Archive for the ‘congress’ tag
Jesse Kelly for Congress
| Greetings!Jesse hit the ground running in 2010 with a large walk on January 2nd. An enthusiastic group of volunteers visited over 400 households. We walked again on the 9th and will continue to walk every Saturday. Jesse, along with his army of dedicated supporters, will knock on tens of thousands of doors before Election Day.The campaign is well positioned for victory this year. Over 450 volunteers have signed up to help win in November and thousands more are receiving this e-mail update. We will continue to build upon this strength because grassroots involvement is a key part of our victory strategy.
House Party: Please bring a friend to hear Jesse discuss the issues and answer questions this Friday, January 15th at the home of Barb and James Flynn, 13093 N. Vintage Drive, Oro Valley, from 4 pm to 6 pm. Contact Lynne at (605) 321-6224 for more info. Sierra Vista update: Jesse will be speaking at the Thunder Mountain Republican Women (TMRW) luncheon in Sierra Vista on Tuesday, January, 26th. If you would like to attend, please call Zanetta with the TMRW at (520) 459-7320 to make a reservation.
Walk for Jesse: The campaign will be walking the Dove Mountain area this Saturday, January 16th. Meet at noon by the gas station, NE corner of Tangerine Road and Dove Mountain Blvd. Contact Lynne at lynne.stangelo@votejessekelly.com or (605) 321-6224 for more information. Tubac update: Jesse will be in Tubac on Friday, February 19th, 6 pm to 8 pm, for a fund raiser. Mark your calendars for this fun event and stay tuned for more details. Don’t risk being unsubscribed when you forward this e-mail to your friends. By using the link below, you can still tell your friends about Jesse and you will not be accidentally unsubscribed from future updates. If you are on Twitter you can follow the campaign at kelly4congress If you want to follow the campaign on Facebook please click here |
76% of African-Americans Want Delay on Climate Legislation Until Economy Recovers, Just-Released Nationwide Poll of Black Community Finds
For Release: June 25, 2009
Contact: David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 or e-mail dalmasi@nationalcenter.org
76% of African-Americans want Congress to make economic recovery, not climate change, its top priority, says a newly-released nationwide poll of African-Americans conducted by the National Center for Public Policy Research.
The poll’s release comes as the U.S. House of Representatives is planning a Friday vote on the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade climate bill. The legislation, if adopted, is expected to reduce aggregate GDP by $7.4 trillion in an effort to reduce global warming.
The survey of 800 African-Americans, 80% of which were self-identified Democrats and 4% self-identified Republicans, found significant concern that government action on climate change would have a harmful and disproportionately negative impact on the African-American community.
Among the key findings:
* 38% believe job losses from climate change legislation would be felt most strongly in the black community. 7% believe job losses would fall most on Hispanics and 2% on whites;
* 56% believe Washington policymakers have failed to adequately consider economic and quality of life concerns of the black community when addressing climate issues;
* 52% of respondents don’t want to pay more for gasoline or electricity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 73% are unwilling to pay more than 50 cents more for a gallon of gas; 76% are unwilling to pay more than $50 more per year for electricity;
* Black Americans are virtually deadlocked on plans to reduce emissions if it would increase prices and unemployment. 44% opposed reductions under these circumstances, 45% supported them.
* 76% want Congress to make economic recovery the top priority.
“An overwhelming majority African-Americans want Congress to fix the economy before turning its attention to climate change,” said David Ridenour, vice president of The National Center for Public Policy Research, who directs the group’s Public Opinion Policy Center, which issued the poll.
“Significantly,” Ridenour continued, “not only were 80 percent of the respondents self-identified Democrats, but 67 percent self-identified as ’strong Democrats.’ As African-Americans are a core constituency of the party, if the Congressional leadership ignores this, it does so at its own peril.”
The survey was conducted by Wilson Research Strategies and has a margin of error of +/- 3.4%. It can be viewed at:http://www.nationalcenter.org/BlackOpinion.html.
The National Center for Public Policy Research is non-partisan, non-profit educational foundation based in Washington, DC. 94% of its revenue is received through hundreds of thousands of small contributions; 1.5% from corporations and 4.5% from philanthropic foundations.
Visit the National Center for Public Policy Research’s website at www.nationalcenter.org or call (202) 543-4110.
