.

https://robarguns.com/gun-sales-in-the-us-by-state

Since World War II ended, the number of guns in the U.S. has increased by a factor of 8.5: from 47 to about 400 million guns, while the population has increased by a factor of 2.4: from 140 to 333 million. A bar graph of the statistics can be found here:

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/how-many-guns-are-there-in-america/

About 81 million Americans (31% of all adults) own an average of 5 guns each.

https://americangunfacts.com/gun-ownership-statistics/

Americans own nearly half (46%) of all civilian-owned guns worldwide, and we own more per capita (120.5 guns per 100 population) than any other country on earth. Yemen is #2 at 52.8 per 100.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/americas/us-gun-statistics/index.html

With such staggering numbers, hope of reduced firearm tragedies may seem pie in the sky, but some interventions show promise.

GUN SAFETY LEGISLATION: LET EVIDENCE, NOT PARTISANSHIP, DICTATE POLICY

 In a December15, 2022 email to state legislators of different political party affiliations, I noted the Albuquerque Journal cited New Mexico’s gun fatality rate as being among the nation’s highest.  I added as follows:

“Among seven economically advantaged countries we Americans are extreme outliers with 56.2 firearm deaths per million people ages 1-19 versus an average of 2.0 for the other six countries combined….[Y]ou are committed to make a difference for New Mexicans of all ages. Please let the data and not party affiliation guide you.”

https://www.abqjournal.com/2556861/gun-safety-bills-could-spark-debate-at-roundhouse-amid-rise-in-firearm.html)

I closed by saying, “The state’s firearm deaths totaled over a thousand between 2020 (481) and 2021 (562). You have the time-limited opportunity to pass legislation which may help reduce these horrific numbers. We can walk and chew gum at the same time, so legislation which holds promise to reduce firearm deaths does not preclude also working to reduce alleged contributors to this, i.e., drug addiction, firearm trafficking, and expanding mental heath treatment. We can always change the law; we cannot bring back a lost life.”

Legislation which also upholds the 2nd Amendment is often seen as the heaviest challenge but can reduce these horrific statistics.

 REPEAL OR REVISE THE SECOND AMENDMENT

I believe Thomas Jefferson would support repealing the Second Amendment. Mass shooters Harris and Kleibold, Crimo, Ramos, Lanza, and Holman are NOT part of a “well-regulated militia.”  It is not at all likely that even Jefferson could anticipate in 1816 that a one-shot-load-and-reload musket might be replaced someday, maybe not with automatic rifles capable of shooting at hundreds of people in a matter of minutes, nor perhaps with a future rifle capable of shooting a nuclear mini-warhead, but “as new discoveries are made…institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times,” and that “constitutions” are not “too sacred to be touched” and revised.

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7148468-some-men-look-at-constitutions-with-sanctimonious-reverence-and-deem

Not one gun-related murder has occurred in Iceland from 2007 until at least 2018. No doubt Icelanders are surviving fairly well under whatever “tyranny” their government has thrown their way for the past 16 years. Likewise, Japan had only one firearm death in 2021. We might well reduce the tyranny of seemingly unbridled gun violence by redefining what a well-regulated militia really is.

Frances DeBenedictus, past Executive Director of Gay Officer’s Action League (GOAL) in New York City, eloquently addressed this on Facebook in July 2022 when she posted:

“Two main groups of soldiers fought on the American side during the Revolutionary War. One group was the ‘well regulated militia,’ made up citizens who were ready to fight in case of an emergency. And, the other was the Continental Army. The commonly used weapon carried by the Continental Army was the ‘Brown Bess’ muzzle-loading smoothbore musket. This musket was used to fire a single shot ball, or a cluster style shot which fired multiple projectiles giving the weapon a ‘shotgun’ effect.

 I have no objection to civilians obtaining a license to buy this weapon or similar weapons today. We no longer need ‘well regulated militias’ because now (247 years later) we have three military departments (Army, Navy and Air Force) and two reserve components; the United States Army Reserve and the Army National Guard.  No American citizen should be allowed to own any weapons that would allow them to outgun the police or fire more than 70 bullets in minutes.”

Failing a repeal or revision of the Second Amendment, one which reinterprets a “well regulated militia,” we run the risk of the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, the Boogaloo Boys, the Three Percenters, or any vigilante group forming overnight and claiming status as a “well regulated militia” when they are not at all regulated.

POLITICAL RHETORIC MAY BE INCREASING GUN VIOLENCE

Over a 35-year period, during the five administrations between Presidents Ronald Regan and Barack Obama (1981-2016), there was an average of 44 mass shooting victims per year (22 deaths and 22 injuries). It appears the first three years of Donald Trump’s administration (2017-2019) witnessed a nearly 900% increase in total deaths and injuries in mass shootings, per year, to 377 annually (108 deaths and 269 injuries).

