Arnold? Bah! We've got Jonathan Miller right here at the Snooze
By Jonathan Miller
[Disclaimer: I'm a Democratic candidate for Governor of California. This submission contains a unique proposal to spur our economy and reduce unemployment.]
Some big-name candidates for Governor of Calilfornia are looking for ways to increase taxes in order to solve our budget problems. But they're approaching the problem from the wrong point of view. We pay enough taxes in California. What we need instead is to grow our economy and spend our money more intelligently.
Last week, Arnold Schwarzenegger had one of his advisers launch a "trial balloon" about skewering Proposition 13, which limits residential property taxes. His scheme was this: If voters approve, then Arnold looks like a hero, because his campaign suggested it first. If the voters give it a thumbs down, as we rightfully did, Arnold can distance himself from the idea by saying his advisor was speaking independently. How pathetic: Can't Arnold make his own suggestions? Where's the courage and boldness that he claims to have? Why is he silent on an issue of such significance to Californians? Perhaps the Terminator is just a front for the unseen and unaccountable folks who are really running his campaign.
Next, Arianna Huffington tried to stick it to businesses by suggesting we raise taxes on commercial properties. Excuse me Arianna, since when are businesses the dumping ground for all our financial woes, and since when do businesses have unlimited supplies of cash that they can spend on taxes and fees whenever the politicians need a little extra walking around money?
I own a business that rents office space and employs people. If my landlord gets a big increase in his property tax, he's going to raise my rent. If my rent goes up, I'm going to have to forego hiring another employee in order to pay the increase. Arianna's suggestion will lead to increased unemployment and business stagnation in California!
So how do we fix our budget mess? Two ways:
(1) Stimulate the economy. An increased economy naturally generates increased tax income through property taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, and other fees and licenses. Instead of tax increases, we need tax incentives to get businesses to hire more workers, thus pumping more money directly into the economy. My campaign proposes a 6 month reprieve of state income taxes for all rehired workers who are currently receiving unemployment benefits. By reducing the total compensation burden to employers, we will entice businesses to hire more people and reduce state unemployment payouts at the same time. Unemployed people aren't paying state income tax anyway, so there is no net loss to the state.
(2) Spend our tax revenue more efficiently! How come no one is talking about this? Examples of waste and inefficiency are all around us: Why does it cost $60 million to widen two miles of highway 880? And why is the city of San Mateo spending $65 million to build a new library? That's $700 per square foot and $260 per book! What are they doing, building the Taj Mahal? For that money we could just give a free lifetime supply of books to all the library visitors. One of the reasons they use to justify the new library is that the stairs are "difficult to find" and "unattractive". Well in that case $65 million sounds like a bargain to me.
Our candidates need to get smart about taxation and the economy. And our state and local elected officials need to get smart about their public building projects. These projects are supposed to serve the needs of the citizens AND be affordable. We shouldn't give our politicians blank checks to pay for extravagant projects just so they can put another feather in their cap and another line on their resume. Grow the economy, and stop the wasteful spending. Then our budget will fall into line.
Jonathan Miller
www.millerforcalifornia.com
Jonathan Miller and I have had an interesting correspondence. I was flabbergasted to receive his first press release because he is the only candidate for governor (or for president) to have found OaklandNews. His first comments were a direst attack on Arnold as an anti-environmentalist, driving a Hummer and proposing that he fly to Sacramento from
Hollywood every day in his private plane.
But I disagree with JM's assessment that he, or Arianna, could possibly win this race.
I am voting NO on the recall and for Cruz Bustamante, a very good, quiet guy who has always
cast a solidly pro-environment vote.
OaklandNews will continue to run items we receive
from candidates like Jonathan Miller, candidates who might not have a choice, but who are 10,000
times more thoughtful than ASasawhole.
Remember the only thing ASasawhole has said about the environment? "Don't worry." What, "Don't worry,
all you developers and timber barons and would-be coastal despoilers, I'll be back to hand all my supporters everything they want."
I'm voting for the recall, Gray Davis is a terrible
governor who should have been recalled in his
first term, he barely won against the most
inept GOP candidate possible last year with
the lowest percentage of voters ever voting
in a gubernatorial election. His actions in the
energy crisis and his parlaying a 20 billion
surplus into a debt twice that size constitute
malfeasance of the first order. And there's
much more to be said against him.
Bustamante is another mediocre centrist DLC
hack, he's even MANAGING Lieberman's
campaign in California for Chrissakes !
He's never done a thing for the environment
except pollute it by his ugly presence.
We voted for Camejo last year, it makes more sense to vote for him this time with a better
chance. The Green record on the environment
is much better than than the Dummycrats any
day. Don't pay attention to Sierra Club endorsements, these clowns rolled for Clinton-
Gore -Babbitt anti-environmental policies for
8 years, Alex Cockburn documented this at
book length.
Then there's Busta's membership in Mexican
groups that are anti-other races and want to
bring about Mexifornia. No thanks !
If your a conservative, the intelligent choice is
Tom McClintock, he's very specific on what
he will cut in state government, unlike Arnie,
who seems like a closet Liberal.
But going from the Gray one to Bustababy
is like leaving the overflowing excrement filled
diaper on the baby and changing the safety pin.
For a progressive person the Dummyrats are
THE spoiler party and have been so for years.
Great quote in Sunday Chron from Harold Myerson, editor of LA Weekly
and The American Prospect (a very pro-Demo Party organ) on BustaMan,
"After three terms in the state Assembly and one as lieutenant governor,
he had no achievements to point to, no vision to articulate and no ability
to articulate a vision if he stumbled uponh one."
