Showing posts with label California. Show all posts
Showing posts with label California. Show all posts

Friday, August 7, 2015

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT COULD STOP BULLET TRAIN

Bullet-Train-1024x619

The California Supreme Court threw a giant obstacle on the California bullet train’s track, ruling that the state agencies cannot escape the state’s environmental laws by claiming federal laws supersede them.

The case from which the argument against the California High Speed Rail Authority derives, City of San Diego vs. Board of Trustees of the California State University, revolved around the board wanting to expand the campus of San Diego State University (SDSU) to accommodate more than 10,000 additional students in the next few years. The board argued that CSU “may not lawfully pay to mitigate the off-campus environmental effects of its projects unless the Legislature makes an appropriation for that specific purpose.”
As explained by The National Law Review:
The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) mandates that, before approving a project, a public agency must first identify the project’s significant adverse environmental impacts, and then mitigate those impacts by adopting feasible, enforceable mitigation measures or selecting feasible alternatives that avoid the impacts. If mitigation is infeasible, the agency may approve the project despite adverse impacts only by finding that unmitigated effects are outweighed by the project’s benefits.
The board attempted to use City of Marina v. Board of Trustees (2009) to buttress its argument, as the court had ruled, “[A] state agency’s power to mitigate its project’s effects through voluntary mitigation payments is ultimately subject to legislative control; if the Legislature does not appropriate the money, the power does not exist.” The board argued that the court’s statement prohibited it from funding off-site mitigation without express appropriation by the Legislature.
But the court called the Marina language overstated, and ruled against CSU, stating, “In mitigating the effects of its projects, a public agency has access to all of its discretionary powers and not just the power to spend appropriations.” The court added:
CEQA does not authorize an agency to proceed with a project that will have significant unmitigated effects on the environment, based simply on a weighing of those effects against the project’s benefits, unless the measures to mitigate those effects are truly infeasible. Such a rule, even were it not wholly inconsistent with the relevant statute would tend to displace the fundamental obligation of ̳[e]ach public agency [to] mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment of projects that it carries out or approves whenever it is feasible to do so.

[VIDEO] Shawn Hubler: What they really do at Planned Parenthood

The entry to downtown Sacramento’s Planned Parenthood clinic is literally transparent. Through tall windows, you can see right into the waiting room from the sidewalk outside.
This week, the women walking in and out were equally open.
“I’ve been coming here since I was a teenager,” said Maria Martinez, 28, of Oak Park, in for a checkup. “I was a teen mom.”
“I’m not ready to be pregnant,” shrugged Stephanie Porter, 24, of Rio Linda. “And they’ve saved me plenty of times. Like, the Plan B pills you get in the stores? They cost like $50, $60. People steal that stuff. Here, they give you condoms, Plan B pills, birth control pills, IUDs, everything.”
“I come for my examinations,” said a 37-year-old Sacramento homemaker named Luz, who was pregnant with her third and, she said firmly, last child. She’d been getting checkups and contraception at Planned Parenthood for 10 years “porque es gratis – we have emergency Medi-Cal only and it is free.”
If all you knew about Planned Parenthood was what has been in the news, you might reasonably wonder what shady business people there are up to. For weeks, a veteran of the radical anti-abortion youth group Live Action has been releasing undercover videos that purport to show the organization’s leaders illegally profiting from the sale of aborted fetuses.
SENSATIONAL AS THEY MAY BE, THE TAPES COMPLETELY MISS THE POINT OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD’S DAY-TO-DAY OPERATION, WHICH HAS JUST ABOUT NOTHING TO DO WITH FETAL TISSUE, OR EVEN ABORTION.
The tapes have predictably generated much political grandstanding and partisan “investigation.” I put that word in quotes because both the tapes and the furor are clearly more about galvanizing true believers in a presidential campaign year than about the legalities of using fetal tissue and stem cells for medical research.
But provocative as they may be, the tapes completely miss the point of Planned Parenthood’s day-to-day operation, which has just about nothing to do with fetal tissue, or even abortion. And to spend an afternoon at one of its 700 clinics is to be reminded repeatedly just how random a tangent its enemies have taken with this fetal tissue gambit.
Not that the tapes aren’t upsetting to watch. Just as it’s grotesque to see a helpless child go unloved by some woman – or man, or teenager – who had no business at that point in life becoming a parent, most Americans have mixed feelings about abortion, and no one who has ever had one goes around boasting about it.
But 80 percent of the 2.7 million people who visit Planned Parenthood each year are like the women in downtown Sacramento, there not to commit some stigmatized last resort, but to rightly ensure that they don’t get pregnant with children they don’t want in the first place. And most of the other 20 percent are there for things such as sexually transmitted disease tests and breast exams.





Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/shawn-hubler/article30104334.html#storylink=cpy

CALIFORNIA: Let's keep facts straight about drought


c alifornia drought facts - Google Search
Over the past 18 months the misinformation regarding California’s drought has been nearly as bad as the drought itself.
From farmers use 80 percent of the state’s water supply to Mitch Brown’s gravel plant off of Road 384 causing East Porterville’s water problems, misinformation has been spread by some people.
Agriculture has taken the biggest public relations hit in this drought, yet we were encouraged to see a poll found most people support farmers getting water to grow their crops. Fact is, ag does not use 80 percent of the state’s water supply. According to the state Department of Water Resources, 200 million acre-feet of water a year on average falls in California. Of that, 100 million acre-feet flow unchecked out to the ocean. Of the 100 million acre-feet left over, roughly half of that is allowed to flow into the ocean, released from dams. That leaves 50 million acre-feet and of that, farmers use about 80 percent, with cities and industries using what’s left.
As to Mitch Brown’s quarry, it has done little to reduce the underground water table in East Porterville. What is different from 40 years ago and the last mega-drought is East Porterville now has a sewer system and instead of all water used being kept in septic lines and leech lines on every person’s property, that water and waste is collected and sent to the City of Porterville’s wastewater treatment plant. Good for the residents of East Porterville, but it means millions of gallons of water a month is no longer being put back into the ground.
There has been far too much misinformation and finger-pointing going on in this drought. Bottom line: a lack of rainfall and snowfall has taken its toll, as well as decisions made over the past eight years to reduce the amount of water sent out of the San Joaquin Delta to farmers in the Central Valley. Those hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of water would not only have kept farmers from using the underground water supply, it would have actually helped to recharge the underground supply.
We need to fact check statements made by those who have an agenda.

Thursday, August 6, 2015

CALIFORNIA: Tough Education Reform, not More Borrowing and Spending, is What Students Need

