California Editorial Rdp

March 5

The Modesto Bee on the need to change rules for police use of deadly force:

Change the law.

If there’s one thing we can do to channel the pain and anguish of Stephon Clark’s unnecessary death in Sacramento into meaningful action, it’s this: Push for the passage of Assembly Bill 392.

The bill, by Assemblywoman Shirley Weber (D-San Diego) and Assemblyman Kevin McCarty (D-Sacramento), would limit the circumstances under which law enforcement officers can use deadly force. With such a law in place, Stephon might still be alive today.

So might Evin Yadegar, the Modesto woman shot to death in Ripon two years ago by a Stanislaus County deputy sheriff.

Let’s be clear: Stephon Clark did not deserve to die. He was unarmed in his grandparents’ backyard when police shot him seven or eight times, including multiple times in the back. In total, they fired 20 rounds - some of them after he had already fallen to his hands and knees - because they allegedly mistook his cell phone for a gun.

“Show me your hands!” they yelled, as Clark lay dying.

How is a man with seven bullets in his body supposed to comply with such a command? It doesn’t make any sense. Neither does the current law regarding use of deadly force by police.

Sacramento District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert’s decision to let two Sacramento Police Department officers walk free after killing Clark is disappointing. Unfortunately, it comes as no surprise. The existing standard for using deadly force - laid out in a patchwork of statutes dating back to 1872 - lets officers use deadly force when they consider it “reasonable” to do so.

This overly broad authority over life and death has resulted in the tragic killings of many unarmed civilians, including Evin Yadegar, who had bipolar disorder and likely was having a mental crisis when Deputy Justin Wall shot her in her car during a pursuit. Authorities initially said she was backing toward officers, but dash cam footage shows she was moving forward when Wall opened fire.

Every case is different, of course, and unlike the officers who killed Stephon Clark, Wall is being charged with voluntary manslaughter by San Joaquin County prosecutors.

Schubert, the Sacramento DA, says she was only following the law. When asked whether she thinks the law needs to change, she evaded by saying: “What I support is that we do everything we can to improve outcomes. Today I’m not going to talk about the legislation. I support whatever we can do to improve outcomes . today is not the day for me to talk about legislation. Today is the day for me to talk about this case.”

Attorney General Xavier Becerra will issue a separate report on Clark’s killing, but chances he’ll announce a different conclusion seem slim. Regardless of his decision, it’s clear the law must change.

AB 392 will save lives by reforming the rules for when police can use deadly force. It would permit deadly force only when necessary. The bill, also known as the “California Act to Save Lives,” would:

? Establish clear rules to specify the circumstances under which officers can use deadly force

? Allow officers to resort to deadly force only when there are no reasonable alternatives, and mandate de-escalation when possible

? Permit use of deadly force only when required to protect the lives of officers or citizens

Officers who fail to follow the rules could face prosecution. These reforms are sensible - and urgently needed. They have succeeded in reducing deadly force incidents, without any increase in officer injuries, in cities like Seattle.

Law enforcement groups stopped a similar bill last year. This year must be different, but there’s no guarantee the Democratic-controlled Legislature will stand up to law enforcement lobbyists.

The Sacramento Police Department plans to revise its rules in response to a report by the California Department of Justice - requested by Chief Daniel Hahn - which recommended “prohibiting certain problematic uses of force, including needlessly high-risk force, such as chokeholds, and shooting at or from moving vehicles.” The report also said police should more clearly recognize “the sanctity of human life with use of force-related policies.”

Mayor Darrell Steinberg said he will use his knowledge and experience as a former legislator to help change the state’s deadly force law.

We asked Hahn’s office whether he supports AB 392. He declined to comment.

Outrage, pain and anger are appropriate responses to the kind of injustice Clark and his family have endured. Yet there’s only one way to truly honor his memory: We must change the law to stop this from happening again and again.

Today, we mourn for Stephon Clark. We mourn for his death at age 22, and we mourn the injustice of a legal system that allowed his life to be taken with no consequences for those who killed him.

It’s too late to save Stephon. Nothing we do or say can bring him back. But though his life was cut short, his legacy can live on forever in the countless lives that will be saved if AB 392 becomes the law of the land.

Let’s get to work.

___

March 5

Santa Cruz Sentinel on Medicare for all being a tough sell:

If there is one ideal invoked by a majority of Democrats these days, it’s “Medicare for all.”

