Smart Bombs: A reality-based ruling, please
The U.S. Supreme Court is cloaked in tradition, resistant to public access and generally standoffish, but there are consequences to this separate reality. For instance, when the court overturned campaign finance limits in the infamous Citizens United decision, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy said it wouldn’t be such a big deal.
“With the advent of the Internet,” Kennedy wrote, “prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters.”
But there is no legal requirement for prompt disclosure, so the court’s ruling has triggered a flood of anonymous giving. Perhaps Kennedy thought Congress would pass something like the DISCLOSE Act, which would do the trick. But that’s like expecting Republicans to embrace Obamacare.
Speaking of the health care law, the fate of subsidies to millions of Americans who purchased health coverage in the federal exchanges is in the hands of the Supreme Court. In a disingenuous challenge, opponents say a robotic reading of one sentence in the law suggests that subsidies are restricted to only those Americans who reside in the 14 states that set up their own exchanges. Context and intent be damned.
During oral arguments, Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito seemed to downplay the effects of an adverse ruling, suggesting that Congress would swoop in to forestall the consequences in the 36 states that have federal exchanges. If only there were a newspaper in that town. House Republicans couldn’t reach consensus among themselves on funding homeland security, but they’re going to rescue a law they’ve repeatedly tried to repeal?
Sorry, justices. Can’t escape the Pottery Barn “rule”: You break it, you own it.
Medicaid mulch: Under the U.S. House budget, Medicaid would be slashed by $913 billion over a decade after turning the program into block grants. The big bonus? Flexibility.
Or, as House Republicans put it, “Our budget realigns the relationship the federal government has with states and local communities by respecting and restoring the principle of federalism.”
One imagines them at home doing summer chores.
“Hey John, cutting the grass?”
“No, I’m realigning the relationship between the lawn and the mower.”
“Ah, will that result in grass clippings?”
“Who cares? The important thing is that I have the option of using a power mower, push mower or bringing in a hungry goat.”
Cap and gun. A bill that tweaks the concealed-carry gun law in Idaho would’ve ended the permit exemption for public officials. But after a hearing, it was restored. Why? Was there gunplay? No.
“The majority of the House committee wanted that exemption left in for both public and elected officials because it has been there for so long,” said Rep. Judy Boyle, R-Midvale.
Ah, the old “we’ve always done it this way” excuse. Just happens to benefit them.
Another thing the Legislature had always done is allow colleges to decide whether they want people carrying concealed weapons on their campuses. But lawmakers last year overrode that authority, and now students, professors and visitors can pack heat, as long as they buy the proper permit or get elected.
As a result, Boise State University, Idaho State University, the University of Idaho, the College of Western Idaho and North Idaho College expect to incur $3.7 million in costs for increased security, according to the Idaho Statesman. The budget-strapped schools will absorb the costs if lawmakers decline to reimburse them.
Lawmakers should at least pay for permits and give the proceeds to colleges.