Haven't heard much about them since Obama left office, the 9th District Court then was well known for having decisions overturned...
Seemed like about 75 or 80% of their opinions were overturned.....
Did they actually get smart about what they were hearing, or did they lose enough Judges of a particular group....

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, April 22, 2025 - 04:42 pm: Edit

Is part of the issue due the the 'complexity' of law?

In the UK - minor offences are dealt with by the Magistartes - and more serious issues dealt with by County Court and then Crown Courts.

Sometimes - a proseuction is started by a lower court and it works out it is more serious than initially thought and it moves up to a higher Court.

You then Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.

How would you explain what each does to a non-national??

As a question though - how powerful is the 'Court of Public Opinion' - and I would guess most times, it is due to the defendants case being weak in law, but strong in Empathy?

(As a good example, one client I am helping in a Pro=Bono bassis 'could lose the family home, due to something her husband did - but he did it with her her full agreement' (several years ago).

Thw two empathic issues are

1) Her Husband has lost full mental capacity and resides in a Care Home.
2) She is of Ukranian origin - and her parernts have lost everything (and so finanncially are unable to help her out).

So legally, the lender involved can re-possess the family home (as it if full owned by the husband and the debt is fully his).

So not ideal.

However, the real kicker (and perhaps on top of point 2, the Media would love it)...

...if the family home is repossossed - the property value is signficantly higher than the debt...

3) And in the UK - if you have 'money' you have to pay for Care - so the Husband would then have to pay for it (about $200,000 per annum) - and currenrly his ownly assets is his home and so it is paid for by 'the nation'.

4) and the real kicker for the Wife - she has no right to buy a new smaller family home, with his money - and so she will be homeless.

So legally - she has no right to live in any other property, but does have a legal right to live in the current family home.... but she has to repay her husbands debt (and she has no assets of her own) and so once the legal process is completed, it will be repossessed.

So legally - a slam dunk case - but would you want to help her?

Not everyone will be 100% clean and innocent - but are aspects someone should get a second chance for?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, April 28, 2025 - 02:49 am: Edit

PENSION CRISIS
Go to Youtube and search "pension crisis" and you'll find plenty of info. This is not a red vs blue situation; it applies to a lot of states and cities if not most of them.

Public employees often have what is called a defined benefit pension. This means that when they retire a formula says "they get this much a month" usually indexed to inflation. The money comes from a big pension fund pot which the government involved manages. Amarillo has one, Hutchinson County has one, Texas has one, Illinois has one, and so forth.

These pension funds are, well, unstable and sooner or later will start collapsing. Some will collapse a decade or more before others, but most will collapse sooner or later. Why? Because of several factors.

1. Not enough money put into the fund. The government has only so much money and lots of demands for that money and tends to use a formula to calculate what they owe the pension fund that is ... rather unusual and often wrong.

2. High pension demands by government employee unions. This is worse in Illinois than in Texas but it's bad in most states. The government gives the union a raise and the union donates money to cooperative politicians who won't be in office when the bill comes due. The pension formulae are often just plain ridiculous, such as basing a pension on the last day or last year they were employed which means everybody gets promoted the day before they retire. This often includes overtime pay which the employee avoided until the last year then used seniority to rack up all they could get.

3. Bad returns on investments. Wall Street regards government employee pension funds as the biggest idiots on the planet. They can dump any badly performing fund on the government pension system. Because government employee union pension funds are anything but transparent nobody knows that until too late. Many assets held in pension funds are things that are hard to sell even if they aren't paying out as expected. In a few cases corrupt politicians use pension funds to invest in things owned by political cronies which are sold at inflated prices.

4. Fees paid are too high. If you invest in something, you pay some kind of management fee. I have a bunch of load free retirement accounts and they all pay a small fee. Government employee union pensions pay the highest fees anywhere in the USA. No transparency means nobody knows until the forensic accountants get a shot at the books.

What's going to happen? Well, sooner or later a big fund is going to run dry (a few small ones have). Federal bailouts are difficult as Texas refuses to pay the pensions for corrupt blue states. States don't want to pay the pensions for other states of the same or opposite color.