The average of 3 national online publications or news sources was used: Mother Jones, Time, and Wikipedia.  Following are the statistics for death and injuries gleaned from each source:

MOTHER JONES NEWS OUTLET STATISTICS

Deaths from gun violence from 1981 to 2016 per year: 18 (643 total over 35 years)

Deaths from gun violence from 2017 to 2019 per year:  99 (296 total over 3 years)

Injuries from gun violence from 1891 to 2016 per year: 19 (660 total over 35 years)

Injuries from gun violence from 2017 to 2019 per year: 283 (843 total over 3 years)

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/

TIME NEWS OUTLET STATISTICS

Deaths from gun violence from 1981 to 2016 per year: 18 (643 total over 35)

Deaths from gun violence from 2017 to 2019 per year:  98 (293 total over 3 years)

Injuries from gun violence from 1981 to 2016 per year: 20 (689 total over 35 years)

Injuries from gun violence from 2017 to 2019 per year: 233 (700 total over 3 years)

https://time.com/4965022/deadliest-mass-shootings-us-history/

WIKIPEDIA RESEARCH CITE

Deaths from gun violence from 1981 to 2016 per year: 29 (1,017 total over 35 years)

Deaths from gun violence from 2017 to 2019 per year: 128 (383 total over 3 years)

Injuries from gun violence from 1981 to 2016 per year: 28 (993 total over 35 years)

Injuries from gun violence from 2017 to 2019 per year: 292 (875 total over 3 years)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States

One needs to tread delicately when discussing politics, rhetoric, and violence, and correlation is not causation, but a nearly nine-fold increase in mass shooting victims raises the question: Can political rhetoric impact others’ behavior?

ABC News found that former Republican President Donald Trump’s name was invoked in 54 cases of violence, threats, and alleged assaults.  “ABC News could not find a single criminal case filed in federal or state court where an act of violence or threat was made in the name of President Barack Obama or President George W. Bush” during the previous 16 years.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/blame-abc-news-finds-17-cases-invoking-trump/story?id=58912889

THE TRUMP FACTOR

During campaign rallies before the 2018 midterm elections, President Trump repeatedly warned that America was under attack by immigrants heading for the border, and he said, “You look at what is marching up, that is an invasion.”  Nine months after Trump’s comments, a 21-year-old white man was accused of opening fire in a Walmart in El Paso, killing 20 people and injuring dozens more after writing a manifesto railing against immigration and announcing that “this attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/04/us/politics/trump-mass-shootings.html

Earlier that year, 49 people died and 48 were injured after the mass shooting in Christchurch, New Zealand. In that shooter’s 74-page manifesto he cited Trump by name as a “symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose.”

In a review of domestic extremism 1994-2021, it was reported that “data shows a surge in homegrown incidents not seen in a quarter-century,” especially 2015-2020, corresponding to Trump’s presidential campaign and administration. In the first 21 years the Center for Strategic and International Strategy kept data (1994-2014), there were 558 incidents of domestic terrorism (26.6 per year). In the next six years (2015-2020), incidents rose 155% to 67.8 per year, with an all-time high of 113 incidents in 2020. In January 2021 alone, there were 15 incidents, including the January 6^th insurrection at The Capitol. From 2015 through 2020, “far-right” incidents (267) outnumber “far-left” (66) by a 4-to-1 ratio.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/2021/domestic-terrorism-data/

Former President Trump provided what some saw as cover for white supremacist groups when he said in 2017, after the Charlotteville protest when a white supremacist drove a car into a crowd killing people, “Very fine people on both sides.”  Trump was seemingly defending white nationalist protesters.

During a presidential debate (2020), after his unwillingness to denounce white supremacy, Trump encouraged the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by,” and a few months later, at Trump’s invitation, the Proud Boys and other paramilitary groups took part in the January 6^th insurrection.

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/30/918483794/from-debate-stage-trump-declines-to-denounce-white-supremacy

Recall the journalist who was body slammed by Montana Congressman Greg Gianforte in 2018. Trump said,  “Any guy that can do a body slam — he’s my kind of guy,” he was reported to have said, “to cheers and laughter from the crowd.” And added: “He’s a great guy, tough cookie.”

https://apnews.com/article/north-america-donald-trump-ap-top-news-elections-montana-fce5e4b518684ce1bec91c744974c2d4

Fast forward a year later. It was reported that,  “A Montana man charged with assaulting a 13-year-old boy who refused to remove his hat during the national anthem believed he was doing what President Donald Trump wanted him to do, his attorney said.”

https://www.idahostatejournal.com/news/man-who-body-slammed-boy-over-anthem-snub-convinced-trump/article_30fda779-64c3-5d93-ba33-6a7cec5acce1.html?fbclid=IwAR2ku4hj52jClaCKMTOBVSQjZu-SBUtiVonHnJT82D2_DISIorLgRIdw_-s

