New State of Calif Web Site re Police

[xbacksideslider]

My mini-rant wasn't directed toward you, it just flowed out of me when I read your post.

To touch a few other previous points... if they try to deport me, I'd probably end up somewhere in the middle east based on my looks. As for folks taking the correct and legal path to citizenship... that's great for them. I'm glad they have the means to do so. Unfortunately, not everyone has the means to accomplish this feat. Instead, they have to go a much more dangerous, and still relatively costly route to what they perceive as a better life. And I'm not just talking about Mexicans and Latin Americans here. We know a whole lot of people ride over here on boats in large shipping containers. Most have the same motivation. Too bad they don't have the same bullshit political protection the folks from the little island off Florida get. Set one foot on our soil, and you're a political refugee given safe harbor.

Actually, as a Libertarian, I want open borders BUT I want two way open borders; equal rights on both sides; for instance, I should be allowed to buy beach front land in Mexico, or operate a business there. Further, our "welfare magnet" is obviously a problem as is our odd system of "birthright citizenship.".

xbacksideslider, reading your last post helps me understand conservatives like you a little better. I was born at the end of the 70's, so as long as I can remember, conservatives have had a loud voice in the media. As you stated, you were were well into your 20s, if not your 30s, before you heard someone on your side get a solo spot in media (though, I inferred that before these regulatory changes, political talk had to be balanced, one from each side?). Unfortunately, the people in those positions in the conservative media have gotten crazier and crazier. So many of the pundits on your side have become nothing more than loud caricatures that say ridiculous things just to get ratings and sell books. I really wonder if they even believe half of the crap they spew. I'm not saying the left does much better either. That's why I enjoyed watching Jon Stewart, and still enjoy Colbert and John Oliver. Sure, they're all liberals, but at least they're willing to attack both sides when they're wrong. I am in no way saying it's balanced, but it's much closer to the middle than most other things I've seen in the political arena.

Since a young age, I was always for "free enterprise" and property rights and that is why I used to be a Republican conservative but I have learned that most Republicans, even so called conservative Republicans, are not really for property rights and free enterprise. If Democrats are socialist, then most Republicans are socialist light. So, I now identify as a Libertarian. It begins with the fact that I am not a slave and therefore, no one has any claim on my body, my labor, my money, or my thoughts. Well, that describes exactly what Democrats (and RINOs) want - my body, money, labor, and mind - all to be turned to THEIR pet projects and causes. They both are for the use of the coercive power of the state, the legal gun, to force me to do what they want. No, I am not a slave. I may contract with my neighbors for government services but because I am not a slave, so long as I do no harm to others, I cannot be forced to do or pay anything. As for my empathy for my fellow man, I own the pleasure of my generosity; that joy is mine and I am unwilling to let some other guy, to take credit for, and pat himself on the back for giving to some cause not of my choosing.

You make a good point that politicians should carry a greater portion of the blame, but the corporate billionaires are FAR from victims in this. They are not the small store owner trying to get by and feed their family, and having to pay for protection. No, they are exorbitantly wealthy people that want to gain more wealth at all costs. They don't care what they do to the country, or the world. All they care about is gaining more wealth. Billionaires are spending millions to get the "right" people into office. It's a symbiotic relationship. Both sides need each other, and both sides are guilty. Greed is at the core of the problem. The victims are small business owners, and the middle class. And the funny thing is a lot of the people in this group of victims like to blame socialism, poor people, and immigrants for their problems, when it's painfully obvious that those are all just symptoms of the real problems. They look to the left to place blame when BOTH sides of the aisle are to blame for what ails them.


I agree with all of what you say in the paragraph above. Of course, the crony capitalist corporatists, such as GE and GM and the big banks and so on, are so strong and their relationship with the political class is so well oiled that they, the corporations, actually can, and do, take control of their relationship with the political class. Admitted.

I make the point the way I did, with an emphasis on one side, so that my reader, usually for the first time, gets the idea of the original sin of the politician. Thanks for reading and for understanding. That said, the onus is on the politician. The politician, without any law or regulation, without a Federal Elections Commission, without any so called campaign finance laws, can stop it now, this instant, by just saying "No."