How to fix it?
1. Make public pensions transparent.
2. Independent outside audits with pubic reports.
3. Force Wall Steet to take back overvalued assets.
4. Limit the fees that government pension funds can pay. Do not allow fees to stack. Right now a state invests in THIS and pays a fee but THIS invested in THAT and pay a fee which means that the state is really paying two (or more) fees. Limit the total to 1/2 of 1%.
5. Do not allow any more employees to join pension plans. Have them put money in IRAs at the top three companies that do retirement no-load funds, or send them to social security. That will at least keep things from getting worse and end the corruption.
6. Do not allow public employees to use collective bargaining. Do not allow pensions to be based on overtime and bonuses, only on base salary over the last five years. Require people to work to 65 or at least 62. They can retire in some states at 20 or 25 or 30 years service.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Monday, April 28, 2025 - 10:33 am: Edit

REQUIRE pensions be fully funded, transparent and immune from being "raided."

By the way, many of those 20 year retirees are firemen and cops. They have pretty much the same deal as the Military.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Monday, April 28, 2025 - 10:35 am: Edit

I'll be retiring with a defined-benefits pension at the end of 2030 at age 63 with thirty years service at MU. That said, there won't be a lot doing so after me; the university moved to a hybrid pension scheme for those who started in the mid-2000s, and a completely 403(b) scheme for those who started in the mid-2010s. I'm all too aware that a defined-benefits pension is essentially a unicorn today (a considerable part of the reason why I've turned down opportunities elsewhere).

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Monday, April 28, 2025 - 01:05 pm: Edit

Collective Bargaining is the cornerstone of the Swedish model of employee/employer relations.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Monday, April 28, 2025 - 01:13 pm: Edit

Collective Bargaining is the cornerstone of the Swedish model of employee/employer relations.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, April 28, 2025 - 02:48 pm: Edit

Defined Benefit Pensions.... the isn't restrcted to just the US.

SVC raises some good points and in effect there are two main other relevant issues

1) There are two types of Schemes

A) Funded Schemes (Private Sector and some Public Sector) - these just have normal issues and in the UK, charges are low and reasonablly managed (as if the charges are too high or performance too low, the Employer has to pick up the Shortfall).

These can work (especially with a generous Employee Contribution to it and as a Career Average Scgeme).

B) Unfunded Schemes (just Public Sector) - the Tax payer writes a blank cheque every month to pay the pensions - these are just a nightmare.

2) The World has changed.

When Defined Benefit Pensions Started - the bulk of Worders was Male and Blue Collar (i.e. manual) - so they would work for 40 years+, retire at say 65 - die by age 75 and their Wife would get 50% to 66% of what the Husband was getting for 10 more years - and it was affordable to schemes.

No adays (in the UK anwyay) - the Schemes are for Whilte Collar (i.e. Admin) and people are living longer.

So your Male Retire may live 17 or 18 years and their wife will live 3 years longer.

So - the Scheme pensions are just too expensive.

The UK has suffered from Promotion just before you ritre - earn £40,000 for 39 years and £55,000 for 1 year - your pension is indeed worked out on the £55,000 usuaally) - but that is changing - avergaring over the last 3 years is one way to stop short term promotions having a huge increase in pension benefts - and the more recent change is Career Average.

Your Pension is based on in effect 1/xth of each individual years salary, with Inflation increases applied.

So, this makes it more fairer on the Scheme or tax payer.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, April 28, 2025 - 03:56 pm: Edit

Government workers at all levels did not have the right of collective bargaining until Jack Kennedy gave it to them. That was a mistake. Municipal workers went from underpaid to (in a bunch of states) seriously overpaid. Their pension benefit went from honorable poverty to sheer opulence. Lots of cops and firemen earned their pensions; lots of political lackeys in Chicago never worked a single day for their pensions.

My two-step plan will work.
1. don't allow any more people to join them.
2. Make sure that those in such plans get a reasonable (not extravagant) retirement commensurate with their earnings and what a real world (non-government) worker would get.

and I would add part 3:

Privatize two-thirds of government jobs, farm them out to contractors which will fire inefficient workers and use efficient equipment, software, and procedures.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Tuesday, April 29, 2025 - 03:12 am: Edit

Privatization is really not a great tool for efficiency in government. What the community wants is not aligned with the interest of the companies. The former want good services that don't rise taxes, the later want to do as little as possible to get their hands on as much of those sweet tax moneys as possible. The result is you get added bureaucracy needed to handle contracts and compliance, and for the US specifically i expect; lots of lawyers.
In the end it is the companies that makes a profit , and the public that pays and complain.
BTW, something else you get when hiring for profit-companies using taxpayers money is CORRUPTION.

We are having buyers remorse when it comes to this in my country, especially the so call "free schools". The Liberal party are trying to make the companies that run schools for profit less profitable to make them focus on providing good education instead... Fools errand and they are rightly laughed at.