Also in 2019, in Los Lunas, New Mexico, a man was charged with threatening the ACLU on social media. On Facebook he wrote: “You bitches want a Physical Civil War. I’m Game. I’ll Bring My Farm Implements and They Will Never find your bodies. AND for Fun I’ll BURN Every ACLU office in the State. GO TRUMP GO!”

https://reason.com/volokh/2020/01/17/prosecution-for-threatening-aclu-employees-may-go-forward/

The man’s attorney said it was a mental health issue. More recently in New Mexico (2022), a Republican candidate for the State House of Representatives, who received 26% of the vote, hired gunmen and was himself involved in shooting at the homes of four prevailing Democratic candidates. Buying into Trump’s “Stop the Steal” mantra, he attributed his defeat to a “rigged election.”

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/17/us/new-mexico-shootings-solomon-pena-what-we-know/index.html

In October 2020, just before the election, regarding the plot to kidnap and kill Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, Trump offered the plot was “maybe a problem, maybe it wasn’t.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/trump-gretchen-whitmer-kidnapping-plot-michigan-2020-election-b1377654.html

Not exactly a full-throated repudiation of threats of violence. Nearly two years later, after Trump lost his reelection bid, two men, members of a right-wing Michigan paramilitary group, were convicted of conspiring to kidnap Whitner and conspiring to obtain a weapon of mass destruction.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/2-men-guilty-plotting-kidnap-michigan-gov-gretchen-whitmer-rcna44430

In 2023 David DePape was arrested for the attack of the husband of Rep. Nancy Pelosi, R-CA.  DePape had a Facebook account which included links to videos produced by the My Pillow CEO, Mike Lindell, which falsely claimed that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Republican incumbent Donald Trump in favor of his Democratic rival Joe Biden.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/28/paul-pelosi-nancy-pelosi-attack-david-depape

If government leaders have even the pretense of trying to work together for all that ails us, including the scourge of gun violence, they need to put their guns away, at least their verbal guns. Trump logs in with over one hundred less-than-complimentary names for others, even members of his own party.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nicknames_used_by_Donald_Trump

A similar google search, “nicknames used by” Joe Biden or Barack Obama yielded nothing, other than nicknames they are called. Demonization of “the other” starts with words.

Political rhetoric, which can serve to motivate others to become violent, is not confined to one politician. Rep. Steve King, R-IA, is a longtime member of Congress with an even longer history of racism and associating with white supremacists at home and abroad. In 2019, King was stripped of his committee appointments after telling The New York Times: ‘White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization—how did that language become offensive?’”

https://www.rightwingwatch.org/report/running-on-racism-far-right-congressional-candidates-in-the-2020-elections-and-those-who-lean-that-way/

US Representative  Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-GA, speaking about fellow Representatives Ilhan Omar and Rashid Tlaib, both US citizens, stated, “I really want to go talk to these ladies and ask them what they are thinking, and why they are serving in our American government. … They really should go back to the Middle East.”

https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-aud-nw-marjorie-taylor-greene-social-media-statements-20210204-cihvw64f5vdodm7ni72svunnui-story.html

US Representative Paul Gosar, R-AZ was severely criticized “for sharing a violent animated video on his social media that was edited to depict him killing Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and attacking President Joe Biden.”

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-11-17/paul-gosar-censured-removed-from-committees-over-violent-post-about-democrats

“The fear of a mass shooting may be higher in those who are more likely to experience hate crimes. The Federal Bureau of Investigation says these crimes are motivated by the perpetrators bias against a particular race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability or gender.”

https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2023/02/gun-violence-is-a-life-or-death-issue-we-need-to-act-like-it

Words are powerful tools, for good and for evil. They can elevate and heal or they can debase and destroy. America has prided itself on being the open-armed “melting pot,” that our differences make us stronger, that diversity and tolerance are hallmarks of our democracy. However, politicians who not only provide safe havens for, but actually promote, racism and intolerance are insidiously complicit in contributing to fear and rejection of “the other,” of people “who aren’t like me.” In so doing, acts of violence increase. Our elected leaders need to unabashedly repudiate racism, prejudice, and violence. The rhetoric and vitriol of hate needs to be replaced by language that forges building bridges, which contributes to constructive problem-solving.

CONSTRUCTIVE PROBLEM-SOLVING DIALOGUE

What is the language of constructive problem-solving? Is there such a language? If there is such a language, it may well need to start with agreement on the facts, e.g., a statement of the problem upon which varying sides can agree, even if there may be later disagreement on proposed solutions to the problem.  Let’s at least agree there is a fire, and then we can decide whether the hook-and-ladder is needed to put it out.

Here is a succession of statements that might register agreement among discussants of different political persuasions:

(1) Children are our most vulnerable population.

(2) Death is the greatest harm that can occur to them.

(3) We favor reducing the incidence of death among our children.