On Saturday, July 4th, be part of the Taxed Enough Already (TEA) party rally in your community
The Tax Foundation says that because of unprecedented budget deficit over $1.5 trillion, it will take each individual until May 29 to pay their taxes this year. On May 30th, you begin working for yourself instead of your government. This is wrong! Join others in your hometown and across the country by participating in the Tax Freedom Day rally. We suggest you have your meeting at noon in front of your city hall, but you will make the decision on where and when the rally will be.
Are you fed up with a Congress and a president who:
- vote for a $500 billion tax bill without even reading it?
- are spending trillions of borrowed dollars, leaving a debt our great-grandchildren will be paying?
- consistently give special interest groups billions of dollars in earmarks to help get themselves re-elected?
- want to take your wealth and redistribute it to others?
- punish those who practice responsible financial behavior and reward those who do not?
- admit to using the financial hurt of millions as an opportunity to push their political agenda?
- run up trillions of dollars of debt and then sell that debt to countries such as China?
- want government controlled health care?
- want to take away the right to vote with a secret ballot in union elections?
- refuse to stop the flow of millions of illegal immigrants into our country?
- appoint a defender of child pornography to the Number 2 position in the Justice Department?
- want to force doctors and other medical workers to perform abortions against their will?
- want to impose a carbon tax on your electricity, gas and home heating fuels?
- want to reduce your tax deductibility for charitable gifts?
- take money from your family budget to pay for their federal budget?
If so, participate in the TEA party rally, the Taxed Enough Already (TEA) party.
Bring your cell phone and call Congress and the president while attending the TEA party rally (Representative and Senators, 202-224-3121; President, 202-456-1414). Tell Every American about this effort by forwarding this invitation to your friends. Together we can make a difference.
Letter to Lead Director Delmonte
Thank you for contacting Del Monte Foods
The information as it applies to Del Monte Foods is incorrect.
Del Monte has not contributed to Speaker Pelosi. Because Del Monte Foods does not operate a Political Action Committee (a requirement for federal election donations), the Company has not made a direct political contribution to any elected official or candidate for office
We do not know who has been spreading this anonymous rumor or why.
We have, wherever possible, communicated with internet sites and publications who have posted this erroneous information in order to help set the record straight.
James Potter
SVP, Corporate Secretary
Del Monte Foods
I have pulled all the supports of Pelosi for the FEC. I am quit surprised the responded, but it would appear the rumors are incorrect.
Earmarks include an economic development credit for American Samoa, tax exemptions for makers of wooden bows and arrows for children, funding for wool research, and amendments to the Internal Revenue Code provisions relating to the tax deduction for domestic film and television productions. These were written into the bill before it was presented to the house in March of 2008.
Sent to Delmonte:Am I to understand that you are a major supporter of Nancy Pelosi? Well after today I will not support you. I will inform everyone I know and put that information on my 7 blogs and 85 websites. You understand that due to the economic down turn I must use my money wisely. Supporting someone like Nancy Pelosi is not a wise use of my money and in turn not a wise use of purchasing your goods.
Now if the above is in error please feel free to correct the record, but be aware your response will be made public
Thank you for your time.
On October 3, 2008 the San Francisco Chronicle reported. “While crafting a bill intended to rescue the U.S. economy this week, lawmakers couldn’t stop themselves from adding billions of dollars in tax breaks that have little to do with restoring confidence in financial markets.”
An eRumor questioning the relationship between the American Samoa earmark and Speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi, gained momentum the week of October 20, 2008 over past criticism of a minimum wage hike in 2007 that omitted American Samoa.
On January 12, 2007 the Washington Times wrote an article about Pelosi and the minimum wage law saying,” House Republicans yesterday declared ’something fishy’ about the major tuna company in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco district being exempted from the minimum-wage increase that Democrats approved this week.”
The 2007 bill raised the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour and extended for the first time the U.S. territory of the Northern Mariana Islands but exempted American Samoa. Starkist, a division of Del Monte Foods, has facilities in American Samoa with an employee base of about 5,000, roughly 75% of the work force on that island. The company is headquartered in Nancy Pelosi’s district was and was very much against the raise in wages. A spokesperson for the Speaker of the House said that neither StarKist nor Del Monte had lobbied Pelosi in any way.
Facts about Pelosi’s husbands Starkist/Del Monte stock investments have not been listed in her earnings disclosure.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, neither Starkist nor Del Monte were found on the contributor list for Pelosi in donations amounting $10,000 or more.
