Muni tax break under threat from bipartisan scrutiny in congress

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The tax break that U.S. states, cities and counties get on the bonds they issue is in growing jeopardy now that Republicans, in addition to Democrats, are considering limits on the exemption.
As part of the "fiscal cliff" negotiations to raise more federal government tax revenue, Republican lawmakers have joined Democrats in reevaluating the costly tax break, said Republican congressional aides and lobbyists.
Municipal bonds issued by states and localities are a $3.7 trillion U.S. market underpinned by a law that exempts their interest income from taxation. This allows states and localities to tap capital markets more cheaply than private-sector borrowers such as banks and corporations.
"The muni bond exemption is on the table, not only during tax reform, but also during the 'fiscal cliff,'" said Mike Nicholas of the Bond Dealers of America, a lobbying group for fixed-income securities dealers and banks.
That the tax break - deeply embedded in the economy and vital to state and local governments - would draw the interest of Republicans shows how far Washington has come in a short time in considering potentially dramatic tax-and-spending changes.
As the United States grapples with a huge budget deficit and a complex tax code that has not been revamped in 26 years, even once politically untouchable tax breaks are being questioned.
The "fiscal cliff" refers to sharp tax increases and spending cuts that take effect in 18 days unless Congress intervenes soon.
Some lawmakers from both parties are calling for a comprehensive tax code overhaul in 2013 and groups concerned with the muni bond exemption are worried.
"We have not felt this threat level being this real in a long time," said David Parkhurst, legislative director with the National Governors Association, which represents the leaders of U.S. states that rely heavily on the muni bond tax exemption.
SUBSIDIZING STATES, LOCALITIES
The exemption benefits bond investors on one side of the market and state and local governments on the other. Effectively a subsidy for states and localities, the muni exemption cost U.S. taxpayers about $26.2 billion in 2011.
President Barack Obama in 2011 included the exemption among items subject to his proposed 28-percent cap on deductions and other tax breaks for individuals earning more than $200,000.
That proposal alarmed muni bond issuers and investors, who were already on edge because of a proposal to kill the exemption entirely in 2010's Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan.
Now, Republicans are rethinking their traditional reluctance to tinker with muni bonds, largely because they want to find ways to increase federal revenues without raising tax rates.
Phasing out the muni bond tax break for individual taxpayers earning more than $200,000 could raise about $10 billion a year - or about $100 billion over a decade - Republican aides said.
In the fight over the "fiscal cliff," Republicans hope to refute Obama's argument that real deficit reduction cannot be achieved without raising tax rates on high-income Americans.
Senator Orrin Hatch, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said tax breaks of all sorts need to be weighed in the effort to raise revenue and cut the deficit, but that "they are not easy to get rid of."
FROM STATES TO SCHOOLS
New issuance of tax-exempt bonds is expected to hit about $400 billion in 2013, up from about $370 billion this year, according to investment bank Loop Capital Markets LLC.
Jurisdictions that issue tax-exempt bonds range from states to cities, counties and school districts. They defend the bonds as vital to transportation, infrastructure and other public projects, which would be threatened by an exemption roll-back.
"It certainly couldn't come at a worse time," New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli told Reuters last week, referring to the devastation the region suffered during Hurricane Sandy.
"Even before the storm, we had tremendous infrastructure needs that localities were trying to address and now we're going to have even more."
It is unclear exactly what sort of limitations Republicans have in mind. The Obama proposal would apply to all bond issues.
Citigroup Inc muni bond strategist George Friedlander has estimated that Obama's cap, if enacted, would raise state and local government borrowing costs.
The "fiscal cliff" talks and a possible tax code overhaul next year pose "a clear and present danger" for muni bond issuers and investors, Friedlander said in a recent research report.
Read More..

Boehner plan would bring top U.S. income tax rate to 39.6 percent: source

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner's latest "fiscal cliff" proposal to President Barack Obama would see the top income tax rates rise to 39.6 percent from 35 percent for those with net incomes above $1 million a year, according to a source familiar with the talks.
The source, who asked not to be identified, emphasized that the income tax rate increase would be in exchange for "significant entitlement reforms/spending cuts." Entitlement programs include Medicare and Medicaid healthcare for the elderly and poor and Social Security retirement benefits.
The White House has not accepted Boehner's proposal, according to another source. Under current law, the top tax rate is scheduled to rise to 39.6 percent on January 1, unless Congress extends the current 35 percent, as Republicans had been urging.
Read More..

