Terry Jones Needs to be Committed

Terry Jones is coming to Dearborn, Michigan to celebrate Adolph Hitler’s Birthday on April 22, 2011, but his mental instability is indicated by the fact that he is two days off. Hitler was born on April 20, 1869.

Jones plans to demonstrate against Islam and is hoping for a large turnout of like-minded religious nutcases. Just as Timothy McVeigh hoped to incite racial conflict and blew up the Murrah Federal Building as a means to that end, Jones wants to provoke a religious civil war. He intends to foment a blood-soaked confrontation between militant Christians and fundamentalist Muslims. Not in my back yard! As a resident of Dearborn, I urge the police to bring Terry Jones before a probate judge and have him committed as mentally ill and a danger to himself and others as soon as he steps on Michigan soil.

On two occasions, Jones has incited violence in Afghanistan and other Islamic regions that resulted in more than 30 deaths. Under Michigan law, a “person requiring treatment” may be involuntarily committed to a mental institution. The definition of such a person includes an “individual who has mental illness, and who as a result of that mental illness can reasonably be expected within the near future to intentionally or unintentionally seriously physically injure himself, herself, or another individual, and who has engaged in an act or acts or made significant threats that are substantially supportive of the expectation.” M.C.L.A. 330.1401.

By his unrepentent, blatant insults to members of another religion, Jones clearly wants to cause serious physical injuries. He could exercise his freedom of speech in Florida, from his pulpit–but he is not satisfied with speaking his mind. He insists on taking his vitriol to a place where there is a concentration of Muslims because he wants to see blood shed. The Supreme Court has always recognized an exception to the First Amendment for speech intended to cause injury. The classic example concerns yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. There is no freedom of speech such that a person can incite a stampede or a riot with impunity.

I stated in a previous blog entry that Terry Jones is not stupid. That is not to say he is sane. Despite his bizarre interpretation of “Love your enemies,” it will be hard for many to accept a diagnosis of mental illness based on Jones’s militant Christian fundamentalism.

Most who adhere to a religion find it difficult to recognize or deal with pernicious religious extremism. Religion tends to emphasize ideals over practicalities. “Love they neighbor as thyself,” “Turn the other cheek,” and “Give yourself to [insert name of founder/prophet/savior]” sound inspiring from the pulpit, but they are damnably hard to live by. Religious aspirants always fall short of the ideal and generally carry around a cargo of guilt about it.

When Christians in sweatsuits and flipflops or jeans and Pumas look at a group of saffron-robed monks or tambourine-banging Krishnaites or black-coated Hasidim or burka-draped Sunnis, many are uncomfortable either approving such evident devotion to religion or criticizing the zealotry. They cannot endorse these alien faiths; but they also find it hard to condemn those who apparently possess such great religious fervor because they see themselves as falling short. In Terry Jones’s case there should be no hesitation. He is no more worthy of respect than David Koresh or Jim Jones.

Jones wants people to die, apparently welcoming his own martyrdom. His brand of Christianity hatched out of a malignant egg laid by a delusion in his diseased mind. It is irrational and violent. For his protection and the protection of society, he should be committed and treated. It is unlikely that his mental state will be improved, but on the loose he is a hazard like Mayhem in the Allstate commercials.

 

John B. Payne, Attorney
Garrison LawHouse, PC
Dearborn, Michigan 313.563.4900
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 800.220.7200
law-business.com

 

©2011 John B. Payne, Attorney

 

 

Not All Pirates Are in Somalia

General Electric Co. made news last month when it reported U.S. profits of $5.1 billion and worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, but paid no federal corporate income tax. GE even reaped a net tax benefit of $3.2 billion. What the newsies do not mention is that the government additionally subsidized the ridiculous wealth GE and other corporations lavish on their executives. Uncle Sam must miss a lot of sleep staying up nights to figure out how to pour tax dollars into corporate treasuries.

We Bring Good Things to Immelt
General Electric Co. Chairman and CEO Jeffrey R. Immelt’s 2010 compensation more than doubled to $15.2 million as the company benefited from a recovering economy, equalling the annual pay of 1,000 minimum-wage workers (MWW). Since all of this compensation is deductible on the corporate tax return, the U.S. taxpayer absorbed 35% of the outrageous compensation packages for Immelt and his cohorts.

