December 31, 2014

Totalitarian Governments Don't Want Citizens to Have Gun Rights As Protection Against Tyranny

A Second Amendment right to gun ownership is a constitutional right to bear arms as a defense against tyranny.
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

70 Million People Were Rounded Up and Killed in the 20th Century Because of Gun Control

Before we passively allow the feds to strip away our last line of defense from an increasingly totalitarian government by acquiescing to the United Nations and American advocates for gun control, perhaps we should examine the end game resulting from past gun control efforts.

The following is a little history lesson regarding gun-grabbing and the carnage that ensued.

1. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

2. In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated (Stalin ruled from April 3, 1922 - October 16, 1952).

3. Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

4. China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

5. Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

6. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

7. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

8. In 1994, Rwanda disarmed the Tutsi people. Being unable to defend themselves from their totalitarian government, nearly one million were summarily executed.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th century because of gun control: 70 million. The historical voices from 70 million corpses speak loudly and clearly to those Americans who are advocating for a de facto gun ban. Governments murdered four times as many civilians as were killed in all the international and domestic wars combined. Governments murdered millions more people than were killed by common criminals and it all followed gun control.

No matter how we might personally feel about the gun control issue, we should realize that every dictatorship ever in world history moved to remove guns and other weapons from the people!

Related:

Will the U.S. Military Fire Upon U.S. Citizens? 
Round Up of Americans Under Martial Law
Military Detention Bill

December 27, 2014

Flashback: Germany Issues RFID National ID Cards to Its Citizens

Germany Gets Set to Issue RFID ID Cards and Readers to Its Citizens

The government hopes its new national ID cards will foster Internet-based commerce, by enabling citizens to use the cards and readers at home to carry out online transactions without putting their personal or financial data at risk.

October 6, 2010

RFID Journal - In an ambitious project designed to provide citizens with a more secure form of identification, as well as a secure method for conducting business via the Internet, Germany will begin issuing RFID-based national identity cards on Nov. 1, 2010.

With the rollout of the new ID cards, Germany will become the first country to outfit its national ID cards with the same technological features of a passport—such as biometric photos, RFID chips and optional digital fingerprints—according to Andreas Reisen, who heads the division of the German Ministry of the Interior responsible for introducing the cards.

Germany's new RFID-based national identity cards contain a passive 13.56 MHz SmartMX chip from NXP Semiconductors.

The RFID-based card, approximately the size of a credit card, will replace the nation's current national ID card, which is slightly larger than a credit card and lacks an RFID chip. It will be mandatory for all citizens receiving an ID card for the first time, or who are replacing older ID cards. Those who do not need to renew or replace their ID cards will continue to be able to use their non-RFID version until their cards expire—typically, within 10 years. Beginning in May 2011, foreigners living in Germany will have the opportunity to use similar cards, in the form of an electronic version of their residency permits.

In 2008, the German government passed a law paving the way for the new ID cards. One motivation for issuing the cards was to help reduce the misuse of personal data over the Internet. Many Germans are still reluctant to make online purchases, due to worries that their personal data or financial information could be misused.

By installing an RFID card reader on their home computer, citizens can use the card to positively identify themselves online, via a USB connection. This enables vendors and online organizations to know for certain whom they are dealing with. If a business wants to offer residents of a particular city a discount on a product or service, for instance, that company can verify an individual's address on his or her ID card.

As part of the project, each citizen will be able to download free software developed for the national ID cards, starting on Nov. 1. The software, formerly known as Buerger Client, is now called AusweisApp (which, translated to English, means ID App). AusweisApp was developed by OpenLimit on behalf of the Federal Office for Information Security (Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik, or BSI). According to Reisen, the software will allow citizens to identify themselves using their ID card at their PC, as well as execute an electronic signature, if they opt to have their electronic signature stored in the card's memory. If a citizen wants to employ the signature function, he or she must first obtain a signature certificate from an authorized certification-service provider (a list of such companies is available on the Web site of the Federal Network Agency for Electricity, Gas, Telecommunications, Post and Railway).

Before carrying out a transaction online, an ID cardholder must place his or her card on the RFID reader and input a PIN in order to authorize the transmission of specific data stored on that card. At the same time, only those organizations that have obtained a certificate from the government will be able to collect the information from the electronic ID cards, such as a person's name, address and birth date. This offers a cardholder the security of knowing he or she is dealing with a legitimate organization, and can speed and ease the process of registering for an account online, conducting online banking or filling out forms.
"Germans place high value on data self-determination," Reisen says. "This project is mainly about data security, and we involved citizens in developing the concept from the beginning."
Some citizens have rallied against the cards, claiming that anyone with an RFID reader could collect the data stored on them at any given time—but the government has been able to quell such fears by pointing out that only certified organizations can request such information and by citing proprietary security controls. If a person loses his card, he can call a government hotline and have the card blocked from network use. Officials will then list the card as blocked on a central server accessible to licensed participants—which will be required to update their own lists of blocked cards by retrieving the official government list. If a thief attempts to conduct a transaction using a blocked card, that transaction will be denied because the card will not be authenticated. What's more, a person can choose to have the RFID tag deactivated upon the card's issue.

Aaron Russo 2007 Interview - RFID Human Implant Chip


The ID cards were tested by the Technical University of Darmstadt, together with the Fraunhofer Institute for Information Security. Students utilized the cards to identify themselves for e-services offered by the school, such as downloading e-books, checking grades online or submitting homework. The card's designers hope citizens will use their own cards much in the same way for commercial services conducted via the Internet, or for certain government services, such as submitting tax returns. During the next 10 years, the German government expects to issue some 60 million ID cards.

