08 December 2021

Congress Wants To Spend More On Defense Than The DOD Does

The U.S. does not need to keep two Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruisers in its active fleet, does not need five more new ships for the Navy than it asked for, and does not need 12 more new late model aircraft carrier based jet fighters. 

All of these proposals are an immense waste of money costing Americans about $25 billion dollars at a time when we are no longer fighting any true wars and should be getting a "peace dividend."

Congressional authorizers are approving 13 battle force ships and saving two of the seven aging Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruisers the Navy tried to decommission, according to a draft of the National Defense Authorization Act.

An agreement reached by the House and Senate armed services committees authorizes 13 battle force ships, an increase of five ships from the eight the Navy sought in the Fiscal Year 2022 budget request.

The Fiscal Year 2022 policy bill, released today, authorizes funding for three Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, two Virginia-class attack boats, one Constellation-class frigate, two Expeditionary Fast Transport vessels, two John Lewis-class fleet oilers, two Navajo-class towing, salvage and rescue ships, and one T-AGOS(X) ocean surveillance ship.

The legislation also seeks to prevent the service from retiring all seven of the cruisers the Navy asked to decommission in its budget request. According to text of the legislation, the Pentagon cannot use any authorized money for FY 2022 “to retire, prepare to retire, inactivate, or place in storage more than 5 guided missile cruisers.” . . . 

Lawmakers also agreed to authorize money for 12 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, despite the Navy’s pleas to end the production line. The addition of the 12 Super Hornets is meant “to mitigate the Navy’s strike-fighter shortfall and bolster tactical fighter aircraft capacity,” according to a summary of the bill.

While the Navy had planned to buy more Super Hornets in a multi-year procurement between FY 2022 and FY 2024, the service’s FY 2021 budget submission called for an end to the production line of the Boeing-built aircraft after that budget year. The Navy at the time said it would instead use that money to invest in its Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program, which includes a sixth-generation fighter. . . . 

This version of the NDAA includes a $25 billion increase to the Pentagon’s budget, a move that comes after both House and Senate armed services committees approved similar increases in their marks of the bills. While the House passes its version of the NDAA in September, the policy bill has faced numerous hurdles in the Senate and has yet to receive a vote on the floor.

Authorizers’ release of the bill comes several days after President Joe Biden signed a second continuing resolution, as lawmakers also struggle to reach a deal on the FY 2022 spending bills. The current CR funds the government through Feb. 18, 2022.

But it’s unclear where appropriators will fall in their negotiations. Senate appropriators included a $24.7 top line increase to national defense spending in their draft of the spending bill, but the House Appropriations Committee followed the Biden administration’s budget and allotted $753 billion for national defense spending, with about $715 billion going to the Pentagon.

From here

07 December 2021

Unsurprisingly Appropriate Prison Sentence Lengths Are Partisan Issues

This survey data, combined with the median voter theorem, doesn't bode well for a reduction of mass incarceration in the United States, although given that most of these decisions are made at the state and local level, one would expect growing disparity between red state and blue states on prison sentence lengths. 

I don't know if there is currently, or historically has been, a large disparity between states in the length of the prison terms that they impose for comparable crimes correlated with their partisan leanings. A recent Bureau of Justice Statistics (federal government) survey has the data, but the publication I have a link to doesn't break it down on a state by state basis.

From here.

06 December 2021

How Many New Lawyers Join "Biglaw"

Big law firms have increased their market share of entry level lawyer hiring since I was a new law school graduate in 1994.

From here.

05 December 2021

A Nation Divided In A Likely Pro-Roe World (UPDATED December 19, 2021)

 

The New York Times predicts that 22 states would ban abortion if Roe v. Wade ceased to be good law and estimates the impact of that quantitatively. The darkest parts of the legend represent a drop in legal abortions of about 45%. Gray areas would have no drop. Yellow areas would decline by less than 5%. 

We may find out how accurate these predictions are in less than a year.

More affluent women would travel to states where abortion remained legal or would obtain drugs that induce early term abortions.

Many women, disproportionately those who are poor, would unwillingly carry their babies to term and rely on a social safety net that is thinner than in most other rich nations, and thinner in some states than in others.

Without Roe, the number of legal abortions in the country would fall by at least 14 percent, according to research by a team from Middlebury College; the University of California, San Francisco; and the Guttmacher Institute, based on the effects of clinic closures in Texas between 2013 and 2016.

Ohio, where I grew up and went to college, Georgia, where I was born, and Michigan, where I went to law school and have extended family, would all be greatly affected.

UPDATE December 19, 2021:

The New York Times analysis is based mostly on this study:
Between 2011 and 2014, Texas enacted three pieces of legislation that significantly reduced funding for family planning services and increased restrictions on abortion clinic operations. Together this legislation creates cross-county variation in access to abortion and family planning services, which we leverage to understand the impact of family planning and abortion clinic access on abortions, births, and contraceptive purchases. In response to these policies, abortions to Texas residents fell 20.5%and births rose 2.6% in counties that no longer had an abortion provider within 50 miles. Changes in the family planning market induced a 1.5% increase in births for counties that no longer had a publicly funded family planning clinic within 25 miles. Meanwhile, responses of retail purchases of condoms and emergency contraceptives to both abortion and family planning service changes were minimal.
From an NBER paper from 2017 by Stefanie Fischer and Corey White..

The Active Defenses Revolution

Heavy armor and big slug throwers are giving way to lighter arms and missiles, many of which are primarily defensive in orientation.

Tanks

Despite what the name might suggest, the "Terminator" combat support tank isn't unmanned. 

They are designed as support units for "Main Battle Tanks" with a big 125mm main gun, but it isn't obvious what those heavy tanks are meant to deal with that this platform does not address, or that would not be better deal with via aircraft and longer range missiles that keep their crews out of harm's way.

