PDA

View Full Version : News from Kaliforna



Artful
10-22-2016, 03:22 PM
Couple of things

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-national-guard-bonus-20161020-snap-story.html


Thousands of California soldiers forced to repay enlistment bonuses a decade after going to war

http://www.trbimg.com/img-580a8893/turbine/la-na-national-guard-bonus-video/550/550x309 (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-national-guard-bonus-20161020-snap-story.html#)
Short of troops to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan a decade ago, the California National Guard enticed thousands of soldiers with bonuses. Now the Pentagon is demanding the money back.




David S. Cloud


Short of troops to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan a decade ago, the California National Guard enticed thousands of soldiers with bonuses of $15,000 or more to reenlist and go to war.
Now the Pentagon is demanding the money back.
Nearly 10,000 soldiers, many of whom served multiple combat tours, have been ordered to repay large enlistment bonuses — and slapped with interest charges, wage garnishments and tax liens if they refuse — after audits revealed widespread overpayments by the California Guard at the height of the wars last decade.
Investigations have determined that lack of oversight allowed for widespread fraud and mismanagement by California Guard officials under pressure to meet enlistment targets.

But soldiers say the military is reneging on 10-year-old agreements and imposing severe financial hardship on veterans whose only mistake was to accept bonuses offered when the Pentagon needed to fill the ranks.
“These bonuses were used to keep people in,” said Christopher Van Meter, a 42-year-old former Army captain and Iraq veteran from Manteca, Calif., who says he refinanced his home mortgage to repay $25,000 in reenlistment bonuses and $21,000 in student loan repayments that the Army says he should not have received. “People like me just got screwed.”
In Iraq, Van Meter was thrown from an armored vehicle turret — and later awarded a Purple Heart for his combat injuries — after the vehicle detonated a buried roadside bomb.
People like me just got screwed.— Christopher Van Meter, former Army captain


Susan Haley, a Los Angeles native and former Army master sergeant who deployed to Afghanistan in 2008, said she sends the Pentagon $650 a month — a quarter of her family’s income — to pay down $20,500 in bonuses that the Guard says were given to her improperly.
“I feel totally betrayed,” said Haley, 47, who served 26 years in the Army along with her husband and oldest son, a medic who lost a leg in combat in Afghanistan.
Haley, who now lives in Kempner, Texas, worries they may have to sell their house to repay the bonuses. “They’ll get their money, but I want those years back,” she said, referring to her six-year reenlistment.
The problem offers a dark perspective on the Pentagon’s use of hefty cash incentives to fill its all-volunteer force during the longest era of warfare in the nation’s history.
Even Guard officials concede that taking back the money from military veterans is distasteful.
“At the end of the day, the soldiers ended up paying the largest price,” said Maj. Gen. Matthew Beevers, deputy commander of the California Guard. “We’d be more than happy to absolve these people of their debts. We just can’t do it. We’d be breaking the law.”
Facing enlistment shortfalls and two major wars with no end in sight, the Pentagon began offering the most generous incentives in its history to retain soldiers in the mid-2000s.
It also began paying the money up front, like the signing bonuses that some businesses pay in the civilian sector.
They’ll get their money, but I want those years back.— Susan Haley, former Army master sergeant


“It was a real sea change in how business was done,” said Col. Michael S. Piazzoni, a California Guard official in Sacramento who oversaw the audits. “The system paid everybody up front, and then we spent the next five years figuring out if they were eligible.”
The bonuses were supposed to be limited to soldiers in high-demand assignments like intelligence and civil affairs or to noncommissioned officers badly needed in units due to deploy to Iraq or Afghanistan.
The National Guard Bureau, the Pentagon agency that oversees state Guard organizations, has acknowledged that bonus overpayments occurred in every state at the height of the two wars.
But the money was handed out far more liberally in the California Guard, which has about 17,000 soldiers and is one of the largest state Guard organizations.
In 2010, after reports surfaced of improper payments, a federal investigation found that thousands of bonuses and student loan payments were given to California Guard soldiers who did not qualify for them, or were approved despite paperwork errors.
Army Master Sgt. Toni Jaffe, the California Guard’s incentive manager, pleaded guilty in 2011 to filing false claims of $15.2 million and was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison. Three officers also pleaded guilty to fraud and were put on probation after paying restitution.
http://www.trbimg.com/img-580b6cb6/turbine/la-1477143953-snap-photo/550/550x309Soldiers from the California Army National Guard have been ordered to return enlistment bonuses they received a decade ago when the Pentagon needed troops for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. (California Army National Guard)