The 2010 record holder is Philippe Dauman of Viacom, who was paid $84.5 million–that’s equal to 5,600 MWW–for just nine months as C.E.O. Other CEOs who received bloated paychecks included Ray R. Irani of Occidental Petroleum,$76.1 million or 5,000 MWW; Lawrence J. Ellison of Oracle, $70.1 million or 4,600 MWW; John F. Lundgren, of Stanley Black & Decker,$32.57 million or 2,150 MWW; and David N. Farr, of Emerson Electric, $22.9 million or 1,500 MWW.

A small change in the tax code could address an economic problem that is syphoning corporate wealth into the pockets of top executives–impoverishing stockholders, employees, and the public at large. The median compensation for chief executives has risen at several times the inflation rate since the beginning of the century. Compare this to stagnant wages in the lower 99% of the workforce. The gains by these mercenary managers might be defensible if their pay were in proportion to their achievements. It is not.

Overcompensating Underachievers
A 2006 study by the Corporate Library, “Pay for Failure: The Compensation Committees Responsible,” named 11 public corporations whose chief executives’ pay had exceeded $15 million during the last two years despite five-year shareholder losses. “The disconnect between pay and performance is particularly stark” at Verizon, AT&T, BellSouth, Hewlett-Packard, Home Depot, Lucent Technologies, Merck, Pfizer, Safeway, Time Warner and Wal-Mart. For example, Ivan G. Seidenberg, chief executive of Verizon Communications, received $19.4 million in salary, bonus, restricted stock and other compensation in 2005. This was 48% more than in the previous year. As his compensation nearly doubled, the stock fell 26%, bondholders lost value as the company’s debt was downgraded by credit agencies, and 50,000 managers saw their pensions frozen. Verizon closed its books with 5.5% earnings. Mr. Seidenberg’s $75 million five-year total pay is an egregious affront to shareholders, who stood a loss of more than 26% in the period.

You Scribble my Check and I’ll Scribble Yours
Verizon’s board received a grade of D from the Corporate Library. One reason was that Verizon’s compensation committee–the group of board members who recommend what executives should receive–consists entirely of chief executives or former chief executives. Three of the four members sat on other boards with Mr. Seidenberg. On Wyeth’s board, Seidenberg helped set the pay of John L. Stafford, a member of Verizon’s compensation committee. He is past chairman and chief executive of Wyeth.

Verizon’s compensation committee was led by Walter V. Shipley, former chief executive of the Chase Manhattan Corporation, and was made up of Richard L. Carrión, chief executive of Banco Popular de Puerto Rico; Robert W. Lane, chief executive of Deere & Company; and Mr. Stafford, formerly of Wyeth.

Many of the Verizon directors who were on its compensation committee also met Mr. Seidenberg at board meetings of other public companies. At Wyeth meetings, Mr. Seidenberg encountered Mr. Shipley, who was the chairman of Verizon’s compensation committee and who was a member of Wyeth’s committee, sitting with Mr. Carrión, at least until 2006.

Mr. Seidenberg saw Mr. Stafford when the board of Honeywell International met. Mr. Stafford was chairman of Honeywell’s compensation committee, which included Mr. Seidenberg. A tally of the 29 directors of Exxon and Verizon who sat on multiple public corporation boards showed that the two boards were very tightly interlocked. Ten of the 29 were Exxon board members and 12 sat on the Verizon board, with three sitting on both boards. However, another interesting connection crops up–11 of these same board members sat on the board of Wyeth. Three were Verizon/Wyeth directors and two were Exxon/Wyeth directors. One director, Walter V. Shipley, sat on all three boards. This concentration of board seats ensured that these 29 directors who held down 92 public corporation board seats controlled all three companies.

Friendly Persuasion
Another factor that helped Seidenberg fatten his paycheck was that Verizon’s executive team had its “outside consultant,” Hewitt Associates of Lincolnshire, Ill, firmly in its pocket. Outside consultants are supposed to be independent and objective, but Hewitt, a provider of employee benefits management and consulting services with $2.8 billion in annual revenue, did much more for Verizon than advise it on compensation matters. Verizon was one of Hewitt’s biggest customers in the far more profitable businesses of running the company’s employee benefit plans, providing actuarial services to its pension plans and advising it on human resources management. Hewitt received more than a half-billion dollars in revenue from Verizon and its predecessor companies between 1997 and 2007. Hewitt was all over Verizon, operating its employee benefits Web sites and acting as actuary for three of Verizon’s pension plans. Hewitt also performed extensive work for Verizon’s predessor companies. Objectivity is compromised when the firm evaluating the executive’s compensation depends on its relationship with the executive for a large portion of its revenue.

