Words ring hollow

On a Saturday morning in Pittsburgh, men and women worshipping in a synagogue were shot at by an apparent white nationalist.  11 are dead.  Six are wounded.  Four of the wounded are police officers.

46 year old Robert Bowers entered this place of worship armed with an assault rifle and three handguns.  He had a license to carry a firearm.  Multiple media outlets are reporting he was carrying an AR-15, while others described it as an "AR-15 style assault rifle.)

A look at the deadliest mass shootings in the U.S. since the end of World War II (I chose that time period to avoid any discussion of the massacres carried out by the U.S. military against American Indians) shows that the ten deadliest cover the years from 1966 through this year's mass shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School.  AR-15 style weapons were used in six of those ten mass killings.

How many such weapons are out there?  Thanks to the lobbying of the NRA and firearm manufacturers, we have no accurate estimates  That law prevents the establishment of "any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions."  NRA estimates are that there are between 8.5 million and 15 million such weapons in the hands of Americans.

Here is one of several tweets from the #MoronInChief

...This evil Anti-Semitic attack is an assault on humanity. It will take all of us working together to extract the poison of Anti-Semitism from our world. We must unite to conquer hate.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 27, 2018

Great words, if he actually meant them.  This tweet came from the same individual who said...

And this

And said this in regards to being told there were protesters at one of his rallies prepared to throw tomatoes:  "So if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of 'em, would you? Seriously. Okay? Just knock the hell — I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. I promise."

And lest we forget his comments about what happened when white nationalists got violent at Charlottesville:

Donald Trump has no interest in unifying the American people in any way other than unifying the population segment that got him elected.  Any other words he says ring very hollow.

* * *

As to the contention of the #LiarInChief that an armed guard would have made a difference, the fact that four police officers were wounded by the shooter at the synagogue lays bare the idiocy of that notion.

Armed guards who stand (actually, often sit) a post have their handgun holstered and they are easy targets.  Had there been a guard outside the synagogue, he or she would have simply been the first casualty.  Unless you turn such places into armed fortresses with a single point of access, with multiple guards who are heavily armed, there is no point in having one guard.

Not to mention we shouldn't have to harden our houses of worship because of hatred.

California November 2018 Ballot

I'm posting my choices in the 2018 general election.  Links lead to blogs about the specific race:

Governor - Gavin Newsom

Lieutenant Governor - Ed Hernandez

United States Senator - Dianne Feinstein

Attorney General - Xavier Bacera

Mr. Bacera faces off with Steven Bailey.  The fact that Mr. Bailey is currently facing ethics charges from the CA Commission on Judicial Performance is troubling.  The fact that Mr. Bailey wants to undo the recent legislation that eliminates money bail where not warranted is disqualifying.

Secretary of State - Alex Padilla

He is the incumbent and he has done a good job.  His opponent, Mark Meuser is fixated on voter fraud and claims that some of California's counties have more people registered to vote than are actually eligible to be voting.  Alex Padilla has earned another term.

State Controller - Betty Yee

Her experience on the State Board of Equalization, her push to overhaul the state's income tax system (which hasn't been changed in a major way since the 1930s) and the transparent way she has operated her office during her first term are clear indicators she deserves another term.  The fact her opponent, Konstantinos Roditis wants to de-fund the High Speed Rail project is the only positive I can see regarding his candidacy.

Treasurer - Fiona Ma

Superintendent of Public Instruction - Tony Thurmond

Insurance Commissioner - Steve Poizner

This one is easy.  He has the experience and knowledge, as well as a desire to protect consumers rather than insurance companies.

Proposition 1 - No

Proposition 2 - No

Proposition 3 - No (we need to stop approving bonds)

Proposition 4 - No (we need to stop approving bonds)

Proposition 5 - No

Proposition 6 - Yes

Proposition 7 - Yes (it would make Daylight Savings Time permanent, if the U.S. does that at the federal level)

Proposition 8 - No

Proposition 10 - No

Proposition 11 - Yes (no argument in opposition is present on the ballot)

Proposition 12 - Yes (the commercials say it better than I could)

California November 2018 Ballot - Proposition 10

Proposition 10 would repeal a CA law passed in 1995.  The Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act limited the ability of cities to impose rent control in a number of ways.  It precludes rent controls from being imposed on single-family houses and on condos.  It also allows landlords to raise rents when a tenant whose rent is limited by rent control, vacates their rental unit.  Prop 10 would repeal Costa-Hawkins.