School bond studyLast week the California Policy Center published a major new study that compiled, in exhaustive detail, both the amount that Californians have borrowed to finance public school construction and upgrades, as well as documented the abuses that have diminished the return on these substantial investments. Californians simply don’t realize how much borrowing is going on.
In 2001, voters passed Prop. 39, which lowered the threshold for passage of a school bond from 66 percent to 55 percent. Prior to the passage of Prop. 39, only 42 percent of school bond proposals would pass – since then, 88 percent of them pass. The scale of this borrowing is amazing: Since 2001, Californians have approved 911 local school bond measures totaling $110.4 billion. In addition to local bonds, voters approved three state measures which added another $38.8 billion.
If the proceeds of these bonds were being spent efficiently, on worthy projects, under repayment terms that were fair and appropriate, there would not be an issue. But they’re not. Thanks to costly project labor agreements, environmentalist lawsuits, and a shocking lack of public oversight, school construction projects – along with all public infrastructure projects – cost far more than they should.
When considering what projects might be considered worthy, at whatever cost, one of the biggest reasons cited for local bond proposals is to fund “deferred maintenance.” For examples of this, view the summary of the2014 Local Elections provided by CalTax (scroll down to “Bond, School”), and read the “description” column. “Upgrade and repair,” “modernize and upgrade,” “fix leaky roofs,” “make safety repairs,” “repair outdated heating and ventilation systems,” etc., etc. But why can’t maintenance work come out of existing budgets? For that matter, why wasn’t the work done using funds from earlier rounds of local school bond proceeds, instead of deferred?
This is not a rhetorical question. California’s K-12 student population has been stable for nearly 20 years. At6.2 million students, it has actually declined slightly. Meanwhile, over the past 14 years, $146 billion has been borrowed and spent to maintain and improve schools for these 6.2 million students.
That’s $10.4 billion in construction spending every year, which based on 30 students per classroom, equates to approximately $50,000 per classroom, per year. Could you maintain one classroom and that classroom’s share of common facilities if you had $50,000 to spend, year after year?
How much is enough? Since 2001, construction bond proceeds have poured $700,000 into every K-12 classroom in California. Why do the roofs still leak?
When it comes to the terms of this debt, the story gets even worse, because these bonds are complex financial instruments with ample room for “gotchas” that harm taxpayers. One of the worst examples of this are so-called “capital appreciation bonds,” which don’t require any payments for 10-20 years, then demand massive sums of principal and interest payments, long after the original promoters have retired, and often after the improvements and upgrades have worn out again.
It is relevant to discuss California’s $146 billion in school bond debt in the context of all California’s state and local debt. A few years ago the California Policy Center attempted tabulate it, including unfunded liabilities for pensions and retirement health care for state and local government employees. Those findings, using a 5.5 percent discount rate to estimate pension liabilities, and using our updated amount for school bonds, come in at $976 billion. That’s $76,250 of debt per household. Just interest payments on this debt, at 5 percent per year, come out to $3,812 per household per year.
The topic of school bond debt is vast and complicated, which is one reason why there is rarely meaningful public debate. The California Policy Center’s complete study on California’s school bond debt, including appendices, came in at 361 pages (view PDF), and took a team of researchers lead by policy analyst Kevin Dayton nearly a year to write. Here are key recommendations from that report:
  • Provide adequate and effective oversight and accountability for bond measures.
  • Enable voters to make a reasonably informed decision on bond measures.
  • Eliminate or mitigate conflicts of interest in contracting related to bond measures.
  • Reduce inappropriate, excessive or unnecessary spending of bond proceeds.
  • Improve understanding of bond measures through public education campaigns.
And here are a few additional recommendations:
  • Make construction bond proposals contingent on enforcing the Vergara ruling – making it possible to fire bad teachers, changing layoff and retention criteria from seniority to merit, and extending the time period required to acquire tenure.
  • Hold teachers accountable for the academic progress of their students, and prohibit construction bond proposals for any school districts in violation of the state’s teacher evaluation law, the Stull Act.
  • Reduce the number of administrators and support staff, increasing the proportion of public education employees who actually teach in classrooms. This will result in a proportionate reduction in support facilities, at the same time as it frees up budgeted funds to be used to perform deferred maintenance.
The reason Californians have borrowed $146 billion in recent years for school construction is because Californians believe there is nothing more important than educating children. That’s a noble sentiment. It’s why Prop. 39 passed back in 2001, carving out an exception to California’s two-thirds vote requirement for new taxes. And while the process of approving and spending all this money has been riddled with corruption and excess, it would be inaccurate to say all of this money was wasted. But all the money in the world will not improve California’s educational system, if great teachers and principals aren’t given the latitude and incentives to inspire their pupils, and if poor teachers and administrators are not terminated.
Californians should reform their system of K-12 education before borrowing another dime for construction. The return-of-investment is simply far better.
*   *   *

