http://www.californiahighspeedtrains.com/docs/Yes%20Prop%201A%20Fact%20Sheet%20-%20Financing.pdf

2033. That’s when the HSR project is now expected to be completed – 13 years after it was initially supposed to be completed.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-high-speed-rail-20111101,0,1124440.story

So, in the three short years since voters were sold this bill of goods, the costs have gone up $50+ billion and the time to complete the project has doubled. How could that be? Maybe the cost of labor has skyrocketed, despite unemployment being in double digits? Or maybe the cost of purchasing land for the tracks has dramatically increased, despite the real estate market being down? Or – just maybe – the special interests that pushed High Speed Rail didn’t give voters all the facts when they sold this program in 2008.

Over and over again, California voters have been sold the benefits of a new program that ended up costing taxpayers more money, that lacked sufficient oversight or accountability, or that failed to deliver on the promised benefits. High Speed Rail, stem cell research, the First 5 programs … all of these programs have faced at least some of these problems.

http://www.redstate.com/cringinghere/2011/10/31/200-million-of-calif-taxpayers-money-spent-with-no-accountability/

But that hasn’t stopped special interests, who keep coming to California voters with more ballot measures to get more of our hard earned tax dollars for new programs. The latest ballot box boondoggle is being pushed by a former career politician, who wants to create a huge new taxpayer-funded bureaucracy with six political appointees. The so-called California Cancer Research Act – on the ballot next June – would raise taxes on tobacco by $1 a pack for this big new spending program.

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/perata-pays-de-la-fuente-12500/Content?oid=2682375

http://www.stopoutofcontrolspending.com/the-facts?utm_source=First%2B5&utm_medium=Blogger%2BOutreach&utm_content=Facts&utm_campaign=Phase%2BOne

California can’t even pay for the current programs on the books, and a former politician wants to start a new program. How long before this program has cost overruns, and Sacramento comes calling asking for more from California taxpayers?

Steven Maggi is the host and executive producer of Free America Radio, a syndicated weekend radio show serving over 30 markets throughout the United States. Steven has spent over 30 years as a broadcast journalist and an expert in public policy.

That’s the case with the trial attorney wolf pack now in the process of tearing down Putnam General Hospital in Putnam County, West Virginia – the only hospital serving that small community of 55,000 people.

More than 100 lawsuits have been filed against Putnam General’s parent company Hospital Corporation of America demanding billions in damages. The lawyers have even started suing each other over the potential spoils. As a consequence of this lawsuit carpet bombing, HCA will close Putnam General Hospital on Aug. 29, and the hospital has already stopped admitting patients.

The focus of this flock of lawsuits is Dr. John Anderson King, an orthopedic surgeon who was on staff at Putnam General for eight months between 2002 and 2003, before his hospital privileges were suspended. The lawyers’ quest for gold is cloaked in the highly questionable claim that Dr. King did “irreparable harm” to the lives of approximately 100 patients.

That is a question for a court of law to decide. However, since their phalanx of lawsuits is going to close down the only hospital in Putnam County, the trial attorney’s have formulated a bodyguard of lies to defend them in the court of public opinion.

Here’s the roster of lies:

Lie #1: “Lawsuits have nothing to do with the closing of PGH”
Actually, the trial attorneys have engaged in a deliberate campaign of discreditation via their lawsuits and associated media campaign. And it’s worked: patient census has fallen drastically and employee turnover has increased substantially, causing millions in losses. Claiming these attorneys and their lawsuits have not caused Putnam General’s closing is akin to ignoring a well worn path through the woods in favor of running blindly through the thicket.

Lie # 2: “PGH hustled King in to do surgery and he did not have the proper credentials”
In a word: Wrong. Dr. King was brought in at the request of the hospital’s only orthopedic surgeon, Dr. James Cox, to ease his de facto 24/7 work-load. When Dr. King applied for hospital medical staff membership, Putnam General utilized the proper and routine channels and received uniformly positive feedback – including from physicians who had operated with him. Then again, the plaintiff’s attorneys know all this.

