Letter: Newsom can’t handle the state of California, he will do a disastrous job running the country

• March 22, 2025

Reading Steve Greenhut’s article about Newsom’s podcast and his attempts for repositioning himself for a run for the Presidency, I am appalled by Newsom’s audacity.  Newsom’s terrible job as governor of California shocks me that he would even remotely consider a run for the presidency.

Then I read Susan Shelley’s article about the runaway costs and deceit of Medi-Cal.  Newsom’s administration initially budgeted $2-4 billion for Medi-Cal.  By mid 2024, the estimate reached $6 billion.  Yet, the Department of Finance admitted in a hearing that it was closer to $9.5 billion.  And why has this grown so much?  California, under Newsom’s leadership, has extended Medi-Cal to undocumented immigrants since 2015.  So now the Department of Finance has to borrow $3.4 billion to pay for these expenses.

These undocumented immigrants have access to healthcare benefits from prenatal through long term care. Two things to be concerned about.  We as taxpayers are paying for other people’s expenses, at an extremely high cost.  Two, what poor kind of fiscal management does Newsom practice?

He can’t handle the state of California, he will do a disastrous job running the country.

Newsom, you are being closely watched.  Stop your insane actions now.

He won’t get my vote, I hope he does not get yours, and I pray he does not get the nomination of the devastated Democratic Party.

Ellie S. MacMullin, Pasadena

​ Orange County Register 

A modest proposal: Legalize drugs, end gang warfare

• March 22, 2025

The big problem with our society is that we do not have enough gangs. Gangs are good. Gangs create jobs. Gangs stop petty thievery in their own neighborhoods. Did I mention that gangs are good? Young boys need role models. Who better to serve in this capacity that, you guessed it, gangsters.

So far we have gangs what produce heroin, cocaine, and fentanyl. This is all to the good. But we need more such.

I have a modest proposal. Let us now ban chocolate, along with all these other addictive drugs. Chocolate is pretty much as addictive as is any of these other addictive substances. I’m living proof of that. I can’t keep my mitts off of this foodstuff, and neither could Homer Simpson! Lots of people need their fixe of this delicious sweet concoction.

What will happen if my modest proposal is adopted? (This phrase is original with me; Jonathan Swift, Taylor Swift’s secret son, plagiarized this phrase from me). Will people obey this new law and stop eating this ingredient, cease and desist from mixing its powder with their milk, sprinkling it onto their ice-cream? You gotta be kidding. Fughedaboudit. If there is one thing we can rely upon in this vale of tears it is that people have to have their chocolate fix.

What, then, will occur? Who will supply this drug? Nestles? Hershey? Of course not. They will go broke immediately since they are law-abiding concerns, and its production is now illegal, if I have my way. They are not gangsters! The production of this substance will now be driven underground. Secret laboratories will produce it. Will they make it available to consumers? Of course. Who else? But it will not appear any longer in grocery stores and supermarkets. Rather, it will be sold on street corners in rough neighborhoods and in speakeasies.

The quality of this product will readily decrease. There will be “bathtub chocolate.” The costs and subsequent price will rise. But that is a small negative to endure. We’ve all gotta have our fix. Plus, the coffers of gangsters will rise. Have you forgotten so quickly that gangs are good? If so, reread from above.

Gang wars will of course break out. They will fight over chocolate turf. This, too, will keep the economy going. There will be a big boost in demand for guns and bullets. This will, in turn, help the lead and metal industries. Cemeteries, too, will do a land office business, not only with dead gangsters, but innocents too, caught in the cross fire. Undertakers will have a field day. The GDP will hit the roof. What moral, rational, person could oppose any of this?

The problem with marijuana is that it is not legalized in all too many states, and not just for medical purposes. There are even vaping establishments, forsooth. Is this any way to run an economy? Of course not. We must now re-prohibit pot.

The same goes for alcohol. Have we not learned anything from the end of prohibition? In the good old days we had bathtub gin, speakeasys, all sorts of great fun. Now the entire industry, I hate to say this in a family periodical such as this, if boring. Yes, boring! Let’s bring back a bit of life, ok, ok, death too, in the provision of beer, wine and liquor, say I.

