Monday Mashup Part Two (6/28/10)

(Part One is here.)

Thus sayeth Sheryl Gay Stolberg of the New York Times yesterday (here)…

The debate (over Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan) will play against a polarized midterm election where Democrats are expected to lose seats. Although Ms. Kagan is almost certain to be confirmed, and her nomination will hardly supersede issues like the economy and jobs, Republicans see the court fight as a way to energize their base, especially conservative Tea Party activists disenchanted with Mr. Obama.

Yeah, well, that's typical RNC boilerplate I realize, but as noted here...

"Establishment GOP PACs spend at least $2 million fighting Tea Party candidates in primaries"

I’m really beginning to think more and more that those zany teabaggers are nothing more than The Club For Growth carrying racist signs and wearing funny hats. If the stated goal of each is to siphon off money from the RNC over pointless infighting, then I would say that they’ve each achieved more success than they could have ever imagined.

Sticking with the Times, we also learned the following today (here)…

WASHINGTON — The Second Amendment’s guarantee of an individual right to bear arms applies to state and local gun control laws, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday in a 5-to-4 decision.

The ruling came almost exactly two years after the court first ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own guns in District of Columbia v. Heller, another 5-to-4 decision.

But the Heller case addressed only federal laws; it left open the question of whether Second Amendment rights protect gun owners from overreaching by state and local governments.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the majority, said that the right to self-defense protected by the Second Amendment is fundamental to the American conception of ordered liberty. Like other provisions of the Bill of Rights that set out such fundamental protections, he said, the Second Amendment must be applied to limit not only federal power but also that of state and local governments.

And what is really funny to me is that this took place on the same day that clownhall.com published a post titled “The Myth of the Conservative Supreme Court” (here).

I realize that this is totally consistent with the Heller ruling from this court, and as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence tells us here…

…(the Court’s ruling today maintained that) the Second Amendment individual right to possess guns in the home for self-defense does not prevent elected representatives from enacting common-sense gun laws to protect communities from gun violence.

The Court has rejected the gun lobby argument that its ‘any gun, for anybody, anywhere’ agenda is protected by the Constitution. The Court again recognized that the Second Amendment allows for reasonable restrictions on firearms, including who can have them and under what conditions, where they can be taken, and what types of firearms are permissible.

I give the Brady people credit, but if they think there’s anything good about this outcome, then they’re whistling in the dark, as it were, particularly because The Supremes didn’t even really rule on the Chicago gun law itself, but merely sent it back to the lower courts for review. As the Times tells us, “Justice Stephen G. Breyer, in dissent, said ‘the majority would almost certainly strike down’ the Chicago law had it reached the question.”

Given the Heller and now McDonald rulings, there is no way that the High Court of Hangin’ Judge JR is going to do anything but rule against common sense measures of protection from gun violence (and but for the rare exceptions such as Carolyn McCarthy, Frank Lautenberg and Michael Bloomberg, no politician is going to do a thing about it).

Well then, if the Supremes are so peachy with gun rights, then they should remove the gun detection devices at the Court entrances, shouldn’t they?

Finally, it seems that, in between casting all of those “No” votes, Joe Pitts (Waste of Space, PA-16) had time to propagandize on health care reform, as noted here…

“At this time, 18 states have opted-out of the program because they feel that the law fails to sufficiently fund the program.”

Part of that is true, but as noted here…

So far, at least 18 have decided not to participate, but their reasons vary. Some state officials said they think the health care bill will be declared unconstitutional, while others said they're already doing a good job helping the uninsured with existing programs.

It's not clear whether the high number of states not participating could throw any kinks in the federal plan.

By 2014, all insurance companies will have to provide insurance to citizens with pre-existing conditions, but until then each state must be able to offer temporary insurance coverage to these individuals, funded by federal dollars. The programs will go into effect July 1.

Pitts also says that “in states that have opted out, the federal government will operate the program, closing off coverage after the funds run dry” (again, as noted above, some of the risk pools will be run by the states themselves, such as Minnesota).

And one Republican governor had a completely different take on this as opposed to Pitts (I know Ahh-nold is wrong a lot, but when he’s right, he’s right in a big way)…

Many officials, in their statements announcing their decisions to "opt in," cite their excitement to work with the government to put what they see as historic health care reform into action.

"If national health care reform is going to succeed, it is up to the states to make it happen," said Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-Calif.), who is looking to have the new federal-run pool run alongside California's current state-run program. "California is ready to act … to successfully implement federal health reform and ensure it delivers its promise of expanded coverage, greater affordability and improved health outcomes.”

And here’s more “Ooga Booga!” scare stuff from Tail Gunner Joe…

At the same time that out-of-pocket costs will be driven up, overall costs for healthcare in the U.S. will also rise. According to (an) April report, the law will increase health spending by $311 billion over the next ten years.

As Media Matters tells us here, Pitts is citing a recent Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) report that seems to rebut the Obama administration's argument that health care reform will lower health care costs (and Pitts doesn't consider beyond this decade of course). However, as Third Way has noted, the CMS report indicates that health care reform would actually result in lower health care spending per insured person over the next decade, and according to Ezra Klein, the trend outlined by CMS suggests that overall health spending will be lower after 2019.

Media Matters continues...

"The fact is that by 2019, national health spending per insured person will be $15,132 compared to $16,812 without the new law. That's 10 percent less spending per insured person than it would have been, according to the actuary's report."

Of course, the truth of the matter is that Pitts sees no role for federal involvement in health care reform, period; in addition to voting against funding SCHIP four times as noted here, he also voted in favor of cutting the federal share of Medicaid by $13 billion over five years, leaving it up to the states to replace the funds or cut health services to the poor, something which would be a fiscal backbreaker for PA (and this tells us more about how health care reform will benefit our beloved commonwealth).

Every other year I keep pointing out how bad Pitts is and encouraging his opponent, and this year is no different. So let’s all do what we can to put him out to pasture once and for all, and we can start by clicking here.