You're now on the archive server. Commenting has been disabled.
Overhaul or Tweak Pensions?
- Carlyle
- Corruption
- Councils
- Department of Justice
- Employee Retirement Income Security Act
- Financial Accounting Standards Board
- headlines
- Institutional Investors
- Meltdown
- Netherlands
- Obama Administration
- Pension Crisis
- Recession
- recovery
- Securities and Exchange Commission
- Securities Fraud
- Steven Rattner
- Switzerland
- Testimony
- Transparency
- Unemployment
- Unemployment Benefits
- United Kingdom
- Volatility
- White House
Submitted by Leo Kolivakis, publisher of Pension Pulse.
Reporting for the NYT, Mary Williams Walsh asks, An Overhaul or a Tweak for Pensions:
After more than three years of deliberations, the board that sets the accounting rules for state and city governments is still far away from issuing a new standard for public pension funds.
What may seem like tedious labors over technical matters can have a large impact on public employees, taxpayers and investors. Many municipalities around the country are grappling with serious shortfalls in their pension funds caused by the recession and other woes.
Since the deliberations began, San Diego’s finances have been rocked by a pension scandal; Vallejo, Calif., has filed for bankruptcy after promising costly benefits; and New Jersey has warned that it lacks the cash to comply with its actuary’s instructions.
The panel, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, heard impassioned testimony on Wednesday on the need to make public pension numbers more straightforward, more closely mirroring the pension accounting for corporations. But proponents of an overhaul were countered at every step by state officials and others who testified that broad changes were unnecessary and would disrupt budgets by introducing market volatility.
The board, an independent nonprofit organization that sets the accounting standards for governments, has said that the next step will be the publication, by next May, of a “due process document” to offer possible changes in the rules. That will engender a new round of public comment and revisions, and eventually a new pension accounting standard. The process is expected to take several more years.
“I have concerns that these efforts may, in fact, be too late,” one speaker, Diann Shipione, told the board. She said that the existing accounting rules were too loose, allowing “pension mischief” to go on for many years.
“As a result of the fuzziness and imprecision,” she said, “we now have many large systems that are essentially insolvent.”
Ms. Shipione, a former trustee of the San Diego city pension fund, eventually became a whistle-blower, insisting that the fund’s financial reporting was false, constituting securities fraud. After a long legal battle, the Securities and Exchange Commission agreed with her. She is now earning a master’s degree in public administration at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.
Ms. Shipione told the accounting board that she thought revisions were needed to make it easier to see when states and cities were falling behind on their pension contributions, which she hoped would prompt them to pump more money into the plans.
But some members of the board took issue with her goals. William W. Holder, one member of the accounting board, told Ms. Shipione that the board’s duty was to write rules that produced accurate and informative financial reports — not to promote desirable activities like funding pension plans more robustly.
“We try to avoid bias in setting accounting standards,” he said. “What we don’t try to do is develop some preconceived notion of what that behavior would be, and then write a standard that would encourage it.”
In the corporate world, the Financial Accounting Standards Board writes the rules for pension disclosures. It also seeks to avoid bias, and also works at a slow, deliberative pace.
But FASB has a great deal more power and independence than its governmental cousin. Its rules are enforced by the S.E.C., and it was given an independent funding source in the post-Enron accounting reforms. The corporate pension accounting rules came under harsh criticism at the beginning of this decade, and the FASB has already issued some revisions. Others are still in the works.
The governmental board, by contrast, must still raise its own money. And because no government agency enforces its policies, it must issue rules that states and municipalities will adopt voluntarily. Six of its seven members work on a part-time basis.
Others who spoke on Wednesday sought to assure the accounting board that its existing rules were sound. They acknowledged that some governments had had pension debacles in the last few years but said that was because they did not follow the rules.
Robert A. Wylie, executive director of the South Dakota Retirement System, said that pension woes were largely absent in his state and that his plan had a well-established funding policy.
Mr. Wylie said South Dakota had the ability to reduce promised benefits when times were tight, something forbidden by statute or constitution in many other states. Because of this flexibility, he said, South Dakota had always been able to keep its contributions in line with its benefits. For a state like South Dakota, he said, the existing pension rules were “very workable.”
“Major changes may add to what would be, in our mind, confusion,” he said.
Questions posed by the board members suggested they were leaning toward making narrow changes in the existing rules, like shortening amortization schedules or reducing the number of actuarial methods that plans may use. They did not seem eager to grapple with the question of which discount rate to use to measure public pension obligations — the biggest issue in the minds of critics of the current rules.
A recent study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that the discount rates now in use were masking a pension shortfall of $1.2 trillion at the state level.
The questions from the board members also suggested that they were interested in making public pension funds more comparable to each other. The current accounting rules allow so much flexibility that comparisons can be unfair.
Jeremy Gold, an actuary and economist who testified at Wednesday’s meeting, said he expected that when the new standard was finally issued, it would improve the comparability of pension plans.
“The center of gravity is still in favor of sharper pencils, rather than a whole new way of doing things,” said Mr. Gold, who called for radical changes. “This will make Texas, California and New Jersey all comparable while they go to hell in a handbasket.”
The accounting board will reconvene in Washington on Friday for additional testimony.
Some comments on this story. First, I commend Ms. Shipione for stepping forth to speak out at what was going on at San Diego's city pension fund. Last September, I wrote about the need to defend whistleblowers, something which is still not being taken seriously at public pension funds.
San Diego's Retirement System was notorious for taking huge risks in all sorts of alternative investments and lost big money in the Amaranth gamble. But city pension funds across North America are in dire straights and instead of consolidating them into the state funds to save costs, powerful interests want to keep the status quo. When it comes to municipal pension plans, Pennsylvania is king:
Pennsylvania has four times more pension funds than any other state, and more than one-fourth of all the municipal pension plans in the country, according to the Public Employee Retirement Commission, an agency that advises the Legislature on pension issues and oversees the soundness of local plans. The number of local plans is growing by about 30 a year.
