Senators Manchin (D-WV) and Toomey (R-PA) have introduced a bipartisan amendment to expand background checks for most private gun sales. Their compromise protects the Second Amendment rights of gun owners while strengthening our ability to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, terrorists, and those who are severely mentally ill.
Our newest memo explains how the proposed bipartisan legislation achieves that goal, and why policymakers from both perspectives—gun lovers and gun skeptics—can support the bill:
It requires criminal background checks for commercial sales conducted at gun shows or over the internet but not for sales from one friendly neighbor to another, recognizing that commercial sales are the real source of guns to traffickers.
It creates no gun registry—it simply relies on the same recordkeeping system that is currently employed by 59,000 licensed gun dealers around the country, who already keep paper receipts from the sales of about 170 million guns—and requires individuals to keep no new records.
It improves the background check system itself in order to more effectively keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.
“Two things have been missing in Congress lately: bipartisan compromise on tough issues and political courage. But both of these were on display this morning, as Senators Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey, together with Senators Chuck Schumer and Mark Kirk, have come together on a significant new gun safety bill.
“In the face of blistering opposition from powerful forces and needling skepticism from the political classes, these Senators kept working to find common ground, and they succeeded. The bill they crafted is a compromise, but a smart and meaningful one. It treats all firearms sales from commercial venues like gun showsand the Internet the same as sales from a federally licensed gun store. It closes the loophole in the Brady Law that has served as the lubricant of the illegal gun market and the main supplier of guns to criminals. By choking off this source of firearms, this bill would go a long way toward keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, the mentally ill, and others who shouldn’t have them.
“Senators Manchin and Toomey are proud gun rights stalwarts, and they have written a bill that vigorously protects the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. They tuned out the hysterical warnings of a massive gun confiscation and focused on what matters to gun owners: ensuring that they are able to buy, sell, and possess firearms in ways that are safe and convenient, without the specter of a government gun registry looming. Senators Schumer and Kirk care deeply about gun safety and showed flexibility to ensure that a bill that can save lives can also win votes.
“We have been working on gun safety legislation like this for thirteen years. We are deeply grateful to the sponsors of this bill for their creativity, their resolve, and their willingness to work together. We hope that they will be a model for their colleagues as this bill advances.”
President Obama and his Republican dining companions showed last week that bipartisan schmoozing is back. Whether bipartisan deal-making will follow is anyone’s guess. But if it does, there are reasons to believe tax reform will be on the menu.
The most visible movement on tax reform is in the House of Representatives. Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) last week announced that the bill name “H.R. 1” would be reserved for tax reform. Traditionally, House speakers have given that title to bills that are among their top priorities. Consider some of the recent bills with that name: the stimulus package of 2009 and the Medicare prescription drug law of 2003.
The H.R. 1 designation signals the end of an internal Republican dispute over whether to proceed with tax reform. Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-OH) previously advised the party to avoid the issue, because its progress could require votes on controversial topics like the mortgage and charitable deductions. But now, with Boehner’s blessing, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) has a green light to pursue his priority issue.
Can we finally fix our broken immigration system? With the current bipartisan Senate proposal, the answer is YES. It clears two crucial tests: it could pass, and it could work.
It deals justly with the 11 million already here.
It gets tough on future lawbreakers.
It helps the economy.
It appeals to the vast middle.
If an undocumented immigrant registers with the U.S. government, goes through a criminal background check, and pays a fine, they will be forever allowed to work, travel, and conduct their affairs in America without fear of deportation. For their children, even better—they will be given a fast-track path to citizenship. And down the line, once more is done to secure the border, they can have an eventual chance to become citizens as well.
The phone rings in the house of an undocumented immigrant who has lived here for decades. The person on the line offers her a deal. If she registers with the US government, goes through a criminal background check, and pays a fine, she will be forever allowed to work, travel, and conduct her affairs in America without fear of deportation. For her children, even better — they will be given a fast-track path to citizenship. And down the line, once more is done to secure the border, she can get in the back of the line and eventually earn her citizenship as well.
Is there any chance she would say no?
On Monday, a bipartisan group of 8 Senators released an immigration reform proposal that would offer exactly that scenario to undocumented immigrants. Yet many reform advocates reacted warily to the plan, and even the Administration offered a few pointed criticisms in its otherwise favorable statement. In particular, they argued that using a “trigger” of border security to determine when some immigrants can move from a provisional legal status to a permanent one with a path to citizenship is unacceptable.
“We applaud the bipartisan group of eight senators who today released a set of workable principles to reform our immigration laws. These principles outline a tough, fair, and practical path on immigration … We urge Senators of both parties to unite behind this reasonable approach.”
Statement from Third Way President Jon Cowan on the bipartisan immigration reform plan announced on Monday.
