Military Personnel Financial Services Protection Act (H.R. 458), passed

[rainvet]

House Bill Protects Military Families, Targets Scam Artists

By Chad Groening
August 2, 2005

(AgapePress) - A member of the House Commerce Committee says the families of military personnel serving overseas would no longer fall victim to financial scam artists, thanks to a bill overwhelmingly passed by the House of Representatives.

The bill, called the Military Personnel Financial Services Protection Act (H.R. 458), passed the House by a whopping 405-2 vote. The measure is designed to "prevent the sale of abusive insurance and investment products to military personnel," says the bill, which was sponsored by Republican Congressman Geoff Davis of Kentucky.

One of the co-sponsors of the legislation was Davis's fellow Republican, Chip Pickering of Mississippi. According to Pickering, the Military Personnel Financial Services Protection Act will target lending companies that sell unnecessary financial products and use predatory tactics on their victims.

"While our men and women are overseas -- many times leaving family behind to try to maintain not only the household but all the financial responsibilities -- we do not need scam artists and others who would try to take advantage of our military families while husbands and wives are overseas," he says.

Pickering says it is unfortunate that there are disreputable individuals who prey on the families of service personnel who must cope with the absence of a spouse or parent.

"You see scam artists who will prey on those families that may be under stress or duress. It just creates a situation that people, unfortunately, can be taken advantage of," the congressman explains. "[W]e want to make sure that the protections are in place and the punishment is there if anyone tries to do that."

Among other things, the bill targets payday lending companies that target military families with high-interest loans, and it prevents those lenders from contacting anyone in the borrower's chain of command in an attempt to collect on a loan.

The bill is now before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs in the U.S. Senate.



When Will Our Leaders Do What's Right for America?

By James L. Lambert
August 2, 2005
(AgapePress) - Several months ago I visited a Toys"R"Us store in Oceanside, California. My wife and I promised our child a toy, and the popular destination was this high-profile toy store. I was amazed to find the toys were almost exclusively made in China. It simply overwhelmed me. It was difficult to find a toy on the shelf that had not been made in mainland China.
This whole episode annoyed me because I realized that when Americans agree to trade agreements with other countries, we seem to always receive the short end of the stick. It wasn't that long ago that Americans were told that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was good for America. At that time our country had a relatively small but positive trade surplus with Mexico. Not anymore! After NAFTA, we now have a huge trade deficit with our neighbor to the south.
This week, with the president's arm twisting, the House of Representatives passed "CAFTA" -- yet another free trade agreement, this time with Central America. I wonder if our leaders really thought this one through. I am beginning to think that our leader's decisions really do not take into consideration what's good for America.
Do Congress and our president think more of striking deals that help some special-interest group or corporation, or are they really looking out for us? I am beginning to think that our leaders are too caught up in the politics of an important decision, like the above, to the point they ignore what is genuinely is in the best interests of the country.
It seems they are not concerned by some very basic economic, social, cultural, and structural problems that are occurring in America. Perhaps common sense is being thrown out the window because overriding factors have too much influence with our leaders. Things like retaining (or obtaining) political power, the influence of lobbyists, and money are taking precedence in our leader's decisions, instead of doing what is best for our country.
Here are some issues and specific examples that I believe are cause for concern:
A huge $7+ trillion federal deficit. (Please refer to the "National Deficit Clock" that appears on Kansas Senator Brownback's website.) Just to regularly service this growing expense, without even paying down the principal, we are now paying hundreds of billions of this country's annual federal budget.
Our leader's lack of resolve in protecting the American workforce is creating a much weaker American middle class which has been traditionally the strength of the American economy. (NAFTA has been a disaster to the American worker.)
Saudi Arabia has been a large supplier of American oil. Yet this same country is the home of the Wahabee sect of Islam, which spawned most of the 9/11 terrorists. Instead of focusing on creating more domestic oil and demanding better fuel efficiency from our automakers, our leaders fail to address this problem head on.
The traditional American family has long been viewed as the stabilizing factor in our culture. Yet our leaders in the U.S. Senate cannot even muster a 51 percent vote (though a 2/3 majority is required) for an amendment supporting traditional marriage between one man and one woman.
Corporate leaders continue to put profits ahead of common sense, placing voluntary limitations of distribution of pornography within their own companies (Cox Communications, Time-Warner Cable, Hilton Hotels, Marriott Hotels, Barnes & Noble Bookstores, most major satellite TV companies, most video/DVD distributors, to name a few).
Corporate executives from Hollywood and record companies care more about profits and "artistic freedom" than some of the negative influences they have on today's youth.
Protecting our borders are no longer a priority for many of our national leaders. They are more worried about political correctness than addressing illegal immigration head on. Our borders must be protected and our leaders need to do what is right for America -- not what is right for Mexico or any other country.
The vast majority of the major media outlets (NY Times, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Newsweek, Time, LA Times, Boston Globe, Philadelphia Inquirer, SF Chronicle, Seattle Times, etc.) will never address the following issues objectively: religion, gay issues, illegal immigration, abortion, the war on terror, the need for morality in our society and culture, etc.. The leaders of the corporate media refuse to get involved. Fairness and objectivity in reporting the news is not a priority to them.
Our leaders should be concerned about the selling out of America. The recent debate over UNOCAL is a prime example. Common sense dictates that American companies should not be sold to a potential American military threat abroad.
Our leaders should recognize the tremendous cost of gambling to society. The government's own commission that studied the problem (during the Clinton years) confirms this fact. Yet our leaders lack resolve to seriously limit the gaming industry.
Corruption of all types -- political, economic, and otherwise -- should be vigorously prosecuted. Our leaders from all persuasions should put an emphasis on this and think of America first. While some progress has been made in this area, corporate and political leaders need to be put on notice that corruption will not be tolerated.
Obviously, we Americans must be vigilant in protecting our freedoms and be willing to stand up to leaders who do not lead. Today, more than ever, we need leaders who will take courageous stands and who are unafraid to oppose those who clearly do not look out for what is good for America.

