The Progressive Left has driven Christ from Christmas in the name of "Tolerance"
Merriam-Webster defines Tolerance as:
1 : capacity to endure pain or hardship : endurance, fortitude, stamina
2 a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own b : the act of allowing something : toleration
3 : the allowable deviation from a standard; especially : the range of variation permitted in maintaining a specified dimension in machining a piece
Our schools have banned Christmas in the name of tolerance. Really?
What group or groups are being taught tolerance by the practice of banning Christmas? Atheists, Muslims, Hindus, Jews?
No, if the true goal was to teach tolerance we would invite every religious group to celebrate their holiest of holidays. We would then teach other religious groups to be "Tolerant" of others beliefs.
The true goal of the Progressive Left is to drive all religion from the public square to be replaced by the religion of "Government Control". Look to history; Nazi Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union are great examples of this practice! Drive out religion and replace it with Government sponsored programs.
Progressive's do everything in the name of compassion. Or, do they have other plans?
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Friday, November 13, 2009
Today President John F Kennedy Would Be A Republican
I believe this to be true!
Today President John F Kennedy Would Be A Republican
By David Hinz - Posted on August 9th, 2009
"A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues."
Today, one of the valiant heroes of the Democratic Party, President John F Kennedy, could not earn his party's nomination for president -- based upon the principles and ideals upon which he governed. His words above demonstrates how far left the Democratic Party of today has drifted.
President Kennedy was a supply-side economist, cutting the top marginal tax rates [for the wealthy] and bringing about economic prosperity for a decade.
Quote:
In his tax message to Congress in 1963, Kennedy asked that the top income tax rate be brought down from 91% to 65%. His goal was to reduce all statutory income tax rates by about 30%, including a reduction in the bottom tax rate from 20% to 14%.
"Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government," he told Congress in January of 1963.
"Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort – thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate," he told a national television audience in September of 1963.
Quote:
Today, an income over $300,000 in adjusted gross income would put someone into the top 1%. The equivalent income of $50,000 in 1962, however, put one into just the top 0.2%; that is, the top two-tenths of 1%. To be in the top 1% in 1962, one only needed an income of $25,000. Those with incomes above this level got 14% of the Kennedy tax cut.
"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus," said President Kennedy in a news conference in 1962.
The increased revenue the government enjoyed from his tax cuts never became a surplus, but was used by his successor, President Lyndon B Johnson, to fund ambitious social programs that have transformed our country to this day -- from a nation of individuals to a collective -- looking toward the federal government for handouts.
President Kennedy understood business, and the necessity of business to be able to make money. Unlike the Democrats of today, he did not demonize those corporations who moved capital off-shore in order to maintain a profit.
"In those countries where income taxes are lower than in the United States, the ability to defer the payment of U.S. tax by retaining income in the subsidiary companies provides a tax advantage for companies operating through overseas subsidiaries that is not available to companies operating solely in the United States. Many American investors properly made use of this deferral in the conduct of their foreign investment," he told Congress in April of 1963.
Instead of demanding that Congress act to penalize those international corporations -- as do Democrats today -- he used those examples as an argument for tax breaks for business.
President Kennedy was strong on national defense -- a warrior unafraid of confronting evil, and defeating it -- a strong departure from the surrender monkeys that have controlled the Democratic Party since the surrender of Saigon and the resulting deaths of millions of our allies.
While still a Senator, John Kennedy gave an impassioned speech to Congress to close the "Missile Gap" between the United States and the Soviet Union.
Quote:
His ringing call to close the "missile gap" which will face us in the years ahead was termed by Joseph Alsop as "one of the most remarkable speeches on American defense and national strategy that this country has heard since the end of the last war."
When confronted with the imposition of Soviet missiles in Cuba, he stood tough against a clear and present danger to our nation, and forced the USSR to back down. The United States stood upon the bring of war, but the president knew that strength, and not weakness, was the only way to deal with our enemies. President Kennedy apologized to no nation for American strength -- he offered no peace plan to our enemies that would leave this country more vulnerable and less safe.
