The Obama Administration is a clear and present danger to our investment and retirement funds …

The government has already gutted most of our investment and retirement funds by allowing the Federal Reserve to pursue policies which demand that ailing financial institutions be re-capitalized after the mortgage meltdown at the expense of interest rates offered to senior citizens in their investment and retirement accounts. So what might be looming on the financial horizon?

Now that the Obama has a coalition of voters who appear willing to cede unprecedented powers to his administration, we are likely to see additional Executive Branch power grabs and unusual and unconstitutional solutions for raising revenue – not to reduce the national debt, but to allow the government to continue their profligate spending and purchasing political power from the special interests with American's hard-earned savings.

Enter AARP, formerly known as the American Association of Retired Persons,  which is the largest lobby and special interest group representing senior citizens. Unfortunately, its leadership appears untrustworthy as evidenced by their willingness to throw senior citizens under the bus by endorsing Obamacare, watching while $716 BILLION was stripped out of Medicare are used to fund Obamacare. Apparently signing on the the type of regulated medicine which may results in seniors being denied certain types of medical care in favor of reducing costs for the larger pool of Americans – something right out of the Marxist/Communists playbook. Of course, we all know from past experience that this will not actually reduce costs, but simply re-distribute wealth among the special interests.

So it is with some fear and trepidation that I regard AARP’s forthcoming position on the corrupt Obama Administration’s negotiations regarding the so-called, and totally manufactured, “fiscal cliff.”

I am deeply concerned about legislation such as the democrat-sponsored legislation Senate Bill S. 1020, known as the “Savings Enhancement by Alleviating Leakage in 401(k) Savings Act of 2011” or the “SEAL 401(k) Savings Act.”

According to the the non-partisan Congressional Research Service … 

Savings Enhancement by Alleviating Leakage in 401(k) Savings Act of 2011 or the SEAL 401(k) Act - Amends the Internal Revenue Code, with respect to loans made from a qualified employer plan, to: (1) extend the period for repayment of loans if a plan terminates or a plan participant becomes unemployed, (2) prohibit plans from allowing the use of credit cards or similar arrangements to access loan amounts, and (3) limit to three the number of loans which a plan participant or beneficiary may take at any time.

Requires the Secretary of the Treasury to modify regulations governing hardship distributions from qualified employer plans to allow participants to make additional contributions to a plan during the six month period following a hardship distribution.

How many people can read this summary and know what the impact might be on their retirement accounts? Or even worse, read the provisions of the actual legislation?

SEC. 5. LIMITATION ON NUMBER OF LOANS FROM QUALIFIED EMPLOYER PLANS WHICH MAY BE OUTSTANDING WITH RESPECT TO ANY PARTICIPANT OR BENEFICIARY.

(a) In General- Paragraph (2) of section 72(p) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended by section 4, is amended by redesignating subparagraph (E) as subparagraph (F) and by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following new subparagraph:

`(E) EXCEPTION ONLY TO APPLY TO 3 LOANS- Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any loan made after the date of the enactment of this subparagraph if, immediately after such loan is made, the number of outstanding loans from the plan to the participant or beneficiary exceeds 3.'.

(b) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to loans made after the date which is 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act.

What does the National Seniors Council have to say on the matter?

As part of the Administration’s continuing drive to redistribute wealth, the National Seniors Council believes that tax-deferred contributions to retirement plans like 401(k)s and IRAs may very well be on the table in bipartisan budget negotiations going on right now between Congress and the White House.

Liberals in Washington have long maintained that the favorable tax treatment of such contributions is effectively a “subsidy” to people who can afford to save for retirement and is not only unfair but a significant cause of the current government debt crisis. Therefore, it is quite likely that some type of limitation on how much “wealthy” individuals will be allowed to save using these investment vehicles is being insisted on by the Administration. <Source>

Notice the class warfare code words that appear frequently in liberal-speak; social justice, economic justice, the wealthy, subsidies for the rich and other such rhetoric. And the big problem – the administration is able to define the dollar limits of what constitutes “wealthy.” To a poor person, a minority or other members of Obama’s disaffected coalition, wealthy is now someone making over $250,000 per year. And while that certainly looks like a lot of money to most people, it is neither wealthy nor prudent policy – because most of the people in that category are the small business owners who supply the great majority of jobs in America. Increase their taxes and redistribute their so-called wealth and one of two courses of action are likely. One, they will no longer expand their enterprises, and two, they will simply reduce their employee headcount to counter the increased taxes. Neither one of which is good for American, but fits right into the socialist/communist plan of creating an artificial scarcity or crisis that demands management by an expanded government. 

Since President Obama first came into office his Administration has made no secret of its desire to overhaul the way Americans save for retirement. This new National Retirement System will force virtually all Americans into government-run Guaranteed Retirement Accounts and do away with private retirement accounts entirely. Congressional Democrats held hearings on this very issue in 2008, an alliance of labor unions and left-wing groups have founded Retirement USA, a non-profit lobbying group, and legislation limiting the ability of individuals to control their private savings is currently pending before Congress.

S. 1020, the Savings Enhancement by Alleviating Leakage in 401(k)Savings Act sponsored by liberal Senator Herb Kohl, specifically limits the rights of individuals to borrow from their own private retirement accounts and is a dangerous first step towards government control over all private retirement savings. NSC opposes this legislation and will fight any effort to reintroduce it or any similar type of bill in the next Congress which convenes in January. <Source>

What is needed is an honest broker with the resources to interpret almost incomprehensible legislative gibberish and to serve as a bulwark against dishonest politicians bent on looting American’s retirement and investment accounts for their own self-serving purposes.

Bottom line …

Given the composition of the electorate who voted Obama into office, which constituency might object to the government’s self-serving and self-enriching activities? The members of the unions who have their own, and probably exempt, pension plans? Government employees and others who have overly generous, or should I say magnanimous, pension plans exempt from these rules and regulations?  The poor, minority and non-wealthy members of Obama’s coalition.

The appeal to this coalition will be simple: economic justice demands that the wealthy be denied the benefits that the non-wealthy cannot afford. Which will resonate among the current majority – until the realize that it is too late to save their future. Especially if the government is ever downsized and they are forced into the private sector.

So who is likely to stand-up to the Obama Administration and their fellow-travelers? Who has the lobbying clout and voting strength to cobble together a protection of our hard-earned money from rapacious  and greedy politicians?

I am openly asking if AARP, given their past roll-over on Obamacare, is that organization which can be trusted with our future? Especially since the income for the “for profit” insurance sales activities appears to outweigh the non-profit foundation side. Perhaps it is time to remove and replace the leadership of the non-profit side to eliminate any appearance of a major “big dollars” conflict of interest?

-- steve