Reisen declines to reveal how much the government is investing in the cards' production. He does indicate, however, that all development and production costs will be covered by the €28.80 ($40) fee each citizen will pay to receive the ID card; €22.70 ($32) of that amount will be forwarded to Bundesdruckerei, the private company producing the cards.

In addition, the government will distribute roughly 1.2 million ID card readers, with which citizens can positively identify themselves online. Citizens will not have to pay for these devices; instead, they will be made available for free, and paid for from €24 million ($33 million) provided to the government's ID division, as part of the country's economic stimulus package.
These devices, called "basic" readers, can be used only for reading the ID cards. Officially approved companies will distribute the free devices as part of their marketing efforts—that is, a move by these businesses to get citizens to use their online services via the new USB readers and ID cards. "Basic" readers not allotted for free distribution by an officially approved firm will be available for purchase at electronics stores, as well as other retail establishments.

Through an open tender, the government selected the following organizations to distribute the reader infrastructure, starting on Nov. 1, as part of promotional or commercial activities: CHIP Communications, Cosmos Lebensversicherungs, Deutscher Genossenschafts-Verlag, Impuls Systems, KKH-Allianz, Multicard, SCM Microsystems and T-Systems International. Reiner SCT Kartengeräte GmbH & Co. KG and SCM Microsystems will produce many of the interrogators used, but any company can do so if they comply with the technical guidelines (TR-03119) published by the Federal Office for Information Security.

In addition, the German government will distribute another 230,000 so-called "comfort" readers that can be used for signature applications—programs allowing individuals to provide authenticated digital signatures. These readers will be available at government-subsidized prices, in order to increase data security on the Internet, and to make sure the devices are available to a wide number of citizens.
"The idea of the stimulus package was to boost the economy by creating new infrastructure," Reisen says. "That's exactly what we're doing here, by subsidizing these RFID readers."
Each ID card will contain a SmartMX passive 13.56 MHz RFID chip manufactured by NXP Semiconductors. NXP reports that its SmartMX chip platform incorporates a number of unique security features to guard against reverse-engineering and attack scenarios with light and lasers, as well as a dedicated hardware firewall to protect specific sections on the chip. According to NXP, the version of the SmartMX chip being used was designed specifically for Germany's ID card, and is 100 percent compatible with the ISO 14443-A RFID standard.
Reisen says Germany is a technology leader with its electronic passports, and hopes to set technological and data-security standards with the new ID cards.
"I have many contacts in other countries who are looking closely at what we're doing," he states. "They'll surely adapt the concept for themselves after our launch."
According to press reports, France, Poland and Holland are also planning to introduce new national ID cards in the coming years. 

Proof RFID Microchip Is In Obama Health Care  

Israel Approves 243 New Settler Homes in East Jerusalem

Israel approves 243 new settler homes in East Jerusalem


December 25, 2014

Reuters - Israel has given preliminary approval for the construction of 243 new homes on West Bank land that Israel annexed to Jerusalem, and advanced plans for another 270 homes in the same area, officials said on Thursday.

Such moves run counter to calls by the United States and other world powers for Israel to freeze construction of new settler homes.

The land in question was captured by Israel in a 1967 war and annexed to Jerusalem in a move never recognized internationally. Palestinians, who seek statehood in Israeli-occupied territory, want it as part of a future state.

Jerusalem's municipal planning committee authorized 243 new housing units in Ramot, a municipal spokeswoman said. It also approved changes to pre-existing plans for 270 homes there and in Har Homa. Israel describes both settlements as Jerusalem "neighborhoods".

The Palestinians want to establish a state in East Jerusalem, the occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip, territories captured by Israel in the 1967 Middle East War. They fear Israeli enclaves will deny them contiguous territory.

Citing biblical links, Israel says Jews have a right to live anywhere in Jerusalem including the eastern sector which it has annexed as part of its "indivisible" capital.

U.S.-brokered peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians broke down in April.

Most world powers deem Israel's settlements illegal and settlement activities have drawn criticism from the European Union and from the United States, which like most countries views settlements as illegal.


December 23, 2014

Financial Elite Scamming the People Out of Their Hard-earned Wages by Charging High Fees for Pension Plans and 401(k) Accounts

Politicians support generous compensation packages for public sector employees to pander for their votes but also to further enrich the fat cat bankers. The pension pot grows with every public sector wage increase (and with every new employee added to the public payroll). It is all based on percentages, so the higher the wages (and the more people on the public payroll), the more money for Wall Street. In other words, if the hedge fund or private equity fund charges 10 percent to manage a public pension fund, it makes more money if the fund is $500 million versus $100 million. So government cronies keep increasing pubic sector wages beyond what their counterparts in the private sector make, all while forcing the taxpayers to fund the majority of their pensions. The fat cats are getting even fatter off the backs of the working man in the private sector, whose standard of living is declining because he is the one making all the sacrifices.

Federal workers get a 401k-style plan, but they also get an old-fashioned defined-benefit pension plan with inflation protection. They also get health care benefits when they retire above and beyond Medicare. You just don't see that kind of stuff in the private sector anymore, and I think the federal work force ought to reflect the private work force. It shouldn't be an elite island separated from the rest of us.