CALIFORNIA: ​Why Higher Taxes for Potholes is a Bad Idea

road_block
To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, here we go again. Once more, taxpayers are being told by our political elites that, if we want good roads, we have to have higher taxes.
Just a few weeks ago, this column exposed the politicians’ plan to hike gas taxes along with vehicle license fees and registration. This plan, by San Jose lawmaker Jim Beall, would slam taxpayers in three ways. First, it would raise at least $3 billion annually by increasing the gas tax by another 10 cents a gallon. Second, it would hike the vehicle license fee, which is based on value, by more than 50 percent over 5 years. Third, it would increase the cost to register a vehicle by over 80 percent.
The latest scheme is Assembly Constitutional Amendment 4 which would weaken Proposition 13 by eliminating the two-thirds vote for local transportation sales taxes. ACA 4 is a bad idea. California already has the highest state sales tax in the nation. Not only that, but sales taxes are highly regressive, hitting the poor and working middle class the hardest.
It is true that California ranks very low nationally in the condition of its roads and highways. But, in addition to an already high sales tax we also have the highest income tax rate in America and the 4th highest gas tax. (And, by the way, that gas tax doesn’t even include the cost of California’s one of a kind “cap and trade” regulations which substantially increases the cost of every gallon of fuel pumped in California).
The truth is that the sad condition of our highways has nothing to do with the lack of tax dollars and has everything to do with poor management and bad choices in deciding where our transportation dollars are spent. Our taxes are far more likely to be paying for projects we don’t even need — like High Speed Rail — or a bloated Caltrans budget than they are for fixing roads.
There’s another compelling reason why, should it ever make it to the ballot, ACA 4 deserves to be resoundingly defeated.  At least 20 counties in California, including all the large ones, have already passed higher sales taxes with the two-thirds supermajority vote mandated by Prop 13. Billions of dollars have been raised by these so-called “Self-Help Counties” all for transportation purposes. In going to the voters, local officials have to make sure that they propose projects that are truly needed. Lowering the vote threshold will only incentivize waste and the funding of pet projects, not the high priority needs of California motorists.
We believe very strongly that taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay the price for bad decisions made by politicians and bureaucrats. Until our elected leaders direct the vast amount of money already available for highway improvements to those needed projects, we certainly shouldn’t consider even higher taxes and weakening Prop. 13. That’s why HJTA will oppose ACA 4 and we urge all California taxpayers to do the same.
Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association — California’s largest grass-roots taxpayer organization dedicated to the protection of Proposition 13 and the advancement of taxpayers’ rights.

Wednesday, August 5, 2015

On Bullet Train, Voters Finally May Get to Apply the Brakes

high speed rail train
Pencils have erasers. Computers have the undo command and the escape key.
If you had it to do over again, would you vote for the bullet train?
It was called the “Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act” on the 2008 ballot, and it authorized $9 billion in bonds — borrowed money — to “partially fund” a high-speed train system in California.
The ballot measure required that there would be “private and public matching funds,” “accountability and oversight” and a focus on completing “Phase I” from Los Angeles to San Francisco to Anaheim. Bond funds could not be spent on the other corridors, like Fresno to Bakersfield, unless there was “no negative impact on the construction of Phase I.”
Today the estimated cost is over $68 billion, private and federal funds are not in sight, and accountability has been cut back — instead of two spending reports to the Legislature every year, only one report every two years will be required. And “Phase I” broke ground in Fresno.
Place your finger on the escape key and stand by. State Sen. Andy Vidak, R-Fresno, has introduced a bill, co-authored by Assemblyman Rudy Salas, D-Bakersfield, to put the bullet train before the voters again. If Senate Bill 3 (SBX1-3) can muster a two-thirds vote in the state Senate and Assembly, it will be on the June 2016 ballot.
The measure would freeze spending on the bullet train and direct unspent funds to the Department of Transportation to be used for roads, which would come in handy because California needs $59 billion just to maintain the freeways for the next 10 years. Gov. Jerry Brown has called a special session of the Legislature to look for revenue to fill the state’s transportation budget pothole after signing a “balanced” budget that left that item out.
The non-partisan Legislative Analyst’s Office offered some suggestions that illustrate the difference between what tax increases can raise and what the bullet train costs.
• Raising the tax on a gallon of gasoline brings in $150 million per 1 cent increase.
• Raising the tax on a gallon of diesel fuel collects $30 million per 1 cent increase.
• Raising the vehicle registration fee nets $33 million per $1 increase.
• Doubling the vehicle weight fees raises about $1 billion.
• Raising the vehicle license fee hauls in roughly $3 billion per 1 percent increase.
There are other options. The LAO says lawmakers could prioritize the budget to use money from the general fund to maintain and construct roads. Billions in cap-and-trade revenue, collected from fees now levied on gasoline and diesel fuel, could be used for highway projects that reduce traffic and improve mileage.