Most of the 3,100 retirement systems, for police, firefighters or nonuniformed workers, are small. That's costly for members and taxpayers. Of 2,462 that reported administrative expenses, the cost was $36 million, or $509 annually per member.
The cost per member is $1,519 for administrative expenses for plans with fewer than 10 members, the retirement commission says, and 67 percent of Pennsylvania's local pension systems are that small.
The USA Today asks whether campaign contributions help win pension fund deals:
More than two dozen firms that have surfaced in a broad corruption investigation of public pension funds gave at least $1.97 million in campaign contributions to officials with potential influence over the funds' investments, a USA TODAY analysis shows.The givers included private-equity giants such as the Blackstone Group, the Carlyle Group and the Quadrangle Group, the firm founded by Steven Rattner, who in July resigned as the White House point man for the auto industry rescue. The contributions are legal, and the firms haven't been accused of wrongdoing related to the giving.
[Note: They should ban these contributions once and for all! Read John Bury's comment, Rules By and For Insiders - Public Pension Plans.]
The Government Accountability Office – the investigative arm of Congress – has laid some of the groundwork for pension reform by publishing a study of the “retirement risks” posed by private pension plans in the United States:
“Many experts agree reforms are needed to make the U.S. private pension system more effective in protecting workers from risks to accumulating and preserving adequate savings for retirement,” says the GAO report. “If no action is taken, a considerable number of Americans face the prospect of a reduced standard of living in retirement."
The July 2009 report is addressed to Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee. Miller is an advocate of “retirement security.”
As part of its study, the GAO examined the pension systems of the Netherlands, Switzerland and the United Kingdom and found that private pensions in those countries “represent alternative approaches” that could “yield useful lessons for the U.S. experience.”
The GAO also examined four “key” domestic proposals to reform the U.S. private pension system – including a government-sponsored, mandatory system called the Guaranteed Retirement Accounts (GRA) plan.
Under this plan, the federal government (Social Security Administration) would establish and administer a system of retirement savings accounts – guaranteeing a specified rate of return on those accounts.
Currently, pension plans offered by private employers in the United States are voluntary and include tax incentives to encourage participation.
The problem
According to the GAO study, stock market losses and poor economic conditions have put many U.S. workers at risk of not having an adequate retirement income from their private pension plans. Older Americans are less confident in their ability to retire. “Even before the current economic recession, research indicated that pension benefits are likely to be inadequate for many Americans,” the GAO study said.
Pointing to national survey data, the GAO noted that about half of the U.S. workforce was not covered by a pension plan in 2008.
Workers covered by defined contribution plans -- such as 401(k)s and IRAs -- risk making inadequate contributions or earning poor investment returns, the study found, while workers with traditional employer-sponsored, defined-benefit plans risk future benefit losses due to a lack of portability if they change jobs.Leakage (withdrawing money before retirement), high fees, and “the inappropriate drawdown of benefits in retirement” are other concerns, the GAO said.
Trade-offs
The GAO says its study focused on the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom because their private pension systems address many of the risks that U.S. workers face. Those systems also demonstrate “mandatory approaches can be used to increase coverage or contributions,” the GAO said.
But, as the GAO also noted, mandatory approaches – which have produced nearly universal coverage in the Netherlands and Switzerland -- also pose trade-offs. For example, in the Dutch and Swiss systems, sharing investment risk requires assets to be pooled and thus limits individual choice. And requiring annuities as a way for retirees to draw down their benefits limits people’s access to their assets.
Mandatory, government-run pension system here?
Of the four domestic proposals examined in the GAO report, only one is both mandatory and run by the government. Guaranteed Retirement Accounts (mentioned briefly above) would increase retirement savings by low- and middle-income households and provide a basic retirement income for workers, the GAO said.
Under GRA, both workers and employers would pay a mandatory minimum contribution of 2.5 percent each. Borrowing from the plan would be prohibited; and hardship withdrawals would be allowed only in case of disability.
Tax preferences for 401(k) plans and Individual Retirement Accounts would be replaced by a uniform $600 tax credit for all workers, regardless of income. State and local governments would have to notify the federal government of marriages and divorces so that contributions can be apportioned evenly between husbands and wives. State governments also would have to report who is receiving unemployment benefits to the Internal Revenue Service.
A centralized pension plan such as GRA would make “portability” easier and economies of scale would lower administrative costs, the GAO report said. But such a plan “may also be a costly and complex effort that requires new regulatory and oversight efforts. These costs could be passed on to workers, employers, and taxpayers in general.”
Three other domestic pension proposals examined by the GAO were more voluntary in nature. Two of those three were run by the private sector.
The GAO study concluded that no retirement system or pension proposal is perfect: “The challenge for Congress will be to balance the interests and responsibilities of workers, employers, and the government and find the most promising steps to help Americans achieve retirement security.”
Rep. Miller, to whom the GAO report is addressed, promised in October 2008 that his Labor and Education Committee would continue to “examine what measures may be needed to ensure a safe and secure retirement for workers, retirees and their families.”
At a House Education and Labor Committee hearing in February, Miller said it’s time for Congress to address “difficult questions about the state of our nation’s retirement system as a whole and look to see whether we need to create a retirement system that works for all Americans, not just the fortunate few.”
Over in the U.K., Dr. Ros Altman writes Get Real On Public Sector Pensions:
Today's Times suggests ministers are planning significant changes to council workers' pension arrangements – and probably to most other public sector pensions, too. Naturally, unions have reacted angrily, while taxpayer lobby groups welcome the proposals.
