Louis Marinelli has received support in Russia from a far-right nationalist group that wants to break up the United States. Former intelligence officials say that association raises serious questions about his intent.
He's the leader of the Yes California campaign, also dubbed Calexit. Marinelli is an American who lives in Russia, but his movement is getting a lot of attention stateside.
We reached out to the FBI to see if Marinelli was under investigation, but the wouldn't comment.
The university had previously announced Wednesday that it was canceling Coulter’s appearance following several political protests in Berkeley that turned violent. But on Thursday, the university said it had found a venue where it could hold the speech on a different day, May 2, instead of the original April 27 date.
Coulter and the group arranging her event said they are rejecting the new invitation.
In a series of tweets Thursday night, Coulter criticized the university, saying Berkeley officials were adding “burdensome” conditions to her speech. She said she had already spent money to hold the event on the original April 27 date and is not available May 2. She also pointed out that May 2 would coincide with a reading period before final exams, when there are no classes on campus and a fewer students around.
Lara and Atkins had described the bill as a work in progress when it passed the Senate earlier this month without a funding plan. A legislative analysis pegged the cost at $400 billion.
Alan wrote:No, that sounds too high. A little googling turns up this, with 2009 figures. It pegs health care spending in the state at around 12% of GDP. Current Calif. GDP, according to google is around $2.6 trillion, so that puts current health care spending at say $312 billion. Then, you have to subtract federal reimbursement for medicare and medi-cal, which the link pegs at 39% of the spending. That leaves 60%, say $180 billion, which would have to be made up by people's direct contributions, business direct contributions, and new and old state taxes.
But I will guess however you do the math, it would require significant state tax hikes. It sounds like a juvenile effort so far. I will guess they will revisit it once the feds settle on the medicaid (= medi-cal) reimbursement, the fall-out of the revision to ObamaCare become clearer, and there is a new federal tax policy in place.
ppauper wrote:But health insurance premiums paid by individuals and companies would go to zero. Most insured people would see a net increase in disposable income, some uninsured people would see a decrease in disposable income, and -- depending on the exact nature of the tax -- some high-wealth individuals might see a significant decline in disposable income.if your figure of $180B is correct rather than the $400B quoted in the article, even that is roughly double the current state budget, so taxes would have to triple