Site Meter
Monday, 16 June 2008

Most Americans believe that owning a gun is the right of every citizen. According to a Gallup poll, 73 percent of the U.S. public believe that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to gun ownership. Therefore the Heller decision, which is expected any day now, could play a pivotal role in the 2008 presidential campaign. Former Ohio Secretary of State-turned-pundit Kenneth Blackwell calls it "the Roe v. Wade" of gun rights and suggests that the case (and its results) will ripple beyond District borders to impact "90 million American gun owners."

It was six D.C. residents, fed up with escalating crime and the inability to protect themselves in they city they love, who filed suit in 2003 to challenge the constitutionality of the District's ban on handguns. The lawsuit was dismissed but reversed on appeal by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which found that the petitioner: 1) had standing to bring the lawsuit, 2) is protected by the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms (handguns) and 3) therefore, the District "is not open to ban them."

Last year, D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty failed in his petition to rehear the appeal, paving the way for both defendant and plantiffs to petition the Supreme Court. That brings us to where we are today, in the midst of a presidential election when opinions on every matter are measured at every turn and the issue of "gun rights" is beginning to weave its way in and out of the political debate.

Generally speaking, more gun owners identify as Republicans (53 percent) than identify as Democrats (39 percent), according to Gallup. And a Harris poll, out this week, backs that up. It found that 51 percent of Republicans and 41 percent of Democrats support an individual's right to bear arms.

While the justices are expected to make their decision based on rule of law, not public opinion, the weight of whether the two presumptive presidential candidates are in sync with the public's views on the issue should not be lost among voters. But nailing either candidate down on the matter is dicey. We know Barack Obama referred to Hillary Clinton as "Annie Oakley," suggesting that she attempted to pander to gun owners during the primary campaign. But Mr. Obama didn't do himself any favors with with his "they cling to guns" remark. Mr. Obama has also opposed "right to carry" laws, voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition and has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.

John McCain has caught grief from gun advocates for his support for closing gun-show "loopholes." But he is seen by many in this same group as the "lesser of two evils." Mr. McCain also joined close to 300 other lawmakers in signing a court brief which supported lifting the D.C. gun ban, and he delivered a laudable speech to the National Rifle Association's annual conference last month, addressing what he considers Mr. Obama's glaring contradiction on gun rights: "Let's be clear if ... Obama is elected president, the rights of law-abiding gun owners will be at risk."

The Gallup poll cited also found that the majority of Americans don't actually own a firearm (only 35 percent say they do). But that doesn't mean they forfeit the right to purchase one if they so desire. We hope the majority of justices agree.

Washington Post Editorial

POSTED BY: TARS AT 10:19 am   |  Permalink   |  E-mail this
Monday, 16 June 2008

While much of the health care reform debate centers on the 47 million uninsured Americans, there is an equally important subgroup that must be part or the solution - the uninsurable - i.e., those who have been denied health insurance coverage because of a pre-existing medical condition, or whose condition results in premiums much higher than the standard.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama (and also Hillary Clinton and even California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican) has said he would forbid insurers from denying anyone who applied. In health insurance parlance that's known as "guaranteed issue." By contrast, Republican presidential candidate John McCain opposes guaranteed issue, which has led to criticism that he doesn't address the problem of the uninsurable. Elizabeth Edwards, a cancer patient and wife of former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, has claimed that neither she nor Mr. McCain would be able to buy their own coverage under his plan.

What critics almost never say is that very few people are ever denied coverage - or can be, for that matter. Some 250 million Americans have health insurance, with the vast majority of them getting their coverage either through their employer (about 160 million) or a government program such as Medicare or Medicaid. Under current law, no employer- or government-provided policy can deny coverage because of a medical condition. However, in most states health insurers selling in the "individual" health insurance market, where some 18 million Americans and their dependents currently buy their own policies, can refuse to cover an applicant with a pre-existing condition - just as life insurers can refuse an applicant who's been diagnosed with a terminal disease.

And the reason is simple: If an individual can buy health insurance at any time, many would wait until they need health care to buy coverage. The result would be a very small pool of very sick people - and very high premiums. That's one of the reasons Ms. Clinton wanted to force every one to buy coverage, but that "solution" creates its own problems.

This isn't guesswork. Seven states - New Jersey, New York, Vermont, Massachusetts, Maine, Washington and New Hampshire - tried what Mr. Obama is proposing in the mid-1990s, and every one of them virtually destroyed their individual markets. People can still get coverage in most of them, but they have very few choices and both the healthy and the sick will pay as much as three times what people in other states pay.

The public-policy challenge is to find a way to provide coverage to the uninsurable without destroying the individual health insurance market. The best solution is to let the health insurance market work for the vast majority of Americans and create a safety net for those who can't get coverage. That's what Mr. McCain's "Guaranteed Access Plan" (GAP) tries to do. Details are still being worked out, but it appears to be similar to what's known as a high-risk pool with some new twists, such as allowing the GAP pools to combine with other large pools in the state - e.g., the state employees or teachers - in the hope of getting better economies of scale.

