Conservative hostility to Dodd-Frank continues unabated - LA Times

Michael Hiltzik described the battle to block or change the Dodd-Frank law which attempts to prevent another bank meltdown (too big to fail) and need for resulting governmental bail out.

Conservative hostility to Dodd-Frank continues unabated - LA Times:

The reason we had the financial melt-down in 2007 was because the financial industry and their many well taken care of politicians in congress and senate refused to put the type of mortgage-backed securities under some sort of regulation.  The Dodd Frank bill was an attempt to close some of the many loopholes in banking regulation.  It passed mostly along party lines, and now the Republicans would like to gut the law any way they can.  I'm not sure the bill does everything that is needed.  Also, I'm sure that the industry will come up with some new, creative way of sidestepping the law and will create some new "bubble."  However this is the best we have now--and sadly, the Republicans have not come up with anything better.

As an investor, I want confidence that the investments I make are property represented and the executives involved are ethical.  I think most investors are still on the sidelines because of the fear that another meltdown might occur.  Passing some tighter rules for financial controls and disclosure seems to be a very minimal step toward improving the confidence of the investing public.

'Black sites' ruling a rebuke to Poland, the CIA and torture

The Sunday LA Times had an Op-Ed by Joseph Margulies about the recent decision by the European Court of Human Rights against Poland for participating in the "rendition" of Abu Zubaydah done by the US CIA.  This case, of course, is just one of many renditions done in many different countries, however it is one that has now had a very thorough review by a court.

'Black sites' ruling a rebuke to Poland, the CIA and torture - LA Times:

When it was going on, I thought George Bush and Cheney were wrong for allowing or causing it to be done.  It is clear that they, and the CIA knew it was wrong.  They went through extensive processes to hide what they were doing.  This sets a terrible example.  Now we are thumbing our noses at an international court, that Americans might need in the future if atrocities are committed against us. US enemies are now justified in torturing US soldiers because they can say with certainty that the US tortures their enemies.

Was Poland really "guilty?" in this case?  -- or did the US bribe Poland in some way to get permission to do the torture on Polish land?  It is clear to me, the US was the guilty party.  The US citizens involved with it would have also known that what they were doing was against US and international law, and that they are permitted, under US law to refuse to perform an act they thought was illegal.  So therefore, they, as individuals are also guilty of a crime.

I can sort of see a situation like depicted on the TV series "24" where a bomb is about to be detonated in hours and we need information to defuse the bomb and save millions of lives.  However torturing people weeks, months or years after capture seems like nothing but revenge, or the product of a sick mind!  Apparently there was very little useful information obtained from any of the torture performed.   I do believe it is time to expose the CIA's "dark side".  The participants need to be brought to some sort of justice.  Maybe they don't deserve prison, but they should be rebuked, fired, or at least not promoted!  Although I'd suspect that a lot of them are already in higher grades of public service.

I think I'd like to read the US Senate Intelligence Committee's report on the rendition if it is released by the administration.  However I think it might be very tedious reading, since it is 6200 words, and it may have so much redaction that it might make it impossible to make sense of.  I can understand why the Republicans might want to keep the document  under wraps, because it certainly puts them in a bad light.  The Bush administration did it on its own, and didn't get approval of Congress.  In a time of war, a Government might be given some leeway --but this was far in excess of what I think was necessary in the situation.

Optimizing Social Security Benefits

The Wall Street Journal had an article by Anne Turgeson that was published in this Sunday's San Diego Union Tribune  Free Tools for Optimizing Social Security Benefits - WSJ:
It is basically a review of various online tools that people can use to help them make the all-important, once-in-a-lifetime decision of when to start collecting social security. The decision to start social security is not only complex, it is also complicated selecting a tool to assist in making the decision.  Anne Turgeson's article helps! There are a lot of other online advice columns to help people make the decision:

• Forbes Magazine: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/1112/092.html
• 2012 article by Morningstar: http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=343180
• 2012 article by "Market Watch" http://www.marketwatch.com/story/social-security-claiming-tricks-to-maximize-payout-2012-10-18 It includes options such as "file and suspend" etc.

