WHO, WEF, SDG, JRB…WTF

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

This summer, the elites of the World Economic Forum (WEF) will convene in Davos Switzerland for Klaus Schwab’s annual confab of the Lear jet set. Part of this meeting is to ratify and endorse the World Health Organization’s (WHO) latest draft of the International Health Regulations (IHR). This treaty has had virtually no coverage and it deserves scrutiny at the most minute level.

Background: The WEF is determined to create a more ‘perfect world’ by advancing their “Great Reset” for the purpose of implementing the Sustainable Development Goals of 2030 (SDG). If you are not aware of this plan, you really need to get a better grasp of this. The SDG is the blueprint for global totalitarianism on a level never before seen on this planet. It was originally intended by Klaus Schwab et al. to be the Millennial Development Goals of 2000, but the world didn’t cooperate. Hence, the new 2030 deadline to make this happen. One of the key elements in their toolkit is the WHO. After all, who could object to an organization devoted to boosting global health?

WHO is run by Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, who is an Ethiopian administrator (noted for his Marxist activism) with questionable credentials to put it mildly. He is completely in the thrall of the Chinese and Xi Jinping. Tedros helped promote the notion that Covid 19 did not originate in China, he praised their transparency and candor in dealing with the virus. He doesn’t have the medical qualifications to manage this organization other than his willingness to kowtow to the Chinese and Bill Gates.

Back to the subject at hand: the IHR as amended by good old Uncle Joe and his new representative to the WHO, Anthony Fauci.

Here are but a few of the gems from this:

1. WHO’s latest release pushes new digital vaccine passports to be used on a global scale.
2. The WHO openly states these personalized digital documents could “be extended to capture vaccination status to protect against other diseases” and may “be used for continuity of care or as proof of vaccination for purposes other than health care,” such as employment, university education and international travel.
3. Empower WHO’s Director-General to declare health emergencies or crises in any nation and to do so unilaterally and against the opposition of the target nation.
4. According to the Forward to WHO’s regulations, there is no specific limit to what constitutes a health emergency, and it is certainly not limited to pandemics. WHO’s domain includes: “8. a scope not limited to any specific disease or manner of transmission, but covering “illness or medical condition, irrespective of origin or source, that presents or could present significant harm to humans… “5. The WHO will have the unilateral power to determine if any member country warrants their intervention, whether the target country agrees or not.

There is a lot more buried in this text but the net result is the same: if codified, the USA will have voluntarily given up its sovereignty to a Chinese puppet: Tedros. If you missed it this week, our vaunted head of the DHS, Mayorkas, has shelved his plan for a Disinformation Governance Board. This is less surprising now that the details of the new IHR become clearer: it has a far more stringent censorship program built into it.

If this is permitted to go forward, this country will have freely erased our Constitution and abandoned the Bill of Rights. Make no mistake, the first amendment will be suspended under this, the second amendment will be next. We begin an eighteen-month review countdown after this is ratified in Davos (which is when this becomes international law) so the time to act is now. Contact your Congressional representatives and let them know that this is not acceptable. This treaty will fundamentally change this country from the “Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave” to the “Land of the Entitled Billionaires and the serfs who serve them”.

The FDA/WIC Role in the Baby Formula Debacle

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

There have by now been an acute shortage of infant formula in the United States for months. Despite government claims to the contrary, it is unlikely to end anytime soon.

This turn of events was utterly predictable. Indeed, it was all but inevitable, as the government agencies responsible for providing safe, readily available infant formula have been neglecting their mission for decades.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is a regulatory agency that exists for the purpose of ensuring the safety and availability of certain products. One of the products for which the FDA is responsible is infant formula.

If infant formula causes harm, both the maker of the formula and the FDA are responsible. However, if infant formula is unavailable, only the FDA is responsible. No private entity has a duty to produce or sell formula.

Along with the FDA, the other relevant agency is the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). Their self-described mission is “to increase food security and reduce hunger.”

The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) is one of the programs that the FNS administers. WIC was established almost exactly 50 years ago. Its remit is to help children under the age of 5, along with pregnant and nursing mothers, to meet their nutritional needs. Currently, over half of American infants participate in the program.

By the 1990s, pregnant women and mothers who came to WIC for help, advice, and support feeding themselves and their children were often confronted with intrusive, irrelevant questions about their personal lives and medical histories, and relentless pressure to vaccinate themselves and their children. Sometimes, access to food was directly tied to immunization status.

In December of 2000, an Executive Memorandum was issued indicating that immunization status should never be used as a condition of eligibility for WIC services, but that efforts should be focused on “increase immunization levels among children participating in WIC programs.”

Ever since WIC has shamelessly been using its position of power and trust to convince women who come seeking food that what they really need is vaccines. Why, if you go to WIC’s website, is there a “spotlight” on “COVID-19 vaccines for children ages 5 – 11”? No children ages 5 – 11 are served by WIC.

WIC does not seem to have devoted as much attention over the years to providing nutritional support as it did to providing vaccination support, but it did leverage its purchasing power and institutional influence to essentially grant 3 companies an oligopoly on the production of infant formula in the United States.

One of these companies is Abbott Laboratories. A 2011 report by the USDA pegged Abbott’s share of the market at over 40%.

In February, The FDA shut down Abbott’s largest plant for manufacturing infant formula. Obviously, this caused a major national formula shortage.

With an Orwellian flourish, the Biden Administration blames Abbott for the shortage, because it is not producing enough formula. But it is the Biden administration itself that is preventing Abbott from producing it.

And besides, Abbott Laboratories is a publicly held corporation that exists for the purpose of making money. WIC, on the other hand, is a government agency that exists for the purpose of feeding mothers and small children.

Furthermore, the government has not only granted an oligopoly to three companies, but has also burdened the entire industry with a myriad of gratuitous, often inscrutable regulations, and has effectively forbidden the importation of formula from abroad. A shortage was only a matter of time.

If the FDA can’t or won’t do its job, it should at the very least get out of the way and let market forces do theirs. Instead, the agency continues to prioritize maintaining its own power and influence and continues to pursue an agenda that is often at odds with its institutional mission, undernourished babies be damned.

If the FDA and WIC did what they were established to do, instead of devoting an inordinate amount of time, money, and energy to self-promotion and vaccine promotion, perhaps there wouldn’t be so many babies in America suffering from malnutrition. 

