This video has been around for a while but I missed it (until now). It is an interesting look into part of the problem:
On a personal note, a while back I had a bill from a hospital and noticed that some of the costs had increased faster than inflation (compared to the same procedure which also had more complications about two years prior). I called the provider to discuss the bill. They said that costs related to uninsured who don’t pay the bills, particularly emergency room visits, necessitated the increase. The representative was honest and to the point. I asked where the largest uninsured costs come from (specifying she need not answer if she didn’t feel comfortable doing so). She unhesitatingly stated illegal immigrants are the dominant driver.
So the next time you are charged $50 for a sippy cup by the hospital, don’t get too upset. To keep ERs and other facilities open, the money must be made up somewhere. Also, keep in mind that this post doesn’t take into account the massive costs of legal fees and insurance hospitals and individual providers must maintain (don’t get hung up on one cost factor when thinking of costs).
I truly believe that political contribution caps are a complete sham. To begin with, campaigns and contributors always find a way around them anyway (and I think people should be allowed to personally contribute to anyone they wish in any amount they desire as a form of protected political free speech). More to the point, however, contribution caps are a band-aid that cloaks voter apathy.
Many who tout the caps think they will “level the playing field” (often in favor of their own political party or candidate) and stop the “corrupting influence of money”. They fail to understand that our system is already a level playing field: the only way to win an election is by receiving the greatest number of votes. There is no elected office in this country that can only be filled through a certain bank rating. Ultimate power remains in the hands of voters.
Political campaigns will spend gobs of money on cute fliers with little or no specifics. Contribution cap proponents point to this as the cause of the problem. They believe that campaigns go crazy looking for money to fund their marketing efforts. While it is true that campaigns do go overboard on fund raising for obnoxious amounts of advertising, it is hardly the cause of the problem they wish to address. The real cause is the voters.
Do you honestly think campaigns would spend so much if it did not work? Just like business, they are meeting a demand. That demand is that we should be able to hardly lift a finger to perform a vital duty as citizens of this great land. Thus, we demand campaigns come to us and give us quick sound bites and a plethora of pretty colored flyers and gag-inducing knickknacks. That demand is the problem and, especially with the advent of the internet, there is no excuse for it.
If voters were engaged as the Founding Fathers intended, it would only take a quick trip to the internet to peruse a candidate’s website and determine their positions on the various issues you may be concerned about. Additionally, there are a plethora of organizations with their various assessments and ratings you may browse. It is easy and hardly time consuming to slap together an email with your questions for candidates which either they or, in the case of larger campaigns, their staffers can answer. In local campaigns, you can also call the candidate and have a direct question-answer conversation with them.
For those willing to make the effort to become informed, prepare open-ended questions and do not give your position away (you may also want to phrase the question to appear to come from the opposite view of your own). That helps weed out candidates who pander. Be polite and keep in mind that those you speak with are regular people too. Each time I have personally called a candidate they are pleasantly surprised and happy to answer my questions.
After noticing how excited candidates became when I called, I started asking how many other calls they had received. Unfortunately, they could count the calls on one hand. Therein lies the true cause of our “money in politics” problem. Contrary to the expectation of the Founding Fathers and religious guides, complacency reigns supreme. This complacency is what has provided the opening for the “corrupting influence of money” in politics.
So the next time someone bemoans money in politics, tell them the culprit and most effective solution is easy to identify…in the mirror.
A quick blurb. Bountiful City is revising its general plan. For some of the related documents go to the City’s planning page. The documents can, at this time, be found at the top of the page. Unfortunately, the “Land Use” revision (which was supposed to be “available Monday, September 14″) is still missing.
Watch for fees and other extensions of government programs. In the transportation document, there is a push for the Mayor’s favored mass transit projects. That has serious tax and family budget implications.
Finally, the city had an open house on the plan yesterday. However, you can still sound your opinion. Just contact city council members. The City Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on October 20th.
UPDATE: Regarding the mass transit projects, I noticed a picture of a streetcar on the transportation document. It is worth noting that Bountiful Mayor Johnson went on a UTA streetcar junket to Europe. Looks like it worked like a charm.
From the Clipper:
Though an official resolution hasn’t yet been presented for approval, the North Salt Lake City Council recently decided to go ahead with an opt-out curbside recycling program that is likely to start sometime after the beginning of next year…
City staff hope to have an official resolution in front of the council for their Oct. 6 meeting, with certain details worked out such as whether the city should buy its own containers and whether to give resident a 30 or 60 day window to opt out.