In my view, however, change is inevitable. With private sector final salary schemes across the country in deep deficit, employers are desperately looking for ways to reduce future pensions, or are closing schemes altogether. These economic realities cannot escape the public sector. The costs of these pension commitments have soared way beyond all previous expectations, as public sector employment levels and salaries have risen much faster than expected and workers are living ever longer.
Like almost all private sector schemes, local authority pension funds are in deficit (an estimated £60bn) as investment returns have not kept up with rising pension liabilities. Council tax increases alone cannot fund this shortfall, especially as the number of workers retiring will rise sharply in coming years. Already, about a quarter of some areas' council tax receipts is spent on pensions, and there is a limit to how far this can increase without jeopardising services or risking taxpayer revolts.
Ultimately, central government – that is, taxpayers across the country – will be forced to make up the difference between what councils can afford and the pension obligations they are committed to. But they already underwrite all other public sector pensions and, unlike local authority pensions, most public sector schemes are unfunded, which means absolutely no money has been set aside to pay the future pensions. Taxpayers in years to come will somehow have to find the money.
Government has not properly budgeted for this, having consistently tried to hide the true costs. When considering public sector pay, comparisons are generally made with the private sector, but the costs of pension accrual are not factored in, almost as if they do not exist. Of course pensions are paid many years hence, but the costs are nevertheless real.
A public sector pension is now probably worth about 30% extra salary, but public workers contribute well below 10% to their pensions, and sometimes nothing at all. Taxpayers have to make up all the difference. Also, unlike state pensions, there is no flexibility in these arrangements. When it comes to national insurance pensions, government can decide to change the parameters in order to control taxpayer costs. Indeed, national insurance pensions have been cut over the years, and pension ages will rise sharply, especially for women, as we are all living longer and healthier lives.
Public sector pensions cannot escape such realities forever, and the leaked proposals may herald a new round of reform. It is important to stress that any changes will not affect existing pensioners and will not reduce pensions that existing workers have already accrued.
However, unrealistic expectations will have to change, and we need transparency on the true costs of public sector pension commitments.
Workers are likely to have to either contribute much more each year or face the choice between working longer or receiving less pension in future.
Yes, of course public sector workers deserve a decent pension, but so do all pensioners. With such a low state pension, is it sustainable for good public sector pensions to be increasingly funded by taxpayers, who themselves have no such generous pension arrangements?
Public sector pensions should not be an alternative social welfare pension that is denied to, yet supported by, other taxpayers.
Finally, Pensions & Investments reports that Kennedy remembered for role in pension policy:
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., who died of brain cancer Tuesday night, played a leading role in shaping U.S. pension policy, including the Pension Protection Act of 2006, the largest single reform of the U.S. pension system since the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
Mr. Kennedy, chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, was active even through his final weeks, working on pension-related issues in Congress and with the Obama administration.
He was “known for attracting the best and brightest minds, so it (came) as no surprise that Kennedy staffers would be mentioned for any number of positions” for top pension-related posts in the Obama administration, Anthony Coley, a spokesman for Mr. Kennedy, said in a Nov. 10, 2008, Pensions & Investments story, underscoring Mr. Kennedy's influence on pension policy and legislation in his Senate career, stretching back to 1962.
“Sen. Kennedy was very involved in pension issues and always took a pragmatic approach,” James A. Klein, president of the corporate pension advocacy group American Benefits Council, said in an interview.
In regard to Mr. Kennedy's work last December on the Worker, Retiree and Employer Recovery Act of 2008, providing corporate pension funding relief from the market meltdown and economic downturn, Mr. Klein said, “Sen. Kennedy tried to address issues on funding that wouldn't unduly burden the system.”
While Mr. Kennedy was better known for his work on health care, education and civil rights, “on pension issues that were not in the headlines, he worked very collaboratively with his Republican colleagues,” Mr. Klein said.
Ted Godbout, manager-communications at the ERISA Industry Committee, another pension policy advocacy group, said in a statement, “While we did not always agree with Sen. Kennedy's approach to pension and retirement policy, he was a friend of ERIC's and we always respected and admired his leadership and willingness to work with both parties to find common ground. He truly will be missed.”
”Sen. Kennedy was a national treasure,” Amy Borrus, deputy director of the Council of Institutional Investors, said in a statement. “He was one of the most effective leaders in the Senate and a widely respected voice on pension issues.”
In May, concerning allegations that Charles E.F. Millard, a former PBGC director, was inappropriately involved with the hiring managers to invest $2.5 billion, Mr. Kennedy joined five other senators, Republicans as well as Democrats, to refer the case to the Department of Justice, according to a June 1 P&I report.
The landmark Pension Protection Act toughened corporate funding requirements to strengthen the financial condition of pension plans and encouraged automatic enrollment in 401(k) plans, furthering retirement security.
I was chatting with Diane Urquhart today and we both agreed that even though Senator Kennedy went through some personal tragedies and controversies, he was a once in a lifetime politician - a true national treasure. She told me that the Canadian House of Commons couldn't accomplish a fraction of what he has accomplished in over 50 years.
Indeed, Senator Ted Kennedy's legislative record speaks for itself. He championed many great causes that I hold dear to my heart, including the American Disabilities Act, to prevent discrimination against people with disabilities.
If Senator Kennedy were alive today, he would be spearheading the health care debate as well as the pension crisis. And he wouldn't be tweaking anything, but going for an overhaul of the entire system to ensure everyone retires in dignity and security.
Below, I leave you with one of his greatest speeches ever - his 1978 speech on health care. The Senate's last lion will be sorely missed by everyone. May he rest in peace and may we all remember him and fight for what is right to make our society a better one for all, not just for the privileged few.
»
As much as there is talk about Kennedy bootlegging liquor, his real claim to fame was as a swindling stock operator who was hired to set up the SEC because he knew all the ways to steal money in stock schemes. In any case, not many of us care much for the eastern Wall Street establishment who like to rule from above. On the contrary though, Senator Kennedy could have done something other than sit in the Senate serving his state and should get his due, like him or not.
