Tag Archives: responsibilities

“Shouldn’t We Care?”

Posted on by
Reply

A MarketWatch op-ed writer is worried about grown, adult American citizens having more retirement funds in our IRAs than in our 401(k)s.

The shift from 401(k)s to IRAs moves employees’ money to a different regulatory environment. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, which covers 401(k) plans, requires plan sponsors to operate as fiduciaries who always act in the best interest of plan participants.
In contrast, the standards of conduct for broker-dealers selling IRA investments are much less protective than the ERISA fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence, which have consistently been characterized by the courts as “the highest known to the law.”
In addition, in the 401(k) environment, much greater emphasis is placed on the disclosure of fees in an understandable format than is the case for IRAs. And most important, 401(k)s place much more emphasis than IRAs on keeping the funds in the plan until retirement.

Those are, no doubt, useful items and anyone investing for his own retirement should care about them. The problem arises, though, when the system—here employer 401(k)s—uses these to interfere with an employee-investor’s decisions regarding what is supposed to be his own money.

As the opinion writer notes in her piece, withdrawals from either program that are made prematurely or outside of a very few exceptions (there are fewer in 401(k)s than in IRAs), are subject to a 10% tax penalty in addition to Federal and State income tax assessments. Those guardrails and limits are well-known to us Americans, and they’re all we need to make our own decisions regarding our money. If our decisions are ill-informed, that’s on us, or should be.

The opinion-writer closed her piece closed with this:

Shouldn’t we care that only 45% of assets in the private sector are protected by ERISA? And what should we do about it?

No, we should not care. We do not need Big Brother constantly looking over our shoulders, constantly using that perch to interfere with our decisions.

Americans are too dumb to manage our own fiscal affairs? One way to try to push that on us is to keep interfering with our decisions instead of letting us make our own mistakes and—critically importantly—learn from them.

That leads into what we should do about it. TL;DR: nothing. Complete answer: nothing at all. Stay out of our way.

“aren’t subject to Congressional appropriations”

Posted on by
Reply

In the house editorial, The Wall Street Journal editors wrote about the burgeoning tax revenues accruing to the Federal government over the first third of the present fiscal year, the reduction in spending in several government departments and agencies, and the burgeoning spending on welfare entitlement programs.

Then they added this risible claim:

…continuing boom in the giant retirement and healthcare entitlements that aren’t subject to Congressional appropriations.

The editors might want to review their junior high Civics class notes. Here’s our Constitution’s requirement for Federal spending:

Art I, Sect 9: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law

All spending is subject to Congressional appropriations, and that includes “retirement and healthcare entitlements.” There are no caveats in that Section’s clause, no “except for programs inconvenient to alter or eliminate.”

Cutting spending on entitlements may be politically difficult but that’s not what the editors claimed. If the editors can’t find their notes, they need to listen better to their junior high interns when those kids brief them in preparation for expounding on government spending.

Still a Bankrupt Message

Posted on by
Reply

Rahm Emanuel, late of the Obama White House and the Chicago Mayor’s Mansion, wrote of the Progressive-Democratic Party’s golden opportunity in the Tuesday Wall Street Journal‘s editorial pages.

Many of his points are valid, and Republicans and Conservatives ignore them at their and our nation’s peril. But then he closed his piece with this:

The next 10 months will be about branding Republicans in Congress as Mr Trump’s enablers. Beyond that, we need to focus on speaking to the interests and sensibilities of those who considered or took the Faustian bargain Mr Trump offered them last year and are uncomfortable today with all the chaos they got in return for little economic benefit.

Here is the Republicans’ and Conservatives’ golden opportunity, if they will find some backbone and make use of it. Enablers. Faustian bargain. Branding. This is Party’s sole and constantly delivered message: everything anti-Trump, and those not for Party are just ignorant or foolish or both. Party is against a man and against millions of average Americans.

Party has not a word, not a syllable, about the policies its members would work for and how those policies would strengthen our nation and its security and increase the prosperity of us citizens. [S]peaking to the interests and sensibilities of those who are so ignorant or foolish as to be suckered by the man on which Party focuses its enmity? And say what, exactly? Even as Emanual warns his Party against its common error of smug “I told you so,” here he is recommending Party do exactly that. Addressing the interests and sensibilities of those he says are disgruntled or uncomfortable says nothing about what Party would intend to do to satisfy those disgruntlements.

Republicans’ and Conservatives’ golden opportunity consists of this, and it’s simple and straightforward. Don’t get sucked into a contest of personal opprobrium. Point out Party’s focus on the empty ad hominem of personal opprobrium, briefly; point out the lack of policies and policy goals on which Party campaigns, briefly. Then spend the large bulk of their messaging on their own policies and policy goals; how those enhance our nation and especially the lives of us citizens, individually and as groups; and be specific, fleshing out the glittering generalities with the specifics of carrying them out and the specific, measurable benefits to Americans that would ensue, including anticipated time frames for their coming to fruition and any pain points that might come from the transitions to those goals.

