Posted by Tina
The President put forth an idea in his State of the Union address that would give poor and middle income Americans a way to build a small nest egg for themselves. He proposed an investment called, “myIRA” which would allow workers to invest in a tax free account, up to $15,000, that would be invested in Treasury Bonds. There’s a problem with the plan, other than the fact that once again the greedy power grabbing Democrats want government to suck all the money out of the economy; Paul Bedard of the Washington Examiner explains:
President Obama’s new and low-budget proposal to help Americans build a tiny nest egg appears to violate federal laws barring retirement plan sponsors from steering investments to self-serving accounts, in this case the Treasury’s own bonds, according to a new analysis.
The “myRA” plan Obama unveiled in his State of the Union address would also be outlawed in the private finance world because it offers no investment diversification and amounts to a conflict of interest, violations that call for fines up to $100,000 and up to a year in prison.
“If private sector plan sponsors offered this plan to their participants, they would be called crazy. They could also go to jail,” according to an analysis by the investment firm Marotta Wealth Management.
It’s not unusual for big government types to propose and write laws that offer crumbs to the citizens while furthering agenda needs. We are up to our ears in regulations to control how and when we can invest. Lending laws designed to place low income people into homes and garner votes were irresponsible and dangerous and helped lead to the last crash. This plan would ecourage people to invest for their future (good basic idea) but the real benefit of the plan is to government. The plan offers no diversity of investment. All of the money would be placed in Treasury Bonds to help Obama pay for excessive government spending. This is not only illegal it is sleazy. Democrats have been four square against allowing workers the choice to put a percentage of their Social Security investment into a safe diverse private investment.
The Presidents “myIRA” investment plan violates ERISA Law. Shouldn’t the President have been advised of that before he pitched the idea to the public in a SOTU speech?
One of the unintended consequence of Obamacare is fewer jobs and jobs with fewer hours offered. the latest spin by the Democrats is that this is a good thing! Isn’t it wonderful that single moms can stay home with their kids…isn’t it great that families will have more time together?
Wasn’t it Democrats who looked down on stay at home moms? Haven’t feminists insisted that women who stayed at home were not living up to their full potential? And now the new meme is don’t worry, work is overrated…enjoy the new liberation, a life of leisure? And what does that look like for most who don’t work (dum da, dum da, dum da, Dum…Dum da , dum dum dum…da da da da da…HELLO!
Eventually it looks like DETROIT!
There is a better way to run the country so that the people have abundant opportunities for work and investment. There are better ways to inspire people to plan for their own futures that give them the benefit of the return on that investment. There are better ways to create job opportunities so that people can choose how and when they want to work, invest, and spend time with family. Ronald Reagan:
Many Americans today, just as they did 200 years ago, feel burdened, stifled, and sometimes even oppressed by government that has grown too large, too bureaucratic, too wasteful, too unresponsive, too uncaring about people and their problems. I believe we can embark on a new age of reform in this country and an era of national renewal, an era that will reorder the relationship between citizen and government, that will make government again responsive to people, that will revitalize the values of family, work, and neighborhood and that will restore our private and independent social institutions.
The election is in November. America is at stake. Prosperity and opportunity are needed. Pay attention.
Want—
http://www.cafepress.com/mf/30105188/wwrd-what-would-reagan-do_tshirt?utm_content=ChannelAdvisor_US_pricegrabber&utm_medium=display&utm_source=CSE&CA_6C15C=834152829&productId=304738120
“One of the unintended consequence of Obamacare is fewer jobs”
Absolutely not true. Many people were keeping jobs just so they could have health benefits. Now they no longer need to do that. So many people will be able to retire early, or quit their job and start their own business. While others will work fewer hours. This will open their previous jobs for other to fill. It’s a win-win for everyone.
Tina: “One of the unintended consequence of Obamacare is fewer jobs and jobs with fewer hours offered. the latest spin by the Democrats is that this is a good thing! Isn’t it wonderful that single moms can stay home with their kids…isn’t it great that families will have more time together?”
All of this is incorrect.
First, there is no evidence that the ACA has caused a shift toward part-time work. The following two links show conservative opponents of Obamacare who have analyzed the data and found no such shift:
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2014/01/02/obamacare-hasnt-caused-a-shift-to-part-time-jobs-yet
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-08/is-obamacare-forcing-you-to-work-part-time-.html
Other evidence shows that the proportion of part-time workers as a share of the total workforce has actually gone down:
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-obamacare-part-time-jobs-myth-2013-10
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/10/22/dont-blame-health-law-for-high-part-time-employment/
http://www.businessinsider.com/full-time-vs-part-time-job-growth-2014-2
Second, you are misrepresenting the position of Democrats by claiming that we’re saying it is a “good thing” that there are “fewer jobs and jobs with fewer hours offered,” because “Isn’t it wonderful that single moms can stay home with their kids…isn’t it great that families will have more time together?”