But you can opt out, you say. As I have stated previously:
North Salt Lake residents should not be fooled into believing that an opt-out provision makes the program voluntary. As shown by local examples, the opt-out is more a gimmick than an actual option – residents are only given a limited time frame to opt-out (assuming they know about the dates to do so and properly jump through the hoops), those missing that opening must then beg the mayor to let them opt out, and new residents (or residents moving to a new home within the city) don’t seem to be given the option since the opt-out time period has closed. Even if you do opt-out, you may still be forced to pay for recycling.
I also noted that this type of program really goes beyond being a gimmick. Imagine if a business sent you a letter stating that they had signed you up for their product at a cost of $5/month. If you did not want that service, you would need to ‘opt out’ by filling out their form (which was not included in their mailer) within a set number of days. A private enterprise would end up on the wrong side of consumer protection laws and agencies as well as the BBB. Yet if you are a government…
It should also be noted that the program also effectively creates a local monopoly that enjoys governmental enforcement. Advocates has stated that people don’t recycle unless it is convenient. That implies that interest and a market for curbside services exist. If that is the case why not opt to offer that service to interested parties rather than forcing it upon all through governmental dictate?
NSL residents, can still contact their city council and mayor (and attend the October 6th meeting). If it is passed, I’ll try to keep an eye out for the opt-out form, when it becomes available.
Lest We Forget.
Keep in mind the War on Terror continues. Keep those on the myriad of front lines in your thoughts and prayers. Also consider checking out Michael Yon’s site for a front-line perspective on the war and our allies’ efforts. Be sure to also look at The Long War Journal for the bigger picture.
Apparently, North Salt Lake held another meeting on recycling last night. From the ill timed Clipper article (more on this later), the City seems to have already made up it’s mind, despite a bad economy, that residents will be forced to pay for some type of recycling. See if you can catch what is missing:
A more detailed pricing list for the various recycling options will be available at the council meeting, with much of the discussion focusing on choosing between a mandatory and an opt-out curbside recycling program…
“Mandatory versus opt-out is always the issue when it comes to recycling,” said North Salt Lake Mayor Shanna Schaefermeyer.
Notice that the option to have no recycling and keep it completely voluntary appears to be missing as an option. Hopefully that is just due to an omission by the reporter… It would be nice to hear from residents if a “no curbside option” was discussed at all.
WARNING: North Salt Lake residents should not be fooled into believing that an opt-out provision makes the program voluntary. As shown by local examples, the opt-out is more a gimmick than an actual option – residents are only given a limited time frame to opt-out (assuming they know about the dates to do so and properly jump through the hoops), those missing that opening must then beg the mayor to let them opt out, and new residents (or residents moving to a new home within the city) don’t seem to be given the option since the opt-out time period has closed. Even if you do opt-out, you may still be forced to pay for recycling.
If you missed the meeting, it isn’t too late. You can still contact your Council members, Mayor, and City Manager with your opinion.
Finally, a slightly humorous note: the Clipper article announcing the meeting was published the same day of the meeting. Considering the Clipper is delivered in the evening, the article seems poorly timed, no?
Click here for all recycling posts.
Some humor for everyone. I may have to stop by Uncle Sugar’s…
The shaking down of the next generation was my favorite bit but the fake mustache comes in a close second.
Found on HotAir.com.
Apparently, Centerville put a deadline on when people were allowed to “opt out” of the recycling program. I don’t remember them doing so and assume that I missed the news report stating such (at least, I hope they publicized that fact). A few weeks ago, I warned Farmington residents about a similar deadline on their so-called voluntary program. For those in Centerville, you will now have to beg the Mayor for his good graces in allowing you to opt out of the program and it’s associated fee:
As for city officials, they’ll be using August to review the cases of residents who said they weren’t around to opt-out during the city’s official opt-out period (held from April 20 to May 27). The mayor will be going over each letter asking for special dispensation on a case-by-case basis to determine whether or not they’ll be allowed to opt out late.
“He’ll decide whether they have a legitimate reason for not being able to make the deadline, like they were out of the country,” said Lutz. “In each case, it will be up to the mayor to make the final decision.”