Most of the ever-expanding roster of would-be presidents vying to replace Donald Trump in January 2021 have signed on to this plan, introduced into party orthodoxy by Sen. Bernie Sanders in his 2016 campaign against Hillary Clinton.

Now, Sens. Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren among others have joined Sanders in advocating for a single-payer health care system.

But is it plausible? Progressives like to point to Great Britain and Canada as two countries that have pulled off single payer without turning into socialist overlords.

Advocates for single payer say it would be relatively simple to change over.

The money spent on private health insurance and health care would be shifted to the federal government through some form of taxation.

The federal government then could set prices and force health care providers to accept current Medicare payment rates, which according to experts would be about 40 percent less than what private insurers pay hospitals and other providers.

Single-payer advocates say the new government-run system would mean everyone would be insured and people would access health care services more frequently because they would be free, perhaps without even co-payments.

What’s not to like?

Well, there’s this: the transition to single payer (Medicare for all) from our current system would be a rough ride.

The biggest issue is that would require the estimated 181 million Americans currently receiving health insurance through employer plans, of whom 70 percent say they’re satisfied with their coverage, to trust the federal government to come up with something better and then to find the discipline to enforce spending cuts, while ignoring special interests who want to subvert the system. Members of Congress have an awful track record on all these counts.

And, many Americans don’t have the same view of centralized big government as Brits and Canadians. Nor do most appreciate higher taxes.

Then there are the unavoidable system shocks from a public takeover of health care to hospitals, insurance companies, and doctors. And don’t forget that the current health care system is a major employer in many communities. Physicians, nurses and other health care personnel would probably see their incomes slashed as payments were cut.

Patients would also have to make a major shift in their expectations. In Canada, the wait time between seeing a general practitioner and a specialist is far longer than in this country.

The Sanders single-payer plan would increase federal spending by about $32.6 trillion over its first 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office projects federal spending for the entire 2019 fiscal year budget of $4.4 trillion.

With Medicare for all, the taxes are upfront, and the projected savings come much later, which might explain why single-payer plans have not been adopted in liberal states, including California.

And if Democrats, already under fire for the utopianism of the Green New Deal, really want to re-elect Trump, they can ignore the Kaiser Family Foundation survey which reported that once respondents learned Medicare for all would eliminate private insurance and raise taxes, only 37 percent supported the idea.

Gov. Gavin Newsom is a progressive Democrat in good standing, and, as such, supports Medicare for all.

But Newsom in January also unveiled a practical plan that would add to the 2010 Affordable Care Act which Republicans have weakened but not overthrown.

Newsom’s plan would reimpose the individual mandate congressional Republicans threw out in 2017. This state mandate would require every California to carry decent health care coverage or pay a penalty - similar to what Obamacare once mandated on a federal level. Restoring it in California would ostensibly draw younger, healthier people into the state’s insurance pool, and thus keep costs down for all involved.

Newsom says the state plan would use the additional revenue from the restored mandate to expand the federal subsidies that currently help lower-income Californians who buy coverage on the individual insurance market to pay for their premiums. This would help people who don’t get insurance from their employers but also don’t qualify for federal individual market subsidies under Obamacare.

Stabilizing Obamacare on a state level is far more realistic than a costly and jarring Medicare for all government takeover.

___

March 4

The San Diego Union-Tribune on State Supreme Court needing to address ’California Rule’ on pension benefits:

The California Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling Monday upholding a 2012 state pension reform law that banned the “air time” practice of allowing public employees to buy years of service credit to inflate their pensions was a welcome development.

But what a lost opportunity for the state high court. The narrow ruling failed to bring clarity to the most important pension issue of all: the so-called “California Rule,” which holds that government workers are entitled to all pension benefits in place on their hire date. It remains incomprehensible that the rule was established by a 1955 state Supreme Court ruling, which essentially held pensions can only be increased or kept at the same level. How was such a sweeping decision made without the explicit approval of the lawmakers elected to represent Californians? That’s not how democracy should work.

There are other pension lawsuits working their way through the system that may offer the state Supreme Court a chance to decide whether the court agrees with a 2016 state appellate court ruling that government pensions are not “immutable.” But until this reasonable view becomes binding, local governments and school districts will continue to be hammered by pension costs, hollowing out services and reducing resources available for students.

Some legal thinkers argue that the courts should not consider the real-world implications of their decisions - just the letter of the law. But there is no law authorizing the “California Rule.” State justices need to grasp this central fact if and when they finally consider the rule’s legality.