Daily Fix, Dec 27

by

Welcome to the last week of 2010. Hopefully your Christmas was Merry. The government wants us reporting on our neighbors but Janet Napolitano says not to worry – it’s not like it’s Big Brother or anything. DCFS has seen their scores drop for the 4the 4th year in a row and I’ll be guest-hosting the Rod Arquette show today from 4 pm to 7 pm.

*Two Utah lawmakers are proposing a federal Constitutional convention. Representative Brad Daw wants an amendment that would require the states to ratify any increase to the U.S. debt ceiling and Rep Clark – rumored to be in the running for the open 4th Congressional seat – favors a nullification amendment that would “allow states to repeal laws passed by Congress or rules enacted by the federal government.” SLTrib

*In case you missed it, Dept of the Interior Secretary Ken Salazar changed the DOI process for declaring land “wild.” He did it late in the afternoon on December 23rd, as most of the nation focused on Christmas. This decision could affect up to 6 million acres in Utah and sets aside a 2003 agreement. Holly on the Hill SLTrib

*Janet Napolitano told CNN that the government’s “See, Something, Say Something” campaign is not Big Brother. Even thought the types of activities citizens are supposed to report is totally undeined, but Napolitano argues that people have common sense and can igure out what need to be reported. The success of the program, she said, depends on understanding that “our safety, our security and the world we live in today is a shared responsibility.” Politico

*In related news, Napolitano also said that pat-downs and “full body scanners” would continue being used in airport screening. Politico

*DCFS review scores peaked in 2007 and has been declining ever since. Among areas graded below the agency benchmarks were efforts at putting children in a permanent home, keeping children stable along the way and long-term planning for the DCFS system. Some of the reasons given were the statewide budget decreases, the workload, morale and the difficulty in supplying outside services for clients such as education or extended counseling. SLTrib

*Remember the death panels that didn’t exist? Well, they do and they’re in Obamacare. Read about it in the New York Times. From the article: talking about an email to supporters of the end-of-life panels: “We would ask that you not broadcast this accomplishment out to any of your lists, even if they are ‘supporters’ — e-mails can too easily be forwarded.” The e-mail continued: “Thus far, it seems that no press or blogs have discovered it, but we will be keeping a close watch and may be calling on you if we need a rapid, targeted response. The longer this goes unnoticed, the better our chances of keeping it.”

*Senator Tom Coburn predicts “apocalyptic pain” if government spending is not reined in immediately. Without significant cuts, we face 18% unemployment and the destruction of the middle class. The Hill

*And – drumroll, please – President Obama is beginning his campaign for 2012. Top White House adviser and close friend of the president, Valerie Jarrett, said on NBC the president’s “biggest regret” was that because of economic turmoil, “He had to spend almost every waking hour in Washington working on solving that crisis. And what he missed sorely was engagement with the American people.” The Hill

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , ,

5 Responses to “Daily Fix, Dec 27”

  1. utahenergyideas Says:

    Someone tell me why they can’t propose a constitutional amendment without the dangers of a Constitutional Convention.

    We have members in Congress that can start the process.

    http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/

  2. Mark Steele Says:

    Who does the DCFS rating?

    We’ve had up close involvement with the agency the past few months, and are primarily pleased with their efforts. The people we’ve worked with have been uniformly kind, responsive. caring individuals. That of course doesn’t speak to any systemic problems, but we have been pleased with their efforts.

  3. Mary Says:

    Holly, I find your comments regarding “Death Panels” out of line and a distortion of the Times article. It’s a long leap from “What would you like us to do in case of…” to “Denial of services for the elderly.” I appreciate your loyal opposition, but please stick to the facts.

  4. JBT Says:

    There are no death panels!!!!!!!! Nothing could be farther from the truth. All this regulation does is allow medicare patients the opportunity to have a doctor/patient consultation IF THEY CHOOSE to answer their questions about end of life care, what treatment choices and options are available, and how to insure that their health care directive is filled out in such a way that their wishes will be carried out.

    This is something that everyone regardless of age and health status should provide for their own sake and the sake of their families and loved ones. To demonize this issue as it applies to Medicare coverage by saying that it creates “Death Panels” is not only disingenuous, but patently ridiculous as well. This is just another “Red Herring” scab for the right wing conservatives to pick at because a liberal, black, intellectual replaced a conservative, white, idiot as our nation’s president. Something that is just good common sense as allowing seniors on medicare to have a paid doctor consultation to answer questions about advance directives IF THEY CHOOSE should not be turned into a polarizing partisan political issue.

    BTW this idiotic term “death panel” was coined and made popular by a woman who couldn’t name a newspaper she reads on a regular basis, thinks she knows about foreign policy because she can see Russia from where she lives, and thinks Africa is a country. Need I say more?

  5. Pops Says:

    Well, yes, you do need to say more. You obviously don’t like the term, but if it wasn’t a real issue people wouldn’t be talking about it. [And are you part of the “rapid, targeted response”?]

    Sarah Palin coined the phrase long before the current law was written, so don’t be so hard on her. At that point in time, the public option was very much in play, which option would by necessity require that rationing choices and even life-and-death decisions would be made by bureaucrats. For those of us who oppose the public option for precisely that reason, it’s an apt phrase.

    Does the current law get us there? Apparently it gets us close enough that the New York Times doesn’t want us talking about it on conservative blogs.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: