Mountain Views News          Saturday, June 18, 2011

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT

File No. 2011-032752

The following person(s) is (are) doing business 
as: S12 TRAINING 80 W. SIERRA MADRE 
BLVD., NO. 266, SIERRA MADRE, CA. 91024. 
Full name of registrant(s) is (are) SHARON 
CASEY CASSELL, 289 E. ALEGRIA, SIERRA 
MADRE, CA. 91024. This Business is conducted 
by:AN INDIVIDUAL. Signed: SHARON CASEY 
CASSELL. This statement was filed with the County 
Clerk of Los Angeles County on 05/18/2011. The 
registrant(s) has (have) commenced to transact 
business under the fictitious business name or names 
listed above on N/A. NOTICE- This Fictitious Name 
Statement expires five years from the date it was filed 
in the office of the County Clerk. A new Fictitious 
Business Name Statement must be filed prior to that 
date. The filing of this statement does not of itself 
authorize the use in this state of a Fictitious Business 
Name in violation of the rights of another under 
Federal, State, or common law (See section 14411 
et seq. Business and Professions Code)Publish: 
Mountain Views News 

Dates Pub: June 04, 11, 18, 25, 2011 

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT

File No. 2011-041929

The following person(s) is (are) doing business 
as: SIERRA BISTRO 120 W. SIERRA MADRE 
BLVD., SIERRA MADRE, CA. 91024. Full name of 
registrant(s) is (are) PACIFIC PANTRY, LLC., 320 
N. HALSTEAD ST., SUITE 140B, PASADENA, 
CA. 91104 This Business is conducted by:A 
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY. Signed: 
WILLIAM J. MAY. This statement was filed with the 
County Clerk of Los Angeles County on 06/02/2011. 
The registrant(s) has (have) commenced to transact 
business under the fictitious business name or names 
listed above on N/A. NOTICE- This Fictitious Name 
Statement expires five years from the date it was filed 
in the office of the County Clerk. A new Fictitious 
Business Name Statement must be filed prior to that 
date. The filing of this statement does not of itself 
authorize the use in this state of a Fictitious Business 
Name in violation of the rights of another under 
Federal, State, or common law (See section 14411 
et seq. Business and Professions Code)Publish: 
Mountain Views News 

Dates Pub: June 11, 18, 25, and July 2, 2011

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT

File No. 2011-041928

The following person(s) is (are) doing business as: 
MOTHER MOO CREAMERY 17 KERSTING 
COURT, SIERRA MADRE, CA. 91024 AND 
MOTHERCLUCK ARTISINAL JAMS, JELLIES 
AND PRESERVES, 17 KERSTING COURT, 
SIERRA MADRE, CA. 91024. Full name of 
registrant(s) is (are) MOTHERCLUCK, LLC., 
360 S. CARMELO AVENUE, PASADENA, CA. 
91107. This Business is conducted by:A LIMITED 
LIABILITY COMPANY, Signed: KAREN 
CLEMENS. This statement was filed with the 
County Clerk of Los Angeles County on 06/02/2011. 
The registrant(s) has (have) commenced to transact 
business under the fictitious business name or 
names listed above on 05/20/2011. NOTICE- This 
Fictitious Name Statement expires five years from 
the date it was filed in the office of the County Clerk. 
A new Fictitious Business Name Statement must be 
filed prior to that date. The filing of this statement 
does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a 
Fictitious Business Name in violation of the rights 
of another under Federal, State, or common law 
(See section 14411 et seq. Business and Professions 
Code)Publish: Mountain Views News 

Dates Pub: June 11, 18, 25, and July 2, 2011

13

LEFT TURN/RIGHT TURN

 Mountain Views News Saturday, June 18, 2011 

HOWARD Hays As I See It

GREG Welborn


The Healthcare Plan You Can’t Keep

It’s early to be getting into 
electoral politics, with eight 
months to go until the first 
primary.

I’m not even sure what 
district I’m voting in. I 
contacted the Citizens Redistricting 
Commission, 
charged with keeping communities 
together as one of 
its mandates, to ask about 
maps appearing to have 
lines running through the 
middle of Sierra Madre. I was told nothing more 
specific was available, but these were just initial 
drafts, anyway.

 I’m reasonably optimistic our Rep. David 
Dreier will find a more fitting line of work. As 
a corporate lobbyist, the 34th richest of 435 
House members (as per 2009 disclosures) could 
unashamedly serve the desires of fellow millionaires, 
without having to maintain the pretense of 
serving constituents.

It’s early, but I had to check out Monday’s debate 
between candidates for the Republican 
presidential nomination. In a televised debate, as 
in professional wrestling, there’s more primping 
for the cameras than actual combat. Rather than 
challenging each other, they instead went after 
someone who wasn’t there - President Obama.

It’s hard to resist tuning in to see someone who’s 
down with legalizing gay marriage, marijuana 
and prostitution, like Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), 
share the stage with those courting the Tea Party. 
Rep. Paul deftly engineered a telling expose of his 
opponents’ knowledge of foreign affairs, when he 
mentioned the border between Iraq and Afghanistan. 
Nobody on stage seemed aware there is no 
border between Iraq and Afghanistan.

Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) opened 
things up by declaring Pres. Obama “has put a 
stop sign on oil drilling”. According to the Dept. 
of Energy, domestic production is now up over 
5.5 million barrels a day - the highest it’s been 
since 2003, with analysts saying we’re on track to 
increase production 25% over the next five years.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich described 
the administration as “anti-jobs”. Last 
month’s report from the Congressional Budget 
Office states the stimulus bill, which Republicans 
unanimously opposed, added between 1.2 million 
and 3.3 million jobs in the first quarter of this 
year, and the unemployment rate would’ve been 
0.6 to 1.8 points higher without it.

Former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney charged Pres. 
Obama with having made the recession “worse, 
and longer”. The National Bureau of Economic 
Research declared the recession ended in June of 
2009 - six months after the president took office. 
Romney was unable to square the successful rescue 
and revival of U.S. auto manufacturing with 
his prior warning that with government intervention, 
“you can kiss the American automotive 
industry goodbye”, and his advice a couple years 
ago to “let Detroit go bankrupt.”

Romney pledged to repeal the Affordable Care 
Act, though a main feature, the requirement to 
purchase coverage or pay a tax penalty, was also 
central to his plan in Massachusetts. A difference, 
he pointed out, was that his state didn’t have 
to raise taxes to pay for it. They didn’t - while he 
was governor, but did after he left office in 2007.

He also promised to issue an executive order 
granting waivers to all 50 states allowing them 
to opt out of the ACA. That would be a tough 
promise to keep, since only Congress could grant 
them.

Neither Gingrich nor former Minn. Gov. Tim 
Pawlenty had much to say about their own prior 
support for individual mandates as a component 
of healthcare reform.

Pawlenty and Ron Paul both fret that Medicare 
is not currently solvent. Perhaps they could 
put their minds at ease by consulting the recent 
Trustees’ Report, which states the plan as it is now 
is fine through 2024, and thereafter could cover 
90% of its obligations.

Romney and Gingrich took off with the issue 
of privatization. To the residents of Joplin and 
throughout the storm-ravaged Mid-West, Romney 
suggested we turn the work of FEMA over to 
private contractors who can make a buck off the 
suffering. Gingrich wants to do away with NASA 
so we can have a “space program that works”. Too 
bad about those moon landings that didn’t work.

Herman Cain allows that government has a 
role to play in food safety, but urges the privatization 
of Social Security because “It’s going to be 
our grandkids in that wheelchair they’re throwing 
off the bridge.” He says he wouldn’t want 
Muslims who “are trying to kill us” serve in his 
administration. (I don’t think I would, either.)

Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) claims, “The 
CBO .... has said that Obamacare will kill 800,000 
jobs”. The estimate she referred to was that the 
one-half of one-percent of the workforce which 
holds jobs solely to maintain health coverage, for 
instance the 63-year-old who would’ve retired 
if not for having to wait two years to qualify for 
Medicare, might choose to leave that job and 
instead spend time with grandkids if there was 
coverage available under the Affordable Care Act.

Along with misunderstanding CBO findings, 
Bachmann seems confused by the concept of 
Constitutional supremacy. She promises not to 
“interfere with ... state laws” on gay marriage. 
She also supports a Constitutional amendment to 
ban it. But regardless of such an amendment, she 
“would not be going into the states to overturn 
their state law.” The Constitution, apparently, is 
there to provide optional guidelines.

Cain and Pawlenty both share Bachmann’s 
dismissal of the Constitution as being essentially 
non-binding. Asked whether he agreed all those 
born in the United States are citizens, as made 
clear in the Fourteenth Amendment, Cain responded, 
“I don’t think so”. Pawlenty claimed it 
was all the work of “liberal judges”.

Nobody came forward to challenge such a casual 
attitude towards the document they’d take an 
oath to “preserve, protect and defend”.

The loudest applause came when Romney announced 
the Bruins led 4-0 in the Stanley Cup 
play-offs. Notwithstanding the skill and strategy 
of hockey, those who tune in mostly want to see 
the players go and have at each other. 

