Sun
Feb 12 2012
10:47 am
Duncan Doubles Down on Nonsense Claims
By: Mark Harmon

If you check the letters section of the News Sentinel, you'll see that Congressman Duncan has attempted to reply to my column, but really failed in doing so.

Congressman Duncan should know better than to "double down" on his indefensible claims about wealth and Congress. I’m glad he read my column, but wished he read it more carefully. If so, he would have noted I used mid-points in the ranges of congressional income categories, thus negating Duncan’s point about those ranges potentially exaggerating income. The raw data of those reports, available both before and after Duncan’s newsletter, are compelling and undeniable. Roughly half of our Members of Congress have a net worth in excess of a million dollars.

Further, I’m glad the congressman quoted Roll Call. Its Oct. 31st article on this subject actually validates that points I raised. It may be found here.

(link...)

The congressman then makes another mistake when he misquotes the congressional testimony of Robert Khuzami. The SEC’s Khuzami, formerly of Deutsche Bank, is himself facing criticism for the SEC’s record destruction policy and perceived lack of aggressiveness in corporate prosecutions.

Yet, even Khuzami does not say what Duncan implied he said. Khuzami testified there is no reason to believe Members of Congress are specifically exempt from the common law principles of insider trading. He added, however, both in testimony to the House and Senate that “the application of these principles to such trading, particularly in the case of Members of Congress, is without direct precedent and may present some unique issues.” His testimony may be found here:

(link...)

(link...)

Thus, the STOCK Act is further validated as a good idea. Duncan’s refusal to co-sponsor is not avoiding duplication of law; it is avoiding strengthening of law.

Calmly yours, Mark Harmon

Topics:
Factchecker's picture

Duncan should know better

Submitted by Factchecker on Sun, 2012/02/12 - 1:33pm.

Duncan should know better than to "double down" on his indefensible claims about wealth and Congress.

Was my first thought. It's pretty hard, too, to believe that a 50-50 group of Dems and Repubs vets his newsletters, as he stated. Reading them makes this Dem's head explode. Could a real Democrat really let this crap go by without protest?

Typical example of one of his "survey" questions, paraphrased as accurately as I recall (please correct me if this sounds mis-representational of true spirit):

- There are now more gun regulations than ever in history and studies show they have not decreased crime, but rather just cost taxpayers money, and that less gun restrictions actually lower the crime rate. Do you favor: a) More gun regulation? or, b) Less gun regulation.

Mary the prez's picture

I am so glad you and Mark continue to TELL the TRUTH!

Submitted by Mary the prez on Mon, 2012/02/13 - 11:40am.

I was preparing to write my take on Duncan's sarcastic, half-truth to Mark's well-researched piece on the wealthy in Congress. But you and he have done the best job!

I did some research back last year on Duncan, Alexander and Corker and where their wealth is coming from.
Duncan, who despises ANY government "regulations" gets huge chunks from the 'American Coal Ash Association" because of his support of the coal, oil and gas industries.

Alexander, who provides a monthly 'citizen editorial' in KNS, rambles on about how Medicare is 'ripping off all Seniors' while guess what? He is now worth, according to his own figures about $450 million...Big donors include Blue Cross!

And Corker, who was a millionaire when he got to Congress? He has never met a lobbyist he didn't like.

Thanks, Mark...Duncan has NOT a leg to stand on. And you are pointing out the sources to prove him so wrong!

Somebody's picture

Assuming such a review board

Submitted by Somebody on Mon, 2012/02/13 - 12:53pm.

Assuming such a review board exists and isn't a fabrication (and it probably isn't), there are two likely explanations. The more cynical one is simply this: if the Democrats on such a panel were to choke on Duncan's mailer, the Republicans would simply do the same for similar mailers put out by Democratic members of Congress. More likely, however, such a panel has a very narrowly defined authority: enforce some fairly weakly demarcated line that separates "constituent info" from "campaign material." That line probably exists just barely this side of the flyer including an imperative statement that blatantly says, "vote for me."

Somebody's picture

This is interesting.

Submitted by Somebody on Mon, 2012/02/13 - 1:24pm.

This is interesting. Duncan said in his column:

"All of my newsletters, before I am allowed to send them out, have to be approved by a franking commission equally divided between Democrats and Republicans, none of whom are members of Congress and none of whom I have ever even met."

