There appear to be two measures on the table after the mid-term elections next month. It's reported that the current Congress, in its final, so-called 'lame-duck' session before the newly-elected Congress takes over in January, may consider both and try to ram them through.
The first is a measure to force the US taxpayer to fund gold-plated union pensions. The second measure seeks to 'nationalize' privately-held pension funds (in things like 401(k) accounts) and institute a Government-controlled national pension scheme in their place. Human Events reports:
Democrats in the Senate on Thursday held a recess hearing covering a taxpayer bailout of union pensions and a plan to seize private 401(k) plans to more "fairly" distribute taxpayer-funded pensions to everyone.
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee heard from hand-picked witnesses advocating the infamous "Guaranteed Retirement Account" (GRA) authored by Theresa Guilarducci.
. . .
In a nutshell, under the GRA system government would seize private 401(k) accounts, setting up an additional 5% mandatory payroll tax to dole out a "fair" pension to everyone using that confiscated money coupled with the mandated contributions. This would, of course, be a sister government ponzi scheme working in tandem with Social Security, the primary purpose being to give big government politicians additional taxpayer funds to raid to pay for their out-of-control spending.
. . .
As reported in HUMAN EVENTS the Casey bill from Sen. Bob Casey (D-Penn.) is a new entitlement program that would set up a permanent bailout of the union multi-employer pension plans that are desperately underwater through a new "fifth fund" at the government Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). Casey’s bill would create a line item on the federal budget through the PBGC to fund these union pension bailouts annually -- union pensions that are underwater as a result of mismanagement that pre-dates the 2008 financial upheaval.
. . .
And, of course, the theme of the day was "fairness" as it's somehow "fair" to take what one person has earned in the free market and give it to another in a government-run wealth redistribution retirement scheme.
. . .
Overall McMahon said the pressing issue for the lame duck is the union pension bailout with new Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) rules currently set to take effect December 15. These new rules would force companies to account for the cost of penalties to extract themselves from these union pension plans against their bottom line.
"The pension bailouts are something they need desperately and they need quickly because as everyone involved with the forthcoming new FASB rule acknowledges, you cannot stop the accounting board from a new transparency requirement," McMahon said. "It's going to hurt."
. . .
The lame duck session would offer the last chance for unions and companies to be able to place liability for their underwater pensions on the taxpayers' backs before the new FASB rule goes into effect.
There's more at the link. Earlier articles in Human Events covering this issue may be found here, here and here; and an article on CNN's Web site addressing (and arguing in favor of) the 'nationalization' of 401(k) plans and private pensions may be found here.
Needless to say, I think both proposals are nothing more than a politically-motivated boondoggle. If I've taken the trouble to provide for my own retirement by funding my 401(k) or some other plan, just who the hell does any elected representative think he or she is, to turn around and tell me I have to hand over my hard-earned savings to the government? And why should I, as a taxpayer, fund union retirement plans that the unions - and the companies unfortunate enough to have to put up with them - have mismanaged and under-funded?
Both ideas are yet another 'Big Brother' attempt to steal from those who have, and redistribute the proceeds to those who don't. I suggest readers find out whether their elected representatives are in favor of either or both concepts, and if they are, vote them out of office as quickly as possible - then make sure to hold the current Congress' feet to the fire during its lame-duck session, to make sure outgoing politicians don't try to pull a fast one and ram this through over our objections.
Politicians! Grrrrr!
Peter
5 comments:
I hope this is just talk. I honestly hope they're not that stupid.
It's one thing to pass laws that most people consider 'abstract,' the effects of which will be delayed for quite a while. It's another to openly steal from us. While we may have relegated our automatically-withheld taxes to the back of our mind, this is absolute, unmistakable and blatant theft.
I'm not advocating or threatening anything, but I am making a prediction. If they try this, lead will fly and blood will spill.
Put yourself in the mindset of a guy who's worked hard all his life, set aside retirement funds. and then has them stolen from him just as he's about to settle down. Good odds are that this man is a hunter and/or veteran, who owns and is proficient with many firearms.
This is not a recipe for a happy future. Not for the man in question, not for the Democrat-I-mean-communist Party, not for America.
Please, God, don't let them try it.
I, too, will guarantee that if the crooks in Congress steal my hard-earned retirement nest-egg that I will shoot the SOBs ASAP! Who the Hell do they think they are? They may think there's nothing we could do other than vote them out of office, but they would be surprised at what can happen to them.
Politicians best bet is to NOT provoke the citizens with such stupid "legislation."
chicopanther
PS Congress and diapers both need to be changed often and for the same reason.
I've given this some thought, and while I have no doubt the usual suspects are capable of such an outrageous act of plunder, I think it's only a scare tactic to generate income for the government. Most of the retirement funds are not taxable until they are withdrawn, so there's a lot of tax dollars they can't get their grubby hands on. BUT...If they can scare people into withdrawing their funds, all of a sudden those moneys are taxable, not to mention the penalties for those who take their money out before they've reached retirement age.
Congress may be in a lame duck mood, but Obama sure isn't. There's no way he'd sign a 401k grab into law.
Public bailout of union pensions is right up his alley, though.
This has been my concern since argentina did the same thing a few years ago. There is no limit to a gov't that believe that all money belongs to them to dole out how they see fit to pacify whatever special interest that will keep them in power. Like the first poster said, if they take our hard earned retirement accounts the ones that I saved and scrimpted to fund. The same retirement funds that I delayed any instant gratification to fund, especially since I believe that social security, the great ponzi scheme that I have been forced to pay into has been looted by these same politicians.
Post a Comment