Posted on 05/04/2010 7:43:39 AM PDT by ConjunctionJunction
In February, the White House released its “Annual Report on the Middle Class” containing new regulations favored by Big Labor including a bailout of critically underfunded union pension plans through “retirement security” options.
The radical solution most favored by Big Labor is the seizure of private 401(k) plans for government disbursement -- which lets them off the hook for their collapsing retirement scheme. And, of course, the Obama administration is eager to accommodate their buddies.
Vice President Joe Biden floated the idea, called “Guaranteed Retirement Accounts” (GRAs), in the February “Middle Class” report.
In conjunction with the report’s release, the Obama administration jointly issued through the Departments of Labor and Treasury a “Request for Information” regarding the “annuitization” of 401(k) plans through “Lifetime Income Options” in the form of a notice to the public of proposed issuance of rules and regulations. (pdf)
House Republican Leader John Boehner (Ohio) and a group of House Republicans are mounting an effort to fight back.
The American people have become painfully aware over the past year that elections sometimes have calamitous consequences. Republicans lack the votes (for now) to reign in the Obama administration’s myriad nationalization plans for everything from health care to the automobile industry.
Now the backdoor bulls-eye is on your 401(k) plan and the trillions of dollars the government would control through seizure, regulation and federal disbursement of mandatory retirement accounts.
Boehner and the group are sounding the alarm, warning bureaucrats to keep their hands off of America’s private retirement plans.
Just when you thought it was safe to come up for air after the government takeover of health care.
The entirety of the House GOP Savings Recovery Group letter outling the issue that was sent last night to the Labor and Treasury secretaries:
The Honorable Hilda L. Solis Secretary U.S. Department of Labor 200 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20210
The Honorable Timothy Geithner Secretary U.S. Department of the Treasury 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20210
Dear Secretaries Solis and Geithner:
As members of the Republican Savings Solutions Group, we write today to express our strong opposition to any proposal to eliminate or federalize private-sector defined contribution pension plans, such as 401(k)s, or impose burdensome new requirements upon the businesses, large and small, who choose to offer these plans to their employees.
In the Annual Report of the White House Task Force on the Middle Class, Vice President Biden discussed at length the creation of so-called “Guaranteed Retirement Accounts, (GRAs)” which would provide for protection from “inflation and market risk” and potentially “guarantee a specified real return above the rate of inflation” -- presumably at taxpayer expense. In the Report, the Vice President recommended “further study of these issues.”
The Vice President’s comments are troubling, insofar as they come on the heels of testimony before Congress from supporters of GRAs proposing to eliminate the favorable tax treatment currently afforded to 401(k) plans, and instead use those dollars to fund government-invested GRAs into which all employees would be required to contribute a portion of their salary -- again, with a government subsidy. These advocates would, essentially, dismantle the present private-sector 401(k) system, replacing it instead with a government-run investment plan, the size and scope of which remain to be seen. This despite data showing that 90 percent of households have a favorable opinion of the existing 401(k)/IRA system.
In light of these facts, we write today to express our opposition in the strongest terms to any effort to “nationalize” the private 401(k) system, or any proposal that would dismantle or disfavor the private 401(k) system in favor of a government-run retirement security regime.
Similarly, and more recently, the Departments of Labor and Treasury have jointly issued a “Request for Information” regarding the “annuitization” of 401(k) plans through “Lifetime Income Options.” While we appreciate the Departments’ seeking guidance and information from all parties and stakeholders in advance of regulatory activity, we strongly urge that the Departments not proceed with any regulation in this area before they have carefully and thoroughly considered all of the information received.
More specifically, we urge that the Departments take no action to mandate that plan sponsors -- often, small businesses -- include a “lifetime income” or “annuitization” option if they choose to offer a 401(k) plan to their employees, or that beneficiaries take some or all of their retirement savings in such an option. Data shows that 70 percent of Americans oppose the concept of a mandated annuity or government payout of their 401(k) plan. On a more fundamental level, Congress should not be in the business of choosing “winners” and “losers” among retirement security stakeholders. Instead, we urge the Departments to make it easier for employers to include retirement income solutions in their savings plans and to help workers learn more about the value of their retirement savings as a source of retirement income. Finally, to the extent new mandates and bureaucratic red tape from Washington push small employers out of the business of offering these plans to their employees, we would submit such an effort weakens, rather than strengthens retirement security.