There’s a great line in an old classic film about 
the realities of life which reminds me a lot of what 
we’re facing with Obamacare. In the movie, The 
Paper Chase, Charles Kingsfield, who is one of 
Harvard Law School’s most respected and feared 
professors, tells his assembled first year students, 
“look to the right of you; look to the left of you; by 
the end of this year, one of you won’t be here.” The 
resulting fear and panic is exactly what the professor 
wants and what the students need to convince 
them of the seriousness of what lies ahead. It’s too 
bad Professor Kingsfield wasn’t around to warn us 
all about Obamacare before it was voted in, because 
we’ve got about the same odds of keeping 
our healthcare plans as the students had of surviving 
their first year.

What largely escaped the gaze and notice of the 
mainstream press last week was the publication of 
a major McKinsey & Company study which concluded 
that upwards of 80 million Americans will 
lose their healthcare plans and be forced into the 
government’s program as Obamacare is phased in. 
That of course directly contradicts the president’s 
solemn promise that “if you like your healthcare 
plan, you can keep your healthcare plan”. If this 
were just one study, we might be justified in questioning 
the conclusion; after all, 80 million out of 
a total American population of 300 million is a 
whopping 26%. Unfortunately for the administration, 
it may well be that McKinsey & Company 
was actually taking it easy on Obama.

It turns out the McKinsey report is at least the 
fourth study which has documented and predicted 
staggering losses of coverage. In June of last year, 
the National Center for Policy Analysis concluded 
that employers would be forced to drop healthcare 
coverage on 87 to 117 million Americans because 
of Obamacare. That pushes the percentage up to 
39%. The other studies have all verified similar 
amounts and cited the same cause and effect.

It’s really a matter of simple economics – even 
simple math. In 2010, the average annual premium 
for a single worker was $5,049, and the 
employer typically picked up $4,150 of the cost. 
The average annual premium for a worker and his 
family was $13,770, and the employer picked up 
$9,773 of that. Under Obamacare, the amount 
of coverage is actually being increased, due to all 
the mandated procedures that have been thrown 
in, which will drive costs up. At the same time, 
Obamacare charges companies who drop coverage 
only $2,000 per worker. It really doesn’t take a 
rocket scientist or Nobel prize winning economist 
to figure out what decision will be made by companies 
facing a tough economy, tough market, or 
tough set of competitors who have the option of 
paying $2,000 per worker (if they drop healthcare 
insurance) or somewhere 
between $4,150 
and $9,773 per worker (if 
they offer healthcare insurance). 
They’re going 
to drop the coverage. You 
could even make a valid 
argument that companies 
in a good economy and 
market segment will still 
opt to save the money which they can use for additional 
product development and expansion.

The insidious nature of Obamacare is that it is 
both increasing the cost of medical coverage and 
driving more people into what will be second-
rate, government run insurance policies. Some 
commentators have argued that this is precisely 
the goal of the left, that they want Americans to 
have essentially equal coverage, and the best way 
to accomplish that is to force everyone into the 
same policy. We may never know the truth of 
their motives, but it’s pretty easy to figure out the 
truth in the projected results.

Sadly, the devastation doesn’t just stop with 
the degradation of healthcare coverage for 1/3rd 
of our population. Obamacare will cause a fiscal 
disaster which will make the current budget troubles 
look like a proverbial stroll in the park. At 
the time of its passage, the Congressional Budget 
Office estimated that Obamacare would cost the 
taxpayers $511 billion if 24 million people were 
pushed into the government plan. That means 
we’re really looking at somewhere between $1.7 
trillion (if “only” 80 million Americans lose traditional 
coverage) to $2.4 trillion (if upwards of 117 
million do). The U.S. has a $1 trillion dollar deficit 
now, and there is serious talk of our losing our 
credit rating and defaulting on our obligations. 
What in the world do we think will happen if that 
budget deficit gets pushed up by another trillion 
or two? The affect on the economy and employment 
will be devastating.

Perhaps in the final analysis, we’re all going to 
wish that Professor Kingsfield was right. If we 
walk out our front doors, look to our neighbors on 
the right and on the left and find that only 1/3rd of 
them have lost their healthcare coverage or their 
jobs, we’ll consider it a good thing in comparison. 
Then again, maybe we can all just admit what a 
disaster Obamacare is proving to be, repeal the 
whole thing and start all over again.

About the author: Gregory J. Welborn is a freelance 
writer and has spoken to several civic and religious 
organizations on cultural and moral issues. 
He lives in the Los Angeles area with his wife and 3 
children and is active in the community. He can be 
reached at gregwelborn@earthlink.net.

What’s On YOUR Mind? 

What D0 YOU Think? 

We’d like to hear from you! 

Contact us at: editor@mtnviewsnews.com or 

www.facebook.com/mountainviewsnews