Supporters of Prop 10 say it is necessary to allow local governments to deal with the issue of rent control.  Opponents say it won't do what it says it will do.  I think that the L.A. Times editorial supporting this proposition has the most accurate assessment of this issue in the first part of that piece's title.

Rent control isn't the answer to California's housing crisis, but it could help. Yes on Prop 10

Rent control is not the answer.  It creates a disincentive for those who want to build new housing in the limitation on the Return On Investment (ROI) they will realize from their investment.  A study of rent control in San Francisco by two professors at Stanford University's Graduate School of Business and a student pursuing a PhD in Economics at Stanford reveals some interesting data on rent control.  If you don't want to read the 46 page study, you can read a summary of its findings here.

The fact that the average rent for a one-bedroom apartment in San Francisco have risen by 50% since 2011 illustrates the impact of rent control.  The savings of $2.9 billion between 1994 and 2010 that those living in rent-controlled apartments in SF is enormous.  It is also offset by the $2.9 billion that renters who paid market-rate rents during the same period paid in higher costs to rent.  Like Prop 13 does for homeowners, rent control provides benefits to those who have been around long enough to benefit, paid for by those who weren't here at the right moment.

In 1988 I was living in a three-bedroom apartment in Santa Monica and the rent was $652 per month.  Adjusted for inflation, that would be $1,423 in September of 2018.  I just did a search for three bedroom apartments in Santa Monica and the least expensive available unit I located goes for $3,800 per month.

The owner of the building in which I lived refused to spend the money (probably six figures) needed to re-do the plumbing to prevent flooding in one of the two bathrooms.  As a result, the Rent Control Board reduced our rent from $652 to $411 per month until he made the repairs.  Because he wouldn't make repairs to the electrical system, the rent was temporarily reduced to $190 per month.  He fixed the electrical problems but the plumbing issues were still present when I moved out.

Do we want to force property owners to provide "affordable" housing to tenants when it means their ROI might be next to nothing?  What is a fair rate of return?

Like it or not, this is a problem of supply and demand.  The incredible demand for rental housing in California, worsened by the inability of most people to afford to purchase a home, has driven up the prices astronomically.  We need to encourage, not discourage more construction.

I am voting No on Proposition 10.

California November 2018 Ballot - Proposition 5

There have been a number of "changes" to California's Proposition 13 over the years.  This year's Proposition 5 would be the worst of this bad bunch.

Eight years after the passage of Prop 13, the voters passed Prop 58.  This proposition allowed parents to pass their homes to their children without causing a reassessment of the property's value.  The artificially low assessed value of that home would continue to be taxed at a much lower rate than homes purchased after Prop 13 went into effect.  That was changed a decade later by Proposition 193 which added the ability for grandparents to pass on property to their grandchildren without triggering a reassessment of the value of the property.  Oh yes, let's not forget that Prop 58 also allowed a parent to pass on real estate other than their residence to those kids, without the first $1 million in value being reassessed.

The original purpose of Prop 13 was to keep rapidly increasing property tax bills from forcing residents out of their primary residence.  Not to allow other property to be passed on from generation to generation without stepping up their assessed values.  A Los Angeles Times article published this past August shows that Beau Bridges, Jeff Bridges and their sister have saved over $300,000 in property taxes because a home they jointly own was not reassessed when they inherited it in 2009.

That Times piece points out that in L.A. County, over 60% of homes inherited that were not the primary residence being passed on were being used as second homes or rental properties.  The home owned by the Bridges was listed for rent at $15,595 per month.  Had people known that Prop 13 would have caused what it has caused in terms of homes passing on with those low assessed values being used not as residences for the heirs, but to generate large amounts of rental income, the vote might have been different.  Okay, probably not.