We appreciate your consideration of our views in these important matters and stand ready to work with you and the Administration to promote secure and adequate retirement savings for all Americans.
Sincerely,
House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) Rep. John Kline (R-MN) Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX) Rep. Dean Heller (R-NV) Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY) Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) Rep. Pat Tiberi (R-OH) Rep. Bob Latta (R-OH) Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-MN) Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-KS) Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA) Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA)
You know, I've been hemming and hawing about whether to send this article to my uber lib brother who's been contributing to his 401K for over half his life.
Part of me wants to simply alert him to the danger. The other part of me isn't interested in getting a nasty, expletive-filled email in return for my trouble.
One in my backyard tomorrow. If you are selling, I am buying.
Me, too, guys — with all my heart!
...which is why we cashed out our Roth IRAs last year (still had to pay the penalty for early disbursement, but since we bought Au and Ag, we're way ahead in the long run).
I don’t think I have any I want to give up. :-)
Heck I still gotta get my new FN 5.7 to the range!
Lots of shorty AK-47s available now. I may take a serious look at one of those.
Like a lot of people you’ve been watching all this wondering if anyone is going to put a stop to it. As far as DC, you are right, we are alone. Like a lot of people you’ve been wondering how in the heck a Tea Party person or group can do anything effective against the onslaught. Waving signs at rallies is going to come up short. Vote ‘em out - who knows?
Something has changed for the better IMO. It is now becoming clear how “we the people” are going to fight this - states rights. The battle lines are being drawn at state borders and a number of states are telling the Feds “don’t tread on us.” Some states are saying you can’t make us buy federal health care, we’re taking care of our illegals problem, the usurper isn’t getting on the ballot in this state next time and more.
Those states are not going to go along with having their residents’ retirement accounts confiscated, farms taken over by Fed. food police and most importantly their armed citizens disarmed. They have drawn a line in the sand. It is starting in the court system but it probably won’t stay there. Counties within states can do the same thing. It’s a way to organize resistance and it is a way to win this fight that doesn’t depend on elections or the whim of a judge who may or may not respect the constitution and could very well be in the bag for Obama.
Most of us have not been raised as socialists who look to the government for all of our needs. Quite the reverse in most cases. Americans are not going to roll over and take it. I think many people would be willing to take up arms and risk dying rather than living in the country remade in the Obama vision. No way - they just need to see HOW to do it and the states are just now beginning to show them. Once enough people realize this, there is no way the Feds can win. After all, they’re not really Americans in any of the ways that count, are they?
These people looted their own pension funds to elect Democrats, and now they are going to confiscate our 401Ks to make up the difference.
If this happens, it really is time for a revolution, because we eon't have anything else to lose.
The Federal government is required to maintain a standing military. Military retirement was a contractual agreement between myself and the United States Government. I had to perform certain tasks, meet certain requirements and serve for a minimum of 20 years to receive a retirement. In return the government agreed to compensate me at a rate commensurate with the years served and my final pay.
You are right my bennies are paid for by your taxes, as was my military paycheck for nearly 33 years, by the way, you are also paying for local, state and federal law enforcement, firefighters and even the guy working in the sewer. You know what, their sweet bennies are paid for by others as well. Some have a sweeter retirement plans than I do. Also paid for by others.
Point remains the same, saying 47% pay no taxes is misleading. You have between 20% and 30% of the population acting as free riders. Free riders do not and have not been an asset to the society, they give nothing back in return for their entitlement. They certainly pay no taxes. Another 12% are so severely disabled as to be incapable of caring for themselves and as such we as a nation choose to care for them vice euthanizing them.
Further, there are things that have been set up in the past year that barely received notice. Among them: The Council of Governors-formed by Executive Order consists of 10 Governors (Jan Brewer is one of those btw but hard to say for how long). The National Guard of the states has been, for all intents and purposes, nationalized, meaning that individual Governors cannot call up their national guard.
Currently, the DOJ is examining the newly signed AZ law. This is not for the purpose of ensuring that it is 'just' but rather, to exercise federal authority over a state.
