Breaking ranks is one thing. Breaking ranks to block funding for the Environmental Protection Agency is something else entirely, especially if your state is charging into uncharted waters, some of which, when it comes to shale gas, may even be combustible from time to time.

Down in D.C., the case boils down to basic science – climate change believers vs. its skeptics – and whether the EPA should attempt to regulate greenhouse emissions. It’s an easy guess which corner the Republican majority calls home. Apparently, so do 19 House Democrats, including three Pennsylvanians.

The Hill reported Thursday evening that U.S. Reps. Jason Altmire, Mark Critz and Tim Holden joined with their GOP colleagues to strip funding from the EPA. Countering this action is the stance of the Democrat-controlled Senate, highlighting one of those philosophical roadblocks that have been waving “government shutdown ahead” signs.

It’s not even so much about the much ballyhooed “cut government spending” rallying cry as it is about gearing up to test 2012 platform points. The EPA, much like the U.S. Department of Education and National Public Radio, is a frequent punching bag for right-leaning lawmakers. This year is no exception.

What is exceptional is that this is the sort of item that could muck up military pay, mail service, college and business loans, tourism dollars and, oh, the national economic recovery, among other thoroughly avoidable disasters.

Altmire and Critz represent West FrackingLand, whereas Holden is guiding the aspirations for Marcellus Shale East boosters, primarily in and around his native Schuylkill County.

In protecting the interests of this burgeoning industry – burgeoning tax-free industry, courtesy of Gov. Corbett and Co. – there’s hope it will all pan out and result in growth and jobs. Seeing some of the dusty, nearly deserted towns across Pennsylvania, you can understand a desire to glimpse any kind of renaissance.

But the BP oil spill is a cautionary tale of how much concern industry may have for the environment when profits are on the line. Shafting the EPA on a gamble for a Disney ending seems mighty short-sighted – especially if it ends up shorting salaries of our armed forces and seniors in the process.

Even though Congressional leaders in the House have floated the idea of passing a one-week funding bill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid rejected the idea Wednesday. Republicans are looking for $40 billion in budget cuts while Democrats are only willing to consider $33 billion in cuts. Democrats also argue that the cuts Republicans are demanding are ideologically driven, pointing to cuts to organizations such as Planned Parenthood and National Public Radio.

If the government does shut down, about 800,000 federal government employees can expect to be furloughed. The shutdown would also stop paychecks to military members, though Sens. Robert P. Casey (D-Pa) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) are the lead sponsors of a bill that would ensure soldiers continue to be paid through Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year.

Despite all of the potential negative consequences of a government shutdown and the fact that a 1995 shutdown actually cost $1.25 billion, the Tea Party faction has been practically screaming for a shutdown of what they consider a bloated bureaucracy.

With that in mind, here is a rundown on Pennsylvania’s Congressional Delegation stands on a possible shutdown. It is difficult to find any overt support for a government shutdown, though Rep. Lou Barletta is on record saying that his constituents may support a shutdown if that’s what it takes to rein in spending. One common theme is that Republicans (and even one Democrat) blame the Democratic-controlled Senate for not passing a budget last year. In December, Talking Points Memo noted that nine Senate Republicans walked away from their support of an omnibus spending bill that had been negotiated for months.

Senator Robert Casey (D): In addition to his sponsorship of the military pay bill, Casey joined 15 other moderate Democrats in signing a letter to House Speaker John Boehner urging him to avoid a shutdown. The letter calls a shutdown “irresponsible” and notes it would distract from a focus on creating jobs and reducing the debt. It also accuses Republicans of using the possible shutdown to make a political point.

Senator Pat Toomey (R): Toomey told the Allentown Morning Call that a government shutdown is “not okay” and no way to run a government. However, he also blamed the last Congress, of which he was not a part, for its failure to pass a budget on time. Toomey made similar statements in February when Congress was considering a short-term continuing resolution.

Robert Brady (D PA-01): We could not find a definitive statement on the looming shutdown from Brady. He did vote for the latest stop-gap measure that funds the government through April 8. He also supports measures that would devote any unused portion of a member’s Representational Allowance to reducing the deficit.

Chaka Fattah (D PA-02): Fattah posted a link on Facebook and Twitter linking to a poll that shows most Americans don’t want to see a government shutdown. He also wrote a post for the Huffington Post detailing his plan to eliminate the $14.3 trillion national debt in 10 years. He called for a one percent tax on the $445 in transactions that go through the Federal Reserve.

