南昌双向情感障碍医院那个比较好-【南昌市第十二医院精神科】,南昌市第十二医院精神科,南昌幻觉那里治得好,南昌那里推测抑郁,南昌市看神经病专业在那,南昌治疗躁狂症那好,南昌哪个医院能诊疗忧郁症,南昌哪间医院精神心理学家好

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom broadly agree on a proposed 3 billion state budget that would spend more on immigrants and the poor by expanding tax credits, health care and child care.But they're still debating how far those program expansions should go and how best to pay for them.They're now in the final days of negotiations ahead of a June 15 deadline for lawmakers to approve the budget or stop getting paid.California law requires legislation to be in print for 72 hours before lawmakers take a vote, which means any deal would have to be struck by Wednesday.TAX CREDITNewsom wants to spend roughly 0 million to expand a tax credit program for low-income people with children under the age of 6. The program is known as the earned income tax credit, but Newsom prefers to call it a "cost-of-living refund."His plan would increase the credit to ,000 a year and allow more people to access it. He wants the state to pay it out on a monthly basis, something no state has won federal approval to do.He acknowledged it might not happen this year if California can't win approval from the Trump administration.The Senate and Assembly want to expand the credit even further by allowing people living in the country illegally to claim it. Newsom has suggested that would be too expensive.TAX LAW CHANGESTo pay for a tax credit expansion, Newsom wants California to adopt some of the changes to the federal tax code signed in 2017 by President Donald Trump. California is one of three states that haven't yet conformed.Newsom wants to generate about billion a year through changes that would mostly raise taxes on businesses. Lawmakers have not included the changes in their version of the budget and want to use existing tax dollars to cover the expanded program. State officials have predicted a surplus of .5 billion.Changing the tax code would require a two-thirds vote in each chamber, and many lawmakers are skittish to approve a tax increase.Newsom tried to ease those concerns by getting the head of the California Taxpayers Association to publicly declare his organization is neutral on the proposal.HEALTH CARE FOR IMMIGRANTSCalifornia Democrats say they want to reduce the state's uninsured rate to zero, a goal that would require opening Medicaid — the joint federal and state health insurance program for the poor and disabled — to people living in the country illegally.Newsom's proposal would do that for adults 19 to 25. The state Senate went a step further and expanded the plan to include people 65 and older.Newsom opposes the Senate plan, saying it puts too much pressure on the general fund.INDIVIDUAL MANDATENewsom wants to spend nearly 0 million to make California the first state to expand subsidies for premiums under the federal health care law to people who make at least six times the U.S. poverty level.That would make a family of four earning up to 0,600 a year eligible for help.To pay for it, Newsom wants to tax people who don't have health insurance.The Senate wants to double Newsom's proposed spending to expand subsidies for people making less than twice the federal poverty limit. They already get help from the federal government and the state Senate's proposal would also give them state dollars.The Senate proposal also calls for keeping the tax on the uninsured, but it does not tie that money to subsidies.HEALTH PROVIDER TAXA health provider tax would affect companies that manage the California Medicaid program. Those companies, called managed care organizations, pay a tax for every person they enroll.The tax could bring the state about .8 billion next year, but it's set to expire June 30.California would need permission from the Trump administration to extend the tax. Newsom is not sure that will happen, so he did not include the money in his budget proposal. The state Senate and Assembly did.DRINKING WATERActivists say more than 1 million Californians don't have clean drinking water.Newsom wants to impose a 95-cent tax on most monthly residential water bills, as well as fees on dairies, animal farms and fertilizer sellers, to help water districts pay for improvements and boost supplies.The Senate has rejected the tax that Newsom estimates would generate 4 million a year. The Senate does want to clean up water systems and would use existing money to do it.The Assembly says lawmakers should delay action until later in the year.DIAPER AND TAMPON TAXNewsom and the Senate want to exempt diapers, tampons and other menstrual hygiene products from the state sales tax for two years. Assembly lawmakers say the tax exemption should last a decade.PAID FAMILY LEAVENewsom and the Senate want to expand paid family leave from six weeks to eight weeks, beginning July 1, 2020. The Assembly did not put the expansion in its budget proposal, preferring to debate the issue later this year. 4911
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Lassen Volcanic National Park in northern California has temporarily banned overnight camping in some parts of its park after several interactions between campers and foraging bears. The decision was made to close down back-country camping in the Twin, Rainbow, Swan and Snag Lake areas after multiple visitors reported that bears had come to their campsites and searched their backpacks for food. The Sacramento Bee reported that the areas will remain open for hiking, but the park warns visitors to be careful. The National Park Service website said the policy will not only protect campers but “protect the bears by promoting the offending bear(s) to return to normal foraging behavior.” 724

