More on the Possible IRA Grab–What the Vision Is and Who’s Behind It

~~By InsightAnalytical-GRL

A few days ago I posted information about a possible IRA grab (See my previous post, The Next Shoe to Drop: IRA Grab Being Set Up NOW–Heads Up! (UPDATE 1X).

Rumors have been flying around about this sort of thing since last year but there may be some movement now.  And since it seems to be a “bipartisan” affair, at least so far, it still may transpire no matter who is controlling the action in Congress.

The information I’ve found is by no means comprehensive, but it does offer a start at figuring out who’s behind this.  The actual idea may not actually be a bad one, but the devil is in the details, of course!  And who actually gets control of handling those details is another thing to watch out for!

The background…

In March 2009, a group called “Retirement USA” launched efforts to create a “universal, secure and adequate retirement for all Americans.”

Here’s a section of the “Preamble to the Principles for a New System”:

Underlying the principles we are putting forward today are the following shared beliefs:

• Social Security is the cornerstone of American retirement security. The current economic crisis and the resulting decline in individual retirement savings, combined with the continuing disappearance of defined benefit pension plans, are powerful reminders of the importance of Social Security. Social Security must be preserved and strengthened.
• Defined benefit pension plans remain the soundest vehicles for building and safeguarding retirement income security. We must make every effort to stabilize these plans and encourage employers to offer and maintain them.
• We must strengthen worker protections for 401(k) and other defined contribution plans, which help millions of Americans build retirement savings.

While we remain committed to preserving and improving those current pension and 401(k) plans that are providing adequate and secure benefits for workers, we cannot ignore the fact that the current system – regardless of how many changes are made – will remain inaccessible, inadequate and/or insecure for millions of workers. Therefore, we must begin a dialogue now about the type of retirement system we need for the future.

We are not here today to endorse any particular system, but to offer the following set of principles as guideposts against which all proposals should be evaluated.

The Preamble includes a link to a page entitled “Making the Case for a New System” which breaks down the data showing the need for another retirement stream/tier to augment the cornerstone proved by Social Security.

Retirement USA also states:

• Retirement USA has developed 12 Principles for a New Retirement System, which provide a framework for a system in which employers, workers, and the government would share the responsibility for the retirement security for all American workers.
• Retirement USA has issued a call for the submission of “visionary” proposals for a future private retirement income program. Selected proposals were presented at a Re-Envisioning Retirement Security conference in Washington, D.C. on October 21, 2009.

So far so good, as far as intentions go.

So who is actually part of this group?  As listed in the March 9, 2009 launch press release, “experts from the Economic Policy Institute, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, the Pension Rights Center, and the Service Employees International Union launched Retirement USA. (A contributor to the TIAA-CREF policy brief below also mentions the AFL-CIO as one of the convening parties.)

A list of the speakers at the launch and an audio of the press conference are available at the above link.  I know that when I see SEIU involvement these days, my attention is aroused…

The Pension Rights Center maintains the Retirement USA site.  If you visit The PRC site itself, you’ll find a policy brief from December 2009 that was issued by the TIAA-CREF Institute entitled “Perspectives on Retirement Reform for the 21st Century.“  Five experts proved individual essays on the issue after the Exectutive Summary (my highlighting):

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Policy Brief provides essays from five experts in retirement research and policy analysis
offering their perspectives on worthwhile reforms to the U.S. retirement system. The authors
agree that retirement system reforms are needed to ensure that future generations of American
workers have a high likelihood of an adequate and secure retirement income. In particular, the
consensus view is that the current system tends to place too much responsibility and risk on
households for generating and managing retirement resources. Various reforms are suggested
that would encourage retirement income adequacy while providing more efficient risk
management and a more equitable distribution of retirement risk burdens.

I recommend scanning these essays, and particularly the one pn pages 7-8 by Alice H. Munnell entitled “Bigger and Better: Redesigning Our Retirement System in the Wake of the Financial Collapse.”

***

Now, who is the Republican joining Democratic Senators Jeff Bingaman and Herb Kohl to push this idea?