House Republicans eye limited fiscal cliff bill

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With time running short before a Dec. 31 deadline, House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner will begin work on legislation that simply would extend current low income tax rates for all families with incomes below $1 million a year, according to an aide.
Negotiations will continue with the White House on a broader tax and spending deal, the Boehner aide said.
Boehner is presenting the plan to rank-and-file Republicans in a closed-door session.
On January 1, income tax increases for most Americans will begin unless Congress acts.
Last July, the Democratic-controlled Senate passed a bill to extend the current low rates for all families with net incomes below $250,000 a year. The House Republican proposal, if passed by the House, would require agreement by the Senate or force a round of negotiations on a compromise between the two chambers.
In excerpts of remarks Boehner was delivering to his Republican members Tuesday morning, the speaker complained that "the White House just can't seem to bring itself to agree to a 'balanced' approach" to deficit-reduction in negotiations. At the same time, Boehner said Republicans were "leaving the door wide open for something better" than just the limited extension of current low tax rates for most Americans.
"Current law has tax rates going up on everyone January 1. The question for us is real simple: How do we stop as many of those rate hikes as possible?" Boehner said.
For months, Democrats have been urging House Republicans to pass a bill protecting middle-class taxpayers from a January 1 rate increase.
Read More..

Senator Reid rejects Boehner "fiscal cliff" backup plan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - House Speaker John Boehner's backup plan that would simply extend low income tax rates for households with incomes below $1 million a year "cannot pass both houses of Congress," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said on Tuesday.
Reid, a Democrat, said Boehner instead should focus on reaching a broad deficit-reduction deal with President Barack Obama. "Now is the time to show leadership, not kick the can down the road," Reid said.
Last July, Reid's Democrats passed a bill in the Senate that would have continued low tax rates, which are set to expire on December 31, for families with net incomes below $250,000.
Read More..

White House defends offer as 'good faith effort'

WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House is defending President Barack Obama's proposal to set a higher threshold for tax increases than what he vowed to do during his presidential campaign. The White House says Obama has moved halfway to meet House Speaker John Boehner on a "fiscal cliff" deal that raises $1.2 trillion in tax revenue, down from the $1.6 trillion Obama had initially requested.
White House spokesman Jay Carney says that offering to raise taxes on taxpayers earning more than $400,000 rather than the $200,000 he ran on demonstrates, in Carney's words, Obama's good faith effort to reach a compromise.
The new tax proposal is contained in a broader plan that Obama gave Boehner Monday that would cut spending further and lower cost-of-living increases for most Social Security beneficiaries.
Read More..