For example, a federal employee contributes only 0.8 percent of their pay toward the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS), while taxpayers put in 4.8 percent per employee (this is exclusive of the 6.2 percent Social Security tax paid by each federal employee, which is matched by taxpayers). FERS is a three-part retirement system consisting of Social Security coverage, a defined-benefit pension, and the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), which is similar to 401(k)s offered to employees in the private sector. All federal employees under FERS automatically are enrolled in TSP. Even for those federal employees who elect not to contribute toward TSP, taxpayers are forced to contribute one percent of the employee's basic pay to TSP. For federal employees who elect to participates in TSP, taxpayers match their contributions on the first 5% of pay (the first 3% of pay is matched dollar-for-dollar; the next 2% is matched at 50 cents on the dollar; contributions above 5% are not matched). That is a boatload of money for Wall Street to profit on by charging management fees based on a percentage of fund total.

Some states have moved to, or are considering moving to, a 401(k)-style retirement plan for the public pension systems, along with other reforms for public sector employees. For example, Oklahoma's governor in 2011 signed a pension reform law, signaling the beginning of the end of years of piled-up pension responsibilities due in no small part to governmental inaction. The Oklahoma reforms include increasing the retirement age for many of those in the systems and forbidding lawmakers from offering cost-of-living increases without identifying a funding source. Also in 2011, Wisconsin's governor signed a pension reform law, ending collective bargaining for most public employees and requiring most state and local government employees to pay a larger share of the cost of their pension and health benefits, which is typical for workers in the private sector. For years in the Wisconsin system, state and local taxpayers paid not only the employer share of public pension contributions but, primarily due to collective bargaining, paid essentially all of the public employee contributions. The new Wisconsin law requires that for most public employees, pension contributions be split equally between employees and taxpayers (the pension costs didn't disappear; rather, they were transferred from taxpayers as a whole to the public employees paying their fair share).

Policymakers must remain vigilant in not rolling back the reforms and letting the pensions again become victims of shifting political winds. Oklahoma's governor said he'll recommend more changes in the future to modernize the pension systems, but that effort absolutely depends on future legislatures showing the same sort of leadership as this one.

PhillyDeals: Public pension plans pay hedge-fund fees with little gain

October 6, 2014

Philly.com - Struggling to raise cash for future pensions without bigger taxpayer bailouts, state workers' and teachers' retirement plans in the last dozen years or so have sought higher returns by betting on "alternative" investments not traded on public markets: hedge funds, real estate, private equity.

Hedge-fund managers have collected billions in fees, but their returns have mostly trailed stocks in recent years. The largest U.S. pension plan, the California Public Employees Retirement System, plans to dump its $4 billion hedge-fund portfolio, citing "complexity, cost," and the difficulty of buying enough good ones.

Hedge funds were supposed to make money even when stocks didn't, but they lost money when stocks went down in 2008.

Nicholas Maiale, who chaired the Pennsylvania State Employees' Retirement System (SERS) when it started buying hedge funds in 2002, says he has "soured" on the class. (Maiale feels better about private-equity funds, whose values rose with stocks in the recent bull market.)

It is tough for civilians to track what the state is getting from these high-fee investments. Unlike with stock and bond managers, pension plans don't post each alternative manager's yearly performance. Aggregate results for alternative-asset portfolios include managers' estimates of what their investments might be worth some day.

It's also hard to track the fees that managers collect, says Pennsylvania Auditor General Eugene DePasquale, who wants SERS and the Public School Employees' Retirement System (PSERS) to disclose more about their $7 billion in hedge funds.
"This is public money. This needs to be transparent," DePasquale told me. "It is very difficult to find out, through their own reporting, what the actual fee structures are."

"There is no uniform reporting" for state pension assets, Evelyn Williams, spokeswoman for PSERS, told me. "It is nearly impossible to compare the value of fees paid among various pension funds."
SERS, for example, signed an agreement with the hedge-fund manager Tiger Keystone Partners to prevent "the economic terms of this Agreement and any sensitive investment or financial information from public disclosure," when it invested $250 million in Tiger in 2012.

In its annual "Investment Program Expenses & Fees" report to state legislators, SERS does not list any fees paid to Tiger, even though a consultant report, circulated to the pension's board members but not published, lists "management fees" totaling $5.5 million and "incentive fees" totaling $5.7 million as paid to Tiger in 2012 and 2013. SERS staff declined comment on the consultant report.

PSERS reports some but not all the fees its alternative managers collect. Private-equity and hedge-fund managers are typically paid annual management fees of up to 2 percent of the money they invest, plus 20 percent of the investment's profits above a basic target. Fund managers call that 20 percent they collect "carried interest," and cherish it, since the government taxes it as capital gains, at lower rates than other income.

Hedge-fund managers typically collect carried interest each year. PSERS reports their carried interest along with management fees. But private-equity managers tend to let carried interest mount until their funds are liquidated years later; PSERS doesn't report what those managers collect.

New Jersey, similarly, does "not include carried interest earned by private equity and real estate managers," in reporting pension manager fees, state Treasury spokesman Christopher Santarelli told me.

Why should citizens care if pro investors get rich, as long as the pension plan does all right?

Americans have long worried that people who make fortunes from public contracts may influence how government does business. Congress in 2010 banned money managers from collecting fees from states and towns where they donated cash to politicians. The ban doesn't apply to donations to national political committees or candidates for Congress. Indeed, so many money managers give to national campaigns that "it would basically shut down the alternative portfolio if we were to go in that direction," Christopher McDonough, director of the New Jersey Division of Investment, told a state investment council meeting in September, according to my Inquirer colleague Andrew Seidman.

At the very least, we should know what we're paying them.

High Fees Eroding Many 401(k) Retirement Accounts

High fees eroding many 401(k) retirement accounts

April 13, 2014

AP - And now a new study finds that the typical 401(k) fees — adding up to a modest-sounding 1 percent a year — would erase $70,000 from an average worker's account over a four-decade career compared with lower-cost options. To compensate for the higher fees, someone would have to work an extra three years before retiring.