Mike Kelly (R PA-03): Kelly voted in favor of HR 1225, the constitutionally questionable bill that would declare HR 1, the Republican-sponsored budget that would cut $61.5 billion, to be the final bill from Congress should the Senate fail to pass a budget. Kelly blames the Senate for not passing a budget last year. The liberal blogosphere also called Kelly on his claim that a shutdown would not disrupt Social Security and Medicare benefits.

Jason Altmire (D PA-04): The National Republican Congressional Committee attacked Altmire for his comments on Fox News March 31 that Democrats are to blame for not passing a budget on time last year. During a recent town hall meeting, Altmire praised a shift in thinking from spending to cutting, but warned against haphazard cuts.

Glenn “GT” Thompson (R PA-05): Thompson spoke on the House Floor April 5 and blamed the inaction of the Senate for failing to pass a budget and railed about running the government on continuing resolutions. “Even if we all agree a program is efficient and needed, we can’t spend money we don’t have,” he said. He has been clear that a government shutdown would be costly and unproductive. The Center Daily Times reported that 18 Tea Party members protested Thompson’s vote on the March temporary funding bill.

Jim Gerlach (R PA-06): Gerlach also voted for the temporary funding measure and blamed Senate Democrats for not passing a budget. He is not in favor of a shutdown, saying, “Job creators need certainty to start hiring again, not one more countdown to a federal government shutdown.”

Pat Meehan (R PA-07): Meehan held a town hall meeting in March where he argued that a government shutdown would not be beneficial when a resident challenged opponents of the Affordable Care Act to do so. Still, Meehan is in favor of the Republicans’ 2012 spending plan which would cut $6.2 trillion over 10 years but has been largely panned by the left for its cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. He has also released a statement defending his vote to defund NPR.

Michael Fitzpatrick (R PA-08): Fitzpatrick also blamed Senate Democrats for not passing a budget. “The American people and job creators should no longer be held hostage to the Senate’s inaction on the federal budget,” he wrote in a press release. His press release on the Republican budget proposal was less committal than Meehan, urging his constituents to get familiar with the plan and “and be active participants in this national discussion.”

Bill Shuster (R PA-09): A spokesperson for Shuster told the Johnstown Tribune-Democrat that the Congressman hopes to avoid a shutdown. He also posted a video talking about the dangers of increasing federal government spending.

Tom Marino (R PA-10): Marino told the Sunbury Daily Item that Republicans do not want to shut down the government and called on the Senate to pass HR 1. He also posted a message on his Facebook page supporting the proposal to pay soldiers in the event of a shutdown.

Lou Barletta (R PA-11): On March 28, Barletta announced that he would not support any more stop-gap spending measures. “Stringing together short-term continuing resolutions only extends the uncertainty among local and national job creators, and that will slow our economic recovery at home,” he wrote in the press release. He also told the Morning Call that he thinks his constituents want to see the federal government reduce spending and might support a shutdown if that’s what it takes.

Mark Critz (D PA-12): Critz called on Congress to end “the partisan bickering and finalize a responsible budget.” However, if the government would shut down, he is co-sponsoring the House bill that would deny a paycheck to members of Congress. Critz also railed against the Republicans’ spending plan, saying it hurts senior citizens while keeping in place tax cuts for the wealthy and oil company subsidies.

Allyson Schwartz (D PA-13): Schwartz agrees that the government should be making cuts in spending, but has called the proposed Republican spending cuts, “reckless.” She also says that the Republicans’ 2012 budget would not reduce costs, just shift costs to senior citizens.

Mike Doyle (D PA-14): Doyle condemned passage of HR 1, calling it destructive and counterproductive. “Frankly, it’s exactly what I’d expect to see when people who hate government are put in charge of it,” Congressman Doyle wrote in his press release. “They say government is useless and inefficient, and if they get their way, it soon will be.” He also posted a message on Twitter saying that the 2012 Republican budget proposal would “destroy Medicare as we know it.”

Charlie Dent (R PA-15): In his announcement that he voted for the last stop-gap spending measure, Dent said, “To avoid the extremely disruptive impact a shutdown would have on our economy, it was absolutely necessary the House passed an additional short-term Continuing Resolution.” Dent also told the Morning Call that he is worried about a shutdown, particularly if military paychecks are not issued. Dent called the 2012 Republican budget proposal “a serious and sobering document” and said that the Medicare and Medicaid proposals deserve thoughtful review.