When the USSR began to isolate Berlin with the building of the Berlin Wall during his presidency, President Kennedy went to Berlin, and gave this message of strength to the German people.
Quote:
I am proud to come to this city as the guest of your distinguished Mayor, who has symbolized throughout the world the fighting spirit of West Berlin. And I am proud to visit the Federal Republic with your distinguished Chancellor who for so many years has committed Germany to democracy and freedom and progress, and to come here in the company of my fellow American, General Clay, who has been in this city during its great moments of crisis and will come again if ever needed.
Two thousand years ago the proudest boast was "civis Romanus sum." Today, in the world of freedom, the proudest boast is "Ich bin ein Berliner."
I appreciate my interpreter translating my German!
There are many people in the world who really don't understand, or say they don't, what is the great issue between the free world and the Communist world. Let them come to Berlin. There are some who say that communism is the wave of the future. Let them come to Berlin. And there are some who say in Europe and elsewhere we can work with the Communists. Let them come to Berlin. And there are even a few who say that it is true that communism is an evil system, but it permits us to make economic progress. Lass' sie nach Berlin kommen. Let them come to Berlin.
Freedom has many difficulties and democracy is not perfect, but we have never had to put a wall up to keep our people in, to prevent them from leaving us. I want to say, on behalf of my countrymen, who live many miles away on the other side of the Atlantic, who are far distant from you, that they take the greatest pride that they have been able to share with you, even from a distance, the story of the last 18 years. I know of no town, no city, that has been besieged for 18 years that still lives with the vitality and the force, and the hope and the determination of the city of West Berlin. While the wall is the most obvious and vivid demonstration of the failures of the Communist system, for all the world to see, we take no satisfaction in it, for it is, as your Mayor has said, an offense not only against history but an offense against humanity, separating families, dividing husbands and wives and brothers and sisters, and dividing a people who wish to be joined together.
Can anyone imagine any Democrat leader making such a speech today? I know I cannot.
President Kennedy believed in the content of a man's character, rather than the color of that man's skin. While he was a warrior for civil rights, it was Johnson, not Kennedy that imposed reverse discrimination in the form of Affirmative Action quotas on this nation.
And finally, in his inaugural address on January 20, 1981, President Kennedy said this:
Quote:
"...we observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom—symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning—signifying renewal, as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago.
The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.
We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans—born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage—and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty....
--snip--
And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.
My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.
Has any American Democrat spoken words such as these in the last thirty years, and meant them? I think not.
If he were alive today, John F Kennedy would be a Republican.
Today President John F Kennedy Would Be A Republican
By David Hinz - Posted on August 9th, 2009
"A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues."
Today, one of the valiant heroes of the Democratic Party, President John F Kennedy, could not earn his party's nomination for president -- based upon the principles and ideals upon which he governed. His words above demonstrates how far left the Democratic Party of today has drifted.
President Kennedy was a supply-side economist, cutting the top marginal tax rates [for the wealthy] and bringing about economic prosperity for a decade.
Quote:
In his tax message to Congress in 1963, Kennedy asked that the top income tax rate be brought down from 91% to 65%. His goal was to reduce all statutory income tax rates by about 30%, including a reduction in the bottom tax rate from 20% to 14%.
"Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government," he told Congress in January of 1963.
"Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort – thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate," he told a national television audience in September of 1963.
Quote:
Today, an income over $300,000 in adjusted gross income would put someone into the top 1%. The equivalent income of $50,000 in 1962, however, put one into just the top 0.2%; that is, the top two-tenths of 1%. To be in the top 1% in 1962, one only needed an income of $25,000. Those with incomes above this level got 14% of the Kennedy tax cut.
"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus," said President Kennedy in a news conference in 1962.
The increased revenue the government enjoyed from his tax cuts never became a surplus, but was used by his successor, President Lyndon B Johnson, to fund ambitious social programs that have transformed our country to this day -- from a nation of individuals to a collective -- looking toward the federal government for handouts.