As for the basis of this article, the pension system, Leo raises an important issue. My feeling is that America's pensions have been looted by the entities that offer them and by the entities that run them, again Wall Street. Private or public, health care or pensions, Wall Street is brought into the game. The study I have done on pensions was during the last bear market where I had read that those running the pensions had bought into the 9% or higher return from stocks forever and set their funding up accordingly. Massive rally or not, we are sitting at the same price in the SPX we had in February 1998, meaning for 10.5 years there has been nothing added to the funds save for dividends from stocks. Of course, the greater the estimated return the less money has to be put in and should something excessive arise, as was the case in the late 1990's, you can take money out. Sweet game isn't it.
There isn't a sin getting paid more, maybe even more than you might be worth, as it allows more to join the upper crust. But, to be left a pauper after putting in a lifetime of work in a variety of outfits isn't totally Kosher. I don't believe it was by chance that the public was led to own stocks while Wall Street and management were brought in to loot the companies that issued the stocks. What else can explain the puny dividends being paid by the market that has been running sideways for 11 years now and has continually had a bid under it? I am of the opinion that government programs over the past 40 years have been to aid and abet this process and not prevent it. This isn't the result of Reaganomics or Clintonomics, but the result of the entire system set up by Wilson and the Roosevelts and carried forward. I can only dislike Kennedy knowing he was merely a rat amongst a very large number of rats. Popular election of senators destroyed the institution and gave it over to multinationals.
leo, i think the political mindset on this blog is mostly leaning toward libertarian. I mean why not. Both of these parties suck. This country is dying. parties don't mean anything. they are all the same. read my lips. Get rid of the FED. then you will see progress in this country. its just that simple.
Gents - I think the problem is not left/right but generational.
The boomers from hell have ruined this country. Take, take, take. Too selfish & arrogant to sacrifice do anything for future generations, like their forefathers did for them. Well if they did nothing to fix problems & did everything to suck the life out of the system - who runs the Vampire Squid on the face of humanity -Boomers.
I m looking forward to Gen Y solution to the Boomer's disease - 12 aspirins & 5 can of alpos a month. They ignored national single payer insurance, they let the insurance & banks rape the people, they saddle the future with debt. Started wars that they themselves made sure not to fight.. What happen to peace & love.. Bastards.. And by the way Lennon sucked, you only found it good because you were tripping..
Welcome to Logan's Run...2015 edition....
Contrary to what you say, many baby boomers have tasted the bitter fruit of hardship and disillusionment much of their lives. And to rub salt in their wounds, the MSM is now misrepresenting them so the government won’t have to pay out the value of the Social Security and Medicare that they paid in all their working lives. At the same time, Bernanke is destroying the value of their pensions and 401(k)s by devaluing their purchasing power.
Most baby boomers, those born between 1946 and 1964, have had to live on the paychecks of two wage earners. Only a tiny percentage send their elderly parents to nursing homes. Many actually incur expenses from their elderly parents who increasingly are being forced into reverse mortgages just to stay in their homes. And government policy is destroying what little inheritance boomers would have received from their parents.
Definitions used in 1985 to describe yuppies and yuffies illustrate the point that boomers have been exploited by our present financial system the same as everybody else.
Yuppies at the time were defined as 25- to 39-year-old baby boomers who lived in metropolitan areas, worked professional or managerial occupations, and earned at least $30,000 if living alone and $40,000 if married or living with someone else. Using that definition, there were only four million yuppies in 1985—constituting just 5 percent of all baby boomers.
Yuffies were defined as baby boomers making less than $10,000 a year…a full 40 percent of the baby boom generation. In 1985,according to Probe, yuffies were roughly eight times as numerous as yuppies. In the 1990s the trend continued…
By 1983…a 30-year-old baby boomer needed to commit 44 percent of his income to meet the carrying charges on a median-priced house. That same year, 65 percent of all first-time baby boomer homebuyers needed two paychecks to meet their monthly payments…
By the end of the 1970s, Fortune magazine estimated that baby boomers had effectively lost ten years’ income when compared with the earnings of the generation just preceding them… Changes in the corporate world throughout the 1980s exacerbated the problem. “Downsizing,” “streamlining,” “merging” and "offshoring"… by major corporations eliminated whole levels of middle and upper management… Belt-tightening measures in the 1980s forced employees to be content with lower wages and smaller wage increases.
It was predicted salaries would “probably barely keep up with the cost of living and taxes…looking at very modest wage increases in the 1990s.
And, now, look at what Obama and his House of Democrats have in store for “boomers”; they’re getting old, and they rate only "minimum" healthcare on Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel’s grim Reaper Curve.
( Probe 1991) http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/disillus.html
ok
i get it. you are mad because some older guy took over your fries cook job at mcdonald's ....:)
Ah, yes, that favorite American pastime of labelling someone a liberal or a conservative. What a total waste. If I read Buckley, I am a conservative and if I read Galbraith, I am a liberal. I am neither but the fact is that the U.S. remains a plutocracy where BOTH Republicans and Democrats pander to the Wall Street elite. Very few politicians stick up for the regular hard working folks. I think that is why Senator Kennedy was so loved by his constituents. He spoke from the heart and he had the intellect to back up his arguments. He will be missed.
Leo I'm 61. I've been around long enough to see a lot of rotten politicos who've harmed my,our country. Johnson, Nixon, Bush, they don't all populate one party. Teddy is right up there at the top of the list in the pantheon of turds. You call the posters on this site wackos, idiots, blah, blah, ect. But your responses leave no doubt that you ARE exactly what you call them
"missed by everybody...."?????
That alone tells how out of touch Kennedy's apostles are.
