Time to Move Forward
Two years ago, the voters in Montecito and Summerland elected us, Tobe Plough and Floyd Wicks, to serve four-year terms as directors of the Montecito Water District (MWD). Based upon our recent service on the MWD Board, we fully endorse the election of the following five members of the Water Security Team:
For Montecito Water District: Ken Coates, Cori Hayman, and Brian Goebel
For Montecito Sanitary District: Woody Barrett and Dana Newquist
One of our fellow MWD Board members, Dick Shaikewitz, has served as an “appointed” director for 12 years and is now running as an incumbent for an additional four-year term. He declares that he is the most knowledgeable of all candidates running against him. Further, he asserts that he has more knowledge than either of us and states that the voters should elect him because of his knowledge base.
When we joined the board in November 2016, the then board had not acted competently and had ignored California law by not filing a mandated Urban Water Management Plan in 2010 and again in 2015 (required every five years). At that time, there were two attorneys on the board, one being the appointed Incumbent (Dick Shaikewitz), who should have been thoroughly familiar with California Law. By not filing the required reports on a timely basis, the Water District was ineligible to access either State grants or low-interest loans, an oversight that was very costly to the customers of Montecito Water District.
Shaikewitz was also a leader in the imposition of the large penalty fees on MWD customers, in order to force draconian conservation measures on local water users, resulting in even higher water rates.
In the October 11 edition of Montecito Journal, Shaikewitz declared that the district acquired 12,543 acre feet of supplemental water at a cost of $4.6 million, or $368 per acre foot. Despite warnings from the State Department of Water Resources and the Central Coast Water Authority (CCWA) that this water, which was stored in the San Luis Reservoir, was about to be lost in a spill, Shaikewitz was not inclined to move it elsewhere. Thankfully, we (Wicks and Plough) were able to convince the remaining two board members that it was too risky to leave the water in the San Luis Reservoir and that the water needed to be moved. All this happened in the first two months of our board service.
As for Shaikewitz’s claim that his purchase of supplemental water was far less costly than the Water Security Team’s proposal to deal with the City of Santa Barbara’s desal water, let’s look at the facts:
• Of the 12,543 acre feet purchased by the district for $4.6 million, 7,500 acre feet remained in storage in the San Luis Reservoir at the time CCWA sounded the alarm.
• Due to MWD’s lack of a comprehensive Water Plan, the district had no place to move most of the water stored in San Luis. A small amount (approximately 500 acre feet) could be moved to Lake Cachuma, leaving 7,000 acre feet at risk in the San Luis Reservoir.
• Metropolitan Water District proposed that it could take the water into its system, but the exchange ratio (the amount of water to be returned to MWD) would be costly.
• In the end, the Metropolitan Water District was only able to return about 2,000 acre feet to the MWD, resulting in a loss of approximately 5,000 acre feet.
• Shaikewitz never mentioned this in his recent Montecito Journal article. Approximately 40 percent of the supplemental water purchased prior to Wicks and Plough coming on the board, was lost due to San Luis Reservoir’s spilling during the early 2017 rain events.
• The District lost nearly $2 million because of having no plan in place, which would have prevented such a loss. Because of our recommendation, the district has now purchased shares in a groundwater bank at the country’s largest Groundwater Banking operation at Semitropic Water Storage District in the San Joaquin Valley. Semitropic had on several occasions in the past encouraged MWD to purchase shares in the bank and MWD ignored this opportunity. The District’s shares now allow MWD to store up to 4,500 acre feet into the Water Bank.
• In summary, the District paid far more than $368 per acre foot for the supplemental water purchased by Shaikewitz, who purposely left out all the costs. Let’s add them up:
i. Cost of supplemental water purchased: $368 per acre foot (estimated)
ii. Lost water cost divided by remaining water delivered: $265 per acre foot (est.)
iii. Treatment cost for the remaining water delivered: $700 per acre foot (est.)
iv. Energy cost for the remaining water delivered: $200 per acre foot (est.)
v. Cost of returning water to original location (est.) $400 per acre foot (est.)
vi. Fixed cost of State Water Project ($5.2 mm/yr.) $4,000 per acre foot (est.) (based on 42% average delivery of MWD’s 3300 AFY)
vii. Total cost of delivering State Water to MWD: $5,933 per acre foot (est.)