The House Franking Commission actually is made up of members of Congress. The review he describes is done not by the members of the commission, but by their staff, so while technically correct, he seems to be painting a picture that differs somewhat from reality, or that at least encourages readers to draw conclusions that migh not be technically correct. The staff review follows what's in the Franking Manual, which calls for a mass mailing to be within bounds of what's described in 39 USC Sec. 3210. That code says things like no mass-mailings outside your district, no mass mailings within a certain time-frame of a congressional election, no mass mailings about personal things, only about official congressional business, etc.

So the review is done by the staff of a House Commission, which is made up of house members, and the content isn't reviewed beyond making a determination that it's not material of a personal nature, etc. So if the reader inferred from Duncan's comment that the review includes fact-checking, or would do anything to limit partisan commentary, the reader would be incorrect.

R. Neal's picture

For as long as he's been

Submitted by R. Neal on Mon, 2012/02/13 - 1:37pm.

For as long as he's been there you'd think Duncan would know how Congress works.

So, would this be a Politifact "partly true" or "partly false?" Or just "false?"

Somebody's picture

So, would this be a

Submitted by Somebody on Mon, 2012/02/13 - 2:54pm.

So, would this be a Politifact "partly true" or "partly false?" Or just "false?"

Why does that matter to you? For me, really I don't care. Politifact is a gimmick. What would be good is if someone at the Sentinel would analyze Congressman Duncan's column, do the quick homework like I did there and identify what's true, false, and iffy throughout. Then for an article, they could take the parts that are false or iffy and pursue those with the Congressman to get clarifications or retractions as might be offered, review the validity of the revised claims, and simply offer that to the readers to understand and make of it what they will. If the Congressman is offering falsehoods and prevarications, let his constituents know what they are and what makes them untrue. If there's an ongoing pattern (or not), they might be moved to consider that at election time.

Instead what we get is a case of "He Said (Harmon) - He Said (Duncan)," with no independent analysis to see who's got the facts, or if either one has them. That's the whole problem with political journalism. Harmon and Duncan are given the space to offer opinion pieces, and regardless of which one is better sourced, without an independent journalistic review, liberals and conservatives will cleave to one or the other as champions in single-combat.

While Politifact is at least an improvement in that there's an actual effort to review various claims, it's insufficient, and it's presented in a way that simply plays into the usual partisan horse-race tally. Instead of having ongoing fact-checking in everyday reporting, we get randomly selected nuggets for review, which are then assessed on the gimmicky "Truth-O-Meter," which lets people simply look at it as a horse-race score card, where one "false" statement is seen as the equivalent to any other "false" statement, regardless of the context of either. Or, as noted in the other thread here, the fact that one side's lie gets called "False" and the other side's lie gets called "Pants on Fire" leads to indignant claims of bias, while entirely missing the sad point that both referenced cases were lies.

I'd like to see everyday journalism that catches enough prevarications as a matter of course that it would cause those in elected positions to think twice before generating spin. Our political system is broken because finding truth or compromising to solve real problems has become grossly subservient to winning the daily narrative and making political points. So to cap a long answer to your short question, I don't care which label Politifact might put on it. I would much prefer to see politicians be routinely called to account for distortion they may choose to generate.

R. Neal's picture

It was a joke. Let me buy you

Submitted by R. Neal on Mon, 2012/02/13 - 2:55pm.

It was a joke. Let me buy you a beer.

Somebody's picture

Ah, alright then. As Gilda

Submitted by Somebody on Mon, 2012/02/13 - 3:05pm.

Ah, alright then.

As Gilda Radner used to say, nevermind.

cafkia's picture

There are now more gun

Submitted by cafkia on Mon, 2012/02/13 - 1:11pm.

There are now more gun regulations than ever in history and studies show they have not decreased crime, but rather just cost taxpayers money, and that less gun restrictions actually lower the crime rate. Do you favor: a) More gun regulation? or, b) Less gun regulation.

Here, let me spin that for you.

There are now more gun regulations than ever in history and all of the gun regulations of the last 50 years have been vetted, approved and, sometimes written by the NRA. Yet, studies show they have not decreased crime, but rather just cost taxpayers money. Regulations that do not go through the crime-favoring NRA could save your loved ones lives and wealth. Do you favor; a) more NRA involvement in how the criminals get and use guns? or, b)More safety and security in your life?

smalc's picture

Duncan's first assertion is

Submitted by smalc on Mon, 2012/02/13 - 4:51pm.

Duncan's first assertion is false, isn't it? There are less gun regulations now than ten years ago. The Assault Weapons Ban ended in 2004, and I can't think of any additional federal regulations since then. If anything, the state/local carry laws have increased the number of areas you can carry a gun.

Min's picture

Doubling down, eh?

Submitted by Min on Mon, 2012/02/13 - 12:34pm.