Lie #3 “King did not have the proper credentials to perform orthopedic surgery”

Another falsehood. Dr. King presented the hospital staff with evidence of proper orthopedic surgery training, experience, and skill. In fact, another physician, Dr. Len Fichter, scrubbed in with Dr. King on dozens of surgeries at Putnam General and never raised any concerns as to king’s skill or technique.

Lie #4: “People have died”
This highly questionable assertion is based on examples like the death of a patient from cancer – which occurred several years after undergoing surgery by Dr. King.

Lie #5: “There were red flags shortly into King’s tenure that were ignored by the hospital”
On the contrary: Putnam General terminated King’s surgical privileges the moment a prudent basis for such came to light. If the trial attorney’s were telling the truth, it strands to reasons the physicians who operated with Dr. King also ignored these alleged “red flags.” But for some reason, these attorney’s aren’t suing those doctors – just the deep-pocketed Hospital Corporation of America.

Lie #6: “Prospective buyers aren’t or shouldn’t be concerned with the King lawsuit litigation.”
As good as the plaintiff’s attorneys are at attacking businesses, they don’t know much about how they operate. Putnam General Hospital’s value to a potential is directly impacted by these lawsuits. If the community distrusts the hospital with their medical care, that decreases the hospital’s value to a buyer. Indeed, these attorneys have targeted Putnam General with venomous criticism in the belief this damaging of the hospital’s community standing will make a settlement in lieu of trial more likely.

Lie #7: “King was an incompetent surgeon”
A tired lie the trial attorneys never tire of telling. Plaintiffs’ counsel knows the majority of their clients lack any legitimate claims against Dr. King’s technique and skill. Independent medical examinations to which all parties agreed determined the techniques and skills King brought to the surgeries were in keeping with orthopedic standards of care. Not only that, but these review also concluded the vast majority of claimed injuries are unrelated to Dr. King’s surgery.

Lie #8: “King was not actually a licensed physician”
This is a particularly astounding lie told by the plaintiff’s attorneys – astounding because it is so demonstrably false. King is indeed a licensed physician, and to say otherwise is to lie.

This is only a sampling of the more egregious prevarications being trotted out by the plaintiff’s attorney’s to distract from the truth that their unbounded greed for huge damage awards may enrich them, while impoverishing the quality of medical care available to the very people for whom they profess to crusade. Ultimately, the truth may prevail, but even so it will come too late for the 55,000 residents of Putnam County – who will have lost the only hospital they had.

As a consultant in the Homeland Security industry, I remember those crazy, confused days after 9/11. The first of letters containing anthrax were postmarked exactly one week later, sent to ABC, CBS, NBC, the New York Post and the National Enquirer. Two additional letters, dated October 9, containing a more potent quality of anthrax were addressed to Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy. The government mail service was shut down, buildings were evacuated.

Twenty-two people developed anthrax infections, and eleven of those were inhalation anthrax, which is life threatening. Five died. Two-month courses of the antibiotic drug Cipro became the hottest cocktail in the nation’s capital.

We still don’t know who is responsible for these attacks. Last month, Katie Couric promised a CBS report given a full update of the attacks. Unfortunately, the report was, as Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media reported, nothing but “an apology for the FBI’s incompetence.”

So what are the chances of this ugly incident reoccurring? We know for a fact that al-Queda had an extensive anthrax program. President Bush, when discussing his proposal for military commissions (and not courts) to try terrorists, revealed that during questioning authorities learned of the program. Anthrax is a relatively easy way for terrorists to inflict damage to the American psyche.

There are some answers for Anthrax that we need to be aware of and be ready to use should the need arise. One is methyl bromide, a traditional pesticide that has been safely used worldwide for over 50 years.