Perhaps there wouldn’t be so many small children going to bed hungry. Perhaps there wouldn’t be so many desperate mothers, crying themselves to sleep, wondering how they will feed their little one tomorrow.

*****

This article was published by The Brownstone Institute and is reproduced with permission.

Majority of Americans Support Restrictions on Abortion As Nation Awaits Supreme Court Ruling

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

As the nation awaits a landmark abortion ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, newly released polling data show that the majority of Americans support limits on abortion.

Convention of States Action, along with the Trafalgar group, released a new poll showing that 57.6% of Americans say “abortion should only be legal in specific circumstances.” Those limits vary based on the voters’ preferences but include limiting which trimester abortions can be performed or allowing abortions only in cases of rape or incest.

Overall, though, unfettered abortion access has very little support. The poll found that only 11.6% of those surveyed said “abortion should be legal up until the moment of birth, including partial-birth.”

“The left is pulling out all the stops in an attempt to create the perception that a majority of Americans support unrestricted abortion,” said Mark Meckler, president of Convention of States Action. “But as these numbers show, American voters – including more than a third of Democrats – have paid attention to the science of fetal development, and support a variety of restrictions on abortion.”

After documents were leaked from the Supreme Court, the high court is now expected to overturn Roe v. Wade and allow individual states to determine their own abortion laws. That decision, though, has not been finalized.

The issue has become a major political football with the upcoming midterm elections. Republicans have focused on economic issues, and are expected to make big gains in November. Democrats, though, have said the abortion issue could be used to turn the tables this fall.

The poll, though, found independents favor restrictions, with 54.6% of surveyed independent voters saying abortion “should only be legal in specific circumstances.” On top of that, one out of three Democrats supports strict limits on abortion.

According to the poll, 45.3% of surveyed Democrats say “abortion should be legal in the first and second trimesters” while only 18.8% say abortion “should be legal up until the moment of birth, including partial-birth.”

*****

The article was published by The Center Square and is reproduced with permission.

DANGER: The WHO’s Death Trap for the US

Estimated Reading Time: 10 minutes

Act Fast: They Vote Next Week  

 

  • This is a plan that Congress and the public need to fight vigorously.
  • The Biden administration, it appears, unless stopped immediately, is tee-ing up America to make it easy for the Chinese Communist Party to defeat it, and other nations, through biological warfare.
  • “On May 22-28, 2022, ultimate control over America’s healthcare system, and hence its national sovereignty, will be delivered for a vote to the World Health Organization’s governing legislative body, the World Health Assembly (WHA).” — Dr. Peter Breggin and Ginger Ross Breggin, America Out Loud, May 4, 2022.
  • This threat is contained in new amendments to WHO’s International Health Regulations, proposed by the Biden administration, that are scheduled as ‘Provisional agenda item 16.2’ at the upcoming conference on May 22-28, 2022.” — Dr. Peter Breggin and Ginger Ross Breggin, America Out Loud, May 4, 2022.
  • “These amendments will empower WHO’s Director-General to declare health emergencies or crises in any nation and to do so unilaterally and against the opposition of the target nation. The Director-General will be able to declare these health crises based merely on his personal opinion or consideration that there is a potential or possible threat to other nations.” — Dr. Peter Breggin and Ginger Ross Breggin, America Out Loud, May 4, 2022.
  • “The targeted nation is also required to send WHO any relevant genetic sequence data.” — Dr. Peter Breggin and Ginger Ross Breggin, America Out Loud, May 4, 2022.
  • “Under the new regulations, WHO will not be required to consult with the identified nation beforehand to “verify” the event before taking action.” — Dr. Peter Breggin and Ginger Ross Breggin, America Out Loud, May 4, 2022.
  • Unfortunately, this “next pandemic” is neither far off nor a hypothetical “conspiracy theory.” According to multiple credible reports from the U.S. Department of State, to the executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, Peter Jennings, China has been preparing for bio-warfare using pathogens for more than six years.
  • A WHO with expanded authority is a terrifying concept. Can you envision providing an international organization with the power to dictate how the U.S. should respond to a future pandemic? Perhaps by forcing the U.S. to turn over supplies and equipment to China because of its larger population? How about an international organization that would have the power to mandate whether we should be required to be vaccinated with a particular vaccine, say China’s inferior SINOVAC vaccine? Or imagine a WHO that has the power to impose what mandates or lockdowns a country would be required to impose, say like China’s current lockdown of Shanghai? Unfortunately, the WHO already has proven itself to be a willing organ of China’s Communist leaders. Providing it with international, legal binding authority over global pandemic response must never be allowed to happen.

The Biden administration, it appears, unless stopped immediately, is tee-ing up America to make it easy for the Chinese Communist Party to defeat it, and other nations, through biological warfare.

The World Health Organization (WHO), the organization that has unhesitatingly been doing China’s bidding during the COVID pandemic, is reportedly now planning to orchestrate a massive new power grab to internationally control the response to any future global pandemic. The plan is apparently to make the health of Americans dependent on the whims of China — which is both actively seeking to displace the US as the world’s leading superpower and has for years been working on new means of bio-warfare.

It is a plan that is being voted on next week: Congress and the American public need to fight vigorously — and FAST.

On May 4, a meticulous report, Biden Handing Over U.S. Sovereignty to WHO by Peter Breggin MD and Ginger Ross Breggin, raised an alarm. On May 2-28, 2022, the Biden Administration has proposed amendments to the WHO that “will empower WHO’s Director-General to declare health emergencies or crises in any nation and to do so unilaterally and against the opposition of the target nation.”

The danger is that China, according to reports, has actively been working on gene-splicing and globally collecting DNA with an eye to developing new lethal viruses that could be used for bio-warfare. They would be able target people who are genetically not Chinese, while bypassing people who genetically are Chinese. China expert Gordon Chang recently warned:

For at least a half‑decade, maybe a little bit longer, Chinese military researchers have been openly writing about a new type of biological warfare. This was, for instance, in the 2017 edition of “The Science of Military Strategy,” the authoritative publication of China’s National Defense University.

“They talk about a new type of biological warfare of “specific ethnic genetic attacks.” In other words, pathogens that will leave the Chinese immune but sicken and kill everybody else, which means that the next disease from China can be a civilization killer….