The study comes from the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. Its analysis, backed by industry and government data, suggests that U.S. workers, already struggling to save enough for retirement, are being further held back by fund costs.
"The corrosive effect of high fees in many of these retirement accounts forces many Americans to work years longer than necessary or than planned," the report, being released Friday, concludes.
Most savers have only a vague idea how much they're paying in 401(k) fees or what alternatives exist, though the information is provided in often dense and complex fund statements. High fees seldom lead to high returns. And critics say they hurt ordinary investors — much more so than, say, Wall Street's high-speed trading systems, which benefit pros and have increasingly drawn the eye of regulators.

Consider what would happen to a 25-year-old worker, earning the U.S. median income of $30,500, who puts 5 percent of his or her pay in a 401(k) account and whose employer chips in another 5 percent:
— If the plan charged 0.25 percent in annual fees, a widely available low-cost option, and the investment return averaged 6.8 percent a year, the account would equal $476,745 when the worker turned 67 (the age he or she could retire with full Social Security benefits).

— If the plan charged the typical 1 percent, the account would reach only $405,454 — a $71,000 shortfall.

— If the plan charged 1.3 percent — common for 401 (k) plans at small companies — the account would reach $380,649, a $96,000 shortfall. The worker would have to work four more years to make up the gap.
(The analysis assumes the worker's pay rises 3.6 percent a year.)
The higher fees often accompany funds that try to beat market indexes by actively buying and selling securities. Index funds, which track benchmarks such as the Standard & Poor's 500, don't require active management and typically charge lower fees.

With stocks having hit record highs before being clobbered in recent days, many investors have been on edge over the market's ups and downs. But experts say timing the market is nearly impossible. By contrast, investors can increase their returns by limiting their funds' fees.

Most stock funds will match the performance of the entire market over time, so those with the lowest management costs will generate better returns, said Russel Kinnel, director of research for Morningstar.
"Fees are a crucial determinant of how well you do," Kinnel said.
The difference in costs can be dramatic.

Each fund discloses its "expense ratio." This is the cost of operating the fund as a percentage of its assets. It includes things like record-keeping and legal expenses.

For one of its stock index funds, Vanguard lists an expense ratio of 0.05 percent. State Farm lists it at 0.76 percent for a similar fund. The ratio jumps to 1.73 percent for a Nasdaq-based investment managed by ProFunds.
"ProFunds are not typical index mutual funds but are designed for tactical investors who frequently purchase and redeem shares," said ProFunds spokesman Tucker Hewes. "The higher-than-normal expense ratios of these non-typical funds reflect the additional cost and efforts necessary to manage and operate them."
Average fees also tend to vary based on the size of an employer's 401(k) plan. The total management costs for individual companies with plans with more than $1 billion in assets has averaged 0.35 percent a year, according to BrightScope, a firm that rates retirement plans. By contrast, corporate plans with less than $50 million in assets have total fees approaching 1 percent.

Higher management costs do far more to erode a typical American's long-term savings than does the high-speed trading highlighted in Michael Lewis' new book, "Flash Boys." Kinnel said computerized trades operating in milliseconds might cost a mutual fund 0.01 percent during the course of a year, a microscopic difference compared with yearly fees.
"Any effort to shine more light (on fees) and illustrating that impact is huge," Kinnel said. "Where we've fallen down most is not providing greater guidance for investors in selecting funds."
The Investment Company Institute, a trade group, said 401(k) fees for stock funds averaged 0.63 percent in 2012 (lower than the 1 percent average figure the Center for American Progress uses), down from 0.83 percent a decade earlier. The costs fell as more investors shifted into lower-cost index funds. They've also declined because funds that manage increasing sums of money have benefited from economies of scale.
"Information that helps people make decisions is useful," said Sean Collins, the institute's senior director of industry and financial analysis. "Generally, people pay attention to cost. That shows up as investors tend to choose — including in 401k funds — investments that are in lower than average cost funds."
But many savers ignore fees.

In a 2009 experiment, researchers at Yale and Harvard found that even well-educated savers "overwhelmingly fail to minimize fees. Instead, they placed heavy weight on irrelevant attributes such as funds' (historical) annualized returns."

The Labor Department announced plans last month to update a 2012 rule for companies to disclose the fees charged to their 401(k) plans. Fee disclosures resulting from the 2012 rule proved tedious and confusing, said Phyllis Borzi, assistant secretary for the Labor Department's Employee Benefits Security Administration.
"Some are filled with legalese, some have information that's split between multiple documents," Borzi said.
Americans hold $4.2 trillion in 401(k) plans, according to the Investment Company Institute. An additional $6.5 trillion is in Individual Retirement Accounts.

For years, companies have been dropping traditional pension plans, which paid a guaranteed income for life. Instead, most offer 401(k)-style plans, which require workers to choose specific funds and decide how much to contribute from their pay. Workers also bear the risk that their investments will earn too little to provide a comfortable retirement.

The shift from traditional pensions threatens the retirement security of millions of Americans. Many don't contribute enough or at all. Some drain their accounts by taking out loans and hardship withdrawals to meet costs. Sometimes their investments sour. And many pay far higher fees than they need to.

Of all those problems, fixing the fees is the easiest, Center for American Progress researchers Jennifer Erickson and David Madland say.

They are calling for a prominent label to identify how a plan's fees compare with low-cost options. That information, now found deep inside documents, shows the annual fees on investing $1,000 in a plan. Yet that figure, usually only a few dollars, doesn't reflect how the fees rise into tens of thousands of dollars as the account grows over decades. The researchers say the Labor Department could require more explicit disclosure without going through Congress.