Russia has deployed its first regular unit of Terminator combat support tanks. The first Terminator company – equipped with nine BMPT-72s – was assigned to the 90th Guards Tank Division, which is stationed in the Sverdlovsk and Chelyabinsk areas of the Urals region in Central Russia, according to Russian news agency TASS. While the BMPT-72 has been tested in Syria, equipping a regular army division with the vehicles also known as the Terminator 2 – indicates that the Russian Army believes the vehicle is ready for combat. . . .

The BMPT-72 is considered a “tank support combat vehicle,” which in this case means a tank is designed to support other tanks, as compared to traditional main battle tanks (MBT). The Terminator is built on the chassis of the ubiquitous T-72 main battle tank, of which 25,000 were built since the 1970s. But instead of mounting a 125-millimeter cannon in a big turret, the BMPT-72 has a small turret armed with an array of weapons: two 30-millimeter cannon, four Ataka antitank missiles, two rapid-fire 30-millimeter grenade launchers, and a heavy machine gun.

This diverse suite of weapons allows the Terminator to engage multiple types of targets, including tanks, infantry, fortifications, helicopters and low-flying aircraft. At the same time, using a tank chassis offers the heavy armored protection found on tank hulls, as well as the off-road mobility of a fully tracked vehicle.

The genesis of the Terminator concept was the heavy losses suffered by Soviet armor in Afghanistan in the 1980s and Chechnya in the 1990s, On New Year’s Eve 1994, large columns of Russian tanks and armored personnel carriers roared into the Chechen capital of Grozny to suppress pro-independence insurgents. Ambushed by Chechen fighters armed with anti-tank rockets fired from buildings into the streets below, hundreds of Russian armored vehicles were destroyed.

This should not have been a surprise, least of all to the Russians who had ambushed German tanks in city battles such as Stalingrad. Indeed, numerous conflicts – from World War II to Vietnam and the Iran-Iraq War – have shown the vulnerability of armored vehicles bereft of support from infantry and artillery, especially in urban combat. Russian planners concluded that the solution wasn’t to use lightly armored vehicles – such as self-propelled anti-aircraft guns – for fire support. The BMPT-72 is meant to be a support vehicle with enough armor protection to accompany MBTs like the T-80, T-90, regular T-72s, and the new T-14 Armata into combat. At the same time, its rapid-fire cannon and grenade launchers can suppress infantry and anti-tank weapons that threaten regular tanks, while its anti-tank missiles can pick off enemy tanks.

The concept of a support tank isn’t exactly new. In World War II, the U.S. Army equipped some M4 Sherman tanks with low-velocity 105-millimeter howitzers for extra firepower against infantry and fortifications, while the Soviets mounted a 152-millimeter howitzer on a KV-1 heavy tank to create the SU-152 assault gun. Today’s Israel Defense Forces have the Namur, which is a Merkava 1 tank stripped of its turret, and converted into a heavily armored troop carrier.

The Terminator comes as Russia is testing the Armata, a next-generation family of armored vehicles – including a main battle tank and an armored personnel carrier – with advanced features such as an unmanned turret. One question will be whether the Terminator will be exported. Assuming it has commonality with the regular T-72, which has been used by more than 40 countries, than exporting the BMPT-72 might be easier than selling an entirely new vehicle like the Armata.

From here

Warships

The Navy is testing a new combat system for its Littoral Combat Ship . . . Part of the effort includes an introduction of new government-furnished equipment likely intended to improve fire-control, targeting and integration across a group of ship-board weapons systems. These weapons include an over-the-horizon Naval Strike Missile, a close-in weapon system (CIWS) for near-in threats, and mid-range defensive interceptors such as SeaRAM and Rolling Airframe Missile. Over the course of many years of development, the SeaRAM missile has engaged and destroyed an aerial drone. . . This was the first shipboard firing of the new weapon. . . . the Combat Systems Qualification for LCS 19, the USS St. Louis, was recently completed by firing a remote-controlled aerial targeting with SeaRAM and only the second “full-up-display” of SeaRAM detecting and engaging from aboard the Freedom-variant of the LCS. These weapons enhancements are intended to help establish the technological infrastructure sufficient for massive LCS “survivability and lethality upgrades” planned for 2023, Kipp said.

The ship-launched CIWS uses a Phalanx gun capable of firing forty-five hundred small projectiles per minute to blanket an area; the SeaRAM replaces the gun with larger, longer-range Rolling Airframe Missiles. Unlike the CIWS, it uses a twenty-millimeter cannon to shoot down threats close to a ship. SeaRAM fires a Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) from an 11-missile battery. . . . The Rolling Airframe Missile is what defense experts call a “fire and forget” missile, meaning it uses an RF or radio frequency detection technology along with a heat-seeking infrared sensor to find its way toward an approaching threat in order to intercept and destroy it.

Navy destroyers would likely use a Standard Missile-3, also known as an SM-3, to defend against an attacking long-range ballistic missile threat flying through space toward a target. Medium-range anti-ship missiles or sea-skimming enemy rockets could be destroyed by an SM-2 or SM-6 interceptor. Threats a bit closer could be taken out by an Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) or SeaRAM before a Close-In-Weapons-System strikes down approaching fire.

Arming destroyers and the Littoral Combat Ship with more lethal, precise and longer-range weapons can easily be interpreted as being part of the Navy’s larger “distributed lethality” strategy which first emerged in 2015 as part of an effort to massively arm the surface fleet. Since that time, the strategy has evolved and migrated into what the service calls “Distributed Maritime Operation,” a term which perhaps indicates that newer networking, artificial-intelligence-enabled computing and cross-domain operations. . . . the idea is to help the Navy return more fully to a focus on “blue water” combat against potential “near-peer” adversaries following a decade of ground wars wherein the Navy expended more effort on things like counter-piracy, Visit Board Search and Seizure and counterterrorism.