Presently, we are witness to destruction of wealth AND a massive transfer of wealth. This is a consequence of crony capitalism, chiefly between Washington DC and Wall Street. Banks are the single most regulated industry in America. Banking is where the most mutual back scratching occurs - and both the pols and the bankers are very good at hiding the ball. Right now, the Fed's "QE" low interest policy is the engine by which people, who are situated in the banks and on Wall Street, are given first access to "keystroke" money that is computer generated by the Fed out of nothing, thin air. This money hits banking/Wall Street/and government first, they get it before it devalues all other money, before it "trickles" into the larger economy. That is why we now have a "wealth gap." When money is created by keystroke, it devalues all prior existing money, simply because there is more of it - $3.8 M Ferrarris are sold to banksters holding lots and lots of it. This is destruction of wealth - somebody else's prior wealth.

Democrats and their "go along to get along" or "Me too" RINOs occupy the positions in government and big business/Banks/Wall Street that could fix it, and that could have prevented it in the first place. Regulators protect industry and industry pays the politicians to make sure that that protection continues.

Just yesterday I walked into a Chase bank branch to deposit some money into my daughter's account. 5 or 6 teller windows were boarded over, brand new pretty happy wallpaper pictures of great looking young people where there used to be real, and mainly pretty/handsome, young tellers. In front, where the customer lines used to be - four big boxes, maybe 40" tall and 3 x 3 - automated tellers. Gee, did someone give Chase a "heads up" on the imminent minimum wage hikes, on tightening of the "part time" 30 hour work week dodge created by Obamacare ? This is government that protects industry while both kill jobs. Just the latest example.

[SonicVenum]

I can't disagree with most of what you said. It's well thought out, and you put it out there in a fair presentation. Reading what you say about libertarianism (if that's even a word), and what I've read about it elsewhere, I can't help but agree with a lot of the platform issues you all believe in. My only issue, I suppose, is getting it to work with what we've got. If we just cut taxes to the bone, stripped down government, and leave it up to each individual to help their fellow man that needs it, how would it work out? I don't ask that sarcastically, but as a sincere question. Then again, the way things are going, it seems only something drastic could possibly right this ship. It's going to take a ground-swell of support for people with radical (but positive) ideas to get us out of the grips of the corporate/political web.

I like some libertarian ideas, like freedom to do what you like so long as you're not hurting anyone else (like recreational drugs), but I still think there's room for socialism in a healthy country. I think socialized, single-payer medicine is a good idea. If you're poor or have pre-existing conditions, you're covered, no matter what. If you're well off enough to be able to afford better healthcare, you get it, but no one gets left out in the cold. I think an arm of government keeping any eye on business, especially big business, to make sure they don't hurt their workers, our economy, or our environment for the sake of profits, is a good idea. But, you're absolutely right than any of this can and is easily corrupted when the people in government start lining their pockets, and start worrying more about that more than what they are elected or appointed to do.

While we're on political subjects, how about we bring it back around, sort of, to what started this thread... the war on drugs. You should be free to do what you want, so long as you don't hurt anyone else. Sure, using drugs can lead you to commit other crimes, but you should not be thrown in prison for drugs alone. Portugal tried something pretty radical to try to get rid of their drug problem. All the money being spent on their war on drugs was redirected toward helping drug users rather than jailing them. All drugs were decriminalized, good treatment programs were funded, and businesses hiring former addicts were subsidized for doing so. That last bit about the business subsidies worked like this: the government would pay half the salary of a recovering addict for the first year. After that, the business could decide to keep them, or let them go. The program has been successful, and the addiction rates in Portugal have fallen dramatically. Why not try something like that? Look at all the money CO and WA are raking in with legalized weed alone.

[xbacksideslider]

I can't disagree with most of what you said. It's well thought out, and you put it out there in a fair presentation. Reading what you say about libertarianism (if that's even a word), and what I've read about it elsewhere, I can't help but agree with a lot of the platform issues you all believe in. My only issue, I suppose, is getting it to work with what we've got. If we just cut taxes to the bone, stripped down government, and leave it up to each individual to help their fellow man that needs it, how would it work out? I don't ask that sarcastically, but as a sincere question. Then again, the way things are going, it seems only something drastic could possibly right this ship. It's going to take a ground-swell of support for people with radical (but positive) ideas to get us out of the grips of the corporate/political web.