Tuesday, August 4, 2015

CALIFORNIA: Huntington Park Councilman To Appoint 2 Undocumented Immigrants As Commissioners

(credit: Jhonny Pineda)
HUNTINGTON PARK (CBSLA.com) — Huntington Park may become the first city in California to appoint two undocumented immigrants as commissioners on city advisory boards, a lawmaker confirms.
City Councilman Jhonny Pineda has picked Francisco Medina to join the health and education commission and Julian Zatarain for the parks and recreation commission.
The 32-year-old lawmaker told CBSLA online producer Deborah Meron that he promised voters while running for office that he would create more opportunities for undocumented residents.
“Huntington Park is a city of opportunity and a city of hope for all individuals regardless of socioeconomic status, race, creed, or in this case, citizenship,” the councilman said in a statement. “Both these gentlemen have accomplished a great deal for the city. For that, on behalf of the city council, mayor, and our city, I want to say thank you to them both and I am confident they will do an excellent job on their commission posts.”
Pineda says he cleared the appointments with the city attorney, who confirmed there’s nothing that requires a commissioner to be a registered voter, a documented citizen or even a resident, which technically means someone here without legal residency can serve.
Appointees first pass a LifeScan background check.
Medina and Zatarain would not be paid for the volunteer positions and would not have a direct hand in constructing policy but would help advise the council on legislation. Other commissioners receive a $75 monthly stipend on months when they hold meetings.
Coming the same year that California allowed residents to apply for a driver’s license, regardless of immigration status, this move is the latest in an effort to recognize an increasingly sizable demographic in the state.
Pineda says at 13 years old he emigrated alone to the United States. He established legal residency and told Meron he feels blessed to have been able to come here and work. He’s served as a district representative on the California State Senate and legislative assistant for the U.S. House of Representatives. He currently is president of the California Latino Leadership Institute, an organization designed for young professionals interested in leadership development and serving their community.
This is Pineda’s first year on the Huntington Park City Council.
The councilman touched on his childhood in Central America and says there would be nights he’d come home to a house with no food.
He says the criticism of people who emigrate illegally often comes without understanding the hardship they leave behind.
When asked whether he expected any reaction to his commissioner selections, Pineda said: “Having worked at the federal level, I understand that not everything that you do reflects good on the entire nation. Of course, we’re going to have people who disagree with me, but I’m fine with that.”
Pineda says he selected Medina and Zatarain primarily for their contributions to the city.
A graduate from Cal State Dominguez Hills with a bachelor’s degree in sociology and Chicano studies, Medina interned for then-Assemblyman Gil Cedillo, who now serves on the Los Angeles City Council, Pineda says. Medina also organizes immigration forums aimed a helping working-class communities.
Zatarain is a student at Santa Monica Community College who came to the U.S. in 2007, according to Pineda. At Huntington Park High School, he served as ASB president and graduated with the highest GPA in his class. He acted as campus representative for English as a Second Language program and created a club to help ESL students prepare for college. Pineda says he created a local chapter of the Red Cross and organized several blood drives. Zatarain wants to attend law school.
Pineda says the decision will be announced at the City Council meeting scheduled for 6 p.m. Monday and will become official after being processed by the council.
Article written by Deborah Meron.

[OPINION] California’s Pillage People Lead The Nation In Tax Collector Harassment

              Gov. Jerry Brown  responds to a question while discussing the cuts he has already made to help reduce the state

