US Government is trying to make vets repay retention/re-enlistment bonuses...

[guacamole]

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...nap-story.html

The astounding thing to me is how military service is the path to the middle class for so many young men and women who have no hope of otherwise advancing in life. People sacrifice years of their lives in service, and then this happens. And the news comes out that the politicians knew as long as two years ago, that the military was trying to claw back the advances that they paid people to re-enlist. Ridiculous. This is why character matters in government. It depresses me that which ever way you slice it, we have at least four more years of corruption and abuse ahead of us.

[Cow Poke]

I wish they'd work that hard to recover disability payments to people who aren't actually disabled.

SSDI-recession.jpg

[Sparko]

Yeah the soldiers did nothing wrong. The government and the recruiters screwed up.

Here is a petition to demand they drop this nonsense.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...r-due-hr-error

[guacamole]

Signed. But does anyone in power care? Not likely...

[Sparko]

Signed. But does anyone in power care? Not likely...

in an election year? Probably do. This is the perfect time to get the politicians to drop this idiocy, because they are worried about their own jobs.

[Yttrium]

Well, let's see if Congress can get its act together and do something about it. The California National Guard has no choice but to ask for the money back, unless Congress bails them out.

I would think that a lot of Republicans would be sympathetic. Except maybe Tea Party types, since they hate to spend money. I always wonder which way someone like Cruz will go when things like this happen.

[Raphael]

If the payments were made in error, then I don't see (apart from the bad PR) why there should be a problem in asking for the amounts be repaid.

If they've decided to reverse a policy and asking for repayment retroactively, then there is an issue.

[Jaecp]

If the payments were made in error, then I don't see (apart from the bad PR) why there should be a problem in asking for the amounts be repaid.

If they've decided to reverse a policy and asking for repayment retroactively, then there is an issue.

The payments were not made by accident, this wasn't a clerical error. The payments were made, on purpose, for the purpose of incentivizing people to sign up to go overseas to get shot at. The fault here lay on the Guard and not the soldiers.

[Raphael]

Then if anything the costs need to be recovered from the Guard, not the individual soldiers.

[Yttrium]

Then if anything the costs need to be recovered from the Guard, not the individual soldiers.

To be more clear, the payments were made by a villain (Toni Jaffe), who has since been convicted of fraud. The Guard does not have the authority to cover the costs.

See here:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/24/us/nat...nus-repayment/

[Raphael]

To be more clear, the payments were made by a villain (Toni Jaffe), who has since been convicted of fraud. The Guard does not have the authority to cover the costs.

See here:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/24/us/nat...nus-repayment/

This becomes tricky.

Lets for a moment ignore the fact that the recipients of the payments were veterans (because that is understandably an emotive topic).

Question: Was Jaffe's fraud conviction relating to this matter?
If I am running a business and there is a payment that comes through and I've accepted payment and it turns out that the payment was fraudulent (lets say stolen c/card details) I legally have to refund that money, even if I have shipped the goods already.
(that's how my late sister-in-laws one business went under. she had an online business selling car mod kits for boy racers. a couple of fraudulent purchases meant that the business went under)

Likewise, ignoring the bad PR side of it, if the soldiers received payments for a good (their service), and those payments were fraudulently made, then legally there is an expectation that the money needs to be refunded, even if it's already been spent.
Now ethically (and from a PR pov) I would say that they shouldn't pursue repayment (and certainly not with interest), but legally, they do have the right as much as it sucks.

However if Jaffe's conviction was unrelated to this matter, then I would say they should have no recourse to be asking for repayment from the soldiers

[Jaecp]

Raph,

California also has a statue of limitations on debt of 4 years. It's not directly applicable here, but its important to note.

[Raphael]

Raph,

California also has a statue of limitations on debt of 4 years. It's not directly applicable here, but its important to note.

Hmmm, I wouldn't put it past some decent lawyers to successfully argue for it to apply

[Yttrium]

Question: Was Jaffe's fraud conviction relating to this matter?

Directly related, yes.

[Sparko]

in an ordinary case, Raph, you would be right. but this guy represented the government, whether he was a villain or not. The soldiers took the money in good faith and (this is big) RISKED their lives in response to this "incentive" - they had no clue that it was fraudulent. The victim should be the government not the soldiers. The government also benefited from the fraid. They got soldiers who worked for them. It was a hiring scam. They should eat it. Legally they can go after the soldiers, but ethically they should not. It also will harm their recruitments going forward as people lose trust in them. That will cost a lot more in the long run. It is just good business sense to eat the cost.

Think of it like this. In your relative's case, they had to refund the fraudulent purchase because probably the crooks used someone elses money, right? And legally your relative could have sued those crooks to refund the money they had to repay. The crooks who frauded them were the actual responsible party. Your relative just got caught in the middle. So in this case the government paid for the "goods" and actually used the "goods" (soldiers) so they benefited from this guys fraud. Legally the guy is the responsible party that both the government and the soldiers can go after. But since the government actually got the goods and didn't "return" them, they can't claim that they still deserve the money.