Thank you for the compliment, your reply is thoughtful too.
Yes practicality gets in the way anytime we think about "how it could be" yet utopian ideas are the essence of what is known today as "liberalism," which constantly argues and taxes for outcomes that are at odds with human nature.

Toll roads and private charity were once ubiquitous, all around us, but that was before government took over those functions and pushed the non-governmental providers of those services to the side. Road contractors are huge campaign contributors. Follow the money.


I like some libertarian ideas, like freedom to do what you like so long as you're not hurting anyone else (like recreational drugs), but I still think there's room for socialism in a healthy country. I think socialized, single-payer medicine is a good idea. If you're poor or have pre-existing conditions, you're covered, no matter what. If you're well off enough to be able to afford better healthcare, you get it, but no one gets left out in the cold.

The reason health care got too expensive, the reason education is expensive, the reason houses boomed and busted is . . . . . . THIRD PARTY PAY When someone else pays, you don't give a fred what it costs!

Out of control health care cost began in WWII with wage and price controls that outlawed recruiting employees by offereing higher wages. To get around this, Kaiser Steel got FDR's price control people to bless enticing employees from GM or Ford or US Steel or whoever with "fringe benefits" instead of higher wages. The costs of such fringe benefits was deductible as a business expense.

So began medical insurance as a big business; post war, wage and price controls ended but the insurance and its deductibility remained. If employers or health insurance providers scrimped, the lawyers were there to sue for malpractice, wrongful denial of coverage. Third party pay. BUT, very high quality health care was the result - third party pay and high standards enforced by malpractice lawyers.

So - government, through tax rules on deductibility of employer provided health insurance, created, or incentivized, high medical costs.

The answer is not single party pay - that's what the Veteran's Administration is. $50 Billion bail out last year and still FUBAR. Enough said.

The answer is - high deductible/low premium policies that catch the big disasters and pay as you go for the little stuff. All of a sudden, we'd all be asking the doctor's receptionist, at the front end - "And . . . . what will the charges be?" And . . . . costs would be lower because it would be 2 party pay, instead of 3rd party pay. And that low premium high deductible policy would catch the big health expenses while the day to day costs would be low. Why didn't Obamacare go that way? Because the existing health insurance companies and hospital systems like 3rd party pay. It is a "cost plus" business, just like the defense industry, and when a new law will FORCE everyone to buy their product . . . . . they said "sign me up, how much money can I contribute to your party and to your campaign Mr. President?" That's why Hillarycare failed; she was going to put the insurance companies out of business, and they fought back; Obama learned from that, he designed a system that got insurance company "buy in." Follow the money.

Same thing with student loans . . . . . no one is watching the cost. Government guaranty. College faculty and administrators have zero incentive to hold costs down. Students don't care, the liability comes later. Third party pay enables students to make bad career choices - no job liberal arts vs lots of jobs engineering, for example. Engineering employers are forced to open engineering and research facilities abroad because there are not enough home grown engineers.

As for housing, lenders didn't have to worry about the downside - Fannie and Freddie insured it - third party pay - lend away, liar's loans, no money down, sky's the limit. The bust followed - a direct result of government involvement in housing finance.

I think an arm of government keeping any eye on business, especially big business, to make sure they don't hurt their workers, our economy, or our environment for the sake of profits, is a good idea. But, you're absolutely right than any of this can and is easily corrupted when the people in government start lining their pockets, and start worrying more about that more than what they are elected or appointed to do.

Yes, regulation can be corrupted and often is - take the "Net Neutrality" debate - a war between two big sectors of the internet/entertainment industries over whether one big guy, who wants to dump huge amounts of data into another big guy's pipes, can do so at the same rate over other little people (you and me) who only dribble data into that pipe. Both sides paying politicians to influence votes on the FCC. That first big guy wants a free ride on us, the little people; that's why he uses that bogus language "net neutrality." Follow the money.

The answer is not an arm of government but plaintiffs and juries, juries of peers. Corporate crooks fear juries more than they do politicians and regulators. Juries can't be bought. Litigation reform, to reduce costs and delay and to reduce "jack pot justice" to increase the number of small judgments and reduce the number of giant judgments, is in order.