So what Prop 5 does is to build on Propositions 60 and 90, which allow someone who is 55 or older and owns a home with a Prop 13 assessment at its 1976 value to transfer that assessed value to a replacement home anywhere in the state, as long as that replacement property is of equal or lesser market value than the market value of the home they have sold; within two years of the sale.  Prop 60 restricted those transfers to replacement homes in the same county, Prop 90 allowed it to be done to a replacement home anywhere in the state, although not all counties allow such transfers.

Prop 5 would expand on those transfers.  It would cost the state approximately $1 billion in lost property tax revenues annually.  The only group who actually benefits from Prop 5 is realtors.

I'm voting NO on Prop 5.

California November 2018 Ballot - Propositions 1 and 2

Proposition 1 is a bond measure.  The proponents want to issue $4 billion in general obligation bonds for housing pograms.  A laudable goal, that ignores several realities.

As reported by Bloomberg, this past March the state sold $2.1 billion in bonds.  That left over $31 billion in unsold bonds, $17 billion of which have been approved by the voters in the last four years.  It is wise to refrain from issuing bonds until the funds are actually needed to fulfill the projects they are supposed to pay for, limiting the cost of servicing debt.

But there is already $83 billion in outstanding bonds at present.  The state's credit rating with S&P Global Ratings is AA-.  That's only the fourth highest rating, and if much more in bond debt is issued, the rating will go lower.

Then there is the $136 billion or so in unfunded CALPERS liabilities to worry about.  In a state where the top 10% of the state's earners pay 80% of all state income taxes collected, our ability to remain solvent is too reliant on too small a population segment to engage in more borrowing unless absolutely necessary.

There are other solutions to our housing crisis than this bond measure, which will cost too much on a per-person-assisted basis.

I'm voting No on Prop 1.

* * *

Proposition 2 is being sold as a "fix" to allow the spending of revenues generated by 2004's Proposition 63 surtax on incomes above $1 million each year; for the purpose of housing the mentally ill.  That proposition's goal was to raise funds to combat mental illness.

Helping the homeless is tough.  Helping the mentally ill is tough.  Helping those who are both mentally ill and on the streets is much more difficult.  That is not open to debate.  What is open to debate is what this proposition would actually do to address these concerns.

The devil is in the details.  Prop 2 wants to divert $140 million in funding currently budgeted for program services to help the mentally ill through county programs and use it to fund $2 billion more in bonds.  Over the 40 year life of those funds, that means we will spend $3.6 billion to get that $2 billion in funding, at the cost of reducing spending on those actually suffering from mental illness.

A large chunk of that money will go to developers to construct this housing.

Then there is the fact that all of the editorials in support of Prop 2 have ignored; the text of AB 727 that already allows counties to spend some of their budgets for mental health treatment on housing.  See the excerpt below:

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1.

 Section 5892 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:

5892.

 (a) In order to promote efficient implementation of this act, the county shall use funds distributed from the Mental Health Services Fund as follows:

(1) In 2005–06, 2006–07, and in 2007–08, 10 percent shall be placed in a trust fund to be expended for education and training programs pursuant to Part 3.1.

(2) In 2005–06, 2006–07, and in 2007–08, 10 percent for capital facilities and technological needs distributed to counties in accordance with a formula developed in consultation with the County Behavioral Health Directors Association of California to implement plans developed pursuant to Section 5847.

(3) Twenty percent of funds distributed to the counties pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 5891 shall be used for prevention and early intervention programs in accordance with Part 3.6 (commencing with Section 5840) of this division.

(4) The expenditure for prevention and early intervention may be increased in any county in which the department determines that the increase will decrease the need and cost for additional services to severely mentally ill persons in that county by an amount at least commensurate with the proposed increase.

(5) The balance of funds shall be distributed to county mental health programs for services to persons with severe mental illnesses pursuant to Part 4 (commencing with Section 5850) for the children’s system of care and Part 3 (commencing with Section 5800) for the adult and older adult system of care. These services may include housing assistance, as defined in Section 5892.5, to the target population specified in Section 5600.3.