Part of the blame goes to employers that offer workers high-fee plans.
"The good options are out there," said Alicia Munnell, director of the Boston College's Center for Retirement Research. "But when you introduce bad options into a plan, you attract people to them. There are a lot of people who think they should buy a little of everything, and that's diversification.

"I want the world to know that fees can really eat into your retirement savings."

The High Cost of 401(k) Fees: How Much Are You Paying?

May 2008

Kiplinger - Any way you figure it, Steve Jeffers is a formidable investor. For 18 years now, the Belpre, Ohio, plant manager has been diligently stashing money in the 401(k) plan of his employer, Kraton Polymers. Thanks in part to a generous match by Kraton, the 43-year-old Jeffers has amassed almost $400,000.

Yet Jeffers didn't have a clue what his 401(k) investments were costing him -- and neither, we wager, do you. A recent AARP study found that more than 80% of 401(k) plan participants were unaware of how much they were paying in fees associated with their company's retirement savings plan. And what you don't know, you can't change.

Mutual fund returns in 401(k) plans are normally reported as net returns, meaning that fees for managing your investments are subtracted from your gains or added to your losses before calculating the annual return. Other costs, such as administrative and record-keeping fees, are often divvied up among plan participants but are not explicitly listed on individual investment statements.

This lack of transparency is frustrating for investors like Jeffers. He has concentrated his investments in global stock and bond funds that have significantly outperformed Standard & Poor's 500-stock index in recent years. "I don't mind paying fees if the returns justify it," Jeffers says. "But it would be nice to know what I'm paying."

That's not an easy question to answer, even for an investment professional such as David Loeper. "It involves more than just looking at your statement," says Loeper, who heads an investment-consulting firm in Richmond, Va. "Under the expense column, my 401(k) statement said I was paying zero. But in reality, I was paying about $1,500 a year on an account balance of about $120,000, even though the bulk of my investments were in very low-cost index funds."

Once Loeper figured that out, he switched 401(k) providers for his small company of 25 employees to a less expensive vendor. He also wrote Stop the 401(k) Rip-off! (Bridgeway Books, $15.95; 401kripoff.com) to help people like Jeffers figure out how much they're paying, whether the fees are fair and what to do if they're not.

1. Add fund expenses charged to your 401(k)

These charges, which go to the companies that manage your plan investments, are typically the largest 401(k) fees you pay.

To estimate your direct investment expenses, look for the expense ratio for each fund you own. That figure may be listed on your 401(k) plan Web site, or you can find it at kiplinger.com/tools/fundfinder. Expense ratios are expressed as an annual percentage of your total investments.

Next, grab your most recent 401(k) statement and record the expense ratio next to the balance in each fund you own. Multiply the expense ratio by your ending balance to determine the cost of each fund. For example, if you have $10,000 in a fund with an expense ratio of 0.55%, you are paying $55 a year. Add up the expenses for all of your funds.

A total expense ratio of 1% or less is reasonable. When we calculated Jeffers's fees, they totaled roughly $4,000, or about 1% of his 401(k) balance.

If your 401(k) plan uses a broker or investment consultant, as many smaller plans do, you may be charged an additional 2% or more in portfolio-management fees. Teachers and other employees of nonprofit organizations who save for retirement through 403(b) plans may pay additional mortality charges and expenses to insurance companies, which typically provide annuities as investment options.

2. Determine if plan operating expenses are passed on to your 401(k)

You may also be paying your share of what it costs your employer to operate the 401(k) plan. Bigger companies often pick up plan expenses on behalf of their employees, but smaller employers can't always afford to do that. Still, for most 401(k) participants, the fees are less than they'd pay investing on their own, says David Wray, president of the Profit Sharing/401(k) Council of America.

Get a copy of your plan's summary annual report from your benefits office. Under the section labeled "basic financial statement," look for total plan expenses and subtract the amount of benefits paid. The difference is the plan's net administrative expenses.

Next compute your cost for administrative expenses, divide the net expenses (for instance, $12,000) by the total value of the plan (let's say $1.5 million). Multiply that percentage -- which is 0.8% (.008) in this example -- by your total account balance. That will give you your share of total plan expenses that are deducted from your account before your individual balance is calculated.

3. Investigate undisclosed or hidden costs

You could be funding your boss's retirement or that of a colleague in the next cubicle without realizing it, says Loeper. That's what happens when your plan's service provider and individual mutual fund companies engage in "revenue sharing" arrangements. Such agreements are seldom disclosed; even your employer is unlikely to be aware of them.

For example, some high-cost funds may offer a rebate to the service provider to defray overall operating expenses. So the excess fees that you pay for your fund are used to pay the costs for everyone else in the plan. Or your plan's provider may receive commissions from mutual fund companies to steer participants into higher-cost funds.

Take steps to curb retirement plan fees

  • A 1 percentage point difference in fees can radically reduce savings.
  • So-called no-load funds can charge up to 0.25 percent in sales fees.
  • Get a handle on the various fees that siphon assets from your account.
July 13, 2009

Bankrate.com - The stock market isn't the only thing that can shrink your retirement funds. From advisory fees to trading costs, the fees siphoned from your retirement account could add up to 3 percent, and even 5 percent of your account assets annually, says Daniel Solin, author of "The Smartest 401(k) Book You'll Ever Read." For investors, these seemingly modest fees add up to big bucks.