Earlier in January when President Karzai visited Washington and President Obama, all the focus was on these two leaders. However, these discussions leave out an important player in any foreign policy debate—Congress. As the United States looks toward the coming transition, Congress has a crucial role to play in ensuring that America’s best interests are met over the next 10 years in Afghanistan.
First, our Constitution grants Congress the power of the purse. Congress is charged with the duty of funding our government—and this includes our military. While every American wants the best military money can buy, it’s no secret that our current debt levels could cause problems—even our top brass at the Pentagon agree. As the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mike Mullen said in late 2011, thebiggest threatto U.S. national security is this massive debt. Along these lines, waging war isn’t cheap; the Department of Defense spends between$850,000 and $1.4 millionper year to equip and keep a soldier in Afghanistan, and aCenter for Strategic and International Studies reportestimates that we’ve already spent over $600 billion in the war. While agreement between the two parties is rare, both Republicans and Democrats conclude that we have to address our debt. As Congress debates the 2014 defense budget, they will have to allocate funding to provide our troops in Afghanistan with the best equipment and support they need, while also balancing concerns for our economy.
Economists predict that over the next few decades, U.S. economic growth will be a full one-point less than the growth we enjoyed between World War II and the Great Recession. Third Way’s new report, The Bargain, is the first report to quantify what this would mean for the economy and middle class Americans. Between 2018 and 2032, losing one point would mean 5 million fewer jobs, $2.5 trillion less in personal income, and $5 trillion less in government revenue.
It doesn’t have to be this way.
In The Bargain, we provide a roadmap for seven bipartisan deals, showing where each party needs to give ground and change their thinking. These deals would modernize our economy for a new era of fierce global economic competition. Without them, we are destined for slower growth.
David Brooks of The New York Timescalls the report “a perfect model of how you might structure a series of big trades to move the country back on the growth path—on innovation policy, tax policy, spending policy and so on.”
At a time when the United States needs to increase domestic energy production and leaders of both political parties say they support an “all of the above” energy strategy, Congress should level the playing field and give all sources of domestic energy — renewable and non-renewable alike — a fair shot at success in the marketplace.
The federal government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers in the energy market, but for nearly 30 years, that’s exactly what it has been doing with a provision in the tax code that authorizes the formation of master limited partnerships (MLPs). An MLP is a business structure that is taxed as a partnership, but whose ownership interests are traded like corporate stock on a market.
By statute, MLPs have only been available to investors in energy portfolios for oil, natural gas, coal extraction, and pipeline projects. These projects get access to capital at a lower cost and are more liquid than traditional financing approaches to energy projects, making them highly effective at attracting private investment. Investors in renewable energy projects, however, have been explicitly prevented from forming MLPs, starving a growing portion of America’s domestic energy sector of the capital it needs to build and grow.
The Master Limited Partnerships Parity Act is a straightforward, powerful tweak to the federal tax code that could unleash significant private capital into the energy market.
The legislation, which is just over 200 words long, would level the playing field between traditional and new energy businesses by helping energy-generation and transmission companies form master limited partnerships, which combine the funding advantages of corporations and the tax advantages of partnerships.
By allowing additional forms of energy development to access this market tool, we can go beyond political rhetoric and start delivering an all-of-the-above energy strategy.
Sens. Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) say a small change to the U.S. tax code would provide a big boost to renewable energy projects.
The duo is floating legislation that would allow investors in green-power projects to use the “master limited partnership” tax structure, which is already available to investors in fossil fuel projects.
The lawmakers call it a “powerful tweak” to the tax code that would help steer capital into solar, wind, biofuels and other projects.
Coons, in a statement, said their “MLP Parity Act” will help “level the playing field by giving investors in renewables and non-renewables access to the same highly attractive master limited partnership business structure.”
MLPs are limited partnerships that are also traded on U.S. exchanges — a structure that the lawmakers call well-suited to getting capital into the energy space.
“In order to grow our economy and increase our energy security, sound economic tools like the MLP should be expanded to include additional domestic energy sources,” Moran said.
A summary, from the lawmakers’ offices:
By statute, MLPs have only been available to investors in energy portfolios for oil, natural gas, coal extraction, and pipeline projects. These projects get access to capital at a lower cost and are more liquid than traditional financing approaches to energy projects, making them highly effective at attracting private investment. Investors in renewable energy projects, however, have been explicitly prevented from forming MLPs, starving a growing portion of America’s domestic energy sector of the capital it needs to build and grow.
The Startup Act would help the U.S. stop the “brain drain,” by giving students the opportunity to fully use their education, skills, and work experience for their benefit while also contributing to America’s collective prosperity. Read our related report: “Becoming a Magnet for Global Talent”
J.D. Harrison, Washington Post - A bipartisan group of senators has introduced legislation to help American companies hire immigrant workers, particularly those with hard-to-find math and science expertise — but the bill faces a tough battle on the Hill.