From here.

Infantry

Army ground gunners recently destroyed a drone target with a Stinger missile fired from a new Raytheon-built sensor-targeting unit. . . . initially designed for the Javelin anti-tank weapon, not the Stinger.

The Stinger missile, which has a long history of hitting enemy helicopters and airborne threats, was shot out of the Javelin’s Lightweight Command Launch Unit (LWCLU) at Eglin Air Force Base, bringing new tactical dimensions to ground-based drone defense. It was a first, as it introduces the ability to leverage the new sensor, range and targeting technologies built into the LWCLU.

The development introduces new possibilities for both the Stinger and the launcher, given that when firing the Javelin the LWCLU actually doubles the range from 2.5km to 4.5km and increases ground mobility restraints for soldiers because it is 30 percent lighter than its predecessor. The LWCLU brings increased sensor fidelity and targeting image resolution as well as a “fast lock” technology for improving attacks on the move. . . . The improved sensor performance also helps bring an surveillance and reconnaissance targeting component to dismounted ground war by, as a Raytheon statement explained it, “Offering twice the sight range at night and three times the site range during the day, regardless of weather conditions.” . . . Longer range, more precise targeting also helps sustain doctrinal requirements for the Army, as enables more precise target identification to ensure the proper targets are hit. . . . An ability to hit targets at longer ranges naturally expands the kinds of targets a Stinger missile is able to hit, such as drones. The Stinger, which Raytheon data says has achieved more than 270 fixed and rotary-wing intercepts, will now be able to hit higher-flying drones and other targets previously not reachable.

A Stinger-armed infantry force can add a useful attack option to complement the existing armored vehicle-mounted Short Range Air Defense program which now deploys Stryker vehicles armed with Hellfire, Javelin and Stinger missiles for counter air missions. Now, small groups of dismounted infantry units on the move in combat, potentially operating further forward with less mechanized support, will have a much stronger sphere of defenses against enemy drones.

From here

Point Defense

The Moroccan military has purchased the Israeli counter-drone system Skylock Dome. . . . these systems disrupt the connection between the flying threat and its path, taking the target out of service.

The system is equipped with optical and thermal monitoring devices and a radar that monitors and tracks any suspicious activities. Also, the jamming devices play their role in neutralizing its danger . . . . the systems could help protect vital and sensitive installations from drones, such as critical economic, military and government installations. . . . These systems may not be very effective against military drones that are equipped with electronic anti-jamming systems, but they are very effective against drones used to take pictures inside sensitive places. . . . Morocco has been using Israeli drones for years for reconnaissance, electronic warfare and artillery targeting. Today, with normalizing relations between the two countries, the kingdom aspires to benefit from the Israeli experience in order to exploit the industrial infrastructure for civil aviation that Morocco has equipped, and to expand it to include the military side[.]"
From here.

Contagious Cancer Recap

Approximately 12%-16% of human cancers worldwide (of 20-30 types) are attributed to viruses. Another 4% of cancer cases are attributed to other infectious agents. There are nine known viral causes of cancer in humans:

* Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1),
* Human T-cell lymphotropic virus type 1 (HTLV-1),
* Epstein-Barr virus (EBV),
* Kaposi sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (KSHV),
* Merkel cell polyomavirus (MCV),
* Hepatitis B (Hep B),
* Hepatitis C (Hep C),
* Human Papillomaviruses (HPV) (some genital-mucosal types), and
* Cytomegalovirus, a common virus in the herpes family.

Three of these (Hep B, Hep C, and HPV), have vaccines available, and one (HIV-1) has a partially effective experimental vaccine available. There are no vaccines available for the other five.

About 90 percent of people are infected at some time in their lives with Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), usually with no ill effects. But individuals with compromised immune systems, such as people with organ transplants or HIV infection, have a greater risk of cancer occurring because of this virus. 

Newborns with congenital cytomegalovirus, a common virus in the herpes family, have an increased risk of developing acute lymphocytic leukemia.

See here, here, here, and here (note that some of the text above is closely paraphrased from these sources).

In non-humans, there is one known kind of cancer, affecting the same tissues that M.S. does, in Tasmanian devils, that is directly transmitted by bites without an intervening viral agent. It first appeared around 1990 and has killed about 70% of Tasmanian devils. It could lead to the extinction of the species by 2040. My source for this was a Science News story in 2009, but my link to this source is dead.

04 December 2021

White Democrats Are Smarter Than White Republicans And Independents

Razib Khan analyzes the data from the General Social Survey (2016 to the present) using a question that is a decent proxy at a statistical level for IQ. It isn't even close among Non-Hispanic Whites:

Liberal Ideology: 20% in the top 10%; 22% in the bottom 30%.

Democrats: 16% in the top 10%; 27% in the bottom 30%.

Independents: 10% in the top 10%; 43% in the bottom 30%.

Conservative Ideology: 9% in the top 10%; 30% in the bottom 30%.

Republicans: 8% in the top 10%; 31% in the bottom 30%.

Moderate Ideology: 8% in the top 10%; 38% in the bottom 30%.

03 December 2021

Roe Is One Of Many Things At Stake In Dobbs

The 6-3 conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to overrule Roe v. Wade, despite assurances to Senators and statements in confirmation hearings to the contrary

But, as bad as this is (and this is the real deal, not a false alarm to whip up political supporters on both sides this time), it is only the tip of the iceberg. An analysis in The Atlantic magazine explains the larger implications.
The consensus of Supreme Court watchers after Wednesday’s oral argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is that the demise of Roe v. Wade, or at least its dilution to a point that virtually any government-imposed “burden” on abortion would be constitutionally acceptable, is coming. After all, this Court allowed a Texas law effectively banning most abortions after six weeks to stand pending litigation, rejecting multiple pleas for a temporary stay—as clear a signal as any that at least five justices on the current Court have no problem with women’s constitutional rights (as currently recognized) being violated in the interim. . . .