I am voting No on Proposition 2.

California November 2018 Ballot - Superintendent of Public Instruction

The race for Superintendent of Public Instruction in California is a contest between those who support the privatization of public school education and those who oppose it.

Marshall Tuck is the man chosen to be the standard bearer for those who would like nothing more than to see every public school turned into a charter school. There are some fine charter schools out there. There are also some that are not so fine. He was involved with the Green Dot charter school organization until he left to become the head of the Partnership for Los Angeles Schools. During that time, teachers at 8 of the 10 schools he oversaw gave him resounding votes of “No Confidence.” The L.A. Times reported that after three years of Tuck's leadership, performance at the Partnership's schools had improved, but not as much as performance had risen at LAUSD schools with comparable populations. He is supported by charter school/privatization advocates like Betsy DeVos, Bill Evers and billionaire Arthur Rock.

Tony Thurmond is currently serving in the State Assembly and he was a member of the West Contra Costa Unified School District's Board of Education. TV commercials in support of his opponent point out a number of problems that took place during his tenure on that board. Those are legitimate concerns, but in viewing those issues it is important to also consider he was one of five board members. Members of this type of board cannot issue mandates on an individual basis. The board collectively should be held responsible for its failures and credited for its successes. But unless there is evidence that any one member of that board was specifically responsible for its failure to act as a whole, holding one person liable for those failures is unfair.

If we set aside these offsetting controversies, the choice becomes simple. If you favor privatization of public schools, your man is Marshall Tuck. If you oppose such privatization then your man is Tony Thurmond.

I'm voting for Tony Thurmond.

California November 2018 Ballot - Treasurer

Most of the races on this ballot are not close calls.  This one is closer than others.  

Fiona Ma is currently a member of the State Board of Equalization and she's done an outstanding job in that position.  She and current State Controller Betty Yee worked tirelessly to expose improprieties at the BOE.  She, like her opponent, is a CPA with experience in private practice as well as having spent time at one of the "Big Five" accounting firms.

The L.A. Times editorial endorsing Ms Ma extols her virtues while giving short shrift to her opponent, Greg Conlon.  Here is what they say about him:

"Ma’s opponent, Greg Conlon, is a retired CPA who spent most of his career at the Arthur Anderson (sic) accounting firm, which no longer exists. He sat on the Public Utilities Commission, including a stint as chairman, during Gov. Pete Wilson’s administration, a time when the PUC was less consumer friendly than it ought to have been. This is Conlon’s third try for the treasurer’s job, and he has never exceeded 40% of the vote in those attempts. He also ran in the 2016 primary to replace Barbara Boxer in the U.S. Senate but received only 3% of the vote. California voters have had plenty of chances to elect him and have persistently opted not to."

The fact that Arthur Andersen no longer exists has nothing to do with Mr. Conlon's tenure at the firm.  That firm was involved in the scandal at Enron after that energy firm filed for bankruptcy in 2001.  Mr. Conlon retired from Arthur Andersen a decade earlier.  

On the other hand, Ms Ma was working at Ernst & Young when that firm was involved in the BCCI scandal in 1991.  Since there is no evidence that she worked on that firm's account, it is unfair to mention this, but I did it to point out the hypocrisy in the Times editorial using the failure of Arthur Andersen to cast aspersions regarding Mr. Conlon.

Mr. Conlon wants to work to eliminate the $800 minimum tax on business entities to help start-up businesses.  It is onerous for a start-up to pay that tax in early years when they have little or no revenues.  It is also unfair to force entities that fail to dissolve their entity with the Secretary of State before the end of a year to pay that tax the following year if they are no longer in operation.  Mr. Conlon's proposal to begin working to resolve our state's unfunded and underfunded pension liabilities by starting defined contribution plans for new state employees, while preserving present pension benefits for current employees, also has merit.

I will be voting for Fiona Ma.  I think she is the better choice.  But it is a close call in my mind.

California November 2018 Ballot - Lieutenant Governor

The biggest difference between the two candidates seeking to become the Lieutenant Governor of California is experience.