We only get to do this once in our life, and don't generally get "do-overs" --(although there are some specialized cases where it can be done). The decision involves assessment of our own health and longevity, our spouse's health and longevity and the concept of present value, or time value of money. Also in the back of people's mind when they make this decision is the politics behind social security: Will it be there when I need it? Or will right-wingers take over Congress and the Presidency and "cancel" or "phase out" social security? They have presented several arguments in the past to replace social security with private programs, which might have been a good idea, but is hard to do when so many depend upon it now. Yes, of course nobody would "cut off" payments.  However if it were privatized, as more and more people are under the private system, there would be a fear that congress would keep payments up with inflation.    Inflation is a big concern. If we enter an era where inflation is rampant, will congress have the will to keep social security payments adjusted for inflation? It would be very tempting to increase the payments at a rate slower than inflation, which would have the effect of reducing recipients income, and reducing a governmental budget deficit.
On top of all of this, there are many arcane rules that complicate filing for social security, many of which are not clearly documented. For example, if your birthday is on the first day of the month, you have to file two months prior to the date you want to start.   Some of the rules are in contention--in that either the President or Congress would like to change the rules (generally to save money, or "close a loophole")  What happens if we make our decision, or plan, and then the rules change?
Why does it need to be so complicated?  I believe the decision is too complicated for most Americans to make a good decision to optimize their return from Social Security.  The difference can be amazing!  This article points out that even the experts who create these online tools don't do as good of a job as many of us might need to make the best decision.  It is also very difficult to get the best answer from the SSA staff at local offices.  It is hard to get an appointment, and the tools they currently use have some limitations. Divorces and remarriage also severely complicates determination of how much can be earned based upon a spouses earnings under the various options.
I have a Master's degree that focused on good financial decision-making, and I now think maybe my wife and I didn't make the optimum decision.  I have subscribed to the American Association of Individual Investors bulletin (AAII) for many years, and it has had expert explanations of various alternatives, but we still missed at least one opportunity to improve upon our total social security benefit.  If I couldn't make the best decision, I have the feeling that a LOT of Americans will make the incorrect decision.  How many read AAII publications, the Wall Street Journal, or look for online calculators when making the decision.
One of my well educated close relatives who had been in questionable health made her decision to start social security too late, and only collected for a little more than a year before she died  While another well educated one in excellent health decided to start collecting significantly reduced amount at age 62, even though she didn't need the money.  Her rationale was simply: "I may drop dead tomorrow, and who knows if social security will still be paying in a few years!"
When we receive our social security statements, they are personalized for our own benefits.  The SSA system knows we are married, and it knows our spouses earnings and SSA benefits.  It seems to me that SSA could provide both spouses with the various options for when to start based upon our ages, our lifetime earnings and when we decide to start.  The complicated options of "file and suspend" and "collect and then payback" probably don't need to be included.  In fact, it seems that those types of options should only be permitted in very special cases, such as several medical situations. Even if the SSA statements don't include that information, it seems that the SSA website could have a way of handling "joint" situations.

If the FCC is going to kill net neutrality, it'll have to get through you and me first | Dan Gillmor | Comment is free | theguardian.com

Dan Gillmore of "The Guardian" posted a good article today.

If the FCC is going to kill net neutrality, it'll have to get through you and me first | Dan Gillmor || 

There appears to be a LOT of opposition to the Cable Company proposal to have "fast lanes" for some internet providers.  However the FCC has a bias toward industry.

Dan point out that we all need to question our representatives to make sure we know where they stand on this very important issue.

The problem with "fast lanes" --is that everyone else goes into the "slow lane"

I would agree to a concept of fast vs slow lanes as long as the internet providers were required to divest from all other businesses, and make all arrangements for fast lanes be public -- sort of like a public utility.  There was an error made in the past that excludes internet from being considered a utility.  It isn't clear why internet wouldn't be a utility, when phone is a utility.  Most people are getting away from wired phones, so the phone "utility" is dying at the same time that internet usage continues to grow.

Seawall battle lands in appeals court | UTSanDiego.com Mobile

The California Coastal Commission is trying to prevent Encinitas oceanfront homeowners from protecting their home by building a sea wall.  They also want to prevent those owners from being able to access the beach with their staircase.  Even if they issue a permit to allow coastal owners to rebuild their seawalls or staircases, they try to limit the "permit" to 20 years.  That way, after 20 years, the Commission can try again to extract additional concessions from the owners.  There are many individual homeowners along the coastline. There are also many condominium complexes with homeowner associations who are also struggling to protect their properties from rising seas and find they have to fight the Coastal Commission to do so.

This Encinitas court case (Lynch vs. California Coastal Commission)  has gone on for many years and now is being appealed by Paul Beard of the Pacific Legal Foundation--as described by Teri Figueroa in today's Union Tribune:. Seawall battle lands in appeals court | UTSanDiego.com Mobile:  Here is more from the LA Times. The Commission lost in a lower court and is taking a seawall case to the 4th District Court of Appeals.  A victory for the homeowners in this appeal could help set some precedent for future situations like this.  It seems to me that there have been several US Supreme court rulings as well as California State Supreme Court decisions that should contribute to this appeals court decision in defense of the homeowners.

