Page 4 - Mid Valley Times 7-29-21 E-edition

Serving the Readers of the Reedley Exponent, Dimuba Sentinel and Sanger Herald.
A Mid Valley Publishing Newspaper
Founded March 26, 1891, in a two-story building on the corner of 11th and F streets, by A.S. Jones
In my OPINION Seduction of free money
is a magnet for inflation
“When people realize they can vote themselves money from the public treasury that will herald the end of the Republic.”--Benjamin Franklin
State legislation aside, we plan to continue to run booking mugshots
Fred Hall — Publisher
Jon Earnest — Editor
Dick Sheppard — Editor Emeritus
Thursday, July 29, 2021 | A4 | Mid Valley TiMes Editorial & Opinions
The ease and rapidity with which
the Biden administration is redirecting
the American economy toward social-
ism or Marxism has to be frightening
to any observer. There is no such thing
as free money, and yet we are being
seduced by that idea from Joe Biden and his entourage of Democrats. If one were prescient enough they would have seen the beginning of this mess with Lyndon John- son's “great society.” The government has thrown tril- lions of dollars in “programs” and cash at the problem of poverty, and yet it's worse now than back in the 1960s.
Citizens have ceded control of any number of their Constitutional rights to a government that has disgorged trillions of dollars from the public treasury to purchase their loyalty, with little or no control over where it goes and how it is used. All the bureaucratic decisions that were made arbitrarily and capriciously about the pan- demic are finally being questioned by the public after untold damage to our children, psyche and businesses.
Equally important to ascertain is how exactly can we afford to pay for this. Truth is that we can't, because the interest is so steep for that money that even interest payments are going to be beyond reach. The results? That would be inflation and higher taxes.
The scariest part of that action is that it is extremely easy to become addicted to checks from the government. The result is that more and more ordinary people find it far too easy to look to government for everything. Take note that all these programs out of Washington are care- fully named to make them more acceptable. One will never hear any of these referred to as welfare, although that's exactly what they are.
The money being doled out by the “swamp” was nev- er theirs in the first place, and yet they use it in attempt to literally buy votes. If those pompous asses really wanted to help they would cut taxes and leave the hard- earned money in the hands of the people who earned it in the first place. Instead, with all this profligate spending, we are looking at tax increases everywhere Biden and his crew can find to do so. Nothing is free! Someone will have to pay it back, and that someone is going to be us!
California already spends about $26 billion on illegal aliens, a portion of our population which seems to grow on a daily basis. That growth of potential Democrat vot- ers is being targeted by Sacramento for increased health and other benefits which the taxpayers are expected to finance. When one considers why so many of our col- lege-age students think this is such a rotten place to live, it begs the question why do people want to come here? The short answer is that we've become a welfare state and welfare states are magnets for people looking for the free stuff while contributing little or nothing.
California legislators and politicians should remind themselves of the old adage, “when one finds themselves in a hole, stop digging.” It's obvious that little heed is paid to such an explicit warning because it receives no attention. This week, the Senate and Assembly voted to begin paying a guaranteed annual wage. What happens when a majority of California taxpayers decide to take governmental officials up on the offer of a “free” income and stop working and paying taxes?
Can we agree that, indeed, the predicate is being laid every day for our state and country moving ever closer to a socialistic state. That's all happening in spite of the fact that people are well aware of what a “paradise” Cuba and Venezuela have become.
“The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.”--Margaret Thatcher
But, as always, that's only one man's opinion.
I don't often write columns about political or government legislation, but a new law of- ficially signed last week spurs this action.
On July 23, Gov. Gavin New- som signed into law Assembly Bill 1475, legislation that pre- vents police and law enforce- ment from sharing mugshots on social media of suspects or persons arrested and accused of non-violent crimes. It was a bill that passed all subcom- mittees and both the legisla- ture and state Senate without opposition (although there was a handful of absence of votes). So there were no political dif- ferences among Democrats or Republicans, bipartisan sup- port of the bill and no orga- nized opposition.
The bill's sponsor, San Jose Democrat Evan Low, said he au- thored the legislation to reduce "unconscious bias" and "the as- sumption of guilt" that is creat- ed when police, sheriff or other law enforcement agencies post booking photos online. Low told the San Francisco Chronicle in an interview that police some- times will share photos mock- ing those accused of crimes.