(4) We agree if we were to rank order causes of death, not that we couldn’t or shouldn’t address all causes of death, but those which lead to more deaths might merit greater attention than those leading to fewer deaths.

(5) If our death rate due to certain causes of death among children (and adults) was, say, 5x, 50x, or 500x greater than the death rate by the same cause(s) in another country (or countries), we agree that it might be worth exploring what we may learn from that other country (or countries) so that we might substantially reduce our own (US) death rate.

(6) We agree to rely on epidemiological data from the Center for Disease Control or World Health Organization rather than less reliable sources.

It does not appear a heavy lift to have would-be problem-solvers agree to these half dozen statements. Let us say, for example, cancer was the leading cause of death among American children. “In 2021, it is estimated that 15,590 children and adolescents ages 0 to 19 will be diagnosed with cancer and 1,780 will die of the disease in the United States”.

https://www.cancer.gov/types/childhood-cancers/child-adolescent-cancers-fact-sheet

If in other countries the cancer death rate for children were significantly smaller, I think we would agree it would be advantageous to learn what they do to keep their death rates so low.

If in 2020 the greatest number of childhood deaths, ages 1-19, due to a singular cause (let us call it Cause A) in the US was 4,357 and all other causes of death led to fewer deaths, I think we might agree to focus on Cause A. And if Cause A contributed to over 45,000 deaths for children and adults combined, and another country reported fewer than a hundred total deaths due to Cause A, openness to learning from that country might be worthwhile.

Cause A, in 2020, which led to over 4,000 child deaths and in 2021 to over 48,000 total (child plus adult) deaths in the US, while Japan, in 2021, had only one such death, was…firearms.

https://www.kff.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/guntrol.png

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1319230/japan-number-gun-fatalities-shooting-incidents/

Can a constructive problem-solving discussion ensue, whether the cause were cancer or firearms? Efforts to reduce 1,780 cancer child deaths ought not trump efforts to reduce 4,357 firearm child deaths. When we have 500 times more firearm deaths per capita than another country, it is incumbent upon us to be open to learning how others do a far better job than we are doing in reducing or preventing such deaths.

By the way, here are some possible reasons why Japan’s firearm death rate is one of the world’s lowest: “For Japanese citizens to purchase a gun, they must attend an all-day class, pass a written exam, and complete a shooting range test, scoring at least 95% accuracy. Candidates will also receive a mental health evaluation, performed at a hospital, and will have a comprehensive background check done by the government. Only shotguns and rifles can be purchased. The class and exam must be retaken every three years.”

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country

None of these requirements appear to infringe upon Second Amendment rights, and one could argue which is more arduous: Enduring the “hardship” of such requirements for the purchase and retention of a gun, or enduring the hardship of nearly 50,000 annual firearm deaths.

“MENTAL ILLNESS” IS NOT THE CULPRIT

 Don’t blame mental illness for firearm homicides. Suicides, sure, but not homicide.

“The vast majority of people with mental illness are not violent: 95-97 percent of homicidal gun violence is not carried out by individuals with a mental illness. However, suicide is often correlated with depression and is the number ten cause of death in adults nationwide (number three cause of death for youth in America). Firearm deaths associated with mental illness are nearly always suicides. A suicide attempt with a firearm results in death nearly 85 percent of the time, but more common means of attempting suicide—drug overdose and cutting—result in death less than 3 percent of the time. If mental illness were eliminated, gun violence in America would go down by just 4 percent.”

https://www.mhanational.org/gun-deaths-violence-and-mental-health

My own guess is that while mental illness may be implicated in only about 3-5% of homicidal gun violence, it’s presence in mass shooting killers is considerably higher. But, as was previously shown, mass shootings account for only about 1% of all firearm deaths. Greater accessibility of mental health services may have its greatest impact on reducing firearm suicides, which represent the majority, 54%, of all firearm deaths (26,520 of 48,832 deaths in 2021).

Our rates of mental illness are not significantly different than the rates in other countries. Ten years ago, our gun death rate, however, was reported in a UN Study to be 20 times the average of 31 other developed countries. Now that’s insanity.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/chart-the-u-s-has-far-more-gun-related-killings-than-any-other-developed-country/

ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN

Consider the following:

 “Gun massacres of six or more killed decreased by 37 percent for the decade the ban [on assault weapons] was active [1994-2004], then shot up 183 percent during the decade following its expiration.”

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/dem/releases/studies-gun-massacre-deaths-dropped-during-assault-weapons-ban-increased-after-expiration

“[G]uns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.”