Eleni Kounalakis has never served in any legislative body. She was appointed as the U.S. Ambassador to Hungary during the Obama Administration. She has donated large sums of money to Democratic candidates over the past decade-plus, including $100,000 to the 2008 campaign of Hillary Clinton.

Ed Hernandez is serving in his second term as a State Senator from Azusa. Prior to that, he spent a term in the State Assembly. His highest legislative priority has been healthcare.

John Nance Garner was the Vice President of the United States during two of FDR's terms in office. He famously described the office of Vice President as “not worth a bucket of warm spit.” It would be easy for someone to make the same statement about being the Lieutenant Governor. The primary purpose of the office is to have someone to take over if the Governor is incapacitated; or to sit in the”big chair” when the Governor is traveling outside California. The only other duties of the office are to sit on the boards that oversee the UC and Cal State systems, and on the State Lands Commission.

The reality is that being Lieutenant Governor is not much of a stepping-stone to becoming Governor. Grey Davis did it back in 1998 and he was recalled and replaced by the Gubinator, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Before Davis, you have to go back in time to 1953 and Goodwin Knight. He was serving at the Lieutenant Governor when then Governor Earl Warren stepped down to become Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

So why are these two fighting so hard and spending so much money to become Lieutenant Governor? Senator Hernandez is termed out of the Senate. If he wants to remain involved in elected office at the state level in California, he needed to find another office. Ms Kounalakis probably aspires to use a victory in this race as a springboard to seek higher office.

I'm voting for Ed Hernandez.

A primer on depreciation of real estate

The last thing I want to write about on October 15th is income taxes.  I will spend all day preparing tax returns for clients and then teach a class on tax preparation tonight.  So I will begin by paraphrasing William Shakespeare:

"Friends, Americans, Countrymen; lend me your ears.  I come to bury Kushner, not to praise him."

Actually I come to explore the New York Times article that speculates Jared Kushner paid little to no income tax between 2009 and 2016.  Many are outraged by this.  But this is nothing new.

President Ronald Reagan made that speech in 1985.  33 years later those loopholes were widened by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.  It is one of those loopholes involved here with what Jared Kushner and many others involved in real estate take advantage of, to avoid paying tax.  The question is, do they actually avoid it altogether?  This is an excerpt from the NYT article:

"His low tax bills are the result of a common tax-minimizing maneuver that, year after year, generated millions of dollars in losses for Mr. Kushner, according to the documents. But the losses were only on paper — Mr. Kushner and his company did not appear to actually lose any money. The losses were driven by depreciation, a tax benefit that lets real estate investors deduct a portion of the cost of their buildings from their taxable income every year."

Depreciation is simply recovering the cost of business property, over a period of time rather than deducting the full expense in the year of purchase.  The Income Tax Code does not allow the deduction of the full cost of real estate in the year of purchase.  Residential real estate property purchases are depreciated over a period of 27.5 years.  Commercial real estate property purchases are depreciated over a period of 39.5 years.

Let's examine a simple scenario involving how this works.  I have a friend, who is NOT my tax client.  My friend owns two homes, one in which they reside and another that they rent out.  There is no depreciation on their personal residence.  There is depreciation each year on their rental property.  A typical year for the rental property would look like this:

Rental Income - XX dollars

That income is reduced by these expenses when paid by the property owner and not the tenant:

Mortgage interest payments
Property taxes paid
Homeowner insurance
Repairs
Utilities
Other expenses (management fees, gardener, pest control)
Depreciation

As a result, my friend's property generates a loss each year, for tax purposes.  But not in terms of cash flow.  That's because as a very wise person once told me, "you do not have to write a check to depreciation."

The NYT article takes pains to point out that Mr. Kushner bought real estate with borrowed funds, meaning he's deducting the cost of buying that building even though he didn't pay cash.  Neither did my friend.  Most people do not pay cash for real estate.  The thing is, the deduction of that cost is permitted because there is a legal requirement to repay those loans.  It is the same logic that allows you to claim an education credit for the payment of tuition paid for with student loans.

