Government begins first step in pension confiscation and denying retirees their earned benefits

One of the best open secrets in working for a public entity during one’s career is the ability to double dip on retirement and pensions plans.  For example, if someone joins the military at age 18 and stays in for 20 years, they are guaranteed a percentage of the average of their highest three year pay period.  Then, as the ‘retiree’ would only be 38 years old, if they were hired into a civil service position, or even as a U.S. Postal worker, they would be eligible for a second pension if they retired after another 20+ years with that organization.

But in the private sector it appears now that workers will not be given the same accommodation as a hidden rider placed within the most recent budget bill by Congress will allow the government to take or confiscate up to 60% of a workers earned retirement if they fall under the parameters of a multi-employee union.

A provision included in the $1.1 trillion spending bill that passed in the final days of the last Congress creates the possibility that certain current and future retirees could have their pension payments reduced by 60% — a prospect that experts say has been virtually unheard of until now.

“I think that this kind of takes an important step back from what has always been just a bedrock principle that you can’t cut back on benefits that have already been earned,” said Gregg Dooge, an attorney at Foley & Lardner in Milwaukee who has practiced pension law for 30 years.

The provision applies only to multiemployer union pension plans — those that cover more than one company’s workers — that face a high likelihood of running out of money within the next 20 years.

Multiemployer plans were developed as part of collective bargaining agreements and typically apply to union workers in professions such as trucking, food retailing, construction and mining, among others. There are about 1,400 such pension plans, covering about 10 million people. – JS Online

With the Federal government’s budget deficit continuing to remain over a trillion per year, and the national debt well over $18 trillion, Congress is desperate to find more revenue to pay for mandates that take up more than half of the nation’s budget every year.  In addition to this, tax revenues since the credit crisis of 2008 have not recovered since most jobs created over the past six years have been part time, and near minimum wage, with interest due on the nation’s debt climbing with each new appropriations bill.

OBAMA-I-WANT-YOUR-RETIREMENT-ACCOUNT

A few years ago, the former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi tried to push through a bill that would confiscate all retirement plans under the guise of ‘protecting’ the public from the risks of Wall Street and economic recessions.  But the real reason is the same one used by Congress when they looted the Social Security trust fund over the past 30 years… to spend your dedicated retirement for their own programs and crony largesse.  And as we rush towards a new financial collapse, where liquidity problems are pushing governments to pass laws making it almost illegal to hold cash, to believe that the government doesn’t want all of your money is to fail to realize that they have done these forms of confiscations many times before in our past.

Kenneth Schortgen Jr is a writer for Secretsofthefed.comExaminer.com, Roguemoney.net, and To the Death Media, and hosts the popular web blog, The Daily Economist. Ken can also be heard Wednesday afternoons giving an weekly economic report on the Angel Clark radio show.

HERE IS A LIST OF EVERY SINGLE TIME OBAMA COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE THAT DEMS & MEDIA COVERED UP “Impeach!” It’s been more than eight years since Democrats uttered that word – long enough for anyone to wonder if it was still in their vocabulary, considering the deafening silence through the dozens of serious scandals during President Obama’s administration – but now that President Trump is the man in the White House, it’s back with a vengeance. Democrats everywhere are wildly slinging the “I” word, hoping to nail Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors after the New York Times claimed a memo written by former FBI Director James Comey said the president urged him to end the federal investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn. Some members of Congress are getting in on the action. They include Reps. Maxine Water, D-Calif., and Al Green, D-Texas. Even a Republican, Rep. Justin Amash, claimed Wednesday there are grounds to impeach President Trump. House Oversign Committee Chair Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, asked for the alleged Comey memo and other documents. Chaffetz tweeted that he is prepared to subpoena the information. And Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., invoked “Watergate.” Now the Democratic Party is reportedly poll testing impeachment as a 2018 election issue. More than 1 million people signed a petition calling on Congress to impeach Trump. Wasting no time Wednesday, the mainstream media sprang into action, enthusiastically echoing the left’s impeachment calls. MSNBC launched a Watergate ad implying Trump is America’s new Richard Nixon. “Watergate. We know its name because there were reporters who never stopped asking questions,” says MSNBC host Chris Hayes, who hinted that Trump is next on the impeachment chopping block. “Now, who knows where the questions will take us. But I know this: I’m not going to stop asking them.” Meanwhile, some overzealous members of the left plastered fliers around Washington, D.C., demanding all White House staffers resign Wednesday. The posters read: “If you work for this White House you are complicit in hate-mongering, lies, corrupt taking of Americans’ tax money via self-dealing and emoluments, and quite possibly federal crimes and treason. Also, any wars will be on your soul. … Resign now.” But constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley, who voted for President Obama, warned “impeachment” enthusiasts not to get ahead of themselves with President Trump. Why? At this time, there’s no evidence Trump actually committed a crime. “The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo,” Turley wrote in a May 17 opinion piece posted at the Hill. Turley explained: For the first time, the Comey memo pushes the litany of controversies surrounding Trump into the scope of the United States criminal code. However, if this is food for obstruction of justice, it is still an awfully thin soup. Some commentators seem to be alleging criminal conduct in office or calling for impeachment before Trump completed the words of his inaugural oath of office. Not surprising, within minutes of the New York Times report, the response was a chorus of breathless “gotcha” announcements. But this memo is neither the Pentagon Papers nor the Watergate tapes. Indeed, it raises as many questions for Comey as it does Trump in terms of the alleged underlying conduct. A good place to start would be with the federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. 1503. The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo. There are dozens of different variations of obstruction charges ranging from threatening witnesses to influencing jurors. None would fit this case. That leaves the omnibus provision on attempts to interfere with the “due administration of justice.” However, that still leaves the need to show that the effort was to influence “corruptly” when Trump could say that he did little but express concern for a longtime associate. The term “corruptly” is actually defined differently under the various obstruction provisions, but it often involves a showing that someone acted “with the intent to secure an unlawful benefit for oneself or another.” Encouraging leniency or advocating for an associate is improper but not necessarily seeking an unlawful benefit for him. . Obama’s Iran nuke deal Obama knew about Hillary’s private email server Obama IRS targets conservatives Obama’s DOJ spies on AP reporters Obamacare & Obama’s false promises Illegal-alien amnesty by executive order Benghazi-gate Operation Fast & Furious 5 Taliban leaders for Bergdahl Extortion 17 ‘Recess ‘ appointments – when Senate was in session Appointment of ‘czars’ without Senate approval Suing Arizona for enforcing federal law Refusal to defend Defense of Marriage Act Illegally conducting war against Libya NSA: Spying on Americans Muslim Brotherhood ties Miriam Carey Birth certificate Executive orders Solyndra and the lost $535 million Egypt Cap & Trade: When in doubt, bypass Congress Refusal to prosecute New Black Panthers Obama’s U.S. citizen ‘hit list’