A lot of military analysts talk about how the first seconds of a war with China are going to be fought in outer space. They are going to blind our satellites, take them down, do all sorts of stuff. Those statements are wrong.

The first day of war against the United States occurs about six months earlier, when they release pathogens in the United States. Then we are going to have that day in space. The war starts here, with a pathogen ‑‑ a virus, a microbe, a bug of some kind. That is where it begins.

The Biden administration’s amendment will make the US legally obligated by international treaty to follow whatever the WHO decides. According to the Breggins:

On May 22-28, 2022, ultimate control over America’s healthcare system, and hence its national sovereignty, will be delivered for a vote to the World Health Organization’s governing legislative body, the World Health Assembly (WHA).

This threat is contained in new amendments to WHO’s International Health Regulations, proposed by the Biden administration, that are scheduled as “Provisional agenda item 16.2” at the upcoming conference on May 22-28, 2022.

These amendments will empower WHO’s Director-General to declare health emergencies or crises in any nation and to do so unilaterally and against the opposition of the target nation. The Director-General will be able to declare these health crises based merely on his personal opinion or consideration that there is a potential or possible threat to other nations.

If passed, the Biden Administration’s proposed amendments will, by their very existence and their intention, drastically compromise the independence and the sovereignty of the United States. The same threat looms over all the U.N.’s 193 member nations, all of whom belong WHO and represent 99.44% of the world population….

These regulations are a “binding instrument of international law entered into force on 15 June 2007.” U.N. members states can be required by law to obey or acquiesce to them….

The targeted nation is also required to send WHO any relevant genetic sequence data.

Worse:

The contents of the proposed amendments were not made public until April 12, 2022, leaving little time to protest before the scheduled vote.

The amendments would give WHO the right to take important steps to collaborate with other nations and other organizations worldwide to deal with any nation’s alleged health crisis, even against its stated wishes. The power to declare health emergencies is a potential tool to shame, intimidate, and dominate nations. It can be used to justify ostracism and economic or financial actions against the targeted nation by other nations aligned with WHO or who wish to harm and control the accused nation.

In addition:

The sweeping new powers will be invested in the Director-General of WHO to act on his own. The Director-General is Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, commonly known as Tedros. Tedros, the first non-physician director-general of WHO, is an extremely controversial Marxist activist and politician from Ethiopia installed by the Chinese Communist Party.

And:

Under the new regulations, WHO will not be required to consult with the identified nation beforehand to “verify” the event before taking action.

In 2020, the Trump administration initiated pulling the U.S. out of the WHO because of its wretched track record during the COVID pandemic. It was slow to identify the threat of COVID, and differential to the wishes of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in its messaging about COVID despite questions from Taiwan about the human-to-human transmissibility of the virus, which the CCP was falsely denying and the WHO simply ignored. The WHO was also unable to convince the CCP for the need for greater transparency, or even allow an open discussion about the origins of the virus. Early on, the WHO embraced the CCP narrative that the virus had developed naturally, and attacked any mention that the virus might have escaped from a Chinese laboratory in Wuhan.

Memories of how the global community responded to the pandemic are still fresh in everyone’s mind. Many members of the diplomatic corps in the Netherlands, at the time, acknowledged the poor record of the WHO but believed that pulling out of the WHO during the pandemic would be a mistake. They also believed an after-action review of the WHO would have to wait until the pandemic was under control; then there could be accountability and reform for this failed organization.

Boy, were they wrong. As the pandemic is now waning, instead of an accountability review, the WHO and member states are envisioning a massive expansion of its role as an international organization to control the planet during the next pandemic.

Unfortunately, this “next pandemic” is neither far off nor a hypothetical “conspiracy theory.” According to multiple credible reports from the U.S. Department of State, to the executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, Peter Jennings, China has been preparing for bio-warfare using pathogens for more than six years.

The United Nations has been furthering this scheme. According to the Breggins:

On January 26, 2022, the same U. S. Permanent Mission to the United Nations in Geneva sent a one-page memo to WHO confirming that the amendments had been sent. It also contained a brief report by the same Loyce Pace, Assistant Secretary for Global Affairs HHS. Most importantly, the memo listed all the nations backing the U.S. amendments. The size and power of the group guarantee that the amendments will be passed if unopposed by significant outside pressure.

Here are the 20 nations, plus the European Union, listed by the U.S. as supporting the amendments:

Albania, Australia, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, India, Jamaica, Japan, Monaco, Montenegro, Norway, Peru, Republic of Korea, Switzerland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay, Member States of the European Union (EU).

The European Union, a globalist organization, has been among the biggest backers of increasing WHO”s global power.

China has, for years, been “collecting the DNA of foreigners while prohibiting Chinese DNA to foreign researchers,” according to Chang. He added that the country’s behavior of collecting the DNA of foreigners while prohibiting Chinese DNA to foreign researchers supports this theory.

“We’ve got to be extremely concerned because that is not consistent with a country that wants to cooperate with the rest of the world. That is consistent with a country developing biological weapons,” he cautioned.

“People have said biological weapons don’t work. Well, we do know they work because we had the coronavirus, which may or may not have been a biological weapon,” Chang clarified, “but we do know that it crippled the United States and that’s what Beijing is really looking for.

Unfortunately, the evidence is overwhelming. On May 7, 2021, journalist Sharri Markson disclosed in The Australian that:

Chinese military scientists discussed the weaponisation of SARS coronaviruses five years before the COVID-19 pandemic, outlining their ideas in a document that predicted a third world war would be fought with biological weapons.

The document, written by People’s Liberation Army scientists and senior Chinese public health officials in 2015, was obtained by the US State Department as it conducted an investigation into the origins of COVID-19, The Weekend Australian has confirmed.

The Australian added: “Robert Potter, a digital forensics specialist who has worked for the US, Australian, and Canadian governments, and has previously analyzed leaked Chinese government documents, verified the ­authenticity of the document.”

Despite its obvious failures and kowtowing to the Chinese Communist Party, there are nevertheless those — one can only imagine why — who apparently see a WHO ruled by China as capable of assuming this global role.