The communities of Montecito and Summerland do not need to retain this kind of experience. Enough is enough! The clear choice is to support the entire Water Security Team as follows:
For Montecito Water District: Ken Coates, Cori Hayman and Brian Goebel
For Montecito Sanitary District: Woody Barrett and Dana Newquist
We need your vote in order to secure a more reliable water supply for our communities.
Floyd Wicks and Tobe Plough
Montecito
Say No to State Water
Every single candidate running for the Montecito Water Board wants to extend the State Water contracts. That is a major reason why I cannot in good conscience support or vote for any of them.
Extending the State Water contracts enables the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) to finance Governor Brown’s twin tunnels commonly known as the CAWaterFix. Extending the contracts and building these multi-billion dollar tunnels will prove a futile endeavor, as there is no new water to send through them. The contracts do not need to be extended in order to continue to receive whatever water is available under our current agreement.
Let me explain. DWR has never quantified how much water is available to send south through the Bay/Delta from northern California watersheds. It has blithely signed contracts to deliver a certain amount without knowing what is available. We in Santa Barbara County know that through the years, when we needed State water in times of drought, we usually received a very small percentage of our contract. When State water was readily available, we didn’t need it as local supplies were ample. Yet, we continue to pay a huge amount for the infrastructure. Now, we are being asked to pay even more to finance these tunnels, which can only deliver illusory “paper water,” water available only on paper and not in reality.
When the State was asked how much water was available in the 20 rivers of the Delta watershed, they said they did not know. How can such an important resource – water – be managed if it isn’t measured? Finally, in 2001, the California Water Impact Network (C-WIN) stepped in to help. C-WIN is a statewide organization I founded, along with interested citizens throughout the state, to formulate equitable water policies. C-WIN has been successful in a number of lawsuits aimed at making the State follow their own policies, science, and often even their own laws.
In 2009, C-WIN hired a hydrological technical consultant who spent the next three years, through Public Records Act and Freedom of Information Act requests, to quantify the amount of water within the State Water Project and the Delta. The result found the State has 29 million acre feet of consumptive water available on average and there are 153.7 million acre feet of claims for that water. That means there are 5.5 times more claims for water under contract than there is actual water. In 2012, UC Davis completed a study corroborating our work and conclusions. The difference between the promises/claims and reality is what the Appeals Court has labeled “Paper Water”… water that doesn’t exist.
I, along with two other of our community members, was seriously considering running for the water board this election. I have lived in Montecito with my family since 1972 and have experienced the droughts, fires, and challenges of living in this wonderful community. I had several meetings with other candidates and learned quickly that the three challengers were being backed by the Birnam Wood Group, a group of retired men in a private golf-course community who want to take over the water board and the sanitation district. They have managed to raise a $100,000 war chest through a small number of donors. I was also disappointed to hear their empty campaign promises, as I knew there was no way they could ever deliver on them. And if they extend the State Water contracts, our water bills will be unaffordable and unsustainable. No new water and bigger and bigger bills is a recipe for disaster.
I decided my efforts would be better spent on alerting people to the problems that lie ahead for our water district: The fact that nearly 40% of MWD’s budget now is spent on existing State water bonds; whoever is elected must vote not to extend the contracts, thus guaranteeing Montecito rate payers a bill for their share of the $20 to $40 billion (and climbing) price tag for the tunnels. There is no new water from the State.
I am going to vote, but will write in my choices: Tom Mosby, Aaron Budgor, and Carolee Krieger
And for the Sanitary District I am voting for the incumbents: Judith Ishkanian and William Roberts
I do not want our water agency or our sanitation district to be privatized or run by folks who do not understand the big picture of water and how it fits into our lives here in Montecito.
Carolee Krieger
Montecito
Humpty-Trumpty
I have a suggestion for President Trump on his dealings with the Chinese. Forget about tariffs and start making nice with them on how to build a wall. Any country where you can see a wall from outer space is a country that knows how to build one.
Come on Humpty-Trumpty, put your ego aside and get their advice on how to achieve a promise you made to the U.S.
Thomas Carlisle
Montecito
Uninformed
The TV advertisement with the farmer who is concerned about his land wants to have oil and gas drilling continued safely. Well, there is no safe drilling now.
The oil companies do fracking. Fracking puts toxic chemicals into our soil and can get into our groundwater and make us ill.