An entomology professor from the University of Florida’s Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Dr. Rudy Scheffrahn, discovered methyl bromide’s effectiveness regarding anthrax while conducting research on an unrelated project. Scheffrahn then sought and obtained a crisis exemption from the U.S. EPA to test it…the good news is that it works.

You would think, “Great. Done deal. We now have an effective response.” It’s not that simple. Under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, which took effect in 1989, the United Nations is charged with eliminating chemicals that damage the earth’s ozone layer. Among the chemicals that are being eliminated are CFCs (Chloroflorocarbons) which are used in everything from refrigerators to asthma inhalers. Methyl Bromide is another one of these chemicals.

The chemicals that are replacing these, are much more costly, toxic, and in many cases, untested. This becomes a simple case of priorities….what is more important? Keeping a safe chemical that kills deadly Anthrax? Or is it better to fully capitulate to a United Nations mandate that makes little impact while forcing America to give up an effective tool in the war on terror?

There is another Anthrax-mitigating technology available that is effective. The company that provides this service uses a “technology” that is, essentially, bleach. They bleach all surfaces, stripping paint, destroying furniture, computers, and records. I think this service is valuable, but is by no means a replacement technology for methyl bromide. We need both methods, depending on the applications, and we need to look for more.

But perhaps the best argument for methyl bromide is the relative cost of application vs. using a bleaching agent. There really is no comparison here, as it’s literally pennies on the dollar relative to using the existing technologies.

Renowned terrorist expert Steve Longoria feels complacency regarding this particular tool in the war on terror is dangerous. Longoria, a 25-year veteran of fighting terrorism worldwide, says the United States needs to perceiver in its effort to stay ahead of the terrorists. “As we build new security features we must maintain the balance between fear and conviction; between complacency and commitment. We must ensure any security feature designed to protect our human and capital resources does not invite complacency to cloud our vision of safety. Or worse yet, not built at all in the false hope that we can negotiate with those whose only mission is the full and complete extermination of the United States of America.”

The bottom line is this: we know our enemy and what he is capable of. We need to stay ever-vigilant, using every method at our disposal to fight this scourge. We need to end the phasing out of methyl bromide and consider the needs of America’s homeland security and the nation’s survival.

Take Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy. Under “experience” on his resume, it would say “United States Senator, 1962 to Present.” It is the only job he has held in over 40 years! He is not alone. West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd goes back to 1959. In fact, there have been 19 senators that have served over 35 years. The House is no better .. Congressman John Dingell, for example, has been there since 1955.

Modern politicians are concerned with a number of activities: spending taxpayer’s money, getting re-elected and thus protecting their chosen career, raising the enormous amounts of money necessary to getting re-elected, and finally, doing the work of their constituents. They are an elite class that becomes detached from the roots of the community that gave them the power they hold.

Challengers have a very slim chance of removing the incumbent, as those in power also have access to expensive and powerful mailing lists, political machines, and carefully drawn out districts, thanks to the party in power wanting to keep it that way forever.

Term Limits are the antidote to this dilemma, which brings us to Ground Zero for 2006: the mid-size town of Tracy, California. Tracy has decided to put on its November ballot a measure that would impose term limits on municipal officers.

Staycee Hall, chairwoman of the Tracy Term Limits Committee, asks “Does the government serve people better when incumbents continually exercise their re-election advantage while becoming career politicians? Do you believe the only elected officials who can be effective are those who have spent years and years in elective office? Do you desire the opportunity to speak for yourself by being given the opportunity to vote your opinion?”

Reasonable questions. And the answers make the case for term limits obvious. First and foremost, they assure competition in elections and encourage voter turnout by limiting the number of elections that the famous name or massive wallet (see Kennedy, above) can participate in. They remove the politician who has his or her favorite lobbyist “delivering influence” year after year. They eliminate the career politician, making room for concerned citizens who want to “give back” to his/her community. Finally, the perpetual campaign is eliminated, giving the public servant a finite amount of time to accomplish something without worrying about the polls.