Forget the fact that he could never be elected president because most of nation's voters know what an asshole and blowhard he was?
Worship him if you must, but puh-leeeze, you ain't everybody.
BS - what are some of the first names that come to mind when one hears "priveledged few" ????????
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-congress-benefits2-...
"In 2008, taxpayers spent about $15 billion to insure 8.5 million federal workers and their dependents."
Leo,
You have the mental disorder known as "liberalism". Probably not your fault - you are a Canadian. It rots your brain and destroys any sense of logic or reality. Mugging by reality is the only cure.
Points #8 & 9 show me you're another whack job who hates U.S. immigration policy. When did America start calling them "illegal immigrants" and not just immigrants? Fortune 500 companies need these "illegal immigrants" for jobs that are "beneath" the regular working stiff. Get real with your smear job and show some respect to a man who accomplished more in his life than most of you will ever accomplish in one hundred lifetimes.
oh come on now leo. you sure you want to go there? what is this? an attempt to start some kind of friday night smackdown, here on zero intelligence? you are joking right?
please tell me you are not that stupid.... :)
Just for kicks, calculate how much money Kennedy borrowed and set the United States up to borrow or print for all his social programs that have set the US on the course to third world status.
I guess if everyone has to live like poor people that would be his greatest achievement.
Yes, he accomplished, along with all his liberal and conservative friends a debt that has now added up to 23 Trillions as a minimum.
You who benefit from it have reason to be happy since you likely didn't have shit in the first place.
Kennedy will be "sorely" missed by every layabout, welfare queen, and general do-nothing in the land. But his demise is certainly a welcome addition to my day.
With millions on food stamps and unemployment we need illegals? ROFL. Pull the other one, moonbat.
The Last of The Kennedy Dynasty
As soon as his cancer was detected, I noticed the immediate attempt at the "canonization" of old Teddy Kennedy by the mainstream media. They are saying what a "great American" he is. I say, let's get a couple things clear & not twist the facts to change the real history.
1. He was caught cheating at Harvard when he attended it. He was expelled twice, once for cheating on a test, and once for paying a classmate to cheat for him.
2. While expelled, Kennedy enlisted in the Army, but mistakenly signed up for four years instead of two. Oops! The man can't count to four! His father, Joseph P. Kennedy, former U.S. Ambassador to England (a step up from bootlegging liquor into the US from Canada during prohibition), pulled the necessary strings to have his enlistment shortened to two years, and to ensure that he served in Europe, not Korea , where a war was raging. No preferential treatment for him! (like he charged that President Bush received).
3. Kennedy was assigned to Paris , never advanced beyond the rank of Private, and returned to Harvard upon being discharged. Imagine a person of his "education" NEVER advancing past the rank of Private!
4. While attending law school at the University of Virginia , he was cited for reckless driving four times, including once when he was clocked driving 90 miles per hour in a residential neighborhood with his headlights off after dark. Yet his Virginia driver's license was never revoked. Coincidentally, he passed the bar exam in 1959. Amazing!
5. In 1964, he was seriously injured in a plane crash, and hospitalized for several months. Test results done by the hospital at the time he was admitted had shown he was legally intoxicated. The results of those tests remained a "state secret" until in the 1980's when the report was unsealed. Didn't hear about that from the unbiased media, did we?
6. On July 19, 1969, Kennedy attended a party on Chappaquiddick Island in Massachusetts . At about 11:00 PM, he borrowed his chauffeur's keys to his Oldsmobile limousine, and offered to give a ride home to Mary Jo Kopechne, a campaign worker. Leaving the island via an unlit bridge with no guard rail, Kennedy steered the car off the bridge, flipped, and into Poucha Pond.
7. He swam to shore and walked back to the party, passing several houses and a fire station. Two friends then returned with him to the scene of the accident. According to their later testimony, they told him what he already knew - that he was required by law to immediately report the accident to the authorities. Instead Kennedy made his way to his hotel, called his lawyer, and went to sleep. Kennedy called the police the next morning and by then the wreck had already been discovered. Before dying, Kopechne had scratched at the upholstered floor above her head in the upside-down car.
The Kennedy family began "calling in favors", ensuring that any inquiry would be contained. Her corpse was whisked out-of-state to her family, before an autopsy could be conducted. Further details are uncertain, but after the accident Kennedy says he repeatedly dove under the water trying to rescue Kopechne and he didn't call police because he was in a state of shock. It is widely assumed Kennedy was drunk, and he held off calling police in hopes that his family could fix the problem overnight. Since the accident, Kennedy's "political enemies" have referred to him as the distinguished Senator from Chappaquiddick. He pled guilty to leaving the scene of an accident, and was given a SUSPENDED SENTENCE OF TWO MONTHS. Kopechne's family received a small payout from the Kennedy's insurance policy, and never sued. There was later an effort to have her body exhumed and autopsied, but her family successfully fought against this in court, and Kennedy's family paid their attorney's bills.. a "token of friendship"?
8. Kennedy has held his Senate seat for more than forty years, but considering his longevity, his accomplishments seem scant. He authored or argued for legislation that ensured a variety of civil rights, increased the minimum wage in 1981, made access to health care easier for the indigent, and funded Meals on Wheels for fixed-income seniors and is widely held as the "standard-bearer for liberalism". In his very first Senate roll, he was the floor manager for the bill that turned U.S. immigration policy upside down and opened the floodgate for immigrants from third world countries.
9. Since that time, he has been the prime instigator and author of every expansion of an increase in immigration, up to and including the latest attempt to grant amnesty to illegal aliens. Not to mention the pious grilling he gave the last two Bush Supreme Court nominees, as if he was the standard bearer for the nation in matters of "what's right".
10. He is known around Washington as a public drunk, loud, boisterous and very disrespectful to ladies. Must be a better description than "great American". "A blonde in every pond" is his motto.