It cannot be denied that if we legalized drugs, all of them, without any exception whatsoever, the cartels will turn more to other occupations, some of which they already engage in, such as kidnapping, murder for hire, etc. The gangsters are not exactly choir boys (but, remember, they are good!). But right now, under prohibition these are just mere sidelines. They specialize in drugs because that is where the big bucks are. Willie Sutton, the bank robber, was once asked why he targeted these establishments. “That’s where they keep the money” he replied (he also plagiarized this statement from yours truly).

In like manner, gangs focus on drugs because they have a comparative advantage in this field. Were this not the case, they would focus their attention elsewhere. We may deduce from this contrary to fact conditional that this is where they think the most profits lie.

So are you with me folks? Three cheers for chocolate prohibition.

Of course, there is the point that the prohibition of any of these consumers goods, any of them without exception, is a rights violation. Adults have a right to put into their bodies anything that they please. As for the purchase and sale of these items, chocolate included, is a “capitalist act between consenting adults, in the felicitous phrase of Robert Nozick, famous libertarian philosopher (he stole this concept from me in a bout of plagiarism). Such law also ought to give pause to those who favor democracy. For if we give everyone the vote we are acknowledging that they are rational beings. If we then prohibit them from drugging themselves, or from eating chocolate, we are denying this. If people are so stupid as to use these drugs, and eat chocolate, then, according to the logic of the argument, we ought not allow them within 100 miles of a ballot box.

Want to seriously reduce the power of drug gangs despite the benefits from them that accrue to us? (If you have again forgotten what these compensations are reread the above.) Legalize all drugs. This will drive them out of the drug business, as with booze and now marijuana, and put a big crimp in their other, less profitable, activities.

Walter E. Block is the Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and professor of Economics at Loyola University New Orleans.

​ Orange County Register 

Chihuahua mix PJ loves to play and learn

• March 22, 2025

Breed: Chihuahua mix

Age: 3 years

Sex: Neutered male

Size: 35 pounds

PJ’s story: PJ is an athletic boy who likes to play fetch and tug of war. He loves food and treats, which makes training easy and enjoyable for him. Games like finding hidden treats and puzzles are a delight for him. They also help build his confidence, which he needs. His ideal family would work with him to continue doing that. A fenced yard and another, well-adjusted dog would be ideal. When it’s time to relax, PJ wants belly rubs, then curls up under a blanket for a snooze. He prefers to be with you 24/7 and is observant and learns quickly. He knows sit, both paws, and stay and is working on place, break, heel and leave it. PJ is microchipped and up-to-date on vaccinations. His adoption fee is sponsored, so no cost for his adopters.

Adoption procedure: If you’re interested in meeting or adopting Star Bright, fill out the adoption application on Leashes of Love’s website. A phone interview, meet and greet and home check are required.

​ Orange County Register 

LA man gets 3 years in prison, $240,000 fine, for OC sober living kickback scheme

• March 22, 2025

A Hollywood Hills man was sentenced to three years and five months in federal prison on Friday, March 21 for paying illegal kickbacks for patient referrals to his Orange County addiction treatment facilities.

Casey Mahoney, 48, was convicted in Los Angeles federal court in September 2024 of one count of conspiracy, seven counts of illegal remunerations for patient referrals, and three counts of money laundering, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

Along with the prison term, the DOJ said, U.S. District Judge Josephine L. Staton fined Mahoney $240,000.

Mahoney was found to have paid nearly $2.9 million in illegal kickbacks to so-called body brokers who referred patients to his Orange County addiction treatment facilities, Healing Path Detox and Get Real Recovery Inc.

Those body brokers in turn paid thousands of dollars in cash to patients, which some patients used to purchase drugs, in order to induce them to attend treatment at Mahoney’s facilities.

Evidence presented during the nine-day trial in downtown Los Angeles showed Mahoney concealed the illegal kickbacks by entering into sham contracts with the body brokers which purportedly required fixed payments and prohibited payments based on the volume or value of the patient referrals.

In reality, the DOJ said, Mahoney and the brokers negotiated payments based on the patients’ insurance reimbursements and the number of days Mahoney was able to bill for treatment. Mahoney also laundered the proceeds of the conspiracy through payments to the mother of one of the body brokers, which Mahoney falsely characterized as consulting fees, the jury found.

Dept. of Justice: Orange County is now nation’s center for addiction fraud

​ Orange County Register 

Wenyuan Wu: A timely proposal to defund Minority Serving Institutions

• March 22, 2025

In California, 167 colleges and universities are certified “Minority Serving Institutions (MSI),” a federal program that rewards schools that enroll certain percentages of minority students with “in-kind services, volunteerism, diverse hiring, grants and contacts.” This represents nearly a quarter of all higher education institutions in the Golden State. 