Just a 1 percentage point difference in fees can dramatically reduce the size of your nest egg over time. For example, a worker who saves $5,000 a year for 35 years and earns an annualized 8 percent return net of fees would end up with $861,584 -- versus $691,184 for someone who earns 7 percent after fees. That amounts to a 25 percent reduction in wealth for the worker with higher fees. While Congress is currently considering legislation that would require greater fee disclosure and the inclusion of a low-cost index fund option in a 401(k) plan, right now most plan holders have to dig deeply to find out how much they're forking over -- and they still may not know despite their due diligence.

To make sure your plan pays off, take these steps to try reducing or eliminating these five fees.

Administrative fees

The Investment Company Institute, a Washington D.C.-based nonprofit that represents the mutual fund industry, reports that three fees comprise approximately three-quarters of the total expenses in 401(k) plans: administrative, investment management and distribution fees.

Also known as account maintenance charges, administrative fees pay bookkeepers, trustees and legal advisers that keep your account running. While almost every major type of retirement vehicle (including IRAs) comes with some plan administration fee, Mike Alfred, co-founder of the retirement plan rating company BrightScope, says savers rarely know how much they're paying.
"If a plan is outside a 401(k), you can usually see what fees you're paying," says Alfred. "If you're in a 401(k), it's virtually impossible for the average consumer to get data on what administrative fees they're paying because companies aren't required to disclose that information."
According to the Investment Company Institute, the median fee for administrative, recordkeeping and investment-related services on 401(k) plans is 0.72 percent of total assets -- approximately $346 per year for the average 401(k) participant. One out of every 10 plans charges 1.72 percent or higher.

While one in four employers foot that bill on company-sponsored plans, according to a study by Hewitt Associates, most workers pay up themselves.

To make sure your administration fees are at or below average, Alfred recommends talking to your human resources representative. Employees may be able to compare their company's 401(k) investment and administrative fees to that of competitor companies at Brightscope.com.

Management fees

Also called investment advisory fees, management fees pay those who operate the mutual funds in which you invest your money. According to Solin, the amount you pay in management fees depends largely on how much management your specific investments require. Actively managed funds that employ live experts to personally choose stocks in hopes of gaining higher returns generally charge significantly more than passively managed index funds that mimic such benchmarks as the Standard & Poor's 500.
"Index funds usually have fees around 0.25 percent, but the fees for actively managed funds average 1.5 percent," says Solin. "That's a big difference."
Solin adds that actively managed funds usually don't perform better than their cheaper index counterparts. A 2008 study by Standard & Poor's Index Services reveals that the S&P 500 outperformed three out of every four actively managed funds during the previous five years.

While workers in company-sponsored plans that offer index funds can smoothly transfer their money into these funds, some plans don't offer index funds. Workers may want to consider lobbying their employers to add passively managed options to their lineup.
"Complain to the human resources department and say, 'Why do we have a plan that is populated with funds that history tells us will underperform index funds?'" says Solin.
As noted earlier, Congress may soon require companies to include at least one low-cost index fund in their plans.

Distribution Fees

Distribution or service fees are perhaps the most controversial of fees charged by fund firms. Designed to help mutual fund firms market mutual funds and to compensate brokers and advisers who sell them, distribution fees, commonly known as 12b-1 fees, can range from reasonable to out of control. They can eat up a significant chunk of your profits.
"Certain mutual funds come with 12b-1 fees that can run anywhere between 25 basis points (0.25 percent of assets) and 1 percent," says Bill Hayes, managing director of asset management for the Chicago Investment Group. "If you're happy with the way your account is performing, a 12b-1 fee isn't too bad to pay, but you can also opt for funds that don't have them."
Instead of forgoing 12b-1 fees entirely, Hayes recommends carefully monitoring how much you're paying in distribution fees and evaluating "no-load" investment options that don't incur 12b-1 charges.

While no-load funds generally do not charge loads, be aware that they can legally charge up to 0.25 percent in 12b-1 or shareholder service fees without losing their no-load moniker. But not all no-load funds charge these fees.

Early withdrawal and surrender charges

Another way consumers lose money is by pulling funds out early. Withdrawals from 401(k), 403(b) and IRA plans result in a 10 percent penalty if made before you reach the qualified retirement age (usually 59½, though it's age 55 in certain instances with company-sponsored plans).

It's true that from traditional and Roth IRAs, consumers can withdraw funds fairly easily to buy a first home ($10,000 limit per person), pay for college, or defray disability costs, medical expenses or health insurance premiums if unemployed. This they can do penalty free, though income taxes will be due in the case of withdrawals from traditional IRAs.

But penalty-free withdrawals from company retirement plans are allowed only under extreme circumstances such as total disability, medical expenses that exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income, losing employment after age 55 or receipt of a court order to hand money over to a divorced spouse.

With 403(b) plans -- retirement plans generally offered at schools and nonprofits -- an extra caveat is warranted. These plans often hold variable annuities, insurance products that usually charge surrender fees on top of the 10 percent penalty.
"Surrender charges can be avoided if investors understand how much liquidity they can take out of their accounts and the time frame their policy requires," says Dan White, head of the Glen Mills, Pa.-based retirement planning firm Daniel A. White and Associates. "Most long-term plans allow people to withdraw up to 10 percent of their account without penalty."
White adds that while annuity restrictions vary from company to company, most contracts require holders ages 59½ and older to invest for a minimum of five to eight years, but allow them to withdraw anywhere from 5 percent to 15 percent of the account value annually without penalty. Those who pull out earlier may pay a surrender charge of up to 10 percent on top of penalties and taxes on earnings. The surrender fees recede over time, so the longer you hold an annuity, the lower the surrender charge will be at withdrawal.