Realistically, the Centerville program is closer to a mandatory program than anything voluntary. You had to meet a deadline and there doesn’t appear to be any provision for new residents to have a choice. Effectively, it’s like being told that you have been signed up for a magazine and money is automatically charged whether you want the magazine or not. Normally, that ends up with Consumer Protection or BBB involvement, but not when it comes to government, apparently. Further, you have no trial period with the program and no means of redress if the service is bad or you just don’t want it anymore (hence why I’ve called this a government-mandated monopoly in the past).
West Bountiful residents, despite the economy and struggling families, be warned that the Mayor appears to want to “keep up with the Jones” (this is not the first warning either). Don’t be duped by the “voluntary” spin. It is simply not the case. Note, too, that the survey cited in the article didn’t seem to ask residents if they wanted a required program that charged them each month (plus the majority appears to indicate they wanted a fully voluntary program with a recycling depot).
For more information on local government-recycling programs that I’ve covered, click here.
Some great news with life saving implications. A few months ago, I had written about the life-threatening issues identity theft introduces into medical care. As noted then, the largest perpetrators are illegal immigrants, transients, and drug addicts (attempt to get a prescription etc). Illegal immigrants, initially, use the stolen identity for work but that, eventually, may translate into medical identity theft when they visit an emergency room or doctor.
Soon, medical identity theft will be somewhat curtailed (depending on the measures employed) as doctors and hospitals will be verifying patients’ identities:
“This is showing that the same Mary with this Social Security number and this address; you should be 54. And you’re not 54,” said Deborah Wyncoop, the director of Health Policy with the Utah Hospital and Health Systems Association.
She says if someone pretends to be you, it could mean a deadly medical mistake
She explains, “If you’re O negative, and that person was B positive, and they start transfusing you with what is on the old record, that could be very problematic and potentially very deadly.”
Or Wyncoop says you could get the bill for medical procedures you didn’t have.
She says, “Was this someone that just transposed their Social Security number unintentionally, and we can find them, versus this was someone who borrowed someone else’s identification.”
When I posted on the subject, I suggested E-Verify be allowed to be employed to prevent these problems. The rule is dubbed the “Red Flags Rule”. The report doesn’t detail what mechanism will be used, but I hope that E-Verify (or a very close variant) can be used. Nevertheless, this should be comforting to patients, hospitals, and doctors in providing, and receiving, effective medical care.
After looking through several reports, the Salt Lake Tribune seems to have the most detail on the case, thus far (assuming their information is accurate). Some snippets from the report:
…Now federal authorities claim Alcala and seven of his employees lied on work visa applications in what is being called the largest fraud operation of its kind to be uncovered in Utah.
An indictment unsealed Tuesday accuses Alcala and seven others of helping 10 companies in Salt Lake, Davis and Utah counties get work visas for ineligible foreign workers.
Investigators believe The Alcala Law Firm filed more than 700 petitions that led to the issuance of more than 5,000 work visas, and that the majority of them were fraudulent. The scheme also “led to untold number of U.S. citizens and legal workers being refused jobs or discouraged from applying at all,” said Paul Maldonado, deputy special agent in charge of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office of Investigations over Utah.
The companies — which may not have known they were getting bad legal advice — included landscaping, construction, painting, roofing, steel and property-maintenance businesses…
…The alleged conspiracy involved the H-2B visa program, under which employers petition for permits that allow foreign nationals to work temporarily in the United States. Employers must demonstrate there are not enough U.S. citizens who are willing and qualified to fill vacant positions. There is a limit of 66,000 H-2B visas issued each year that allow unskilled nonagricultural laborers to stay a maximum of 10 months.
The story notes that US workers may have been denied jobs, but with a limited number of H-2B visas, it is also likely that legal immigrants were denied as well. Either way, legal workers were pushed aside for the illegal.
Some other things that will be interesting to find out will be which companies were invloved with the firm. Given the reports I have read, sure they were given bad legal advice but it also appears there were a lot of red flags that the companies would have had to intentionally ignore. It also appears that the companies were knowingly employing illegal immigrants (I wonder who’s identity they used for employment). It will be interesting to see how many (if any) of the companies belong to various Chambers of Commerce which tend to be opposed to legislation that addresses illegal immigration and identity verification for employment.
An ABC 4 report also states:
The indictment also alleges that the defendants encouraged and induce illegal aliens to enter and stay in the country.
That makes me wonder if they will also face human trafficking charges.