Term limits are nothing new in America. The 22nd Amendment limits a President to only 2 terms, and 38 states have term limits for their Governor. Over 3,000 local governments also have term limits, so what Tracy is attempting to do is nothing new.

The argument against term limits is that we lose too much when we don’t have experienced politicians. To the lobbyists and special interests, there is really nothing like dealing with same politician year after year. And these lobbyists/special interests have money and are not afraid to use it to keep the same system.

For example, the Michigan Chamber of Commerce refused to allow their annual meeting to be attended or filmed by citizens opposed to a proposal to weaken existing term limits.
Back in 1992, 70% of Oregon’s electorate voted for term limits, making it the most popular voter-approved amendment in state history. Legislators and lobbyists conspired to cancel Oregon’s term limits in 2002, but voters there are getting a second chance to speak. This November voters put Measure 45 on the ballot, which would restore limits.

So what is happening in Tracy? As usual, the same old crowd is screaming about the evils of term limits…the career politicians that don’t want to lose their power and influence and the journalists who seem to idolize these “professional leaders.” The local paper, the Tracy Press, says (dripping with elitism and arrogance) that “we already have term limits—they are called elections.” However, we know the advantages of incumbency do anything but keep the officials honest.

Tracy represents a cross section of America. It is a small town becoming larger overnight. It has out-grown its leaders. Continued expansion also brings crime, traffic and other issues that can affect the quality of life. With these changes comes the need for new leadership. Term Limits will give Tracy what it needs.

According to the Insurance Journal, in the year 2000, the average jury verdict award was over 1 million dollars, or almost 250 percent higher than it was just five years before. In personal negligence cases, the average award exceeds $3 million. Yet, awards to the injured plaintiffs’ amount to only 46% of money spent on tort litigation. The other 54% goes to lawyers and insurance companies.

Nowhere is this legal free spending more rampant than in healthcare. Lawsuits have forced malpractice premiums for MD’s as high as $200,000 a year, and even higher for surgeons. In medical malpractice cases, plaintiffs receive average awards of $1.2 million.

Sometimes, though, there are things more important than money. Like eliminating a County’s health care system. This is what the residents of Putnam County are just learning.

Putnam is a small, rural county of 55,000 residents in West Virginia. Until recently, this county was served almost exclusively by Putnam General Hospital, which is owned by national health care provider Hospital Corporation of America, Inc. (HCA). Yet the hospital is scheduled to shut its doors for good August 29th. In fact, they’ve already stopped admitting parents. Why? There is only one reason … Well, more like hundreds of reasons – the number of predatory lawsuits filed by local lawyers.

What happened you ask? The issue surrounds the strange case of Dr. John King, who allegedly mishandled dozens of surgeries during his six-month stint at Putnam. Clearly, something went wrong here, and no one is arguing for anything less than a full airing of the facts and for any injured parties to be made as whole as possible. But that is not what local lawyers had in mind, and instead came a barrage of lawsuits for billions of dollars! Not millions, but billions!!!

Here’s the bottom line: Whatever happened at Putnam related to Dr. King, whatever role there is for the courts in this circumstance, the litigation has gone too far, because more than 55,000 West Virginians will soon live without nearby doctors, nurses, trauma centers or emergency rooms. This is a triumph for justice?

Specifically, Margaret Lewis, president of parent company HCA’s Capital Division, essentially laid the blame for Putnam’s downfall on what she termed attacks by local trial lawyers who have filed more than 100 King-related lawsuits, demanding billions of dollars in compensation.

Lewis said, “The problem is that lawyers want much more than that. Because they personally keep a third or more of the take, they demand what’s come to be known as ‘jackpot justice.’ That’s tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in damages, when, say, a cool $1 million would more than satisfy the injured party.”