Consider the 1923 case Meyer v. Nebraska, in which the Court struck down a law criminalizing the teaching of German in private schools. “The obvious purpose of this statute,” the Court wrote, “was that the English language should be and become the mother tongue of all children reared in this state.” Although its enactment “comes reasonably within the police power of the state,” the Court found that the law ”unreasonably infringes the liberty guaranteed to the plaintiff in error by the Fourteenth Amendment”—the precise grounding of the now-precarious individual right to decide whether to carry a fetus to term. Two years later, in Pierce v. Society of Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus & Mary, the Court struck down an Oregon criminal law forcing parents to send their children to public school. “The manifest purpose” of the law, the Court noted, “is to compel general attendance at public schools by normal children, between eight and sixteen, who have not completed the eighth grade.” Citing Meyer, the Court ruled, “We think it entirely plain that the Act of 1922 unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children.”

The Court has construed liberty to safeguard numerous other personal safe spaces: the right to marry regardless of race (1967’s Loving v. Virginia) and sex (2015’s Obergefell v. Hodges). The right to use contraception (Griswold). The right to be free from compulsory sterilization by the state (1942’s Skinner v. Oklahoma). The right to be free of government-mandated surgery involving “a virtually total divestment of respondent’s ordinary control over surgical probing beneath his skin” (1985’s Winston v. Lee). And the right to engage in intimate sexual conduct with a partner of one’s choice without fear of criminal prosecution (2003’s Lawrence v. Texas).

In Dobbs, the state of Mississippi’s answer to this line of cases is to suggest that the life of an unborn fetus is especially sacred under the Constitution: “Nowhere else in the law does a right of privacy or right to make personal decisions provide a right to destroy a human life,” it claims. 
But saying so does not mean that critics of other privacy-based rights could not find their own reasons why those rights, too, must be balanced against some other competing interest.

30 November 2021

International Extradition Is Rare

In theory, felons who flee abroad can be extradited to face criminal charges, even in international cases. In practice, the process is sufficiently cumbersome that it is reserved for the most egregious cases, and even then, it takes a long time to make it happen.

A Colorado man wanted as a suspect in a 2016 sexual assault case has been extradited from Ecuador to Jefferson County. Peter Robert Dettmer, 69, faces 126 sexual assault charges, according to a district attorney’s office news release. He was extradited last Wednesday. Dettmer was arrested in Colorado on June 10, 2016, on multiple sex assault charges and entered a plea of not guilty on Aug. 29, 2016, court records show. He then failed to appear for a trial scheduled for Jan. 23, 2017. 
Arrested in Cuenca, Ecuador, on April 27, Dettmer’s extradition was carried out by the FBI with assistance from the U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of International Affairs and the U.S. Department of State, the DA’s office news release said. His is the second extradition from Ecuador to the United States in the past 27 years.

From the Denver Post

29 November 2021

Astronomers Consider ET Impact Driven Immigration

What should we do if a predicted asteroid impact that we can predict, which is big enough to cause regional damage, but not big enough to end the species, makes it necessary to evacuate hundreds of thousand or millions of people from their homes, perhaps permanently?

I'm skeptical that we as a global human race could listen to scientists and behave in a civil way, but one can hope.
Throughout recorded history, humans have crossed national borders to seek safety in nearby countries. The reasons for displacement have been generated by phenomena of terrestrial origin, but exposure to unexpected extra-terrestrial threats poses a different scenario. An asteroid impact warning implies a change of paradigm which would represent a historic precedent. 
In this regard, the analogies with natural disasters must be considered, along with multiple possible scenarios, and legal aspects related to a) the legal framework to regulate this situation; b) the action and responsibility of the states; and c) the definition of impact refugee and the reconfiguration of traditional concepts such as deterritorialized states. 
In addition, the decision-making process and the actors involved must be led by a cooperative effort to improve international law. These new circumstances should be established with a consideration of inequalities between the states, and an aim of protecting humanity through democratic solutions using the safest, most effective techniques.
Elisa Simó-Soler, Eloy Peña-Asensio, "From impact refugees to deterritorialized states: foresighting extreme legal-policy cases in asteroid impact scenarios" arXiv:2111.13643 (November 5, 2021) (Acta Astronautica (in revision)).

26 November 2021

Fighting A Serious And Common Bacterial Disease With A Natural Virus

Good news in treating an often neglected problem that causes great suffering. 

Phages are viruses that infect bacteria and can also be used to treat human infections. . . . researchers have shown that the naturally occurring phage A1-1 kills Shigella flexneri, a major cause of dysentery in sub-Saharan Africa and southern Asia and selects for phage-resistant mutants with reduced virulence.

From here

India Falls Below Replacement Rate Child Bearing

India is no longer a significant source of net global population growth. The national average, however, conceals vast disparities between regions, mostly with more children per woman per lifetime in the North and in rural areas, and fewer in the South and in urban areas.

India’s most recent National Family Health Survey, which is conducted every five years by the Health Ministry, was released Wednesday and showed the total fertility rate (TFR) across India dropping to 2.0 in 2019-2021, compared with 2.2 in 2015-2016. A country with a TFR of 2.1, known as the replacement rate, would maintain a stable population over time; a lower TFR means the population would decrease in the absence of other factors, such as immigration…

In cities across India — as in other countries — women are opting for fewer children: The urban fertility rate is 1.6.