The Bill was passed in the House Mar 5, 2008, passed by the Senate Oct 1, 2008 and signed by President Oct 3, 2008.
Click here to see the 2008 Economic Stabilization Bill HR 1424
Click for SF Chronicle article
In late September and early October of 2008, after a financial crisis in the home lending industry the United States Senate met and passed HR 1424, the 2008 Economic Stabilization Bill to bail out the industry at a cost of $700,000,000,000. When news of the bill was released it was found to have several controversial earmarks.
Al Sharpton vs. Sheriff Joe: The Hypocrite vs. The Patriot
American Thinker ^ | April 8, 2009 | Sammy Benoit
Under a deal allowing them to enforce federal immigration laws, the deputies have arrested more than 1,500 people who they determined were in Arizona illegally, triggering street protests and condemnation from Latino activists who accuse him of racial profiling." I am first calling for the resignation and or removal of Sheriff Arpaio … harassment based on color is nothing short of racial profiling, which many of us … helped to fight to make against the law," Sharpton told reporters."Arpaio needs to be confronted, he needs to be removed. … We also need to suspend the law that he is using. We must stand with our brown brothers and sisters," Sharpton said.
The store was called Freddie’s Fashion Mart. Sharpton decided that Harlem should be segregated and decided that the Jewish owned store should close even though it had been there for decades. Jeff Jacoby
wrote this account:When the United House of Prayer, a large black landlord in Harlem, raises the rent on Freddy’s Fashion Mart, Freddy’s white Jewish owner is forced to raise the rent on his subtenant, a black-owned music store. A landlord-tenant dispute ensues; Sharpton uses it to incite racial hatred. "We will not stand by," he warns malignantly, "and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business." Sharpton’s National Action Network sets up picket lines; customers going into Freddy’s are spat on and cursed as "traitors" and "Uncle Toms." Some protesters shout, "Burn down the Jew store!" and simulate striking a match. "We’re going to see that this cracker suffers," says Sharpton’s colleague Morris Powell. On Dec. 8, one of the protesters bursts into Freddy’s, shoots four employees point-blank, and then sets the store on fire. Seven employees die in the inferno.
Frankly Irresponsible: A Frank Assessment of Barney Frank
by Aaron Goldstein | April 8th, 2009
Barney Frank wants credit for putting out a fire that he helped to start.
President Obama has declared an era of responsibility. But to Democrats responsibility means blaming Republicans for everything that goes wrong.
Aside from the President himself, perhaps no Democrat is more eager to lay blame at the doorstep of conservatives than Barney Frank, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.
I bore witness to Frank’s song and dance routine during a talk he recently gave at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. A video of the forum can be found here. (http://www.hks.harvard.edu/news-events/news/articles/forum-frank-apr09 )
It is worth noting that Frank attended Harvard College in the early 1960s and later become the first Director of Student Programs at Harvard’s Institute of Politics. David Ellwood, the Dean of the Kennedy School, told an anecdote about Frank clandestinely escorting Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara away from anti-Vietnam student demonstrators threatening to riot when McNamara made a campus visit. Frank escorted McNamara to the safety of a seminar run by future Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.
However, by his own admission, Frank said, "I was in charge of making sure that didn’t happen. So, yes, I did kind o like the arsonist who puts out the fire, I got him out of a mess I was supposed to have prevented."
Somehow I don’t think he appreciated the irony of his own statement.
Not surprisingly Frank spent much of his lecture blaming conservatives and Republicans for our current economic mess. "The deregulators had their way and the consequence is the disaster we now face," he exhorted. Frank accused conservatives and Republicans of "blaming the victim." He explained, "The argument is that the attempt by liberals to help poor people that made them make all these bad loans and that’s what caused all these problems."
Frank excoriated the Republican Congress for not passing any legislation to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and to restrict sub-prime loans. "The conservative view is to stop helping poor people . . . No, our view is to help poor people," said the 15-term member of Congress.
Of course, what Frank doesn’t mention is that the Bush Administration did want to regulate Fannie and Freddie. In September 2003, the Bush Administration wanted to set up an agency in the Treasury Department to supervise Fannie and Freddie.
Guess who was opposed?