With these things in place (to name only a couple) the states can do whatever they want and the Feds will do everything to dismantle their rights.
BTW, Missouri is working on the HC issue and the worms here are already screaming that Fed law will trump state law...even if voted in by the people.
I'm sorry to say I'm not as optimistic as you NB.
I wrote this post in another discussion the other day about the Council of Governors:
_____________________________________________________
Friday, April 30, 2010 4:31:35 PM · 62 of 89
Natural Born 54 to Sub-Driver; Windflier
Perry is not on Obama’s “Council of Governors,” is he?
MEMBERS:
Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry
Vermont Gov. James H. Douglas
Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire
Arizona Gov. Janice K. Brewer
Puerto Rico Gov. Luis G. Fortuño
Virginia Gov. Robert F. McDonnell
Missouri Gov. Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon
Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley
North Carolina Gov. Beverly Eaves Perdue
South Dakota Gov. Michael Rounds
Notice that Gov. Brewer of Arizona is. Hmmmm. It is also interesting that he appointed the Govs of S. Dakota, N. Carolina, Virginia and Oklahoma.
Freedom In The 50 States: An index of personal and economic freedom. (http://www.statepolicyindex.com/?page_id=143)
It was authored by William Ruger and Jason Sorens of the Mercatus Center of George Mason University.(hat tip on this link to Windflier)
The states with the best freedom rating in this study are:
TX, AZ, CO, ID, ND, SD, MO, TN, VA, NH (Oklahoma is close behind in the 2nd of 5 quintiles)
The Governor’s Council is comprised of 5 Republicans and 5 Dems. Look at the overlap in the Govs’ Council of Republicans and the list of states with the most freedom. BO chose the Govs of some of the most conservative of Republican run states. Looks like he didn’t find it necessary to include Perry the rino. Hmmmmm.
The short description of what this gov appointment is about is stated as: “The council will help coordinate state and federal efforts pertaining to the National Guard, homeland defense and civil support activities.”
CFP had an interesting viewpoint on it when BO created it here:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/18890
This is also a good reference:
http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin562.htm
___________________________________________________
What do you think?
The Feds can dismantle all they want, but if a state decides it’s not playing, what are the Feds going to do? An armed citizenry is a major deterrent. The Feds can’t win that one. BTW, do you have a link that says the Feds now control the National Guard and the state can’t call them up? Can’t imagine some of those governors going along with that one.
Send it. Maybe this will convert him. :-)
“Libs need to get a job...”
they have a job...they forget who their employers are...We the People...that they forget...frankly is OUR fault...
Regarding the 'armed' citizenry...while you are correct that it is a deterrant, the groundwork for confiscation is already in progress. The UN small arms control treaty was signed by the U.S. reversing George Bush's position (he wouldn't sign it). In that bill there are provisions regarding 'small arms' and the control of them. It has been ballied about that it is for the purpose of getting guns from the drug traffickers but really, we know that its purpose is to disarm Americans. We are definitely a thorn.
Not likely. He's a committed "progressive" liberal, and lifelong Democrat.
I tried for years to enlighten him, but his brainwashing is as solid as Fort Knox. There's no profit or joy for me in pushing his moonbat buttons.
I would submit that the Tea Parties have informed them of that and they refuse to listen.
I’ll see if I can’t find something on the National Guard control, too. That article could have been correct about McCain making a request of Washington but McCain could have been doing a Fed suck butt routine.
Regarding confiscation of guns or anything else that is unconstitutional, Arizona can “just say NO”. People aren’t going to just give them up anyway.
As I point out in my new book, the government has means of oppressing you that a gun doesn't seem to be a practical response for. Whom do you shoot?
Keep in mind that a government cannot function without functionaries. Even though a policeman may not be responsible for passing laws such as confiscating 401(k)s, they enforce them. "I don't make the laws, I just enforce them," is the mantra. However, The Nuremberg trials settled that. "I was just obeying orders" doesn't cut it.
So whom do you shoot? Obviously, the people nearest at hand, who are responsible for enforcing evil laws. Without them, the laws are toothless.
so they’ll try to figure out a way of doing so.
Be alert. When they start that, you know that slavery is but one step behind.
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.”
Patrick Henry
Look in the mirror!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.