Don’t believe this farmer and other ads. Vote yes on G and be safe.
Danel Trevor
Carpinteria
He’s Walking Away
I believe I speak for many people when I say the (Judge Brett) Kavanaugh hearings were a turning point for me as a Democrat and why I left and registered as a California Republican two weeks ago. I know five other people just in Santa Barbara who had the same reaction and changed. I will vote against the Dems for the rest of my life. I think the Democrats did themselves in with their behavior during the hearings. I think there will an incredible backlash.
The hearings began with women in godawful Handmaid’s Tale costumes, and disruptive screamers, like Linda Sarsour. I really can’t believe how gullible feminist women are to think that Sarsour, a militant Muslim, is on the side of “feminism.” She does not believe in abortion, except for the infidels. She does not believe in gun control, except for the infidels. For the Democrat feminists to embrace Sarsour shows how truly far gone they are. She’s using them to promote her anti-female agenda and they don’t get it.
Then the Democrats got worse. It’s okay if the Democrat Senators had questions about Kavanaugh as a justice. But it wasn’t okay to conduct a deliberately false smear campaign designed to ruin his life, career, and family and friendships. And it’s especially not okay to hear the media Democrats saying that they were happy that they ruined his life.
A lot of Santa Barbara liberals are really great people. But they have no idea how much their desire to be open-minded is being used by Leftists who care nothing for free speech or, indeed, for basic freedoms of Americans. Hillary Clinton is a disciple of Saul Allinsky who, like Goebbels, said the ends justifies the means and in order to get what you want, accuse the other side of that which you are guilty. This is what the Democratic Party has become. Scare and violence. Threats. Shunning. They have become despicable.
And it’s why I left. I’m not thrilled with the Republican Party, but I’m happy to see spine in a lot of Republicans who didn’t have it before. Susan Collins gave a great speech, and Lindsey Graham showed strength I hadn’t seen in him before.
What the hearings represented was simply this: the triumph of good over evil.
If you publish this without my name that’s okay, but please don’t give out my name. People on the Left are too crazy right now, and they feel quite free to make death threats. One of the really unconscionable of the many unconscionable things Hillary has done is to incite violence.
Anonymous
Montecito
(Editor’s note: There are many who object to our running – on occasion – letters signed Anonymous, so I want to assure readers this is a real letter written by a real person who fears retribution and harassment if he put his name to it. – J.B.)
Presumption of Innocence
It is a terrible thing to be falsely accused, let alone convicted. Numerous inmates have been exonerated since 1989 by objective DNA evidence after being sentenced for a sexual-assault or murder conviction where the victim swore in court there was absolutely no doubt in [his or her] mind the accused assaulted them. The victims were 100 percent sure that the accused was the assailant, helping send hundreds of innocents to jail for years, even decades. Does not Judge Kavanaugh have the same presumption of innocence as anyone else in America?
The Supreme Court review of Kavanaugh set a terrible precedent. Why did Senator Feinstein sit on the sexual assault charge brought by Dr. Ford for six weeks? Would she have done so with a murder charge? Wasn’t this the only bullet left in her Democratic gun, fired strategically at the last minute to disrupt, not give time to investigate? This was a shameful political stunt that sought not to defeat but to destroy. It appeared that their view was that any conservative jurist in America needs to forfeit his basic legal rights as punishment for their judicial philosophy.
One could ask, why else did the Democrats give Bill Clinton, at age 45, a free “pass” when Paula Jones accused him of sexual assault, when Kavanagh, at age 17, was not?
Then there is the radical Left, which seems to bring the same weight of charges as Weinstein or Cosby when the alleged incident (which did not involve an actual sex act) was purported to occur when Kavanaugh was a mere 17 years old. This radical mob certainly does not believe in reform or the concept that a person can be transformed. Cannot self-reflection or prayer result in positive change? Is youth misbehavior unredeemable? If not, what good are professional counselors and priests?
Mothers want their sons to be considered innocent until proven guilty; they demand due process for their sons, not mob rule. The prosecution bears the burden of proof, not the defendant. There is no concrete evidence that Ford’s version of the event, several decades after the fact and all through the lens of psychological trauma, is fact. However, there were a number of witnesses who can attest to Kavanaugh’s behavior, demeanor, and record in his adult life. Most care more about what a person has done as an adult, not as an adolescent. It is true that Judge Kavanaugh’s temperament at the Senate Committee hearing was brought into question by some who think his behavior was spiteful, injudicious, and even reckless. Yet consider that he was fighting for his professional life, accused of being a violent drunk and evil rapist. Would not anyone’s emotions be highly charged confronting such claims?
