From Lorra of Pantherville...
This problem is exactly the same as the problem with SS: the confiscated funds are not invested at a rate of return sufficient to guarantee future obligations. It's simple arithmetic.
June 19, 2016
Report: Private pension plans in danger of becoming insolvent in less than a decade
By Rick Moran
A report issued by the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) is warning that unless reforms are made to private, multi-employer pension plans, many of them could become insolvent by 2025.
The problem is simple: Too many of the plans have not been adequately funded. "While multi-employer plans are typically less well funded than single-employer plans, most multi-employer plans are projected to remain solvent over the next 20 years. However, a core group of plans appears unable to raise contributions sufficiently to avoid insolvency," the report said.An estimated 14,000 multi-employer plans cover 10 million people in the U.S. The multi-employer pension system is funded at only 41 percent, which translates to an estimated $610 billion in unfunded liabilities, according to the House Education and the Workforce Committee.Rep. John Kline, R-Minn, chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee, said the report "put in stark detail" the risks to both workers and taxpayers."Today is a reminder of the urgent need to enact additional reforms to strengthen multi-employer pensions, reforms that would modernize the system for workers and provide PBGC additional resources to meet its obligations. There have never been any easy answers, and it's time for those who oppose recent reforms to be honest about these challenges and put forward responsible solutions," Kline said.Multi-employer plans involve several companies and unions jointly managing a pension fund for all their workers. The plans are favored by unions because they remain with workers even if they switch jobs. However, they are risky for businesses because if one employer goes bankrupt, the others are legally obligated to cover its contribution. Reports of the financial woes of some plans have prompted many companies to try to get out of the system. In 2006, the United Parcel Service paid $6.1 billion to pull out of the drastically underfunded Teamsters' Central States plan.
Pension obligations for companies have been soaring due to rising health insurance costs and shrinking workforce. But unfunded liabilities of more than $600 billion not only threatens retirees, but also the taxpayer. In addition to private pension shortfalls, there are also hundreds of public pensions being threatened by insolvency. Taken together, the bill that could be presented in the future to taxpayers could top $1 trillion.
The time to deal with these threats is now while fixing the problems can be done with little pain. If we wait until the crisis is fully upon us, the resulting bailouts could add trillions to the deficit and severely effect the economy.
=======================================================================
Lar of Galen...
This is exactly what I've been concerned about since they ended the draft. When I was a young man, it was a given that you would serve a hitch in the military. Without the draft, the obligation to share in our national defense was no longer felt. I remember having mild arguments with some of my nephews back then, all of whom are good men. They all said, "Sure, if America was invaded, I'd join up." I tried to get them to understand that if America is invaded, it's too late. You can't train people to fight when they are in the middle of a fight. You have to stay prepared and keep the fighting over there. I also tried to convey the moral duty, but it's hard to convince people just getting started in real life that they have to turn things upside down to go play Army when they don't feel threatened.
The other side of the coin is that, without the draft, you end up separating the military from the general population. The Founding Fathers did not want a large professional army. They wanted citizen-soldiers, men with "skin in the game". The British soldiers were themselves a separate class from the citizens, and hired mercenaries on top of that. When you are part of a separate, "elite" body, it is very easy to develop an attitude of "us" and "them". When I was on active duty, a
sizeable percentage of our troops joined simply because they couldn't get a job in the civilian life. We weren't getting, to a great degree, the best and brightest. There was a lot of racial tension and insubordination, especially oversees. And this was in the 70s. Since the 90s, our military has been infiltrated more and more by gangs, who use it to gain military training and weapon skills to aid in their criminal enterprises. And the officer corps is increasingly focused on career rather than national defense, hence all the political correctness. I am saddened but not surprised by this article.
=============================================================
Gun Control that makes sense. Great Idea! Why didn't I think of this?
In 1865 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United
States .
States .
In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United
States who later died from the wound.
States who later died from the wound.
In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy,
President of the United States .
President of the United States .
In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the
United States .
United States .
In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the
United States .
United States .
In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a
McDonalds restaurant.
McDonalds restaurant.
In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an
Oklahoma post office.
Oklahoma post office.
In 1990 James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC
office.
office.
In 1991 George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a
Luby's cafeteria.
Luby's cafeteria.
In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers
in a Texas laboratory.
in a Texas laboratory.
In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a church
service.
service.
In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed
attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US .
attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US .
In 2003 Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a
Lockheed Martin plant.
Lockheed Martin plant.
In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung - Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people
in Virginia Tech.
in Virginia Tech.
In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep.
Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.
Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.
In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and
shot and killed 12 people.
shot and killed 12 people.
In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in
Minneapolis .
Minneapolis .
In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza, shot and killed 26 people in a
school.
school.
As recently as Sept 2013, an angry Democrat shot 12 at a Navy ship yard.
One could go on, but you get the point, even if the media does not.
Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns. Not one NRA member, Tea Party
member, or Republican conservatives was involved in these shootings
and murders.
member, or Republican conservatives was involved in these shootings
and murders.
SOLUTION:
It should be illegal for Democrats/Liberals to own guns.
Best idea I've heard to date
It should be illegal for Democrats/Liberals to own guns.
Best idea I've heard to date
========================================================================
June 22, 2016
Documents reveal Obama administration 'misrepresented' released illegal alien crime stats
By Rick Moran
Documents obtained by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) show that the Obama administration "misrepresented" the number of serious crimes committed by illegal aliens released by ICE. In fact, the number of crimes is close to 10 times the number that the administration gave Congress.