Spin doctors will try to make this man a hero -- how quickly the American public forgets what his real legacy is.
pass the coolaid.
Speaking of Ted "There's a blond in every pond!"
Here's a letter that came out of the KGB files when the soviet union collapsed. For some reason it didnt get any media attention when it came out in the 90's, probably because Teddy was the NWO's bitch, and they clamped down on any media having a negative effect on him.
Special Importance
Committee on State Security of the USSR
14.05. 1983 No. 1029 Ch/OV
Moscow
Regarding Senator Kennedy’s request to the General Secretary of the Communist Party Comrade Y.V. Andropov
Comrade Y.V. Andropov
On 9-10 May of this year, Senator Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant J. Tunney was in Moscow. The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Center Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.
Senator Kennedy, like other rational people, is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations. Events are developing such that this relationship coupled with the general state of global affairs will make the situation even more dangerous. The main reason for this is Reagan’s belligerence, and his firm commitment to deploy new American middle range nuclear weapons within Western Europe.
According to Kennedy, the current threat is due to the President’s refusal to engage any modification on his politics. He feels that his domestic standing has been strengthened because of the well publicized improvement of the economy: inflation has been greatly reduced, production levels are increasing as is overall business activity. For these reasons, interest rates will continue to decline. The White House has portrayed this in the media as the "success of Reaganomics."
Naturally, not everything in the province of economics has gone according to Reagan’s plan. A few well known economists and members of financial circles, particularly from the north-eastern states, foresee certain hidden tendencies that many bring about a new economic crisis in the USA. This could bring about the fall of the presidential campaign of 1984, which would benefit the Democratic party. Nevertheless, there are no secure assurances this will indeed develop.
The only real threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations. These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign. The movement advocating a freeze on nuclear arsenals of both countries continues to gain strength in the United States. The movement is also willing to accept preparations, particularly from Kennedy, for its continued growth. In political and influential circles of the country, including within Congress, the resistence to growing military expenditures is gaining strength.
However, according to Kennedy, the opposition to Reagan is still very weak. Reagan’s adversaries are divided and the presentations they make are not fully effective. Meanwhile, Reagan has the capabilities to effectively counter any propaganda. In order to neutralize criticism that the talks between the USA and the USSR are non-constructive, Reagan will grandiose, but subjectively propagandistic. At the same time, Soviet officials who speak about disarmament will be quoted out of context, silenced or groundlessly and whimsically discounted. Although arguments and statements by officials of the USSR do appear in the press, it is important to note the majority of Americans do not read serious newspapers or periodicals.
Kennedy believes that, given the current state of affairs, and in the interest of peace, it would be prudent and timely to undertake the following steps to counter the militaristic politics of Reagan and his campaign to psychologically burden the American people. In this regard, he offers the following proposals to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Y.V. Andropov:
1. Kennedy asks Y.V. Andropov to consider inviting the senator to Moscow for a personal meeting in July of this year. The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA. He would also like to inform you that he has planned a trip through Western Europe, where he anticipates meeting England’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and French President Mitterand in which he will exchange similar ideas regarding the same issues.
If his proposals would be accepted in principle, Kennedy would send his representative to Moscow to resolve questions regarding organizing such a visit.
Kennedy thinks the benefits of a meeting with Y.V.Andropov will be enhanced if he could also invite one of the well known Republican senators, for example, Mark Hatfield. Such a meeting will have a strong impact on American and political circles in the USA (In March of 1982, Hatfield and Kennedy proposed a project to freeze the nuclear arsenals of the USA and USSR and pblished a book on the theme as well.)
2. Kennedy believes that in order to influence Americans it would be important to organize in August-September of this year, televised interviews with Y.V. Andropov in the USA. A direct appeal by the General Secretary to the American people will, without a doubt, attact a great deal of attention and interest in the country. The senator is convinced this would receive the maximum resonance in so far as television is the most effective method of mass media and information.
If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interview. Specifically, the president of the board of directors of ABC, Elton Raul and television columnists Walter Cronkite or Barbara Walters could visit Moscow. The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side.
Furthermore, with the same purpose in mind, a series of televised interviews in the USA with lower level Soviet officials, particularly from the military would be organized. They would also have an opportunity to appeal directly to the American people about the peaceful intentions of the USSR, with their own arguments about maintaining a true balance of power between the USSR and the USA in military term. This issue is quickly being distorted by Reagan’s administration.
Kennedy asked to convey that this appeal to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union is his effort to contribute a strong proposal that would root out the threat of nuclear war, and to improve Soviet-American relations, so that they define the safety of the world. Kennedy is very impressed with the activities of Y.V. Andropov and other Soviet leaders, who expressed their commitment to heal international affairs, and improve mutal understandings between peoples.
The senator underscored that he eagerly awaits a reply to his appeal, the answer to which may be delivered through Tunney.
Having conveyed Kennedy’s appeal to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Tunney also explained that Senator Kennedy has in the last few years actively made appearances to reduce the threat of war. Because he formally refused to partake in the election campaign of 1984, his speeches would be taken without prejudice as they are not tied to any campaign promises. Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988. At that time, he will be 56 and his personal problems, which could hinder his standing, will be resolved (Kennedy has just completed a divorce and plans to remarry in the near future). Taken together, Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president. This would explain why he is convinced that none of the candidates today have a real chance at defeating Reagan.
We await instructions.
President of the committee
V. Chebrikov
ack my eyes are bleeding.
taraxias,
These idiots are lightweights and I ignore them for the most part. By the way, all rich Americans are avoiding their fair share of taxes, not just its most famous family. -:)
Leo, don't waste your breath with these idiots on here.
You hit the nail on the head, most Americans are hypocrites at best and completely brainwashed by their government with help from MSM..