By packing their boards of directors with cronies and ensuring that their “independent” consultants will provide the advice they desire, corporate CEOs persuade their boards to award them immense wealth. These graspers get writer’s cramp from signing so many checks to one another. Think of it this way: It is as if bank robbers formed a guild and then were allowed to elect one another as bank presidents. The story of corporate gluttony would be an amusement piece, like “Lifestyles of the Rich and Greedy,” but for the fact that these bloated compensation packages are being subsidized by lower and middle class investors and taxpayers.

Welfare for the Truly Greedy
We also subsidize these rapacious managers with a tax deduction. The corporate income tax rate is 35%. Therefore, for every million dollars the board votes to give the CEO, it only costs the corporation $650,000. The other $350,000 is paid by the government–that is the American taxpayer.

Stem the Hemorrhage
It is time to put these robber barons in the “time-out chair.” Send a message to the pirates of the big board that it is time to curb this fiscal abuse. One way would be to limit the corporate deduction for executive compensation to 100 MWW. If the minimum wage is $7.50, that would be $15,600 per year for full time employment. The corporation could deduct up to $1,560,000 per year in executive compensation. Executive pay could be more than that, but it would not be deductible.

This modest change in the tax code may have little effect on executive pay, but it would at least trim the public subsidy. However, cutting the deduction may have a profound effect. It is a government guideline as to the maximum reasonable paycheck for one person, no matter how prideful and self-important. CEOs who are used to receiving whatever outrageous compensation package they have the gall to demand will be given the message that they are committing the second deadly sin.

 

John B. Payne, Attorney
Garrison LawHouse, PC
Dearborn, Michigan 313.563.4900
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 800.220.7200
law-business.com

 

©2011 John B. Payne, Attorney

 

 

Dreadful Michigan Medicaid Joint Tenancy Rules

Michigan Department of Human Services has promulgated restrictive new policies concerning real estate owned by a Medicaid applicant or recipient jointly with someone else. Prior to April Fool’s Day 2011, real estate owned as a joint tenant with rights of survivorship (JTWROS) with someone outside of the Medicaid asset group (anyone other than a spouse, in most cases) was not considered that person’s asset, as long as the other joint tenant refused to agree to sale or tranfer of the property. New policy that became effective April 1, 2011 is a cruel prank on thousands of frail senior citizens of limited means.

For many years, a joint tenant in a piece of real estate was not prevented from qualifying for Medicaid if another joint tenant who is not the spouse of the Medicaid applicant refused to sell or convey the property. This was consistent with the rules for Supplemental Security Income (SSI), which is federal welfare for senior and disabled persons who have no income and very limited property. The Medicaid asset rules concerning real estate owned as JTWROS stated as follows:

Jointly owned assets are assets that have more than one owner.
Note: For FTW determinations jointly owned assets are considered to belong to the initial person.
An asset is unavailable if an owner cannot sell or spend his share of an asset:
• Without another owner’s consent, and
• The other owner is not in the asset group, and
• The other owner refuses consent. Department of Human Services Bridges Eligibility Manual (BEM) Item 400(7) (April 1, 2011).

This a reasonable policy. Many persons become joint owners of property due to inheritance, by joint purchase of real estate, or through adding names to property for estate planning. Joint owners with rights of survivorship are locked in. They can execute a quitclaim deed and give or sell their interests, but they cannot separate their interests in the property from the other owners without their consent. Under Michigan law, joint owners with rights of survivorship cannot force partition of the property through legal action. However, the April Fool’s Day Medicaid rules were drafted with blatant disregard for this legal principle.

Here is the new Medicaid policy:

Exception: Jointly owned real property is only excludable if it creates a hardship for the other owners; see hardship in this item. BEM Item 400(7) (April 1, 2011).

Note: For jointly owned real property count the individual’s share unless sale of the property would cause undue hardship. Undue hardship for this item is defined as: a co-owner uses the property as his or her principal place of residence and they would have to move if the property were sold and there is no other readily available housing. BEM Item 400(8-9) (April 1, 2011).

This new policy will make it impossible for many deserving Medicaid applicants to get Medicaid through no fault of their own. Often these Medicaid applicants will be rendered ineligible for Medicaid through no act of their own.

