National Guard Reenlistment Bonus Clawback - Major Injustice

I just read in today’s LA Times (article by David Cloud) that the US Army National Guard is clawing back reenlistment bonuses that were paid out years ago as part a fraud.  I believe this is a total miscarriage of justice and could impact future recruitment and may increase future military labor cost.  Congress has the power to correct the problem and should do so quickly. I have written Darrell Issa and Dianne Feinstein asking them to take action.

As a retired USAF Colonel, I understand the importance of recruiting bonuses, and the tough decisions made by enlistees.  My 18 yr old granddaughter just signed up with the National Guard in response to generous bonuses offered.  How does she know if 10 years from now, the Government could try to claw back that money from her?  By clawing back those paid bonuses, the trust in Government bonuses could be reduced, and the salaries (and bonuses) required in the future to retain a quality force will increase as a result.  

When a soldier makes the often gut-wrenching decision to reenlist, a bonus is a key part of that decision.  Is the bonus being offered large enough to provide compensation for the expected years of hardship, family separation, and a chance of being killed or wounded in action? The soldiers who accepted the bonuses in question did so good faith when signing on.   In most “refund” situations, some product is returned in exchange for cash.  In this case, the soldiers are being forced to repay money received, but will NEVER get back the years of service they provided to the country.  

I believe it is necessary to prosecute, penalize, and obtain restitution from officers and recruiters who knowingly earned bonuses fraudulently.  It is totally unfair to force the victims to repay their bonuses. Congress should clearly state that the intent, in this situation, is to penalize those who knowingly committed fraud and not the victim enlistees!

Maybe the loss of religion isn't really the cause of our modern problems?

I've often been irritated when some of the religious right-wingers complain that many of our problems are due to the loss of religious beliefs.  Some say that if we had more prayer in schools, the kids would be better students, or have less violence.  They never seem to have any evidence for their assertions.
There was an opinion piece in the November 1, 2015 Los Angeles Times by Phil Zuckerman titled "Don't blame secularism for modern society's ills" that refuted those right wing statements.  He pointed out that the countries of the world with the highest "secularism" also have the highest rates of violence.  Likewise the US states that have the highest amounts of religious followers also have higher rates of violent crime and other indicators of "helping our neighbors"..
Throughout world history, it seems that more people have been killed or tortured due in some part to belief in some religion.  It is hard to imagine how different sects of Christianity could kill each other as they did during the battles between Catholics and Protestants.  Even more difficult to comprehend the violent hatred between Shiite and Sunni Muslims. It only points out to me that as a nation, and as a member of the world society we need to do everything we can to keep religion and government politics separate with a clear "firewall" between them.  Religious organizations should be prohibited from participating or advocating politicians or governmental positions.  Governments should be restricted from allowing any vestige of a religion as part of doing their business.  That should certainly include restrictions on any form of prayer in their meetings, and from displaying any religious saying, symbol, or icon as part of their operation.


Note at bottom of Article in LA Times:  Phil Zuckerman is a professor of sociobiology and secular studies at Pitzer College in Claremont and the author of "Living the Secular Life" 

200 Retired Generals Write President and Congress urging NO vote on treaty with Iran

I saw in the news that 200 retired generals are urging congress to vote NO on the treaty with Iran: -- see this link   Here is a link to the content of their letter.  This sounds like "Big News" -- but there are now about 4700 retired generals (see this link) so that only represents a little more than 4% of  the retired US generals, so, from that standpoint, it isn't all that significant.  It is interesting that the Iranians aren't advertising "in favor" of the agreement.  Does our "free press" inhibit those advertisements from appearing?  I'd also like to hear the opinions of the other 4500 retired generals, wouldn't you?
The letter sounded like the Israeli propaganda and paid advertising that Israel and various associated organizations have been pushing, so it is likely that the actual text of the letter was written by a few "pro-Israeli" organizations, or a retired general or two, and then they "arm twisted" the others to become signatories to the letter.
The Los Angeles Times editors this morning had a more reasonable, and well thought out argument in favor of the treaty: See this link  I think I agree with their position, in this case.
I believe the Iran treaty could have put even more constraints on Iran, if we had insisted that Israel undergo the same sort of inspection and controls on their Nuclear and other WMD.  Israel has threatened attacks on Iran many times, and has assassinated Iran's citizens and scientists when out of the country.  Israel has shown aggressive and "first strike" military maneuvers many times throughout their history, so Iran has good reason to feel threatened.  I think if I were an Iranian citizen, that I would certainly want my country to be armed to defend, in some way, against Israel.  If I were in Iran's government, I believe I would try to make sure that my citizens were fully aware of the threats. I remember the "duck and cover" exercises we did in school during the 1950's and 60s in case of a nuclear attack.  Do Iranian citizens do that now?  In hindsight, I doubt if that exercise would have done much to save the lives of children in schools.  However, I'm sure it did a lot to help form public opinion against the Soviet Union, and help justify expenditures of immense amounts of resources in defense.

What Happens if Senate Rejects the Iran Nuclear Treaty?

