College Student work at Trump Troll Farm

 Donald Trump presidential campaign is using teams of college students to spread disinformation over social media.  See this article: 

• https://enewspaper.sandiegouniontribune.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=00f3c1e2-cff3-4907-a949-771e11b019d1

The article cites a team in Arizona doing it.  But that probably is the only team that was caught or detected doing it.  I suspect there are teams all over the country (and probably in Russia too) who are doing the same thing.  

It sort of reminds me of Nov 1964 and I was a junior in college in Western Pennsylvania.  A group of us volunteered to go to polls and stand a legal distance away and hand out matchbooks printed with the name of a Republican candidate for the Pennsylvania legislature.  I still was not old enough to vote or drink at the time.  But the candidate offered to pay us $20 for the day, and to come to a party at his big home in the evening for free beer!  Of course, the beer was the big incentive!  At the time, however, I don't believe any of us would have thought to spread misinformation about candidates.

Why does Donald Trump want a "Pro-American Curriculum?"

 Today's Union-Tribune reported that Trump wants US School curricula to be "pro-American." -- See this link: 

• https://enewspaper.sandiegouniontribune.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=b3daef7e-6b2f-4db5-9592-207e34913f8c

From the article, it appears that he does not want our schools to teach about the mistakes made by America, but only the supposed good things that were done.  My elementary and high school education was in Maryland during the 1950s and 60s.  I did not remember ever hearing about how the US abused the Native American Indians, Blacks, Women, Chinese, or Japanese.  Many of these aspects of history were not even taught about in college history classes.  I always wondered why that happened!  

Now I think I understand!  The victors get to write the history and do not want to be shamed. The so-called "religious right" throughout history has claimed that the groups that were being oppressed were "inferior" and that God made them that way.  Of course, they were proven wrong time after time.  They now want to bury that past!

Medicare 3-day Rule seemingly a desperate attempt to control costs by cheating the unaware

Terry Savage's Column in Sunday January 19, 2020 issue of the San Diego Union Tribune cautions medicare recipients about a "trick" that Medicare and the hospitals try to play on patients in order to cut costs. 

Medicare.gov website tries to explain the complex rules and procedures for determination of whether a patient is "admitted" to the hospital or being "observed" at the hospital. Try reading them at the link yourself and see what you think!  The way it is worded is that there are complex, but vague rules that our Doctor and hospital must use in deciding whether the patient will be admitted or observed.  I've been unable to find any clear guidelines.  The appeal process that is mentioned says that some aspects can be appealed, but doesn't mention the admitted/observed decision. According to the Lexology website, it appears that Medicare has not been consistent in applying the rule, and supposedly has "overpaid" for services that should not have been approved under the 3-day rule.

Apparently Medicare is considering eliminating the rule and counting the three days in the hospital whether in observation or admitted status.  Nobody seems to know how much has been saved in Skilled Nursing Facility costs to the Government due to this change.  Patients, Doctors, and Hospitals can game the system.  For example if a hip replacement patient is ready for discharge after 2 days, they can simply keep the patient for an additional day to allow qualification for Skilled Nursing Facility Coverage.  Did that save the Government money?  The costs for the additional day in the hospital may be much more expensive to the Government than the several days cost at the SNF.

When my wife went to a local Scripps Hospital for major foot surgery she had to sign a bunch of forms.  One form did declare that she would be in "observation status" rather than being "admitted."  Of course, being our first experience like this, we didn't know the difference!  We were told that the treatment in either status was exactly the same, so it appeared to not matter.  As it turned out, all went well, she stayed in the hospital overnight and did not need SNF.  My daughter-in-law was able to take a few days off and help me help her during the critical first few days of recovery. 

What gets me is that the hospital did not explain the trade-offs on the subtle difference between observe and admitted status.  The surgery was planned many months in advance, so we had time to shop for a doctor and hospital that would have given her "admitted" status.  But when completing the forms on the day of scheduled surgery it seems much too late. 

If Medicare is actually saving money from the 3-day rule, it is making it from those patients who are less informed, or who arrive at a hospital in an emergency state and do not have the time to make an informed decision. 