If you thought that you'd find more intelligent posters on here than NC, think again. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
Bitch - I'll knock your other tooth out. LOL
fer real. I really appreciate your work, Leo. Thanks
"The Senate's last lion will be sorely missed by everyone." What an amazingly presumptuous statement. Obviously untrue. Also a cliche. Also semantically meaningless. And the homily that precedes it is quite empty of any attempt to assess Kennedy with relevance to the Constitution which he swore to uphold. He was of course a serial constitutional violator who betrayed the principles on which the nation was founded, either because he felt it was "the right thing to do" (a concept that typically justifies bad, emotionally based decisions of all kinds) or because he was simply pandering to his constituency in the hope of achieving the #1 goal of any senator: To get himself re-elected.
The impulse to revere this corrupt family with its born-to-rule mentality is a sad comment on human fallibility.
Real man of the people with family tax avoiding trusts extimated to be worth approx $500M
From the book "Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy," by Peter Schweizer
The Senior Senator from Massachusetts belongs to a family clan blessed with a net worth of nearly $500 million. Back in 1935, Joseph Patrick Kennedy, Sr., purchased Merchandise Mart, a Chicago real estate company, and according to Schweizer:
Now why establish a trust on an island best known for headhunters? The Fiji-based trust allowed the Kennedy's to avoid "...the possibility of scrutiny by the IRS and federal authorities," according to Schweizer. Worse, the sanctimonious Kennedy clan that demands the rich pay their fair share has "an intricate web of trusts and private foundations" that helps the family avoid the IRS.
For example, the family paid only $134,330.90 in estate taxes despite a family fortune thought to be between $300 and $500 million at the time of Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr.'s death in 1969. That was a tax bill of .04 percent, and Schweizer informs us that the figure is based on the lower end of the estimated family fortune.
Look, I am sure that crime weighed heavily on his conscience for the rest of his life. Maybe it even propelled him to do what is right by fighting for the rights of the poor and marginalized. If it wasn't for him and a few others, the U.S. would swallow the crap of trickle down economics. As the great liberal economist John Kenneth Galbraith once said: "If you feed enough oats to the horse, some will pass through to feed the sparrows."
Look, I am sure that crime weighed heavily on his conscience for the rest of his life
Oh, absolutely. Considering that he frequently asked friends if they'd heard any new "Chappaquidick" jokes, or that he named his dog "Splash", I'm sure it weighed heavily on the drunken lecher's sotted conscience.
So explain "TRICKLE-UP" Economics to me then genius...
The US has swallowed that crap and has an economy built on trickle down economics, and its not the tax policy of Arthur Laffer.
The US economy is predicated on trickle down economics - the FED making it rain on the fractional reserve banking system.
Not a good thing that Ted Kennedy claimed to fight the strawman tax policy while supporting the real trickle down economy based on the FED.
Please take your politics out of your economics, its crowded out truth in favor of bile propoganda.
"Senator Kennedy made a huge mistake"
LOL
I think someone has kidnapped Leo and is posting under his name. We should alert the authorities.
"Let he who has not murdered someone cast the first stone."
Spare me with your pontification. "W" murdered innocent children in Iraq and he got voted in twice and managed to screw up your economy before you all came to your collective senses and voted him out. Senator Kennedy made a huge mistake which he had to live with for the rest of his life, but at least he managed to introduce important legislation in the United States which protects the poor and marginalized. The U.S. is such a hyprocritical society in so many respects. You expect your politicians to be clean and perfect while your society degenerates all around you. What a joke!
Wow,
Importing the noensensical ad hominem politics that is the staus quo at "naked capitalism."
Go away if you are too feeble minded to recognize that the tired old left-right split is just a divide and conquer strategy.
Guess what - one can strongly dispprove of both Ted Kennedy and George W Bush. Hope that doesn't explode your close minded world in your tiny little head.
"screw up your economy before you all came to your collective senses"
Who's the pontificator? Leo I suspect that if you apologize nicely to Yves Smith at NakedCapitalism she might take you back. Please spare us your Canadian left wing rubbish (though I suspect you are not typical of most Canadians). DailyKos is and excellent place for left wing extremists to rant and amongst the Economic Blogs you likely would fit in nicely with the folks over at Angry Bear. All very the best in your future endeavors.
Michael Kelly, who was a journalist's journalist (died in Iraq), wrote a story about your great hero sexually assaulting a waitress at Washington's tony Le Brasserie while dining with Chris Dodd. How dare you say he learned or repented. Stupid Canadian - no wonder your country had to move the goalposts in order to play football.
that's right. he did. and he got away with it too. because he was God's appointed man to the poor dumb stupid amerikans...
"Hello! Hello!!?"
Let he who has not murdered someone cast the first stone.
I was waiting for all you right-wing lunatics at the "tip of the iceberg" to slam this post. BRING IT ON! Canadians politicans are sitting on their thumbs lately, bickering over who whether or not to have yet another election. We have universal healthcare, but so what? What have the politicians in Ottawa done for us lately?
And yes, Edward Kennedy would have been convicted of manslaughter if he was not a Kennedy, but the man repented and went on to do great deeds for his country. Let he without sin cast the first stone.
Leo the Lion.
What Canada do you live in?! In my Canada, the Greens and the NDP are eager for an election, the Bloc couldn't care, the Conservatives are ready but not itching. The only ditherers are the Liberals, who are hoping for some scandal or other act of God that might give them a chance at governing.
The Tories passed their own version of a stimulus bill that was far more pragmatic and populist than TARP - giving rebates to people for home renovations, for example. That employs tradespeople who were jobless with the collapse in construction, increases the purchases in locally made lumber and other construction materials, with the net result of a much higher economic multiplier than bailing out Goldman. Oh, and I'd note that none of the big Canadian banks received billions in bailouts, although the government did commit to supplying liquidity if needed, which it turned out not to be. The Tories' infrastructure bill has helped out projects across the country, except of course in Toronto, where "liberal" David Miller stamped his foot and pouted because the bill would not allow him to use Canadian funds to provide jobs for Siemens workers in Germany to build new subway cars for him.
