I’ve
got a new column up at
Time.com. Here’s the opening:
Even before yesterday’s election, Republicans were ready to
blame Virginia gubernatorial
candidate Ken Cuccinelli’s looming defeat to Democrat Terry
McAuliffe on Libertarian Party candidate Robert Sarvis. “A
Vote for Sarvis is a Vote for McAuliffe” argued one Cuccinelli
supporter.
With the
final count in, expect Republican anger at the Libertarian
“spoiler” to grow exponentially. McAuliffe, who had enjoyed a
double-digit lead at various points in during campaign, won with
just 48 percent of the vote to Cuccinelli’s 46 percent. The
Libertarian Sarvis ended up pulling almost 7 percent, far more than
enough to tip the election the other way.
But to blame a major-party loss on third-party candidates is
fundamentally mistaken. First off, it ignores data that the
Libertarian pulled more votes from the Democratic candidate than he
did from the Republican one—an exit poll of Sarvis
voters showed that
they would have voted for McAuliffe by a two-to-one margin over
Cucinelli. Second, and far more important, it presumes that
all potential votes somehow really “belong” to either Democrats or
Republicans. That’s simply wrong and it does a real disservice to
American politics.
I’ve
got a new column up at
Time.com. Here’s the opening:
Even before yesterday’s election, Republicans were ready to
blame Virginia gubernatorial
candidate Ken Cuccinelli’s looming defeat to Democrat Terry
McAuliffe on Libertarian Party candidate Robert Sarvis. “A
Vote for Sarvis is a Vote for McAuliffe” argued one Cuccinelli
supporter.
With the
final count in, expect Republican anger at the Libertarian
“spoiler” to grow exponentially. McAuliffe, who had enjoyed a
double-digit lead at various points in during campaign, won with
just 48 percent of the vote to Cuccinelli’s 46 percent. The
Libertarian Sarvis ended up pulling almost 7 percent, far more than
enough to tip the election the other way.
But to blame a major-party loss on third-party candidates is
fundamentally mistaken. First off, it ignores data that the
Libertarian pulled more votes from the Democratic candidate than he
did from the Republican one—an exit poll of Sarvis
voters showed that
they would have voted for McAuliffe by a two-to-one margin over
Cucinelli. Second, and far more important, it presumes that
all potential votes somehow really “belong” to either Democrats or
Republicans. That’s simply wrong and it does a real disservice to
American politics.
Forcing young workers to pay into a Ponzi Scheme is generational injustice on a vast scale.
Why should young workers pay into a retirement system that will give them nothing, a system that will dissolve in insolvency long before they're old enough to retire? This is a question that Max Keiser posed in our conversation on Peak Retirement, and I think it deserves an answer.
I think the core issue here is the generational injustice of pay as you go social programs, which boil down to unsustainable Ponzi schemes. As I noted yesterday in The Problem with Pay-As-You-Go Social Programs (November 5, 2013), all pay as you go programs funded by payroll taxes–Social Security and Medicare in the U.S.–are only sustainable if the number of workers rises faster than the number of beneficiaries, because it takes multiple full-time workers' payroll taxes to fund each beneficiary.
As I showed yesterday, it takes about ten low-wage (and hence low-payroll tax) workers to fund one retiree. At this rate, Social Security's 57 million beneficiaries (on its way to 70+ million as the Baby Boom retires en masse) would need 500 million workers paying into the system for it to be sustainable.
It takes only a few high earners (those making $85,000 or more annually) to fund one retiree, but there are too few high earners to support the system (13 million workers earn $85,000 or more, while beneficiaries will soon top 60 million).
While the number of beneficiaries will soar for the next decade as 60+ million Baby Boomers retire, the number of full-time jobs has stagnated, as this chart shows:
If the system doesn't change, the young workers currently paying payroll taxes to fund their elders' retirements will get little to nothing out of the system. This is ordained by two trends: demographics and the end of (paid) work. Global Reality: Surplus of Labor, Scarcity of Paid Work (May 7, 2012).
A huge cohort of retirees requires an even larger cohort of workers to support its retirement in pay as you go systems. This is what renders Social Security a Ponzi Scheme: a Ponzi Scheme only works as long as the number of new marks is substantial enough to pay the promised riches. Once the number of marks declines below a threshold, the Ponzi Scheme implodes.
The soon-to-be 70 million beneficiaries of Social Security would need roughly 210 million full-time workers earning decent money to sustainably fund their benefits. The U.S. economy is short about 100 million full-time jobs, and given the end of work realities I have often covered here (just type end of work into the custom search box on the main blog page), the number of full-time jobs with decent pay may well decline sharply, even in "good times," i.e. periods of expansion.
We can expect widespread destruction of paid work as technology creatively destroys one sector after another.
Why should young workers pay into a retirement system that cannot possibly offer them any benefit? The conventional answer is a lie: "Social Security is essentially eternal and will be here forever."
The other conventional answer is pure self-serving, self-justification by retirees: "We wuz promised." Well guess what, Boomers (I am 59 and a Boomer), things change in pay as you go systems. When the number of full-time workers falls to 2-to-1 or less and the number of retirees drawing benefits skyrockets, the system is no longer sustainable, regardless of what was promised by feckless politicos and their toadies.
The Social Security system could be made sustainable, but it would take radical reform. The constituencies that would oppose these reforms are among the most political powerful in the nation, so there is no chance these would ever be aired, much less approved:
1. Eliminate Social Security benefits for double and triple-dippers, i.e. those drawing pensions from other private or government sources. Re-engineer Social Security into a system for those with no other retirement benefits or pensions.
2. Tax all income, not just earned income. Lower the total Social Security tax from 12.4% to 10% but apply it equally to all income. Why should someone earning $1,000,000 pay less a percentage than someone earning $10,000? Why should I pay nothing on $100,000 I skimmed in a stock trade? Lower the tax but tax all income. Simple, fair, no loopholes.
3. Ditch the bogus Trust Fund of lies and set up a real Trust Fund that is outside the Federal Budget and Congressional avarice. Any surplus (i.e. when taxes collected exceed benefits paid in that year) would go into a true Trust Fund that uses the cash to buy Treasuries, other government bonds and AAA corporate bonds. This fund would thus help keep interest rates low, and the interest generated by the bonds would be real, not borrowed.
Congress would not be allowed to appropriate the Trust Fund for any purpose (bridges to nowhere, discretionary wars, etc.). It would be managed by trustees elected by the citizenry.
With a true Trust Fund, young workers would actually have some hope that the fund would still have real assets to liquidate to fund their retirement.
Radical transformation is necessary if Social Security is to become something other than a massive wealth transfer scheme from the young to the elderly.
Forcing you
ng workers to pay into a Ponzi Scheme is generational injustice on a vast scale. Self-serving justifications of the status quo by those benefiting from this transfer of wealth should be outed for what they are: justifications of exploitation, avarice and injustice.
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/NQob58VhpiA/story01.htm Tyler Durden
Whether it is ‘cover’ for the all-too-obvious collapse to come (when another round of ratings agency litigation will take place as blame is apportioned) or more likely a ‘fool-me-once…’ perspective on reality, Fitch has a new report blasting the “unsustainable” jump in home prices, adding that “the extreme rate of home price growth is a cause for caution.” While they note, rising prices are a positive indicator for a recovery, Fitch adds that unprecedented home price growth should be paired with economic health that is similarly unprecedented, the evidence for which is lacking in this case.
Based on the historic relationship between home prices and a basket of econometric factors, Fitch considers estimates national prices to be approximately 17% overvalued in real terms (Bay Area home prices to be nearly 30% overvalued, which approximates the environment in 2003, three years into the formation of the previous home price bubble) – as “speculative buying, not increasing demand” is driving the market. Between this ‘speculation’ and interest rates, affordability is “strained.”
As a whole, the signs of a strengthening economic recovery are present, with momentum continuing to trend in a positive direction. Fitch expects these trends to continue, although the high rate of home price growth is not considered to be sustainable. Currently, Fitch’s Sustainable Home Price Model estimates national prices to be approximately 17% overvalued in real terms, with individual geographic regions varying widely.
Based on the historic relationship between home price levels and the primary drivers of supply and demand in the market, there is a misalignment. A continuing recovery and exuberant home-buying population could well push prices further for many more quarters, or even years. However, Fitch identifies a bubble risk in continuing price rises and sees several factors which could halt or even reverse recent gains in the market.
Interest rate concerns are rising…
The NRI, which measures the relative default risk of a constant quality loan as compared to average originations of the 1990s, has risen in two consecutive quarters, showing a rise for the first time since 2007.
Currently at 1.14, the NRI implies that the default risk of a loan originated today is 14% higher than the 1990s average. Since the peak in early 2007, risk has been declining for newly originated loans as the bubble unwound and prices reverted towards historic averages. On the back of the abrupt price rises across the country and interest rate rises which are expected to limit prepayment speeds for the next several years, the NRI has now increased.
…the extreme rate of home price growth is a cause for caution. Prices remain below the pre-recession peak, but the region never saw the extent of declines that much of inland California did, and prices never fully unwound the effects of the bubble. In San Francisco, prices hit a bottom in 2009 at nearly 125% above 1995 prices and have grown another 30% from that point. In San Jose, prices are up 48% from their post-crash trough and are now only 11% away from setting new highs.
Of course, rising prices are a positive indicator for a recovery and the growth is encouraging to a region that has seen the largest up- and down-swings in the housing market over the past few decades. However, Fitch expects that unprecedented home price growth should be paired with economic health that is similarly unprecedented, the evidence for which is lacking in this case. Based on the historic relationship between home prices and a basket of econometric factors, Fitch considers Bay Area home prices to be nearly 30% overvalued, which approximates the environment in 2003, three years into the formation of the previous home price bubble.
Most concerning, there is growing evidence that recent gains have been bolstered by an increase in investment sales, both to institutions and local investors.
Cash sales are often indicative of investor behavior and the concern is that housing prices are being driven up more through speculative buying than from an increasing base demand.
Typically, bubble cycles form when an initial catalyst causes prices to rise and the increase in prices drives investment activity to the market, hoping to cash in on the rising prices. As investment activity increases, demand builds artificially, reflecting a level of demand that fluctuates drastically with the growth rate of prices instead of long-term demand based on housing necessity.
And yes… a rating agency – the same entity that enabled the last housing market crash – just warned of a housing bubble. How the times have changed – maybe it is different this time?
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/PF5wkkQ_Xpo/story01.htm Tyler Durden
Whether it is ‘cover’ for the all-too-obvious collapse to come (when another round of ratings agency litigation will take place as blame is apportioned) or more likely a ‘fool-me-once…’ perspective on reality, Fitch has a new report blasting the “unsustainable” jump in home prices, adding that “the extreme rate of home price growth is a cause for caution.” While they note, rising prices are a positive indicator for a recovery, Fitch adds that unprecedented home price growth should be paired with economic health that is similarly unprecedented, the evidence for which is lacking in this case.
Based on the historic relationship between home prices and a basket of econometric factors, Fitch considers estimates national prices to be approximately 17% overvalued in real terms (Bay Area home prices to be nearly 30% overvalued, which approximates the environment in 2003, three years into the formation of the previous home price bubble) – as “speculative buying, not increasing demand” is driving the market. Between this ‘speculation’ and interest rates, affordability is “strained.”
As a whole, the signs of a strengthening economic recovery are present, with momentum continuing to trend in a positive direction. Fitch expects these trends to continue, although the high rate of home price growth is not considered to be sustainable. Currently, Fitch’s Sustainable Home Price Model estimates national prices to be approximately 17% overvalued in real terms, with individual geographic regions varying widely.
Based on the historic relationship between home price levels and the primary drivers of supply and demand in the market, there is a misalignment. A continuing recovery and exuberant home-buying population could well push prices further for many more quarters, or even years. However, Fitch identifies a bubble risk in continuing price rises and sees several factors which could halt or even reverse recent gains in the market.
Interest rate concerns are rising…
The NRI, which measures the relative default risk of a constant quality loan as compared to average originations of the 1990s, has risen in two consecutive quarters, showing a rise for the first time since 2007.
Currently at 1.14, the NRI implies that the default risk of a loan originated today is 14% higher than the 1990s average. Since the peak in early 2007, risk has been declining for newly originated loans as the bubble unwound and prices reverted towards historic averages. On the back of the abrupt price rises across the country and interest rate rises which are expected to limit prepayment speeds for the next several years, the NRI has now increased.
…the extreme rate of home price growth is a cause for caution. Prices remain below the pre-recession peak, but the region never saw the extent of declines that much of inland California did, and prices never fully unwound the effects of the bubble. In San Francisco, prices hit a bottom in 2009 at nearly 125% above 1995 prices and have grown another 30% from that point. In San Jose, prices are up 48% from their post-crash trough and are now only 11% away from setting new highs.
Of course, rising prices are a positive indicator for a recovery and the growth is encouraging to a region that has seen the largest up- and down-swings in the housing market over the past few decades. However, Fitch expects that unprecedented home price growth should be paired with economic health that is similarly unprecedented, the evidence for which is lacking in this case. Based on the historic relationship between home prices and a basket of econometric factors, Fitch considers Bay Area home prices to be nearly 30% overvalued, which approximates the environment in 2003, three years into the formation of the previous home price bubble.
Most concerning, there is growing evidence that recent gains have been bolstered by an increase in investment sales, both to institutions and local investors.
Cash sales are often indicative of investor behavior and the concern is that housing prices are being driven up more through speculative buying than from an increasing base demand.
Typically, bubble cycles form when an initial catalyst causes prices to rise and the increase in prices drives investment activity to the market, hoping to cash in on the rising prices. As investment activity increases, demand builds artificially, reflecting a level of demand that fluctuates drastically with the growth rate of prices instead of long-term demand based on housing necessity.
And yes… a rating agency – the same entity that enabled the last housing market crash – just warned of a housing bubble. How the times have changed – maybe it is different this time?
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/PF5wkkQ_Xpo/story01.htm Tyler Durden
How fares the dream of a free North Colorado? “Colorado’s rural
counties were split on the secession movement,” The Huffington
Post‘s Matt Ferner
reports:
Washington, Phillips, Yuma, Kit Carson and
Cheyenne counties voted in favor of secession, while Weld, Logan,
Sedgewick, Elbert, Lincoln and Carson counties rejected the 51st
state question. Voters in Moffat County, the sole northwestern
county involved in secession threats, also rejected secession,
halting the possibility of it becoming a new panhandle to
Wyoming.
The question to voters reads: “Shall the Board of County
Commissioners of ______ County, in concert with the county
commissioners of other Colorado counties, pursue becoming the 51st
state of the United States of America?”
The counties whose voters approved of secession plans cannot
automatically break free from Colorado now; it simply allows
officials in those counties to pursue the idea of secession
further.
One big roadblock for the counties who want to
secede — and for relatively conservative rural counties elsewhere
who want to fly their own banners, from the would-be
State of Jefferson in northern California to the breakaway
bubbling in
western Maryland — is convincing congressional Democrats to
admit a state that is certain to send more Republicans to
Washington. A wise move for the secessionists would be to forge an
alliance with the D.C. statehood movement, which has the opposite
problem: Their new state is sure to vote in Democrats.
The government shutdown put D.C.’s municipal officials in the
ludicrous position of
begging Congress for permission to draw on their own budget.
Everyone involved would obviously be better off if the feds
finished the job of devolving authority to the people of D.C. —
everyone, that is, except Republicans concerned about the balance
of power in Congress. But if you admit the State of Columbia at the
same time that you admit the State of North Colorado, or whichever
rural secessionist movement manages to get its act together first,
you can give people more power over their own lives in two places
at once without disrupting gridlock. A win all around.
from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/06/statehood-dreams-in-dc-and-northern-colo
via IFTTT
Ah Silvio, never change or, if possible, resign: the comedic world of Italian politics will never be the same without you. The latest soundbite by the billionaire with a penchant for easy, underage women comes by way of an interview conducted by Italian television journalist Bruno Vespa for his latest book, and summarized by Reuters. To wit: “Former Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi said his children feel persecuted just as Jewish families did in Nazi Germany because he is being hounded by the country’s magistrates who want to eliminate him politically.”
Could it be that poor Silvio is only just now realizing how the game of politics is played, and that a country’s “justice” only works in your favor when the judges get an envelope full of cash the day of. Now that Berluconi’s political star has finally set, and the state is dismantling the media magnate’s empire bit by bit, and the probability of such future envelopes is far less, Silvio is finally learning what it means to be on the other side of the “law?” As for Silvio’s privileged children: well they can just take their private jet and move to a country where they are not quite as persecuted – a privilege Jewish families during Nazi Germany hardly had.
Replying to a question about whether his five children had asked him to sell his media empire and leave Italy to escape his legal troubles, Berlusconi said: “My children say that they feel like Jewish families in Germany under Hitler’s regime. Truly, everyone is against us.”
Berlusconi, who protests his innocence in a series of court cases which he blames on left-wing magistrates, is well-known for making controversial remarks, such as calling President Barack Obama “suntanned” after he was first elected in 2008.
During a heated 2003 exchange in the European Parliament, Berlusconi compared Martin Schulz, a German Social Democrat who is now president of the assembly, to a Nazi concentration camp guard.
Berlusconi, 77, and his family rank among the 200 wealthiest billionaires in the world, with an estimated fortune of 6.2 billion euros ($8.35 billion) according to Forbes magazine.
His conviction for tax fraud earlier this year poses a serious threat to his decades-long political career because it comes with a ban from public office, though polls show millions of Italians would still vote for him.
Berlusconi is also on trial on charges of having paid for sex with a minor and then abusing the powers of his office to have her released from jail after she was arrested for theft.
The irony in all of this is that Berlusconi is a saint compared to the average US politician. However, as long as the Bernanke welfare-enabling machine works, the danger of any US bought and paid for beltway muppet of Wall Street suffering the same, or worse, “persecution” is hardly worth discussing.
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/2ShV4cz6PvU/story01.htm Tyler Durden
Ah Silvio, never change or, if possible, resign: the comedic world of Italian politics will never be the same without you. The latest soundbite by the billionaire with a penchant for easy, underage women comes by way of an interview conducted by Italian television journalist Bruno Vespa for his latest book, and summarized by Reuters. To wit: “Former Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi said his children feel persecuted just as Jewish families did in Nazi Germany because he is being hounded by the country’s magistrates who want to eliminate him politically.”
Could it be that poor Silvio is only just now realizing how the game of politics is played, and that a country’s “justice” only works in your favor when the judges get an envelope full of cash the day of. Now that Berluconi’s political star has finally set, and the state is dismantling the media magnate’s empire bit by bit, and the probability of such future envelopes is far less, Silvio is finally learning what it means to be on the other side of the “law?” As for Silvio’s privileged children: well they can just take their private jet and move to a country where they are not quite as persecuted – a privilege Jewish families during Nazi Germany hardly had.
Replying to a question about whether his five children had asked him to sell his media empire and leave Italy to escape his legal troubles, Berlusconi said: “My children say that they feel like Jewish families in Germany under Hitler’s regime. Truly, everyone is against us.”
Berlusconi, who protests his innocence in a series of court cases which he blames on left-wing magistrates, is well-known for making controversial remarks, such as calling President Barack Obama “suntanned” after he was first elected in 2008.
During a heated 2003 exchange in the European Parliament, Berlusconi compared Martin Schulz, a German Social Democrat who is now president of the assembly, to a Nazi concentration camp guard.
Berlusconi, 77, and his family rank among the 200 wealthiest billionaires in the world, with an estimated fortune of 6.2 billion euros ($8.35 billion) according to Forbes magazine.
His conviction for tax fraud earlier this year poses a serious threat to his decades-long political career because it comes with a ban from public office, though polls show millions of Italians would still vote for him.
Berlusconi is also on trial on charges of having paid for sex with a minor and then abusing the powers of his office to have her released from jail after she was arrested for theft.
The irony in all of this is that Berlusconi is a saint compared to the average US politician. However, as long as the Bernanke welfare-enabling machine works, the danger of any US bought and paid for beltway muppet of Wall Street suffering the same, or worse, “persecution” is hardly worth discussing.
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/2ShV4cz6PvU/story01.htm Tyler Durden
Reason TV has obtained court records in the
Samuel Nikolayev case that spurred a statewide audit of
California’s Child Protective Services agencies. The documents
reveal a sharp difference of opinion between doctors regarding the
medical condition of the baby at the time he was seized from his
parents without a court order, as well as allegations of parental
neglect made by social workers and Sacramento County Child
Protective Services (CPS).
Reason TV produced a video featuring the case in August, but at
the time court documents were sealed, and Sacramento CPS claimed it
therefore wasn’t legally allowed to comment on the specifics of the
story. Sacramento Superior Court gave an undefined timeline for a
ruling on Reason TV’s petition to unseal the records.
On the day the above video was released, the court called and
said the petition to unseal the documents had been approved. When
asked, the court clerk denied that the timing had anything to do
with the video’s release.
Since then, parents Anna and Alex Nikolayev have filed a lawsuit
against Sacramento County and will not comment on this story.
Sacramento County Health and Human Services Director Sherri Heller
also would not comment on the specifics of the case due to the
pending lawsuit.
Ongoing Health Problems
At nine days old, Samuel Nikolayev was diagnosed with
Ventriculoseptial defect and Atrioseptal defect: essentially two
holes in the heart requiring daily medication. For the first five
months of his life, Samuel’s parents took him in for monthly
checkups to monitor his progress, which improved slightly as he
slowly gained weight and showed increased energy.
Still, pediatric cardiologist Dr. Hessam Fallah recommended
heart surgery as soon as Sammy reached a safe weight, according
to medical records. But Fallah said Anna Nikolayev expressed
“doubts regarding surgery.” Fallah noted that the Nikolayevs spoke
of visiting a physician while in Germany who advised against
surgery until Samuel reached 8kg (17lbs). He called this advice
“not valid.”
The Nikolayevs took Sammy to Colorado to visit his grandparents,
and it was on that vacation that he contracted the flu. Upon
returning to Sacramento, they took Samuel to Sutter Memorial
Hospital, where he was admitted to the ICU for Influenza B and
“failure
to thrive,” a medical term to describe an underweight
baby.
Stuck in the Hospital
Samuel Nikolayev entered Sutter Memorial Hospital on April 16,
2013 with severe flu symptoms. Seven days later, his mother would
pull him out against the wishes of the medical staff and spur
Sacramento Child Protective Services into action.
When Reason TV interviewed the Nikolayevs in August, Alex
Nikolayev told us, “They were coming up with some random stuff.
Finding another thing just to keep us there.”
This “random stuff” turned out to be concerns that Sammy was off
his heart medication,
according to medical records. Hospital staff wrote that Anna
Nikolayev admitted to them that she had stopped giving Samuel his
medications while on vacation in Colorado for three weeks, and they
said Anna tried to treat a hernia Samuel had developed by
taping coins to either side of it. The Nikolayevs’ attorney has
filed an objection to these details, saying they amount to
hearsay and cannot be substantiated.
Hospital employees also wrote that Anna refused IVs and feeding
tubes that doctors recommended in order to get Samuel the hydration
and nutrition he needed, bringing the conflict to a head. On
April 23, she left the hospital with Samuel, against the medical
advice of the staff.
A social worker employed by the hospital reported Anna’s
behavior to California Child Protective Services, saying that the
baby’s life was in imminent danger.
A Second Opinion
The Nikolayevs have always contended that they were unhappy with
how employees at Sutter Memorial treated them and that they only
wanted a “second opinion.” And this is partially confirmed by the
fact that they did take Samuel directly to another hospital in the
area, Kaiser Permanente.
The Kaiser visit was hectic, with police officers showing up an
hour in because of the CPS complaint and then
leaving once they found Samuel under competent medical
supervision. The Nikolayevs believe this should have been their
last interaction with the police and CPS. After all, the doctor at
Kaiser
wrote that “clinically the patient is well appearing, smiling,
tolerating PO formula while in ED and hydrated
appearing.”
The doctor at Kaiser told the Nikolayevs that removing a child
from the hospital “without proper discharge” as they did at Sutter
Memorial was not a good idea but said he could understand the
mother’s concern for her son and her belief that she “can help him
improve at home faster than him receiving NG (feeding) tube and IV
line.” He
discharged Samuel hours later with instructions to follow up
with Samuel’s pediatrician the next day, noting that he did “not
have concern for the safety of the child at home with his parents
as they do appear competent and concerned [with] the child’s best
care” and “are aware of how to give medication at home since [they]
have been doing this since he was first diagnosed.”
A final line in the discharge report reads, simply, “CPS has
been made aware from Sutter facility.”
“Expressed Frustration”
On the afternoon of April 24, officers and a social worker
showed up at the Nikolayevs’ apartment, and the removal of Samuel
Nikolayev, captured on tape by Anna’s camcorder and depicted in the
opening moments of Reason TV’s video, played out.
So how did the Nikolayevs go from “competent and concerned” with
Samuel’s care to being raided and having their baby removed within
24 hours? Court records reveal that the Sutter Memorial social
worker, who had originally reported the case to CPS, didn’t trust
the work done at Kaiser.
Although the Kaiser staff consulted with nurses and doctors at
Sutter before discharging Samuel, they did not provide enough
information to satisfy the social worker, citing medical privacy
laws. Upon learning that Samuel was discharged with instructions to
follow up with a pediatrician, the social worker “expressed
frustration at this because the child needs immediate follow up
with his pediatric specialist doctors, including the cardiologist,
not just his pediatrician.”
It’s unclear why, given the relatively
benign discharge instructions from Kaiser, Sacramento CPS took
the extreme measure of removing a child from the custody of its
parents without a court order and without notifying the parents of
where he was being taken. Department head Sherri Heller would not
comment directly on the case but did defend the practice in an
August interview with Reason TV.
“The law is clear that it is appropriate for the agency to act
without a court warrant if children are in imminent danger of
physical harm,” said Heller.
Samuel Nikolayev was taken back to Sutter Hospital and held for
eight days, and Alex and Anna were allowed periodic, supervised
visits. In early May, Samuel underwent a successful heart surgery,
but only after the Nikolayev’s received a signed letter from the
hospital’s cardiologist making clear that the surgery was
necessary but “not an emergency.”
Audit CPS
All of the information is finally public, but it raises nearly
as many questions as it answers. Was this a case of an erratic
mother whose stubborn, backwards ideas about medicine put the life
of her baby at risk, as Sutter Memorial and Sacramento CPS would
like you to believe? Or did hospital staffers and social workers
use the power of the state to bully two young parents into
accepting their dictums on what constitutes proper treatment and
prevent them from seeking a second opinion, as the Nikolayevs say?
Was baby Samuel’s life in imminent danger, and was it necessary for
CPS and the police to storm the house and take him away without a
court order, especially given that they sought treatment at a
different hospital?
Some of the answers depend on whose words you believe, though it
is clear that more than one medical professional believed that an
eventual heart surgery was necessary for the baby’s long-term
survival. It’s also clear that the Nikolayevs sought medical
attention for their baby on a regular basis in those first five
months of his life, visiting a pediatrician at least once a month.
They appear to have sometimes ignored medical advice, but how often
that was the case is still somewhat unclear.
What remains evident is that this incident would never have come
to light if Anna hadn’t placed a camcorder on her kitchen counter
and pressed “record” moments before the police entered her house
and took Samuel. No court document or medical record can come close
to conveying the raw terror felt by a mother losing her child in
the way that video can. Time and time again, we’ve seen cheap video
equipment answer
the question, “Who will watch the watchers?”
But in the case of a powerful agency like Child Protective
Services, that’s still not enough. A video may have opened up the
debate in California, but only increased transparency will begin to
solve the long-term, systemic problems.
An audit is underway, and nobody knows for sure whether it will
uncover more abuses of power like those
documented in Orange County or if it will largely exonerate
wrongly maligned agencies and tell a story of social workers doing
the best they can in impossibly tough situations. Either way, a
one-time audit may not go far enough.
Transparency is about accountability for day-to-day operations.
Protecting patient privacy is a legitimate consideration, but in a
case like the Nikolayevs’, where neither party necessarily wants
the court records sealed, it’s hard to see who wins by keeping it
under wraps. Many other states have open family and juvenile courts
that allow the media and public to easily access information that,
in California, can require months of waiting and cost hundreds of
dollars to maybe, eventually obtain.
Reason Foundation Director of Education and Child Welfare Lisa Snell
has made other common sense reform suggestions as well, such as
treating child abuse and neglect cases as criminal matters that
guarantee due process rather than administrative matters that give
CPS carte blanche power to strongarm families.
She also says we should examine funding incentives that increase
agencies’ budgets based upon the number of abuses
reported. For the past 12 years, California has put far more
children into the foster care system than any other state in the
U.S., more than Texas and New York combined, according to
the
Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting
System.
There are limits to what any one case, especially one as
complicated as the Nikolayev case, can teach us about a statewide
bureaucracy. But in the absence of open records and due process
protections–the most basic elements of transparency and
accountability–it’s impossible to even know the extent of the
problems that may need fixing.
from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/06/baby-sammy-court-documents-reveal-confli
via IFTTT
Yesterday Brian
Doherty
noted a federal lawsuit by a New Mexico man, David Eckert, who
was forcibly subjected to anal probings, stomach X-rays, enemas,
and a colonoscopy because police officers who pulled him over for a
rolling stop suspected he had drugs hidden inside of him. No drugs
were found. Now KOB, the Albuquerque TV station that reported
Eckert’s story, has
discovered another motorist who was forced to undergo a
similarly rigorous search of his digestive tract after being
stopped for a minor traffic violation. According to police reports,
Timothy Young was pulled over for failing to signal a turn and
ended up exposed to the prying hands and eyes of cops and doctors
acting on their behalf. No drugs were found. In both cases, KOB
reports, the same police dog, Leo, triggered these intimate
examinations by alerting to a car seat. It turns out that Leo is
not so good at identifying vehicles (or people) containing
drugs:
[Leo] seems to get it wrong pretty often. He might be getting it
wrong because he’s not even certified in New Mexico.
If you take a look at the dog’s certification, the dog did get
trained. But his certification to be a drug dog expired in April
2011. K-9s need yearly re-certification courses, and Leo is falling
behind.
“We have done public requests to find anything that would show
this dog has been trained, we have evidence that this dog has had
false alerts in the past,” Eckert’s attorney Shannon Kennedy
said.
According to the Supreme Court, none of this necessarily
disqualifies Leo as an informant reliable enough to obtain a
warrant authorizing the sort of humiliating searches that Eckert
and Young underwent. Last February the justices unanimously
ruled that “a court can presume” an alert by a
drug-sniffing dog provides probable cause for a search “if a bona
fide organization has certified a dog after testing his reliability
in a controlled setting” or “if the dog has recently and
successfully completed a training program that evaluated his
proficiency in locating drugs.” In practice, this means that if
police say a dog is properly trained, they can get a search warrant
based on nothing more than the animal’s purported alert, and that
search will be upheld unless a defendant can present evidence
showing the dog is unreliable. Police need not produce (or even
keep) data on the dog’s actual performance in the field, evidence
the Court deemed inferior to the results of tests in a “controlled”
(i.e., rigged) setting.
Hence if it turns out that Leo’s alerts frequently lead to
fruitless searches, that does not necessarily mean he will be
deemed unreliable, even if he is wrong more often than he is right
(which is
often the case with drug-detecting dogs). According to police
(and the Supreme Court, which essentially has adopted their point
of view), what look like mistakes may actually be alerts to traces
of drugs so minute that their existence cannot be confirmed. Hence
you can never definitively say that a police dog erred, even though
there are
many possible sources of error, including distracting smells
and conscious or subconscious cues by handlers. Not to mention the
ever-present possibility that cops who want to search someone can
falsely claim a dog alerted. The upshot is that if a cop wants to
explore a motorist’s anus, stomach, intestines, and fecal matter,
all he needs is a dog and a judge who takes to heart the Supreme
Court’s unjustified faith in canine capabilities.
from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/06/this-dog-can-authorize-anal-probes
via IFTTT
I’ve
Washington, Phillips, Yuma, Kit Carson and
One big roadblock for the counties who want to
Yesterday Brian