California is making a strong case that its pillage people – tax collectors, that is – are the worst in the nation. Should that be doubted, consider the Golden State’s enduring campaign against inventor Gilbert Hyatt, who in 1990 was awarded the patent for the first single-chip microprocessor.
The computer industry welcomed this invention, earning Hyatt a lot of money. He soon moved to Nevada, which has no state income tax. California’s Franchise Tax Board (FTB) claimed Hyatt lied about his residency, and that he owed $7.4 million in taxes for a six-month period from 1991 to 1992. Over more than 20 years, that sum has ballooned to between $55 million and $60 million.
In Nevada, California’s FTB goons ransacked Hyatt’s trash without warrant, told his business partners and doctors he was under investigation, and shared Hyatt’s personal information with the media. Hyatt sued the agency for harassment and violation of privacy. California tried to get the suit dismissed, but in 2003 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Hyatt had a right to go to trial. So he did.
In 2008, a Las Vegas jury awarded him $388 million, including $250 million in punitive damages. California’s tax hacks duly appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court, calling the award “flagrantly excessive” and claiming they did nothing wrong.
In 2014, Nevada’s Supreme Court tossed much of the award, but Hyatt retained the $1.2 million for fraud. He had been awarded $85 million for emotional distress, but the court has ordered a new trial on the amount Hyatt deserves.
Despite the reduction in damages, the verdict was a clear beat-down of California’s Franchise Tax Board. The agency’s response was to continue its legal pursuit of Hyatt, with encouragement from U.S. District Judge Garland Burrell Jr., a George H. W. Bush nominee who questions Hyatt’s motives and would place the burden of proof on the inventor.
Hyatt claims the FTB is contending that he was both a resident of California who owed them taxes, and a nonresident who owed them taxes. Now 76, Hyatt believes California officials are waiting for him to die, believing it would be easier to deal with his heirs.
Former California state senator and assemblyman Bill Leonard has said the FTB action against Hyatt “does amount to a persecution at this point.” Constitutional expert Erwin Chemerinsky of the UC Irvine law school, who is representing Hyatt free of charge, told reporters that “It’s a real injustice” what has happened to the inventor, who has been “denied due process.”
As far as can be discerned, California’s loss in Nevada courts did not prompt the Franchise Tax Board to fire or discipline any managers or employees. Nor has a state senator held public hearings on the Hyatt matter, as happened for the new span of the Bay Bridge after news reports raised concerns about safety problems. Nor has Governor Jerry Brown, an evangelist for the state’s high taxes, made an issue of the tax agency’s zealous persecution of Hyatt.
Taxpayers might conclude that FTB bosses believe they are above the law and unaccountable. The tax collectors have not exactly been transparent about how much money they are spending to pursue Hyatt.
“At some point, you have to wonder whether the costs are justified based on the amounts that taxpayers have laid out,” David Kline of the California Taxpayers Association told reporters. “The FTB has hired outside lawyers in addition to using their own staff resources. It’s a significant cost and it continues to grow.”
Meanwhile, as the Sacramento Bee reported, the attorneys general of 19 other states filed a brief siding with California, claiming the Nevada verdict had a “chilling effect” on tax investigators. Clearly, all states have their pillage people, but those states will be hard pressed to match California for sheer government greed.
Bill Leonard explains that in California, tax collectors “just pick on anyone successful.” Inventors of useful products such as the single-chip microprocessor will find better conditions in other states.
Lloyd Billingsley is a policy fellow with the Independent Institute in Oakland, California, and author of Hollywood Party: Stalinist Adventures in the American Movie Industry.

Monday, August 3, 2015

CALIFORNIA: DOCTOR SHORTAGE LOOMS AS OBAMACARE ROLLS OUT, SAYS EXPERT

Doctor Stethoscope (Joe Raedle / Getty)

America faces a deep shortage of doctors as Obamacare is implemented. That is the view shared by 100 health care professionals who gathered at the 33rd annual meeting of Doctors for Disaster Preparedness in Ontario, California over the weekend. They forecast a future of decreased quality of health care and access to doctors if current policies continue.