Instead of forgiving the improper bonuses, the California Guard assigned 42 auditors to comb through paperwork for bonuses and other incentive payments given to 14,000 soldiers, a process that was finally completed last month.
Roughly 9,700 current and retired soldiers have been told by the California Guard to repay some or all of their bonuses and the recoupment effort has recovered more than $22 million so far.
Because of protests, appeals and refusal by some to comply, the recovery effort is likely to continue for years.
In interviews, current and former California Guard members described being ordered to attend mass meetings in 2006 and 2007 in California where officials signed up soldiers in assembly-line fashion after outlining the generous terms available for six-year reenlistments.
Robert Richmond, an Army sergeant first class then living in Huntington Beach, said he reenlisted after being told he qualified for a $15,000 bonus as a special forces soldier.
The money gave him “breathing room,” said Richmond, who had gone through a divorce after a deployment to Afghanistan in 2002 and 2003.
In 2007, his special forces company was sent to the Iraqi town of Hillah, 60 miles south of Baghdad in an area known as the “Triangle of Death” because of the intense fighting.
Richmond conducted hundreds of missions against insurgents over the next year. In one, a roadside bomb exploded by his vehicle, knocking him out and leaving him with permanent back and brain injuries.
He was stunned to receive a letter from California Guard headquarters in 2014 telling him to repay the $15,000 and warning he faced “debt collection action” if he failed to comply.
I signed a contract that I literally risked my life to fulfill.— Robert Richmond, former Army sergeant first class


Richmond should not have received the money, they argued, because he already had served 20 years in the Army in 2006, making him ineligible.
Richmond, 48, has refused to repay the bonus. He says he only had served 15 years when he reenlisted, due to several breaks in his Army service.
He has filed appeal after appeal, even after receiving a collection letter from the Treasury Department in March warning that his “unpaid delinquent debt” had risen to $19,694.62 including interest and penalties.

After quitting the California Guard so the money wouldn’t be taken from his paycheck, he moved to Nebraska to work as a railroad conductor, but was laid off.
He then moved to Texas to work for a construction company, leaving his wife and children in Nebraska. With $15,000 debt on his credit report, he has been unable to qualify for a home loan.
“I signed a contract that I literally risked my life to fulfill,” Richmond said bitterly. “We want somebody in the government, anybody, to say this is wrong and we’ll stop going after this money.”
Though they cannot waive the debts, California Guard officials say they are helping soldiers and veterans file appeals with the National Guard Bureau and the Army Board for Correction of Military Records, which can wipe out the debts.
But soldiers say it is a long, frustrating process, with no guarantee of success.
Robert D’Andrea, a retired Army major and Iraq veteran, was told to return a $20,000 bonus he received in 2008 because auditors could not find a copy of the contract he says he signed.
Now D’Andrea, a financial crimes investigator with the Santa Monica Police Department, says he is close to exhausting all his appeals.
“Everything takes months of work, and there is no way to get your day in court,” he said. “Some benefit of the doubt has to be given to the soldier.”
Bryan Strother, a sergeant first class from Oroville north of Sacramento, spent four years fighting Guard claims that he owed $25,010.32 for mistaken bonuses and student loans.
Guard officials told Strother he had voided his enlistment contract by failing to remain a radio operator, his assigned job, during and after a 2007-08 deployment to Iraq.
Strother filed a class-action lawsuit in February in federal district court in Sacramento on behalf of all soldiers who got bonuses, claiming the California Guard “conned” them into reenlisting.
The suit asked the court to order the recovered money to be returned to the soldiers and to issue an injunction against the government barring further collection.
In August, Strother received a letter from the Pentagon waiving repayment of his bonus.
“We believe he acted in good faith in accepting the $15,000,” a claims adjudicator from the Pentagon’s Defense Legal Services Agency wrote in the letter. He still owed $5,000 in student loan repayments, it said.
Within weeks, lawyers for U.S. Atty. Phillip A. Talbert in Sacramento petitioned the court to dismiss Strother’s lawsuit, arguing that it was moot since most of his debt had been waived. A federal judge is supposed to rule on the government’s motion by January.
“It’s a legal foot-dragging process to wear people out and make people go away,” said Strother. “It’s overwhelming for most soldiers.”
Indeed, some have just given up, repaying the money even before exhausting their appeals.
“It was tearing me up, the stress, the headaches,” said Van Meter, the former Army captain from Manteca who paid off his $46,000 debt by refinancing his mortgage. “I couldn’t take it anymore. The amount of stress it put us through financially and emotionally was something we wanted to move past.”