Barney Frank said at the time, "These two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (http://www.bucksright.com/bush-proposed-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-supervision-in-2003-1141 )
Of course, this is the same Barney Frank, who in July 2008 said of Fannie and Freddie, "I think this is a case where Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are fundamentally sound. They’re not in danger of going under . . . I do think their prospects going forward are very solid." (http://digg.com/business_finance/Barney_Frank_Freddie_Mac_Fannie_Mae_fundamentally_sound )
Eight weeks later, Fannie and Freddie went under.
Of course, this did not prevent the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee from giving financial advice. "Let me give you a stock tip," he offered. "Go buy California bonds. There is no chance that the state of California will default."
Could I have a show of hands of those of you who would take financial advice from Barney Frank?
Although most in the audience were sympathetic to Mr. Frank not everyone was eager to go out and buy California Bonds.
A Harvard Law School student named Joel Pollak not only wasn’t about to buy California bonds, he wasn’t buying anything Congressman Frank had to say. Pollak and Frank had a memorable exchange some of which has been transcribed here. Needless to say, when one has been ensconced in Congress for nearly three decades, one is unaccustomed to having one’s views challenged. As the exchange goes forward Pollak is getting under Frank’s skin as it gets thinner:
POLLAK: In your account of how the sub-prime mortgage crisis came about you mention the Reagan Administration, the Bush Administration, Republicans in Congress, conservatives but it happened on your watch and I would like -.
FRANK: When was my watch, sir?
POLLAK: When you became the Chairman -
FRANK: Which was when?
POLLAK: Which was in 2007 prior to the financial crisis. So what I would like to know is if you acknowledge any responsibility at all for what’s happened?
FRANK: Well, this is the right-wing approach. I did become Chairman in January 2007. I became Chairman on January 31, 2007. In March of 2007, March 28th, the committee I chair passed a very tough bill to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It was the bill the Bush Administration wanted that they couldn’t get from the Republican Congress. The Republican House passed a bill in 2005 and the Bush Administration denounced it. So in 2007, I had been Chairman for two months. You said it happened on my watch? Well, what happened on my watch was two months into it I got the House to pass a bill in May; committee passed it March 28th , to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Now the Senate didn’t pass it until a year later but that still meant a bill that the Republicans never passed. They were in charge from 1995 to 2006. I was in the minority. That was not my watch. I was against what they did.
Secondly, that was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In January 2008, I asked the Secretary of the Treasury to take that bill and make it part of the stimulus plan. He was sympathetic but overruled by right-wing ideologues in the Bush Administration. Now, then they got the sub-prime crisis. In 2004, when the Bush Administration ordered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase the number of loans they bought from people below the median income . . . I protested. I said that would be bad for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and bad for the homeowners who would not wind up as homeowners.
In 2005, I and two other Democratic members of the Financial Services Committee . . . pushed for legislation to restrict sub-prime lending because Alan Greenspan wouldn’t use his authority. Tom DeLay, the Republican leader, vetoed that. Am I responsible when I was in the minority and tried to stop it? No.
Now, also in 2007, after we passed a bill to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, we passed a bill to restrict sub-prime abusive lending. The Wall Street Journal, which is one of the entities that propagates the notion that it happened under my watch, denounced me. I go back to the November editorial in The Wall Street Journal which said you are guys are killing. What about these people who won’t get housing? Well, yeah, they shouldn’t have been put in that sort of position. So no I don’t understand what you think it is I did. I did become Chairman in January 2007. Let me ask you another question. What is it you think I should have done on January 31, 2007 when I became Chairman that I didn’t do?
POLLAK: Well, first of all, you pushed a stimulus bill through Congress that included several provisions that you later attacked as profoundly wasteful and so on.
FRANK: Who did? Not me. We’re talking about the sub-prime crisis. You’re talking about a bill in 2008.
POLLAK: And in 2008, in October, you accused critics of the stimulus plan of being racist and so on.
FRANK: No, excuse me!!! (He is now shouting at this point)
POLLAK: I’m still waiting for a very simple answer to a question.
FRANK: I’m still waiting for you to tell me what you think I should have done.
POLLAK: No, you’re a public representative. I’m a student. I’m asking you how….
FRANK: Oh, that allows you to say things you don’t back up.
POLLAK: I’m asking . . . It does allow me to ask you a question. I’m waiting for you to explain how much, if any, responsibility you think . . .