Trading costs

Those who own a brokerage account or act as their own account manager by trading stocks can lose a lot of money by overpaying trading costs and brokerage fees.
"Without a broker, people should expect to pay $7 to $10 a trade," says White of Daniel A. White and Associates. "And with a broker, they can expect to pay $40 or $50 a trade. A lot of places charge $100 a trade and that's just ridiculous."
White advises those who play the market to shop around for an online trading firm that offers discounted trades. TradeKing.com and Zecco.com offer trades for as low as $4.95, for example. When it comes to finding a broker, White recommends consumers comparison shop before settling.
"People usually don't start looking at how much the fees actually cost until they start losing money," White says. "That's when it really starts to hit home."

Pension Funds are Money Pots for the Biggest Risk-takers on Wall Street

The Real Risk of Pension Plans: They Give Retirees False Security

D

Business Week - Retirement security is ending the year at an all-time low. The $1.1 trillion last-minute spending bill will allow trustees to cut benefits in multiemployer defined benefit pension plans. And while it affects a relatively small population, 10 million people at most, it opens the door for other employers to make similar cuts. Maybe that’s a long way off; maybe not. But the provision is a rude awakening: We may romanticize guaranteed retirement benefits and lament our 401(k) world, but pensions aren’t safe these days either.

Until recently, a pension benefit seemed as good as money in the bank. Companies or governments set aside money for employees’ retirements; the sponsors were on the hook for funding the promised benefits appropriately. In recent years, it has become clear that most pension plans are falling short, but accrued benefits normally aren’t cut unless the plan, or employer, is on the verge of bankruptcy—high-profile examples include airline and steel companies. Public pension benefits appear even safer, because they are guaranteed by state constitutions.

By comparison, 401(k) and other defined contribution plans seem much less reliable. They require employees to decide, individually, to set aside money for retirement and to invest it appropriately over the course of 30 or so years. Research suggests that people are remarkably bad at both: About 20 percent of eligible employees don’t participate in their 401(k) plan. Those who do save too little, and many choose investments that underperform the market, charge high investment fees, or both.

It turns out that pension plan sponsors, and the politicians who oversee them, are just as fallible as workaday employees. We all prefer to spend more today and deal with the future when it comes. Pension plans have done this for years by promising generous benefits without a clear plan to pay for them. When pressed, they may simply raise their performance expectations or choose more risky investments in search of higher returns. Neither is a legitimate solution. In theory, regulators should keep pension plan sponsors in check. In practice, the rules regulators must enforce tend to indulge, or even encourage, risky behavior.

Because pension plans seem so dependable, workers do in fact depend on them and save less outside their plans. According to the 2013 Survey of Consumer Finances, people between ages 55 and 65 with pensions have, on average, $60,000 in financial assets. Households with other kinds of retirement savings accounts have $160,000. It’s true that defined benefit pensions are worth more than the difference, but not if the benefit is cut.

As the new legislation makes clear, pension plans can kick the can down the road for only so long. Defined contribution plans have their problems, but a tremendous effort has been made to educate workers about the importance of participating. (Even if the education campaign has been the product of asset managers who make money when more people participate, it’s still valuable.) Almost half of 401(k) plans now automatically enroll employees, which has increased participation and encouraged investment in low-cost index funds. And now it looks like a generous 401(k) plan with sensible, low-cost investment options may turn out to be less risky than a poorly managed pension plan, not least of all because workers know exactly what the risks are.

Prudential Piles on the Corporate Pensions


Business Week - Big U.S. companies have found a way to escape the burden of ballooning pension obligations: pay an insurance company to take them over. Since 2012 corporations have transferred $41.4 billion of U.S. pensions to insurers, according to Limra, an insurance industry trade association. Prudential (PRU) has dominated the dealmaking, agreeing to acquire more than $35 billion in pension obligations from companies including Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMY), General Motors (GM), Motorola Solutions (MSI), and Verizon (VZ)meaning the nation’s second-biggest life insurer now has the responsibility of making pension payments to almost 200,000 of those companies’ retirees.

For corporate executives, the transfers offer peace of mind. They no longer need worry about how stock market crashes or low bond yields will affect the company’s pension burdens. And they don’t need to estimate how long each of their retirees will live. For insurers, pensions are familiar territory: They already sell annuities and are in the business of managing pools of money to meet long-term obligations. Corporations have “no strategic rationale for wanting to hold on to these liabilities,” says Jonathan Novak, who oversees American International Group’s (AIG) institutional life business. “It’s a far more natural fit for the skill set of the life insurers.”
Prudential’s pension acquisitions: $25b in assets for 110,000 GM retirees
For workers, the benefits of the deals are less clear. Pensions lose federal government protection when they’re transferred to insurers, according to Karen Friedman, policy director at the Pension Rights Center, a nonprofit consumer organization. “The verdict is not in on how safe these transactions are,” she says. “They happen very quickly. We still think the government regulators need to act.”


Companies typically transfer plans covering employees who are retired or near retirement and are no longer accruing additional benefits. At some companies, retirees outnumber employees. Motorola Solutions, which employs 15,000 people, had 95,000 participants in its pension plans before striking a deal with Prudential in September to take over payments for 30,000 of them. The agreements have increased in popularity in recent years as a recovering stock market helped bring pension assets back in line with liabilities, making the transfers less costly for companies. In a typical transaction, the insurer gets about $1.09 in assets for every dollar of pension promises it takes on, according to consulting firm Mercer (MMC). 
$3.2b in liabilities for 30,000 Motorola Solutions beneficiaries
The market is growing fast. About $100 billion to $150 billion in transactions could take place in the next five years, says Mercer. MetLife (MET) took on about $279 million of obligations in the first nine months of the year, while AIG has acquired $65.6 million, according to Limra. Prudential was No. 1 with $604.8 million (the figures include only completed deals). The latest: On Dec. 16, MetLife said it agreed to take over pension benefits for about 7,000 people from TRW Automotive (TRW) in a $440 million deal.