The fiscal cliff: Calculate how much it will cost you

There's still no deal to prevent the double-whammy of harsh tax hikes and spending cuts kicking in on Jan. 1. Who will feel the most pain if we take the plunge?
After several days of apparent progress, negotiations on a deal to avoid the fiscal cliff stalled on Wednesday. House Speaker John Boehner, the lead negotiator for Republicans, is vowing to hold a vote on his own plan to raise taxes on people earning over $1 million a year, sparing most Americans from the loss of Bush-era tax hikes but leaving in place deep, potentially damaging automatic spending cuts due to hit at year's end. President Obama has threatened to veto Boehner's bill, known as Plan B, although it appears dead-on-arrival in the Democrat-controlled Senate. Obama said the GOP was refusing to strike a compromise due to a grudge against him, and he challenged Republicans to "peel off the war paint" and make a deal on a 10-year, $2 trillion deficit-cutting agreement to avoid the cliff. Each day without an agreement, though, increases the chance that the fiscal cliff will actually hit. Economists have warned that could trigger another recession. How would going over the cliff affect ordinary Americans? Here, a brief guide:
Would the fiscal cliff cause instant calamity?
Many people might panic right away if Jan. 1 arrives without a deal, but the real impact of the fiscal cliff will occur gradually as $600 billion in automatic tax hikes and spending cuts (mostly to defense and domestic spending programs) start kicking in. But the money won't be sucked immediately out of the economy. It will happen over the course of the year, although we'll all feel the pinch right away.
SEE MORE: America already drove over a fiscal cliff
Where will we notice?
The first place most people will feel the pain is when they receive their first 2013 pay stub. Without a deal, the temporary reduction in the Social Security deduction — from 6.2 percent of pay to 4.2 percent — that was part of the economic stimulus package, will expire. The payroll tax will return to normal, and that extra 2 percent (of income up to $82,000) will go into the Social Security system, instead of your pocket. That will add up to $1,640 per taxpayer over the course of the year.
What about income taxes?
There, too, everyone will notice, although not everyone will suffer equally. The temporary tax cuts that then-president George W. Bush signed into law in 2001 and 2003 are set to expire for people at all income levels on Jan. 1. For married couples filing jointly, the rate will jump from 10 percent to 15 percent on the first $17,800 of adjusted gross income, it will remain at 15 percent on income from $17,800 to $60,350, and it will rise from 15 percent to 28 percent on income from $60,350 to $72,300. The taxes on a family making $80,000 will rise from 25 percent to 28 percent. Also, the standard deduction for married couples will fall from $12,100 to $10,150, and the child tax credit will fall from a maximum of $1,000 per kid to $500.
SEE MORE: Could Obama sidestep a debt-ceiling showdown by minting $1 trillion coins?
How much will that cost the average person?
It depends on how much he or she makes. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimates that if all of the scheduled tax increases are imposed, the average household will pay an extra $3,400 next year. The lowest fifth of households, with $11,239 in income, will pay an extra $412. The middle fifth, with an average income of $49,842, will pay $1,984 more. The second highest fifth (average income $80,080) will pay $3,540 more. The highest fifth (average income of $178,020) will pay an extra $14,173. The top 1 percent of taxpayers, those making $1.3 million on average, will see their tax bills rise by $120,537. That means that, in dollar terms, the super wealthy will pay the most, but those closer to the middle — say, couples making $80,000 — will lose the biggest chunk of their income.
So that's how much more we'll pay if there's no deal?
Not necessarily. Even if there's no deal to avoid every element of the fiscal cliff, there's a chance Congress will pass some form of a deal to ease the pain, at least for some of us. Boehner's bill would preserve the Bush-era tax cuts for almost everybody. Obama's proposal would keep those lower tax rates in effect for households making under $250,000 (which is still almost everybody). It's confusing, but there are plenty of online calculators available to help you estimate what you'll pay under all of the most likely scenarios (under Boehner's plan, under the Democrats' plan, if we simply go flying off the cliff). A single person earning $50,000, for example, would pay $10,313 in federal taxes (21 percent) if we went over the cliff, $9,753 under the GOP plan (20 percent tax rate), or $8,753 under Obama's plan (18 percent effective rate). Policy wonks say it's a good idea to take the calculators for a spin. "Some but not all of these tax hikes are still likely to go into effect as part of any deal to fix the nation's giant budget deficit," says Ian Salisbury at SmartMoney. "But just which ones is anybody's guess."
Read More..

Why more NFL teams should start rookie QBs

Why more NFL teams should start rookie QBs
Andrew Luck, Robert Griffin III, and Russell Wilson are on the verge of making playoff history
If the NFL playoffs started today, a record three rookie quarterbacks would be leading their teams into the postseason. With two weeks left to play, Indianapolis' Andrew Luck, Washington's Robert Griffin III, and Seattle's Russell Wilson all have their teams roaring toward unexpected postseason berths.
This is no fluke. It's a reflection of the new approach teams have begun to take with their freshman play-callers.
Teams used to insist that rookie quarterbacks weren't ready to lead a team to victory. When the Cincinnati Bengals selected Carson Palmer with the first overall pick in the 2003 draft, they hailed him as their new franchise player. Yet the following season, Palmer never once left the sidelines. The Bengals benched their prized rookie for the entire year, thinking he would develop faster by first watching a veteran quarterback. This was hardly unusual. Teams had long believed that rookies should be nurtured and eased into the pros. If you threw them right into the deep end, went the conventional wisdom, they would surely sink.
Michael Vick, the first overall pick in 2001, started just two games his rookie year. Eli Manning, Ben Roethlisberger, Phillip Rivers, and Aaron Rodgers — all highly-touted first round picks — began their careers as spectators, too.
In recent years, however, teams have been more adventurous with their new talent. In turn, more and more rookies have proven the old watch-and-learn system wrong.
Baltimore Ravens head coach John Harbaugh surprised everyone by naming rookie Joe Flacco his starting quarterback prior to the 2008 season. Flacco promptly led the Ravens to the AFC championship game, falling one win shy of the Super Bowl. That same year, fellow freshman QB Matt Ryan started every game for the Atlanta Falcons and took his team to the playoffs.
Mark Sanchez followed suit in 2009 with the New York Jets, driving his team to the AFC title game. And last year, Cincinnati's Andy Dalton and Houston's T.J Yates became the first rookie quarterbacks to face each other in a playoff game.
Since the AFL and NFL merged in 1970, just 11 freshman quarterbacks have started a playoff game; six have done so since 2004.
Even QBs whose teams failed to make the postseason have turned in sparkling rookie seasons in recent years. In 2010, Sam Bradford brought the St. Louis Rams, fresh off a one-win season, to the brink of the playoffs. And last year, number one pick Cam Newton obliterated a slew of rookie passing records.
In no season has this new phenomenon been more prominent than the current one. Five rookie quarterbacks started on opening day this year. Never before had more than two rookie quarterbacks done so.