There is something else going on with depreciation.  Here is a hypothetical example.  A rental property is purchased for $550,000 (total investment including commissions and improvements made during the time it was owned by the taxpayer).  After ten full years of ownership, during which the annual depreciation deduction allowed and claimed was $20,000, it is sold for $800,000 (sale price including the costs of the sale).

The gain on the sale is calculated as follows:

Original Basis - $550,000
Depreciation allowed or allowable - $200,000
Adjusted Basis - $350,000

Sale Price of $800,000 - adjusted basis of $350,000 = a gain of $450,000 on the sale.

Now they actually bought a building for $550,000 and sold it for $800,000, a gain of $250,000.  So why the disparity?  Because the gain on the sale RECAPTURES the depreciation that was claimed.  In the end, once the property is sold, the actual gain is realized.

Depreciation of real estate allows a deduction that must be recaptured when the property is sold.  It isn't actually avoiding tax, it is deferring it until the property is sold.

* * *

The article points out very clearly that none of this is illegal.  I don't like Mr. Kushner and how he has acted as an advisor to Mr. Trump.  But I won't fault him or anyone else for paying only the amount of tax they owe under the laws as currently written.

The problem isn't with those who follow the laws, the problem is with those who write the laws.

California November 2018 Ballot - Governor and United States Senator

As noted in my blog on the governor's race back when California held it's "Top 2" primary this past June, incumbent Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom ran a campaign with one goal in mind.  He wanted to be facing Republican candidate John Cox in the general election, rather than another Democratic candidate.  He got his wish.

Neither one of these candidates are offering solutions to the biggest real problems faced by California.  How to combat the state's overreliance on individual income tax revenues, how to deal with the state's $1 trillion in unfunded pension liabilities and the exodus of businesses from the state.  Nor does either of them have realistic solutions for the housing/homeless crisis.

That being said, there is really no contest here.  Gavin Newsom will stand in the way of every single attempt by Donald Trump to harm California.   John Cox will support Trump's initiatives, like offshore drilling and an utter lack of regard for the environment.

So, I will vote for Gavin Newsom.

* * *

In July of 2017 I wrote that I wouldn't be voting for U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein in either the primary or general elections this year.  The most recent polls give her a double-digit lead over her opponent, State Senator Kevin de Leon.

I still won't vote for her.  The argument that the state needs her seniority in the Senate has validity.  I was very disappointed with her handling of the "confidential" letter from Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.  Those issues should have been discussed with Senator Grassley earlier in the process, something that could have been done while protecting Dr. Ford's identity.  I don't know who leaked her name and I don't buy the contention that it was Senator Feinstein who leaked it.

Age is never an absolute.  I think back to my days of sharing meals with "M" in the assisted living facility.  He was over 100 years old, a retired attorney and he still had a mind as sharp as anyone I know.  Dianne Feinstein will turn 86 in the first year of her next term in office.  If she serves out the full term, she will be only the fourth nonagenarian to serve in the U.S. Senate.

I only hope that if she becomes unable to vigorously perform her duties, she will step aside at that time.

FWIW, I would say exactly the same thing about a male senator.  In fact, I might be a bit harder on a male senator, given that women have a longer life expectancy than men.

California November 2018 Ballot - Proposition 8

This is the ballot summary for this proposition which is all about the operation of dialysis clinics:

• Limits the charges to 115 percent of the costs for direct patient care and quality improvement costs, including training, patient education, and technology support.
• Requires rebates and penalties if charges exceed the limit.
• Requires annual reporting to the state regarding clinic costs, patient charges, and revenue.
• Prohibits clinics from refusing to treat patients based on the source of payment for care

So who is behind this proposition and who is against it?  The people who put it on the ballot are part of the SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, affiliated with the Service Employees International Union.

The opposition campaign is getting its funding from two very large companies who are big players in the business of operating dialysis clinics, DaVita and Fresenius Medical Care North America.  DaVita operates more than 2,500 clinics in the U.S.  Fresenius operates more than 2,200 clinics in the U.S.