In a letter to Newsom, Low said "in recent years, many de-
partments have used their so- cial media accounts to shame suspects arrested by officers, posting mug shots, names and alleged crimes...The publica- tion of these mugshots does little to serve a legitimate pub- lic safety interest as suspects are already in custody."
Those are respectable and understandable sentiments by Low and the government bodies. The law now makes it where police, sheriff and other law enforcement enforcement no longer can post on their so- cial media pages mugshots of suspects or detainees of no- violent crimes.
But bear in mind what this law exempts. Formal media en- tities (newspapers, television news, etc.) for all arrests, in- cluding non-violent crimes. In addition, mugshots of suspects involved in violent crimes can continue to be posted on police and law enforcement social media pages.
As a journalist representa- tive of The Times, I assure you we will run mugshots of just about every crime that law en- forcement deems fit to send to us. Theft — even above the "magic" cutoff level of $950 — burglary, vandalism and even
"harmless" graf-
fiti may all fall
under "non-vio-
lent" status, but
if you've had
your catalytic
converter sto-
len, your house/
apartment bro-
ken into, or your vehicle stolen or vandalized, you have every right to see someone arrested in these cases — especially when they're often merely given citations and sent right on their way.
I invite all our region's larg- est city's police chiefs — Dev- on Popovich of Dinuba, Joe Garza of Reedley, Greg Garner of Sanger — and the PIOs for Fresno County Sheriff Marga- ret Mims and Tulare County Sheriff Mike Boudreaux, to continue to have their depart- ments and agencies send in mugshots of those arrested who threaten our safety and peace of mind. Even if they are of the "non-violent" nature.
The Times will continue to honor the pledge to share news of crime around our cities, and steps in keeping us all as safe as possible.
Jon Earnest is news-sports editor for The Times.
Fred Hall
QUOTE
“A good relationship is like fireworks: loud, explosive, and liable to maim you if you hold on too long.”
— Jeph Jacques,
Questionable Content, 11-14-08
Jon Earnest
Protect drug access in Medicare Part B
By Saul Anuzis
Guest columnist
Ask Americans to name a problem with our healthcare system, and you'll hear a range of answers, from overbooked doctors to the inadequacies of Medicaid. Only a very few will name Medicare's drug benefit, known as Part D.
In one recent survey, 87 per- cent of seniors said their Part D plan "provided good value," 93 percent said the plan was "convenient to use," and 89 per- cent said the plan "delivered what it promised."
It is the rare government program that works better than advertised, costs less than esti- mated, and is wildly popular with the people it serves.
And yet, some of our politi- cal leaders want to dismantle it. Democrats in Congress aim to repeal a key part of Medicare Part D, known as the non-in- terference clause. This clause has protected patients' access to critical medicines by making sure that government officials don't get to decide which medi- cines are "worth" covering.
Under Part D, insurance companies offer a variety of plans. Insurers aggressively negotiate with drug compa-
nies to get the widest variety of medicines for their patients. The drug companies, in turn, compete with one another to make sure their products are included on formularies.
Proponents of getting rid of the non-interference clause be- lieve that if the feds could only step in, they would push pric- es lower than those achieved through competition.
The problem is, they're wrong. Nixing the non-interfer- ence clause would have long- term downsides for seniors' health.
Today, depending on their state of residence, seniors and people with disabilities have between 25 and 35 Medicare Part D prescription drug plans to choose from, with nearly 1,000 separate plans available nationwide. Since the program launched in 2006, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have repeatedly low- ered Part D's estimated cost, a rare occurrence in the world of government spending.
Medicare Part D's success did not arrive in spite of gov- ernment's absence from ne- gotiations and price-setting, but because of it. The buying power of 46 million diverse customers drove down prices
and expanded coverage.
The federal bureaucracy could only extract savings through "negotiation" if it were willing to severely restrict access to drugs. Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office concluded that negotiations would only yield savings if the Secretary of Health and Hu- man Services could "establish
a formulary."
So if this measure were to
pass, many seniors and people with disabilities would find themselves suddenly without coverage for drugs they rely on. Some would pay out of pocket. Many would skip their unaffordable medicine — and get sicker. Quality of life could suffer, and lives would be lost. We would pay in dollars, too, as government intervention would end up costing the system much more money down the road.
In practice, government price "negotiations" would se- verely hurt not just today's se- niors, but tomorrow's.
Changes to Part D shouldn't just alarm the seniors read- ing this. Be worried if you're younger, too. For your senior days lie ahead of you.
Saul Anuzis is President of 60 Plus, the American Associa- tion of Senior Citizens.