Work Shorter Hours

I saw this opinion item by Noah Smith in the San Diego Union Tribune, originally from Bloomberg.  The article points out that when people work fewer days they appear to be more productive, and maybe happier.  I think this could have some public policy implications.
Working shorter hours may be able to improve productivity in some jobs.  But other jobs required people to be in their position.  For example, a security guard or a retail clerk needs to be at their position.  Also, this article seems to ignore the possibility that the increase in productivity was due to the "Hawthorne Effect" where workers productivity improved when lighting was decreased, and it also increased when light was increased.  It was then determined that the benefit was because the workers felt management was paying attention to their welfare. 
In reality, many low-paying, boring, repetitive jobs are being replaced by technology.  Jobs like librarian, music stores, book stores, key punch operators, bank check sorter/filers, newspaper delivery etc have been mostly replaced by technology.  During the next decade, we expect that self-driving cars and trucks might eliminate those jobs.  A lot of "fast food" ordering and production may be replaced by machinery and electronics. 
As jobs are eliminated, it is likely that they will be replaced by other new jobs that we haven't even thought of yet.  But I have the feeling that there might not be enough new jobs to absorb all of the labor that will be released by automation.  If that does happen, the world has the choice of simply having many people sit idly by unemployed or find something for them to do.   Another option would be to shorten the work week such that more people work, but they each work shorter hours. 
The French achieved the first 12 hr day law in 1848, and the idea of a 10-hour day was raised in 1810.  But the 8-hour work day, 40 hour/week concept became an international standard in 1919, and was gradually adopted throughout the world.  Now 100 years later not much has changed!    The definition of a work-week and "full time employment" affects how other employment benefits are distributed.  Typically full-time employees receive medical, retirement and vacation benefits. 
I propose that the US lead the way in passing legislation that lays out a plan for gradual reduction of the workweek definition.  Hours beyond the limit would be compensated by overtime pay.  Businesses need to be able to plan for the future.  They make capital improvement plans, design facilities, and plan shift schedules based upon laws.  Below is my proposal

	2020	2025	2030`	2035	2040	2045	2050
Hours per day limit	8	8	8	7	7	7	6
Days per week limit	5	5	5	4.5	4	4	4
Hours per week limit	40	37.5	35	32	28	26	24

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!

San Diego County Tax Collector escheating of funds owed to citizens and business appears to be government theft

The San Diego Union Tribune today (Sep 10,2016) had an article by Joshua Stewart:  "Deadline Nears for County Refunds" that pointed out that monday Sep 12 is the deadline for people who may be due a check from the San Diego County Treasurer to file a form to request the funds or they will be "escheated" to the government, and the rightful owner will never again be permitted to claim the funds.  The San Diego County Treasurer-Tax Collector, Dan McAllister says he is confused:  "Why wouldn't anyone want some quick and easy money?"  There are more than $352,000 in funds waiting to be claimed. McAllister says he "has a team of investigators that try to track down people who might have a claim to the funds."  I looked at the list of funds, and the majority of the funds belong to banks, mortgage companies, title companies and even a trailer park.  You can't tell me that Dan McAllister's team can't find Chase Bank, Wells Fargo, or First American Title Company.  Is he really trying to find the rightful owners?  Or does he want to capture the money for the County?  I think it appears to be theft!
I understand that the county is authorized to do this under California Revenue and Taxation Code sections 5097 and 5102  It does make some sense to put pressure on citizens and agencies to "close the books" on old accounts.  In the past, when all records maintained on paper, it was expensive to keep, file, search, and find records.  Now that technology permits very easy record keeping, there is minimal additional expense involved in maintaining records.  I believe it is time the state rules on escheatment of funds be modified to allow for funds to be claimed after longer periods of time than just 4 years.  Of course, a penalty, such as 10% per year could be levied for periods after the 4 yr period to encourage closure of accounts.  In addition, the Government agency should not be permitted to escheat the funds unless it can honestly show that it really did make an attempt to contact the rightful owner.  I'm not sure that holding a little "press conference" or putting an article in the newspaper constitutes a valid attempt.
 .  I

AmeriCorps workers helped young women get abortions | TheHill

This is another example of why the United States doesn't need any more right-wingers in control.  The biggest problem in the world is that we humans are having too many unwanted, and unneeded babies.  Americorps (NCCC)  mission is:"To strengthen communities and develop leaders through team-based national and community service". Americorps has paid staff, but uses millions of volunteer hours and millions of dollars of donations.  Americorps includes programs such as Foster Grandparents, Senior Companions, FEMA volunteers, etc.,   So recently in New York Americorps "developing leaders" trying to help young women obtain abortions for babies they probably don't want, can't afford, and wouldn't be capable of raising properly, are in trouble for doing so.  See this article:  AmeriCorps workers helped young women get abortions | TheHill  So, it appears that anyone working or associated with AmeriCorps are "gag ordered" to not talk about abortion to women in need.  Why would people ever volunteer for such an organization?  Why would people now be willing to donate to such an organization?  In effect, the Republican right wing is trying to impose their religious beliefs on anyone working or volunteering for that agency.

Sometime after I registered to vote in California as a Republican when I moved here in the early 1970s, I think the so-called Christian right-wingers hijacked the Republican party's platform and somehow got their position onto the party platform.  I've never understood how the party could rationalize having their so called "pro-life" position, and at the same time be strongly in favor of death penalty, and no limit on ownership, use, or carrying of guns.  Of course they all claim to be followers of Christ.  But Christ would not have supported death penalty, and certainly would not have supported owning or carrying a weapon.