I'm not sure where the Coastal Commission got the idea that their mission is to prevent people from building sea walls or staircases. I don't believe that was the intent of the California citizens. My understanding of Proposition 20 that we California voters approved in 1972 was to establish a commission that would improve access to the beaches and coastline for all Californians.  I think Peter Douglas wrote in some general-type words into both the Proposition and the Coastal Act of 1976 that then allowed him to stretch the original intent of the law to include such things as low income housing, protection of endangered species, and defining the aesthetic appearance of the coastline.  Since he ruled the Commission from the 1972s until November 2011 when he retired, he was able to set an agenda for the staff that will be difficult for  the part-time commissioners to change.

It is interesting that the Commission tries to block staircases as access to the beach -- when their job is to improve access.  The obvious solution to the staircase issue is for the Commission to establish some engineering standards for staircase construction that would be safe, easy to maintain and attractive.  Then, the Commission should encourage staircases to be built --but all of them must be open to the public during a reasonable amount of hours during the day.  Of course, the Commission would then need to indemnify the homeowner for liability against lawsuits from users of the staircase. To do that, the Commission would  need to insure that the staircases were, in fact, built to their standards, and perform inspections of the staircase from time-to-time.

The commission's budget and staff has been cut, but the commission continues to try to expand their authority and "power" beyond the original intent of the public.  It seems to me that the Commission could do a lot of good if they would focus on their main mission and cut back on issues that are beyond their original mission, or out on the "fringes" of their mission.

If you like Uber, you would've loved the jitney - Los Angeles Times

This op-ed by Matthew Mitchell and Michael Farren in the Sunday Los Angeles Times shows that maybe history does repeat itself.  If you like Uber, you would've loved the jitney - Los Angeles Times:  It sounds like the resistance that ride-sharing services Uber, Lyft and Sidecar apps are getting is very similar to the resistance that the Jitney services received 100 years ago that killed off those services. --They were regulated out of existence!

Like the Jitney services, these ride-sharing services are popular with the users.  However the competition for those businesses used the government and regulation to kill off the competition so they could continue to have a monopoly.

The main opposition to Uber, Lyft and Sidecar is obviously coming from the cab companies who have a very tight relationship with most of the governing bodies.  They make huge donations to politicians who support them and spend heavy on lobbying.  They also arrange to pay extra taxes to the City, so eventually the cities depend upon that revenue.  Regulation of cab companies is also somewhat corrupt.  For example it appears that cabs get higher rates for pick-ups at airports, even though airport pickups are probably the easiest for them to do, since they have lots of drop-offs and pickups at the same spot.  The enlightened regulators also go out of their way to restrict competition at the airport to allow the cab companies to gouge even more.  It seems to me that regulators would try to force the companies to discount rates at airports so cab companies would work harder to provide service to less popular areas --but political graft and city profit generally cloud their judgment.



I sympathize with cab drivers situation.  Their job is difficult, lonely and frustrating.  However, because of monopoly pricing, their companies have not adopted the latest technology.  Because of that,  in general cabs and drivers are not employed in an optimally efficient manner.  Some cabbies can wait in cab lines for hours for a fare. A terrible waste of labor and equipment!   It appears that in just a few years, we may have "driverless cabs" so the issue may be moot.  Cab driver jobs may be phased out and allow that large section of the labor force to be redeployed to jobs that are more productive for society.  Of course that may require more education, training and opportunities.

Corporations, 'artificial people' and the unintended risks of Hobby Lobby | Money | theguardian.com

I think the SCOTUS decisions on Hobby Lobby and Citizens United cases are very bad precedent. This article in the Guardian makes a good argument against it.

Corporations, 'artificial people' and the unintended risks of Hobby Lobby | Money | theguardian.com:

I'm afraid that this new "loophole" that the court has opened will become a larger "tear" in the fabric of our legal framework. We might have had a different result from the Supreme Court if the so-called religious 'freedom" they were protecting was a Muslim freedom rather than a supposed Christian principle. For example, will this decision now allow a corporation to require their employees to follow Sharia law?
Throughout history every time religion and politics get mixed together there have been problems such as Genocide, torture,or massive ignorance (Middle ages).The founders of the United States understood that, and tried very hard to keep religion separate from government.

Al Lewis (Al's Emporium Column) wrote an editorial for the Wall Street Journal that was also published in the San Diego Union Tribune. 
http://online.wsj.com/articles/al-lewis-questions-the-hobby-lobby-ruling-1404606315 
 Al also believes that this latest ruling is a "slippery slope" and that corporations provide a shield behind which bad businessmen can hide.  Yes corporations can be fined, but, as he says, it is pretty hard to execute a corporation, or put one in jail. 

It is also not clear to me how either the Hobby Lobby or Citizen's United rulings affect international corporations or foreign corporations.  Can a foreign "closely held" corporation opt out of certain medical provisions?  Can an international corporation contribute funds to political campaigns?