These countries have sought to expand the authorities of the WHO to include legally binding requirements on all nations, a financial structure that will stabilize its position, and the ability to establish tools, norms, and protocols internationally for the next pandemic. This is how the WHO, and some member states, see the future of the WHO — an untransparent, unaccountable international organization able to establish by edict how the world and nations must respond to future health crises.

Countries regrettably embracing this call include the UK, France, Germany, the Netherlands, as well as the head of the European Union. Although it does not seem logical, these countries — apart from the UK which by now should know better — have historically put unfounded faith in the success and primacy of international organizations. The refrain often offered in diplomatic circles when discussing failed international organizations is “better together.” Better to be talking in the confines of failed or failing international organizations than to fight for reform, which might require pulling out of them to create the type of pressure that would force change. Many countries promised to join the U.S. in fighting to reform the WHO once the pandemic ended. They are now fighting to expand its authority — with no reform.

A WHO with expanded authority is a terrifying concept. Can you envision providing an international organization with the power to dictate how the U.S. should responds to a future pandemic? Perhaps by forcing the U.S. to turn over supplies and equipment to China because of its larger population? Especially at a time when reports are that China is working on a virus that is even more lethal? How about an international organization that would have the power to mandate whether we should be required to be vaccinated with a particular vaccine, say China’s inferior SINOVAC vaccine? Or imagine a WHO that has the power to impose what mandates or lockdowns a country would be required to impose, say like China’s current lockdown of Shanghai? Unfortunately, the WHO already has proven itself to be a willing organ of China’s Communist leaders. Providing it with international, legal binding authority over global pandemic response must never be allowed to happen. No country should ever give away its potential right to survival to any other country. We are seeing now how this cavalier abdication of sovereign, national responsibility is playing out with the world’s betrayal of Ukraine, which gave up its nuclear arsenal in the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 in exchange for fake promises — from countries including Russia — that its borders and sovereignty would be protected and secure.

The WHO, unaccountable for its performance, is not the kind of authority we as Americans should want to see in an untransparent, unaccountable organization, especially one that appears beholden to the Chinese Communist Party. Even now, in just one year, 2021, the CCP has murdered at least 64,000 Americans by the fentanyl poison it sends into the US through America’s open border with Mexico. What better way to cripple a country, especially the U.S, than to arrange for it to be unable to defend itself?

This November, American citizens will be able to hold our elected officials accountable for their performances during the COVID pandemic. Voters in all states will be able to hold their elected officials accountable.

Imagine the lack of accountability if elected officials could simply respond by saying, “those were the requirements of the WHO; we had to follow them.”

We already hear state and local officials identifying federal officials and the CDC as being responsible for the decisions they made. We should want to clearly understand who is responsible and accountable. And it should not be — ever — an international organization of anonymous, faceless bureaucrats over whom we have no control.

The WHO is opportunistically using the COVID pandemic to try to expand its reach and authority. The closing remarks of WHO’s director general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, at the December meeting of the World Health Assembly, were: “We are one humanity. We have one planet. We have one health. And we have one WHO. Your WHO.”

Congress and the Biden Administration should not succumb to this latest siren song for globalism — or any other, frankly. America works best when it leads within the international community, not when it cedes national authority to untransparent, unaccountable organizations, particularly those which have shown that they have China’s — not America’s — best interests at heart.

Peter Hoekstra was US Ambassador to the Netherlands during the Trump administration. He served 18 years in the U.S. House of Representatives representing the second district of Michigan and served as Chairman and Ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee. He is currently Chairman of the Center for Security Policy Board of Advisors.

*****

This article was published by the Gatestone Institute and is reprinted with permission.

Baby Formula: Thank Protectionists and the FDA for the Shortage

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

For parents who rely on baby formula—whether by choice or due to medical necessity—the nationwide baby formula shortage has become increasingly difficult to ignore. According to the Wall Street Journal, Walgreens, Target, CVS, and Kroger have all begun rationing supplies of formula.

Covid lockdowns, combined with a product recall by formula manufacturer Abbott Nutrition have created a very real shortage in a product that is key for proper nutrition in many children.

With the shortage has come the usual half-baked bromides about “evil corporations” and how baby formula companies are supposedly not regulated enough. Throw in a few references to “late-stage capitalism” and you’ll get a good taste of the usual “blame capitalism” narrative that accompanies every bout of shortages or rising prices.

Formula Is Heavily Regulated and Subsidized

In reality, federal government intervention in the formula market is rampant. Thanks to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), formula companies are heavily subsidized by voucher programs which mean that the US government is “provid[ing] more than half of the formula that is used in the US.

Within these voucher programs, funds are funneled to select corporations through programs that grant a formula company “the exclusive right to have its formula provided to WIC participants in the State.” In practice, this means the largest companies with the most lobbyists are able to dominate the subsidized portion of the market. Since the subsidized portion of the market is so huge, that usually means those companies dominate the market overall. This makes it harder for newcomers to break into the market and offer any real competition. This means the marketplace becomes reliant on a small number of large firms.

[Read More: “Why Are the Feds Subsidizing Baby Formula Companies?” by Ryan McMaken]

The anticompetitive nature of federal WIC policy is just one aspect of how little the formula market has to do with anything we might call “the free market.”

Protectionism Prevents Access to Foreign Formula

Another major and important factor is the restriction on foreign imports enforced by federal law.

The US regime overall is very protectionist when it comes to dairy products in general, and formula is certainly no exception. As one pediatric medical journal states flatly “Infant formula in the United States is highly regulated.” This can be seen clearly in protectionist trade laws imposed on formula in the guise of protecting consumers.

As Derek Thompson at The Atlantic notes, Food and Drug Administration “regulation of formula is so stringent that most of the stuff that comes out of Europe is illegal to buy here due to technicalities like labeling requirements.”

These bureaucratic requirements fall under “non-tariff barriers,” which in many cases present even greater barriers than tariffs.

[Read More: “Thanks to Nontariff Barriers, ‘Free Trade’ Isn’t very Free.” by Ryan McMaken]

But tariff barriers are significant as well. Thompson also notes that

U.S. policy also restricts the importation of formula that does meet FDA requirements. At high volumes, the tax on formula imports can exceed 17 percent. And under President Donald Trump, the U.S. entered into a new North American trade agreement that actively discourages formula imports from our largest trading partner, Canada.