The category of MSI includes Asian American and Pacific Islander Serving Institutions (AAPISIs) and Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs), but not Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) or Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs).

To be a HSI, a status governed by Executive Order 13555, a school must be accredited and have at least 25% full-time enrollment of Hispanic undergraduate students. AAPISI was established by Executive Order 13515 for the purpose of increasing Asian-American participation in federally funded programs. 

MSIs enjoy a federally bestowed advantage over non-MSI schools for having achieved demographically significant student bodies, even though the qualifying number of minority students may have vastly different individual backgrounds. For instance, some may come from wealthy, new immigrant families while others come from poverty perpetuated generationally. 

Without capturing individual-level nuances, MSI programs are unfairly instituted based on crude race and ethnicity considerations. 

Of the 167 MSIs in California, many are public universities governed under Proposition 209, which bans racial preferences in public education. Notably, of the 23 California State University campuses, 21 are touted as HSIs. The University of California system celebrates five of its nine undergraduate campuses as HSI-designated. These taxpayer-funded institutions use the federal MSI designation to claim exemptions from Prop. 209. They should not be allowed to do so.

Leaders of the American Civil Rights (ACR) Project– Professor Gail Heriot who is also my colleague at the Californians for Equal Rights Foundation, Mr. Peter Kirsanow who serves on the U.S. Civil Rights Commission alongside Professor Heriot, and Mr. Daniel Morenoff – are now challenging the constitutionality of MSI programs. 

In their letters to Congress, the trio addressed the U.S. House Budget Committee, House Committee on Education & Workforce and their Senate counterparts. The letters went in great detail to explain why these programs are “racially and ethnically discriminatory programs [that] shovel about a billion dollars annually,” of which Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs) are “the largest and best funded.” 

In turn, the ACR Project asks Congress to repeal these unconstitutional programs and “replace [them] with increased funding for a program that subsidizes colleges and universities that serve low-income students, or with programming to support the needs of actual English-language learners.”

The letters pointed to new model legislation developed by the ACR Project: “Enforcing the Law on Colorblind Admissions–Congress can stop unconstitutional discrimination and fund better alternatives.” Anchored on a purpose to hold the federal government accountable in following the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, the model legislation contains four constitutional alternatives to MSI programs:

1. Abolish MSI Programs and Enhance the Pell Grant Program. 
2. Abolish MSI Programs and Replace Them with Grants for Higher-Education Students Learning English.
3. Replace MSI Programs with Block Grants to the States. 
4. Replace MSI Programs with Sunset Block Grants to the States. 

Such proposals to amend the Higher Education Act and fund programs based on either economic/linguistic or state/local needs are sensible.

Not only does the race/ethnicity-based requirement (i.e. having a student body that is at least 25% Hispanic) fail to satisfy the longstanding constitutional doctrine of strict scrutiny, MSI programs are also not narrowly tailored to right past wrongs. Nor are these programs a justifiable “supplement to help schools whose students are struggling with English as a second language.”

To make matters worse, the lure of more federal funding, contracts and other favors has created a counterproductive, anti-excellence incentives for many schools, such as the UC San Diego and the University of San Diego, to become obsessed with racial balancing at the expense of academic standards, as detailed in the letters. 

The “Defund MSI” proposal is a necessary initiative for devising public policies to incentivize both equal treatment and merit-based government assistance for higher education. It is about time that we seriously confront the poison of race/ethno-centric policies/thinking. You can contact your congressional representatives and alert them to this important initiative.

Wenyuan Wu is executive director of Californians for Equal Rights Foundation

​ Orange County Register 

Medicaid recipients struggle to find mental health care. Looming cuts could make it harder

• March 22, 2025

By Shalina Chatlani, Stateline.org

Charmeka Newton, a psychologist who has her own practice in Lansing, Michigan, is passionate about serving Black and Hispanic patients. They’re often looking for therapists who will understand how their race, ethnicity and culture may affect them, she said, and she helps provide that care.

Medicaid is a major source of health care for people of color. But Newton can only afford to see a small number of Medicaid patients, because the program pays her so much less than commercial insurance.