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A California affiliate of the National Rifle Association has asked a U.S. judge to block a new law requiring background checks for anyone buying ammunition.The California Rifle & Pistol Association asked San Diego-based U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez to halt the checks and related restrictions on ammunition sales.Voters approved tightening California's already strict firearms laws in 2016. The restrictions took effect July 1.The gun owners' association challenged the ammunition background checks in a lawsuit filed last year and on Monday asked for an injunction, alleging it violates the Second Amendment right to bear arms.RELATED: New ammunition law requires background checksThe lawsuit has been joined by out-of-state ammunition sellers and California residents, including Kim Rhode, who has won six Olympic shooting medals and is trying to become the only person to win seven medals at seven consecutive Games."The scheme purports to funnel everyone seeking to exercise their Second Amendment right to acquire ammunition into a single, controlled source, an in-state licensed vendor, for the purpose of confirming purchasers' legal eligibility to possess ammunition and to keep track of all purchases," lawyer Sean Brady wrote. "While making sure dangerous people do not obtain weapons is a laudable goal for government, California's scheme goes too far and must be enjoined."The motion raised concerns about identification requirements and high rates of denials among ammunition buyers undergoing the new background checks. Moreover, the system blocks out-of-state ammunition vendors from the California market, the motion argues.RELATED: Study: Tougher gun laws lead to fewer firearm-related deaths among childrenThe judge is expected to decide in early August whether to order a halt, though any such decision is almost certain to be appealed.Benitez in October rejected the state's attempt to throw out the lawsuit. He allowed opponents to proceed on arguments that the ammunition restrictions impede interstate commerce and are pre-empted by federal law.The measure "criminalizes all of those (ammunition) transactions with merchants conducting business in other states," he wrote in a preliminary ruling that the restriction "significantly burdens interstate commerce."He also preliminarily supported the argument that the new state law conflicts with a federal law allowing gun owners to bring their firearms and ammunition through California.RELATED: Southern California town of Needles wants to be a sanctuary -- for gun ownersThe California law "criminalizes bringing ammunition into the state that was purchased or obtained outside the state," he wrote.Benitez earlier this year struck down California's nearly two-decade-old ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines. That triggered a week-long buying frenzy before he stopped sales while the state appeals his ruling.The impending ammunition background checks sparked a surge in sales as firearm owners sought to beat new requirements, including that dealers report the brand, type and amount of ammunition to the state Department of Justice.Gun owners who already are in the state's background check database would pay a fee each time they buy ammunition, while others can buy longer-term licenses if they do not have certain criminal convictions or mental health commitments.Gov. Gavin Newsom has criticized Benitez's lifting of the state's ban on magazines holding more than 10 bullets, saying he is confident it will be reinstated by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.Attorneys with San Francisco-based Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence anticipated that Benitez is likely to block the ammunition restrictions, but the law would eventually be upheld on appeal."Unfortunately this may be the one judge in the country" willing to rule that "people should be able to buy unlimited quantities of ammunition without background checks," staff attorney Ari Freilich, who directs the organization's California legislative affairs, said prior to the filing.Gun owner groups have been pinning their hopes on a more conservative U.S. Supreme Court. But the center's litigation director, Hannah Shearer, said there are unlikely to be the kind of conflicting lower court opinions that would prompt the justices to weigh in.She said courts have upheld ammunition licensing laws in other states and she expects the 9th Circuit would do likewise. 4465