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9715182/

And, as we know, 376 good guys with guns in Uvalde were stymied by one guy with an AR-15 because it was an AR-15 and they felt helpless.

https://www.insider.com/376-officers-were-at-uvalde-elementary-school-over-hour-report-2022-7

After the 2012 Sandy Hook and 2018 Parkland mass shootings, both where an AR-15 was used, National Rifle Association chief Wayne La Pierre claimed, “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun…. The NBER [National Bureau of Economic Research] study discredited the idea of the ‘good guy with a gun’ as a possible solution to gun violence.” Stanford University law professor John Donohue indicated their research “concluded that allowing citizens to carry handguns seems to increase violent crime 13 to 15 percent by the 10th year’ of the laws being enacted in the state.”

https://abcnews.go.com/US/bear-burden-gun-violence-costs-america-280-billion/story?id=80245349

Can homeowners protect themselves with a firearm other than an AR-15? Of course they can. When the technology evolves that a nuclear device could be deployed using a firearm, defending its sale under the pretense of “protection” would make as much sense: none at all. The ban which proved successful over a previous decade’s use might well prove successful once again. What do we risk by re-implementing the ban?

MORE “BAD GUYS” THAN “GOOD GUYS” WITH A GUN 

Again, 376 good guys with guns were stymied by one guy with an AR-15 in Uvalde. Conversely, one “good guy with a gun” Elisjsha Dicken, used his handgun to “neutralize” a 20-year-old gunman at an Indiana mall who fired two dozen rounds from his AR-15-style rifle. However, “There were at least 434 active shooter attacks in the US from 2000 to 2021, according to Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training  (ALERRT) data. Active shooter attacks were defined as those in which one or more shooters killed or attempted to kill multiple unrelated people in a populated place. Of those 434 active shooter cases, an armed bystander shot the attacker in 22 of the incidents. In 10 of those, the ‘good guy’ was a security guard or an off-duty police officer, ALERRT data showed. Having armed people at the scene who are not law enforcement members can create confusion and carry dire risks, according to a data analysis published in The New York Times.”

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/19/us/eli-dicken-indiana-mall-shooting-bystander/index.html

So, 12 of 434 or 2.7% of attackers were shot by armed bystanders who were neither security guards nor off-duty police officers. The other 97-98% were never interdicted by a “good guy with a gun.” Bottom line: Guns are rarely used to kill criminals or stop crimes.

Consider the following scenario: You, your spouse, and two children go to see “The Dark Night Rises” Batman movie at a multiplex theater in, let’s say, Aurora, Colorado. There are two theaters to choose from: One will have 100 “good guys” with their guns, the other theater prohibits firearms. Which do you choose? Which one feels safer?

The ALERRT data over two decades addressed an average of only 20 active shooter incidents a year in the U.S. In contrast, another study investigating 626 shootings in or around residences with gun owners, within 12-18 months in just three cities, may be more representative of the impact nationwide of “a good guy with a gun.” The study reported as follows:

“[The] total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.”

 That’s a 1-to-22 good-to-bad ratio. They concluded:

“Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.”

 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9715182/

The 1-good-to-22-bad ratio found in three cities may be an underestimate nationally. In 2016, in an analysis on FBI data, there were only 274 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm. As there were 10,341 criminal gun homicides that year, that would generate a 1-to-37 ratio of justifiable-to-criminal homicide. That report excluded gun suicides and unintentional shootings, which would only increase that ratio further.

https://vpc.org/studies/justifiable19.pdf

On the other hand, the PubMed study looked at shootings in and around residences, whereas the analysis of the FBI data did not restrict itself to “within and around” residences.

BACKGROUND CHECKS

More than 5 in 6 Americans (84%), including over three-fourths of Republicans, support a law requiring a background check on all firearm purchases.

https://www.bradyunited.org/press-releases/new-polling-overwhelming-support-for-universal-background-checks

Clearly there is overwhelming public support for background checks, but legislation varies from state to state. What do the data show? In a 25-year study (1991-2016), the following was reported:

“State gun laws requiring universal background checks for all gun sales resulted in homicide rates 15 percent lower than states without such laws. Laws prohibiting the possession of firearms by people who have been convicted of a violent crime were associated with an 18 percent reduction in homicide rates….None of the state gun laws studied were found to be related to overall suicide rates.” The study concluded, “controlling who has access to guns has much more impact on reducing gun-related homicides than controlling what guns people have.”

https://www.bu.edu/federal/2019/08/06/the-fbi-and-cdc-datasets-agree-who-has-guns-not-which-guns-linked-to-murder-rates/

The US has averaged about 13,000 annual firearm homicides in 2020 and 2021. https://www.statista.com/statistics/249803/number-of-homicides-by-firearm-in-the-united-states/

Were these findings applied to all states, that would suggest reducing homicides by 2,000-2,500 (15-18%) annually.