“What do I mean by medical meltdown? Well, sadly ,I’m here to tell you that the medical care you’ve enjoyed in the past in your life is simply not going to be there in the future,” said orthopedic surgeon Dr. Lee Hieb, who addressed the conference.
Just like a black hole is so dense that no light gets out, “We have so much regulation that almost no medical care gets out,” Hieb told the audience. “We have over 160,000 pages of Medicare regulation and counting.” She continued, “Obamacare is Medicare on steroids.”
“The reason we have a shortage of doctors today and we’re going to get worse in the future began in the early 70s because the great gurus of government looked around and they said probably…look at all this money that’s being sent to all these specialists.”  Hieb went on to say that government bureaucrats decided to limit the number of specialists.
However, Lieb notes,  that the U.S. is only seeing 350 new general surgeons a year. That is not even a replacement rate, she observed.
Hieb professed that being taxed to death and having to send so much money to the government is a disincentive for doctors to work at full capacity.
“Our young people are not trained as well as we were,” she continued.
“We are now the number one profession for suicide. We lose 400 doctors a year to suicide. That’s like losing an entire medical school,” Hieb stated.
Hieb also cited a shortage of “things” or medical supplies–the first she has seen in her 40 years of involvement in medicine. She recalled almost having to close an operating room for shortages of propofols, which are used to put people to sleep; as well as shortages of tetanus vaccine, shoulder catheters and thyroid medication shortages, among other items.
The cause, according to Hieb, is “this huge over-regulatory environment.”
She elaborated on the thyroid example, saying,
These are old medicines that have lost their patent and they’ve been produced without a problem in these factories for years, but the government rolls in and says you have to bring this factory up to some arbitrary new standard and these guys say, well, we can’t do that because–guess what? you guys price fixed. You tell us what you’re going to pay, Medicare’s going to pay for this stuff. We can bill anything we want to, we get paid what you tell us you get paid, and now you’re telling us we have to spend all this money to modernize our factories. We’re going to lose money, we can’t do that, so we’re going to shut down. So after a few factories shut down in one of these nationwide shortages in classic bureaucratic fashion, the government says well wait a minute, wait a minute, you can’t shut down.
You said, “what, what do you mean we can’t shut down?”
[They say] Well, okay, I guess you can shut down, but you’re going to have to give us six months notice.
They just don’t get it.
She pointed the audience to Venezuela as a picture of the “end game.”
Hieb cited a story written by Dr. Richard Amerling and published in the Wall Street Journal (and summarized in Newsmax) that documented the plight of Pedro Gonzalez. Gonzalez, Amerling wrote, checked into a leading Venezuelan public hospital for life saving heart valve surgery. About two months later, all of the cardiac ward patients were discharged due to lack of operating room supplies according to a letter issued. Gonzalez collapsed and died a week later.
“The free market doesn’t come up with shortages this way, but we are starting to see it,” Hieb said. “If you live in a very affluent area and you’re privately insured and your neighbors are privately insured, you will probably not…won’t see it as quickly as other places.”
Hieb referenced work in an Arizona area where 85% of payers were government-paid through Medicare, Medicaid and Tricare. Four orthopedic surgeons would do the work that 10, 11 or 12 in more affluent Flagstaff would take on. She said the average orthopedic surgeon in America takes care of 12,000 people. Conversely, the region where Hieb worked was serving approximately 90,000, which later ballooned to 120,000 as Hieb left and only three surgeons remained. She said her 53-year-old former colleague from the region died thereafter under the long and strenuous work.
“The big black hole is already starting to open up,” Hieb said.
She mentioned traveling two hours to reach an obstetrician, waiting six hours to be seen by an orthopedic surgeon, or three or four months to see a rheumatologist as problems facing those in less affluent regions.
“In a free market, when there’s a shortage, it gets filled,” Hieb said.
Hieb then launched into health recommendations for “how to save yourself.” She said going into the future, “you want to be so healthy that you don’t need a doctor” in light of the impending medical shortages which she had detailed.
Dr. Hieb is listed in the Doctors for Disaster Preparedness program as “an orthopedic surgeon specializing in spine surgery and a past president of the Assn. of American Physicians and Surgeons.”
Follow Michelle Moons on Twitter @MichelleDiana

CA intervenes in Planned Parenthood video sting

Kamala HarrisUndercover videos that sent Planned Parenthood into crisis mode have drawn the concern of California Attorney General Kamala Harris, whose interest in reviewing their legality helped put the Golden State at the center of a dramatic national controversy.
Kamala Harris
Harris, embarked on a campaign to replace outgoing Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., promised lawmakers to “carefully review” the organization behind the tapes for “any violations of California law,” according to the Sacramento Bee.