From the Washington Post

Human 2.0: Executive Function Boosting

Another high risk, high reward concept from DARPA:
Researchers show it is possible to improve specific human brain functions related to self-control and mental flexibility by merging artificial intelligence with targeted electrical brain stimulation. . . . 
[T]hey identified a brain region -- the internal capsule -- that improved patients' mental function when stimulated with small amounts of electrical energy. That part of the brain is responsible for cognitive control -- the process of shifting from one thought pattern or behavior to another, which is impaired in most mental illnesses.
An example might include a person with depression who just can't get out of a "stuck" negative thought. Because it is so central to mental illness, finding a way to improve it could be a powerful new way to treat those illnesses.
The team developed algorithms, so that after stimulation, they could track patients' cognitive control abilities, both from their actions and directly from their brain activity. The controller method provided boosts of stimulation whenever the patients were doing worse on a laboratory test of cognitive control.
This system can read brain activity, "decode" from that when a patient is having difficulty, and apply a small burst of electrical stimulation to the brain to boost them past that difficulty. The analogy I often use is an electric bike. When someone's pedaling but having difficulty, the bike senses it and augments it. We've made the equivalent of that for human mental function.
The study is the first to show that:
* A specific human mental function linked to mental illness can be reliably enhanced using precisely targeted electrical stimulation; 
* There are specific sub-parts of the internal capsule brain structure that are particularly effective for cognitive enhancement; and 
* A closed-loop algorithm used as a controller was twice as effective than stimulating at random times.

Some of the patients had significant anxiety in addition to their epilepsy. When given the cognitive-enhancing stimulation, they reported that their anxiety got better, because they were more able to shift their thoughts away from their distress and focus on what they wanted. Widge says that this suggests this method could be used to treat patients with severe and medication-resistant anxiety, depression or other disorders. 
. . .  
The research team is now preparing for clinical trials. Because the target for improving cognitive control is already approved by the Food and Drug Administration for deep brain stimulation, . . .  this research can be done with existing tools and devices -- once a trial is formally approved -- and the translation of this care to current medical practice could be rapid.
From Science Daily citing Ishita Basu, et al., "Closed-loop enhancement and neural decoding of cognitive control in humans." Nature Biomedical Engineering (2021) DOI: 10.1038/s41551-021-00804-y

A Hybrid Brass-String Instrument

I love this hybrid brass-string instrument devised for the series Arcane: League of Legends.



 

20 November 2021

Ima

One of the particularly extreme contractions in modern casual English speech is "ima" which means "I am going to". Or, more exactly:

IMA is actually a contraction of the slang phrase "I'm gonna," which means "I am going to."

18 November 2021

Bonded And Insured - A Way To Make The Economy More Robust

This is a proposal designed to protect governments entering into contracts, businesses in the course of their regular businesses, and other members of the general public, from the risk that a company that enjoys the benefits of limited liability becomes insolvent or goes bankrupt, except when these persons are consciously evaluating this risk because they are intentionally making an investment.

This would make our economy more robust and would make bankruptcies for covered businesses much less expensive, simpler, more swift, and much less likely to have contagion effects that propagate beyond the bankrupt firm.

It basically generalizes the model of agencies like the the FDIC and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (a government agency that partially pays obligations of insolvent defined benefit pension plans), which have proven to be very effective at mitigating the harm caused by insolvent major private institutions, especially during recessions and financial crises, thereby making the economy more robust and reducing systemic risk in the economy, and making the navigation of institution insolvency more smooth collectively and for innocent people affected by these insolvencies.

It is also inspired by regulations in other countries of limited liability entities that is more robust than in the U.S. and regulation of limited liability entities used in the practice of law in Colorado.

There is a good argument that some insurance requirement should be present for all limited liability entities. Realistically, almost all covered entities below already have insurance and the bonding requirement is the innovative part.

Who Would Be Subject To The Bonded And Insured System?

The basic idea is that certain companies would have to be bonded and insured. This would include:

Every company with publicly held equity or debt doing business in the United States or traded on a securities exchange in the United States. 

Every privately held limited liability entity with 50 or more persons providing services to it during the course of the most recent calendar year, for whom a W-2 or 1099 had to be issued. 

Every privately held limited liability entity bidding on or performing a significant contract or grant with a government in the United States. 

Every privately held limited liability entity bidding on or performing a significant contract or grant with a public charity doing business in the United States. A public charity would be a non-profit defined as such in the Internal Revenue Code. A public charity is doing business in the United States if it is organized under the laws of a government in the United States or if the contract or grant is to be performed for an office of the public charity in the United States or the contract is to be performed in the United States. 

A significant contract or grant would be a contract that is either more than $1,000,000, or more than $100,000 if the amount of the contract is more than 10% of the government entity or public charity's annual expenditures in its most recent fiscal year. 

Any company or non-profit that opts into the system even though it is not required to do so. A company that opted in would be authorized to advertise that fact. False claims of being bonding and insured voluntarily would be handled by the Fair Trade Commission (FTC).

What Would Participants Be Required To Do?

Participants would be required to obtain federal government regulatory agency approved bonding and insurance.

The company would be required to have certain kind of liability insurance in placxe. This would include: (1) comprehensive general liability insurance, (2) worker's compensation insurance, (3) automobile insurance and the equivalent for other vehicles, (4) construction defect coverage for firms engaging in construction, (5) professional liability insurance for firms providing professional services, (6) flood insurance for business with operations in flood plains, and (7) earthquake insurance for businesses located in high earthquake risks.  There would be no deductible as to third-parties on these insurance policies, but the insurance company could reserve a right to reimbursement for a deductible from the company up to an amount allowed by a formula or rule. The insurer would also provide a legal defense to the claims and eroding policies (where defense costs were paid from the policy limits) would be prohibited.