I would keep collective bargaining in the US, but I would try minimize the influence money have on elections. (Over here political parties get all their campaign money from the state. Donations exist but is no big deal. The US system is different but no doubt there are solutions that would work if there is a will to make changes)

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Tuesday, April 29, 2025 - 09:28 am: Edit

I have been that contracted employee for many years. A few real world examples.

USA Army W3 aviation safety guy makes around $50k. I was getting $250k tax free with full paid food/ housing/ medical/ travel and was a bargain. But that W3 was my titular supervisor (he wandered by maybe 2 hours a month). He was trapped in BIG ARMY meetings constantly that I blew off unless ordered otherwise. And he was a safety guy maybe 2 years before he was doing something else for the AUSA; he just didn't have time to become really expert before he was off to something else. If he had a concern I would ask him to TELL ME exactly what he wanted; sometimes he just wanted something done a certain way and i made that happen) I mean how many people know aviation, munitions, mechanic workshop safety, hazardous materials storage & shipping rules, and health management? Just a few weirdos like me.

My Aviation mechanics were working 2 months on, 2 months off for $110k. USA Army E4 or E5 makes how much?

I had a US Army Contracting Officer on a contract who got shot at when travelling in RC North his first time "outside the wire" of MES with me. I mean, dirt DID land on our tent, but we were totally fine. Thereafter he had me making the rounds and reporting to him so he could snap the whip remotely while not flying all over; he lived in a 20' Conex we had covered in sandbags (3 deep) with "Texas barriers (tall "jersey barriers") on all sides. I was making maybe 1 -2 "movements" every day on average (helo, fixed wing or ground) on anything that moved in the right direction and sleeping in varied tents (Alaska tents rock, GP medium suck) and varied wood huts (you want the "super B hut"). My LTC and I used to drive ALONE in his HMMWV to Deh Dadi, Spann, Lindsey and such FOBS that were close to a big base (like Bagram, Phoenix, MES). I usually drove because Colonels have long arms and get to choose where they sit & shady contractors "don't" have sidearms under their vests (sarcasm). as an amusing aside one of the Majors told me he shot at more people at his day job than he ever did in the Army (he was a USAR Logistics guy and a full time FBI agent).

I was offered a position to be the safety manager for ALL of the 401st AFSB as a temporary GS14 for 1 year. But without those sweet federal pension benefits and position vesting I couldn't afford it. At the time the 401st was the largest Brigade in the Army; it had over 30,000 contractor employees all over Afghanistan and maybe a thousand in uniform. It had ALL vehicle maintenance work in theater (including Kuwait...)

Now I concede that contracted employees are much more efficient per person (my pilots were making 2 sorties EACH DAY averaging 4-5 hours per flight), but you have to pay a premium to get there. And I am unconvinced that the payoff is worth the extra money.

For example, career DOJ prosecutors make maybe $150k. At my dads law firm the lowest paid junior partner was making over $500k when he retired around 2000. And plenty were pulling in more than $1 million. They didn't have a defined benefit scheme for lawyers. What they did was calculate your BEST 5 years and sum/ match that as a lump sum. So you got a big fat check and lifetime enrollment in their gold plated health insurance scheme. BUT those career Prosecutors got IMMENSE job satisfaction. My Aunt Mikell was one of them for a few years before motherhood distracted her.

And I would bet that the direct and indirect "overhead" Leidos/ SAIC/ Amentum/ KBR is charging is at LEAST 200% of my salary. Probably more. In Iraq the CAOA JV was charging the CPA over $1500 A DAY for me PLUS the cost of my security (which was maybe 3 k a day if I was on travel status and not holed up in our office or villa). When I surveyed the Baghdad train station & repair yard I had FIVE retired Royal Marines plus 6 more Iraqi security guards. 3 cars. And a RDF 10 minutes away. Just for little old me.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Tuesday, April 29, 2025 - 10:25 am: Edit

My experience at a public university has been similar, inasmuch as whenever the university has decided to outsource some service, they inevitably wind up paying more for it (and often at a reduced level of service). Most recently, our print shop was outsourced; it's been a debacle.

By Matthew Lawson (Mglawson) on Tuesday, April 29, 2025 - 10:48 am: Edit

Yeah, our campus IT was outsourced a few years ago and they basically seem to answer to no one and do what they want; cost wise I'm sure is more.

By John L Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Tuesday, April 29, 2025 - 01:33 pm: Edit

Way back in my working career the Federal Government decided to encourage citizens to save.
The IRA was born. Contribute up to $2000.00 and you could deduct it from your income as not taxed.
I signed up! Back then the interest rates offered on the IRA was great!! The caveat was that when you retired the IRA would be taxed. (It is - I am retired now.)