Guess that's why he's been such a "quiet" guy.
We have all heard horror stories of doctors removing healthy organs or amputating the wrong leg. Recently we have seen on television where a doctor left a twelve inch long surgical instrument in a person’s abdomen. These are obvious malpractice cases that clog our courts while the victims wait years for compensation. Lawyers argue the validity of questions rather than the merits of a case. The victim is often left with a choice of years of litigation or settling for nominal compensation just to pay the bills. When my husband was diagnosed with a “MISDIAGNOSED RUPTURED APPENDIX” the lawyers said there was NOT ENOUGH MONEY to take the case UNLESS MY HUSBAND DIED. We finally found an attorney but after taking our money he decided his could no longer “afford” to represent us due to the volume of interrogatories presented by the opposing attorneys. We were told if we proceeded with the case and lost we could loose our house. And that if we hired one expert they (the opposing side) would hire five. I am willing to risk everything to prevent other people from being harmed by what I believe is an incompetent doctor. I don’t want other people to go through what we have gone through. I have written Popa’s Law. A common sense protection for victims of Obvious Medical Malpractice. I have included not removing the appendix when performing abdominal surgery because “they rupture so often” and this is one preventative step that any good doctor would take. I am asking you to support Popa’s Law.
Popa’s Law
Common Sense Victims Medical Care Act
Objective:
To promote quality healthcare and to sanction doctors who’s errors are obvious and fail to meet a minimum degree of common sense medical standards. To prevent multiple surgeries when multiple issues can be addressed at the same time. To establish a compensation standard for qualifying Medical Malpractice Incidents. Force doctors to take responsibility for actions which harm patients. This act is intended to be punitive in nature, to prevent obvious mistakes from clogging our court system and/or denying compensation to victims who’s financial means do not allow for legal representation. It is the hope that no compensation will ever need to be paid out under this act by setting standards that doctor’s must adhere to.
Qualifying Medical Malpractice Incidents Defined:
1. Wrong Patient Surgery – Performing surgery on the wrong person.
2. Wrong Site Surgery – Removing the wrong organ.
3. Leaving an instrument in a patient.
4. Failing to check for and identify obvious additional illness that may or may not require immediate or future surgery. Obvious is defined as enlarged organs, or disease that can be diagnosed without specialized tests. Also tumors that are visible to the naked eye.
5. Failure to remove the appendix when performing abdominal surgery unless to do so would endanger the patients life.
Additional major medical malpractice issues may be added but it is the intent that these issues are so severe as to require that once added, no incident shall be removed.
Context:
Common Sense dictates that certain procedures are performed during surgery. Failure to maintain minimum standards result in failure of the healthcare system. Hospitals must be required to hire the most qualified surgeons to staff the emergency ward. Comparative shopping is not available to the patient in the emergency room and Hospitals must be held accountable when the doctors they contract fail to meet these standards. Failure to do so should mandate compensation to the victim/patient at the maximum allowable by law.
Doctors are to be required to remove, if it exists, the appendix of any patient receiving abdominal intrusion for surgical procedure unless to do so would endanger the patient’s life. Doctors would be required to examine the abdominal cavity, liver, spleen, gallbladder, heart and lungs etc. for any obvious defect, injury or disease and if possible correct any condition that would later require surgery, within the skill level of the surgeon unless to do so would endanger the patients life. If additional surgery would endanger the patient or if the skill of the surgeon prevents intervention, then the surgeon would be required to thoroughly document the condition that prevented his intervention. The Insurance Carrier shall be required to compensate the surgeon at one hundred (100%) percent of the normal negotiated fees for the most expensive surgery and at ninety (90%) percent of the normal negotiated fees for the least expensive surgery. The Insurance Carrier would further be required to classify multiple surgeries performed at one time as a single claim/incident and not be allowed to penalize doctors by classifying them as multiple surgeries.
Failure to meet these standards shall result in compensation to the victim/patient within ninety (90) days at the rate of the maximum Medical Malpractice set forth by law. It is further stated this is to be considered Malpractice, this compensation structure is meant to be punitive and shall not to be a sliding scale. Failure to compensate the victim/patient within ninety (90) days shall result in sanctions in the amount of ten (10%) percent per annum. It is stated that all life is valuable and economic issues, age or earning potential shall not be considered. This act extends to a fetus only when the fetus is a viable life and would have been able to sustain life without the doctor’s intervention or injury sustained as a direct result of the doctor’s intervention. Separate claims for both mother and fetus may be filed. This act does not extend to spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) unless said abortion was a direct result of the doctor’s intervention. Settlement of one portion of the claim does not eliminate or reduce liability in another part of the claim when multiple victims or multiple doctors and hospitals are involved. Flagrant disregard for immediate compensation shall reduce or eliminate the Insurance Carriers ability to do business in the State of California. Each incident shall when multiple incidents are identified, be considered separate incidents and are compensable as such.
Doctors who fail to comply with the content and context of this law and who violate any of it’s provision shall upon the first incident have their license to practice medicine suspended for six months, one year for a subsequent incident and a third incident shall result in immediate revocation of their license. Doctors who have had their license revoked can apply for reinstatement after completing one year of additional education with a minimum 3.5 grade point average, and pass their license exams with a minimum grade exceeding the eighty-fifth percentile.
Where long term healthcare is required, this act does not limit or prevent additional compensation for actual healthcare, hospitalization, caregiver or guardian expenses. This act does not eliminate any compensation for pain and suffering but is intended to provide immediate compensation to victims of medical abuse without the need for legal intervention.
*This discussion has been closed. No more comments may be added.*