The company would be required to be bonded with a bonding agency meeting certain standards up to a dollar amount determined by a simple formula. Bonding agencies in the program would also have to pay a tax to fund a firm that would guarantee claims on bonds that are owed by insolvent bonding agencies. The bonding agency would be required to pay on demand any covered claim up to the dollar amount of the bond on a covered claim. 

Covered claim types would include properly "perfected" claims for essentially all trade creditors of a company including deductibles owed to insurance companies, money market loans (up to some formula cap amount), mechanic's lien claims where the company doesn't have primary contractual liability, and tax obligations other than income taxes (e.g. withholding taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, and property taxes). The main liabilities that would not be covered claims would be (1)  finance debt (i.e. loans of cash for more than 91 days or large short term loans up to some formula cap amount, obligations on guarantees of such loans such as corporate bonds, unsecured bank loans, deficiency judgments on secured loans, and derivative instrument debts), (2) claims for income taxes, (3) claims on insurance claims in excess of policy limits, (4) civil claims for uninsurable tort claims, punitive damages and penalties, and (5) criminal penalties, fines and costs.

The most common way to "perfect" a claim would be to get a money judgment against the bonded company that has been unstayed and unpaid for five weeks (35 days) from entry of judgment. But insurance company deductible claims would be perfected if certified by the insurance company as having been paid by it and not reimbursed within 91 days but not more than three years, by the bonded company. Tax claims would be perfected when assessed. In the case of companies that have ceased to be going concerns, a Bond Claims Receiver, a public official similar to the U.S. bankruptcy trustee, would be appointed by a federal district court or bankruptcy court upon the petition of the company or its bonding agency or other claimant representatives where a mass claim filing was underway or imminent.

Bonding agencies would have a right to indemnification from the company bonded for the aggregate outstanding amount all claims paid by the bonding agency, plus a service fee in a contractually established amount subject to regulation by the federal government regulatory agency for each claim paid, plus interest at a rate similar to subordinated corporate bond interest rates on the outstanding balance owed each day. This indemnification right would be secured by a UCC-1 filed blanket security interest under the UCC in all of the tangible and intangible personal property of the company and recorded security interests in all of its real property, with these security interests subordinate only to purchase money security interests in the collateral (and refinancing of that debt), tax liens to the extent provided by law, HOA liens to the extent provided by law, and express subordinations agreed to by the bonding agency.

Bond premiums would be subject to an excise tax used to fund an agency that would pay some or all of covered bond claims in excess of bonding agency bond amount limits because the federal government agency's required bond amount limits were too low in the case of a particular company.

Establishing Regulations

A federal advisory board attached to the Commerce Department Bureau administering the program would establish regulations for the program.

The insurance coverages and minimum policy limits and maximum deductible  amounts required for each type of insurance would be established with a rule or formula, and this agency would also establish a simple formula to determine the dollar amount of the bond required.

This advisory board would also establish regulations to determine which state licensed insurance companies and bonding agencies would qualify for use by companies in the program. 

Primary regulation of bonding agencies and insurance companies would remain with state governments and would be ratified by this agency essentially providing a second look to make sure that state regulation of bonding company and insurance company reserves was not too lax. 

Enforcement

Publicly held companies would have to certify to the SEC that they were still bonded and insured on each regular report or with a special notice if this ceased to be the case. Compliance by publicly held companies would be enforced by the SEC. 

A small new Commerce Department Bureau with a tiny budget and few employees would enforce compliance with an administer the program in the case of non-publicly held companies, government agencies, and public charities. It would would have a system for sanctioning or bringing into compliance entities in its jurisdiction that should have been bonded and insured, but were not, and for dealing with bonding agencies and insurance companies that fail to comply with the rules.

The Commerce Department Bureau would also vet insurance and bonding companies that wished to participate in the program to determine if they complied with the regulations for the program and were eligible to provide insurance or bonding that satisfied the program's requirements.

Privately held companies with 50 or more employees would have to certify that they were bonded and insured on their tax returns each year with a notice given by the IRS to the Commerce Department Bureau, if they were not. Other privately held companies filing tax returns with the IRS would have to check a box that they were or were not covered on their annual tax return, and another box regarding whether they were or were not required to be covered which would be similarly reported if appropriate. Firms that were covered or required to be covered, but did not have to file their own tax returns with the IRS in a given year, would still have to file an annual report with the IRS certifying their compliance and informing it of their non-compliance with referral to the Commerce Department Bureau, if necessary. Public charities would certify compliance on their annual Form 990 filed with the IRS or risk losing public charity status and would also be referred to the Commerce Department Bureau if they were not.

Local governments and state agencies would be to certify compliance each year to a responsible state government official designated by the state, and that designated state official would certify compliance (subject to exceptions reported along with a report on the actions being taken by that state official to resolve the non-compliance) to the Commerce Department Bureau.

Bonding agencies and insurance companies of covered companies would have to notify  the SEC or the Commerce Department Bureau, as the case might be, if their bonds or insurance policies were terminated by the company covered by them for any reason. 

Complaints that a company required to be bonded and insured, or representing that it was bonded and insured, was not bonded and insured, could be made to the SEC for publicly held companies, to the designated state official for state and local governments, and to the Commerce Department Bureau otherwise. 

Complaints that a bonding agency or insurance company of a bonded and insured company was not acting properly would be referred to the state regulatory licensing that company.

A corps of Bond Claim Receivers would be established as an additional division of U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee's office. The U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee's office would not have any direct dealing with the Commerce Department Bureau or the SEC.

What Would This Mean?

