Mediaboss Marketing

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Torrance) spent close to a decade as a legislator in Sacramento after a stint on the Torrance City Council. He has kept a relatively low profile since being elected to Congress in 2014 as the successor to longtime Rep. Henry Waxman.

Lieu is a new darling among Democrats in the Trump era, building a reputation for brash tweets regularly challenging the president and his allies.

Lieu also has a new role as one of the regional vice chairs in the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the partys campaign arm dedicated to winning control of the House in 2018. His turf is House races in California, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Alaska and Hawaii.

Lieu was the main attraction at an Aliso Viejo town hall organized by liberal activists in Orange County who are working to oust Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Costa Mesa).

The Times sat down with the Democrat in the high schools indoor basketball court to talk Twitter, 2018 and politics in the era of Donald Trump. The transcript has been edited for clarity and brevity.

What I am doing is not unique. It is happening in other districts. Linda Sanchez is going to Ed Royces district. This is happening in different parts of the country. One of the points is to highlight that youve got certain members of Congress who are afraid to hold town halls.

I think that is unfortunate. I think they should hold town halls and answer questions of their constituents and address their constituents directly. But if they are not going to do that, then I think Democrats should step in and do the town halls for them.

I think there is a lot of activism and energy from people all over America, and some of them are being represented by members that appear to be ignoring their constituents. And this is a way to answer questions and to provide updates and information about whats happening in Washington, D.C.

I havent endorsed any of them, but I have talked to many of them. There are 23 seats in America that Hillary Clinton won that have a Republican incumbent. Seven are in California, five are in Southern California. One of the reasons this happened is, last term in many of these districts, we didnt have a top-tier candidate [and] we didnt have a second-tier candidate. We largely ignored many of these districts. Thats not happening this time.

We have actually the opposite problem. We have a huge amount of enthusiasm and a lot of high-quality candidates. We are going to have a lot of messy primaries in a lot of these districts. But at the end of the day, there will be a strong general election candidate going into November in every single one of these targeted districts. We are going to have a very different field of candidates than last term.

We are going to have five, six candidates running in the primaries maybe more [and] some districts with double-digit numbers of Democrats running.

No, I think it is actually a reflection of their energy and activism that we are seeing among many Americans. And I believe competition is healthy and is good. At the end of every primary, there is going to be a strong, tested Democrat running.

Follow these congressional races by signing up for our free Essential Politics email newsletter

I tell them dont go negative. You should talk about yourself and what you want to do for the community. Especially if there is multiple candidates running because then it is not even clear what happens when you go negative. So lets say you go negative on candidate A, maybe thats helping candidate C instead of yourself. And its hurting Democrats if you do really go profoundly negative in the primary. Most of them dont. They actually realize the most effective use of their money is to make sure they stand out in front of the voters and the voters understand their story.

We are going to have a lot of messy primaries in a lot of these districts. But at the end of the day, there will be a strong general election candidate.

Rep. Ted Lieu

Why Dana Rohrabacher's name keeps coming up in the Russia investigation

There are different structural things happening specifically in California. One of which is there is a very interesting governors race. And there is going to be a very interesting lieutenant governors race. A lot of statewide races for Democrats are of very low interest to Republicans because historically Republicans understand they just dont win statewide races. So you have a bunch of Democrats being drawn out next November in a way that Republicans will not be. Second, I supported what is now a law, which is if you go to the DMV, you are automatically registered to vote unless you specifically opt out. That will go into effect around spring of next year.

Which means by [next] November, we are going to have hundreds of thousands of new voters. Many of whom skew younger.

And third, when you dont have a presidential election, you can run 100 different congressional campaigns. In a presidential, all the oxygen is sucked up by two candidates. ... But individual congressional races, it is very hard for them to get their message out. Now, next November, you can run all these different congressional races.

So the candidate running in Dana Rohrabachers seat is going to have different issues than a candidate running in Wisconsin. And you can get that message out to local media because you dont have two presidential candidates dominating the whole election cycle. So that, I believe, is helpful for challengers.

My view is this is an all hands on deck moment for Americans, and everyone should want to get involved.

Rep. Ted Lieu

[W]e are raising money. We will be using those funds to support Democratic candidates to take back the House primarily in California but also Nevada.