After a while the Federal Government decided that so much income was exempt from taxes, that they were losing money. I.E. less income from taxes for what "they" wanted to spend. So, in their infinite wisdom, they decided to impose an income cap on what could be deducted. Naturally, this "cap" was very much lower than what I made. So, I stopped contributing. The incentive was lost.

Then came the 401k. The government in their infinite wisdom noticed that citizens were not saving - duh? Only this time things involved private business. The employee could deduct a fixed amount of their pay (not taxed) to the 401k. Further, they encouraged the private company to contribute a fixed amount to the employee's contribution. Yes, the private company got to deduct their contribution. GREAT! To add incentive to the 401k contribution, they allowed stocks to be bought or sold. Interest rates were very low at the time. Little did they know that some stocks paid dividends (not taxed) and that people would sell stocks when they did well (not taxed). Some 401k's had a limited basket of stocks and bonds that you could invest in. Some allowed all stocks and bonds. Ultimately, you pay taxes on the withdrawals when you retired. But there was a lot more money in the proverbial pot.

In my opinion, the Federal Government boo booed. They created the Roth IRA. Invest in the Roth and pay taxes on what you contribute. As in the 401k, one may invest in stocks and bonds. When you retire, no taxes are owed. It is GREAT for the citizen. Yes, the Federal Government gets some income immediately. But over time the citizen has a really big pot of money at retirement with no taxes at all. I predict that the Federal Government will make changes the Roth IRA rules.

Finally, the last company that I worked for offered a Pension and 401k. I signed up for both. Six months later they canceled the Pension. They are required by law to invest sufficient funds (in addition to what I was paying) to keep the Pension solvent. It was too expensive. I can see why. In my ten years of retirement, I have gotten more in Pension payments than I contributed. Nice for me!

I neglected mention that I am allowed to roll over my company's IRA or 401k to another company's IRA or 401k. I have changed jobs a lot over my working career. This saves time and effort to keep track of multiple IRAs and 401Ks. So, I have one big IRA to manage. In my opinion, the 401k was the best thing that the Federal Government did.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Wednesday, April 30, 2025 - 08:10 am: Edit

I was in a lot of 401(k) programs at various companies. Unfortunately a lot of companies REQUIRE you to only invest in a basket of stuff they choose. And most of those are crap.

So "Rando Mutual Funds Retirement 2050" the company is pimping vs "vanguard VDIGX?" Just look at the 1, 3. 5 and average returns... No competition.

I am unsure why so many companies offer just a basket of sh*t Mutual Funds, but I suspect there is a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes that isn't designed to benefit me. Like kickbacks (I'm sure they call it something else) or "RMF" is owned by someone who is important, sales commissions, whatever.

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Wednesday, April 30, 2025 - 01:07 pm: Edit

>> I am unsure why so many companies offer just a basket of sh*t Mutual Funds

In that line of business (401k/403b, known as Definied Contributions or DC), the "customer" in the transaction is the company (known as the plan sponsor) that employs the employees (know as the plan participants). The firm that "sells" the 401k plan to the plan sponsor is known as the plan administrator.

The plan administrator can offer the plan sponsor a variety of options at different price points. If the PA is also in the mutual fund business, then they will often sell PA services at a lower price if the PP are limited to investing in funds from the PA. For even more restrictions (say, just a handful of PA funds, not the whole catalog) then pricing can become even more attractive.

By limiting mutual fund choices, the PA can funnel investment into funds with high administrative fees, and also effectively funnel assets into mutual funds that it wants to grow the asset base of.

One hallmark of a better DC plan is generally that there are quite a few MFs to choose from, including well known, successful, and/or generally popular ones. A hallmark of a weaker DC plan is being limited to just a handful of MF options, and there are ones you've never heard of and/or have higher fees and mediocre performance.

When the PP leaves the PS, if the DC plan was a better one that offered better MF choices, then the PP may choose to leave their assets in it. If the DC plan was not very good, then chances are the PP will roll everything out into a brokerage IRA where they can then invest in anything they like.

Since most folks don't stay in the same job for 10-20 years or more anymore, the differences between the DC plans become less and less important. The money will almost certainly be rolled over into an IRA in just a few years and that old DC plan is no longer relevant.