However, those products that jump through all those hoops face further restrictions. The FDA mandates that even qualifying formula manufacturers must wait ninety days before marketing any new formula.

As a result, not surprisingly, 98 percent of all formula consumed in the United States is produced domestically. Moreover, if that supply is ever endangered—as it has been by lockdown-induced logistical problems and corporate recalls, American consumers have few other options.

Trade restrictions function to prevent reliable lines of importation of foreign formula. Thanks to that ninety-day delay on marketing, foreign suppliers can’t introduce new products to the market quickly, either.

So, if you have adopted children, a double mastectomy, or some other reason for needing formula for your baby, you can thank advocates of tariffs and other trade restrictions for shortages.

Protectionists and Their Excuses

Naturally, the baby formula protectionists have plenty of excuses for why their preferred form of central planning and big-government intervention in the marketplace is “necessary.” They’ll insist that FDA regulations are necessary to protect children—as if European baby formula is not already heavily regulated. European infant mortality also tends to be lower than US infant mortality, so the claim that protectionism is “for the children” is clearly baseless.

These facts, however, don’t prevent Trump-style protectionists from claiming government regulations are good “because China.”

Secondly, the protectionists are likely to claim that government control of formula—and all other dairy-based imports—are important because they “protects jobs.” What protectionists are really saying is that you and your family must just do without essential goods in order to protect a small number of corporations that dominate the formula marketplace thanks to US regulations.

Protectionism Means Punishing Entrepreneurs

Finally, there is little doubt that if the federal government actually allowed some true degree of freedom in the formula marketplace that entrepreneurs would step in to import formula to meet the need quickly.

This, of course, can’t happen because these entrepreneurs don’t want to be jailed, sued, and otherwise destroyed by federal bureaucrats. After all, protectionism must be enforced by federal police and federal courts, and that means fining and jailing any importers who run afoul of the law. Protectionism is fundamentally about using violence against Americans who try to bring goods to market in ways that the protectionists don’t like.

Once again, the anticapitalist “fair trade” advocates and advocates of WIC corporatism who caused these shortages will likely escape unscathed. Formula industry lobbyists will deploy and ensure nothing is done to endanger the protection-induced profits at the dominant firms. Welfare-state leftists will ensure that the federal government continues to subsidize these corporations as well. Rightwing protectionists will continue to insist that foreign goods must be kept out to make America great.

Somehow, this is all capitalism’s fault.

*****

This article was published by the Mises Institute and is reproduced with permission.

How Government Created the Baby Formula Shortage—and a Black Market for ‘Unapproved’ European Imports

Estimated Reading Time: 5 minutes

Editors’ Note:  As well as the reasons cited below, other news outlets, such as Town Hall report the U.S. government has accumulated a large amount of baby formula and is shipping it to the Southern Border for use by illegal immigrants. As usual, Americans come last in their calculations.

*****

As Christina Szalinski reported in the New York Times, “baby formula is one of the most tightly regulated food products in the US.”

 

As many know, the US is confronting a shortage in a baby formula that has grown quite serious. What started as complaints on Twitter of “out of stock” messages on Amazon purchases has turned into a national panic.

CBS News reports that at retailers across the country, some 40 percent of the top-selling baby formula products were out of stock as of late April, according to an analysis from Datasembly.

“This is a shocking number that you don’t see for other categories,” Ben Reich, CEO of Datasembly, told the news network.

The story got enough traction to finally get the attention of the White House.

On Monday, Press Secretary Jen Psaki said the government is doing its best to address the shortage, noting that manufacturers say they’re producing at full capacity following a product recall by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

“Ensuring the availability is also a priority for the FDA and they’re working around the clock to address any possible shortage,” Psaki said.

Psaki is not wrong that the product recall has made the baby formula shortage worse.

As Eric Boehm pointed out at Reason, part of the shortage stems from a suspected bacterial outbreak at an Abbott plant in Michigan, which prompted the recall of three major brands of powdered formula. Matters were made worse when the plant was subsequently shut down for FDA inspection.

Still, one could be reasonably suspicious of the idea that a single contamination could upend the entire US baby formula market. And for good reason.

A closer look at US trade and regulatory policies reveals the government itself is primarily responsible for the baby formula shortage.

Few may realize it, but baby formula is one of the most regulated food products in America. That’s not me saying it, but the New York Times.

As Christina Szalinski reported in March 2021, “baby formula is one of the most tightly regulated food products in the US, with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) dictating the nutrients and vitamins, and setting strict rules about how formula is produced, packaged, and labeled.”

Despite these regulations—more likely, because of them—many American parents buy “unapproved” European formula even though, Szalinski notes, it’s technically against the law.

“There are large Facebook groups devoted to European formulas, where parents share spreadsheets and detailed notes on ingredients and how these formulas compare to their US counterparts,” she notes. “Some caregivers report choosing them because European brands offer certain formula options (like those made from goat’s milk or milk from pasture-raised cows), which are rare or nonexistent in an FDA-regulated form in the US. Others seek out European brands because of the perception that the formulas are of higher quality and that European formula regulations are stricter.”

In this black(ish) market, it turns out Americans are willing to pay big bucks for European formula. Szalinski says that on one website selling EU baby formula, you’ll find German imports that run roughly $26 for a 400-gram box, which is about quadruple the price of the top US baby formulas recommended by the Times.

At times, these nefarious black market imports have resulted in high profile busts, like in April 2021 when US Customs and Border Protection agents in Philadelphia seized 588 cases of baby formula (value: $30,000) that violated the FDA’s “import safety regulations.”

Some may contend that the FDA is simply keeping Americans and their babies safe—which is no doubt what regulators want you to believe—but this overlooks an inconvenient fact: despite the FDA’s efforts, Americans are consuming vast amounts of black market baby formula, and the children are doing just fine.

The government’s regulatory war on baby formula imports isn’t the only way it has contributed to the baby formula shortage, however. Tariffs have also played a role. As Cato scholar Scott Lincicome pointed out on Twitter, the US government imposes a stiff levy on baby formula (technically a “tariff rate quota”) that amounts to 18 percent.

There’s general agreement among economists that tariffs create market distortions that harm domestic consumers over time, and there’s every reason to believe these taxes on imports have made it more difficult for Americans to access baby formula during this shortage (and hit their pocketbooks, too).