Bankruptcies involving reorganizations of going concerns be limited to allocating the assets of the company left over after payment of purchase money secured debt, priority tax and HOA liens, and the bond indemnification lien debt. The only claimants in the bankruptcy would be (1) finance creditors, (2) income tax claims, (3) claims on insurance claims in excess of policy limits, (4) civil claims for uninsurable tort claims, punitive damages and penalties, and (5) criminal penalties, fines and costs.

Finance creditors would have loan covenants requiring excess insurance policies if in their financial judgment, the federal regulatory agency's minimum policy limits were too low and management didn't already decide to put that in place to protect equity owners.

People other than finance creditors dealing voluntarily with bonded and insured companies would almost never have uncollectible debts, thus protecting innocent people who have no choice but to do business with some big business in many circumstances. 

The fact that all of their legal obligations would be collectible would also encourage bonded and insured companies to act lawfully, relative to people who would be uncollectible vis-a-vis major tort or other debt obligations. This would prevent the contagion of unpaid claims of bonding and insured companies from taking down innocent firms that do business with them, governments that do business with them, and public charities.

This system would not impact the vast majority of existing small businesses or impede small business formation, but would highly the heightened default risk of dealing with these businesses as trade creditors. But individual small business defaults of non-government contractors don't pose the same systemic risk to the economy.

17 November 2021

Public Sector Unions In The United States

The private sector unionization rate continues to fall, while public sector unions remain robust.

Can Public Sector Workers Unionize?

There are many U.S. jurisdictions in which some public sector employees cannot unionize, and in the U.S. the right of most kinds of private sector employees who aren't part of management (although not all) to unionize, is secured by federal law (the National Labor Relations Act). Unsurprisingly, unionization of federal government employees is also governed by federal law.

Management workers in both government and the private sector are not generally permitted to unionize (including almost all government lawyers and judges and all military personnel, for what it is worth).

Federal law (other than the U.S. Constitution) does not apply to public sector unionization at the state and local level in the U.S., for federalism reasons.

Wikipedia reviews the relevant U.S. history. Postal service unions first arose in 1890 and have persisted to the present. Other public service unions emerged, such as the Boston Police Union, but a strike by that union in 1919 resulted in the elimination of public sector unionization in the U.S. (outside public schools and the post office) from 1919 to 1958. Public sector unions in the U.S. have expanded rapidly since then. Federal government unions outside the postal service were legalized in 1962.

In 2010 8.4 million government workers were represented by unions, including 31% of federal workers, 35% of state workers and 46% of local workers.

The union membership rate (the percentage of wage and salary workers who were members of unions) was 10.8 percent. . . . the union membership rate in the public sector . . . [was] 34.8 percent, while the rate in the private sector . . . [was] 6.3 percent.
Public sector unions typically afford a different mix of benefits for members than a typical private sector union does.

Public sector workers have had many union-like benefits such as defined benefit pension plans and the right to be fired only for cause (two of the main goals of many private sector unions), for much longer than public sector unions have been widespread. The federal civil service system was begun in 1883 in reaction to abuses of political patronage by prior administrations, especially that of President Andrew Jackson.

There continue to be many cases in the U.S. where government workers can unionize, but not strike, either due to a global rule that applies to every unionized government workplace of that type in that jurisdiction, or due to a widely adopted collective bargaining agreement term.

For example, unionized federal government employees don't have the right to strike, as a matter of federal statutory law.

Some Brief Comparative Observations About Private Sector Unions

What a union does and means varies from country to country.

For example, the main kind of private sector union in Japan, which is sponsored by the company itself, is prohibited under the National Labor Relations Act in the United States.

Similarly, while U.S. unions are organized primarily on an employer by employer basis (with a few notable exceptions like people in the live theater, TV and film industries), some countries have unions organized on an industry by industry basis.

Private sector unionization in the U.S., in contrast to public sector unionization, has declined more or less steadily since about 1970, mostly due to outsourcing and off shoring that is not feasible for many kinds of government workers (a full analysis of that point is beyond the scope of this question).

16 November 2021

Small Business Ownership Disclosure

Under a new U.S. law that took effect January 1, 2021, new small closely held business entities that aren't otherwise regulated businesses (basically corporations and LLCs) once regulations are enacted but no later than January 1, 2022, and by January 1, 2023, existing small, closely held business entities that aren't otherwise regulated businesses, must file an annual federal disclosure of their beneficial owners and if a regulation requires it, after certain changes in ownership. 

As of November 3, 2021, however, according to the Financial Times, however, the regulatory process was stalled:

A new law that will stop US businesses using shell companies to hide from tax authorities has run into delays at the Treasury department, senior Congressional Democrats have warned, with a key legal deadline set to be missed. Congress passed the Corporate Transparency Act in January with the intention of forcing businesses to declare for the first time who their true owners are — a key weapon for US tax officials. The bill came after more than a decade of political wrangling, and was meant to come into force by January 1 2022. 
On Wednesday, however, the three Democratic committee chairs who shepherded the bill through Congress wrote to Janet Yellen, the US Treasury secretary, expressing disappointment at the slow pace of implementation. The letter, which has been seen by the Financial Times, was signed by Sherrod Brown, chair of the Senate banking committee, Maxine Waters, chair of the House of Representatives financial services committee, and Carolyn Maloney, chair of the House oversight committee. In it, the three Democrats warn: “We are disappointed by delays on this important rule, but recognise that . . . a final rule is now not likely to be issued by the implementation deadline.” 
They urged Yellen to move faster with the rulemaking process. “We hope that as the department’s leader, you will do everything that you can to ensure swift action on the rule, including urgently providing additional staff and resources as necessary to achieve the effective and timely issuance of a proposed and subsequent final rule,” they said. . . .
It is deliberately broad in its scope, covering corporations, LLCs and any other state-registered or foreign-registered business that transacts in the US. Anti-tax avoidance campaigners have previously called the move “the biggest anti-money-laundering update that we’ve had in 20 years”. . . .  
The legislation required the Treasury to create the new rule, setting out more detail on which companies would be covered and how it would be monitored and enforced. But the department only published a request for public comment in April, and is still going through hundreds of responses to that, many of which come from organisations that opposed the law in the first place. The bill’s backers say it would have been quicker to publish a proposed rule before requesting comment. 
Other hurdles have been the chaotic transition between the Trump and Biden administrations, and the fact that Congress has not yet passed a measure increasing the Treasury’s budget to enforce it. 
A Treasury spokesperson defended the process, saying: “The insights and views of stakeholders — including federal agencies, states, tribes and the private sector — provided in response to [a request to comment] are invaluable to the rulemaking process, and help inform both the [proposed rule] and the final rule.” The person added: “FinCEN has a substantial and proactive agenda, and one of our highest priorities is the implementation of the beneficial ownership requirements of the Corporate Transparency Act.”
All nonexempt entities, or “reporting companies,” must submit beneficial ownership information to FinCEN, which will hold that information in a secure, nonpublic database once forms are drawn up and regulations are in place.