Let’s assume that Stymie Stone, an unmarried nursing home inmate who needs Medicaid, inherited a portion of a pig farm known as the Stone Family Sty. Stymie is a joint tenant with rights of survivorship with his three siblings. If the parcel is worth more than $8,000, Stymie cannot get Medicaid because the interest will be valued by DHS at more than $2,000. He cannot force his siblings to buy him out or sell the property and if he gave his interest away, he would be subject to a divestment penalty.

In order to exclude Stymie’s interest in the Stone Family Sty, he would have to demonstrate not only that one of his siblings lives in the pigsty as his or her principal residence, but that there would be “no other readily available housing.” Try to prove that there is no other readily available housing in this real estate market!

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Many applicants with no resources except for interests that they cannot sell will be denied Medicaid. This new policy is dreadfully unfair. It makes no distinction between applicants who put their own real estate in joint tenancy intentionally to qualify for Medicaid and those who inherited or were given a joint interest. It also makes no distinction between property that has ready market value and property that cannot be sold for one reason or another.

To put the legal case for overturning the rule in a nutshell: It is arbitrary and capricious. DHS has carved out a class of applicants who will be denied Medicaid through no fault or action on their part, yet who are as deserving as other applicants who will be granted eligibility.

Many applicants will be able to maneuver around this new rule, with legal help. The simplest is to quitclaim their interests to the other joint tenants, if the applicant is willing to do so. There are ways to create Medicaid eligibility despite gifts within the five-year look-back. It is a cosmic joke that only those applicants with enough money to hire legal counsel will be able to qualify for this welfare program.

The new policy is so unfair that it cannot be upheld as rational rule-making by the courts. However, it will subject many families to dire hardship until it is struck down. If you or family members who may need care in a nursing home own real estate jointly with anyone other than a spouse, consult a competent Michigan Elder Law attorney now.

 

John B. Payne, Attorney
Garrison LawHouse, PC
Dearborn, Michigan 313.563.4900
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 800.220.7200
law-business.com

 

©2011 John B. Payne, Attorney

 

 

Terry and the Mullahs

Terry Jones, the self-styled “evangelical pastor” of Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida, provoked the deaths of 21 innocent United Nations personnel in Afghanistan by burning a copy of the Q’ran in Florida. My first thought was that he had again proven himself a world-class fool. His plan to burn 200 copies of the Muslim holy book on September 11, 2010 had provoked protests that killed at least four Afghans and others in Kashmir, Indonesia, and other countries. He should know that burning a Q’ran would result in more deaths. However, he is far from a fool. He is an evil genius who figured out how to become a serial killer without breaking any law!

The foolish ones are the Muslim leaders who allow themselves to be played by the likes of Terry Jones. Mullah Mohammed Shah Adeli, one of the mullahs in Mazar-i-Sharif who incited the riots, said “Burning the Koran is an insult to Islam, and those who committed it should be punished,” he said. This bright boy provoked his followers to kill 12 innocent Westerners, presumably on the principle that it is better to kill whoever is handy than to let an offense go unpunished.

It is hard to believe that the Q’ran contains no equivalent to one of the oldest legal principles known to the human race: “Let the punishment fit the crime.” Does the Q’ran actually supply a rationale for killing people who are not even from the United States in retaliation for an American fruitcake’s act of burning a copy of it? If there were any appropriate reaction to Terry Jones’s lame act, it would be to burn a bunch of Bibles. Similarly, instead of rioting and killing people in response to a Danish cartoonist’s offensive depiction of Mohammed, why did Muslims not respond with cartoons of Jesus approving violence committed by Christians? That would be more fitting.

Religion is, by definition, irrational, but killing Napalis and Europeans in Afghanistan over something done in the United States by a citizen of that country is wrongheaded by any measure. There is no defending Terry Jones. He is a deluded megalomaniac who should be on medication. Despite the culpability of Jones, the mullahs who sent their followers out into the street to kill and injure men and women who were in their country to help it to recover from decades of war are guilty of greater evil. A huge majority of Christian leaders are condemning Terry Jones’s acts. It is disappointing that Muslims in the United States are not more vocal in protesting the inhuman acts of their Afghan co-religionists.

 

John B. Payne, Attorney
Garrison LawHouse, PC
Dearborn, Michigan 313.563.4900
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 800.220.7200
law-business.com

 

©2011 John B. Payne, Attorney