Republicans in Congress are aiming to make extensive cuts to Medicaid, the joint federal-state health insurance program that covers a total of 72 million low-income people and people with disabilities, or 1 in 5 U.S. residents. If that happens, Newton and many other mental health providers worry that already-low Medicaid reimbursement rates will stagnate or even decline.

That would make it difficult for her to keep seeing Medicaid patients.

“Medicaid is probably one of the most challenging insurances to work with,” Newton told Stateline. “My biggest fear if cuts happen is that individuals won’t have access to providers that are able to help them.”

Already, there is a shortage of mental health care providers. About 122 million people, or about 35% of the U.S. population, are living in an area with a mental health care professional shortage, according to data from the federal Health Resources and Services Administration. If Medicaid reimbursement rates go down and more providers refuse to see those patients, the shortage would get worse.

Nationwide, Medicaid covers nearly 1 in 3 working-age adults who live with mental illness, or about 15 million adults, according to health policy research organization KFF.

The U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee, which oversees Medicaid, is looking for at least $880 billion in budget savings over the next decade, largely to pay for extensive tax cuts. A March 5 letter from the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan research arm of Congress, confirmed that a cut of that size would have to come from either Medicaid or Medicare, the insurance program for older adults.

President Donald Trump has said that Medicare is off the table, so that leaves Medicaid.

Lawmakers are considering numerous options, including shrinking the federal government’s share of the cost of covering people who became newly eligible for Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. If that happens, states that opted to expand to cover those residents — adults with incomes up to 138% of the federal poverty level — would have to either increase their own spending or find savings elsewhere.

That could mean removing some people from Medicaid rolls, eliminating coverage for certain services or reducing reimbursement rates — any one of which could reduce Medicaid recipients’ access to mental health care, said Stephen Gillaspy, director of health policy and health care financing at the American Psychological Association.

“Those [actions] would have a huge negative impact for behavioral health care,” Gillaspy told Stateline. “Everyone’s on pins and needles about the potential cuts right now.”

Variations across states, different challenges

In at least 15 states, more than 40% of people on Medicaid reported experiencing a mental illness, according to a KFF analysis of 2021-2022 survey data from the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

Republicans in Congress are still hammering out whether or how they might cut Medicaid. Chris Pope, a senior fellow at the conservative-leaning policy group the Manhattan Institute, told Stateline he doubts mental health services or reimbursement rates would be affected, because the largest sources of spending are acute and long-term care.

“From a fiscal point of view, mental health is basically a drop in the bucket. It’s not where the big savings are going to need to come from,” Pope said.

Medicaid reimbursement rates for mental health services vary dramatically from state to state. Reimbursement for an hourlong individual psychotherapy session ranged from $95 to $135 in 2022, according to a 2023 study published in the journal Health Affairs.

States generally have flexibility in setting their physician reimbursement rates. So “if states have money to increase reimbursement rates,” they can do that, Pope noted. And many states have done that. According to a January 2023 KFF report, nearly two-thirds of the 44 states that responded to a survey said they increased behavioral health reimbursement rates for some Medicaid enrollees in 2022 or planned to in 2023.

Oregon passed a bill during its 2022 session to raise the state’s Medicaid behavioral health reimbursement rates by an average of 30% for providers who mostly see Medicaid patients, in an effort to address mental health care workforce challenges. In 2022, the state had the fourth-highest rate for unmet need in mental health treatment across the nation. Now, the state has one of the highest reimbursement rates.

“In Oregon, they actually have always really committed to paying providers well and giving cost-of-living updates so that it makes it much more attractive to providers providing Medicaid services,” Jen Yerty, a licensed counselor in Portland, Oregon, told Stateline. But Yerty said the higher reimbursement rate is the bare minimum to keep providers interested. She said she helps her clients with case management, including assisting them with accessing social services and rental aid.

“It would be great if they would actually reimburse us more for all the case management things that we do. It would be great if they offer a lot more resources,” Yerty said.

But behavioral health services, such as a psychological test to assess mental health function, are not one of the federally required Medicaid services, like a primary care doctor visit.

Gillaspy, of the American Psychological Association, noted the level of services offered across states also varies. And case management and psychological testing are exactly the types of services that may be on the chopping block as states consider cuts, he said.

What states can and have done

Researchers at KFF point out four main ways states have been trying to address mental health workforce shortages for state Medicaid programs. They include increasing reimbursement rates, reducing administrative burden on providers, creating licensure compacts to allow providers to work across state lines or reducing licensure requirements, and incentivizing participation by, for example, reimbursing providers quickly.