This year's rookies aren't flailing away either. Leading the pack is Griffin, whose 104.2 passer rating — a composite measure of key passing statistics like completions, passing yards, and touchdowns — ranks second in the NFL behind only Rodgers, last year's league MVP. If Griffin keeps up the pace, he would destroy the record for the highest rookie passer rating ever. On top of that, his 6.7 rushing yards per attempt leads the league — not just among quarterbacks, but among all players.
By Total Quarterback Rating — a more nuanced version of passer rating created by ESPN — the big three rookie passers (Luck, Griffin, and Wilson) all rank in the top 11 league-wide. And even lesser-name rookies are enjoying relative success. Ryan Tannehill is turning in a respectable season for the struggling Miami Dolphins. And with Griffin out last week due to injury, rookie teammate Kirk Cousins picked up the win, throwing for 329 yards and two touchdowns.
Perhaps the driving factor behind this surge of rookie success is that college football has transformed in recent years to more closely resemble the pro game. College coaches have placed an increased emphasis on passing, and have adopted more and more NFL-style formations and plays — in some cases, college teams have even developed new tactics later appropriated their pro counterparts. As a result, college passers now enter the league with a built-in knowledge of the playing style, allowing them to more seamlessly transition between the two levels.
Read More..

Gun Violence -- Let's Shift the Odds in Favor of the Good Guys!

The unimaginable horror of Sandy Hook jumpstarts another "national conversation" about firearm violence. President Barack Obama, promising "meaningful action," said: "We will have to change. ... We can't tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end."
Let's examine four of the "commonsense" measures frequently proposed by "gun control advocates":
One, closing the "gun show loophole." What gun show loophole? Restricted from selling at guns shows prior to 1986, a licensed dealer today requires a background check whether he sells guns at a store, a gun show or the back of his SUV.
Two, banning "high-capacity" magazines. One of the firearms used by Adam Lanza was a Bushmaster .223, with a magazine that can carry as many as 30 rounds. Would there have been less carnage had he been limited to a firearm with low-capacity magazines? What is the appropriate amount of firepower? Clips with 10 rounds? Five rounds? If the idea is to reduce the lethality of the guns, what does this do to reduce the lethality of the shooter's intent?
The deadliest school massacre on American soil appears to have occurred in Chicago in 1958. A student set fire to the school, killing 92 students and three nuns. And in 1927, in Michigan, a former member of the school board set bombs at three schools, killing 45 (mostly second- to sixth-graders), including the bomber.
The Columbine tragedy could have been worse. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold set bombs throughout the school, but only one partially detonated, doing little damage. But had the bombs gone off as intended, hundreds could have been killed.
Three, reinstating the so-called "assault weapons" ban. An "assault rifle" is one where puling the trigger unleashes a volley of bullets, like a Tommy gun or AK-47. Since 1934, these firearms require licensing and registration. And in 1986, these weapons were banned from civilian sale. These laws remain in effect. The "assault weapons" ban did not restrict fully automatic weapons. Again, they were already under strict guidelines.
What exactly did this ban do? It outlawed certain weapons based on cosmetic features, many of which have nothing to do with the firepower or lethality. For example, the ban defined as an "assault weapon" a firearm with three or more of the following features: a folding or telescoping stock; a pistol grip; a bayonet mount; a flash suppressor; a muzzle capable of launching a grenade; and a magazine capacity over 10 rounds. It outlawed the manufacturing of 18 specific models of semi-automatic weapons.
The Bushmaster .223 was not one of the outlawed weapons.
The ban, enacted in 1994, expired 10 years later. What has been the result? Nothing. Crime was unaffected. The reason is simple. Assault-style rifles (the kind banned by the law) are rarely used in crime. Less than 1 percent of weapons used in crimes are fully automatic rifles (illegal to buy for nearly 30 years). An estimated 1 to 2 percent of firearms used in crime are assault-style rifles, like the one used in Newtown.
Four, requiring a mental health test to prevent the "mentally ill" from purchasing a firearm. The goal is to predict who will use a firearm in an unlawful way. But how to define mental illness? Is it depression? Abraham Lincoln supposedly suffered from depression or melancholia. Would the 16th president be denied the right to purchase a firearm? Do you forbid someone from purchasing a firearm if he or she is in therapy? Should a psychiatrist be required to inform the police when a client expresses anger, hatred or feelings of revenge?
Apart from the Second Amendment, how many other amendments to the Constitution will have been violated by denying someone the right to purchase a firearm because he is predicted to use the gun illegally — based on a psych test.
So what can be done?
We can harden the target to make it more likely that the shooter will encounter resistance. We can re-examine the soundness of "gun-free" zones like schools and malls. By law and policy, these are places where bad guys know there are no guns.
Rampage school shootings in Pearl, Miss., Edinboro, Pa., and in Grundy, Va., have been stopped or minimized by citizens with legal weapons. More recently, it appears that a concealed-carry weapon (CCW) holder minimized the damage that a shooter sought to inflict at the Clackamas Mall near Portland, Ore.
Nick Meli, who has a CCW permit and was armed, positioned himself near the mall shooter. Meli did not shoot, but feels he stopped what could have been greater carnage: "I'm not beating myself up 'cause I didn't shoot him. I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself."
Americans, according to criminologist Gary Kleck, use guns 2.5 million times each year for self-defense, usually just brandishing the weapon. (The attacker is wounded in less than 8 percent of self-defense cases.) Of the 2.5 million, 400,000 claim that but for their gun they would have been dead. If we're serious about "doing something," we might consider shifting the odds in favor of the good guys.
Read More..

