宜宾膨体隆鼻手术宜宾医院脱毛一般多少钱,宜宾激光祛斑美容,宜宾那里做双眼皮做的好,宜宾埋线双眼皮手术图片,宜宾除眼袋整形哪家好,宜宾鼻头打玻尿酸会坏死,宜宾好的隆鼻机构

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 But 40% of the money has been withdrawn as cash, making it harder for researchers to know how it was used.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

Rudy Giuliani's assertion to CNN this week that President Donald Trump can't be indicted by the special counsel, and thus can't face a subpoena, banks on a series of internal Justice Department policies.The question to this day is untested in the court system. Yet the step-by-step process Robert Mueller or any special counsel could follow for a President under investigation has several possible outcomes.According to several legal experts, historical memos and court filings, this is how the Justice Department's decision-making on whether to indict a sitting president could play out:First, there must be suspicion or allegations of a crime. Did the President do something criminally wrong? If the answer is no, there would be no investigation.But if the answer is maybe, that puts federal investigators on the pursuit. If they find nothing, Justice Department guidelines say they'd still need to address their investigation in a report summarizing their findings.If there could be some meat to the allegations, the Justice Department would need to determine one of two things: Did the potentially criminal actions take place unrelated to or before to the presidency? Or was the President's executive branch power was crucial in the crime?That determination will come into play later, because Congress' power to impeach and remove a president from office was intended by the framers of the Constitution to remedy abuse of the office, legal scholars say.Perhaps, though, the special counsel decides there's enough evidence to prove that the President broke the law.That's where the Office of Legal Counsel opinions come in.In 1973 and 2000, the office, which defines Justice Department internal procedure, said an indictment of a sitting president would be too disruptive to the country. This opinion appears to be binding on the Justice Department's decision-making, though it's possible for Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to choose to override the opinion, give Mueller permission to ignore it and take it to court, or ask the office to reexamine the issue by writing a new opinion.This sort of legal briefing has been done before, like in the year after the 1973 opinion, when then-special prosecutor Leon Jaworski wrote a Watergate-era memo describing why the President should not be above the law.Of course, there's another immediate option if a special counsel finds the President did wrong. Prosecutors could use the "unindicted co-conspirator" approach. This would involve the special counsel's office indicting a group of conspirators, making clear the President was part of the conspiracy without bringing charges against him.At any time, in theory, a special counsel could decide to delay an indictment until the President leaves office -- so as not to interfere with the functioning of the executive branch. The other options would be to drop the case or send an impeachment referral to Congress. As evidenced by Mueller's actions previously in the investigations of Trump's personal attorney Michael Cohen and former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, any steps this special counsel takes will likely come with the full support of the acting attorney general on the matter, Rosenstein.The question of whether a President could be subpoenaed is a story for another day. 3303

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (KGTV) -- A California bill announced Wednesday would ban soda companies from offering coupons for any sugar-sweetened drinks. AB 764, introduced by Assemblymember Rob Bonta, a Democrat from Oakland, goes as far as to ban companies from offering any promotional incentive for sugar-sweetened beverages. In a statement, Bonta blames marketing practices used by soda manufacturers for contributing to a “public health epidemic of obesity and diabetes.”“Specifically, manufacturers subsidize the cost of sugary drinks, which substantially lowers their prices and increases their consumption particularly in low-income communities. Often times these practices result in soda being cheaper than bottled water," Bonta said. In a Facebook post, Bonta said several bills introduced Wednesday would also “provide revenue to offset the costs to our health care system from the overconsumption of sugar-laden sodas like Coke and Pepsi, and other sugary drinks.”“Seriously? This is what they choose to focus on,” one Facebook commenter said out of frustration. “This is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. This is America. We don't need politicians controlling what we drink or eat. Why stop there? Bread and potatoes and complex carbs are converted into simple sugar in the blood. Ban them too! Force everyone to go keto! SMH,” another comment of Facebook read. Though several people voiced concerns over the bill, many seemed supportive. “Good job Rob,” one Facebook comment read. The bill is co-sponsored by the California Medical Association and the California Dental Association. 1610

Roger Stone appeared on the InfoWars radio show the same day he sent an email claiming he dined with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange -- and he predicted "devastating" upcoming disclosures about the Clinton Foundation.Stone's comments in his August 4, 2016, appearance are the earliest known time he claimed to know of forthcoming WikiLeaks documents. A CNN KFile timeline shows that on August 10, 2016, Stone claimed to have "actually communicated with Julian Assange."The comments also raise more questions about what Stone knew about WikiLeaks and about the veracity of his claims to have been in contact with Assange, which he now denies.On the August 4, 2016, InfoWars show, Stone described the soon-to-appear WikiLeaks disclosures. He also mentioned that he spoke with then-Republican nominee Donald Trump on August 3 -- the day before the interview. InfoWars is a fringe media outlet run by Alex Jones, who is known for spreading conspiracy theories.Stone wrote to former Trump adviser Sam Nunberg on August 4, 2016, that he had dinner with Assange the night before, according to a source familiar with the email exchange. The email was first reported by the Wall Street Journal on Monday. The Journal also reported that special counsel Robert Mueller is examining the exchange.Stone has said the email about the dinner was sent in jest and that he has never met or spoken with Assange.Stone further discussed the dinner with Nunberg over the phone, this source said. In that conversation, Stone told Nunberg that forthcoming leaks would be about the Clinton Foundation.In the interview with Jones on InfoWars, Stone said that he believed Assange had proof of wrongdoing at the Clinton Foundation."The Clinton campaign narrative that the Russians favor Donald Trump and the Russians are leaking this information, this is inoculation because as you said earlier, they know what is coming and it is devastating," Stone said in the InfoWars interview. "Let's remember that their defense to all the Clinton Foundation scandals is not that 'we didn't do,' but 'you have no proof, yes but you have no proof.'""I think Julian Assange has that proof and I think he is going to furnish it for the American people," Stone said.In an email to CNN, Stone again denied meeting with Assange."Airline and credit card records establish that I flew on Jet Blue from NY to LA on August 1 and returned from LA to Miami on August 3. Credit card records show I stayed at the London hotel in West Hollywood on August 1st and 2nd. My passport shows I never left the country in 2016- never mind traveling to London. Even I have not perfected the ability to be two places at once," he wrote.Stone's statement matches what he said in the InfoWars interview in August 2016. He told Jones that had flown from Los Angeles to Miami that night.The-CNN-Wire 2840

Rolling Thunder, the annual event where hundreds of thousands of motorcyclists come to the nation's capitol to honor service members killed in action or taken as prisoners of war, will hold its last event in Washington next year.The last ride will be next Memorial Day weekend, on Sunday, May 26, 2019, a spokeswoman for the organizing group confirmed to CNN.Organizers said the costs of putting on the national ride have become prohibitive, with last year's event costing about 0,000 in various related expenses."It was a tough decision for us to make," spokeswoman Nancy Regg told CNN.Instead of the gathering at the nation's capital, there will be regional events organized by various chapters to honor those killed in action or who were prisoners of war, according to the group.Next year will mark the 32nd ride in Washington since the event was first held in 1988. Then-presidential candidate Donald Trump spoke at the gathering in 2016.The riders start at the Pentagon parking lot, ride over a bridge into DC, circle the National Mall and end by the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. 1103