San Diego pay attention! ATF raided Blackwater’s North Carolina mercenary base and seized 34 machine guns. The backstory is involves yet another example of Blackwater using third parties to get around regulations they don’t think they need to follow. In this case, they paid for 34 automatic weapons via having them registered to the Camden County Sheriff’s Department to skirt federal law. Interestingly, there are only 19 deputies to which Blackwater CEO Gary Jackson answered, “They are very well equipped.”

The weapons in question are 17 Romanian AK-47s and 17 Bushmasters. I’ve been unable to find info on which model of Bushmasters are involved, only that they automatic. This should be of particular interest for Californians as Blackwater’s website notes their San Diego base offers a “Bushmasters Weapons Course” that is open to the public ($450 for two days, includes lunch). As for the AK-47’s which have zero law enforcement value, Blackwater justifies the purchase by claiming:

Jackson and Erik Prince, Blackwater’s owner, said Blackwater used the AK-47s in training to familiarize police officers or members of the military with a foreign weapon that they might come across while making an arrest or on a battlefield.

On the “battlefield” known as Camden County, the last decade has seen two murders and three robberies.

Cross posted from the Health Access Weblog.

Earlier this week, Governor Schwarzenegger called the number of uninsured in California a “moral crisis”–and he was right, both about that and the need for concerted action on health reform.

Unfortunately, the Governor’s cuts-only budget goes in completely the opposite direction, making our health care system even more broken, and leaving more people uninsured. Today, Health Access California is releasing a report that reveals the full magnitude of the cuts the Governor proposes–with over one million more Californians uninsured. While the Legislature has adopted some of these cuts and rejeced others, all of these proposals are on the table until a budget solution is agreed to.

This has gotten attention in the Sacramento Bee, the Los Angeles Times, and the Contra Costa Times.

Details under the fold…

New Analysis Reveals Full Impact of Governor’s Health Cuts:

One Million More Californians Would Lose Health Coverage

* Permanent Policy Changes, Not One-Time Cuts, Would Hinder Reform

* Magnitude of Cuts Would Have Ripple Effects Through System

* Health Consumers and Providers Urge Alternative to Cuts-Only Budget

Over one million more Californians would lose health coverage, with significant impacts throughout the state’s health system, if the Governor’s budget and health cuts were passed, according to a new analysis today.

The study, by the health care consumer advocacy group Health Access Foundation, uses information from the Schwarzenegger Administration, but shows a much greater magnitude than earlier estimates, which only looked at the impact of the cuts for less than a year, and not at full implementation.

The report is available on the front page of the Health Access California website, and directly at:

http://www.health-access.org/preserving/Docs/HACoverageImpactReporto6-25Final.pdf

The study shows that these health care budget cuts are of a magnitude that will impact every Californian, as they place huge burdens on the health system we all rely on. These are permanent, not just one-time cuts, to leave more than one million more Californians uninsured, and over three and a half million having to pay more and get less.

Previous summaries of the Governor’s budget proposals, including the May Revision, show the impact of the cuts in only the first year – with tens of thousands losing coverage or being barred from enrollment. But the impact is much greater, in three ways:

* The Governor’s budget is not proposing one-time budget savings, but lasting policy changes and coverage reductions for the health care system.

* A snapshot of the savings in the budget year does not reveal the full impact in the following years, once the reductions have been enacted and all the administrative changes have occurred to continue the reductions.

* Finally, the cumulative impact of all the proposed cuts, when added up together, suggests that the magnitude of the cuts-with more than a million more uninsured-will have impacts not just on specific programs but on the entire health care system on which we all rely.

The permanent policy changes reflected in the budget will be in place long after the 2008-09 budget year comes and goes. Of note, these policy changes are contrary to health reform proposals the governor previously put forward.

The cuts include:

* A roll-back of eligibility for basic Medi-Cal coverage for low-income working parents to well below the poverty level. (429,000);

* Additional paperwork burdens for children and adults, requiring reports every three months in order to avoid disenrollment (471,500);

* Suspension of already-passed legislation to streamline child enrollment (97,000)

* Increased premiums for children’s health coverage, leading to decreased enrollment (60,000).

The cuts represent a reversal for the Administration, reducing programs that just a few months ago were being considered for massive expansions to provide coverage to millions more people. Rather than shrinking the number of uninsured, the Schwarzenegger budget would increase the number of uninsured substantially.