Artful
10-22-2016, 03:28 PM
Gov. Jerry Brown - who put it in place now wants to "fix" it - sounds like Obama

http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/10/21/jerry-brown-prop-57-will-save-money-make-us-safer/


by JERRY BROWN (http://www.mercurynews.com/author/jerry-brown/)PUBLISHED: October 21, 2016 at 11:30 am | UPDATED: October 22, 2016 at 4:39 am


Voters can take a smart approach to public safety by voting YES on Proposition 57, a common-sense measure on the Nov. 8 ballot that will reduce crime and save taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.

It will do this by focusing prison spending on keeping dangerous offenders locked up, while rehabilitating those who are actually willing to change.

Proposition 57 partially restores a very good penal system that served California well from 1917 to 1977. I was governor when we made the change and adopted the current system of fixed sentences. It was a big mistake.

My idea then was to add greater certainty in sentencing, but it turned out just the opposite. The legislature kept changing sentences by passing hundreds and hundreds of new crime laws. We now have more than 5,000 separate criminal provisions that tie the hands of judges, give prosecutors enormous power to force plea deals without a trial and abolish parole for most inmates.

A system of fixed sentences sounded good, but it led directly to increasing recidivism and the building of 23 new and expensive prisons. It also fostered rampant violations of prison rules and the growth of prison gangs.

Under the old system of indeterminate sentences, inmates had to earn their way out of prison by demonstrating to a parole board that they were rehabilitated. They did this by working, getting educated, staying out of gangs and following the rules. But under the current system, inmates have no incentive to turn their lives around because they get out on the same fixed date regardless of their behavior or readiness to be released. That makes no sense.

After passage of the fixed sentencing system, California’s prison population increased from 22,000 to 175,000, the recidivism rate doubled, and the annual corrections budget skyrocketed to more than $10 billion. The prisons became so dangerously overcrowded that the United States Supreme Court ruled they were unconstitutional.

We are now under court order to reduce our prison population or face arbitrary releases of prisoners by federal judges. That is a risk California cannot afford.

With Proposition 57 we can keep decisions about California’s public safety in the hands of state law enforcement professionals, who exercise their sound discretion over how to keep Californians safe. It allows carefully screened non-violent offenders who’ve completed their primary sentence and meet strict public safety standards to apply – but not necessarily receive – parole.

Just because an inmate becomes eligible for parole does not mean the person will be released. Each case will be reviewed by members of the state parole board and, more often than not, parole will be rejected.

Thousands of inmates are eligible for parole even under current law, but they don’t get out. That’s because the parole board’s primary mission is public safety. They grant parole only when they conclude that an inmate has turned his life around and is ready to rejoin society.

Under Proposition 57, inmates will be able to earn credits through good behavior along with educational and rehabilitative achievements. With these kinds of incentives, they are much more likely to become law-abiding members of society.

Proposition 57 is a rational and thoughtful approach to public safety embraced by judges, victims’-rights groups and the Probation Chiefs of California.

For over 40 years, I have thought about crime and our prison system. I was the one who signed the new laws in 1977, and I know that our current system of fixed, rigid sentences—changed constantly by politicians—doesn’t work. Proposition 57 will change this and make our communities safer.

Please join me in support of a smarter approach to public safety that will save taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. Vote Yes on Proposition 57.

Jerry Brown is governor of California. He wrote this for The Mercury News.

Blackwater
10-22-2016, 05:21 PM
That first one is unforgivable!!! The second, about what I'd expect in CA, unfortunately. But if Hillary goes in, we're gonna' see MUCH worse than any of these, I believe. God help us!

JSnover
10-23-2016, 08:19 AM
The Body Snatchers (aka recruiters) are at least partly to blame. If they have to 'massage' the truth a little to get you to sign/reenlist, they'll do it. If eligibility was written in such a way as to be somewhat 'flexible,' they'll flex it.