Congressional Pensions


Claim: Members of Congress receive lavish pensions but are not required to contribute to the Social Security fund.

Status: False.

Examples:

[Collected on the Internet, 2003]

2004 Election Issue !!

GET A BILL STARTED TO PLACE ALL POLITICIANS ON SOC. SEC.
This must be an issue in "2004." Please! Keep it going.

SOCIAL SECURITY:

(This is worth reading. It is short and to the point.)

Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years.

Our Senators and Congresswomen do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it.

You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their rare elevation in society. They felt they should have a special plan for themselves. So, many years ago they voted in their own benefit plan.

In more recent years, no congressperson has felt the need to change it. After all, it is a great plan. For all practical purposes their plan works like this:

When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die. Except it may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments. For example, former Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may expect to draw $7,800,000.00 (that's Seven Million, Eight-Hundred Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing $275,000.00 during the last years of their lives.

This is calculated on an average life span for each of those two Dignitaries. Younger Dignitaries who retire at an early age, will receive much more during the rest of their lives. Their cost for this excellent plan is $0.00. NADA....ZILCH....

This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I pick up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Funds;

"OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK"!

From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid) into, — every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our employer) — we can expect to get an average of $1,000 per month after retirement.

Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000 monthly benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equal Senator Bill Bradley's benefits!

Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made.

That change would be to jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us ... then sit back and watch how fast they would fix it.

If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe good changes will evolve.

How many people can YOU send this to?

Keep this going clear up thru the 2004 election!! We need to be heard


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Collected on the Internet, 2002]

Hillary for President- NOT!

Just yesterday I saw her on the senate floor speaking against the high salaries of company CEO's.....

Hillary Rodham Clinton, as a New York State Senator, now comes under this fancy "Congressional Retirement and Staffing Plan," which means that even if she never gets reelected, she STILL receives her Congressional salary until she dies.

If Bill outlives her, he then inherits HER salary until HE dies. He is already getting his Presidential salary until he dies. If Hillary outlives Bill, she also gets HIS salary until she dies. Guess who pays for that? WE DO!

It's common knowledge that in order for her to establish NY residency, they purchased a million dollar-plus house in upscale Chappaqua, New York.

Makes sense. They are entitled to Secret Service protection for life. Still makes sense.

Here is where it becomes interesting. Their mortgage payments hover at around $10,000 per month. BUT, an extra residence HAD to be built within the acreage to house the Secret Service agents.

The Clintons charge the Federal government $10,000 monthly rent for the use of that extra residence, which is just about equal to their mortgage payment. This means that we, the taxpayers, are paying the Clinton's salary, mortgage, transportation, safety and security, as well as the salaries for their 12 man staff - and this is all perfectly legal!

When she runs for President, will you vote for her?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Collected on the Internet, 2000]

Something to think about. So that those who don't know, may.

Our Senators and Congressmen don't pay in to Social Security, and, of course, they don't collect from it.

The reason is that they have a special retirement plan that they voted for themselves many years ago. For all practical purposes, it works like this:

When they retire, they continue to draw their same pay, until they die, except that it may be increased from time to time, by cost of living adjustments.

For instance, former Senator Bradley, and his wife, may be expected to draw $7,900,000, with Mrs. Bradley drawing $275,000 during the last year of her life. This is calculated on an average life span for each.