If the Biden administration is serious about addressing the baby formula, they’d forget about “working around the clock” and simply abolish the protectionist policies and regulations that are making it more difficult to purchase formula.

Some may contend that this would result in more foreign imports of baby formula of “questionable” quality, but it’s a mistake to believe that bureaucrats in Washington, DC (or anywhere else for that matter) have the “proper” formula that meets some universal standard.

Indeed, as Szalinski points out in her Times article, though the EU and the US both require a bunch of the same vitamins and minerals in baby formula, there are some striking differences as well, particularly in iron content and DHA (an omega-3 fatty acid).

Because the EU requires high levels of DHA, something that isn’t required at all in the US, nearly all American baby formulas fail to meet the EU standard.

“Currently, the only US formula that would meet the EU’s requirements for DHA is the new infant formula Bobbie,” writes Szalinski. “As a self-described ‘European-style’ formula, Bobbie is marketed as an FDA-regulated alternative to European formulas.”

Bureaucrats in DC no doubt will tell you their formula is the correct and healthy one, while bureaucrats in the EU almost certainly would contend they have the right mixture of ingredients.

This invites an important question: who actually has the best baby formula for infants, the EU or the US?

Many may think they know, but the economist Thomas Sowell reminds us this is the wrong question.

“The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best,” Sowell says.

What Sowell was getting at is that consumers with skin in the game must ultimately decide what product or service is best for them, and government attempts to regulate that choice invariably make it more difficult for consumers to get the best product at the best price.

This is why the economist Ludwig von Mises noted that consumers—not politicians, CEOs, or bureaucrats—are the true captains of the economic ship in a free market.

“The real bosses, in the capitalist system of market economy, are the consumers,” Mises wrote in his book Bureaucracy. “They, by their buying and by their abstention from buying, decide who should own the capital and run the plants. They determine what should be produced and in what quantity and quality. Their attitudes result either in profit or in loss for the enterpriser.”

The baby formula shortage is the latest example that shows most people in Washington, DC need to crack open some Mises and stop trying to provide “solutions” to markets.

*****

This article was published by FEE, Foundation for Economic Education and is reprinted with permission.

Lifting Title 42 Will Mean Fewer Border Patrol Agents in Field

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

Border security experts expect the nation will bear the consequences of more illegal immigration whether the Biden administration ends a key public health measure by the end of the month or does it later.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced last month that the policy, known as Title 42, would expire May 23. Biden’s Department of Homeland Security has estimated that could mean an influx of 18,000 migrants a day who cross the border illegally.

“There are too many Democrats pushing back, too many Democrats terrified of the consequences, because the [Department of Homeland Security] itself, Biden’s DHS, was predicting a doubling or more of the flow across the border if they lifted Title 42,” Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, told The Daily Signal in a recent interview.

“But it is going to be lifted at some point,” Krikorian said of Title 42.

Sens. Gary Peters, D-Mich., and Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., are among the most vocal Democrats calling for the Biden administration to keep the public health policy in place.

Title 42 is a provision of a 1944 law meant to stop the spread of communicable diseases. The provision allowed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to take emergency action in March 2020, during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, to authorize border authorities to quickly expel illegal immigrants and deny entry to asylum-seekers.

Although the measure hasn’t stopped huge numbers of illegal immigrants from crossing the southern border and immediately claiming asylum, it has made it easier for the Border Patrol to send back illegal aliens.

‘Enormous Pressure From Left’

Once Title 42 is gone, unlawful border crossers will have the right to have their asylum claims adjudicated on American soil.

“Unless Congress intervenes and passes a law saying they can keep it in place and the president signs it, it just seems to me it’s going to have to be lifted at some point because the president is also getting enormous pressure from this hard left,” Krikorian told The Daily Signal.

“When they do that,” he added, “it’s going to be bad news on the border and it’s going to be worse news for the Democratic Party, because the more they keep delaying it, the closer and closer it gets to the election.”

The Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates strict enforcement of the nation’s immigration laws and opposes amnesty for illegal immigrants, organized a visit to the border in South Texas last month that The Daily Signal joined.

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas met Tuesday in Washington with Mexican Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard.

Mayorkas “spoke of the United States’ whole-of-government strategy to prepare for the CDC’s announced May 23, 2022, end to the exercise of its Title 42 authority,” according to the department’s readout of the meeting.

Expulsions Under Title 42

After the CDC invoked Title 42, the Border Patrol had about 2.9 million encounters with illegal immigrants at the U.S.-Mexico border between April 2020 and March 2022, according to a study by Pew Research. March is the most recent month for which such data is available.

About 1.8 million of those encounters, or 61%, resulted in illegal immigrants being expelled under Title 42, according to Pew. The 1.1 million remaining encounters ended with illegal immigrants being detained, at least temporarily, rather than sent back.

Expulsions were based largely on whether the migrants came as families and whether children were involved.

Under the Biden administration, about 88% of the 1.8 million expulsions since 2020 under Title 42 were of single adults, while 11% were families and 1% were unaccompanied minors.

About 60% of those expelled came from Mexico, 15% came from Guatemala, 14% from Honduras, 5% from El Salvador, and 6% from other countries, according to Pew.

COVID-19 isn’t the only public health concern to consider, said Chris Cabrera, spokesman for the union National Border Patrol Council Local 3307, which represents nonsupervisory Border Patrol employees who work in the Rio Grande Valley.

“It’s to the point where everybody I work with, every single person, has had COVID,” Cabrera told a group gathered in Texas for the border tour sponsored by the Center for Immigration Studies.

But, the union spokesman said, some Border Patrol agents have contracted communicable diseases while policing the border that doctors have had trouble diagnosing.

‘Spinning Your Wheels’

If Title 42 ends, it will bring more chaos to the southern border, said Michael Salinas, a retired Border Patrol agent who was on the front lines for 34 years.

“Pretty much, there’s going to be nobody out in the field,” Salinas told The Daily Signal.

“The Border Patrol knows where they’re at,” the veteran agent said of these so-called got-aways. “But if they don’t have access to it because they’re stuck processing or prepping people for transport to processing centers, it takes away from all that. So you’re just spinning your wheels.”

The Center for Immigration Studies’ Krikorian said he expects that Biden and congressional Democrats will try to kick the can down the road, but that it can’t go on forever.