One is direct donations to candidates. But those are capped. And then two, to get people to show up. Especially in our districts, like Karens and mine, you have these volunteers that just want to go help take back the House. So giving them a district to go to and helping them get there and then helping them do the right thing there are ways to do voter registration that are more effective than others. Going to a supermarket and doing it is probably not the best way to do it, but going to specific neighborhoods and precincts and targeting those is a much more effective way.

Democracy is messy. And I actually think it is good that we have so many different groups that are not necessarily coordinated because to me, we are in such an abnormal time in our nations history. To me, it has moved beyond the realm of not normal. I think we are actually moving into the realm of criminal. You have certain actions by this administration that appear to me to violate federal laws. My view is this is an all hands on deck moment for Americans, and everyone should want to get involved. And they can get involved in their own way. I am glad there are so many different groups. I think it is OK it is not coordinated.

I do my own.

There are a lot of followers now. It just sort of exploded since January.

javier.panzar@latimes.com

Twitter: @jpanzar

ALSO:

Republicans are targeting California Democrats over single-payer healthcare

Jolted by Trump, Orange County Democrats see a shot at victory on GOP turf

What early fundraising in California says about the race for Congress: Some incumbents are behind

Visit link:
Ted Lieu explains what he thinks it will take for Democrats to win the House in 2018 - Los Angeles Times

House and Senate Democrats have wondered for months if Bernie Sanders supporters might choose to focus their energy on launching primary challenges to party moderates in 2018. Theyre about to get an answer.

Sanders has decided the moment is right to launch his proposal for the single-payer health insurance system that helped form the backbone of his presidential message. And Democrats who dont get behind it could find themselves on the wrong side of the most energetic wing of the party as well as the once and possibly future presidential candidate who serves as its figurehead.

Story Continued Below

The Vermont senator himself has not explicitly said hell support primary challenges to those who wont support his push for a so-called Medicare-for-all health care plan. But there are plenty of signs that Sanders and his allies view the issue as a defining moment for Democratic lawmakers.

Our view is that within the Democratic Party, this is fast-emerging as a litmus test, said Ben Tulchin, the pollster for Sanders White House run.

Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning in your inbox.

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

The single-payer concept is increasingly popular in the party high-profile senators like Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand and Kamala Harris have expressed some support, and, for the first time, a majority of House Democrats have now signed on to the single-payer bill that Rep. John Conyers has been introducing regularly for more than a decade.

But even as leading party figures have drifted toward supporting a single-payer system similar to the one proposed by Sanders, almost none of them expect anything like it to become law while Republicans control Washington.

With Sanders promising to play a major role in 2018 races, thats led many party officials to worry about the prospect of his involvement in primaries that could upend the Democratic establishments plans to win crucial House, Senate and gubernatorial seats.

The fears are acute enough that when the Nevada chapter of Our Revolution the political group spawned from the Sanders presidential campaign endorsed long-shot candidate Jesse Sbaih in the states Democratic Senate primary over party favorite Rep. Jacky Rosen, retired former Sen. Harry Reid felt the need to call Sanders directly.

Dont endorse Sbaih, and dont let the national Our Revolution group accept its Nevada chapter's recommendation to back him either, the former minority leader implored his friend. Sanders agreed, said a Democrat familiar with the interaction.

Theres a concern that [Sanders allied] people will try to make a stir, said a senior Democratic aide working on a 2018 campaign. You cant just be a liberal Democrat in a lot of these states and be elected. [So] the question is how we improve the lives of people instead of playing these political games."

Sanders allies dont find that argument convincing.

Any Democrat worth their salt that doesnt unequivocally say Medicare-for-all is the way to go? To me, theres something wrong with them, said former Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner, president of Our Revolution. Were not going to accept no more hemming and hawing. No more game playing. Make your stand.

Sanders himself has stood alongside Democrats in fights like the recent one against the GOPs health care plans. Hes toured states with wavering Republican senators to pressure them on the issue and quickly condemned a recent single-payer measure pushed by Republican Sen. Steve Daines as a ploy designed to trick Democrats.

His team has been working with fellow progressive senators to enlist co-sponsors for his measure, said Democrats across Capitol Hill. Within Sanders circles, the increased popularity of single-payer arrangements is seen as a sign that his long-promised "political revolution is underway.

Within Sanders circles, such steps and are seen as signs that his long-promised "political revolution is underway.

Hes been vindicated by the presidential campaign, said Mark Longabaugh, a senior Sanders 2016 campaign adviser.

