伊宁怀孕24天不想要怎么办(伊宁市博爱女子医院好不好) (今日更新中)

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Prosecutors say California’s system for paying unemployment benefits is so dysfunctional that the state approved more than 0 million for at least 20,000 prisoners.On Tuesday, they detailed a scheme resulting in payouts in the names of well-known convicted murderers like Scott Peterson, who was sentenced to death after being found guilty of killing his pregnant wife. His death sentence has since been overturned and a court is reviewing his conviction.Sacramento County District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert said at least 158 claims were made for 133 death-row inmates, resulting in more than 0,000 in benefits paid.“It involves rapists and child molesters, human traffickers and other violent criminals in our state prisons,” said Schubert. “Hundreds of millions of dollars that may well amount to upwards to billion, having already been paid in their names.”Schubert said the scheme will be one of the biggest frauds of taxpayer dollars in California history.“And with this fraud means that victims that have been victimized by these inmates aren’t getting the restitution that they so deservedly have been owed,” said Schubert.So far, at least 22 people have been charged in San Mateo County, The Associated Press found. More charges could be forthcoming as several other investigations continue across the state.Prosecutors say the Employment Development Department has been overwhelmed by benefit claims since the pandemic began, and in its haste to approve them, didn't check unemployment claims against a list of prisoners.Gov. Gavin Newsom says he's already ordered the department to review its practices and act to prevent fraud.Watch Schubert and other prosecutors discuss the scheme below: 1745

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Californians soundly rejected a costly ballot measure Tuesday that would have allowed more rent control as a way to alleviate the state's housing crisis.Proposition 10 trailed by a roughly 30-point margin with nearly 4 million votes counted.It was one of the most expensive and contentious items on the ballot, attracting more than 0 million in campaign contributions.Opponents said the measure would have lowered real estate values and further decreased the state's already limited housing supply by discouraging building. Supporters argued more rent control would protect low-income people from being priced out of their homes.The failure of the measure preserves restrictions on rent control on apartments built after 1995, single-family homes and condominiums. It also preserves rules preventing cities and counties from telling landlords what they can charge new tenants.California has a disproportionately high rate of homelessness, and nearly a third of California renters spend more than half their income on rent, according to the state's housing agency.In light of their defeat, supporters called on Gov.-Elect Gavin Newsom to freeze rent increases and pressure lawmakers to repeal the restrictions Proposition 10 sought to end."The burden to act returns to the governor and the Legislature, who should work to represent Californians, not Wall Street landlords," said Christina Livingston, one of the leaders of the Proposition 10 campaign.Newsom opposed the measure, but said he would work to address the housing crisis.The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office predicted the initiative would have lowered the value of rental properties. Economic research generally shows that rent control benefits some individual renters but it limits supply overall and raises rents because it decreases incentives to build.RELATED CONTENT 1876

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The first data from an experiment in a California city where needy people get 0 a month from the government shows they spend most of it on things such as food, clothing and utility bills.The 18-month, privately funded program started in February and involves 125 people in Stockton. It is one of the few experiments testing the concept of “universal basic income,” an old idea getting new attention from Democrats seeking the 2020 presidential nomination.Stockton Mayor Michael Tubbs has committed to publicly releasing data throughout the experiment to win over skeptics and, he hopes, convince state lawmakers to implement the program statewide.“In this country we have an issue with associating people who are struggling economically and people of color with vices like drug use, alcohol use, gambling,” he said. “I thought it was important to illustrate folks aren’t using this money for things like that. They are using it for literal necessities.”But critics say the experiment likely won’t provide useful information from a social science perspective given its limited size and duration.Matt Zwolinski, director of the Center for Ethics, Economics and Public Policy at the University of San Diego, said people aren’t likely to change their behavior if they know the money they are getting will stop after a year and a half. That’s one reason why he says the experiment is “really more about story telling than it is about social science.”Plus, he said previous studies have shown people don’t spend the money on frivolous things.“What you get out of a program like this is some fairly compelling anecdotes from people,” he said. “That makes for good public relations if you are trying to drum up interest in a basic income program, but it doesn’t really tell you much about what a basic income program would do if implemented on a long-term and large-scale basis.”The researchers overseeing the program, Stacia Martin-West at the University of Tennessee and Amy Castro Baker at the University of Pennsylvania, said their goal is not to see if people change their behavior, but to measure how the money impacts their physical and mental health. That data will be released later.People in the program get 0 each month on a debit card, which helps researchers track their spending. But 40% of the money has been withdrawn as cash, making it harder for researchers to know how it was used. They fill in the gaps by asking people how they spent it.Since February, when the program began, people receiving the money have on average spent nearly 40% of it on food. About 24% went to sales and merchandise, which include places like Walmart and discount dollar stores that also sell groceries. Just over 11% went to utility bills, while more than 9% went to auto repairs and fuel.The rest of the money went to services, medical expenses, insurance, self-care and recreation, transportation, education and donations.Of the participants, 43% are working full or part time while 2% are unemployed and not looking for work. Another 8% are retired, while 20% are disabled and 10% stay home to care for children or an aging parent.“People are using the money in ways that give them dignity or that gives their kids dignity,” Castro-Baker said, noting participants have reported spending the money to send their children to prom, pay for dental work and buy birthday cakes.Zhona Everett, 48, and her husband are among the recipients. When the experiment started she was unemployed and her husband was making 0 a day as a truck driver. They were always late paying their bills, and the pressure caused problems with their marriage.Once she got the money, Everett set it up to automatically pay bills for her electricity, car insurance and TV. She’s also paid off her wedding ring, donates a month to her church and still has some left over for an occasional date night with her husband.She said she and her husband now both have jobs working at the Tesla plant in Fremont.“I think people should have more of an open mind about what the program is about and shouldn’t be so critical about it,” she said. 4140

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (KGTV) -- As Californias head out to vote, many important propositions and measures are on the ballot this November.One of those initiatives is Proposition 16.If approved, Prop 16 would repeal Proposition 209 from the state constitution which, according to BallotPedia, banned the use of affirmative action involving sex or race-based preferences.Those in support of Proposition 16 argue that it takes a step toward “dismantling structural racism and sexism.”Meanwhile, those opposed to the proposition point to Prop 209 as to why voters should mark "no" on the ballot. “The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin, in the operation of public employment, public education, and public contracting,” the website states in reference to a passage from Prop 209.See what a vote for or against Proposition means below, according to the state's voter guide:YES: A YES vote on this measure means: State and local entities could consider race, sex, color, ethnicity, and national origin in public education, public employment, and public contracting to the extent allowed under federal and state law.NO: A NO vote on this measure means: The current ban on the consideration of race, sex, color, ethnicity, and national origin in public education, public employment, and public contracting would remain in effect. 1452

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A California judge has thrown out a 2016 state law allowing the terminally ill to end their lives, ruling it was unconstitutionally approved by the Legislature.Lawyers for advocates and opponents say Riverside County Superior Court Judge Daniel Ottolia did not rule on the legality of physician-assisted death. He issued an oral ruling Tuesday saying lawmakers acted illegally in passing the law during a special session devoted to other topics.Ottolia kept the law in place and gave the state attorney general five days to appeal.RELATED:  579

来源：资阳报