Your comments are part of the latest misinformation scheme about Obamacare. Numerous Republicans in Congress, Fox News, Breitbart, National Review, Washington Times, and many other conservative sources have falsely claimed over the past few weeks that the CBO reported that 2 million jobs would be lost due to the ACA. But what the CBO actually said was that 2 million workers who currently work mostly to keep their health insurance (including a large number of seniors who’d like to retire) will now be able to choose not to work or to cut back on their hours.
So no, Democrats have not claimed that it is a good thing that there are “fewer jobs and jobs with fewer hours offered,” because what they were responding to has nothing to do with the number of jobs or the number of hours offered. They were responding to a report about how workers now have more choices. Since conservatives usually like to claim that more choices is a good thing, I can see why they’d feel the need to blatantly lie about the content of the report.
“Wasn’t it Democrats who looked down on stay at home moms? Haven’t feminists insisted that women who stayed at home were not living up to their full potential?”
I don’t know, you tell me. Do you have any quotes from Democrats and feminists saying anything like that? (Can you even name three modern, prominent feminists off the top of your head?)
In my experience the argument from feminists isn’t that women who stay at home to raise the family are doing something wrong, it’s that they should have the option whether or not to do that. Keep in mind that up until very recently, stay-at-home moms were the expectation, and women felt pressured to give up their career ambitions to take care of their family. That’s what feminists were rebelling against. They were the ones demanding more options; their conservative opponents were the ones demanding less.
There are a few flaws in the leftist happy talk, Jim.
1. “Many people” is an undefined number. The administration and the talking heads who spin for them have no way of knowing if there is a significant number of people who fall into this category.
2. People might indeed retire early. On the other hand, many of them are wise enough to see that they better continue to work for as long as they can because this economy is not going to get better and it may get worse. They are already helping their kids and grandkids who have bills, have lost a house or a job, or need help with college!
3. I hope that entrepreneurial exuberance is one of the things that comes of this but I am skeptical about their chance for success. Anyone who attempts to start a business in this hostile environment had better have a really good idea, a really good plan, and perfect execution.
4. I think most will fall in that group that quits work because the subsidy they get if they don’t work is better than what they can earn working part time. these jobs won’t help the unemployed much.
I have to admit it is amusing to hear liberals talk about entrepreneurs in a positive light.
Everyone needs to get away and have some down time or fun. But it isn’t healthy to encourage and promote leisure as a life style…it sure isn’t smart if you favor redistribution through big government programs.
How will the American people generate the cash for all of these government leisure/luxury programs and subsidies? How hard will the rich work if they are not allowed to keep what they earn and are expected to be the breadwinner for so many people who have chosen not to work?
Obamacare has already created fewer jobs. Now that it’s launched and people see what’s in it, you can be sure the jobs picture will not get better.
Every generation is more attuned to having their needs met by government. Already young girls have learned they can live with friends, apply for welfare and snap and raise kids without a breadwinner. Is this really the America you favor?
Chris: “First, there is no evidence that the ACA has caused a shift toward part-time work.
There is evidence.
Forbes:
“Other evidence shows that the proportion of part-time workers as a share of the total workforce has actually gone down”
BFD. These numbers don’t address the overall lack of jobs or the people who would like to work and have given up on finding a job and the many college grads who can’t find work in their field. The “proportion” of part time to full is meaningless in light of the great need that this law is not helping to fill.
“…you are misrepresenting the position of Democrats by claiming that we’re saying it is a “good thing” that there are “fewer jobs…because “Isn’t it wonderful that single moms can stay home with their kids…isn’t it great that families will have more time together?”
First of all it isn’t about “fewer jobs”. Its about spinning as a positive that people will choose not to work because the subsidy allows them NOT TO WORK. Obamacare breeds more dependency and that’s wonderful because moms can stay home and cook dinner! WOW! starving artist can afford to paint forever cause now they have food stamps AND healthcare!
Gotta run, back later.
Tina, you are correct that some people will take advantage of the benefits or subsidy and work fewer hours. However I really don’t think many will, since it doesn’t make much sense. I mean, why would anyone give up several hundred dollars of earning, just to get a $20 subsidy.
We could also make the same argument for retirements. Why not eliminate the retirement for lets say, military personal, since it only discourages them to get jobs when they finish serving.
Ever notice when Post Scripts reveals the truth the more Waterboy Chris’ wrings his hands, spins and twists, rails and whines? It is a thing of beauty.
With all the smoke Chris continues to blow it is a wonder he can breathe at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hxwot4sGTrM&feature=youtu.be
HEADS UP!