Megan Cole, an associate professor of health policy at Boston University, told Stateline there are other options states could pursue, such as raising taxes to offset the federal cuts and keeping reimbursement rates high. She also said Medicaid can ask primary care providers to start integrating preventive mental health screenings and services before care becomes acute and requires an emergency room visit.

“There are models of care that work well in this space, and not every state is currently implementing them. So I think there is a lot of opportunity for expansion of some of these integrated care models,” Cole said.

Another option she recommends is for states to invest in community health centers, where a lot of patients on Medicaid see mental health providers.

Investment in public health facilities is also what Michigan Republican state Rep. Phil Green had sought when he cosponsored a bill with Democratic lawmakers in 2023 to increase reimbursement rates to community behavioral health clinics. But the bill died last year, likely because other issues took priority, he said.

Green told Stateline that mental health issues are a bipartisan issue. Green says lawmakers in his caucus, including some veterans, are well aware that mental health issues are a big concern within the population. “Republicans and conservatives alike realize that this is a growing issue and a growing need.”

He thinks that if the feds cut their contributions to Medicaid, state Republican lawmakers will still be interested in finding some solutions to the shortage of mental health care workers.

In California, the state in 2023 implemented changes to improve reimbursement for providers of Medicaid mental health and substance use disorder services through county behavioral health departments. The goal of the effort was to remove some of the common problems providers faced, including long delays in reimbursements and lengthy auditing processes.

David Hindman, a past president of the California Psychological Association, said the most important effect was to increase the rates of reimbursement to help meet the increased costs of providing care for Medicaid recipients. Hindman works for the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, but said he is not authorized to speak on behalf of the department.

“We’ve actually expanded services significantly,” Hindman said. “It’s completely incentivized provider agencies to see low-income patients because it gives them better reimbursement rates. It covers more things.”

Still, Hindman said, clinicians not working through county health departments who see a lot of Medicaid patients still struggle with making ends meet. And he says states will still have to explore solutions to the workforce shortage in the face of major federal funding cuts.

Stateline reporter Shalina Chatlani can be reached at schatlani@stateline.org.

©2025 States Newsroom. Visit at stateline.org. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

​ Orange County Register 

The good, bad and ugly of energy drinks

• March 22, 2025

March is National Caffeine Awareness Month, and as the name implies, awareness of our caffeine consumption should be on our radars. While there are proven health benefits of caffeine, the Food and Drug Administration recommends we keep our daily consumption of caffeine to 400 milligrams. Yet the rising popularity of energy drinks, which have the highest concentrations of caffeine of any beverage, have adverse health effects from overdrinking, especially among youths. (download full page)

ENERGY DRINK LIFE CYCLE

10 MINUTES: Once you consume an energy drink, the caffeine begins to enter your bloodstream, which increases your heart rate and blood pressure.

15-45 MINUTES: The caffeine level in your bloodstream reaches its peak causing you to feel more alert and more focused.

30-50 MINUTES: All of the caffeine is absorbed in the body. The high concentration of added sugars in the drink overload the liver, which can lead to liver disease with continued consumption.

1 HOUR: As the effects of the caffeine begin to die down, your body starts to experience a sugar crash, causing you to feel tired as energy levels decrease.

5-6 HOURS: This is the half-life of the caffeine in your body, meaning it is reduced to 50%. However, the half-life for caffeine in children and teenagers is significantly longer – which is why energy drinks can cause anxiety and behavioral problems with children.

12 HOURS: This is the time it takes for an adult to fully remove caffeine from their bloodstream. The speed at which this happens can depend on age, activity and weight of the individual.

12-24 HOURS: For those who consume caffeine or energy drinks on a regular basis, this is the time frame at which the individual can experience withdrawal symptoms, which include headaches, irritability and constipation.

7-12 DAYS: This is the time frame it takes to develop a tolerance to a regular dosage of caffeine. To feel the effects of caffeine, you’ll need to increase your consumption.

​ Orange County Register 

Nearly one-third of American adults now trust social media for financial advice: Why that’s a terrible idea

• March 22, 2025

By James Royal, Ph.D., Bankrate.com

Nearly one-third of American adults (30%) who looked for financial advice in 2023 turned to social media, according to Bankrate’s Financial Security Survey. Younger Americans are even more likely than the average to seek out financial advice from social media, potentially setting them off in the wrong direction during their crucial early saving years, when they could get a jump-start on building wealth.