Senator Johnny Isakson of Georgia used to be a pro-choice Republican until he went the usual route to being anti.  See his bio here.

More recently, remember the flap when voluntary end-of-life planning counseling sessions were proposed as a Medicare benefit and the far right talkers and Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Newt Gingrich got hysterical about “death panels”?

Isakson was a co-sponsor of this amendment and in an interview with Ezra Klein in the Washington Post (8/10/2009), Isakson explained his interest in this area and had some strong opinions about Palin et al. Here’s an excerpt from “Is the Government Going to Euthanize your Grandmother? An Interview With Sen. Johnny Isakson“:

How did this become a question of euthanasia?

I have no idea. I understand — and you have to check this out — I just had a phone call where someone said Sarah Palin’s web site had talked about the House bill having death panels on it where people would be euthanized. How someone could take an end of life directive or a living will as that is nuts. You’re putting the authority in the individual rather than the government. I don’t know how that got so mixed up.

You’re saying that this is not a question of government. It’s for individuals.

It empowers you to be able to make decisions at a difficult time rather than having the government making them for you.

The policy here as I understand it is that Medicare would cover a counseling session with your doctor on end-of-life options.

Correct. And it’s a voluntary deal.

It seems to me we’re having trouble conducting an adult conversation about death. We pay a lot of money not to face these questions. We prefer to experience the health-care system as something that just saves you, and if it doesn’t, something has gone wrong.

Over the last three-and-a-half decades, this legislation has been passed state-by-state, in part because of the tort issue and in part because of many other things. It’s important for an individual to make those determinations while they’re of sound mind and body rather than no one making those decisions at all. But this discussion has been going on for three decades.

And the only change we’d see is that individuals would have a counseling session with their doctor?

Uh-huh. When they become eligible for Medicare.

Are there other costs? Parts of it I’m missing?

No. The problem you got is that there’s so much swirling around about health care and people are taking bits and pieces out of this. This was thoroughly debated in the Senate committee. It’s voluntary. Every state in America has an end of life directive or durable power of attorney provision. For the peace of mind of your children and your spouse as well as the comfort of knowing the government won’t make these decisions, it’s a very popular thing. Just not everybody’s aware of it.

What got you interested in this subject?

I’ve seen the pain and suffering in families with a loved one with a traumatic brain injury or a crippling degenerative disease become incapacitated and be kept alive under very difficult circumstances when if they’d have had the chance to make the decision themself they’d have given another directive and I’ve seen the damage financially that’s been done to families and if there’s a way to prevent that by you giving advance directives it’s both for the sanity of the family and what savings the family has it’s the right decision, certainly more than turning it to the government or a trial lawyer.

Still sounds perfectly sane to me.  I’ve already set up my own directives as part of my will.  (By the way, even Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FL), who had said that the health care reform told seniors to “drop dead,” rejected the Palin/Beck/Gingrich stuff as “scare tactics.”)

So, we’ve at least got a seemingly sane Republican (at least on this issue) in the mix along with a couple of entrenched Democrats or whatever they are these days.

HOWEVER….there’s no guarantee that  this idea of creating another piece of the retirement income stream for Americans will be hunky-dory!  To me, it has the eerie feel of Medicare Part D, which was supposed to help with drug costs but is basically a shell game with Big Pharma and insurance companies coming out ahead all the way (and I speak from experience on this one…that donut hole comes awful fast!)  This time around Big Insurance, including AIG are in the mix.  Not to mention AARP, a little insurance center of its own.

So, we’ll have to watch to see how all this develops…if it develops.

***

Sarah Palin…”Constrained,” But Maybe Not How You Think…

~~By InsightAnalytical-GRL

Sarah Palin was in New Mexico a few days ago pushing her book out in Roswell a few days ago.  (I have to admit, I find the title “Going Rogue” a bit odd, considering she’s not all that rogue in MY book…shaking off public office to run around the country seems pretty much in vogue…see John Edwards and even Barack Obama, who abandoned the Senate to run for President right quick…and, pols with higher aspirations all write books before their runs these days, don’t they?)

