Author: jfortenberry@fortenberrylaw.com

For those who are interested in knowing what a government-run, universal health plan might do to health care in this country, one need only look across the border here.

Some folks in Arizona want to make sure that no one takes away their freedom of choice when it comes to health care. On November 4th, Arizona will vote on Proposition 101. The measure, called the Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act, would amend the state constitution to include language restricting Arizona’s ability to limit or dictate individual health-care choices, and to make government-mandated universal health care illegal. Here is the language of the Proposition:

Because all people should have the right to make decisions about their health care, no law shall be passed that restricts a person’s freedom of choice of private health care systems or private plans of any type. No law shall interfere with a person’s or entity’s right to pay directly for lawful medical services, nor shall any law impose a penalty or fine, or any type, for choosing to obtain or decline health care coverage or for participation in any particular health care system or plan.

Read more about the initiative here.

From CNN’s iReport (via Robert Bluey) here:

Informed Choice celebrates children speaking simply and more wisely than elders by recording their observations about one the most serious choices facing contemporary America – the Presidential Race.

In their wisdom and (unintentional) humor, stripped of partisanship and informed choice, the children lampoon the cult of popularity based solely on physical attributes. Their purity is a mirror reflecting the American voter’s obsessions, boredom, judgments of race and age.

With only pictures of candidates McCain and Obama as their guide, the Informed Choice interviewees certainly surprise and amuse even the most strident viewer / voter, regardless of political affiliation.

Apparently, Argentina’s President Cristina Kirchner has signed a proposal nationalizing the country’s private pension funds. The Wall Street Journal reports here that this is being seen as a “grab for cash and power amid the global economic crisis.” Excerpt:

Argentine stocks fell by more than 11% in reaction to news that the government plans to nationalize private pension funds.

Details of the proposal — which must be approved by the country’s legislature — were not immediately available. It was signed by Ms. Kirchner, along with Labor Minister Carlos Tomada and Amando Boudou, the head of the national social security system, ANSES. But an announcer during the televised signing ceremony described it as a project to “eliminate” the “capitalization system,” a reference to the defined-contribution plans run by 10 private funds known as AFJPs.

In a speech following the signing ceremony, Mr. Boudou said the reform would “rescue Argentine retirees from uncertainty.”

This Bloomberg article here indicates:

About 55 percent of the 94.4 billion pesos held by the country’s 10 private pension fund managers are in government debt, according to the pension regulator’s Web site. Nationalization would allow the Fernandez administration to write off the government bonds held by the funds, said Javier Salvucci, an analyst with Buenos Aires-based Silver Cloud Advisors.

More from this BBC article here:

Amado Boudou, head of the National Social Security Administration, which will take over the funds, said the “failed experiment” of private pensions was finished.

But the pension administrators defended the system, saying it had a “solid mechanism” that had seen an “almost constant growth trend in the 14 years of its existence”.

Union leaders have welcomed the nationalisation move. The commissions on the pensions and the lack of a guaranteed minimum pension has made the private system unpopular with many Argentines.

All of this sounds a bit reminiscent of some of the comments being made about our country’s retirement system and the push to have a universal pension as discussed here and here, a proposal which I wholeheartedly reject.

Some language from a proposal being advocated (the parallels seem obvious to me):

Short term, I propose that since 401(k) accounts and the like are financial institutions — the bank about where 38% of the workforce can intend to save for their retirement — Congress let workers trade their 401(k) and 401(k) – type plan assets (perhaps valued at mid-August prices) for a Guaranteed Retirement Account composed of government bonds (earning a 3% return, adjusted for inflation). When the worker collects Social Security, the Guaranteed Retirement Account will pay an inflation adjusted annuity, based on the accumulated funds.

How would this work? Take a 55 year old who had $50,000 in his 401(k) account in August and faces job loss and eroded assets because of the erosion of his retirement accounts. Let him swap out the $50,000 for a guarantee of $500 per month. The economy is probably in a recession, but a guaranteed income from his former 401(k) removes a source of financial anxiety, and — this is not trivial – it end fruitless discussions with brokers and financial sales agents, who are also desperate for more fees and are often wrong about markets. . .

The sooner we admit that our 30 year experiment with 401(k) accounts has failed the sooner we can use these precious government subsidies efficiently and equitably.

From USA Today “Couple’s retirement dream leaves materialism behind.” Excerpt:

The Feudos say they probably wouldn’t have mustered the moxie to strike out in a radically different direction had they not consulted Will Rogers, a financial adviser in Augusta, who devised their retirement plan in 2002.

In reviewing the couple’s retirement assets, Rogers told them they needed to save more aggressively, pay down debt and consolidate accounts that were scattered in various financial institutions.

It was during this time that they and Rogers discovered an overlooked pension plan.

“When we researched their past employment, it turned out Bonnie only needed to work a few more days in her former school district to be vested,” Rogers recalls.

View this video here on how “26,000 Americans have walked off and left $75 million in pension money from previous jobs.”

Two websites to visit if you are looking for a lost pension:

PBGC’s website

National Registry of Unclaimed Benefits

See also this booklet located on the PBGC’s website entitled: “Finding a Lost Pension.” Excerpt:

This booklet provides help in defining, planning and conducting a search for a “lost” pension. There are no guarantees of success. Perhaps the only certainty is that, without an effort to locate the pension fund, whatever money may be owed to you will never be yours.

Great cartoon from the Tax Guru here. It is also acts as a statement about all of the talk of replacing the current 401(k) with a government-run retirement system.

From Workforce Management: House Democrats Contemplate Abolishing 401(k) Tax Breaks. Excerpt:

Powerful House Democrats are eyeing proposals to overhaul the nation’s $3 trillion 401(k) system, including the elimination of most of the $80 billion in annual tax breaks that 401(k) investors receive.

House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-California, and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Washington, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, are looking at redirecting those tax breaks to a new system of guaranteed retirement accounts to which all workers would be obliged to contribute. . .

More:

This is a battle between liberalism and conservatism,” said Christopher Van Slyke, a partner in the La Jolla, California, advisory firm Trovena, which manages $400 million. “People are afraid because their accounts are seeing some volatility, so Democrats will seize on the opportunity to attack a program where investors control their own destiny,” he said.

The Profit Sharing/401(k) Council of America in Chicago, which represents employers that sponsor defined-contribution plans, is “staunchly committed to keeping the employee benefit system in America voluntary,” said Ed Ferrigno, vice president in the Washington office.

“Some of the tenor [of the hearing last week] that the entire system should be based on the activities of the markets in the last 90 days is not the way to judge the system,” he said.

No legislative proposals have been introduced and Congress is out of session until next year.

See also this article from the Wall Street Journal for what might be in store: A Liberal Supermajority: Get ready for ‘change’ we haven’t seen since 1965, or 1933. Excerpt:

If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their Congressional majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to it. Without the ability to filibuster, the Senate would become like the House, able to pass whatever the majority wants.

Access a previous post here which discusses the universal pension movement.

Interpretive Bulletin Relating to Exercise of Shareholder Rights
Interpretive Bulletin Relating to Investing in Economically Targeted Investments

The Social Security Administration (“SSA”) has announced that the maximum amount of earnings subject to the Social Security tax (taxable maximum) will increase to $106,800 from $102,000.

See this press release and the SSA fact sheet for more information.