Being specific, of course, invites criticism and attack; staying with glittering generalities ducks them. This is where the backbones of Republicans and Conservatives come in, backbones that too many claiming to be Republican or Conservative have for too long lacked. Specifics are necessary to make the claims concrete and so to attract voters. This is where these wonders must, finally, step up.

Hardly Defiance

Posted on by
Reply

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reduced its vaccines for children recommendation from a schedule of 18 diseases to a recommendation of 11. The American Academy of Pediatrics still recommends children be vaccinated against 18 diseases. The Wall Street Journal calls the AAP defiant.

No.

HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy, Jr, and HHS’ CDC have all along recommended patients and parents of child patients consult with their physicians on ailments, treatments, and vaccines. Kennedy has emphasized that recommendation while he has had CDC scale back the recommendations.

Parents are heeding that CDC recommendation and are consulting. Pediatricians and their medical association are acting like physicians and treating their child patients rather than parroting those ancillary CDC recommendations.

Time to Pause

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal‘s editors think it’s time for ICE to pause in Minneapolis.

This is a badly mistaken position, and it’s based on a badly wrong underlying premise. Here are the key components in the editors’ error, in their own words.

Fifteen months later in Minneapolis, there isn’t much heart in Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The Saturday shooting of Alex Pretti, as he lay on the ground surrounded by ICE agents, is the worst incident to date in what is becoming a moral and political debacle for the Trump Presidency.
Videos of an event aren’t always definitive, but this is how it looks to us. Pretti attempted, foolishly, to assist a woman who had been pepper-sprayed by agents. Multiple agents then tackled Pretti, and he had a phone in one hand as he lay on the ground. An agent discovered a concealed gun on Pretti, and disarmed him. An agent then shot Pretti, and multiple shots followed.

Stripped from the context of the shooting of Alex Pretti, as he lay on the ground is the simple fact that he was actively resisting arrest subsequent to his actively interfering with the arrest of the woman. The agents’ efforts to disarm him as he resisted arrest and now fought to retain his firearm—that addendum to his resistance is what led to his being shot.

And: Videos of an event aren’t always definitive, especially when they’re carefully edited for favored excerpts, or wholly withheld, as the WSJ has done in its “news” article misleadingly titled Videos Contradict US Account of Minneapolis Shooting by Federal Agents, from which the videos were deliberately not published, nor were any links to any videos provided. All that piece contained were carefully selected stills carefully stripped of all context surrounding them—other than the news writers’ personal opinion-based representations of the stills’ meaning.

Nor was Pretti attempt[ing], foolishly, to assist a woman who had been pepper-sprayed by agents. The agents were attempting to arrest the woman, who had been obstructing the agents—not protesting their actions—resisting arrest, and in the course of the struggle resulting from her resisting, she was pushed to the ground. Pretti’s “assistance” consisted of interposing himself between the woman and the agents and actively resisting—physically opposing—her arrest. In the course of his obstruction, he was pushed to the ground and his subsequent continued physical resistance is what led to his being shot.

Contra the editors’ position, it’s time for Minnesota’s Progressive-Democratic governor, Tim Walz, to pause—actually to cease altogether—his constant egging on those present in Minneapolis to actively resist ICE operations, which only result in rioting where ICE is active (its agents acting entirely within their DOC and immigration law). It’s time for Minneapolis’ Progressive-Democratic mayor, Jacob Frey, to pause—to halt altogether—his especially inflammatory rhetoric regarding ICE operations and ICE agents.

WSJ editors holding Walz and Frey, and Minneapolis’ rioters, blameless is part of a general press policy of false reporting, even as they add this:

Either many ICE agents aren’t properly trained, or they are so on edge as they face opposition in the streets that they are on a hair trigger. Either way, this calls for rethinking how ICE conducts itself, especially in Minneapolis as tensions build.

No, it calls for rethinking the way Walz and Frey incite violence and the way Minneapolis’ rioters respond to that incitement. The agents aren’t facing “opposition;” they’re facing too often violent opposition.

The editors then closed their piece with this argument:

Governor Tim Walz could have urged his citizens to avoid confrontations with ICE. Instead he made a video urging them to go into the streets with phones and film ICE agents, whether or not they are performing lawful searches under federal immigration law. His rhetoric is incendiary and describes ICE as a lawless terrorist operation. Another tragedy was inevitable, and there will be more if this continues.
Whether he likes it or not, most of the burden now lies with Mr Trump as the President who controls ICE.

No, whether the editors like it or not, most of the burden lies with Walz and Frey as the inflaming pushers of resistance.

It’s long past time for the press to stop distorting the facts of these matters, to stop misleading us citizens with their false reporting, to stop doing their bit to inflame the public, even if Walz and Frey will not stop their inflammatory words.