President Kennedy understood business, and the necessity of business to be able to make money. Unlike the Democrats of today, he did not demonize those corporations who moved capital off-shore in order to maintain a profit.
"In those countries where income taxes are lower than in the United States, the ability to defer the payment of U.S. tax by retaining income in the subsidiary companies provides a tax advantage for companies operating through overseas subsidiaries that is not available to companies operating solely in the United States. Many American investors properly made use of this deferral in the conduct of their foreign investment," he told Congress in April of 1963.
Instead of demanding that Congress act to penalize those international corporations -- as do Democrats today -- he used those examples as an argument for tax breaks for business.
President Kennedy was strong on national defense -- a warrior unafraid of confronting evil, and defeating it -- a strong departure from the surrender monkeys that have controlled the Democratic Party since the surrender of Saigon and the resulting deaths of millions of our allies.
While still a Senator, John Kennedy gave an impassioned speech to Congress to close the "Missile Gap" between the United States and the Soviet Union.
Quote:
His ringing call to close the "missile gap" which will face us in the years ahead was termed by Joseph Alsop as "one of the most remarkable speeches on American defense and national strategy that this country has heard since the end of the last war."
When confronted with the imposition of Soviet missiles in Cuba, he stood tough against a clear and present danger to our nation, and forced the USSR to back down. The United States stood upon the bring of war, but the president knew that strength, and not weakness, was the only way to deal with our enemies. President Kennedy apologized to no nation for American strength -- he offered no peace plan to our enemies that would leave this country more vulnerable and less safe.
When the USSR began to isolate Berlin with the building of the Berlin Wall during his presidency, President Kennedy went to Berlin, and gave this message of strength to the German people.
Quote:
I am proud to come to this city as the guest of your distinguished Mayor, who has symbolized throughout the world the fighting spirit of West Berlin. And I am proud to visit the Federal Republic with your distinguished Chancellor who for so many years has committed Germany to democracy and freedom and progress, and to come here in the company of my fellow American, General Clay, who has been in this city during its great moments of crisis and will come again if ever needed.
Two thousand years ago the proudest boast was "civis Romanus sum." Today, in the world of freedom, the proudest boast is "Ich bin ein Berliner."
I appreciate my interpreter translating my German!
There are many people in the world who really don't understand, or say they don't, what is the great issue between the free world and the Communist world. Let them come to Berlin. There are some who say that communism is the wave of the future. Let them come to Berlin. And there are some who say in Europe and elsewhere we can work with the Communists. Let them come to Berlin. And there are even a few who say that it is true that communism is an evil system, but it permits us to make economic progress. Lass' sie nach Berlin kommen. Let them come to Berlin.
Freedom has many difficulties and democracy is not perfect, but we have never had to put a wall up to keep our people in, to prevent them from leaving us. I want to say, on behalf of my countrymen, who live many miles away on the other side of the Atlantic, who are far distant from you, that they take the greatest pride that they have been able to share with you, even from a distance, the story of the last 18 years. I know of no town, no city, that has been besieged for 18 years that still lives with the vitality and the force, and the hope and the determination of the city of West Berlin. While the wall is the most obvious and vivid demonstration of the failures of the Communist system, for all the world to see, we take no satisfaction in it, for it is, as your Mayor has said, an offense not only against history but an offense against humanity, separating families, dividing husbands and wives and brothers and sisters, and dividing a people who wish to be joined together.
Can anyone imagine any Democrat leader making such a speech today? I know I cannot.
President Kennedy believed in the content of a man's character, rather than the color of that man's skin. While he was a warrior for civil rights, it was Johnson, not Kennedy that imposed reverse discrimination in the form of Affirmative Action quotas on this nation.
And finally, in his inaugural address on January 20, 1981, President Kennedy said this:
Quote:
"...we observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom—symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning—signifying renewal, as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago.
The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.
We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans—born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage—and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty....
--snip--
And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.
My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.
Has any American Democrat spoken words such as these in the last thirty years, and meant them? I think not.
If he were alive today, John F Kennedy would be a Republican.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Curtis &Leroy saw an ad in the Starkville Daily News Newspaper in Starkville , MS. and bought a mule for $100.
The farmer agreed to deliver the mule the next day.
The next morning the farmer drove up and said, "Sorry, fellows, I have some bad news, the mule died last night."
Curtis &Leroy replied, "Well, then just give us our money back."
The farmer said, "Can't do that. I went and spent it already."
They said, "OK then, just bring us the dead mule."
The farmer asked, "What in the world y'all gonna do with a dead mule?"
Curtis said, "We gonna raffle him off."
The farmer said, "You can't raffle off a dead mule!"
Leroy said, "We shore can! Heck, we don 't hafta tell nobody he's dead!"
A couple of weeks later, the farmer ran into Curtis &Leroy at the Piggly Wiggly grocery store and asked what they ever did with the dead mule?"
They said, "We raffled him off like we said we wuz gonna do."
Leroy said, "Shucks, we sold 500 tickets fer two dollars apiece and made a profit of $898."
The farmer said,"My Lord, didn't anyone complain?"
Curtis said, "Well, the feller who won got upset. So we gave him his two dollars back."
Curtis and Leroy now work for the government.
They're overseeing the Bailout Program.
Limit all US politicians to two terms.
One in office; one in prison.
Illinois already does this!
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
What if automobile repair shops had to function like a medical facility?
What if automobile repair shops had to function like a medical facility?
Assume you are the owner of an automobile repair facility. You carefully calculate your prices based on your overhead costs, employee wages and benefits, part prices, and other miscellaneous expenses.
At the end of the month you have receipts of $100,000 and expenditures of $94,000 which leaves you with a profit of $6,000. Enough to pay your bills, feed your family and a little left over for savings and entertainment.
What would happen if the government dictated how you managed your business; just like health care? Presently 13 percent of people in the United States do not have health care insurance. Many within this group are young and choose not to have insurance. A little less than half are in the country illegally, and the rest just don’t have coverage for a variety of reasons.
Medicare and Medicaid, both government managed insurance programs presently reimburse health care providers at about 65 percent of cost and represent about 35 percent of doctors clientele.
Let’s apply these numbers to your automobile repair business. Thirteen percent of your customers will not pay for their car care; in this case the total will be $13,000. Thirty-five percent of your customers will reimburse you $22,750 for $35,000 worth of repairs for a net loss of $12,250.
Using the government model your monthly receipts will be $74,750.
What do you have to do to remain in business? You could layoff some employees or raise your prices. You decide to raise your prices; by doing some simple algebra you determine that you must increase your prices by 34 percent to stay in business. The oil change that was $35.00 is now $46.90, and the brake job that was $300.00 will now set a customer back $402.00.
People: Health Care is broken not because of the business model. It is broken because government is passing laws that force businesses (medical facilities) to give away their services.
Assume you are the owner of an automobile repair facility. You carefully calculate your prices based on your overhead costs, employee wages and benefits, part prices, and other miscellaneous expenses.
At the end of the month you have receipts of $100,000 and expenditures of $94,000 which leaves you with a profit of $6,000. Enough to pay your bills, feed your family and a little left over for savings and entertainment.
What would happen if the government dictated how you managed your business; just like health care? Presently 13 percent of people in the United States do not have health care insurance. Many within this group are young and choose not to have insurance. A little less than half are in the country illegally, and the rest just don’t have coverage for a variety of reasons.
Medicare and Medicaid, both government managed insurance programs presently reimburse health care providers at about 65 percent of cost and represent about 35 percent of doctors clientele.
Let’s apply these numbers to your automobile repair business. Thirteen percent of your customers will not pay for their car care; in this case the total will be $13,000. Thirty-five percent of your customers will reimburse you $22,750 for $35,000 worth of repairs for a net loss of $12,250.
Using the government model your monthly receipts will be $74,750.
What do you have to do to remain in business? You could layoff some employees or raise your prices. You decide to raise your prices; by doing some simple algebra you determine that you must increase your prices by 34 percent to stay in business. The oil change that was $35.00 is now $46.90, and the brake job that was $300.00 will now set a customer back $402.00.
People: Health Care is broken not because of the business model. It is broken because government is passing laws that force businesses (medical facilities) to give away their services.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Jounalism has truly died.
With the passing of the great journalist Walter Cronkite we can now officially pronounce the death of American Journalism.
How many Americans knew Mr. Cronkite was a left-leaning card carrying Democrat? Very few if any! Walter understood the role of the press and the power of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Walter Cronkite left his political leanings at home so he could provide America with the truth regardless of the outcome or political fallout.
Today ABC, NBC and CBS have chosen to side politically with the far-left. Fair and Balanced reporting have been cast aside in favor of a Socialist agenda!
We know why Benedict Arnold committed treason. What is more difficult is why Charles Gibson of ABC, Brian Williams of NBC, and Katie Couric of CBS have chosen to follow in Benedict Arnold's footsteps? All are receiving $Millions to host their respective newscasts which could explain their refusal to provide fair reporting. Perhaps all three and the stations they represent have socialist beliefs.
What Americans do understand is that ABC, NBC and CBS have abandoned their responsibility to the public and have violated the true purpose of the First Amendment. In my opinion, a majority of the press has sided with the political left for financial gain and power. All are willing to throw this great country under the bus for their personal benefit.
Rest in peace and God Bless Mr. Cronkite; journalism is going to be missed.
"The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807.
How many Americans knew Mr. Cronkite was a left-leaning card carrying Democrat? Very few if any! Walter understood the role of the press and the power of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Walter Cronkite left his political leanings at home so he could provide America with the truth regardless of the outcome or political fallout.
Today ABC, NBC and CBS have chosen to side politically with the far-left. Fair and Balanced reporting have been cast aside in favor of a Socialist agenda!
We know why Benedict Arnold committed treason. What is more difficult is why Charles Gibson of ABC, Brian Williams of NBC, and Katie Couric of CBS have chosen to follow in Benedict Arnold's footsteps? All are receiving $Millions to host their respective newscasts which could explain their refusal to provide fair reporting. Perhaps all three and the stations they represent have socialist beliefs.
What Americans do understand is that ABC, NBC and CBS have abandoned their responsibility to the public and have violated the true purpose of the First Amendment. In my opinion, a majority of the press has sided with the political left for financial gain and power. All are willing to throw this great country under the bus for their personal benefit.
Rest in peace and God Bless Mr. Cronkite; journalism is going to be missed.
"The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Another Government Failure
The below story is another great example of what happens when our government gets into the business of business. Government's role is not to provide financial services, health care, or any other consumer services.
Here is a list of failed government run enterprises. Social Security; will be financially insolvent in a few more years. Medicare and Medicaid; both will be financially insolvent in a few years. The U.S. Post Office is slowly bleeding itself dry and I am sure will collapse within a few more years. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are both in financial trouble due to mismanagement and government regulations. The School System; show me a school district that isn't crawling on its knees begging to raise taxes while providing poor quality results.
Now our government is going into the auto business following the socialization of the banking system. Do you really believe the government will be able to produce quality automobiles and compete with the foreign car makers? All the while keeping the FAT CAT UNION BOSSES happy.
How about the government takeover of your health care? This should scare you to death!
People; PLEASE wake-up and smell the coffee! Your government is not your friend.
"When the people fear their government there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. " Thomas JeffersonBy DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer Deb Riechmann, Associated Press Writer – Wed May 20, 3:12 am ET
WASHINGTON – In an ominous setback, the government agency that insures the pensions of 44 million Americans has amassed a record $33.5 billion deficit — triple what it was just six months ago.
The bleak financial snapshot, in a report obtained by The Associated Press, raises new fears that a federal bailout eventually will be needed for the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. The beleaguered agency is being saddled with the underfunded pension plans of companies going bankrupt in the worst economic slump since the Great Depression.
A rare midyear financial update requested by Congress shows the $11.1 billion deficit the agency posted at the end of its fiscal year on Sept. 30 has swelled by $22.5 billion to its highest level in the agency's 35-year history.
The agency's acting director says, however, that the more than 640,000 people who currently receive PBGC checks need not worry about the deficit.
"We have plenty of money to make those monthly payments promised to them for the near future," Vince Snowbarger said Tuesday. "We're comfortable that for the time being we've got a way to make sure those payments are going to be there. Long term there is going to have to be some resolution of that deficit. I think at some point in time it's going to require congressional attention."
The agency does not insure 401(k) plans, but its fate is important not only to the workers covered by more than 29,000 employer-sponsored benefit pension plans but to all taxpayers who could be asked to foot the bill on a bailout if the agency ever becomes insolvent.
Its balance sheet has taken heavy hits in recent years. Nine of the 10 largest pension plan terminations in its history, including United Airlines, Bethlehem Steel and Kaiser Aluminum, have occurred since 2001. On Tuesday, the PBGC announced that it has assumed responsibility for two pension plans covering about 4,300 workers and retirees of Lenox Group Inc., a bankrupt maker of tableware, giftware and collectibles based in Eden Prairie, Minn.
Created by Congress in 1974, the agency quietly operates in a brick office building a few blocks from the White House. When a company's pension plan is terminated, the agency takes over and pays benefits to the retired workers covered by the plan — although retirees don't always get 100 percent of what their employer promised. The maximum guaranteed amount currently is $54,000 a year for a person retiring at age 65.
Compounding the agency's fiscal problem are investigations into allegations that its former director, Charles E.F. Millard, had inappropriate contacts with three Wall Street firms that recently won multimillion-dollar contracts to advise the agency on a new strategy to invest its assets more heavily in stocks, real estate and private equity rather than more conservative fixed-income treasury securities.
A PBGC inspector general report released last week said that Millard's office had hundreds of phone conversations and e-mails with Wall Street firms bidding for the work at the same time that he was actively evaluating their proposals. In October 2008, Goldman Sachs, BlackRock and JP Morgan won awards to invest up to $2.5 billion of PBGC assets in real estate and private equity in return for up to $100 million more in fees over 10 years.
So far, no agency assets have been transferred to the three firms. Snowbarger said the staff was working with the agency's board of directors to decide whether the contracts being questioned should be terminated.
Millard has denied any wrongdoing, saying his actions were legal and ethical. He has been subpoenaed to testify Wednesday at a Senate Special Committee on Aging hearing on the agency's ability to take over a rising number of underfunded pension plans from companies going bankrupt.
Democratic Sens. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and Max Baucus of Montana and Republican Sens. Charles Grassley of Iowa and Michael Enzi of Wyoming have asked the inspector general to further investigate phone calls and e-mails that suggest Millard sought help getting a job in the weeks after the contracts were awarded to the Wall Street firms. The House Education and Labor Committee also has opened an investigation into the allegations against Millard.
A flurry of pension plans that have either been terminated or probably will end up being taken over by the PBGC is the largest reason for the agency's rising deficit. Declining interest rates was listed as the second-largest reason for the shortfall. Investment losses from the stock market were only the third contributing factor.
"Despite ongoing deficits, the PBGC has sufficient funds to meet its benefit obligations for many years because benefits are paid monthly — spread over the lifetimes of participants and beneficiaries, not as lump sums," Snowbarger said. "Nevertheless, over the long term, the deficit must be addressed. How soon depends on what happens in the next several years."
The agency is closely monitoring the auto, retail, financial services and health care industries, all in financial distress. The PBGC estimates that pension underfunding in the auto sector alone is $77 billion. "Participants in auto sector pension plans and the other stakeholders of the pension insurance program are at substantial risk of loss if these plans are terminated," Snowbarger said.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Obama's GE Bailout
Obama’s hidden bailout of General Electric
By: Timothy P. Carney
Examiner Columnist
03/03/09 8:12 PM
While many companies hire lobbyists to win earmarks, General Electric’s unmatched lobbying force has secured a tax increase — or its equivalent — in President Barack Obama’s budget.
Labeled “climate revenues” and totaling $646 billion over eight years, this line item in Obama’s budget has inspired confidence in GE Chief Executive Officer Jeff Immelt. As Immelt put it in a letter this week, he believes that the Obama administration will be a profitable “financier” and “key partner.”
On page 115 of Obama’s fiscal 2010 budget is Table S-2, titled “Effect of Budget Proposals on Projected Deficits.” The chart forecasts the costs of Obama’s spending proposals and the added revenue of his proposed tax increases. It also forecasts, beginning in 2012, billions of dollars a year in “climate revenues.” This budget line, which has struck fear into some lawmakers from coal-dependent states, could spell salvation for GE in these times of uncertainty.
How can Obama generate “climate revenues”? By forcing companies to pay for the right to emit greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.
A tax on greenhouse gas emissions could accomplish this, but Obama’s preferred policy — and the approach embraced by a few congressional bills in recent years — is called “cap and trade.” In short, cap and trade requires businesses to spend “credits” to pay for their emissions. Businesses can buy or sell these credits, and the market — not the government — would directly set the price of a credit. Government would initially auction them off, generating revenue.
GE — a member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, which advocates cap and trade — leads the push for greenhouse gas restrictions.
In the fourth quarter of 2008 as the company’s stock fell 30 percent, GE spent $4.26 million on lobbying — that’s $46,304 each day, including weekends, Thanksgiving and Christmas. In 2008, the company spent a grand total of $18.66 million on lobbying.
Reviewing their lobbying filings, you might think you were looking at Al Gore’s agenda. GE’s specific lobbying issues included the “Climate Stewardship Act,” “Electric Utility Cap and Trade Act,” “Global Warming Reduction Act,” “Federal Government Greenhouse Gas Registry Act,” “Low Carbon Economy Act,” and “Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act.”
This isn’t altruism or public relations. GE has started a joint venture called Greenhouse Gas Services, which invests in — and hopes to manage the trade in — greenhouse gas credits. But these investments and this trading floor are of basically no use and nearly no value without government restrictions on greenhouse gases.
Hence the lobbying, buttressed by generous campaign contributions: Employees and executives gave $1.35 million to politicians in the past election while GE’s political action committee shelled out $1.55 million. About 64 percent of this $2.9 million went to Democrats, with Obama easily the top recipient of GE money.
Obama’s budget includes the payoff, promising to start a multibillion-dollar greenhouse gas industry by 2012. In a letter this week, GE’S Immelt told shareholders that current events present an “opportunity of a lifetime,” because “capitalism will be ‘reset.’ ”
Immelt wrote: “The interaction between government and business will change forever. In a reset economy, the government will be a regulator; and also an industry policy champion, a financier, and a key partner.”
In short, GE plans to get rich by being one of the government’s closest partners — which it has always been, thanks to its unmatched lobbying efforts.
The environmentalist at this point might respond, “Well, good for GE. if they can get rich while helping the planet, more power to them.” But this ignores important issues. First, restraining greenhouse gas emissions will cost Americans dearly. Gas, electricity and heating prices will all go up. The prices of manufactured and shipped goods will go up. A Clemson University report on similar cap-and-trade proposals forecast a 1 percent decline in he U.S. gross domestic product by 2015 if they were implemented.
There are environmental costs, also, to such a focus on greenhouse gases: Ethanol’s damage to water supplies, soil health and air quality are the fruit of government pushing the product as a climate-friendly fuel.
When the lobbying fingerprints of GE and other well-connected firms are considered, it’s not hard to conclude that the policy that will finally emerge won’t be the one that is best for the planet and least bad for the economy, but the one that is best for General Electric
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)