When big business is behind the campaign opposing a ballot proposition, I'm immediately suspect their motives.  This ballot measure claims to be interested in patients but the actual agenda of SEIU-United Healthcare West is to give them leverage in their efforts to force DaVita and Fresenius to unionize.

Every major newspaper in California that had taken a position on Proposition 8 has said "No".

I will vote No on Prop 8.

It was one year ago today

We begin with the names of the 58 victims, killed on October 1, 2017.

Hannah Lassette Ahlers

Heather Lorraine Alvarado

Dorene Anderson

Carrie Rae Barnette

Jack Reginald Beaton

Stephen Richard Berger

Candice Ryan Bowers

Denise Burditus

Sandra Casey

Andrea Lee Anna Castilla

Denise Cohen

Austin William Davis

r Topaz Irvine

Teresa Nicol Kimura

Jessica Klymchuk

Carly Anne Kreibaum

Rhonda M LeRocque

Victor L Link

Jordan McIldoon

Kelsey Breanne Meadows

Calla-Marie Medig

James Melton

Patricia Mestas

Austin Cooper Meyer

Adrian Allan Murfitt

Rachael Kathleen Parker

Jennifer Parks

Carolyn Lee Parsons

Lisa Marie Patterson

John Joseph Phippen

Melissa V Ramirez

Jordyn N Rivera

Quinton Robbins

Cameron Robinson

Tara Ann Roe

Lisa Romero-Muniz

Christopher Louis Roybal

Brett Schwanbeck

Bailey Schweitzer

Laura Anne Shipp

Erick Silva

Susan Smith

Brennan Lee Stewart

Derrick Dean Taylor

Neysa C Tonks

Michelle Vo

Kurt Allen Von Tillow

William W Wolfe, Jr

* * *

It was just after 10 pm on a warm summer Sunday night in Las Vegas.  At the Las Vegas Valley Village site, across the famed "Strip" from the Mandalay Bay Hotel, the Route 91 Harvest Festival was about to wrap up its three day run.  The closing act on the festival's final night was Jason Aldean.

The music was interrupted by the sound of gunfire.  From his connecting suites on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay Hotel, 64 year old Stephen Paddock had opened fire.  He had eight AR-10 assault rifles and 14 AR-15 assault rifles, 12 of which were modified with bump-stock devices.  The bump-stock allows the semi-automatic AR-15 to be fired with nearly the same rate of fire as a fully automatic weapon.

That is why he was able to rain down over 1,100 rounds on the thousands below at the concert venue, in less than 12 minutes.  He killed 58 people, wounded 422 more and caused an additional 429 injuries from the panic that resulted. 

Paddock would take his own life before police stormed into his suite.  There is only speculation as to what his motive was.  People can argue that this wasn't an act of terrorism because it wasn't politically motivated, but there is no question that this was a night of terror for everyone there, everyone who watched the bone-chilling video and everyone else; who fears being a victim of the next mass shooting.

* * *

There is no official definition of the term mass shooting.  Most definitions involve an incident where four or more people are shot, excluding the shooter.  Using that definition, since October 1, 2017, there are have been 264 more mass shootings in the United States.

Other than offering their thoughts and prayers, politicians have done very little to try to eliminate these mass shootings.  Extremely rare in other nations, they are a common occurrence here in the United States.  

The most recent mass shooting in the U.S. was on September 21st.  September 21st was the 264th day of the year and that shooting at a Rite Aid distribution facility was the 261st mass shooting of 2018.  Nearly one a day.

A bill was introduced into Congress to ban bump stocks but no action has been taken on the proposal.  The public comment period on a proposed change to the rules enforced by the Department of Justice that would treat bump stocks the same as machine guns was opened on March 29, 2018 and was to close before the end of June 2018.  As I write this, those regulations have yet to be enacted.  The states of Florida, Hawaii, Maryland, Vermont and Washington have banned bump stocks.  

* * *

Keep your thoughts and prayers.  Take action that will change the equation.  Otherwise, get out of the way, get out of office and let's get some elected leaders who will ACT!!