The report includes appendices that include:

* a county-by-county breakdown indicated the increase in the uninsured by county by 2010, the last year of the Schwarzenegger Administration;

* a chart comparing the policy changes in the Governor’s budget that would restrict coverage, to the health reform proposal supported by the Governor earlier this year to expand coverage; and

* a further detailing of the populations that under the proposed cuts would be forced to pay more or get less benefits, totaling 3.5 million Californians.

Allowing one million more California children and parents to go uninsured creates ripple effects throughout the entire health care system. It includes:

* an increased burden on “safety net” providers, from emergency rooms to hospitals to community clinics-many of which are dealing with direct cuts of their own;

* a cost-shift, from both the uninsured and reduced Medi-Cal provider payments, to private purchasers of health care-which likely means increased premiums; and

* worse health and economic impacts for California communities, from the destabilizing impact of more children uncovered and getting sicker, to more families facing medical debt and bankruptcy for being uninsured.

As a result, all Californians-not just the million more uninsured-will be impacted these cuts. The report makes clear the stark choice the budget debate this summer presents for California policymakers, between allowing these devastating cuts to move forward and to make these structural policy changes to our health care system, or to find the revenues needed to prevent these cuts.

I’ll be on KRXA 540 AM in Monterey at 8 AM Thursday morning to discuss this and other California-related topics

As you might remember from last fall, California conservatives tend to prefer low taxes to adequate fire protection. As Northern California is ablaze – with two huge fires burning out of control in the Big Sur mountains to the south of me – attention is again focused on providing adequate fire services. And as Democrats and Arnold Schwarzenegger debate the best way to fund it, conservative Republicans continue to fight the very concept. From the San Jose Mercury News:

Hoping to buy more fire engines and helicopters, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is proposing a statewide surcharge on property insurance of $6 to $12 a year. Another lawmaker, state Sen. Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, wants to charge a $50 yearly fee on the 900,000 homeowners living in rural areas to fund fire prevention….

The new engines were recommended by a state task force after massive wildfires in Southern California in 2003 killed 24 people and burned 3,600 homes.

The governor’s proposal would add a surcharge on property insurance for all commercial and residential structures statewide. In ZIP codes designated as “high-hazard zones” for earthquakes, fires or floods, the fee would be 1.4 percent, about $12.60 a household per year. In “low-hazard zones,” the surcharge would be 0.75 percent, or $6.75 a year.

The main debate between Kehoe’s and Arnold’s proposals is who should pay for the costs of fighting fires in the urban-wilderness interface. I like that Arnold’s plan would have higher rates for those in higher risk areas, but would still require all property owners to pay something. The fact is that even the brush fires are not exclusively a threat to folks who chose to live in fire-prone areas. Much of California is a fire-prone area, even the urban areas.

Last fall, the Santiago Fire in Orange County came within 1/4 mile of my grandparents’ home in Tustin and within a mile of the home where I grew up and where my parents still live. It’s on the coastal plain, not in the foothills, not in the brush. But a fire that gets started in the brush can easily get blown into a densely populated area. And of course, the large fires require departments from across the state to respond, but someone’s gotta stay behind. Since most fire departments in California are understaffed – such as here on the Monterey Peninsula – it is imperative we add the necessary equipment. And let us not forget the threat of earthquakes.

Of course, to conservative Republicans none of this matters, because omg it’s a hidden tax increase!!

Taxpayer groups and many Republican leaders oppose it.

“It’s not fair to the general taxpayer in an urban area,” said David Wolfe, legislative director for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. “They are subsidizing people who are choosing to live in high fire danger areas.”

Critics also call the plan a ruse to cover up firefighting cuts Schwarzenegger suggested in his January budget proposal that contained 10 percent cuts of every department.

“Our state budget is $110 billion. If we can’t dedicate enough money for basic public safety, then what the hell is government doing with our money?” said Assemblyman Kevin Jeffries, R-Murrieta.

Remember that conservative Republicans pulled the same thing in Orange County in 2005, helping defeat a measure that would have channeled more of existing funds into the OC Fire Authority, which found itself shorthanded last fall when the Santiago Fire broke out.

It is common sense that we properly fund our fire services. Whether it’s Kehoe’s or Arnold’s plan we adopt, the conservative Republican attitude of “you’re on your own” must be firmly rejected.