During the #MeToo tidal movement, we must remember that allegations require evidence and people are innocent until proven guilty. It is wrong to mindlessly follow a preconceived narrative and simply believe accusers without demanding facts and evidence. Currently, Ford’s accusations are and will continue to be unproveable and Democrats know this and continue the narrative for political theater, not justice. Either we take sexual assault seriously because we are interested in protecting women, or we allow it to be transformed into the latest political weapon.
The #MeToo movement should not be reduced to having accusations become self-proving and thereby shatter a man’s reputation over a lifetime of hard work. Women do not move forward by tearing men down.
Accusation is not proof. To be falsely accused is a terrible thing.
J.W. Burk
Santa Barbara
Truth in Advertising
Dana Newquist, member of the “Water Campaign Team,” was apparently charged with market-testing the term “Water Union” to describe its desire to formally consolidate the two Special Districts, Water and Sanitary. Clearly, the term “consolidation” has not been working. The candidates and the investors and cityhood advocates who back them will soon learn that consolidation does not include the fusion of finance, or dedicated land use of the districts. But the Campaign for Water use is concentrating its efforts on insisting that the negligible amount of wastewater our community produces is going to make a huge difference in supply. It will enhance the opportunities for irrigation in times of drought, which is a good thing, and that can be accomplished without a “union” with the troubled Water District.
Is this proposal going to end up as a shotgun wedding? The Sanitary District is reeling from the smear campaign leveled at it by the same “Water Campaign Team” and backers who want a so-called union with it. From the beginning, campaign candidates have been quoted as saying versions of, “MSD is dumping 500,000 untreated (sometimes partially treated) wastewater (sewage) daily into the ocean.”
They have doubled down in this claim.
At a recent rally at the home of Ken Coates, Water Team candidate, Cori Hayman’s lovely face was featured for their Facebook video page saying, “I was shocked to learn that the Montecito Sanitary District is dumping 500,000 gallons per day of wastewater into the ocean.” Who told her to say this? Why did she, an attorney, believe this? It is a lie. Word is getting out. Consider this brief excerpt from a page and a half-letter (October 8) from the president of the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, John M. Robertson:
“The District uses appropriate technologies and consistently meets or exceeds all treatment requirements… nearby beach water quality is excellent and not affected by the operation of the wastewater treatment plant.” The entire letter was copied to First District supervisor Das Williams, general manager of MWD Nick Turner, Larry Fay, Santa Barbara County Environmental Health, as well as the Montecito Sanitary District.
Enough with the fantastic lies – let us hear some facts and figures about what the Water Team hopes to accomplish and how much it will cost the tax and rate payers.
Judith Ishkanian
Montecito
(Ms Ishkanian is president, Montecito Sanitary District.)
Keep Them on
On Tuesday, November 6, we must re-elect our qualified and experienced Montecito Sanitary District members: president Judith Ishkanian with board member Bob Williams.
Their expertise in water treatment and wastewater management has served us well for the past 12 years.
Our Sanitary District has an A++ bond rating, and a state-of-the-art maintenance building, plus new generator and electric system.
After the horrific January mudslides, the skilled MSD employees worked long hours to restore the system.
The “Water Security Team” that wants to take over the Sanitary District are too inexperienced to deal with the complexities of Water management. Keep Montecito Sanitary District safe and secure with the leadership of Judith Ishkanian and Bob Williams.
Ann Edmonston
Montecito
Barrett’s the Best
I am encouraging Montecito residents to vote for Woody Barrett for the Montecito Sanitary District Board.
Woody has been my good friend and neighbor since 2001. For a number of years, we also shared an office in the upper village of Montecito. Woody is an experienced geologist who runs his own business. He is someone who can be counted on to help in any situation. I know that Woody will use his business acumen and scientific knowledge to help Montecito implement safe, cost-effective, and reliable water recycling. We would be lucky to have someone with his analytical skills, work ethic, and business experience sitting on our Sanitary District Board.