44man
10-23-2016, 11:23 AM
The democrats rather you die in battle. Might not even pay expenses. I served and got nothing at all. I don't even look for anything from the Gov't. I don't even want any insurance from Geico. When I left I went my way.
You promise a recruit or a re enlistment man you better stick with it.
Kalifornia is demoncratic after all. Injured soldiers need contributions while the Gov't drops them.
Obumbler would give billions to enemies first.

RayinNH
10-23-2016, 11:35 AM
They need the money to pay for sex change operations.

dragon813gt
10-23-2016, 11:38 AM
Just another item to add to the long list of how we mistreat our troops in this country. We don't take care of them very well when they get back. And now we're going to punish them financially. Every day we inch closer to the breaking point.

sparky45
10-23-2016, 11:41 AM
They need the money to pay for sex change operations.

AND to help fund Detention Centers for Illegals.

44man
10-23-2016, 12:21 PM
All of you in the military. VOTE. Men in blue VOTE. Never say I don't like either and will not vote. before I would vote for the witch I would vote for Alfred E Newman in Mad magazine. Rat in Pearl's before Swine . I am sick of liberal comments in papers. Brain dead is common.

AZ Pete
10-23-2016, 12:31 PM
Looks like a class action suite would be appropriate. I hate lawyers, but that is probably the only way to get the attention of the bureaucrats that are behind this.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

nicholst55
10-23-2016, 12:51 PM
So they can willingly go deeper in the hole to provide services for illegals, but will force soldiers to lose their homes to repay bonuses that were inproperly paid. Sounds to me like they would lose in a lawsuit.

largom
10-23-2016, 01:12 PM
Sounds a lot like the treaty's made with the Indians [over 370] that were all broke by the government.

Blackwater
10-23-2016, 03:43 PM
I suspect you're at leat partially right, Nichols. After my Dad retired, and they started to "professionalize" the military, they boosted the pay by a very large %, but they were only going to give it to new recruits. Dad and many of his buddies served and retired on a contract that specified that they'd be given the full benefit of ALL future pay raises. They filed a class action lawsuit, because things were getting dicey financially for many and the total economy, and they'd been through one Great Depression and were NOT about to be denied what was rightfully theirs. Also, they had to consider that base PX and med. visits were getting more difficult and less frequent, even back then. So .... they launched a class action suit that wound up going to the Supreme Court, and the high court wound up deciding that they were indeed entitled to a significant raise, but NOT the full amount as their retirement contracts clearly stated. So they gave them part of what they were legally entitled to, and they just went away, like they'd always done, and took what they were given.

I've done a lot of business over the years via phone and internet, and have NEVER had a problem, though I've usually sent my mdse. before receiving payment. So far, I've been "lucky," but it's not exactly luck when most folks are good, honest and wholesome people. We forget that a few "bad apples" do NOT really "spoil the barrel."

But if someone with a brief case turns up at your door, and says, "Hi! I'm from the gov't and I'm here to help you," RUN! Run like Forrest Gump did! And do NOT stop until you're in at least one more time zone from where you were standing when so threatened! I've seen gov't ENABLE a bunch in the last number of years, but help? VERY, Very rarely! And I don't think that is an accident, either! Just my view and experience, and YMMV. That's just mine.

leeggen
10-23-2016, 10:07 PM
They have to figure out how to make money, california that is. They need to pay for all those hand outs they give to the hisp. and others that have problems, like the druggies and the those addicted to other things. Let alone all those poor souls that are starving from other countries.
I hate gov.theives, and I am not talking about those that served our country in the military.
CD

44man
10-24-2016, 10:41 AM
The man next to me is important and he feels the same about me. We are like one. We have sworn to give life to country and to each other. The best of the best. But now there are more homeless vets then anyone and I ask WHY. More are despondent and die by their own hands. I don't put medical names on it, they were just dumped by the Gov't. When hope is gone and you are tossed in a heap by demoncrats.
I don't care what anyone says about Bush, he loved our troops. If I was young and had to serve under a demoncrat, I would pull a Clinton and run to Canada.
Then you have Gore that made up everything.
Now we face a Supreme Court to destroy the country if the ***** gets in. I have great fear.

jmorris
10-24-2016, 11:47 AM
AND to help fund Detention Centers for Illegals.

You mean to help fund welfare programs for illegals, right?

One of the ones that came from there I thought was completely nuts was where they wanted to pay criminals to not break the law!

Here is a link just so you don't think I am nuts for comming up with such an outlandish idea.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/24/one-california-city-is-paying-people-not-to-commit-crimes.html