This guy probably won’t be around for long —
Muslim Scholar: “Allah Gave Israel to the Jews”, “Palestinians are the Killers of Children”
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/muslim-scholar-allah-gave-israel-to-the-jews-palestinians-are-the-killers-of-children/
Re MyIRA …
Don’t Fall for Obama’s Latest Con, a Massive Ponzi Scheme
http://www.capitolhilldaily.com/2014/02/myra-scam/
Continuing with Chris: “Since conservatives usually like to claim that more choices is a good thing, I can see why they’d feel the need to blatantly lie about the content of the report.”
Shame on you Chris. Nobody has lied. We have responded to the things the left has said to justify the report. When the only choice is the one government grants you, and then, only when you jump through the required hoops and when your choice depends on government taking from your neighbors to give to you I’m not sure that’s much of a choice.
There are better ways to give people real choices. That is the point conservatives are attempting to say, albeit sarcastically, in the fog of all this spin about the report.
And the report actually did say that over a period of years 2.5 million full time jobs would be reduced.
Mediaite – “Obamacare Will Reduce Fulltime Employment By 2.5 Million”:
Huffington Post/Reuters – Obamacare To Cut Work Hours By Equivalent Of 2 Million Jobs: CBO:
“Do you have any quotes from Democrats and feminists saying anything like that?”
Attitudes say a lot. (All emphasis mine)
The Frisky Mom reports attitudes are changing which suggests that anti-stay-at-home attitudes have been there, yes?
Feminists At Large:
She’s right…prior to the sixties feminist activism people/couples used to make decisions based on their own desires and needs.
Speaking of attitudes, remember during the election when Democrat adviser Hillary Rosen sarcastically said that Ann Romney, “never worked a day in her life”?
Patheos:
Amy Glass:
That last twit actually thinks being a stay at home mom is about having a wedding and a baby shower rather than raising children to be honest, informed, educated, well-mannered, productive, contributing members of the next generation!
“Keep in mind that up until very recently, stay-at-home moms were the expectation, and women felt pressured to give up their career ambitions to take care of their family.”
Do you even remember that you are discussing this with a sixty-seven year old woman or do you just automatically go into teacher mode?
Feminists SAID women were “pressured” to stay home but they didn’t bother to take a poll. My mother worked…most of my friends mothers worked. My grandmother owned her own business and was a single mom. People did what they had to to make it work…and they took care of their own children, sometimes with the help of family or neighbors. Single motherhood was the exception, however.
“They were the ones demanding more options; their conservative opponents were the ones demanding less.”
No, conservative women were just saying mind your own business. I like my life. I’m not oppressed. I don’t think men are pigs. I like it when my guy opens the door for me. I can do whatever I want…what’s wrong with you? Feminists were projecting!
Jim: “you are correct that some people will take advantage of the benefits or subsidy and work fewer hours. However I really don’t think many will, since it doesn’t make much sense. I mean, why would anyone give up several hundred dollars of earning, just to get a $20 subsidy.”
Jim I don’t think of these people as “taking advantage” so much as making the best financial decision for the family. That is what is so horrible about this law…it encourages people to be less involved in the work force, less productive and more dependent on others. I think that’s horrible…why would we do that? Don’t we want people to have the dignity that comes with providing…don’t we want people to be engaged and given more opportunity to advance?
Military retirement is earned. It is not a subsidy. I don’t know why you would make the comparison.
Pie at #8…good movie..fun take…
at #9…WOW! Headed for the front page…
at #10…Ditto…but it will have to wait till morning!
Obama makes 27th change to ObamaCare law by extending the employer’s with 50-99 employees until Jan. 2015 for two reasons:
1) employers cutting jobs and reducing hours
2) 2014 Senate election
New change puts the government in control of personnel firings. This is outrageous.
“Some lawmakers, though, have claimed that the mere threat of the employer mandate is causing companies to shed full-time workers in the hope of keeping their staff size below 50 and avoiding the requirement.
Administration officials dispute that this is happening on any large scale. Further, Treasury officials said Monday that businesses will be told to “certify” that they are not shedding full-time workers simply to avoid the mandate. Officials said employers will be told to sign a “self-attestation” on their tax forms affirming this, under penalty of perjury.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/10/administration-announces-another-delay-in-obamacare-employer-mandate/
“That being said, as the employer mandate neared, many employers justified or not have been trying to find ways to stay under the 50-employee threshold and/or businesses of all sizes have dropped workplaced-based health insurance entirely for some staff such as part-timers. That’s hardly a desirable outcome in a struggling economy hampered by joblessness.
Apparently under the new rule, employers also risk getting in trouble with the IRS once 2016 rolls around if they don’t have a good reason for reducing their headcount to less than 50 workers.”
http://www.inquisitr.com/1128752/obamacare-employer-health-insurance-mandate-delayed-yet-again/#Ekvu2rS77R24r3xp.99
Isn’t this what Ted Cruz and Mike Lee asked for when Obama shut down the government and said he’d veto if it came to his desk?