While social media may be a popular way to access low-cost financial advice, it’s a terrible resource for a number of reasons — here’s why.

1. Financial advice often comes from non-experts

Anyone — literally anyone — can claim to be a financial expert on social media and offer advice as they try to attract an audience. Having a presence on social media and declaring yourself a financial expert doesn’t make it so, however.

“Social media is flooded with misinformation,” says Jeff Busch, financial adviser at Elysium Financial in South Jordan, Utah. “So-called experts typically lack education and credentials to give such advice.”

In some worst-case scenarios, so-called advisers may be telling you to do things that are a crime, setting you up for more expense and potentially more significant legal issues.

That’s why it’s vital to check the credentials of any social media personality, and working with a certified financial adviser can help you get good advice.

2. Financial advice may be self-serving

Financial advice from social media is apt to be self-serving, and “finfluencers” may be trying to sell you something that benefits them personally, rather than giving you quality advice.

“Most social media ‘advice’ is designed to hook you on fear or greed,” says Brad Clark, investment adviser representative and founder of Solomon Financial in Carmel, Indiana. “If it is one of those two, then it likely has an underlying reason for being shared. You are going to get sold something based on this fear or greed.”

So social media may try to show how rich you could become if you purchased the finfluencer’s cryptocurrency or if you bought their wealth-building system, which benefits them personally. Of course, they may also be touting legitimate financial products that give them a huge commission.

“If someone truly has a ‘get rich quick’ scheme that works, they would just do that and get rich and stop wasting their time trying to sell others on it,” says Clark.

3. Financial advice may not be tailored to your needs

Even if the financial advice on social media may sometimes be accurate, that doesn’t mean it’s the right advice for you specifically. Your specific financial circumstances are different from someone else’s, and you’ll need advice that fits your needs.

“When it comes to finances, what might work for a person may not work for someone else,” says Clark. “While it could even be good advice for some, it could be terrible advice for others.”

Busch agrees: “Goals, savings, debt, risk tolerance should all be taken into account, and each is different for each person.”

So with social media, you may end up with advice that’s suitable for someone, but not you.

Where to go for good financial advice

If you’re looking for good financial advice, it’s important to understand who’s providing it.

High-quality websites with credentialed writers and advisers

High-quality websites with credentialed writers or advisers can offer good financial advice. Sites such as Bankrate have experienced and often credentialed writers, including those with the certified financial planner (CFP) designation, who can offer valuable insight into financial issues. Such credentialed advisers can provide accurate financial advice that may work for you.

Despite these positives, many individuals have differing financial situations that may require custom advice. So they need to carefully assess whether they need more customized advice.

Fiduciary financial advisers

A fiduciary financial adviser — one who acts in your interest all the time — is the solution for those looking for the best advice. Your best bet here is to look for a fiduciary adviser who accepts only fee-paying clients. This setup means that you’ll need to pay for financial advice, but this pay structure offers the best opportunity to align the interests of your adviser with your own. If you’re not paying for financial advice, it may be because they’re really salespeople in disguise.

“Financial advisers who are fiduciaries bring a lot of value,” says Clark. “Their goal is to understand the client’s situation and then make recommendations to help them achieve their goals.”

“The key advantage to working with a financial adviser is receiving a customized financial plan,” says Busch. “A personalized plan allows an adviser to understand your personal goals and provide support along the way of your life.”

A well-aligned fiduciary adviser can help you make the financial decisions that make the most sense for your situation, and the best financial advisers can help you build wealth for the long term. Here are four of the most important tips to find a financial adviser who is aligned with you.

Bottom line

Those looking for the best financial advice tailored to their specific situation can turn to a top financial adviser aligned with their needs and steer clear of dubious advice on social media.

“You should exercise caution and take any information you find and consult with your own financial adviser,” says Busch. “It’s the safest way you can build a solid financial plan and avoid costly mistakes.”

Editorial disclaimer: All investors are advised to conduct their own independent research into investment strategies before making an investment decision. In addition, investors are advised that past investment product performance is no guarantee of future price appreciation.

©2025 Bankrate online. Visit Bankrate online at bankrate.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC. ©2025 Bankrate.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

​ Orange County Register