While we're on political subjects, how about we bring it back around, sort of, to what started this thread... the war on drugs. You should be free to do what you want, so long as you don't hurt anyone else. Sure, using drugs can lead you to commit other crimes, but you should not be thrown in prison for drugs alone. Portugal tried something pretty radical to try to get rid of their drug problem. All the money being spent on their war on drugs was redirected toward helping drug users rather than jailing them. All drugs were decriminalized, good treatment programs were funded, and businesses hiring former addicts were subsidized for doing so. That last bit about the business subsidies worked like this: the government would pay half the salary of a recovering addict for the first year. After that, the business could decide to keep them, or let them go. The program has been successful, and the addiction rates in Portugal have fallen dramatically. Why not try something like that? Look at all the money CO and WA are raking in with legalized weed alone.

Agreed, all drugs should be legalized, including prescription drubs. The FDA, in part, is a tool of the AMA. In other parts, it is also a tool of the meat packers, and a tool of the big food processors, and so on with all regulatory schemes. There is always a "safe harbor" from lawsuits where courts are denied jurisdiction and all claims must be brought before the regulatory agency.

Again, sue the crooks, sue the negligent, let juries decide. Let juries be the regulators. Jurors are closer to us, the common man on the street, than is any appointed commissioner on any regulatory body. Juries and their judgments, that is how it was before the Progressives "protected" us with their two faced regulatory schemes that, through politicians, report to two masters - industry and the public.

[SonicVenum]

When you bring up toll roads, do you mean we should be taxed less, and have private companies collect tolls to pay for the maintenance/repair of heavily traveled roads? I suppose the upside of that is folks that don't use the road as often are not taxes in the form of registration fees. The downside is that these companies can also be crooks. I remember using the 91 Express Lanes almost daily for a couple years. At low-traffic times, the toll would be as low as $1.70 for a trip through the ~10 mile stretch on the 91. At peak-usage hours, that toll would sky rocket to over $10 for a trip. So, you were paying six times as much to be stuck in almost as much traffic as everyone else. I know the response to that is to just avoid the toll road at that point, but what if there was no other option?

That's an interesting history of the medical insurance industry in this country. I had never read or heard it all laid out. If I just think of myself, I like the idea of low-premium coverage because I rarely get sick, or go to the doctor, but how do we get a hold of the vastly differing prices hospitals charge for care? For instance, as a senior in high school, I dislocated my shoulder during football practice. Long story short, we thought I was covered on my father's insurance, but I wasn't. I sat in an emergency room for 3 hours, was given a couple shots of useless pain killers, was x-rayed, and finally the doctor popped my arm back into place. For that, my mom received a bill for $1,500. That doesn't make sense to me. It couldn't have cost anywhere near that to provide the services I received. Medicine just should not be a for-profit industry. As a society, we should try to take care of one another. I see how litigation can make for better, and more professional care, but I can also see how it can increase costs of providing care in the form of carrying additional insurance. Do you think the high deductible/low premium policies would help level those prices? When you're in an emergency, like I was, you don't have the luxury of shopping around for the best price. How do we ensure these costs don't break the bank for poor people? By the way, it took my mom a couple years to pay off my shoulder placement.

Net neutrality is an interesting topic. I'll admit I don't know all that much about it, except that it seems the big ISPs are against it because they want to be able to charge more for bandwidth. As someone who streams and downloads a lot of content, and uses the internet all day for work, I wouldn't want my ISP to go even more nuts on their pricing. I've been meaning to read more about it, but haven't gotten around to it.

I agree with you that litigation has helped smack down some big businesses for unsafe practices. Some of the bigger cases against auto manufacturers, and the famous McD's hot coffee case set precedence. The unfortunate thing about handling things that way is that people have to get severely hurt, or die before something is done, and even then, only if the case is publicized enough. I can see why large corporations would fear a jury more than a politician or regulator that can be bought off.

[xbacksideslider]

When you bring up toll roads, do you mean we should be taxed less, and have private companies collect tolls to pay for the maintenance/repair of heavily traveled roads? I suppose the upside of that is folks that don't use the road as often are not taxes in the form of registration fees. The downside is that these companies can also be crooks. I remember using the 91 Express Lanes almost daily for a couple years. At low-traffic times, the toll would be as low as $1.70 for a trip through the ~10 mile stretch on the 91. At peak-usage hours, that toll would sky rocket to over $10 for a trip. So, you were paying six times as much to be stuck in almost as much traffic as everyone else. I know the response to that is to just avoid the toll road at that point, but what if there was no other option?