According to FAIR, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) records the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) obtained via a Freedom of Information Act (FIOA) request on FAIR’s behalf reveal that the 30,558 criminal aliens ICE released in FY 2014 committed 13,288 additional crimes.The number of subsequent convictions contained in FIOA documents is far higher than the 1,423 additional offenses ICE reported to the House Judiciary Committee last July.The criminal aliens released in FY 2014 who went on to commit those additional crimes had convictions for offenses like homicide, kidnapping, assault, sexual assault, and drunk driving. The new crimes, according to ICE’s report to Congress, included vehicular homicide, domestic violence, sexual assault, DUI, burglary and assault.“Rather than end dangerous politically-driven policies that have put a total of 85,000 deportable criminal aliens back onto the streets in the last three years, ICE tried to hide them by providing grossly inaccurate information to Congress and the American people,” Dan Stein, the president of FAIR, said in statement.In April, ICE revealed that it released an additional 19,723 criminal aliens —who had a total of 64,197 convictions among them including 101 homicide convictions, 216 kidnapping convictions, 320 sexual assault convictions, 1,728 assault convictions, and 12,307 driving under the influence of alcohol convictions — from custody in FY 2015.In response to the FY 2015 numbers, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte warned that the Obama Administration’s immigration policies are creating “a sanctuary for tens of thousands of criminal aliens.”“The American public has been misled by the enforcement priorities, deferred action, and executive action policies of this Administration, which categorize only certain so-called ‘serious’ criminal aliens as worthy of detention and then removal,” Goodlatte said in a statement. “Despite its rhetoric, the fact remains that the Obama Administration continues to willingly free dangerous criminal aliens, allowing them to continue to prey upon communities across the United States.”
I'm sure this is just a misunderstanding that the White House will clear up in a jiffy. I mean, it's not as though they deliberately lied or anything, right? In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this miscalculation was just a joke – a little bit of bureaucratic humor.
If that's what it was, no one is laughing. ICE will come up with an alternate set of stats showing that they didn't lie so much as shade the truth. They simply refused to count most crimes committed by illegal aliens released into an unsuspecting population. The discrepancy is in their definition of "serious crime," I'm sure.
The White House and ICE have serious problems with the truth. Every single statistic given to Congress on immigration should be disbelieved, and ICE should be forced to document its assertions.
Perhaps they think if they minimize the problem enough, things will just take care of themselves.
======================================================================
========================================================================
======================================================================
Huckfunn Mod • 2 hours ago
I don't like the fact that the American Taxpayers are on the hook for $15 billion in damages as a result of Obama's bad faith dealings with an ally. But the Canadians were conned and strung along for 7 years in hopes that the pipeline would be approved. In the end there were no compelling matters of state, environment, labor or economy for denying the pipeline. To the contrary; there were economic benefits for all parties. Obama's decision to veto the pipeline was purely arbitrary and political.
Keystone XL Company Sues Obama And US For $15 Billion Under NAFTA
The company behind the Keystone XL pipeline filed a $15 billion lawsuit Friday against the Obama administration under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
TransCanada claimed that Obama spent seven years using “arbitrary and contrived” analyses and justifications to delay the pipeline for political reasons. TransCanada’s suit also says that the company had reason to believe that the pipeline would be approved before it was rejected by the Obama administration in November.
“None of that technical analysis or legal wrangling was material to the administration’s final decision,” TransCanada said in its lawsuit. “Instead, the rejection was symbolic and based merely on the desire to make the U.S. appear strong on climate change, even though the State Department had itself concluded that denial would have no significant impact on the environment.”
President Barack Obama rejected the pipeline due to the perception among environmentalists that it would increase global warming. The Keystone XL pipeline would have increased America’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by less than three-tenths of one percent of the country’s total annual CO2 emissions, according to analysis by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Obama’s own U.S. State Department found that the pipeline wouldn’t make global warming worse, would reduce the risk of an oil spill and create more than 42,000 new jobs. If it had been approved by the Obama administration, Keystone would have sent oil sands from Alberta, Canada to American oil refineries on the Gulf Coast. Republicans pushed Obama to approve the pipeline as it would create jobs.
Despite the State Department and EPA’s findings, Obama vetoed legislation early last year to approve Keystone XL as well. Obama’s critics say he was pressured by environmentalist billionaire Tom Steyer, who spent $73 million in the 2014 election supporting Democratic candidates, to veto the project.
Environmental groups heavily pressured Obama to block Keystone as well and immediately used the lawsuit to attack NAFTA and the very idea of free trade agreements, due to their alleged negative impacts on global warming.
“TransCanada’s attempt to make American taxpayers hand over more than $15 billion because the company’s dirty Keystone XL pipeline was rejected shows exactly why NAFTA was wrong and why the even more dangerous and far-reaching Trans-Pacific Partnership must be stopped in its tracks,” Michael Brune, the executive director of The Sierra Club, wrote in a Saturday press statement. “The TPP would empower thousands of new firms operating in the U.S, including major polluters, to follow in TransCanada’s footsteps and undermine our critical climate safeguards in private trade tribunals. Today, we have a prime example of how polluter-friendly trade deals threaten our efforts to tackle the climate crisis.”
Other environmental groups, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council and the World Wildlife Fund, have also spoken out against TPP.
A civil war has erupted between environmentalists and President Barack Obama and other Democrats over TPP and free trade. The full text of TPP noticeably does not directly address global warming and contains only a token mention of “clean energy.” The green groups say that free trade agreements such as TPP and NAFTA lack environmental protections and will benefit corporations, which will ultimately make global warming worse.
The green pressure against free trade has been so intense that even presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton has felt it. Clinton held negotiate TPP and called it “the gold standard” of trade agreements before dramatically changing her position to oppose it during the Democratic primaries
=====================================================================