Its human nature to be overwhelmed by a sense of sympathy and compassion, but this too often easily gives way to casually applied awards in the range of $50 or $100 million in damages. Do we ever stop to think just where that money comes from? The defendant and the insurance company (to be sure), but the rest of us as well.

The burden of tort irresponsibility is ultimately borne by the individual through higher prices, reduced wages, or decreased investment returns. Or even more. Just ask the people of Putnam. They are now coping with higher prices, lost jobs, fewer life-saving drugs, and a disappearing hospital.

Corporations and individuals should be held accountable for their actions. However, people and organizations can be ruined by the cost of being sued or by juries doling out millions of dollars. And look what this has gotten us. A society that now has to tell the person, in writing, on their cup of coffee to be careful, that the beverage they are about to enjoy is HOT!

The death of Putnam General should be laid at the feet of the voracious and greedy trial lawyers who huffed and puffed and may have blown an entire health care provider down to the ground. It hasn’t made one person healthier or happier, but it stands as a symbol of litigation gone wild and as a cry for tort reform throughout the nation.

Democratic candidate Busby ran with this year’s Democratic mantra – “the Republican party is the party of corruption.” Then she fumbled … she told a predominately Hispanic-speaking crowd they didn’t have to be citizens to vote and work for her campaign. The remainder of the campaign was spent explaining she “didn’t really mean it,” but audiotapes tend not to lie. Meanwhile, Bilbray, an experienced legislator, ran on the conservative principles of less government, controlled spending, and stopping illegal immigration. These are the principles that won the election.

You could tell it was a good night for the power in party, as you heard very little Wednesday about the previous night’s election. On Tuesday night, the CBS Evening News ran a story on how this race would be a “referendum on both the Republican Congress and the Republican President.” Yet despite Bilbray’s victory and the fact that Busby’s totals were less than John Kerry’s 2004 numbers in the same district, CBS anchor Bob Schieffer declared the win “a warning shot for Republicans.”

Outside of a few of these “moral victory” tales from Democratic cheerleaders, you had to channel surf the cable networks and read the paper from cover to cover to learn much about the election. No big analysis, no William Schnieder break down of how this effects November, no lists of new Democratic committee chairmen..

In 1994, the late Peter Jennings described the Republican takeover of Congress (after 40 years of Democratic control) as “the American People throwing a temper tantrum.” To the media’s chagrin, it was not a tantrum but instead, a lasting change in the political landscape.

And these pundits were so sure this time Americans would come to their senses and return us to the glorious 60s when Democrats ran Washington. After all, President Bush’s poll numbers seemingly drop by the hour and each day he hits another all-time low. Certainly all this anger about the President’s performance and his party would lead to the destruction of the Republican Party as we know it. But what the pundits failed to take into account was Bush isn’t running for anything. While his policies are not popular, the other party is in equal disfavor with the electorate, offering no solutions other than an organized hatred of Bush. Also, polling has been less accurate over the last decade (remember the exit polls in 04?) and low poll numbers are self-fulfilling prophecies…that is, the more they proclaim Bush unpopular, the more the non-engaged respondents agree. After all, moderates like to associate themselves with “conventional wisdom.”

It is true there is a lot of anger with Washington these days. The news (at least what we get in the mainstream media) from Iraq is all bad, gas prices are through the roof, and sometimes there appears to be a lack of leadership in Washington. Perhaps if the Democratic Party offered a true option (more Joe Libermans, less Teddy Kennedys), a turnover would be in order. But the fact remains this is the party of John Kerry, Howard Dean, and Al Gore. These are far left liberals who appeal to the Democratic base, but scare everyone else outside of Manhattan and Hollywood.

This certainly does not mean the Republicans are a lock in November. The party base is disillusioned with runaway spending and lack of consensus regarding illegal immigration. Still, since the days of the “Contract with America” it has been true conservatives win when they run on a conservative platform. Forget pollsters and pundits, Republicans should just stick with the original playbook if they want home field advantage.