Why are flags flown at half-staff in times of mourning?

Flying a flag at half-mast has become a well-recognized symbol of national grieving, but where did this tradition originate?

How did the tradition of flying the flag at half-staff get started?
It's tough to say, but the oldest commonly accepted reference to a half-staff flag dates back to 1612, when the captain of the British ship Heart's Ease died on a journey to Canada. When the ship returned to London, it was flying its flag at half-mast to honor the departed captain.
SEE ALSO: 5 gun-rights advocates who changed their minds after Sandy Hook
Why would these sailors lower their flag to honor their departed captain?
According to one line of scholarly thinking, by lowering the Union Jack, the sailors were making room for the invisible flag of Death. This explanation jibes with the British tradition of flying a "half-staff" flag exactly one flag's width lower than its normal position to underscore that Death's flag is flapping above it.
How long is the flag flown at half-staff in the United States?
It depends on whom the nation is mourning. Title 4, Chapter 1, Section 7 of the United States Code outlines strict guidelines for how long the flag is flown at half-staff following the deaths of various members of the government. The death of a current or former president lowers the flag for 30 days, while the current vice president, chief justice of the Supreme Court, and Speaker of the House receive 10 days of half-staff flying following their deaths. Flags fly at half-staff from the day of death until the date of interment for cabinet secretaries, associate justices of the Supreme Court, former vice presidents, and the governors of states. The death of a current member of Congress lowers the flag to half-staff on the day of death and following day.
SEE ALSO: Why are there so few female mass murderers?
Does the president have any leeway when he's making these orders?
Yes. The president can make an executive order lowering the flag to half-mast to honor the passing of other important figures or tragic events. For example, President George W. Bush ordered the flags flown at half-staff until the interment of Pope John Paul II. With national tragedies, the length of time seems to be a bit more arbitrary. Following the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush ordered the flag be flown at half-staff until September 16, 2001. The Indian Ocean earthquake and resulting tsunamis in 2004 prompted flags to be flown at half-staff from a Monday through the end of the following Friday.
What days is the flag always flown at half-staff?
The flag always flies on half-staff on Patriot Day (Sept. 11 of each year), Peace Officers Memorial Day (May 15), and Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day (Dec. 7). On Memorial Day, the flag flies at half-staff until noon, at which point it is raised to the top of the staff.
SEE ALSO: Remembering Daniel Inouye: A quietly heroic life in politics
What if I can't fly my flag at half-staff?
Some flags, like the ones commonly seen in school classrooms or on houses, are fixed in a certain position on their poles. How does one handle the sticky situation of a flag that physically can't be flown at half-staff? The United States Code doesn't cover this conundrum, but the American Legion advocates adding a black ribbon to the top of the flag's pole to indicate mourning.
Can anyone other than the president order flags to be flown at half-staff?
Sure. Governors of states, territories, and possessions have the authority under the federal flag code to order a half-staffing, as does the mayor of Washington, D.C. It's not uncommon for a local mayor to order a half-staffing following the death of some prominent citizen, and occasionally businesses will half-staff their flags to honor the passing of a member of the company. Technically, these sorts of half-staffings aren't covered by the federal flag code. There's no penalty for breaking the federal flag code, though, so it's generally no big deal if a local leader wants to honor a prominent citizen in this way.
SEE ALSO: Big Brother's bird's-eye view
How does one raise a flag to half-staff?
Surprisingly, not just by raising it halfway up the flagpole. To properly fly a flag at half-staff in mourning, one quickly raises the flag to the peak of the pole before slowly lowering it back down to the half-staff position.
Read More..