I saw this Op-Ed by Joseph Cirincione in today's LA Times, and I think I agree with his convincing arguments. What do you think?   I believe the world needs this treaty.  My feeling is reinforced when I see that the "big money" right-wingers are spending millions of dollars on paid advertising against the treaty and distorting the facts. (see this link or this one).  I suspect that Israel or their supporters are behind the paid advertising, using, in some way, some of the billions of dollars that US taxpayers have "donated" to their country.  Meanwhile, Israel maintains their own WMD including nuclear, chemical and possibly biological weapons, and is the only Middle East country who has attacked US naval ships (see this link) and routinely spies on the US (John Pollard, for example). Israel likes to say they are our friend and ally, but never provided any serious support when we needed help in Vietnam, Bosnia, Iraq, or Afghanistan. Why should the US demand inspection of Iran's nuclear processing and weapons, when we don't do the same for Israel's?
Of course Iran should be angry with the US, we have severly mistreated Iran throughout history.  Of course Iran should want nuclear weapons.  All of their neighbors (Pakistan, India, Russia) as well as Israel have them.  Also Israel has assassinated Iranian scientists and their family when traveling outside of Iran (I don't know of any case when Iran has done the same to any Israeli scientists), and Israel launched an unprovoked cyber attack against Iran's nuclear processing industry.  I don't know of any case where Iran has launched any attack of any sort against Israel.  Those were clearly terrorist acts done by Israel, but Israel claims that Iran sponsors "state terrorism"...

US Movie Studios Face Antitrust Case in Europe -- It is about time!

The movie and TV industry complains about "piracy" but in many ways they have been "pirates" themselves!
According to this article in today's LA Times (by Daniel Miller, Meg James, and Ryan Faughnder), it appears that Europe believes that they were being anti-competitive   I always wondered why the US has allowed the movie and TV industry to do "geo-blocking" which means that the studios could allow shows to be viewed only in certain regions and not others.  Other industries, (for example beer distributors) tried to do similar things, but US anti-trust regulations made them cease. It appears that the movie/TV industry is somewhat "protected" politically in the US.  The "Digital Millennium Copyright Act, for example, gave that industry a multi-billion dollar windfall.

It never made sense for the industry to do the geo-blocking, because it is easy, but cumbersome for consumers to get around the blocking, by either using a VPN back to a US carrier, , or buy and ship DVDs to other countries.  I always thought the industry would maximize profits by releasing worldwide.  However this article explained that the real rationale is that the studios don't like the idea that they might have to negotiate rates with similar-size "peers" -- they want to keep their customers small, so they can exercise their "power" over the smaller-size distributors and get much higher rates.-- Now I understand!  That is clearly an unfair practice!

Supreme Court ruling puts state regulatory boards in crosshairs

I've always thought that state regulatory boards were in a strange "conflict of interest" situation that made them appear to be working to restrict the supply of people in their profession more than trying to protect the public. Even when their obvious goals were to protect the public, they were always under suspicion and had to go out of their way to avoid the "appearance" of a conflict of interest. Michael Hiltzik's column in today's Los Angeles Times explains how that situation might change a lot based upon the February 25 2015 Supreme Court ruling on NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF DENTALEXAMINERS v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.  See Michael's article at this link.
Supreme Court ruling puts state regulatory boards in crosshairs - LA Times

Michael Hiltzik


With respect to this Supreme Court case, it is clear to me that "tooth whitening" does not require the same sort of regulation that dentistry requires.  However, It probably does need some sort of regulation to protect the public from poor sanitization etc.  The essence of the case is should a state regulatory board be exempt from antitrust law, which would, in effect, protect professionals serving on a state board if they "restrained trade" by monopoly-like practices.  See this SCOTUS Blog.  The fact that the Dentist profession wanted to maintain control over that procedure does appear to be an attempt to restrict the supply of teeth-whitening service providers and keep the profits from that service for the Dentists.  The same concept could apply to almost every other state licensing board, in every state.  Doctors, dentists, contractors, lawyers, hairstylists, swimming pool maintainers, and Realtors all are in the same situation.

One of the problems is that the best people to write laws about a specific profession and enforce those laws are the people who know the most about the field.  So, for example, the Dentists propose the laws, serve on the Dental boards, and hole hearings and either perform or recommend discipline when malpractice is determined.  Discipline is often very slight and usually very slow, even for egregious offenses.  Professionals are viewed as loathe to discipline members of their own ranks.

Another part of the problem is that the top members of a professional hierarchy are often the ones who serve on boards regulating professional requirements for "lower tier" professions.  For example Dentists are the board members who write and enforce the rules for dental hygienists and dental assistants.   Medical doctors serve on the boards that license physician assistants, nurse practitioners, nurses, and the many other lower-tier medical professionals, such as phlebotomists, or x-ray technicians,  General contractors serve on the boards that regulate lower tiers such as plumbers, electricians, carpenters, tile setters etc. In Michael's example, Veterinarians regulate Veterinary Technicians  That puts those at the top of the hierarchy in a position where they can restrict what those lower tier professionals are able to do in their state to make sure that the members at the top of the hierarchy continue to get their "cut" of the revenue from those lower tier workers.  For example, requiring all dental hygienists to work under the direct supervision of a dentist in a dental office -- as opposed to allowing them to open their own office. To reduce the appearance of this apparent conflict, the boards often have "token" representation from the lower tier professions on the board, such as one Veterinary Technician on a board of Veterinarians.