Thanks for the conversation . . . .
From Wikipedia on the 91 -

The 91 Express Lanes use a variable pricing system based on the time of day. The road is not truly "congestion priced" because toll rates come from a preset schedule instead of being based on actual congestion. Since July 1, 2011 the toll on the busiest hour on the tollway, 3:00 pm to 4:00 pm eastbound on Fridays, is $9.75, or approximately $0.97 per mile,[6] the highest toll for any toll road in the country.[7] . . . . .


The project was developed in partnership with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) by California Private Transportation Company (CPTC), which formally transferred ownership of the facility to the State of California prior to opening the project to traffic on December 27, 1995. Caltrans then leased the toll road back to CPTC for a 35-year operating period. The new lanes have been officially designated a part of the state highway system.[42] The California Highway Patrol (CHP) is responsible for providing police services at CPTC's expense. Maintenance and operational costs for the facility are also the responsibility of CPTC.

In April, 2002, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) reached an agreement in concept to purchase the private toll road project for $207.5 million. The OCTA took possession of the Toll Road on January 3, 2003, marking the first time the 91 Express Lanes was managed by public officials. Within a few months, OCTA turned the lanes into the HOT / tollway hybrid that it is today.[43][dead link] One of the primary investors in CPTC, Cofiroute USA, continues to manage and operate the lanes under a management contract with OCTA.[44]

Opening in 1995, the 91 Express Lanes is the first privately funded tollway built in the United States since the 1940s, and the first fully automated tollway in the world.

The express lanes have been controversial because of a "non-compete" agreement that the state made with CPTC. The clause, which was negotiated by Caltrans and never was brought to the legislature, prevent any improvements along 30 miles (48 km) of the Riverside Freeway to ensure profit for the express lanes. This includes restricting the state from widening the free lanes or building mass transit near the freeway. CPTC filed a lawsuit against Caltrans over freeway widening related to the interchange with the Eastern Transportation Corridor interchange, which was dismissed once the purchase with OCTA was finalized.[45] Following the settlement, an additional lane was added for a 5 mile segment eastbound from SR-241 to SR-71, which has decreased usage of the toll road and revenues.[citation needed]

However, as a result of the controversy, more toll road advocates favor creating local agencies similar to Transportation Corridor Agencies to build and maintain future tollways. New toll roads would be financed with tax-exempt bonds on a stand-alone basis—taxpayers would not be responsible for repaying any debt if toll revenues fall short. Also, there would be a less restrictive "non-compete" clause: they would be compensated only for any revenue loss caused by improvements near the toll roads. [46]

So, the 91 is a hybrid, kind of like charter schools are a hybrid too; charter schools are half assed voucher schools where the government only half way cuts loose, afraid that it will be too shown up by private ownership and embarrassed by the superior product of the free market.

The 91, after all, is a government toll road. And the idea that it is private is malarkey. It is a crony capitalist monopoly, a fusion of crony private construction, transfer to government ownership, leaseback to the cronies, and monopoly protections for the "private operator." The public gets no break. Everyone that drives on it pays gas taxes, registration taxes, AND they pay a toll, and then the rates are fixed, price fixed, not truly floating according to demand. At dead times, when no one is on it, the toll should be very low. At high occupancy times the toll should be higher; the proof of this is that of which you complain - gridlock. Gridlock should NEVER exist on that road. Gridlock shows that - at that moment in time - the toll is too low, just as wide open flying during dead times shows that - at that moment in time - the toll is too high.

Only government employees, with no stake in the profitability of the road, or a monopoly, would fix tolls that result in these two extremes. A private owner subject to competition would continuously, minute by minute, adjust the tolls to maximize usage and revenues, and thereby offer the highest value, in time spent on the road, to his customers. Trade between two free individuals is always win-win. When you were stuck in gridlock on the 91, that was the result of a government granted monopoly; not win-win but win-lose.