The Newtown school massacre and America's gun obsession: By the numbers

The tragedy set off a surge in support for new gun control laws... and a buying frenzy in gun stores
In the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings, in which 20 children and six adults were killed, President Obama is vowing to make gun control a priority in his second term. He promised to set up a task force and send Congress proposals on new restrictions in January, setting in motion what could be a bitter debate with Republicans, who oppose new restrictions on sales of guns and ammunition. The prospect of new gun laws (in a country with 270 million privately owned firearms) delighted some, and sent others rushing to sporting goods stores to buy weapons in case future restrictions make them harder to get. Here, a look at how the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., has affected America's obsession with guns:
5
States in which Walmart stores have sold out of five types of semi-automatic rifles like the one police say Adam Lanza used in the Sandy Hook killings, according to a Bloomberg News search on the company's website. The states where the weapons are out of stock include Pennsylvania, Kansas, and Alabama.
SEE MORE: Ronald Reagan would demand more gun control
$30,000
Sales at Pullman Arms in Worcester, Mass., on the Monday after the Newtown killings, up from $2,000 on a typical Monday. Most of the guns people bought were assault rifles, or ARs, like the Bushmaster rifle police say Lanza, who killed himself at the school as police arrived, used. "People want ARs because people are afraid there will be a ban on assault weapons," says Pullman Arms co-owner Alicia Merritt.
4,154
Record number of background checks submitted for gun purchases in Colorado on Saturday, the day after the Newtown massacre. The previous one-day record in the state, 4,028, was set on Black Friday of this year.
SEE MORE: Why states should take the lead in reforming gun laws
2,383
Background check requests made in Nevada from Friday through Sunday, another record, according to the Nevada Department of Public Safety. The previous weekend record in the state (2,315) was set over Black Friday weekend, which is typically the annual peak.
114,000
Background checks requested in Nevada this year, as of Dec. 16
SEE MORE: Is the Second Amendment obsolete?
104,288
Background checks requested in Nevada as of the same date last year
154,873
Applications for would-be gun buyers submitted to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) on Black Friday this year, the most in a single day since the system's inception in 1998 and a 20 percent increase over the number submitted on Black Friday 2011
SEE MORE: What 'meaningful contributions' will the NRA offer after Sandy Hook?
2
Number of times the NICS shut down on Black Friday this year due to system overload. One shutdown lasted 18 minutes, the other 14 minutes.
16.4 million
Background checks run nationwide in 2011, according to the FBI
SEE MORE: The Connecticut school massacre: Read the NRA's first public comments
194,814
Signatures on a petition at Whitehouse.gov (as of early morning on Dec. 20) demanding the introduction of new gun-control legislation
8,000
New members the National Rifle Association, the nation's leading gun-rights advocacy group, says it has signed up daily since the Connecticut shootings
SEE MORE: The media should be ashamed of its Connecticut coverage
200
Percentage increase in prices on the eBay auction website for ammunition for Glock handguns (another type of weapon Lanza reportedly carried). The running bid for four Glock magazines rose to $118.37, compared to $45 on the day before the shooting. The bid in an auction for seven Glock magazines hit $201 on Dec. 17, up from $71.01 before the massacre.
200
Percentage increase in reported sales of armored backpacks for children since the Newtown shooting rampage. The backpacks, with bulletproof-plate inserts, cost up to $400. Kerry Clark, president of Texas-based Backpackshield.com, sold 15 of the backpacks on Wednesday. He first started making them following the Virginia Tech mass shooting in 2007, and in a typical month, he sometimes sells just one. "It's the busiest I've seen it in my life," he said.
Read More..