I plan to vote for Woody and urge you to vote for him as well.
William Korchinski
Montecito
The Harsh Truth
My grandmother use to say (translated from her native language, Montenegrin), ”Where water flows, life thrives.” As a former rancher in 93108, I learned the harsh truth of her wise words. The Montecito Water District failed us when we needed it. I’m not blaming them for the drought; it was their lack of knowledge hidden under big egos that derailed our hopes. The ladies who ran the district’s front office had a better comprehension of Montecito’s escalating water crisis than the board members.
Life moves on. Montecito residents have a second chance, a golden opportunity to ensure the future of a thriving life here in paradise. Bob Hazard knows what he’s talking about and is blessed with the strength to make Montecito great again.
Montenegro Royale
Montecito
Unhealthy Political Trend
What I have noticed over the last decade or two is the almost total concern of the voting public and media for the dominance of your selected political party being either Republican or Democrat, and to hell with what decisions are best for our country, your state, or your community. The dominance of your selected political party becomes paramount over all else.
Might it be healthier for our country if we all became more issue-oriented than just followers of the Democrat or Republican doctrine? The greatest country in the world deserves better care than what we are directing its way.
Larry Larsson
Santa Barbara
Badly Orchestrated
After witnessing the Supreme Court nomination and confirmation hearings for Judge Kavanaugh these last few weeks, I have reached one resounding conclusion: liberals will do absolutely anything to win. To hell with due process or even attempting to discern the truth; let’s string this guy up based on an uncorroborated allegation. Let’s find more unsubstantiated allegations to throw at him. Let’s blow this alleged victim’s cover and use this to our advantage.
Real sexual assault is a serious crime, and should not and will not be tolerated. The slippery slope of presuming guilt rather than innocence, disregard for due process and badgering the accused reeks of the Spanish Inquisition, the French Revolution, and the Nazis, not to mention the regimes in Honduras, Peru, and Venezuela. I was surprised there was no one in the Senate gallery crying out “guillotine!” On a comical note, it was ironically funny to hear Hillary Clinton’s input. On a sad note, the American Civil Liberties Union conveniently did a 180-degree turn on its long-standing policies.
Doesn’t nearly every school teach our children about bullying? Don’t schools have a strict policy against that behavior? The Senate has some strict rules regarding ethical conduct, but apparently these do not apply to everyone. This whole fiasco confirms the left’s blatant policy to pick and chose which rules and laws apply to them, and which they chose to disregard. This judicial hearing was orchestrated by the Left into a trial by public opinion.
It backfired.
Janis Grimont
Summerland
Standing Tall
Judge Kavanaugh’s ascension to the Supreme Court represents such a fine victory.
Over what?
Mamby-Pampyism.
And boy is it going around! I got shamed for asking for another cashier at a 99 Cent Store by a woman. I got screamed at by a young woman for looking at another woman’s thong at Butterfly Beach. The Montecito Library (all-woman staff) is kept so warm I can’t get in the place. For the 100th time I am forced to mention it, and I get booted out of all Santa Barbara libraries for a year. There’s a woman competitive bike rider who every morning taps my vehicle as she rides by. Hollywood has become unraveled by casting-couch turncoats.
Thank goodness there’s still men that will stand up against this nonsense.
Matt McLaughlin
Montecito
Who Pays for What?
Who votes? Who is taxed? And who is served by Montecito Water & Sewer? There are meaningless City boundary maps as relate to voting and taxation. Cold Spring serves both City and County residents, as do both Montecito Water and Sewer special districts. New area buyers report their realtors don’t get it right on listings or during sales process. Montecito Library doesn’t post a service and tax map for electorate. For the benefit of all area residents, staff at eight special districts should each identify by lot their customers both in City and County. Then let us all know who gets to vote for Montecito Water and/or Sewer, Fire, school boards.
Put an asterisk for served, two more asterisks if Vote and taxed. So, if both served and vote a lot has three asterisks. Two means the lot can only vote and is taxed. Put a CSS for Cold Spring and MUS. County Registrar allows voting if taxed in my specific area of Montecito: no service required.
Public and candidates need to know which Montecito water and sewer customers are allowed to vote regardless of whether residing in City or County residents. Realtors may want to get it right in West Montecito, Northeast Santa Barbara. Map of City boundaries is unrelated to source of water and/or sewer service, or school district.
