According to the pundits at the Sacramento Bee, it appears that California Insurance Commissioner, Steve Poizner, is attempting to play politics in an effort to bolster his name recognition for an upcoming 2010 governor’s race.
According to the Sacramento Bee’s AM Alert …
“State Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner has called a news conference in Los Angeles this morning -- and it's not about the budget.
“Poizner, a likely 2010 candidate for governor, is taking on Iran.”
“The GOP hopeful will order insurers in California to disclose investments they may have in foreign companies that do business in the oil and weapons industry with Iran.”
Adding hundreds of man-hours and significant costs to the insurers as they comb through investments in mutual funds and other investments which may be linked to multi-national companies who may be under no restrictions on doing business in Iran.
“Department of Insurance officials suspect the probe eventually will turn up billions of dollars of such indirect investments.”
“Poizner has no power to make the companies divest, but he can (and will) disseminate the information they provide him. (Perhaps at another news conference....)”
A shameless ploy to attract media attention to his future race for governor?
“Poizner also aims to enforce a new California law that prohibits California-based companies from making direct investments in Iran, one of the countries designated by the U.S. Department of State as a state sponsor of terrorism.”
Perhaps he should leave the real enforcement of California law to those who are Constitutionally responsible for bringing actions of this type: the California State Attorney General?
Just another ego-driven liberal republican looking more and more like the ineffective Arnold Schwarzenegger as time goes on …
Here we have another billionaire businessman turned liberal legislator ignoring his primary job to regulate insurance companies doing business in California, but attempting to make a broader political statement with his activities.
The United States government already has legislation regarding foreign investments and federal legislation supersedes state legislation. So why is Poizner squandering the time, effort and assets of his office in a critical budget year? Personal politics is the ONLY answer I can find.
This is definitely not a suitable candidate for the California Governor in 2010 – he is simply another republican like Arnold Schwarzenegger, ego-driven and devoid of any real leadership abilities.
He squeaked into office by running unopposed in the primary and faced the much-maligned Cruz Bustamante in the general election.
My opinion …
-- steve
_______________________________________________
OneCitizenSpeaking: Saying out loud what you may be thinking …
Reference Links:
Steve Poizner: Poizon for California's future?|OneCitizenSpeaking
hey idiot, perhaps you need to read up on what the insurance commissioner does.
State law...repeat, state law, as codified in the insurance code, gives the commissioner all of the authority to do what he is doing.
Fat fuck....get a shave and learn how to read.
=====================================
Jack, thank you for reading my blog entry and submitting your comment.
First, I am well aware of the nature of California Assembly Bill A.B. 2203 which amended Section 1241.1 of the California Insurance Code.The legislative intent was to restrict the flow of funds to states sponsoring terrorism which included, at the time of DeLeon's bill: Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria.
Second, I am well aware of the statutory authority of the State Insurance Commissioner to pursue actions under the Insurance Code.
Third, the code actually reads: "Section 1241.1 a) No domestic insurer shall acquire any investment respecting a foreign jurisdiction, or any investment denominated in the currency of that foreign jurisdiction, if that jurisdiction is designated as a state sponsor of terrorism by the United States Secretary of State pursuant to Section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act, Section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, and Section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act. (b) If any investment made pursuant to Section 1241 later becomes prohibited by this section, that investment shall not be retained as an investment made pursuant to this code. This section became effective on January 1, 2009.
Fourth, I would have a hard time believing that any California Insurer holds a direct investment in Iran which respects that foreign jurisdiction or is denominated in the currency of the foreign jurisdiction. As for investment-grade reerves held in domestic third-party mutual funds or other third-party domestic funds, I have a hard time believing that they hold direct investments in prohibited funds. Since insurance companies admitted to California may have foreign subsidiaries, those investments are often beyond the statutory authority of California.
However, considering the political persuasion of the bill's authors, I considered that the true intent of the legislation was to curtail investment in specific companies that have invested in rogue countries; including Halliburton, Conoco-Phillips and General Electric, all Fortune 500 companies which have operations in Iran and Syria and whose stock can be found in the portfolio of almost any mutual fund. You might want to review the 2004 60-Minutes piece,"Doing Business with the Enemy" on this subject at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/22/60minutes/main595214.shtml.
But what ticked me off about Poizner's approach was that he specifically cited Iran, which as we all know, has been receiving a maximum amount of media coverage due to their election travails and a potential uprising. If Poizner was so concerned about the problem, he would have been more inclusive of the other nations that fall under the statute.
To my way of thinking, Poizner was grandstanding in the media and increasing the cost of insurance to California's consumers as the insurance companies will pass along all of the costs of this witch-hunt to the consumer in the form of increased premiums. This is political granstanding of the worst kind -- meant to increase Poizner's name recognition for the 2010 gubnatorial race.
My fundamental complaint with Poizner can be found in another blog entry which connects the dots between Poizner's private sector business activies and the possibility of subverting insurance regulations into supporting an infrastructure which will ultimately place us at more risk for higher taxes and fewer freedoms from big brother. You can read that blog entry at http://www.onecitizenspeaking.com/2009/06/steve-poizner-poison-for-californias-future.html.
Do I believe, for one moment, that Poizner represents the consumer over the professional politicians or the industry he purportedly regulates at a time when he is running for higher office -- I do not! I also believe that he is a dyed-in-the-wool liberal democrat who has found it more expedient to run for office as a republican rather than work his way up the democrat food chain.
As for the personal insults, I have been called worse by my friends and my barber agrees with you about the beard. I would welcome any substantive comments you might have regarding Poizner as a candidate for the governor's slot.
At this point in time, I certainly will not support liberal democrats like Jerry Brown and Diane Feinstein or, on the republican side, Meg Whitman or Steve Poizner. I do not believe that people who have achieved a significant success in business can necessarily transfer their CEO talents (where they reign supreme) to an environment which is dominated by an often hostile and free-spending legislature.
Again, I thank you very much for taking the time to comment. -- steve
Posted by: Jack Sendman | June 29, 2009 at 05:46 PM