The Vermont senator has signaled that he expects serious resistance even from Democrats, but he has yet to spell out how he'll fight back.

We will be taking on the most powerful special interests in the country: Wall Street, the insurance companies, the drug companies, the corporate media, the Republican Party and the establishment wing of the Democratic Party, he emailed supporters last Tuesday.

Whats clear is that Sanders large and politically active following has stopped Democrats from confronting him directly including when it comes to offering alternatives to his Medicare-for-all measure. Many still remember the swift and angry January response from grass-roots progressives including Sanders supporters toward Booker for a symbolic drug importation vote, and toward Sen. Elizabeth Warren for her procedural vote in favor of Ben Carsons nomination as Housing secretary.

A daily play-by-play of congressional news in your inbox.

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

It represents the broader question of what the Democratic Party stands for, [so] this is a fundamental moment for Democratic senators. Its an issue that everyone is going to be watching to see how they respond, said Chuck Idelson, a senior operative for the National Nurses United union, which served as one of the most prominent backers of Sanders campaign and has long been a needle in the side of establishment Democrats.

Like many Democrats who are closely aligned with Sanders political operation, Idelson stopped short of primary threats. But he refused to rule out the possibility that his group might consider backing challenges of sitting Democratic lawmakers who dont back the plan.

Our organization, and plenty of other people out there, are going to be holding the Democrats accountable, Idelson said. What are we electing people for if theyre not going to be fighting for getting people health care when they need it?

Other Sanders-allied progressives have been equally adamant on the need to give his Medicare-for-all push a starring role in forthcoming primaries after the recent Capitol Hill health care fights and the stalling of a much-publicized California state legislative proposal.

We should run on Medicare-for-all in the 2018 and 2020 elections, said Bay Area Congressman Ro Khanna, a Sanders backer who has encouraged primary challenges. The Democrats that are activists are there, the Democratic voters are there, but now we just need enough of the elected officials to listen to where their constituents are.

The distrust between Sanders forces and the establishment is increasing the tension. Some Democratic senators privately bristled at the health care rallies that Sanders and others organized across the country in January: They were shocked to be greeted by angry Sanders backers in the crowds who loudly urged them to back a single-payer plan, according to several Democratic senators and aides. There is also longstanding grumbling over his refusal to share his campaign email list with other Democrats and, more recently, over his vote against a new round of sanctions against Russia and Iran.

On the other side of the divide, Sanders allies insist the party seldom acknowledges the role of the senators 2016 presidential bid in shaping the partys new agenda, whether on health care, a $15 minimum wage, or free college. And they express frustration that Democratic gatekeepers are still slow to accept Sanders likely front-runner role if he chooses to run for president in 2020.

In the words of one senior aide to Sanders campaign, A special cloud of denial formed over the swamp when polls started coming out showing Bernie was the most popular politician in the country."

Missing out on the latest scoops? Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning in your inbox.

See the original post here:
Sanders 'litmus test' alarms Democrats - Politico

Midterm elections are historically terrible for the president's party. In 18 of the last 20 midterm elections, the president's party has lost seats. In those 18 elections, the average seat loss is 33. Those numbers are even more daunting for presidents under 50% job approval -- as Donald Trump is right now. Since 1946, the average seat loss in the House in that situation is 36 seats.

"Even if Democrats were to win every single 2018 House and Senate race for seats representing places that Hillary Clinton won or that Trump won by less than 3 percentage points a pretty good midterm by historical standards they could still fall short of the House majority and lose five Senate seats."

That's absolutely stunning. And reflective of the advantages Republicans have going into 2018 -- one, in the House, built on having largely controlled the 2010 redistricting process, and the other, in the Senate, based on how great the 2006 and 2012 elections were for Democrats.

In the House, there are 23 districts currently held by a Republican that Hillary Clinton won in 2016. (There are 12 seats held by Democrats that Trump won.) Of those 23, just eight went for Barack Obama over Mitt Romney in 2012 as well.

Even so, if Democrats won all 23 of the seats Clinton carried that are represented by Republicans -- and lost NONE of the dozen seats Trump won that are held by Democrats -- the party still comes up a seat short of the majority.

Republicans, quite simply, did a very good job in drawing the congressional lines in states where they controlled the entire process after the 2010 census. Large populations of Democrats are, as Wasserman notes, packed into urban districts while Republican voters are more spread out among suburban and rural seats.