This would be well and good, except that they paid nothing in on any kind of retirement, and neither does any other Senator or Congressman.

This fine retirement comes right out of the General Fund: our tax money. While we who pay for it all, draw an average of $1000/month from Social Security.

Imagine for a moment that you could structure a retirement plan so desirable that people would have extra pay deducted so that they could increase their own personal retirement income. A retirement plan that works so well, that Railroad employees, Postal Workers, and others who aren't in it, would clamor to get in.

That is how good Social Security could be, if only one small change were made. That change is to jerk the Golden Fleece retirement out from under the Senators and Congressmen, and put them in Social Security with the rest of us. Then watch how fast they fix it.

If enough people receive this, maybe one or some of them along the way, might be able to help.

How many can YOU send it to?

Nothing is worth more than this day

Variations: In May 2001 someone combined the "Congressmen don't pay into Social Security" alerts with an existing screed about the Clintons charging the Secret Service rent by adding the following to the e-mail quoted above:
Don't forget, our girl, Hillary Rodham Clinton, thanks to the infinite wisdom of New York State voters, now comes under this Congressional Retirement Plan.

Talking about the Clinton's, it's common knowledge that, in order for her to establish NYS residency, they purchased a million + house in upscale Chappaqua, NY. Makes sense. Now, they are entitled to Secret Service protection for life. Still makes sense.

Here is where it becomes interesting!! A residency had to be built in order to house the Secret Service agents. The Clinton's now charge the Secret Service rent for the use of said residence and that rent is just about equal to their mortgage payment, meaning that we, the tax payers, are paying the Clinton's mortgage and it's all perfectly legal.

You gotta luv it. Is Everybody Happy?????????
A debunking of that addition can be found on our Landlord of Misrule page.

Origins: This piece has been circulating on the Internet since April 2000. So much of it is outdated, inaccurate, or misleading, it's difficult to know where to begin.
It is not true that Congressmen do not pay into the Social Security fund. Since 1984 they have paid into the fund just as most everyone else does. (A few odd exceptions to the Social Security program still exist, both inside and outside of government, but not for members of Congress.)

It was true prior to 1984 that Congressmen did not pay into the Social Security fund because they participated in a separate program for civil servants (the Civil Service Retirement System, or CSRS), but that program was closed to government employees hired after 1983:
In 1983, Public Law 98-21 required Social Security coverage for federal civilian employees first hired after 1983 and closed the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) to new federal employees and Members of Congress. All incumbent Members of Congress were required to be covered by Social Security, regardless of when they entered Congress. Members who had participated in CSRS before 1984 could elect to stay in that plan in addition to being covered by Social Security or elect coverage under an 'offset plan' that integrates CSRS and Social Security. Under the CSRS Offset Plan, an individual's contributions to CSRS and their pension benefits from that plan are reduced ('offset') by the amount of their contributions to, and benefits from, Social Security.

It is not true that Congressmen "continue to draw their same pay, until they die." The size of their pensions is determined by a number of factors (primarily length of service, but also factors such as when they joined Congress, their age at retirement, their salary, and the pension options they chose when they enrolled in the retirement system) and by law cannot exceed 80% of their salary at the time of their retirement.

It is not true that Congressmen "paid nothing in on any kind of retirement," and that their pension money "comes right out of the General Fund." Whether members of Congress participate in the older Civil Service Retirement System or the newer Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS), their pensions are funded through a combination of general tax provisions and contributions from the participants. Right now, members of Congress in the FERS plan must pay 1.3% of their salary to FERS and 6.2% in Social Security taxes.
It is true that, if current pension levels and cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) for Congress members continue to apply in the future, some former members of Congress could conceivably collect millions of dollars in annuities over the course of their lifetimes. However, the huge dollar amounts bandied about in e-mails like the ones quoted above are based upon extreme cases: those of politicians who entered Congress at a relatively early age, served for several decades, and retired while still young enough to potentially live for another several decades. These cases are the rare exceptions, based upon the hypothetical assumption that a few long-serving members of Congress who retired while in their mid-50s will live well past the age of 80. (Even the person who collects a modest salary/pension of $40,000 per year stands to take in a million dollars over the course of 25 years.)

As of 1998, the average annuity for retired members of Congress was $50,616 for those who retired under CSRS and $46,908 for those who retired under FERS. Those figures are quite good (about 2-3 times better than the pension collected by the average worker), but not quite the highway robbery these e-mails make them out to be.

Additional information: Congressional Pensions
(C-SPAN)
Retirement Benefits for Members of Congress
(United States Senate)
Do Members of Congress Pay Social Security Taxes?
(National Taxpayers' Union)
Last updated: 21 February 2005


http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/pensions.asp