Elsewhere, “Researchers found that a 1995 Connecticut law requiring gun buyers to get permits (which themselves required background checks) was associated with a 40 percent decline in gun homicides and a 15 percent drop in suicides. Similarly, when researchers studied Missouri’s 2007 repeal of its permit-to-purchase law, they found an associated increase in gun homicides by 23 percent, as well as a 16-percent increase in suicides.”

http://www.npr.org/2016/01/09/462252799/research-suggests-gun-background-checks-work-but-theyre-not-everything

If the results of Connecticut’s law were applied nationally, that would suggest over 5,000 saved lives. Perhaps the salient question with rigorous universal background checks or other gun safety legislation is simply this: What do we risk with its passage? We can always revise the law. We cannot bring back a lost life.

RED FLAG LAWS

 Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO), also known as “Red Flag” laws, first adopted in Connecticut in 2005, are now in 19 states and Washington D.C. They allow loved ones and law enforcement to intervene when a family member is in crisis and considering harm to themselves or others. They can petition the court for an order to temporarily prevent someone from accessing guns.

https://everytownresearch.org/solution/extreme-risk-laws/

Most research to date has focused on firearm suicide prevention. Two of the earliest states to adopt such measures, Connecticut and Indiana, taken together, showed about a 10% reduction in firearm suicides in the 10 years following the enactment of their laws.

https://everytownresearch.org/solution/extreme-risk-laws/

If such results were applied nationally, that could mean about 2,500 saved lives. “Indiana’s law was found to prevent one suicide per 10 orders issued.” In the wake of the Parkland school shooting, Florida adopted a red flag law. It’s been used nearly 9,000 times.”

https://news.yahoo.com/florida-red-flag-law-used-214658837.html?fr=yhssrp_catchal

If Indiana’s results were applied to Florida, that might mean nearly 900 averted suicides in Florida. On the other hand, New Mexico adopted a red flag law, but it was implemented only nine times by what were described as resistant law enforcement officers during the first two years after the law’s passage. Any law without enforcement can never prove its effectiveness.

https://news.yahoo.com/nms-red-flag-gun-law-141000653.html?fr=yhssrp_catchall

Red flag laws can also play a role in preventing mass shootings, as a 2019 study revealed “the subjects in 21 of the 159 court orders that were analyzed showed clear signs that they intended to commit a mass shooting.”

https://rockinst.org/blog/what-does-the-research-say-about-extreme-risk-protection-orders-erpo/

Again, what do we risk with its passage of such gun safety legislation?  We can always revise the law. We cannot bring back a lost life.

SINCE COLUMBINE: WARNING SIGNS 2.0 AND SAFE GUN STORAGE

The American Psychological Association’s multiyear collaboration with MTV led to a training video, Warning Signs, “aimed at helping the nation’s youth to identify the warning signs of violent behavior and to recognize the need to seek professional help.” The video’s eventual release came just the day after the Columbine mass shooting in Colorado, in April 1999.

“There have been 366 school shootings since Columbine….There were more school shootings in 2022 — 46 — than in any year since at least 1999…. While it remains highly unlikely that any student will experience a school shooting, the number of incidents has risen rapidly in recent years. [From 1999] Through 2017, the country averaged about 11 school shootings a year, never eclipsing 16 in a single year. But starting in 2018, violent incidents started climbing. In 2020, the novel coronavirus closed campuses for months, and the number of shootings declined. But with classes in session again, 42 K-12 schools experienced school shootings in 2021, and 46 endured one the next year — mirroring the nation’s broader rise in gun violence as it emerged from the pandemic.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/interactive/school-shootings-database/.

With so many school shootings since Columbine, one would hope that lessons have been learned which may prevent or at least reduce the recurrence of such tragedies. The time appears more than ripe for the American Psychological Association to produce an updated version of their 1999 video, perhaps calling it Warning Signs 2.0.

An analysis of mass shootings, school and non-school, “from 2009 to 2017 revealed that in 51 percent of incidents the shooter exhibited warning signs that they posed a risk to themselves or others before the shooting” making the case for increased training for students, staff, teachers, and others. Meanwhile, the US Secret Service developed Enhancing School Safety Guide in 2018.

https://everytownresearch.org/extreme-risk-laws/

https://archive.org/details/EnhancingSchoolSafety

https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/Protecting_Americas_Schools.pdf

However, as child firearm deaths represent only about 10% of all firearm deaths, Warning Signs 2.0 might target all ages, and could serve as a training video, not just for school personnel and students, but for the general public and all workplace settings.

One telling comment in the Washington Post column was this:

“The median age of a school shooter is 16. Children, The Post also determined, are responsible for more than half the country’s school shootings — none of which would be possible if those children didn’t have access to firearms.” In fact, “80% of school shooters under 18 access a firearm from their own home or that of a relative or friend.”

https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/Protecting_Americas_Schools.pdf

Safe gun storage legislation may help reduce children’s access to such guns. Presently, there are only “13 states that have laws concerning either gun storage or firearm locking devices.”