Currently, there are some 34 state-based high-risk pools, nonprofit public-private partnerships that provide health insurance for about 190,000 Americans who have been denied coverage. In most states enrollees pay 150 percent of the standard premium, though some can go up to 200 percent. But since all high-risk pools lose money, health insurers usually pay the difference. Also, Congress has provided some additional funding through the State High Risk Pool Grants program.

Since each state risk pool is different, some work better than others. California, for example, only lets people in the pool for three years. And Florida hasn't funded its pool for years. Critics like to discuss the problems facing some state pools rather than honestly acknowledging that several of them - including Maryland, Wisconsin and Illinois - work very well. They also like to complain about the higher cost, even though some of the pools subsidize lower-income people. Ironically, standard premiums in some of those guaranteed-issue states mentioned above are more expensive, for both the healthy and sick, than the cost of being in some of the high-risk pools.

If we want a market-based health care system, and John McCain apparently does, high-risk pools are the most effective way to address the safety-net problem of the uninsurable. The debate should be over how to make the pools better, because a heavy-handed government-run system is not a good or affordable alternative.

Washington Post Editorial by Merrill Matthews. Matthews is executive director of the Council for Affordable Health Insurance and a resident scholar with the Institute for Policy Innovation.

 

 

POSTED BY: TARS AT 10:16 am   |  Permalink   |  E-mail this
Monday, 16 June 2008

The sudden death on Friday of Tim Russert, NBC News Washington bureau chief and host of "Meet the Press" for almost 17 years, leaves a tremendous void in Washington journalistic and political circles - and for countless friends and admirers whose lives he touched. But most of all, his passing is mourned by his wife, Maureen Orth, and son Luke, and his father, Tim Russert Sr., best known as "Big Russ."

Mr. Russert, 58, suffered a fatal heart attack while recording voiceovers for Sunday's "Meet the Press," was among the most influential and respected figures in American journalism. It wasn't just his extraordinary research skills which set the standard for everyone else in the profession. It wasn't just the fact that he was scrupulously fair - relentlessly grilling conservatives and liberals, Democrats and Republicans. And it wasn't just his shrewdness and ability to cut through political spin. It was much more than that. Tim Russert Jr. set a standard of excellence for journalists. Less well-known, however, was the fact that his fame and fortune never went to his head. He treated people - be they waiters or repairmen, colleagues at NBC News or powerful politicians - the same: with dignity and respect. Over the past few days, we have heard conservatively speaking hundreds of stories from people in all walks of life about the kindness and generosity of Tim Russert.

One measure of a person's character is how they treat waiters in restaurants - people who must perform very difficult jobs under extraordinary pressure. A few months ago, Mr. Russert was dining with a well-known NBC News correspondent who verbally abused a waitress who got his dinner order wrong. Mr. Russert chewed the correspondent out and warned him never to behave that way in front of him again. Tim Russert was not just the top television journalist of his time. He was above all a man of great decency and honor.

Washington Post Editorial

POSTED BY: TARS AT 10:11 am   |  Permalink   |  E-mail this
Friday, 01 February 2008

Well, we are finally off and running with the new website, however we are having a few technical issues with some pictures showing up properly, so please hang in there.  Since we launched the new site we have had incredible foot traffic coming here.  Thanks to everyone for stopping by and for being a part of the TARS community!  We are still going to add some great new features in the coming weeks, so check back regularly!  If you are still typing in the old URL (teenagerepublicans.org) no worries, as you will be redirected here to our new website.

As posted previously, we will be updating the site on a much more frequent basis, and adding some great components.  We have had many emails daily and we love to hear from all. We are getting Resource Packet Requests on a non-stop basis, so if you are still in need of one, simply fill out the form on the RESOURCES or the JOIN TARS  page tabs and we will get one out to you ASAP.

...................more to come!

Ali @ TARS

POSTED BY: Ali AT 05:41 pm   |  Permalink   |  E-mail this
Thursday, 24 January 2008

Fellow TARS members & future TARS members, we have a brand new website up.  While the old one is still available and almost all are familiar with that one (teenagerepublicans.org) we decided it needed a fresh "facelift" with more interactive components for all of our members to utilize and explore.

The new website, although published & live, is still being worked on and basically has not been "launched" so-to-speak. So please check back often to see how we are changing daily.  While most are unaware of the new website, we will be slowly releasing the website url and make it available to all members, as well as the public.

We hope you will enjoy the new website!  Don't forget we are still in the "creating" side of the website, so hang in there while we manage to have a completed website up soon! 

We have lots in store, including possibly adding a Chat Room & Forum and the website will be updated on a regular basis including the latest news, blog posts and projects.

..........Ali @ TARS

 

POSTED BY: Ali @ TARS AT 01:00 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  E-mail this

    National Teen Age Republicans (TARS)

    10620-B Crestwood Professional Center | P.O. Box 1896, | Manassas, VA 20108 Telephone: 703-368-4214 | E-mail: NationalTARS@aol.com

    Barby Wells, National TAR Director

    Site Powered By
        Streamwerx - Site Builder Pro
        Online web site design