Tina: “There is evidence.”
The above should read, “there is anecdotal evidence,” because that’s all you provided. I provided hard data.
You don’t really believe anecdotal evidence is superior to hard data, do you?
“BFD. These numbers don’t address the overall lack of jobs or the people who would like to work and have given up on finding a job and the many college grads who can’t find work in their field. The “proportion” of part time to full is meaningless in light of the great need that this law is not helping to fill.”
Yeah…you really don’t understand statistics, at all.
OF COURSE the proportion of part time workers as a share of the total workforce is relevant to your claim. You claimed that the ACA is causing a shift toward part time work. Looking at part time workers as a share of the total workforce is the only valid way to verify that claim. That you shrug this off with “BFD” shows that you have no idea what you’re talking about or how to objectively judge the veracity of your claims.
“First of all it isn’t about “fewer jobs”.”
Then why did you say that it was? You said:
“One of the unintended consequence of Obamacare is fewer jobs and jobs with fewer hours offered. the latest spin by the Democrats is that this is a good thing!”
“Its about spinning as a positive that people will choose not to work because the subsidy allows them NOT TO WORK.”
Again, you are totally contradicting yourself. Earlier, you said that Democrats were spinning as a positive “fewer jobs” and “fewer jobs offered,” now you are admitting that the issue is one of people voluntarily choosing not to work.
Are you now admitting that you were being dishonest with the previous way you framed this issue?
“Obamacare breeds more dependency and that’s wonderful because moms can stay home and cook dinner! WOW!”
This comment, after you just claimed without evidence that Democrats and feminists are the ones who hate stay-at-home moms? Wow, indeed. You don’t even notice when you contradict yourself.
“starving artist can afford to paint forever cause now they have food stamps AND healthcare!”
That’s not at all what has been said. Have you ever met a strawman argument you didn’t like?
Tina, do you see how the articles you linked to show that the issue of stay-at-home moms is a debated one in feminist circles? Do you see how your statement that “Wasn’t it Democrats who looked down on stay at home moms? Haven’t feminists insisted that women who stayed at home were not living up to their full potential?” is an overgeneralization?
Statistics are wonderful Chris.
But people cannot eat statistics…statistics won’t offer anyone a good job with the opportunity to advance and improve his life.
Statistics can be manipulated to “prove” whatever point the statistician wishes. You’ve heard the expression: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
The problem with liberals and liberal policy is that they live by and are formed on wishes. The ideas sound so lovely but they are not practical and they don’t work well in real life.
Forbes:
Natural News:
This chart shows the jobs picture changed dramatically after the law was passed.
Fox news reported in November of 2012 that Stryker would cut jobs due to Obamacare (Sorry the link was messed up):
October 2009 The National Center for Public Policy Research:
That about says it all…and that was a red flag warning!
Now for a really awful “anecdotal” story. I heard today about a local person who suffers from a severe disease, not cancer. A local doctor could treat this patient. Unfortunately, the person signed up for Obamacare and the treatment is not covered. Because of regulations and restrictions in Obamacare the doctor can find no way around the law to treat him. The patient will die if he cannot get this treatment. I pray a solution to his predicament is miraculously found. Repealing the law and replacing it with simple common sense solutions to a few basic problems would do the trick.
That is not how we do things in America. I’m so disheartened. How did we ever let this happen?
Chris I wish you would stop personalizing everything. Your experience doesn’t represent everyone’s.
I’m well aware that the issue of stay at home moms is debated because it’s been debated since the seventies! The hard core position from early on was to look down on women who chose to stay at home and to take a pretty negative attitude toward men. Those attitudes shaped our nation for the positive in some ways but they have also helped to shaped lives, relationships, and families in very negative ways. The Democrat Party became the home of this hard core attitude. It may not be evident to you at your age but from my perspective the destruction far outweighs the positives overall, especially since women were moving in the direction of being better educated and career oriented without all the political and social battering and ramming of the feminist movement.
It’s my opinion. You are not required to agree.
I guess nobody cares that Obama proposed something that would be illegal in the SOTU because as he put it the other day, “That’s the good thing about being president, I can do whatever I want.”
Tina: “Statistics are wonderful Chris.
But people cannot eat statistics…”
Stop. This is anti-intellectual garbage.
You made an objective claim. You claimed that “One of the unintended consequence of Obamacare is fewer jobs and jobs with fewer hours offered.”
This claim can easily be verified or disproven by looking at factual evidence. It can be demonstrated to be true or false based on statistics. Anecdotes are not good enough to prove this claim for many reasons. A few businesses who choose to cut hours or jobs because of Obamacare may not indicate a larger trend. Those businesses might not even be telling the truth about their real reasons for cutting jobs–Wal-Mart, for instance, gives bonuses to managers for cutting hours and workers as much as possible while keeping sales consistent.
“Statistics can be manipulated to “prove” whatever point the statistician wishes.”
True, but you’re literally arguing that the solution to this problem is a retreat to ignorance. You’re arguing that the solution to bad information is less information, rather than more. You’re promoting distrust of scientific and academic ways of looking at the world in favor of gut instinct.
This type of anti-intellectualism is why Republicans have become known, as Bobby Jindal admitted, as the “stupid party.”
The solution to bad information is more information, not less. We need an informed public. We need more people who know how to read and analyze statistics so that they won’t be fooled by misuse of them. Saying “well, statistics are so easily manipulable that you can’t trust any of them (unless of course they provide evidence for what *I* believe, in which case they are ROCK SOLID),” is not an acceptable response. It is part of the dumbing down of America.
“Now for a really awful “anecdotal” story. I heard today about a local person…”
And now we’re supposed to base public policy on something Tina heard today. You don’t even see why you would need to provide evidence of your claims, and you’re offended at the notion that you should have to.
Sorry. You need more.
Tina: “I guess nobody cares that Obama proposed something that would be illegal”
It’s not that I don’t care about that, it’s that I’m disinclined from believing you based on your previous lie in this article, which you have yet to acknowledge. And I’m also not inclined to spend my time Googling every single claim you make to verify it when so many of them have turned out to be false.
Chris your churlish lectures continue to bore.
Your arguments might impress at some high tone intellectual soiree where bookish intellectuals that have never lived outside the hallowed walls of academe discuss ordinary life but they don’t impress a business owner in the least.
The White House is filled to the brim with these types which probably explains the crappy economy and jobs picture. It also explains the creation of a healthcare law made of thousands of pages of rules and regulations that totally upended hundreds of thousands of lives and created chaos in the industry. It’s incredible that the so-called smartest people in the room have made such a colossal mess when all they had to do is fix a few simple problems in the insurance industry. They could have done that in three or four pages; it would have been a more compassionate fix.
I don’t give a rats butt if some bean counter looks at a few statistics and decides that Obamacare didn’t change the landscape for business and hiring because I KNOW that it did.
Your statistical analysis ignores the butt ugly jobs situation in America and the absolutely deplorable excuse for recovery under Obama’s policies as a means of pretending all is well. I got news. It isn’t!
YOU are all about deflection, misdirection, from what is truly the most horrendous situation we’ve seen in decades. You are standing in a pile of smelly dung of your own party’s making and still you attempt to point fingers of blame while spouting intellectual BS.
From Janice Yellen’s testimony:
Much of the decline in the unemployment rate over the last three years has come from Americans dropping out of the labor force. (No $hit?)… As of January, about 3.6 million Americans were unemployed for more than 6 months. They make up 36% of the unemployed. Another 7 million Americans were classified as “part-time for economic reasons,” meaning they worked fewer than 35 hours a week due to slack work, unfavorable business conditions or inability to find a full-time job.
“Unfavorable business conditions” include uncertainty about the effects of Obamacare on the economy and the jobs situation.
Forbes:
The next excerpt is old (Oct 2012) but the situation has not really changed much and Mr. welch represents someone who has actually seen how statistical information is gathered.
Jack Welch on the validity of “the numbers” and the reliability of statistics:
Reality Chris. Reality trumps statistics and analysis. Anecdotal information when it is repeated again and again and again in the private sector means something.
(All emphasis above is mine)
I’ll tell you about arrogance. Arrogance is ignoring these problems to save face for a failed presidency and failed policy. Arrogance is pointing fingers when the record of failure is so horribly bad. Arrogance is a president that decides he can do whatever he wants. Arrogance is the Democrat Party elites acting like their precious healthcare law is working when clearly it is not!
Arrogance is touting plan for an IRA that breaks investment regulations/laws and takes money from people who can least afford it, giving a pittance in return, to pay for the Presidents extravagant spending and debt.
And by the way the personal story was from the source, names of those involved and illness withheld for privacy concerns you cold-hearted jerk.
Obamacare is a law not insurance. Ya know this reads like a CIA troll site.
“Your arguments might impress at some high tone intellectual soiree where bookish intellectuals that have never lived outside the hallowed walls of academe discuss ordinary life but they don’t impress a business owner in the least.”
Thanks for proving my point re: the dumbing down of America.
“The Presidents “myIRA” investment plan violates ERISA Law.”
Let me offer a suggestion that would serve you well in life; learn to think for yourself. Rather than read an opinion piece in a conservative rag and accept it as fact, research for yourself. You would save yourself the embarrassment of publicly displaying your ignorance.
You should start with researching what the E in ERISA stands for. After you figure that out ask yourself the question of how a myRA account could ever violate ERISA.
“The Presidents “myIRA” investment plan violates ERISA Law.”
Let me offer a suggestion that would serve you well in life; learn to think for yourself. Rather than read an opinion piece in a conservative rag and accept it as fact, research for yourself. You would save yourself the embarrassment of publicly displaying your ignorance.
You should start with researching what the E in ERISA stands for; Employee. 29 USC 1003 explicitly lays out coverage for the plan; “this subchapter shall apply to any employee benefit plan if it is established or maintained—
(1) by any employer engaged in commerce or in any industry or activity affecting commerce; or
(2) by any employee organization or organizations representing employees engaged in commerce or in any industry or activity affecting commerce; or
(3) by both.”
The government is no more the employer, and thus a fiduciary, of the MyRA than it is an employer with respect to IRA or Social Security. In fact the Treasury invests the social security trust fund exclusively in???? Gasp… ..public debt….. Is Social Security violating ERISA?
The expert went on to state “Likely ERISA will not pursue Obama for his breach of fiduciary duty” demonstrating his marked ignorance on the subject. ERISA is a law, not a public agency, it does not pursue anything. Enforcement is left to DOL.
bitterlawyer welcome to Post Scripts. Congratulations, you have chosen your handle well.
You wrote:
“Let me offer a suggestion that would serve you well in life; learn to think for yourself.”
You are absolutely right about that. I should have taken the time. One or more of the people who comment on this blog are cheering about now so take a bow.
I took your advice and looked up ERISA law; it’s Sunday and I don’t have to be at work so I have the time.
I found a law riddled with loop holes and back door wiggle room, something you lawyer types love. I suspect this law was written to redistribute a lot of cash to insurance companies that cover those with the heavy fiduciary responsibility. There are at least two required policies for DBP plans that I’m aware of and they have very hefty premiums. The premiums could be more than the investments themselves will ever return to the poor slob who might think this was a good investment.
I thank you for pointing out the flaws in Bedard’s thinking and my own mistake in taking what was written at face value. However, I still think that this idea would serve the President more than it would serve low income people and was suggested for that reason alone. He’s buying votes and debt reduction.
Social security was also a terrible idea. The return is paltry for a lifetime of sacrificed earnings. And our government benefits in the mean time, using the money as a slush fund for irresponsible excessive spending.
I don’t claim to be an expert, never have, but it seems to me that anything set up by the government that involves the handling or investment of public money, should require a fiduciary responsibility for that government. These plans are never voluntary so the government is responsible.
But progressives don’t ever assume responsibility; they pass it on to others. Accountability is never a high priority for the leftists lawyers who write laws. So now we have an unsustainable Social Security plan that has and will harm younger citizens as they are asked to pay in more and more of their pay (property) to cover their parents and grandparents. They don’t have a choice in the matter. Either they pay more or the debt climbs even faster than it already has putting great pressure on our economy as interest rates rise.
The responsibility of our government officials should be great! Better yet, let’s get the government out of peoples personal business!
The best plan would be to get government out of the loop altogether but we know that won’t happen any time soon. So the better alternative would be to allow all citizens to invest a percentage of their social security in a diverse private investment account that if not completely used before death can be passed on to the family. The Congress awards itself a better plan than SS. Public employees are offered better plans too. Why do liberals suggest an inferior models for the less well off? I’d say because they don’t care about the people, they exploit them!
The President’s real (selfish) goal in offering up myIRA is to pay down his MASSIVE debt and buy a few votes prior to November and the 2016 presidential election!
You have a nice day.
“I found a law riddled with loop holes and back door wiggle room, something you lawyer types love.”
What loop holes and back door wiggle room exactly are you referring to?
“I suspect this law was written to redistribute a lot of cash to insurance companies that cover those with the heavy fiduciary responsibility.”
Baseless supposition
“There are at least two required policies for DBP plans that I’m aware of and they have very hefty premiums. The premiums could be more than the investments themselves will ever return to the poor slob who might think this was a good investment.”
There is no fiduciary liability insurance required by ERISA. 29 U.S. Code § 1110 permits but does not require an employer to purchase insurance to cover potential liability of one or more persons who serve in a fiduciary capacity with regard to an employee benefit plan. ERISA does require to protect the plans against acts of dishonesty. The amount of the bond must equal 10% of the funds handled, but
be no less than $1,000, and no more than $500,000, unless required by DOL.
“I still think that this idea would serve the President more than it would serve low income people and was suggested for that reason alone. He’s buying votes and debt reduction.”
Buying votes? Who’s vote did he buy? The treasuries are public debt and are repaid with interest. I’m not sure what you are getting at with debt reduction.
“Social security was also a terrible idea. The return is paltry for a lifetime of sacrificed earnings. And our government benefits in the mean time, using the money as a slush fund for irresponsible excessive spending.”
Actually a single average wage earner will receive about 17% more in benefits than they paid in payroll taxes. Depending on filing status it could be more.
“I don’t claim to be an expert, never have, but it seems to me that anything set up by the government that involves the handling or investment of public money, should require a fiduciary responsibility for that government. These plans are never voluntary so the government is responsible.”
Actually IRA, DC plans, DB plans, and myRA accounts are all private money not public. The government does not handle the investment of it. Just because the account invests in treasury backed securities does not mean that the government is “handling” or “investing” anything. IRA and myRA accounts are/will be administered at the consumer level, with no government involvement. I’m not aware of any mandatory federal retirement plans. Employers may require you to participate, but that is not the same as compulsory participation of the federal government. Last I checked I was not being forced at gunpoint to contribute to an IRA or have my wages garnished.
“But progressives don’t ever assume responsibility; they pass it on to others. Accountability is never a high priority for the leftists lawyers who write laws. So now we have an unsustainable Social Security plan that has and will harm younger citizens as they are asked to pay in more and more of their pay (property) to cover their parents and grandparents.”
Social Security is unsustainable because of advances in medicine which have extended our lifetimes well beyond what was anticipated when Social Security was enacted. It would be perfectly sustainable by increasing the normal retirement age to account for the increases in life expectancy. However, your agenda and your disdain for “leftist lawyers” is duly noted. The OASDI rate has not increased in nearly a quarter of a century, so I’m not really sure how they are being asked to pay in more.
“So the better alternative would be to allow all citizens to invest a percentage of their social security in a diverse private investment account that if not completely used before death can be passed on to the family.”
And for those folks retired when we experience a market downturn? Do we just put them out on the street? Who is determining the asset allocation. I certainly hope not the individuals.
“The Congress awards itself a better plan than SS.”
Congress participates in SS
“Public employees are offered better plans too.”
Many public employees participate in SS as well
“Why do liberals suggest an inferior models for the less well off? I’d say because they don’t care about the people, they exploit them!”
Who is suggesting inferior models. The disappearance of private pensions is business decision not some liberal agenda. That is called the free market.
“The President’s real (selfish) goal in offering up myIRA is to pay down his MASSIVE debt and buy a few votes prior to November and the 2016 presidential election!”
The president is running in November and in 2016?
bitterlawyer: “What loop holes and back door wiggle room exactly are you referring to?
According to the law office of Pillbury Levinson & Coleman, the law puts companies at great risk without recourse. They contend that the law was poorly written:
Loophole and back door maythey do not be the correct terms to use but they do make it clear that this is a law that can easily be exploited.
See more in the report, The Tragedies of Erisa’s Unintended Preemption of State Law Remedies.
“There is no fiduciary liability insurance required by ERISA. 29 U.S. Code § 1110 permits but does not require an employer to purchase insurance to cover potential liability of one or more persons who serve in a fiduciary capacity with regard to an employee benefit plan.”
Well thankfully my company got out of the DBP plan we had so it doesn’t matter to me anymore but I can assure you we were required to carry two separate insurance policies. They were very expensive.
“Who’s vote did he buy”
Anyone who heard him propose it that thinks it would benefit them.
“The treasuries are public debt and are repaid with interest”
Quoting the Marotta Investment firm:
“Actually a single average wage earner will receive about 17% more in benefits than they paid in payroll taxes.”
Interesting figure, where did you get it?
CNS News quotes a CATO report:
Read full report here.
It should also be pointed out that private investment can be passed on to a worker heirs and is not lost if the worker should die early.
CATO also points out other negative aspects here:
I have grandchildren and this bothers me.
“Social Security is unsustainable because of advances in medicine which have extended our lifetimes well beyond what was anticipated when Social Security was enacted. It would be perfectly sustainable by increasing the normal retirement age to account for the increases in life expectancy.”
Oh please. We change the rules for payout as we go along? Would you accept a payout from any other insurance policy that did that, especially if it suddenly meant you had to both work more and pay more to receive the benefit? (And its been sold to younger generations as a retirement account so it doesn’t really matter to them that it was set up as insurance)
Yes we do live longer. We also pay a lot more of what we earn than the meager 2%, a percentage that our parents and grandparents were told would never be higher. Raising the rate has not been enough; I doubt that raising the age of retirement will either. Technological advances in the future are more likely to make the problem grow worse in terms of longevity but might help in terms of ability to work.
Look, I know that younger workers will probably have to accept an older retirement age to help fix this broken system but please don’t try to make it seem like raising the age of retirement as a condition of participation is doing folks a favor! And try not to think of the employees (employers) you ask this of as numbers on an computer printout.
“And for those folks retired when we experience a market downturn?”
There are folks who retired during the last five years that have not been helped by the sluggish non-recovery economy or the higher taxes imposed on investment and savings. Under Carter retirees made out like bandits with CD investments but young people paid a very high price in terms of borrowing for a car or a home. Government meddling isn’t working out for the unemployed right now either. So?
If we did a better job educating and preparing young people to make responsible decisions and got the government to back off a bit it might just work out better for everyone.
The proposals to put part of SS money in private investment accounts have not suggested either risky investments or, heaven forbid, allowing people to invest their money as they see fit.
I like one proposed by CATO:
That was proposed in 1996…too bad it wasn’t made law back then. If we had we’d be better off debt wise.
“The president is running in November and in 2016?”
The progressive agenda is ALWAYS running.
“According to the law office of Pillbury Levinson & Coleman, the law puts companies at great risk without recourse. They contend that the law was poorly written”
So you are now using a law firm to do your thinking. Weren’t you just disparaging lawyers? The article you wrote refers to employer sponsored insurance plans and is hardly relevant to the topic at hand or the purported loop holes you have asserted.
“Well thankfully my company got out of the DBP plan we had so it doesn’t matter to me anymore but I can assure you we were required to carry two separate insurance policies. They were very expensive.”
Yet you can’t show a single a provision of ERISA that requires this insurance?
“Quoting the Marotta Investment firm”
Quoting the same firm who has already been demonstrably wrong on the matter, is probably not the strongest argument. Note that Marotta is the “expert” cited in your original article.
“They pay a below-market rate, and the government benefits from their purchase.”
They do not pay a below market rate. They pay an appropriate rate for the assumed risk. They pay a comparable or slightly higher return to most stable value products (which also invest almost entirely in treasuries). For comparison our 1 year stable value, a blended collective trust comprised of four different stable products, performance was 1.10%, Thrift Savings G’s return was 1.89%.
“Interesting figure, where did you get it?”
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/social-security-medicare-benefits-over-lifetime.pdf
“Oh please. We change the rules for payout as we go along? Would you accept a payout from any other insurance policy that did that, especially if it suddenly meant you had to both work more and pay more to receive the benefit? (And its been sold to younger generations as a retirement account so it doesn’t really matter to them that it was set up as insurance).”
We do the very thing you suggested “assume responsibility” and fix the system to make sustainable.
“There are folks who retired during the last five years that have not been helped by the sluggish non-recovery economy or the higher taxes imposed on investment and savings. Under Carter retirees made out like bandits with CD investments but young people paid a very high price in terms of borrowing for a car or a home. Government meddling isn’t working out for the unemployed right now either. So?”
You think taking the only guaranteed income these people have and putting it in the markets is really going to improve retirement outcomes for people?
“If we did a better job educating and preparing young people to make responsible decisions and got the government to back off a bit it might just work out better for everyone.”
Agreed but it isn’t just the young that are the problem, financial literacy in this country is atrocious.
“The proposals to put part of SS money in private investment accounts have not suggested either risky investments or, heaven forbid, allowing people to invest their money as they see fit.”
All investments carry risk. Having administered a more than $1 billion DC plan I can tell you the default investment options are the only thing saving the majority of participants from themselves. I’m all for people being free to direct their own investments, but unfortunately they are dreadfully prepared to do so.
bitterlawyer: “So you are now using a law firm to do your thinking. Weren’t you just disparaging lawyers?”
Don’t some of them deserve it?
I used the law firm as a resource.
Yet you can’t show a single a provision of ERISA that requires this insurance?
Maybe you like investment guys better?
Insurance Hedge:
Fiduciary Liability Insurance pays, on behalf of the insured, legal liability arising from claims for alleged failure to prudently act within the meaning of the Pension Reform Act of 1974.
Fidelity bonds are required by law (ERISA bonding).
“For comparison our 1 year stable value, a blended collective trust comprised of four different stable products…”
Sounds good. But, according to the article, Obama’s plan “offers no investment diversification and amounts to a conflict of interest”…as long as we are sticking with the subject at hand.
“You think taking the only guaranteed income these people have and putting it in the markets is really going to improve retirement outcomes for people?”
Yes! Comparisons of a percentage placed in a safe type investment like the one you describe above show the privately invested funds offer a better return.
No one has ever suggested anything else.
“financial literacy in this country is atrocious.”
One of my bugaboos.
“All investments carry risk.”
Yes…including our investment in government…the debt is atrocious and much of it the result of unfunded liabilities for SS.
Having administered a more than $1 billion DC plan…”
Congrats!
“I can tell you the default investment options are the only thing saving the majority of participants from themselves. I’m all for people being free to direct their own investments, but unfortunately they are dreadfully prepared to do so.”
I agree which is why I have not suggested it.
This thread is a little grey at the temples…slow day?