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/06/qa-on-bidens-gun-proposals/

But are states with such laws make a difference? The answer appears to be a resounding “YES.” “A 2015 study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that states requiring gun locks experienced a 68% lower suicide rate compared with states that had no similar requirement….A 2020 meta-analysis of 18 different gun policies by the RAND Corporation found that CAP [Child Access Prevention] laws have reduced both firearm suicides and accidental shootings among young people. The RAND team concluded that CAP laws were the most effective out of 18 categories of laws it examined.”

https://gunsandamerica.org/story/20/07/13/do-safe-storage-gun-laws-prevent-violence/

In a survey interviewing over a thousand adults, nearly 8 in Americans 10 (nearly 70% of Republicans, nearly 80% of Democrats and Independents) support mandating that guns are stored with a lock in place.

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2019/10/02/most-americans-support-safe-gun-storage-laws-according-to-new-poll

The data suggests both the efficacy of such gun storage legislation and widespread support for such. As was stated in connection with adopting background checks and red flag laws nationally, what do we risk with the passage of gun storage legislation? We can always revise the law. We cannot bring back a lost life.

VOLUNTARY BUY-BACK PROGRAM  

Thought experiment: Gun violence results in an estimated $280 billion in total annual costs in the United States.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/bear-burden-gun-violence-costs-america-280-billion/story?id=80245349

There are nearly 400 million guns owned by just over 80 million Americans, about 5 per owner. What if the government offered $10,000 to buy back 4 guns, regardless of gun type, and each owner decided to keep just one gun? It’d cost the government $800 billion, about 3.2x what it costs the country every year for gun violence. Mileage may vary: At “just” $1,000 per gun were offered, if 4 out of 5 guns were turned in, the cost would be $320 billion. I’m sure a mere $500 per gun ($160 billlion total) would incentivize many. For comparison, our military budget is $882 billion this one year alone. I see this buy-back program as a “military budget” to prevent the equivalent of “war” against our very own selves.

Of course loopholes may abound in this thought experiment, but we may learn from Australia. “What we can say with certainty is that in the 15 years prior to the first gun buyback in 1996, there had been 13 mass shootings in Australia. In the 21 years since more restrictive firearm policies came into effect [through 2017], there has not been a single mass shooting in the country.”

https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-did-government-gun-buybacks-reduce-the-number-of-gun-deaths-in-australia-85836

Attributing change to one intervention when multiple interventions occurred simultaneously may not be considered “cricket.” Australia’s 1996 National Firearms Agreement had many provisions, including:

1. Restrictions on automatic and semi-automatic rifles and pump action rifles and shotguns and
2. Stricter requirements for the registration of all firearms, and
3. Stricter requirements for the storage of all firearms. However, in another analysis, “We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80%, with no significant effect on non-firearm death rates.”

https://academic.oup.com/aler/article-abstract/12/2/509/99272?login=false

This is particularly salient as, in the US, estimated firearm suicides in 2021 totaled a record high 26,320, even greater than the record high 20,966 firearm homicides.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/pdfs/mm7140a4-H.pdf

WAITING PERIODS

If a certain number of days are required between the purchase of a gun and when the buyer can take possession of that gun, such a “cooling off period” can lead to fewer firearm suicides. “In a study of statewide suicide rate changes between 2013 and 2014, states with waiting periods saw a decrease in suicide rates, while those without waiting period laws had an increase.”

https://everytownresearch.org/solution/waiting-periods/

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, in a 2017 study, found, “Waiting period laws that delay the purchase of firearms by a few days reduce gun homicides by roughly 17%. Our results imply that the 17 states (including the District of Columbia) with waiting periods avoid roughly 750 gun homicides per year as a result of this policy. Expanding the waiting period policy to all other US states would prevent an additional 910 gun homicides per year without imposing any restrictions on who can own a gun.”

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1619896114.

Extrapolating these PNAS results to the nearly 21,000 firearm homicides in 2021 would suggest about 3,500 fewer firearm homicides with waiting periods in place.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The following must be considered as part of the solution to reducing gun violence in America:

1. Let evidence, not partisanship, dictate policy. Look to positive outcomes of legislation in some states which show promise if extended nationally. Organizations such as Everytown Research & Policy serve as an independent repository of outcome-based legislation. (https://everytownresearch.org/rankings/)
2. Repeal or revise the Second Amendment. Over two centuries ago, Thomas Jefferson sagely noted, “As new discoveries are made…institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times,” and that “constitutions are not too sacred to be touched and revised”. In 1816 he could not have anticipated a one-shot-load-and-reload musket would be replaced with automatic rifles capable of shooting at hundreds of people in a matter of minutes, or perhaps a future firearm capable of deploying a nuclear device. Our “well-regulated militia” includes the Army, Navy, and Air Force, not the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, the Boogaloo Boys, nor any vigilante group forming overnight.
3. Tamp down the tenor of political rhetoric, and replace it with constructive problem-solving discussion. The divisiveness promulgated since about 2015 by political leaders corresponds to a rise in hate crimes and gun violence over that time. When rhetoric vilifies “the other,” whether a minority group member or one’s political adversary, there is implicit approval to act against them, some taking it to a violent extreme. Cool-headed problem-solving will reverse this trend. We need to value effective results, not scoring political points, and hold our political leaders accountable for such.
4. “Mental illness” is not the culprit in nearly any of the firearm homicides, but expanded mental health services may help reduce firearm suicides. The majority (54%) of firearm deaths are suicides. And, while mass shootings account for only 1% of firearm deaths, mental health services may assist those prone to such violence.
5. Reinstitute the Assault Weapons Ban. In effect for a decade (1994-2004), mass shootings (of 6 or more) declined during that decade, and nearly doubled the decade thereafter. Homeowners can adequately protect themselves and hunters can sufficiently snag big game with other kinds of firearms.
6. Ban high-capacity magazines.
7. More “good guys with a gun” is not the answer. For example, in 2016, FBI stats suggested only 1 in 37 firearm homicides were “justifiable.” Studies show “guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.” If you and your children were to attend a movie at a multiplex theater, given a choice between one theater with a hundred patrons each carrying a gun and the other theater prohibiting guns, in which one would you feel safer?
8. Require a background check on all firearm purchases. States with gun laws requiring universal background checks for all gun sales were associated with 15-18% reductions in firearm homicides. Extrapolating that nationwide would suggest reducing such homicides by 2,000-2,500 annually. Another study suggested a decrease by 40% in one state; nationally that might suggest reducing firearm homicides by 8,000.
9. Extend Red Flag laws nationwide. Already in 19 states and Washington D.C., if research in a couple states, Indiana and Connecticut, generalized nationally, there would be about 2,500 fewer firearm suicides. The more recent adoption of a red flag law after the Parkland shooting in Florida revealed it has been implemented about 9,000 times already in Florida, arguably preventing close to 1,000 suicides, and possibly many homicides as well.
10.  Extend safe gun storage legislation nationwide. With 16 being the median age of a school mass shooter, with 80% of school shooters under 18 having access a firearm from their own home or that of a relative or friend, with gun storage legislation associated with a 68% decrease in child firearm suicides, and with firearms being the number one cause of childhood deaths, extending gun storage legislation from 13 to all 50 states is clearly indicated.
11.  “Warning Signs 2.0” training video tape. The American Psychological Association and MTV produced a training tape, “Warning Signs,” in 1999, identifying the warning signs of violent behavior in youth and thereby recognizing the need to refer such individuals for professional help. Now two decades (and nearly 400 school shootings) later, an updated “Warning Signs 2.0” is sorely needed. Perhaps a collaboration of the American Psychological Association with the United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Secret Service, and the National Threat Assessment Center may forge new, effective methods. The latter three entities, in 2018, produced “Enhancing School Safety Using a Threat Assessment Model – An Operational Guide for Preventing Targeted School Violence.” (https://archive.org/details/EnhancingSchoolSafety) However, as child firearm deaths represent only about 10% of all firearm deaths, Warning Signs 2.0 might target all ages, and could serve as a training video, not just for school personnel and students, but for the general public and all workplace settings.
12.  Raise the minimum age for gun purchase to 21.
13.  Voluntary buy-guns-back program. In Australia, “In the 15 years prior to the first gun   buyback in 1996, there had been 13 mass shootings in Australia. In the 21 years since more restrictive firearm policies came into effect [through 2017], there has not been a single mass shooting in the country.” The voluntary nature of the program in no way treads upon the Second Amendment.
14. Require a waiting or “cooling off period,” the required time between the purchase of a gun and when the buyer can take possession of that gun. If the results of waiting periods found in 17 states in 2017 generalized to 50 states in 2021, that might suggest about 3,500 fewer firearm homicides.
15. Confer with leaders in firearm violence prevention from the world’s most successful countries. The US had “3.96 deaths per 100,000 people in 2019. That was more than eight times as high as the rate in Canada, which had 0.47 deaths per 100,000 people — and nearly 100 times higher than in the United Kingdom, which had 0.04 deaths per 100,000.”

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/03/24/980838151/gun-violence-deaths-how-the-u-s-compares-to-the-rest-of-the-world

More recent data notes that in 2021, while the US had 48,832 firearm deaths, Japan had 1 (O-N-E)!

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1319230/japan-number-gun-fatalities-shooting-incidents/

For more than a decade, 2007 through at least 2018, Iceland had 0 (Z-E-R-O) firearm homicides!

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/iceland-gun-loving-country-no-shooting-murders-2007-n872726

FINAL COMMENTARY

With nearly 400,000 firearm deaths in the past decade (2012-2021), with a steady rise from about 34,000 in 2012 to about 49,000 deaths in 2021, the US has much to learn from others to reverse this trend in tragedy…if we are willing to listen and be open to what has shown success within and outside our borders.