Events may depend on what faction in the Biden administration prevails, he said:

There are two factions in the administration on this immigration issue. They both believe the same thing. In other words, everybody in the administration wants basically amnesty for all the illegals and unlimited immigration in the future, and all that stuff. It’s not really at all a policy dispute, it’s a political dispute.

Krikorian said White House chief of staff Ron Klain and Susan Rice, director of the Domestic Policy Council, are trying to take a more politically acceptable approach to illegal immigration in the short term.

“The people like Ron Klain and Susan Rice, who are at least a little bit more in touch with reality … the point is they’re more cautious politically,” Krikorian said. “But then everybody who’s in charge of immigration policy are radicals. They’re anti-borders radicals.”

*****

This article was published by The Daily Signal and is reproduced with permission.

The Homeless Election Battle

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

Editors’ Note: Although the following comments relate to Los Angeles, major cities in Arizona have similar issues, although not to the same extreme. The questions he raises are questions to be asked of our mayors and city councilmen. Here are some additional questions: If drug abuse is fundamentally the cause of “homelessness”, what is the plan? If people are free to pursue their own “lifestyle”, should they have the right to do it on the public’s dime and trash the lifestyle of the non-addicted? If people are free to pursue drug use as part of their lifestyle, how do you get these people into treatment? Are there really effective treatments, and if so, how do you require said treatment without violating the “rights” of the homeless? Does legalizing drugs encourage or discourage the use of harder drugs?

 

When I had the opportunity to engage one of the major candidates for Mayor of Los Angeles, I stated there are only two issues in the race.  The first being proper funding and use of the police and the second being the Homeless.  The candidate agreed with me and the issues for the June 7th election were defined.

Karen Bass announced her candidacy soon thereafter and took the lead in the polls. She released with great fanfare her own detailed policy on Homelessness.  The policy is linked here https://karenbass.com/policies/homelessness/.  I contacted her campaign to query them on what they had proposed, but they were fearful of answering legitimate questions from journalists who were not from sycophantic press outlets.

Their proposed plan left open significant items, to which I asked the following questions:

  1. The city, county, and state have been spending extensively on this issue. How specifically does your plan differ from what has been done in the last few years?
  2. Mayor Garcetti committed close to a billion dollars for the current fiscal year. Can you tell us how much has been spent by the city on the homeless issue during the last four years of the Garcetti administration?
  3. Most if not all of us would like to know who Ms. Bass has in mind as the Homeless Chief since this is a critical issue to Los Angeles, so who would that be?
  4. The plan calls for ending street encampments in the first year of her term. How exactly are you planning to clear all the encampments which appear more like MASH units moving from property to property?
  5. I am working on a homeless issue that involves city, county, and state land. I am getting the runaround about who is responsible to do what.  Specifically, how do you plan to remedy this as residents do not care whose land it is within the city’s confines?  What is your response?
  6. You state that 50% of homeless are either mentally ill or on drugs. How did you derive that figure?
  7. You cite that 59% of homelessness is because of economic issues. Where did you get that figure?
  8. Are you saying that these people are gainfully employed or employable and just cannot afford housing? If so, how many homeless are currently employed as a percentage?  How many go to work each day?
  9. I have had discussions with people on the front lines of the homeless issue and have been told a significant percentage of people who are homeless in the Los Angeles area are transplants. In other words, they moved here because of the weather and particularly the government benefits provided.  Your plan did not address this issue. Did the studies you cited address this issue? Why should the residents of Los Angeles pay for the costs of extensive housing, medical and other benefits to homeless people who relocate from other urban areas?

The candidates talk about how they are going to cure the homeless problem, but rarely speak of the ongoing costs. They certainly do not delve into how many of these people are not Los Angeles residents which brings to question why the people of Los Angeles are bearing the cost. People do not realize that the current combined budget for Los Angeles City and County is about $1.5 billion. That is a stunning figure which is enlarged by the amount the State of California is pouring into the problem.

The question the Bass Campaign does not want to answer is why they believe these figures — that 59% of homelessness is due to economic issues and not drugs or mental illness. Multiple workers have told me most of the people they relocate off properties where the Homeless are squatting want to stay where they are. In the case I dealt with in Studio City, some moved elsewhere while others just relocated to adjacent sites where their removal from the area was delayed for another few months.

Then Rick Caruso jumped in with his tough-guy campaign claiming he can solve the problem https://carusocan.com/issues/homelessness/.  His plan does not answer the same questions — again how much he is spending of our money housing people who are not even from this area. Building housing units without curing these people of their drug use and properly medicating them for mental health challenges is a waste. At least Caruso’s campaign consultant who drafted his plan does not perpetuate the lie that these people are homeless due to economic issues, but even their figure of how many are on the streets because of economic issues is far too high.

One highly placed source tried to help me access where this money is being spent in the city of Los Angeles. We found it was impossible to obtain the details even for highly placed city officials.

Candidates like Joe Buscaino, Kevin de Leon, and Mike Feuer need to tell us what their plans are and whether they are going to continue draining the wallets of local residents as elected officials have in the recent past with negative results.

We need answers unless you want the crime, harassment, squalor, and other despicable effects of this homeless issue to go on for another decade or more.

 

 

 

 

 

Costs of a Hysterectomy in 1944 versus Now

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

My wife recently rummaged through family keepsakes and found bills for an emergency hysterectomy that her grandmother had in 1944, at St. Francis Hospital in Olean, NY, in the northwestern part of the state. She was transported 20 miles by ambulance from her rural home outside of Bradford, PA.

Below, in rounded numbers, is what she was charged for the ambulance, the hospital stay, the operating room, the anesthetic, six transfusions, and drugs. A bill for the surgeon was not included, and one could not be found among the old bills.

Cost in

1944 Dollars

Cost in

2022 Dollars

Ambulance $20 $326
32 Days Hospital $178 $2,907
6 Transfusions $120 $1,960
Operating Room $15 $245
Anesthetic $10 $163
Drugs $15 $236
Total $358 $5,837

Given that she was hospitalized for 32 days, there must have been complications. It’s not known what kind of hysterectomy she had, but I’ll assume for the purposes of this commentary that it was an abdominal hysterectomy, which is the most complicated kind.