That's an interesting history of the medical insurance industry in this country. I had never read or heard it all laid out. If I just think of myself, I like the idea of low-premium coverage because I rarely get sick, or go to the doctor, but how do we get a hold of the vastly differing prices hospitals charge for care? For instance, as a senior in high school, I dislocated my shoulder during football practice. Long story short, we thought I was covered on my father's insurance, but I wasn't. I sat in an emergency room for 3 hours, was given a couple shots of useless pain killers, was x-rayed, and finally the doctor popped my arm back into place. For that, my mom received a bill for $1,500. That doesn't make sense to me. It couldn't have cost anywhere near that to provide the services I received. Medicine just should not be a for-profit industry. As a society, we should try to take care of one another. I see how litigation can make for better, and more professional care, but I can also see how it can increase costs of providing care in the form of carrying additional insurance. Do you think the high deductible/low premium policies would help level those prices? When you're in an emergency, like I was, you don't have the luxury of shopping around for the best price. How do we ensure these costs don't break the bank for poor people? By the way, it took my mom a couple years to pay off my shoulder placement.

The problem there was third party pay; everyone (the two partys - your parents and the hospital/doctors) wanted the insurance company to pay, but all knew that it might not, the doc charged his standard over priced "insurance is paying rate" because that's what he always gets anyway and your mom was afraid to ask - and no one went to her and said "The price is $xxxx, do you agree?" There was no meeting of the minds as to price because of the presence of the 3rd party pay system and because of that the doctors have their bogus "doctors don't discuss costs" policy, which is a by product of 3rd party pay.

Yes, litigation is expensive and reform is in order; the ideal is fast cheap high volume fast tracked trials/judgments to replace our present slow expensive slow track to trial/judgment. Lots of small judgments versus few big judgments; the former will deter bad actors better than the latter, AND it will create more information for potential defendants and plaintiffs about how to conduct yourself.

As for non-profit medicine and taking care of each other - All work, all products have to be paid for. Medical care included. So, doctors and hospitals are going to be paid, the questions then are by who and how? We can insert government in between us and the doctor and that, necessarily and always, will more expensive than if we pay directly; we should negotiate directly with the doctor/hospital. That's what we do for everything else, why should health care be different? I mean food and energy are just as important to life. But what about the big medical expenses? Insurance. So, pay as you go for the small stuff, put the middling stuff on the credit card and for the big stuff, a catastrophic policy. That's the cheapest way to go. All patients' participation in the costs keeps the costs down. When you go past that big deductible, then the insurance takes over. Back to third party pay. But, if the hospital tries to overcharge the insurance company, then that's between them. And, if the insurance company is a crook and doesn't pay, then you can sue 'em, let your friends and neighbors on the jury make 'em pay punitive damages and the medical expenses that you paid those premiums for.



Net neutrality is an interesting topic. I'll admit I don't know all that much about it, except that it seems the big ISPs are against it because they want to be able to charge more for bandwidth. As someone who streams and downloads a lot of content, and uses the internet all day for work, I wouldn't want my ISP to go even more nuts on their pricing. I've been meaning to read more about it, but haven't gotten around to it.

I agree with you that litigation has helped smack down some big businesses for unsafe practices. Some of the bigger cases against auto manufacturers, and the famous McD's hot coffee case set precedence. The unfortunate thing about handling things that way is that people have to get severely hurt, or die before something is done, and even then, only if the case is publicized enough. I can see why large corporations would fear a jury more than a politician or regulator that can be bought off.

Regulations, however, usually are after the fact too. Government inspectors don't inspect everything in advance. As a deterrent, they are no better at preventing disaster than the threat of a jury's judgment against that bad actor. We have lots of disasters in government regulated and government inspected industries. Government inspectors don't get fired when they miss something.

Further, in the absence of government inspection, insurance companies inspect. Big companies buy insurance, their shareholders insist that they do so. And, insurance companies don't want to pay judgments for negligent customers, so they send out inspectors, better ones than the government sends out, and they cancel coverage if their insured doesn't fix what ever it is that the insurer's inspectors don't like. So, you get private regulation by people with skin in the game instead of public regulation by government employees who have no skin in the game. Further, the public regulators answer to politicians who corruptly ask for money from industry to dumb down the captive public regulators who lose nothing if the worst happens. Not so with the private/insurance inspectors whose company pays premiums but those premiums do not corrupt the outcome because the insurance company has skin in the game, assets and jobs to lose.