Joe Pitts (R PA-16): Pitts voted against the bill in March to fund the government through April 8. He also told The Hill newspaper in March that “more and more” social conservatives are considering not voting for legislation that would defund Planned Parenthood and the Affordable Care Act. On April 1, Pitts wrote about the pressing need to cut spending.

Tim Holden (D PA-17): We could not find any definitive statements from Holden, but he did vote in favor of the latest stop-gap spending measure.

Tim Murphy (R PA-18): Murphy also explicitly blames the Senate Democrats for their failure to pass a budget, but did vote for the latest stop gap measure. In his statement he said, “The time for stalling and half-measures and one-week spending bills has long since passed. The longer we postpone the difficult decisions that have to be made, the worse off we become.” He did, however, join in urging the Senate to continue issuing paychecks to military personnel if the government does shut down.

Todd Platts (R PA-19): Platts told the Gettysburg Times “Our intent is to keep government open.” However, he also blames Senate Democrats for failing to pass a budget. He also sent out a press release in early March discussing the problem of duplicated efforts in the federal budget, noting that eliminating such duplication could save $100 billion.

Already having targeted the two-term incumbent and the open-seat candidate in a pair of TV ads before, the group is at it again.

The latest two ads depict the policies of Democratic leaders in Washington as someone who “broke into your home, or stole your credit card, or ripped off your car.”

Check out the ads below.

The health care overhaul’s effect on Medicare is a hotly debated subject infused with tension. After examining the facts, we find these four ads from the 60 Plus Association and Americans for Job Security to be only HALF-TRUE. A separate Americans for Job Security ad targeting Congressman Jason Altmire (D-4), who voted against the reform legislation, does not mention health care. We find that ad to be MOSTLY ACCURATE.

[Click here to read more about our AD WATCH fact-checking series and the different scores.]

The 60 Plus Association, which is often billed as a conservative counterweight to the AARP, has run similar ads targeting incumbent Democrats Kathy Dahlkemper, Chris Carney and Paul Kanjorski. Each ad makes identical claims about the health care law, using a tapestry of regular citizens as narrators. Together in the ad against Dahlkemper, these narrators say:

Washington liberals like Kathy Dahlkemper have betrayed Pennsylvania seniors. She voted for Nancy Pelosi’s big government health care plan that cost a trillion dollars, raises taxes, and cut $500 billion from Medicare. Seniors could lose their doctors and millions could even lose their current Medicare plans.

First, cost: The total price tag of the law is actually a bit less than $1 trillion, clocking in at $940 billion. And according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, it will actually reduce the federal deficit by $143 billion over the next 10 years.

Second, taxes: There’s no question that the law includes Medicare payroll tax increases on high-earners, as well as increased premium payments for wealthier Medicare recipients. These extra costs are targeted at the wealthy. The Medicare payroll tax increase, for example, ranges from 1.45 percent to 2.35 percent for individuals earning $200,000 and couples earning over $250,000, according to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation’s Medicare Policy Project.

[A detailed dissection of the law's impacts on Medicare from the Kaiser Family Foundation can be found here.]

But it’s the claim of a $500-billion cut to Medicare that is more complicated, and misleading at best. That figure actually refers to $531 billion worth of reductions in the growth in Medicare spending over the next 10 years. The biggest proportion of these savings comes from slowing the growth in payments to Medicare providers and reduced payments to Medicare Advantage plans, which are administered by private insurers. The Congressional Budget Office projects that this will funnel some people away from Medicare Advantage plans, which are typically more expensive and have better benefits, into the regular Medicare system. But again, it’s not a cut as much as it’s a future slowdown. And the changes actually add about 12 years of solvency to the Medicare Part A Trust Fund.

Along with the reductions to Medicare Advantage plans, there are improvements and new benefits added to traditional Medicare plans. So the claim that “millions could lose their current Medicare plans” is true, but the reality is not as disastrous as 60 Plus makes it sound. The law enshrines benefits for doctors visits, hospital stays and rehabilitation services. As far as the AARP is concerned, “no one will lose Medicare coverage.”

The claim that seniors could lose their doctors is the thorniest one to sort through. The truth is, there’s no concrete evidence that it will or won’t happen. But it’s certainly possible, especially as health care providers decline to see patients who move from Medicare Advantage plans to regular Medicare.

So overall, the ads paint a simplistic picture that gets some facts right, but hardly tells the whole story.