--Mike

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, April 30, 2025 - 04:31 pm: Edit

The moratorium on Student Loan payments including collection actions will end on 5 May. This was started during COVID and continued far too long to buy votes. Now, the turkeys are coming home to roost and people who (stupidly) could have paid on their loans but chose not to are in a deep hole and about to get smacked hard by the reality that a grownup is expected to repay loans. I have enjoyed the hilarious tiktok videos of these people saying things like "go take money from baby boomers who convinced us to take these stupid loans" and "I will just stop working and go on unemployment and not pay my loans and they cannot make me."

I am sure that some people in some situations have been struggling to stay alive (financially) without the student loan payments and now are going to have a real problem. There are hardship programs for them. But I also know personally people who have unpaid student loans, live a very comfortable life, and getting forced to pay the loans is going to mean losing the comforts and extravagances they are accustomed to. One person I know just got back from a two-week overseas vacation which they could not have taken without the moratorium on student loans, which is not what the moratorium was for.

By MarkSHoyle (Bolo) on Wednesday, April 30, 2025 - 07:53 pm: Edit

"Do Not Feed The Animals" doesn't just apply at zoos and in the wild....

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, April 30, 2025 - 08:35 pm: Edit

The companies offer a basket of junk funds because the company gets a better deal from the fund manager. Programs sold to employers are usually the least rewarding funds with the highest fees.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Thursday, May 01, 2025 - 03:48 am: Edit

"grownups are supposed to repay their loans" well, my impression is that it's not how the system is set up to work at all. Once it may have been a help to make an investment, typically a house or education, that would make you better off in the long run. Now, it seems housing is too expensive and higher education is so common it offer little advantage to job seekers.
Governments usually try help people by lowering thresholds to borrowing, but that is no real help.
What are people going to do? Who benefits from this?

By John L Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Thursday, May 01, 2025 - 04:12 am: Edit

Yes, some company 401k offerings are not the best. However, they must disclose fees by law - I picked the least expensive offering.

One 401k offered company stock at a discount. As I had confidence in the company, I bought some. After a while, I sold it at a profit.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, May 01, 2025 - 07:37 am: Edit

Higher education is worth it if you get a degree that gets you a job. Doctor and Lawyer is the peak of the pack but that's a LOT of time spent. Engineer and accountant is best for "normal" degrees where four years gets you a good job. Student loans should not be available for art history, philosophy, or anything including the word "studies". Math, English, and history degrees qualify you to work as a high school teacher, and if that's your thing, do it, but do it as cheaply as possible.

The BEST way is to stay home with the parents and get the first two years at community college, then go to a four year school for the last two (or three) years, but go to the closest in-state university. Never use student loans for anything other than education and modest living expenses. Don't use them for car payments or vacations.

Too many young people sign up for student loans so they can spend four years at a party college getting a useless degree and a chance to go to endless parties.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Thursday, May 01, 2025 - 08:17 am: Edit

I dunno. Many Police and Fire departments require a degree to apply. You need a cop for every 1000 to 2000 population. And a fireman.

Nursing is a well paid job with a Bachelors. As is Aviation (most pro pilots for airlines have degrees). Pharmacology. Industrial Hygiene. Chemists can make good money.

Art history is NOT going to make most students a career path. Nor Philosophy or Theology.

My older son is getting ready to graduate high school (with a 4.0) and was instantly accepted to his school of choice with an aviation program. I've told him since he was a little kid that "it pays to be a winner" and reinforced that with a (small) allowance that depends on his grades. My younger son is in 6th grade and he is also a 4.0 student because he too gets an allowance that is tied to his grades. Their schools have a portal that allows me to check their grades every month. I tell them (occasionally) that their job is to be a student, and everything else (teams, hanging out with friends, cell/ computer access) is secondary to that).

Notably, older son also has worked since he could legally do so. 15 year old lifeguard, cart boy at the local golf course, server at a nursing home. I gave him a crappy car for his 16th birthday ("training car" 2000 Golf with 250k miles) and when his mom got a new car (2024 RAV4) he got to trade up to a better car (his moms 2005 RAV4 with 320k miles). He pays his own gas, but he is on my insurance. (poor old me has an 290k mile Lexus).

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Thursday, May 01, 2025 - 09:36 am: Edit

We desperately need to shift away from the "everyone must go to college to live a useful life" mentality that has been foisted on high school students for the past fifty years, and get guidance counselors to start talking more about trade schools and apprenticeships.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Thursday, May 01, 2025 - 09:39 am: Edit

That being said, we also desperately need to reform the student loan system, where private lenders have been foisting daily-compounding interest loans on teenagers who haven't the foggiest idea what that means.