On the Senate side, where redistricting isn't a factor, Democrats are a victim of their own successes. Democrats won six Republican seats in the 2006 election. In 2012, Democrats picked up two more seats -- if you include Maine Sen. Angus King, an independent who caucuses with Democrats. And I do.

That embarrassment of political riches means that in 2018 there are a whopping 25 Democratic seats up as compared to a meager eight for Republicans. In other words, 52% of all the seats Democrats control are up in 2018 while just 15% of Republicans' seats are up.

And it's not just the raw numbers. It's where these seats are. Ten of the 25 (40%) are in states Trump won in 2016. TEN.

Five of those 10 -- North Dakota, Missouri, Montana, West Virginia and Indiana -- are states Trump carried by double digits. By contrast, only one Republican up for reelection -- Dean Heller of Nevada -- represents a state that Clinton won last November. Only one other Republican-held state -- Arizona -- was even marginally competitive in the presidential contest. (Trump won Arizona by 3.5 points.)

In short: The political environment is looking very, very good for Democrats. But the math is unchanging -- and bad -- for them.

History suggests that political environments can sometimes overwhelm raw numbers. But, for that to happen you need a gale-force wind blowing in one direction. And that is a very rare thing.

The rest is here:
Why 2018 might not be such an amazing election for Democrats - CNN

President Donald Trump at a rally at the Big Sandy Superstore Arena on Thursday in Huntington, West Virginia.

Justin Merriman/Getty Images

Last year, Thomas Frankwho skyrocketed to fame by trying to define what was the matter with Kansaspublished a book called Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People. Scolding the Democratic Party for its closeness to financial elites, Franks book offered an explanation of some of the trends that would lead to Donald Trumps election later that year. The question, then, is how Trump has been able, even with falling poll numbers, to hold on to so many of the voters he won, considering that his closeness to Wall Street and plutocratic style of governing go well beyond anything that could previously have been imagined.

Isaac Chotiner is a Slate staff writer.

To discuss Trumps first months in office, and what it means for the future of the left, I spoke by phone with Frank recently. During the course of our conversation, which has been edited and condensed for clarity, we discussed whether the media is partially to blame for Trumps ability to swindle voters, if the Democrats have made any progress in the past six months, and whether Trumps popularity is set to fall even further.

Isaac Chotiner: I wanted to get your thoughts on Trumps success last year, given that, it seems to me, he has been following through with none of the economic populism but all of the racism.

Thomas Frank: Yes, that seems to be correct. There are probably some exceptions, but I cant think of what they are right now. Do you remember one of the things he promised was to bring back Glass-Steagall? Do you remember this?

Its almost comical. Theyve made zero effort to do that.

You also probably remember he was preaching things like reining in prescription drug pricesthat doing that would be a big part of any health care changes.

Yup. He hasnt done anything.

So then why hasnt his support evaporated more than it has?

I wonder about this myself all the time. Of course, were only six months in. It takes people a while to give up on the guy. But one of the things is how he keeps his sort of symbolic war with the elites going and thats this war with the press that is going on.

Yeah, you wrote a column for the Guardian about how the media was failing in its own war on Trump.

Remember, this is something that goes back to Nixon. Nixon is Trumps hero, of course. The idea of the liberal media, the media elite. It has always been part of the right-wing way of looking at the world. With Trump, it has become the central issue. And, by the way, it goes both ways. The media seems to be, as far as I can tell, really enjoying it too. This is a moment of great fulfillment for them.

OK but what would be an alternative way for the media to act?

Theres a lack of imagination. Its just constant. Im talking about the op-ed pages specifically here, but this sort of direct frontal assault denunciation constantly. Ive got the New York Times from two days ago here, from the 31st, and these are some of the headlines on the op-ed page. Satan in a Sunday Hat, Who Ate Republicans Brains?, and Trump Goes Rogue. Its just this sort of direct frontal assault over-the-top denunciation.

There are a lot of bad things that are happening.

That is for sure. A lot of this is me being tired of it as a consumer, as somebody that reads the Washington Post and the New York Times every day. Im exhausted. Of course theres no choice. They have to keep doing it. Hes still president. This has been going on for a very long time. But the other thing is that theres no wit or cleverness or strategy to it.

I think the mistake some of the people on the left made about the election result is that they sort of assumed that the reason Trump voters disliked the elites and the reason they disliked the elites were similar. I worry about that when people start saying, Well, the New York Times is too critical of Trump, and then assume, This is why people hate the media. I think people hate the media for all sorts of cultural and deep-seated reasons.