The full text of the law is available here.

Who Is a “Beneficial Owner” for the Corporate Transparency Act?

Under the Act, each of the following is a “beneficial owner:”

* A natural person
* Who directly or indirectly (through any contract, arrangement, understanding, relationship, or otherwise)
* Exercises substantial control over the entity, owns 25% or more of the equity, or receives “substantial economic benefits” from the assets of the entity 
What Information Is Required for Each “Beneficial Owner?”

* Full legal name
* Date of birth
* Current residential or business address
* The unique identifying number from a valid U.S. passport, personal identification card, state driver’s license, or if none of those are available, a valid foreign passport (subject to some fussy detailed requirements).
What Are the Consequences of a Failure to Comply?

Failure to comply with the new CTA reporting requirements will result in serious penalties. An individual who fails to meet the reporting standards may face civil penalties of up to $500 per day. An individual who willfully provides or attempts to provide false or fraudulent information, or willfully fails to provide FinCEN with the requisite information, may face criminal fines up to $10,000 and/or imprisonment for up to two years.

Moreover, the statute imposes penalties for individuals who engage in unauthorized use or disclosure of beneficial ownership information collected under the CTA. The civil penalty is up to $500 per day, and the criminal penalty includes fines up to $250,000 and imprisonment for up to five years.
The Act does provide that civil or criminal penalties shall not apply in the case of negligent non-compliance, although it remains to be seen how “negligence” will be interpreted. 
Who Is Exempt? 
Not a “beneficial owner”
* A minor child
* A nominee, custodian, or agent
* An employee “whose control over or economic benefits” from the entity “derives solely from” employment status
* A person whose interest is through inheritance
* A creditor (unless that gives the creditor control)

Excluded entities

* An entity whose securities are registered with the SEC
* An entity chartered under an interstate compact
* An FDIC depository institution
* A credit union
* A bank holding company
* An SEC-registered broker/dealer
* A securities exchange or clearing agency
* An investment company or an investment advisor registered under the 1940 Acts or described in one of the Acts
* An insurance company
* An entity registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”)
* A public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“PCAOB”)
* A financial market utility designated by the Financial Stability Oversight Council (“FSOC”)
* An insurance producer
* Certain pooled investment vehicles
* A public utility
* A church, charity, or non-profit with tax-exempt status
* A business concern with 20 or more full-time employees in the U.S.; $5 million in gross receipts or sales as shown on U.S. tax filings; and an operating physical presence at an office in the U.S. 
* Dormant companies which have been in existence for more than one year, are not engaged in “active business,” AND not owned (either directly or indirectly) by a non-U.S. individual
* Any corporation or LLC formed and owned by an excluded entity
FinCEN has express authority to remove types of entities from the excluded list or to add new exclusions. In relation to that authority, FinCEN is charged with continuing to study “beneficial owner” issues.

Colorado Supreme Court Takes Action To Authorize Independent Divorce Paraprofessionals

I was on a Colorado Bar Association committee that pushed this initiative, way too many years ago, and left it when it seemed like the bar association vetoed the idea. But the Colorado Supreme Court pushed forward and is making this happen. The statement below is from a press release from the Colorado Supreme Court:

Volunteer judges, attorneys, paralegals, family court facilitators, and other court staff have been busy developing an implementation plan to license legal paraprofessionals for certain types of domestic relations matters, pursuant to an order by the Colorado Supreme Court. The plan will address education and qualifications, licensure requirements, ethics rules, procedural rules, training and systems requirements. 
This project is described on a new webpage, which links to the Supreme Court’s authorization orders as well as the preliminary report sent to the Court from the Advisory Committee.

The project anticipates that licensing legal paraprofessionals for non-complex, lower-asset domestic relations cases may make legal services more widely available to the many litigants who otherwise would appear in family court without a lawyer. Specifically, the preliminary report – which formed the basis of the Court’s order to develop a follow-up implementation plan – provides that licensed legal paraprofessionals would be allowed to undertake certain matters where net marital assets are below a threshold amount, such as $200,000. The report provides that licensed legal paraprofessionals would be allowed to accompany their clients to court, and would be allowed to answer factual questions of the court but could not orally advocate for them. There would be a licensure exam and an ethics exam specific to this new group of licensed professionals.

The Colorado Supreme Court would need to approve a more detailed implementation plan and draft rules. The Advisory Committee anticipates that the Court will provide a public comment period and public hearing.

Please refer to the project webpage and report for more information. Questions can be directed to paraprofessionals@csc.state.co.us.