"What have you done for me lately?" is the lament of the spoiled and the petulant. Grow up, you twerp, or come to Richmond Hill, and I'll rearrange your features for you.
Great deeds for his country, my ass.
He repented. My ass.
This "right wing lunatic" nailed it yesterday.
"Leon the lion" go f*** yourself.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><<><><<>><><><><><><><><><
Where's Mary Jo Kopechne's Eulogy? by Henry Rollins August 27, 2009, 10:57 amNot Far Under The Surface. Let’s say I am driving myself and a passenger in my car at night. I accidentally drive off a bridge into the water below. I am able to get out of the submerged vehicle but for some reason, I am unable to free the passenger. I gather two friends, a relative and my lawyer and return to the scene. We are unable to rescue the person trapped in the car. Several hours later, myself nor the two others I took to the site have called the authorities. In fact, it’s two fishermen who find the car the next morning as even then, no one has been called to the scene. The car is removed from the water and it is determined that its occupant is dead. This tragic incident is made international news by my circumstances. I am very well known, a United States senator. My family is incredibly powerful. There are allegations that I had been drinking heavily hours up to the time I got into the vehicle with the passenger. I deny this for the rest of my life. That at no point did I make an attempt to call for rescue would probably be considered by many people to be outrageous and horrible, perhaps a crime that would carry a prison sentence. Can you imagine what the parents of the deceased would be going through when they found out that their 28-year-old daughter died alone in total darkness? I serve no time. Not inconvenienced by the burdensome obstacle of incarceration, I seek to maintain my elected position. I am successful and remain a senator for the next four decades. Would any deed I performed in that time, besides going to prison for the negligent homicide I committed all those years ago, be enough to wipe the slate clean? After my passing, would you fail to mention the incident and the death of this innocent person in reviewing the events of my long and lauded life? You wouldn't forget about her, would you? That would be negligent.
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2009/08/wheres-mary-jo-kopechn...
"MARK IT ZERO, DUDE"
Hey, I thought you Canadians were supposed to speak decent English. It should be "Let him...". Duh !
I'm #51651. Nice ad hom. FWIW (although I think it's irrelevant) I live in the Bay Area. I vote for pols like Pelosi and Lee. I donate to and volunteer for Sen. Boxer. If that's too right-wing for you (and you, therefore, are going to automatically denigrate and dismiss anything I say), why bother being here? How many people here will be left-wing enough and, therefore, in your opinion, worth reading?
He did jack shit for this country like all fucking liberals.
And no, I am not right wing. I didn't fucking vote for Bush.
Liberals suck ten times worse but they all need to go.
worst of all the american has learned to shut up and go with flow and not to fight...it's engrained in the educational system...especially those in corporate settings....
good articles; good articles 4 slow news day ..http://www..
hat tip: finance news & finance opinions
and from the Archives circa 1969
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=zfsNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=2nsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7...
I appreciate many things Sen. Kennedy did, including the ADA. But pension overhaul? Please. ERISA was a Ponzi scheme that killed most defined benefit pension plans and drove employers to 401(k)s, many of them of the "screw the employees" variety. The PPA tweaked ERISA's rules instead of overhauling it.
Many public pension plans need reform, as does the USA's private pension system. They have desperately needed it for decades, not years. But I'm not holding my breath. Pols only care about the next election so they aren't going to fix a badly-underfunded public or private pension system. Execs only care about their bonuses, not the workers or any problem that may surface next year so they aren't going to fix the private system. And the public only cares about pensions when they are ready to retire and it's their pension on the line. They will all ignore the problem until it has a major impact on their personal lives. By then it's too late to fix the problem.
Pension are a joke - get this there is no free ride! The whole ponzi scheme formally known as pension programs only work when the percentage of the population that is working and producing in a free market is greater than the retirees milking out resources from the system while sitting on their asses all day long on the beach.
Wake up people. We need to restore the family unit. Once the Pensions all go bust and SSN implodes old people are going to have to rely on the producers that are left in their families for support. So to all of the Gen Xers that are still single and partying - you better get your asses married and start making babies!
OK, Ok, the lion sleeps tonight. Good riddance.
But, the pension issue is very big...SS is part of the package. NO ONE wanted to touch this for fear....
WE now have a major nation wide calamity. And no real attempt to address it innovatively and quick.
It isn't pensions, but I believe that the ObamaCare bill says that union healthcare plans that fail due to their sponsoring corporations going belly-up, will be funded by the US Gov't.
Perhaps pension plans could come up with a similar bailout?
What a piece of drivel. The bloated drunk did more than the Canadian House of Commons? Let's just see..
In the last 50 years, Canada produced a national health care system (it has its flaws, no doubt, but since Canadian life expectancy at birth exceeds the US's, I hardly call it a disaster), a much simpler and more effective personal pension plan that's more flexible, portable, and effective than the hodgepodge of 401k, Roth, etc., an almost complete rewrite of our Constitution (also not without flaws, but a massive effort nonetheless, while the US during the same time frame has merely lowered the voting age and said Congress can't vote itself a raise), scrapped a manufacturing tax and implemented a national sales tax (which helped immensely in restoring fiscal balance), led the way in imposing sanctions against South Africa, and, of course, proposed and passed NAFTA before the US.
Oh, and no Canadian politician (which does not include separatist Rene Levesque) has ever even been suspected of driving drunk with a young woman who was not his wife, having an accident that resulted in her death, and then running away to sober up before reporting it to police. Some lion, some legacy.
Yay Canada!