Its not that theyre too critical of Trump. Its that theyre critical of Trump in a certain way. People do hate the media. Everybody hates their hometown newspaper. This is something that I learned many years ago.

When I started my career, it was the 1990s, and the thing that really astonished me at the time was the groupthink about the new economy. I wrote a whole book about this. I dont know if you remember it, not many people do. It was called One Market Under God, and I basically wrote it with CNBC on all the time, reading the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. It was about the sort of unanimity, that was astonishing to me at the time, unanimity of the media about the promise of the new economy. And then of course it all fell apart and the wheels came off. And then the second one was the Iraq war, and the consensus about the Iraq war.

Basically, I distrust consensus of nearly every kind. Then you had another one, a consensus in a different direction, which is nobody covering the housing bubble and the sort of epic, the layers of misconduct that allowed that to take place. Then the last example was in the last election. I was, just a little while ago, just for my own for fun, reading op-eds in the New York Times and various other publications from before the election and their confidence in Hillary Clintons victory wasthey were absolutely certain she was going to win and they express it in this kind of contemptuous way. They were so absolutely convinced of Hillary Clintonshow would I put it? Like saintliness.

You think the media was obsessed with Hillary Clintons saintliness last year?

Im talking about the opinion writers.

Yeah, and I do think they were. I think they got themselves into a dangerous place. By the way, I say this as a Hillary voter. I think they got themselves into a dangerous place where they couldnt see the sort of looming dangers.

Lets turn to the Democrats then. First, let me just ask you, how do you think the party has done in the first six months of the Trump administration resisting him and developing a positive message?

Well, not so great. Are you referring to the Better Deal?

People are really in the grip of monopolies. If the Democrats were to play it right, that could be very powerful.

Well, I mean, the slogan stuff is stupid, so more broadly.

Generally speaking, I would say they held together better than I thought they would on health care. I thought that Trump would conceivably be able to peel some of them away and he didnt. He wasnt able to and thats great. The Better Deal stuff most of it is pretty lukewarm. But I think its very significant for two reasons. First of all, I dont know if you saw this interview with Chuck Schumer where ... it was in the Washington Post. Hes talking to Ed OKeefe and David Weigel and he says this. He says, When you lose ... This is Chuck Schumer. He says, When you lose to somebody who has 40 percent popularity, you dont blame other thingsComey, Russiayou blame yourself.

That is fascinating. That shows that there really are new thoughts going through their heads. Im very excited about that. Then if you look at the proposal itself, most of it is warmed-over Clinton-era stuff. But theres one thing in here that I think is really significant and really meaningful and Im really excited to see the Democrats embrace it, and thats the anti-monopoly, antitrust agenda. This is huge. That is the Democratic Party turning their back on a consensus issue of 30 years standing. Its very impressive to me because Im one of these guys ... you know. Youve read my stuff. Im one of these guys that blames monopolies, the sort of coming together of these enormously powerful companies, I blame that for a lot of whats gone wrong in this country for ordinary working people for the last 30 years, especially when youre talking about farm country, small-town America, that sort of thing. These people are really in the grip of monopolies. I think thats something that, if the Democrats were to play it right, that could be very powerful and that could go a long way towards reversing this. OK, sorry, Ill shut up.

I agree on that. But in terms of the political question theres this sense, I think, on the left that Democrats need to have a very populist, pro-worker agenda to win back these Trump voters. But theres a logical inconsistency if Trump himself is pursuing the opposite of that and holding onto these voters.

Well, give it time. Like I said, theres still this kind of populist sham battle, this stage show, the war with the media. I dont know how long that can satisfy people.

I guess the disturbing analysis of whats going on is that the reason that hes always seen as a populist and on the side of white working-class people is because he is affirmatively not on the side of nonwhite people, and so that will always give him cachet to appear to be a populist fighting for the working-class white majority.

Racist does not equal working class. These two things are separate categories.

I didnt say racist equals working class. Thats not what Im trying to say.

As Slates resident interrogator, Isaac Chotiner has tangled with Newt Gingrich and gotten personal with novelist Jonathan Franzen. Now hes bringing his pointed, incisive interview style to a weekly podcast in which he talks one-on-one with newsmakers, celebrities, and cultural icons.

Thats what it sounded like. And you know, Isaac, that is a stereotype of long standing.