There is a good argument for having those "top tier" professionals serve on the boards for the lower tier jobs.  The top professionals are the best educated, usually have the most experience, and have the most to lose.  Since the top profession is dependent upon the lower tier, they do need to make sure that they are protected from poor performance from lower tier employees.  In many instances, the top profession's liability insurance acts as an umbrella for the other employees.

Serving on a board is usually in imposition on professional's valuable time.  Even though most of the boards do pay members for serving it often doesn't represent the full "opportunity cost" to a professional for attending board meetings.  They have to make room in busy schedules, they have to consider their employees, travel time, overnight accommodations near the meeting location (often near state capitol cities).  and impact on friendships, professional society positions, and personal liability.  The goal of altruism and serving the state to improve their profession could easily be overshadowed by the possibility of increasing total earnings by making minor changes in board rulings, license exams, or laws.

I see this Supreme Court ruling as an opportunity to structurally change how many services are provided and reduce the cost of those services to the public, by reducing the ability of professions to earn excess profits from monopolistic pricing.  I'm amazed at how much more reasonably priced similar services are in other countries.  Dentists in Thailand go through almost the same sort of training, and require the same types of equipment and office operation as used in the US, but high-quality services are provided at much less than half of the costs in the US.  I believe services are cheaper in every country of the world.  Why do we pay so much more in the US?  Possibly because of this sort of board oversight.

My suggestion is that board structures be changed throughout the US.  The Supreme Court ruled against the current structure, but did not suggest how it could be corrected. The only advice was that:
1) the challenged restraint on competition is clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state policy and 
2) the policy is actively supervised by the state. 

 I will be greatly interested in hearing what the experts come up with.  However here are some of my suggestions:
1. No voting member of a professional state regulatory board should be a member of the profession being regulated.
2. Boards should, however, be made up of state-licensed professionals from other professions, with no two members from the same profession, and none, of course from the profession they are regulating. Board members shall have short term limits to make sure that many have opportunities to serve.
3. States need to provide "active supervision" over the board and the professions.  So all boards should serve in an advisory role to a state official.  A state civil servant shall be assigned to approve all recommendations from the board, and the civil servant shall be nominated by the executive branch and confirmed by the legislative committee(s) that control the profession. The number of civil servants could vary depending upon the number of legislative committees a state has, the size of the profession, etc.
4. Boards should have a budget, from which they can hire professionals (often from the profession they are regulating) to perform studies and provide recommendations to the board.  In general, the budget should be proportional to the number of people in the profession being regulated, and should be funded from fees collected for testing, licensing, and annual license renewal fees.
5. It seems crazy for a state to establish a statutory restraint on competition, so I doubt that would happen.  But if for some reason a state wanted to do so, it could.  Conversely, I believe states should encourage competition and should include the requirement for the boards to take steps to encourage competition as much as possible.

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.

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.

Does the term 'apartheid' fit Israel? Of course it does. - Los Angeles Times

In today's LA Times, Saree Makdisi presents a good case why Israel should be described as an apartheid country.  Does the term 'apartheid' fit Israel? Of course it does. - Los Angeles Times:  I thought his argument was reasonable, and was based upon the international legal definitions.

Michael Oren, a previous Israeli ambassador to the US wrote a response to the argument, ( http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-oren-israel-apartheid-20140518-story.html )  which quibbled about the terms involved in the definition of Apartheid.   The overarching argument he presented was that Israel still feels that they are "at war" with the Arabs, and that absolves their treatment of all non-Jews.  During Apartheid, the South African government also felt that they were "at war" with the black majority.  They were trying to defend "their way of life" from the masses of their country.  It isn't clear what the difference is.

During Apartheid in South Africa, the US could have done a lot to stop it.  However our government generally sided with the South African Government.  Israel, and the US helped the Government of South Africa and refused for a long time to support the anti-apartheid movement.  Israel and the US helped provide weapons to South Africa, and the US refused to sign UN documents which defined and condemned Apartheid.

Many people describe Israel as a friend of the US.  But while they accept our billions of dollars in foreign aid, they are the only country in that region who has continually spied on our government, stolen our corporate trade secrets, and  has attacked our military ships.   We ask them to quit building "settlements" and they snub their nose at us.  I wouldn't call that a "friendship" --more like a parasite.  They seem to want to start a war with Iran over nuclear weapons, while they maintain their own -- which is one of the reasons that everyone else in the region feels they need them.  I think we need some "tough love" in dealing with Israel.  I wish the US Jews would see it that way too.  They have made it illegal for US citizens to donate money to any cause but their own.