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California will limit rent increases for some people over the next decade after Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law Tuesday aimed at combating a housing crisis in the nation's most populous state.Newsom signed the bill at an event in Oakland, an area where a recent report documented a 43% increase in homelessness over two years. Sudden rent increases are a contributing cause of the state's homeless problem, which has drawn national attention and the ire of Republican President Donald Trump."He wasn't wrong to highlight a vulnerability," Newsom said of Trump's criticisms to an audience of housing advocates in Oakland. "He's exploiting it. You're trying to solve it. That's the difference between you and the president of the United States."The law limits rent increases to 5% each year plus inflation until Jan. 1, 2030. It bans landlords from evicting people for no reason, meaning they could not kick people out so they can raise the rent for a new tenant. And while the law doesn't take effect until Jan. 1, it would apply to rent increases on or after March 15, 2019, to prevent landlords from raising rents just before the caps go into place.RELATED: San Diego's top neighborhoods to get more rental space for the moneyCalifornia and Oregon are now the only places that cap rent increases statewide. Oregon capped rents at 7% plus inflation earlier this year.California's rent cap is noteworthy because of its scale. The state has 17 million renters, and more than half of them spend at least 30% of their income on rent, according to a legislative analysis of the proposal.But California's new law has so many exceptions that it is estimated it will apply to 8 million of those 17 million renters, according to the office of Democratic Assemblyman David Chiu, who authored the bill Newsom signed.It would not apply to housing built within the last 15 years, a provision advocates hope will encourage developers to build more in a state that desperately needs it. It does not apply to single family homes, except those owned by corporations or real estate investment trusts. It does not cover duplexes where the owner lives in one of the units.RELATED: Making It In San Diego: How housing got so expensiveAnd it does not cover the 2 million people in California who already have rent control, which is a more restrictive set of limitations for landlords. Most of the state's largest cities, including Los Angeles, Oakland, and San Francisco, have some form of rent control. But a state law passed in 1995 bans any new rent control policies since that year.Last year, voters rejected a statewide ballot initiative that would have expanded rent control statewide. For most places in California, landlords can raise rent at any time and or any reason if they give notice in advance.That's what happened to Sasha Graham in 2014. She said her rent went up 150%. She found the money to pay it on time and in full, but her landlord evicted her anyway without giving a reason. She was homeless for the next three years, staying with friends, then friends of friends and then strangers."Sometimes I lived with no lights, sometimes I lived with no water, depending on who I was living with (because) they were also struggling," she said. "Sometimes I just had to use my money to go to a hotel room so I could finish my homework."Graham, who is now board president for the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, now lives in family housing at the University of California, Berkeley, where she is scheduled to graduate in May. She said the law, had it been in place, would have helped her.But Russell Lowery, executive director of the California Rental Housing Association, says the law adds an expensive eviction process that did not previously exist. He said that will encourage landlords to increase rents when they otherwise wouldn't."It adds unnecessary expenses to all rental home providers and makes it more difficult to sever a relationship with a problem tenant," he said. 4034
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California's Department of Motor Vehicles improperly disclosed private information to seven other government agencies on more than 3,000 people involved in some type of investigation as suspects or witnesses, officials said Tuesday.The department was sending letters Tuesday to the 3,200 people after determining that they are not currently being investigated.The department improperly gave federal, state and county agencies what were supposed to be internal notes, such as whether drivers' Social Security numbers had been checked to see if they were valid or falsified or if the individual was ineligible for a Social Security number.It sent information on more than 3,000 of the individuals to district attorneys in just two of California's 58 counties, San Diego and Santa Clara.Information on fewer than 200 people went to the federal Department of Homeland Security, including six records for immigrants who were in the country illegally but applied for or received special immigrant licenses.Officials said it was unclear if they were used to investigate the drivers' immigration status or for some other purpose.The remainder went to the Internal Revenue Service, inspector generals for the Social Security Administration and U.S. Small Business Administration, and the California Department of Health Care Services.The information could have been used in criminal, tax or child support investigations, including for witnesses in those inquiries, officials said.It's the latest in series of missteps by the DMV, which last year came under fire for long wait times and for potentially botching about 23,000 voter registrations under the state's "motor voter" law, which lets residents automatically register to vote through the DMV.Department spokeswoman Anita Gore said the DMV stopped making the improper disclosures in August after officials decided that they shouldn't have been giving other agencies the internal notes.She said it took the DMV three months to send the letters because it had to ask each of the seven agencies why they wanted the information, review four available years of records, make sure the 3,200 drivers were not being investigated to avoid tipping them off, and then draft individual letters to each driver. 2278
来源:资阳报