As for the two Americans for Job Security ads, the one targeting Altmire is mostly accurate because he did indeed vote for the economic stimulus package and did indeed vote in favor of raising the national debt ceiling. The ad says Altmire is “raising millions to tell you he’s independent”—a fair claim considering the two-term congressman had raised $1.9 million this cycle as of June 30, and has almost surely broken the $2-million mark. It’s correct that Altmire votes with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi almost 90 percent of the time—though that tactic, employed constantly in ads targeting Democrats, means less than it seems, because by tradition House Speakers rarely vote, and mostly on non-contentious resolutions and other items.

See all five ads below.

Rothfus’ first TV ad started airing Tuesday. A candidate who has turned heads with his fundraising ability after knocking off former U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan in the primary, he’s on the air earlier than Altmire was when he unseated Republican Melissa Hart in 2006. Altmire still enjoys a strong financial advantage, and has already been on the air for weeks. But spending by outside groups and a strong performance by statewide GOP candidates in the western Pennsylvania district could lift Rothfus to a better showing than some expect.

The first 30-second spot says Rothfus has a plan to “root out wasteful government spending” and “remove barriers so business can create jobs.” It criticizes Altmire for playing “follow the leader” with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

See the ad, first reported by Early Returns 2.0, below. It will be fact-checked later as part of pa2010.com‘s new AD WATCH feature.

“There are a lot of people in Washington that aren’t happy with me right now,” Altmire says in the 30-second spot, which began airing earlier this week. “But my job is to do what’s right for folks here.”

Altmire, who faces Republican Keith Rothfus in his bid for a third term, goes on to say he couldn’t support health care reform that “won’t bring down costs.” Altmire has made his opposition to the new law a key selling point this cycle, and his first TV ad touted that as evidence of his independence.

See the ad below. It will be fact-checked later as part of pa2010.com‘s new AD WATCH feature.

The ads from Americans for Job Security criticizes Altmire for claiming to independent from the Democratic leadership, and Lentz for his spending votes in Harrisburg.

The size and scope of the ad buys were not immediately clear. But Politico, in first reporting the group’s media campaign, said the ads would run for a month in four congressional districts.

Altmire faces Republican Keith Rothfus as he seeks a third term in the 4th District. Lentz is running against Republican Pat Meehan for the open seat in the 7th District.

Lentz’s campaign was quick to push back against the ad, noting that the group has been linked to health insurance industry funding and arguing that the ad buy was evidence that support from the “shadowy” group reflected “Republican concern” about Meehan’s campaign.

“At a time when insurance companies are gouging hard working families of the 7th District with outrageous premium hikes and pharmaceutical companies are making billions profiteering off the backs of seniors, it’s no wonder that Americans for Job Security are rushing in to rescue Pat Meehan so he can protect corporations in Congress,” Lentz campaign manager Kevin McTigue said.

See both ads below. They will be fact-checked later as part of pa2010.com‘s new AD WATCH feature.

His Rothenberg Political Report has changed its forecast for the race between Democrat Joe Sestak and Republican Pat Toomey from “Pure Toss-up” to just “Toss-up/Tilt Republican.” This comes after Toomey and his conservative allies have spent months hammering Sestak on the airwaves, and with most public polls showing Toomey enjoying a low double-digit or high single-digit lead.

Rothenberg made the same change to his forecast in the 3rd Congressional District, where he sees Republican Mike Kelly taking a slight edge against Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper (D-3).

And while we were busy scrambling a reporter to cover Democrat Joe Sestak’s big speech in Pittsburgh Tuesday morning, Republican Keith Rothfus was getting together with Congressman Mike Pence (R-Ind.) at Station Square. Pence, the chairman of the House Republican Conference, headlined a fundraiser for Rothfus, who’s taking on Democratic incumbent Jason Altmire in the 4th District.

This event came just as Altmire’s campaign was e-mailing reporters a poll memo that claims a huge lead for the congressman. But our friends at Early Returns 2.0 checked out Pence’s comments after the event, and it looks like Republicans are still in high spirits about the race. The fundraiser was Rothfus was Pence’s first stop in a string of post-Labor Day campaigning.

“Democrats around the country know they have to hold onto conservative districts like this one if they have any hope of holding onto power,” Pence said. “When I saw a conservative of this caliber who is a first tier candidate in every respect, I wanted to be here on what I think essentially is day one of the fall political season—this is event one, day one, for me.

“Make no mistake about it—Congressman Altmire will have more resources at the end of the day to defend this seat,” Pence added, after helping Rothfus raise about $40,000. “This is going to be a hard fought campaign and I believe ultimately that the effort that’s made by Keith Rothfus to enliven the enthusiasm of conservative voters across this district will carry the day.”