The lawmakers, four Congressional Democrats, had “asked Harris and U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch to determine if officials from the Irvine-based Center for Medical Progress broke any laws when they posed as workers for a biotech company while recording Planned Parenthood physicians without their consent,” the Bee reported.
“Reps. Jan Schakowsky, Zoe Lofgren, Jerry Nadler and Yvette Clarke cited reports that founder David Daleiden filed paperwork to create a phony entity. They also asked the state’s top law enforcement official to look into possible violations of the Invasion of Privacy Act, which bars recording people without their permission.”

Swift litigation

planned parenthood 2
The company, StemExpress, swiftly filed suit to protect themselves, drawing a temporary restraining order from Los Angeles Superior Court. According to the Associated Press, the order “prohibits the Center for Medical Progress from releasing any video of three high-ranking StemExpress officials taken at a restaurant in May. It appears to be the first legal action prohibiting the release of a video from the organization.”Unlike previous efforts by activists to cast an unflattering light on the organization, the videos produced by the Center for Medical Progress captured lurid remarks concerning the sale and use of aborted fetal body parts and organs. In addition to creating a public relations mess for Planned Parenthood, the videos also raised alarms for a company that acts as procurement middleman between the abortion provider and researchers desirous of the parts.

In one video, a former StemExpress employee told the Center for Medical Progress that she expected to be “drawing blood” rather than “procuring tissue from aborted fetuses,” according to the Federalist.
Center for Medical Progress David Daleiden hit back at the StemExpress suit in a statement, calling the litigation “meritless” and accusing StemExpress of fostering an “illegal baby parts trade,” AP added.


Sunday, August 2, 2015

FLOGGING THE FLAG WHERE THERE IS NONE

Singling out tiny Fort Bragg, California for alleged Confederate ties.
When South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley signed a bill to boot the Confederate flag from State House grounds earlier this month, it was a beautiful moment — if decades late. State lawmakers finally acted out of revulsion from images of a confessed shooter posing with the Civil War relic before he shot to death nine African-American church parishioners June 17. Flag apologists lost their stomach for defending the banner as an emblem of states’ rights.
The best part was that South Carolinians themselves had decided it was time for the bad flag to go.

The worst part is what is happening now as politicians in other states try to repeat that unique moment by passing their own anti-Confederate flag legislation. California lawmakers are poised to pass state Sen. Steve Glazer’s bill that would ban naming any school, park, building or other piece of public property after generals or leaders of the Confederacy. Observe: Sacramento politicians had so much trouble finding Confederate flags to ban — after they banned them from public buildings last year — that they had to broaden the net to schools and buildings.

State lawmakers even have targeted teensy Fort Bragg, population 7,000. Glazer amended SB 539 to exempt city names, but then he wrote a letter urging Fort Bragg’s mayor to change the city’s name.

The Confederate flag is a poke in the eye to African-Americans. But how many Californians ever have been to Fort Bragg?

The California Legislative Black Caucus also urged Fort Bragg to change its name: “It is time that we move forward as a state and as a nation and stop commemorating those who defended the Confederacy and its cause.” Problem: Fort Bragg was not named after Braxton Bragg to commemorate the Confederacy. Maj. Gen. Zachary Taylor named a military outpost near Mendocino after his former commander before the Civil War even started. Later, to Bragg’s undying shame, he became a Confederate general and the owner of 105 slaves.
“Why would I change the name?” Fort Bragg Mayor Dave Turner told me. “You really can’t airbrush history. Or you shouldn’t airbrush history.” He added: If no city can be named after a former slaveholder, say goodbye to Washington, D.C.

Don’t bring up George Washington’s slaveholder history, Glazer told me. He advocates “a much more narrowly tailored” approach that focuses on men who engaged in “treasonous activities against the United States of America.” Though his bill would ban Confederate names for schools and other public buildings, he’s not forcing Fort Bragg or any other city to change.

He just wants to start a conversation — that ends with Fort Bragg’s changing a brand that until recently offended next to no one. It’s a headline in search of a problem.

It’s a crusade that ignores the sad lessons of history: 1) Politicians rarely say no to an opportunity to pick on lesser civil servants. 2) The more trivial the offense the easier it becomes for pandering politicians to rail against it. 3) Once they get rolling, purges are almost impossible to stop.

COPYRIGHT 2015 CREATORS.COM


Popular Posts