Sounds like he's drinking from the same well as Stacey Campfield.

GDrinnen2's picture

A well-played Radner

Submitted by GDrinnen2 on Mon, 2012/02/13 - 4:18pm.

A well-played Radner nevermind reference. . . Good work!

Factchecker's picture

A slight "fact-check" might

Submitted by Factchecker on Mon, 2012/02/13 - 9:06pm.

A slight "fact-check" might be in order. I was pulling from memory a typical Duncan survey question from 10-20 years ago. It might have just as well been any other hot button issue, as well as I can remember--abortion, environment, whatever. It makes no difference. I haven't read those things in a LONG time; they make me too pissed. Whatever actual question it would have been, it wasn't worded just like that. So I can't pin those exact claims on Duncan. It's the common technique of his. Take a polarizing, dumb-ass issue and frame the question with the specific answer you want. "Children, this is the right answer, and you'd be an idiot to disagree. Now, what is your answer?"

I do wonder of those who have read his newsletters and "surveys" in recent years whether anything has changed. And again, if I've misrepresented the gist of his little taxpayer paid propaganda machine, I'd certainly like to hear that too.

Factchecker's picture

OK, I've searched for

Submitted by Factchecker on Mon, 2012/02/13 - 9:29pm.

OK, I've searched for questionnaires and guns on Hank Hill's Jimmy Duncan's website, and came up with this lovely blurb from 2007, I think it said:

Gun Shops
Nowhere can this big government bias in favor of big business be seen more clearly than in what has happened to most of our Nation’s small gun shops. Somewhere around 80% of these stores have gone out of business or have been forced to close by governmentrules,regulationsandredtape. Agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives trying to show how powerful they are, have made it ridicu- lously difficult and even at times impossible for these small stores to survive by going to extremes in enforcing the most nitpicky, bureaucratic regulations imaginable. Some anti-gun extremists want a “Big Brother” world in which no private gun ownership is allowed, and maybe this is where we are headed. And I am for harsh sentences for those who use guns to commit violent or serious crimes. But guns have also protected millions of law-abiding citizens and have stopped countless numbers of crimes over the years. And teaching a young person to hunt is one of the finest things anyone can do. It is sure better than seeing them lying around watching T.V. and bumming around a mall, or even using drugs.

Hahahahaha. We have no place to turn to buy yet more guns, what a damn shame. And I guess I'm screwed up because no one ever taught me to cowardly slaughter defenseless animals with high powered weaponry.

Factchecker's picture

Why did Duhbya hate gun owners so much?

Submitted by Factchecker on Tue, 2012/02/14 - 12:11am.

This is too good and way better than the words I had Duncan saying. So big business, like Walmart and the big box hunting store chains, is no threat to mom and pop stores until it affects the "Nation's" (sic) small gun shops. Is ATF really going after small gun shops more than they are the huge gun shows mobile markets? Why? What is really driving out small gun shops (didn't they used to be called "pawn shops"?), if that really is even happening? And why is it so important to Duncan? What does this have to do with being able to buy a gun? Why is this a major issue? And remember this was written well into the second term of George W. Bush.

Now wait till you read Duncan's "reports" on global warming!

P.S. Forgot to address this weird non sequitur: "Nowhere can this big government bias in favor of big business be seen more clearly than..." Big gov't hearts big business and he of all people objects?! Every sentence a zinger.

bizgrrl's picture

What is really driving out

Submitted by bizgrrl on Tue, 2012/02/14 - 6:26am.

What is really driving out small gun shops (didn't they used to be called "pawn shops"?), if that really is even happening?

Buck's Gun Rack
Daytona Beach's Largest Firearms & Archery Dealer
Since 1954

Shoot Straight
in gun sports since 1979

smalc's picture

Prior to about 20 years ago

Submitted by smalc on Tue, 2012/02/14 - 2:01pm.

Prior to about 20 years ago it was quite easy to get a dealer's license. Then the ATF stopped issuing so-called "kitchen table" licenses. You really must have a storefront of some sort since then. They actually check records and inspect shops now. Many people with those kitchen table licenses have let them go, not wanting the hassles and expense. I wouldn't call that "driving shops out of business", though. They were mainly used to buy guns for yourself and buddies at a discount. Some people still have them and do interstate transfers for extra income.

I know someone who got a license in the early 2000s for a business out of his basement, mostly as a sidejob and hobby. It was tough to get, and probably only got it because he was in a very rural area. He recently let it expire, but not because he was driven out of business.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

    State News

    Wire Reports

    Lost Medicaid Funding

    To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding. (Source)

    Search and Archives