FRANK: Well, I’ll give you answer. Well, I will take this. First of all, you are a student. Students are entitled to full constitutional freedom of speech under the First Amendment. You made an accusation that is wholly inaccurate.
POLLAK: I didn’t accuse you of anything. I’m asking how much responsibility, if any. You can say none. That’s fine.
FRANK: I think you’re being disingenuous when you said you haven’t made an accusation. You said it happened on my watch. Rarely, I’ve never heard anybody say, "Good for you. It happened under your watch." That’s accusatory. You’re entitled to be critical but I’m entitled to answer. (Frank is again shouting.)
The answer is yes I do take responsibility for something. In 2006, the Republican appointed Chairman of the SEC, who was forced out by George W. Bush because he was too much of a regulator, Bill Donaldson tried to get control of, tried to make hedge funds register. The courts overturned him. They were right because he was bending the statute. He was right on public policy and wrong on the law.
I immediately filed a bill in 2006 when I was still in the minority to say hedge funds should be registered. In 2007, I was approached by people who said, "No. No, you can’t do too much regulation." And I backed off. I wish I hadn’t.
But as far as your question that the sub-prime thing happened on my watch I think it is fair to ask what you think I should have done. You said I was critical of a stimulus bill a year later but that didn’t cause the sub-prime crisis. My criticism of the stimulus bill? People said, "Oh my G-d, he’s being critical. Let’s default." I mean I don’t understand. The point is, excuse me. (again shouting) Here’s what happened under my watch. I became Chairman on January – and this is the right-wing attack on liberals to try and stop regulation that you are repeating. On January 31st , I became the Chairman. On March 28th , the Committee passed a very tough Fannie/Freddie bill which the Bush Administration liked. Later that year, in November, we passed a bill to restrict sub-prime lending. Because we did the sub-prime lending restrictions, Ben Bernanke, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, did what Alan Greenspan refused to do and said, "O.K., I’ll do that." So I do want to ask you when you suggest that I should apologize for something or take responsibility. What is it that you think I should have done that I didn’t do?
POLLAK: Well, after spending the entire speech blaming conservatives. I happen to think of myself as a conservative and I rent and I think of myself of someone who happens to care about poor people. I’m just interested in whether you think you have any responsibility . . .
FRANK: Well, I’ve answered the question. Sir, you’re not being fully honest with me. You clearly are implying that I do and I am asking you, I have given you my record. Now, what is it that you think I should have done that I didn’t do? What are you implying that I left undone? It does seem to me a fair question given the way you asked your question.
POLLAK: Well, for example, I think that instead of using the TARP money to simply roll through AIG and use it to pay out other banks to which it owed other obligations you could have monitored that before you chose to give them $700 billion.
FRANK: Well, here’s the deal. You’re totally wrong on your facts. Congress did not vote to give AIG that money. What happened, again by the way that happened in September 2008, well after the sub-prime crisis. In September of 2008, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Mr. Bernanke, and this is an example of the right-wing effort quite frankly to change the subject . . .
UNKNOWN FEMALE: Stop labeling him! Stop labeling him! Just answer the question.
FRANK: No, I am labeling him because labels are important and I think there is a systematic right-wing attack to try and divert the blame for the deregulation.
* * *
Ladies and Gentlemen, I hereby declare Joel Pollak the winner of this debate.
All Mr. Pollak was asking Mr. Frank was if he bore any responsibility for our current state of affairs and Mr. Frank would simply not answer him. Apparently, Mr. Pollak was just too much of a one-man right-wing attack machine for Mr. Frank to overcome.
Now, I don’t think (and I suspect Mr. Pollak doesn’t think) that Barney Frank is solely responsible for the economic straits in which we find ourselves. There is more than enough blame to go around and Republicans do bear some of the responsibility. But for Barney Frank to say, "Who did? Not me," simply shows a lack of leadership necessary in an era of responsibility.
But it appears little has changed in four decades since he attended Harvard.
Barney Frank wants credit for putting out a fire that he helped to start.
ACORN’s Illegal Activities and Mafia-Style Tactics in Congress’s Spotlight
Family Security Matters ^ | March 23, 2009 | Chris Carter
Members of Congress heard testimony against the activist group ACORN on Thursday, exposing the group’s illegal activity and mafia-style tactics.
Pittsburgh lawyer Heather Heidelbaugh appeared before the a House Judiciary subcommittee alleging that the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) has violated campaign finance and tax laws in addition to their protest-for-hire and coerced donations. The source of the accusations was from the sworn testimony of ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief, who was a clerk for ACORN’s sister organization called Project Vote.