Top Comment

Q: "he has been following through with none of the economic populism but all of the racism" A: "Yes, that seems to be correct. More...

Well, the majority of white working-class people in this country just voted for a racist. I cant look into their hearts, but they did.

Look, I agree with that and its embarrassing. Its humiliating. Its awful. What can I say? The question is always to what degree they voted for Trump because of his bigotry or flip it on its head, to what degree did they vote for him despite his bigotry? And I dont know the answer to that.

Excerpt from:
The Monopoly Message - Slate Magazine

When it comes to voting rights, any obstacles outrage liberals; even free government-issued IDs are viewed as disenfranchising poor and disproportionately black people. But when it comes to the right to own a gun for self-defense, liberals don't hesitate to pile on fees, ID requirements, expensive training and onerous background checks.

That's too bad, because many law-abiding citizens in crime-ridden neighborhoods really do need a gun for self-defense. Since poor, urban blacks are the most likely victims of violent crime, there is little doubt that they stand to benefit the most from owning guns. Research, including my own, has demonstrated this.

A new report from the Crime Prevention Research Center shows that the average fee for a concealed handgun permit is $67, but it is much higher in the most Democratic states. Each 10-percentage-point increase in a state's presidential vote for Hillary Clinton was associated with an additional $30 in the concealed handgun permit fee. In California, where Clinton won by about 30 points, fees can be as high as $385 for just two years. In New York City, where she won by 60 points, a three-year permit costs $430.

In addition to prohibitive fees, some blue states California, Illinois require four times as many training hours as the national average, adding hundreds of dollars to the cost of obtaining a concealed-carry license. In California counties, the mandated cost of training can run from $250 to more than $1,000. Compare heavily Democratic Illinois, where the cost of permit and training runs over $450, with neighboring Republican Indiana where the total cost for everything is $50.

In some states, the poor need not apply even if they are willing to pay these costs. In the Democratic-leaning states of California, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island, as well as the District of Columbia, people have to demonstrate need for a permit to a local public official.

Los Angeles County illustrates how this discretion results in only a select few wealthy and powerful individuals getting permits. If Los Angeles County authorized permits at the same rate as the rest of the country, it would have around 600,000 permit holders. Instead, only 226 permits have been issued within a population of about 7.9 million adults, and many of them have gone to politically connected individuals, including judges. Indeed, former Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca earned a reputation for awarding permits to people who gave him campaign donations or generous gifts.

While women make up 36 percent of permit holders nationally, they only got 7 percent of the permits in Los Angeles County. Although almost half the county's population is Hispanic, only 6.5 percent of permits were given to Hispanics. Few were given to blacks.

In New York City, permits seem to go only to a politically approved segment of the rich and powerful. This includes union heads and people such as Donald Trump, Laurence Rockefeller, Howard Stern and Robert De Niro. Those who aren't politically approved Fox News' John Stossel, for instance don't get permits no matter how much evidence they provide about death threats they've received.

Are influential individuals really the only ones who have legitimate concerns for their safety?

Democrats continue to fight for higher fees. In Connecticut, the state fee for a concealed handgun permit is already $70. Gov. Dannel Malloy wants to raise it to $300. Adding local charges and additional payments for training and fingerprinting, this increase would bring the total cost of a permit to more than $500.

In Texas, the state fee for a concealed-handgun permit, $140, is one of the highest in the country. In May, the state legislature passed a bill that will reduce the fee to $40, starting Sept. 1. No Republican opposed the cut. In the state House, only 32 percent of Democrats supported it.

In 2013, the Colorado House of Representatives voted on whether to exempt people in poverty from a tax imposed on the transferring of guns between individuals. All but two Democrats voted against the amendment.

After the Supreme Court struck down the handgun ban in Washington, D.C., in 2008, the city quickly imposed the most onerous licensing and registration fees in the country. The total costs for a permit temporarily reached an incredible $834. Who but the affluent can afford such a fee?

Dozens of published peer-reviewed studies have demonstrated that those who are the most likely victims of crime benefit the most from owning guns.

The cops can't be everywhere at once. Indeed, they rarely respond to live crime scenes at all. But unfortunately for poor people living in the country's most violent neighborhoods, Democrats just don't trust them with guns.

John Lott Jr. is the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center and the author most recently of "The War on Guns."

Read this article:
How Democrats keep guns in the hands of the rich - Chicago Tribune - Chicago Tribune