Suzie Brown is a cardiologist. No, really:
No, not really. This story is about one small borough that doesn’t allow kiddie pools in the front yard. So it’s not about banning “backyard” pools, and it doesn’t mean, as the headline implies, that they’re banned in the entire state of Pennsylvania.
And of course, it’s Fox News!
Taken from the official Texas GOP party platform for 2012:
We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills, critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education, which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
Michelle Malkin and her ilk are blaming Obama for the Colorado wildfires. That didn’t take long! (Even though she wrong but of course cites conservatives who “prove” she’s right.) And I’m sure the conservative “cut cut cut” mentality had nothing to do with it?
While Colorado burns, conservatives have looked for ways to blame it on President Obama.
Some of the same people who have bashed the president as a big government, big spending liberal now say a wildfire that destroyed hundreds of homes in the conservative stronghold of Colorado Springs can be blamed on the president because he has been too slow to spend money to beef up the federal fleet of air tankers.
The meme began more than a week ago when pundit Michelle Malkin, who lives in Colorado Springs, wrote a piece for the National Review Online titled “Obama Bureaucrats Are Fueling Wildfires.”
“The Obama administration’s neglect of the federal government’s aerial-tanker fleet raises acrid questions about its core public-safety priorities,” she wrote.
Malkin noted the number of fire-fighting air tankers in the national fleet had dropped from 44 a decade ago to nine today. The fact that the administration killed a contract last year to to build more tankers, she wrote, had put a manufacturing company out of business. A bill the president signed earlier this month to spend $24 million for new planes came too late to stop the spread of the fires now.
“[T]he money won’t come until next year, and the dog-and-pony rescue moves will not result in any immediate relief,” Malkin wrote. The delays were unacceptable, she concluded. “Where there’s smoke swirling over Team Obama, there are usually flames of incompetence, cronyism, and ideological zealotry.”
The criticism caught on in some circles. Wayne Laugesen, the conservative editorial page editor for the Colorado Springs Gazette, linked to Malkin’s post this week in his own piece titled “Obama shrunk aerial firefighting fleet.” A writer with PJ Media mentioned the Gazette opinion in a blog post under the headline “Colorado Burns. Are Obama’s Environmental and Defense Policies to Blame?”
The suggestion even made its way to a news conference on Wednesday with Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D), who was answering questions about multiple fires burning in the state. The Denver Post reported that a question about conservatives blaming the president for the size of the air fleet set the governor off.
“Were these the same conservatives that were so worried about the Obama administration spending too much money, or were these different conservatives?” Hickenlooper said.
Yves Smith on your librul media.
This information is useful to me, especially the information about what you like so I know how to best spend my time. So I’d appreciate your response!
Create your free online surveys with SurveyMonkey, the world’s leading questionnaire tool.
Their new Android tablet will be more of a Kindle than an iPad.
And by the way, I do love my Kindle. Best Christmas present ever!
This will be the next big fight, but will take place on the state level. Republican governors may try to sabotage the health care act by insisting they won’t take the federal money for Medicaid expansion, but don’t underestimate the political pressure that will be exerted by voters who want what other states have. (Don’t forget that many of the reddest states are very poor and heavily dependent on programs like Medicaid.):
For many people without insurance, a key question raised bythe Supreme Court’s decision today to uphold the Affordable Care Act is whether states will decline to participate in the law’s big Medicaid expansion.
Although the court upheld the law’s mandate requiring individuals to buy insurance, the justices said the act could not force states to expand Medicaid to millions by threatening to withhold federal funding.Republican leaders of some states already are saying they are inclined to say thanks, but no thanks.Tom Suehs, the Texas Health and Human Services Executive commissioner whose state could cover an additional 1.8 million people by 2019, praised the court for giving “states more ability to push back against a forced expansion of Medicaid. The court clearly recognized that the Affordable Care Act put states in the no-win situation of losing all their Medicaid funding or expanding their programs knowing that they would face billions of dollars in extra costs down the road.”
The act, signed by President Obama in March 2010, required “states to extend Medicaid coverage to non-elderly individuals with incomes up to 133 percent of the poverty line, or about $30,700 for a family of four,” according to a March 2012 report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank. The extension was expected to cover nearly 16 million people by 2019, one of the law’s main ways of reducing the ranks of the uninsured.
The 26 states that challenged the health care law together account for an estimated 8.5 million of those who would benefit from Medicaid’s expansion by 2019, more than half the total, according to ProPublica’s analysis of an Urban Institute report prepared for the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Stanford University health economist Dr. Jay Bhattacharya wrote on Stanford’s medical school blog that some states may opt out. “Cash-strapped states will almost certainly consider this option since they will ultimately be on the hook for financing at least a portion of this expansion,” he wrote. “If enough states decide to deny the Medicaid expansion, this may substantially reduce the ability of ACA [the Affordable Care Act] to expand insurance coverage.”
Medicaid is a joint state-federal program that provides health coverage to the poor and disabled, with states putting up a portion of the money and the federal government funding the rest. Each state’s matching percentage is based on per capita income.
According to a separate Kaiser foundation report, “Medicaid currently provides health coverage for over 60 million individuals, including 1 in 4 children, but low parent eligibility levels and restrictions in eligibility for other adults mean that many low income individuals remain uninsured. The ACA expands coverage by setting a national Medicaid eligibility floor for nearly all groups.”Under the law, the federal government would cover nearly 93 percent of the costs of the Medicaid expansion from 2014-22, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.