MonCrief, a Democrat and Obama supporter, testified last year that Barack Obama’s campaign gave Project Vote a "donor list" of people who had contributed the maximum amount allowed by federal law. According to Heidelbaugh’s testimony, the donors were to be targeted to donate to ACORN’s "Get Out the Vote" efforts and finance voter registration drives.
Heidelbaugh revealed in her testimony that there is virtually no separation between ACORN and Project Vote, as employees working for one group would perform work for the other.
(Excerpt) Read more at familysecuritymatters.org …
GOP Members of Congress Unveil ‘No Cost Stimulus’ Bill
cnsnews.com ^ | March 13, 2009 | Edwin Mora
Five conservative Republicans – three from the House and two from the Senate — have introduced a “common sense” economic stimulus package that includes energy proposals tthey say will boost the economy without adding to the national debt.
The “no-cost stimulus plan” calls for expanding offshore oil and gas production and leasing the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil and gas producers, which in turn would generate new federal revenue.
“This is an energy plan involving both traditional and renewable energy that can create significant jobs, significant economic growth without costing the U.S taxpayer one cent and without having to borrow more money,” Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) said during a Capitol Hill news conference.
The plan also would allow commercial leasing of oil shale as long as there is a profitable interest, expedite the nuclear plant licensing process and prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from using the Clean Air Act as “ammo” to enforce carbon dioxide regulations.
If adopted, Vitter said the plan would provide “well over 2 million long-term sustainable and well-paying jobs,” and would “dramatically increase GDP” — by approximately $8.2 trillion over the next 30 years – in addition to reducing the cost of energy.
Best of all, the Louisiana senator pointed out, the stimulus would create those jobs at no cost to taxpayers.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com …
Argentina Spreads The Wealth
By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, October 23, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Socialism: With Congress eyeing 401(k)s and Barack Obama decrying “corporate greed,” it might pay to look at Argentina’s pension nationalization.
The country’s mediagenic socialist president, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, announced Tuesday the state would “protect” private pensions from “policies of plunder” by proposing to hand them over to the government.
Praising her own scheme, she claimed Argentina would “set an example” for global financial crisis management by pulling $29.5 billion out of the private sector, and making it public.
As aghast as Argentines are about this, Americans should be too, because a Democratic supermajority in Congress would have similar ideas about nationalizing 401(k)s.
The country’s mediagenic socialist president, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, announced Tuesday the state would “protect” private pensions from “policies of plunder” by proposing to hand them over to the government.
Praising her own scheme, she claimed Argentina would “set an example” for global financial crisis management by pulling $29.5 billion out of the private sector, and making it public.
As aghast as Argentines are about this, Americans should be too, because a Democratic supermajority in Congress would have similar ideas about nationalizing 401(k)s.
In Argentina, the socialization of savings represents a major dismantling of 14 years of privatization and individual rights, reforms that decisively ended Argentina’s dark years of hyperinflation and dictatorship.
Starting in 1994, Argentinians could choose to save for retirement with the state or through a private account that let them make investment decisions based on their retirement needs.
Although it tried to accomplish what Chile’s private retirement accounts did, it wasn’t as well-designed. Fees were 30%. The government rigidly dictated what assets could be held in the accounts. But millions of Argentinians chose them anyway, because it gave them ownership.
(Excerpt) Read more at ibdeditorials.com …
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=309653051843388
With economy in shambles, Congress gets a raise
| Posted: 12/17/08 05:41 PM [ET] | |
| A crumbling economy, more than 2 million constituents who have lost their jobs this year, and congressional demands of CEOs to work for free did not convince lawmakers to freeze their own pay.
Instead, they will get a $4,700 pay increase, amounting to an additional $2.5 million that taxpayers will spend on congressional salaries, and watchdog groups are not happy about it.
“As lawmakers make a big show of forcing auto executives to accept just $1 a year in salary, they are quietly raiding the vault for their own personal gain,” said Daniel O’Connell, chairman of The Senior Citizens League (TSCL), a non-partisan group. “This money would be much better spent helping the millions of seniors who are living below the poverty line and struggling to keep their heat on this winter.” |
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/with-economy-in-shambles-congress-gets-a-raise-2008-12-17.html