I was struck by how short and easily understandable the bills were:  no copays, no deductibles, no insurance gibberish, no hidden charges, no cost-shifting from those with insurance to those without. The final bill consisted of several entries on a four-inch by six-inch piece of paper.

It’s difficult to compare the foregoing costs with costs today, because there are so many variables. But some ballpark figures can give us an idea of how they compare.

Today, the cost of an average inpatient hospital stay per day is $2,607 (Source:  www.debt.org/medical/hospital-surgery-costs). That’s about what my wife’s grandmother paid for 32 days in a hospital, in constant dollars.

According to womenshealth.org, abdominal hysterectomies usually leave the patient in the hospital for five days. Also, the at-home recovery period is longer than for other types of hysterectomies.

Patients are probably released from the hospital sooner nowadays for recuperation at home than they were in 1944. I’m not qualified to say whether that’s bad or good. I am qualified to say, however, that my wife’s grandmother and her husband lived in a tiny bungalow heated by a wood-burning stove. The husband left the house early in the morning and returned in the evening, on his job working alone as a pump hand for Kendall Oil in the surrounding forest. Although the Swedish immigrants were hardy folks, it would’ve been difficult for grandma to be left alone to recuperate.

According to HealthcareBlueBook.com, the average cost today for an abdominal hysterectomy is $15,321.  It’s not clear what that includes.

Another source (www.sutured.com/hysterectomy-cost) says that “the total cost for hysterectomy surgery depends on a lot of factors such as the anesthetic fee, private hospital fee, private operating facility fee, the extent of surgery required. The average cost were $43,622 for abdominal, $31,934 for vaginal, $38,312 for laparoscopic, and $49,526 for robotic hysterectomies.”

Whatever the variables and whatever the source, it sure seems that hospital and medical costs are considerably higher today.

Of course, costs today include the cost of expensive technology, and survival rates have no doubt improved tremendously. On the other hand, one would have expected technology and efficiencies of scale to have improved productivity, increased efficiency, and kept costs in check.

At the risk of starting a war between left- and right-leaning economists and healthcare policy wonks, perhaps costs were lower in 1944 because patients paid the charges out of their own pocket. In other words, there was a true consumer market instead of the Rube Goldberg contraption that exists today.

*****

Mr. Cantoni was active in healthcare reform for several years at his own expense, including publishing articles in the Wall Street Journal and other publications and holding a national healthcare reform conference in the early 1990s.

The Homeless Election Battle

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

When I had the opportunity to engage one of the major candidates for Mayor of Los Angeles, I stated there are only two issues in the race.  The first being proper funding and use of the police and the second being the Homeless.  The candidate agreed with me and the issues for the June 7th election were defined.

Karen Bass announced her candidacy soon thereafter and took the lead in the polls.  She released with great fanfare her own detailed policy on Homelessness.  The policy is linked here https://karenbass.com/policies/homelessness/.  I contacted her campaign to query them on what they had proposed, but they were fearful of answering legitimate questions from journalists who were not from sycophantic press outlets.

Their proposed plan left open significant items, to which I asked the following questions:

  1. The city, county, and state have been spending extensively on this issue. How specifically does your plan differ from what has been done in the last few years?
  2. Mayor Garcetti committed close to a billion dollars for the current fiscal year. Can you tell us how much has been spent by the city on the homeless issue during the last four years of the Garcetti administration?
  3. Most if not all of us would like to know who Ms. Bass has in mind as the Homeless Chief since this is a critical issue in Los Angeles, so who would that be?
  4. The plan calls for ending street encampments in the first year of her term. How exactly are you planning to clear all the encampments which appear more like MASH units moving from property to property?
  5. I am working on a homeless issue that involves city, county, and state land. I am getting the runaround about who is responsible to do what.  Specifically, how do you plan to remedy this as residents do not care whose land it is within the city’s confines?  What is your response?
  6. You state that 50% of the homeless are either mentally ill or on drugs. How did you derive that figure?
  7. You cite that 59% of homelessness is because of economic issues. Where did you get that figure?
  8. Are you saying that these people are gainfully employed or employable and just cannot afford housing? If so, how many homeless are currently employed as a percentage?  How many go to work each day?
  9. I have had discussions with people on the front lines of the homeless issue and have been told a significant percentage of people who are homeless in the Los Angeles area are transplants. In other words, they moved here because of the weather and particularly the government benefits provided.  Your plan did not address this issue.  Did the studies you cited address this issue? Why should the residents of Los Angeles pay for the costs of extensive housing, medical and other benefits to homeless people who relocate from other urban areas?

The candidates talk about how they are going to cure the homeless problem, but rarely speak of the ongoing costs.  They certainly do not delve into how many of these people are not Los Angeles residents which brings to question why the people of Los Angeles are bearing the cost.  People do not realize that the current combined budget for Los Angeles City and County is about $1.5 billion.  That is a stunning figure which is enlarged by the amount the State of California is pouring into the problem.

The question the Bass Campaign does not want to answer is why they believe these figures — that 59% of homelessness is due to economic issues and not drugs or mental illness.  Multiple workers have told me most of the people they relocate off properties where the Homeless are squatting want to stay where they are.  In the case I dealt with in Studio City, some moved elsewhere while others just relocated to adjacent sites where their removal from the area was delayed for another few months.

Then Rick Caruso jumped in with his tough-guy campaign claiming he can solve the problem: https://carusocan.com/issues/homelessness/.  His plan does not answer the same questions — again how much he is spending of our money housing people who are not even from this area.  Building housing units without curing these people of their drug use and properly medicating them for mental health challenges is a waste.  At least Caruso’s campaign consultant who drafted his plan does not perpetuate the lie that these people are homeless due to economic issues, but even their figure of how many are on the streets because of economic issues is far too high.

One highly placed source tried to help me access where this money is being spent in the city of Los Angeles.  We found it was impossible to obtain the details even for highly placed city officials.

Candidates like Joe Buscaino, Kevin de Leon, and Mike Feuer need to tell us what their plans are and whether they are going to continue draining the wallets of local residents as elected officials have in the recent past with negative results.

We need answers unless you want the crime, harassment, squalor, and other despicable effects of this homeless issue to go on for another decade or more.

******

This article was published by FlashReport and is reproduced with permission from the author.