Anyhow, a writer for the Albuquerque Journal came up with a very interesting piece regarding Palin in Saturday’s paper (December 5, 2009). Although it’s behind the subscriber firewall (but try the link below, you might be able to access it) I do want to share some of this, because it really is a serious piece about Palin in that it tries to really figure out WHO she is.

Last year I was dazzled by Palin and didn’t enjoy seeing her trashed anymore than I liked seeing Hillary Clinton trashed. However, I’ve been off the Palin bandwagon for quite awhile now. While I admired her spunk, I always felt a bit uncomfortable with her politics. I really left the train when she quite her job as governor of Alaska.  Frankly, that’s when I saw the “quite and run” thing kicking in, which leaves a sour taste my mouth these days. She doesn’t seem much different than Edwards or Obama on that score.

But this piece by Thomas J. Cole, entitled “The Constrained Vision, Palin-Style” is quite thought provoking.  Cole didn’t attend the book signing Roswell, but he did buy the book and read it…and thought about it.  As he opens his piece, ” I went in search of Sarah Palin this week.” (I’m guessing the “unleashed” Sarah Palin…)

Cole says he wanted to gain a deeper insight into Palin’s views and found it on page 385:

I wanted to know what informs her positions, the ideas that are the building blocks of her politics, the philosophies that would guide her in making the serious decisions required of these serious times.
I found what I was looking for on Page 385.
Palin wrote: “I do believe in a few timeless and unchanging truths, and chief among those is that man is fallen. This world is not perfect, and politicians will never make it so. This, above all, is what informs my pragmatic approach to politics.”
She then hitches her wagon to the “constrained” political vision as explained by economist and commentator Thomas Sowell in his book “A Conflict of Visions,” first published in 1987.
Politicians with the constrained vision believe that human nature is flawed, that war, poverty and crime, for example, are inevitable and that our flaws cannot be fixed.
Those politicians believe in building institutions that constrain the flaws of human nature and in leaving it to the public to express their interests in free markets.
On the other hand, as Sowell tells it, politicians with the “unconstrained” vision seek to explain our flaws and believe that institutions can cause them. They believe that government can decide what it is in the public’s interest.
“Commonsense Conservatives (that’s what Palin calls herself) deal with human nature as it is with its unavoidable weaknesses and its potential for goodness,” she wrote.
“We don’t trust utopian promises from politicians. The role of government is not to perfect us but to protect us — to protect our inalienable rights.”

MMM…so, we’re all “fallen.”  This “constrained” viewpoint makes me shudder. “Constraining the flaws of human nature” makes me think of a lot harsh things…including the Republican Party, which is back to their “purity” testing again these days…Sounds pretty “perfecting” to me.  The language, the word “fallen” makes my mind immediately wander into religious territory, a la Adam and Eve.  Sort of give me the creeps, but maybe that’s just my own bias?

Cole then muses on how this sort of thinking would apply to current issues:

Let’s take the health care debate.
Politicians with the constrained vision believe that if Americans wanted more affordable health care, they would get it by expressing that interest in the marketplace.
Politicians with the unconstrained vision believe the public interest lies in reducing health care costs, having more Americans covered and not forcing people into bankruptcy because of medical bills.
On the issue of the economy, there would be no more Chrysler or General Motors under the constrained political vision. Through the marketplace, the public had decided it wasn’t in its interest to save the companies and their tens of thousands of jobs.
Politicians with the constrained vision don’t believe in addressing the abuses on Wall Street that led to our financial crisis or in stemming the tide of home foreclosures.
On the evening of Palin’s book signing in Roswell, President Obama addressed the nation on his plan for Afghanistan.
Palin wrote on her Facebook page that evening that she supported Obama’s action, although she wanted him to commit more troops.
Her position wasn’t surprising, given that politicians with the constrained vision believe making war is unavoidable and rational because that’s just what countries do.

This article is an interesting jumping off point from which to examine Palin’s views.  For liberals who seem to have jumped on her bandwagon, it should give pause.

Beyond the folksy demeanor and “common sense” image, there ARE ideas.  And these ideas must be scrutinized just like those of any politician. It’s a mixed bag, of course.

I probably agree with about 10% of the “constrained” views discussed in the above quote.  But most of it…the blind faith to “the marketplace” (abuses and all) and the “war thing”–well, that just seems to be the same old Republican bit that I really can’t stomach.

So, “Going Rogue” sounds catchy, but it rings as false as “Hope and Change” to me…Lots of things to think about…

My Apologies to Terry O’Neill, President of NOW, Who Actually Has Been Doing What She Said She Would Do

~~By  InsightAnalytical-GRL

In my previous post, Surprise, Surprise: Obama Advisor (Female) Thinks Sharia Law is “Misunderstood”, I made this caustic comment:

What’s up with this willingness by “liberal” women to sell out women?  We saw it with Ms. Magazine and all many female Democrats during the primaries.  Supposedly NOW chose a woman to head the organization who is ready for a fight, but I haven’t heard a peep out of her, have you?

I still feel the same way about Ms. Magazine and other so-called “progressive/liberal” women’s publications and Obama supporters who have managed to excuse the misogynistic vein which runs through the Obama crew.

However, I must update some of what’s going on with NOW and offer a bit of an apology to Terry O’Neill of NOW.  Today I saw in the a story in the Albuquerque Journal that piqued my interest in revisiting NOW.

This story was an AP piece, which means I can’t quote it nor link to it under penalty of legal action.

The gist of the story is that NOW’s new President , Terry O’Neill (elected in June 2009), has been working on trying to assess what health care “reform” will mean to women. (More on this further down)

But, the old story of creepy men has become a top concern due to the Roman Polanski arrest and David Letterman’s revelations about his dalliances with women employees.  O’Neill has been quick to respond to those who try to makes excuses for these louses. See below for links to O’Neill’s statements on both of these clods.

Amazingly the AP article reports that while O’Neill has recieved a surge of emails to NOW about the latest Letterman revelations, many of them criticize HER, calling her a “man-hater.”

Sigh.

O’Neill has been on Letterman’s case since June, when he spewed this, as described in the Atlantic:

Jun 12 2009, 9:50 am by Chris Good

NOW Condemns Letterman

After this week’s flap between Sarah Palin and David Letterman, which started when Letterman cracked a joke about Palin’s “slutty flight attendant look” and another about her daughter getting “knocked up” by New York Yankee Alex Rodriguez, the National Organization for Women has condemned Letterman’s jokes and is asking its supporters to write to CBS and voice criticism.

Letterman was added to NOW’s Media Hall of Shame after this incident (see page 5). (You might be interested to see the latest additions to the list…Glenn Beck is currently the most recent addition, but lo and behold, there’s a dig at the Huffington Post for their games with women’s chests right underneath…)

On the subject of these crappy “reform” plans, I heard a two-second blurb on the radio “news” a few weeks ago about the restoration of funding for “abstinence only” education, which has been called a complete failure.  The Senate Finance Committee actually restored funding to this crap at the behest of Sen. Orrin Hatch with the help of two Democrats, Senators Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) joining with all the Republicans on the Committee. JERKS!!

Read more about it at NOW’s call to action so that this garbage will be out of the final bill when reaches the Senate floor: Abstinence-Only Education Shouldn’t Make the Cut and also check out the Center for Public Integrity on who’s behind Sen. Hatch’s move for restoration and the kinds of money wasted on the lie-laden program.

Another Action Alert includes a broader discussion of  the “reform” plans and their impact on women: Bad Health Care Bill Penalizes Women: More Amendments Limiting Reproductive Health Care and Excessive Premium Rates for Older Women .

NOW is also supporting a single-payer system.

After the debacle of the 2009 Democratic primaries and NOW’s support of Obama, it’s good to see that Terry O’Neill seems to be more on target with a message that really is pro-women. This older “war horse” is doing exactly what she said she would do.

Of course, you may not see or hear much of her unless you look at the paper for a story buried under a piece about bears favoring minivans when they go out steal food at the national parks (yes, on page D4 of the Albuquerque Journal).

And for sure, you won’t see Terry O’Neill on TEE VEE very often, either.  After all, she’s OLD and her chest probably not up to snuff…

***

O’Neill Statements:

The Latest Letterman Controversy Raises Workplace Issues for Women (October 6, 2009)

NOW President Terry O’Neill Calls Polanski Furor “Dangerous Talk” That Could Set Back Women’s Rights/”Celebrity Culture Gone Haywire” Blurs Case, O’Neill Says (October 2, 2009)

About Sarah Palin…

~~By InsightAnalytical-GRL

I was at the gym on the Wave when I saw the news about Sarah Palin’s resignation. My first reaction was “Oh, this is bad!  They’ll call her “a quitter.” I listened patiently to the patter on FOX and later at home and, of course, the term “quitter” was brought up, as well as speculation about her not having a thick enough skin,” her family concerns, and maybe how having a Downs child demands more time than she originally thought.  Or maybe she she was just “fed up.” I was informed that she had been acting “bizarre.” I heard the radio news playing back the Katie Couric interview about what Palin read. (Frankly, she said she read everything, which sounds just about like how I would answer on the fly…I’m sure if she had specified at the time, people would have criticized her even for that!)

I can only speak for myself but as I heard more of what she actually said today, especially the part about working for Americans in the future, I actually began to feel good about all this. I love that she focused on the political climate in Alaska. I loved that she didn’t consult with the Congressional delegation.

The “elite” have been out to get her since Day 1 and the Letterman crap didn’t arouse much passionate defense. (The late comments by NOW were just that–late and rather pro forma to save their image after they got an earful, most likely.)  Frankly, the Republicans don’t seem to want her either.

You know what? I would love it if she left the Republican Party and traveled around speaking, pointedly, about the political climate in this country. I’d love if she began saying point blank that the media is garbage.  I would love it if she mused out loud about the criticism about her “stupidity” and lack of “experience” and compare that to this fraud in the White House’s experience and his need for a teleprompter. I would love it if she starting hanging around with a Ron Paul or some of those Democratic reps who don’t approve of a lot of the Obama Adminstration’s crap, the GOP and the demise of this country.

I would love it if she spearheaded a third party.  Basically, I’d love it if she essentially started campaigning against Obama by going after the creeps around him, some of whom have been going after her in Alaska. She can also talk about the Republicans who join in the game.  She can without any problems call out the elites in D.C.  I think the harsh attacks on Palin belie a great deal of fear…She has nothing to lose, so I would love to see her really unleashed on her own terms.

However, if she chooses not to, that’s OK…because I don’t want to see her go down in a small plane “accident”…

Right now the punditry and the elite are rather shocked, it seems. Well, screw them!  We’ve been inspired by the women of Iran recently and maybe here in the U.S., we can be inspired by a woman who isn’t afraid to go out there and be herself and speak her mind.

Whatever she does, it will be interesting.

For now, I’m hoping she goes on every damned talk show and simply unloads.  I hope she gives Obama and the rest of the Villagers some nervous moments.

And maybe she can provide the spark that gets this country to wake up…

Just a couple of days ago she let this drop:

Palin says she’d beat Obama in long run

ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said she’d come out ahead if she went one-on-one with fellow jogger President Barack Obama in a long run, according to an interview published online Tuesday.

“I betcha I’d have more endurance,” she told Runner’s World magazine.

snip

“Sweat is my sanity,” Palin told the magazine.

Somehow, I don’t think Palin is a quitter. She’s playing the game her way.  Whatever her plan is, I say:

GO, SARAH!!

NJ GOP Primary “Exit Poll” (6/2/09): Dumbass Republicans Galore to Rival Dumbass Democrats

By InsightAnaltyical-GRL

Ah, this Jersey Girl couldn’t resist the pull of the GOP primary, so I trotted over to NJ.com to catch up and found this video…love the attitude of the reporter.  His comment at the end is priceless…

The dumbass GOP faithful I can do without, just like I can do without the idiots now swooning over the Obama crowd…

ENJOY! Try not to be sick…or… scroll down the NJ.com page and visit the Jersey Shore (links on the left)

more about “GOP“, posted with vodpod