In Montecito, off Barker Pass Road, we vote Montecito Water & Sewer. We are not Montecito Water or Sewer customers but we are taxed Montecito Sewer annually on property tax bill.
I am also taxed by City of SB, and served by City under 1908 Barker judgment, giving us first rights to water coming down Barker Pass Road. Santa Barbara City Charter prohibits County customers from voting. City taxes us without representation.
Do any Montecito special districts do the same? Or do all customers get to vote?
Simply, public and candidates need to know who is taxed, who votes, and who is double-taxed. I’ve been unable to get an answer for 31 years.
Denice S Adams
Montecito Vista
Unenumerate This
I appreciate Paulina Conn’s well-written respectful rebuttal to my “pay your own way” health care piece in a prior issue of MJ. However, Ms Conn misses the point when she suggests I believe “if you are unable to care for yourself you should die… et cetera.”
I hope to reply with equal respect: Ms Conn believes – as many well-meaning socialist ideologues – to quote Frederic Bastiat: “Every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.”
Paraphrasing Bastiat, if we, who recognize the power of the law and government, should be limited, object to socialized medicine, public schools, welfare, et cetera, then we must be against health care, education, and charity. Not true. We simply recognize these matters are for society at large, not through government decree and confiscatory policy.
Further on, Ms Conn, along with a likely majority of misinformed citizens and legislators (misinformed and/or duplicitous), misconstrues the meaning of the general welfare clause in the Constitution. Madison and Hamilton made clear in Federalist 41, and other papers, the powers of the government were limited to those enumerated (Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution). No mention of education, healthcare, or charity. In other words, those, or any other unenumerated tasks, should not be a function of the federal government.
John Bugler quotes James Madison: “James Madison, when asked if the “general welfare” clause was a grant of power, replied in 1792, in a letter to Henry Lee, [13]: “If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment [the Constitution] should be thrown into the fire at once.”
Joseph Sobran has noted: “Like so many things the Federalists said could never, ever happen, it happened. The “general welfare” clause is constantly abused in just the way the pessimists predicted. The federal government exceeds its enumerated powers whenever it can assert that other powers would be in the “general welfare.”
http://constitutionalawareness.org/genwelf.html
Walter Williams recently wrote: “President Grover Cleveland out-vetoed his predecessors by vetoing 584 acts of Congress, including many congressional spending bills, during his two terms as president in the late 1800s. His often-given veto message was, “I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution.” By the way, President Cleveland was a Democrat.
Moreover, because we should treat others as equals does not obligate us to be their keeper, as Ms Conn asserts. To do so would make everyone a slave to everyone else. In the context of being “civilized,” I ask what’s so “civilized” about using the force of the law/government to deprive others the fruit of their labor, to spend according to one’s own pleasure?
Ms Conn states free market health care financing does not work and is morally wrong. In reply, we long ago (maybe 1933-New Deal; 1940s wage and price controls, which led to employer health plans; and for sure 1964-65 Great Society, Medicare, Medicaid) abandoned a functional, affordable, free market in health care, as reflected by exploding costs and massive bureaucracy.
As to the services provided by police, fire, sanitation, water, et cetera, these are largely the function of local governments and have also been successfully, and often more economically, run by private entities. Moreover, please consider government’s culpability re Flint Michigan, Hurricane Katrina, Abu Gharib, Columbia Space Shuttle, flu vaccine shortage, Benghazi, Veterans hospitals, Enhanced interrogations, and the IRS targeting system. Need I mention the current corruption at DOJ, FBI, and CIA, or the never-ending war machine the DOD has seemingly become in the name of national security? How humane is all that?
Being a libertarian does not mean non-cooperation or survival of the fittest. It means recognizing the difference between the role of government and society. It means voluntary cooperation, not coerced brotherhood. There is nothing moral or uplifting about shifting individual responsibility onto society at large, which seems to be the socialist’s quest.
Ms Conn seems to believe the government can run an efficient health care insurance pool, to which everyone will gladly provide (or else). In the real world, Medicare does not cover everything for all time. There are monthly payments, sometimes-large deductibles, red tape, and no provision for long-term care. Some states may marginally provide that, but my question is: with mounting debts, entitlements, and expenditures all around, how long will this socialist delusion last?
Steve King
Carpinteria