Ultimately, AIG estimates, at least $1 trillion in U.S. pensions could go to insurers. To ensure a deal is profitable, insurers have to make complicated calculations about mortality, interest rates, and investment returns over periods of 20 years or more. Small variations from a forecast could have a large impact on results. “The competitive landscape for large closeouts leaves little margin for error,” MetLife Chief Executive Officer Steven Kandarian warned in October. “A negative surprise relative to assumptions could impact returns for decades.”

Prudential’s success in winning the biggest deals could mean its pricing is too low. Moody’s Investors Service (MCO) tried to figure out what would happen if death rates fell at about 2 percent a year faster than Prudential’s expectations. That’s the equivalent of the average 70-year-old living 1.7 years longer than expected. That sort of shock, while highly unlikely, could lead to big losses for the insurer, especially if it takes on many more pensions, Moody’s analysts warned. “Once you write a block of business, you’ve assumed that risk for decades,” says Scott Robinson, a senior vice president at Moody’s. “If you write a big deal, you don’t get a second chance.”

Aegon (AEG), the Dutch owner of Transamerica, says insurers need to take a lot of credit risk to earn enough to meet the obligations they’re taking on and generate a profit. “We’ve looked at that market, and we cannot make that pricing work,” says Chief Financial Officer Darryl Button. “I don’t think that product in that market is rationally priced in the U.S.”

Story: What Does Your Retirement Plan Really Cost?

The Hidden Risk in the World’s Best Pension System

 

Business Week - In the pension-nerd community (of which I am a card-carrying member), the Dutch are renowned for their creativity and prudence. According to the New York Times, Dutch corporate pensions are the gold standard. They’re well funded, cover 90 percent of Dutch workers, and replace 70 percent of income.

Compared with defined-benefit plans in the U.S.—rare, underfunded, and governed by accounting standards derided by almost every economist—the Dutch pension system looks even better. It does have a weakness, though, one that’s often overlooked, even though it may be the only aspect of the Dutch system that’s likely to be adopted here: In the Netherlands, annual cost-of-living increases depend (PDF) on the health of the pension’s balance sheet. If returns fall, benefits don’t increase. If the fund performs badly enough, pensioners may even suffer benefit cuts.

This kind of risk-sharing has been catching on in America. Public pension benefits are often secured by state constitutions, but it’s not clear whether those guarantees extend to inflation-linked adjustments. Eager to contain costs, some states have eliminated cost-of-living increases entirely. The state of Wisconsin adopted a variant of the Dutch model in which retirees in the Wisconsin Retirement System get a cost-of-living adjustment only when pension assets return at least 5 percent. Previous inflation adjustments can be clawed back; monthly checks were 10 percent smaller in 2013 as a result of the financial crisis. Although, unlike in the Dutch plans, retirement income can never fall below its nominal level at retirement.

Such risk-sharing seems to solve one of the U.S. pension system’s biggest problems: Most pensions are horribly underfunded, because guaranteeing income for thousands of people no matter what is more expensive than most state governments can even admit to themselves. Letting benefits fluctuate with the pension funds’ assets puts some boundaries around the guarantee that make it more affordable. Stanford economist Josh Rauh and University of Rochester’s Robert Novy-Marx estimate that if other states followed Wisconsin’s lead, unfunded pension liabilities would fall 25 percent. If they went with the full Dutch-style model, and could cut benefits, unfunded liabilities would fall 50 percent.

But to call it risk-sharing makes it sound more benign than it really is, particularly because retirees can’t tolerate as much risk as working people can. Post-retirement, most people live on a fixed income. In general, it’s too late to save more or get another job. Many state employees don’t have other sources of inflation-linked income like Social Security. If “fairness” means everyone has to bear risk equally, then the Dutch system makes sense. But if it’s more “fair” to treat people differently according to their means, then it would be better to share the risk with current workers instead.

Inflation risk may not seem like a big deal now. But the future is uncertain, which is why the guarantees are so valuable. Until the financial crisis, Dutch pensioners took it for granted they’d get their cost-of-living adjustment each year. Gambling on future inflation may be preferable to an underfunded pension—or no pension at all—but it’s no free lunch.

Public Pensions Cannot Stop Chasing Performance


Business Week - At the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, the biggest public pension in the U.S., 1.6 percent of the assets were invested in hedge funds
Two basic principles of investing hold up remarkably well: Past results really don’t predict future performance, and high fees eat away at your returns. Smart investors don’t chase performance (as much as they can help themselves) and keep costs to a minimum. Unfortunately for taxpayers, the experts who run public pension funds aren’t following these rules. What’s more, they have little incentive to start.

First, the good news: Public pensions in California, Ohio, and New Jersey have been reducing their investments in hedge funds, noting high fees and poor performance, the Wall Street Journal reported. The Los Angeles Fire and Police fund invested $500 million in a hedge fund that returned less than 2 percent over the last seven years; the fund had comprised just 4 percent of Fire & Police’s portfolio but 17 percent of investment fees paid.

The pension plans reconsidering these high-fee, low-performance investments include those with allocations to hedge funds ranging from 1.6 percent to 15 percent of assets, according to the Journal. What they share, though, is dismal returns: The average hedge fund return for public pensions was 3.6 percent for the three years ended March 31, a period when returns from stocks were up more than 10 percent.

But for all the griping about hedge funds’ high costs and lousy performance, it doesn’t appear pension funds have learned their lesson: They are maintaining their investment in private equity, in some cases, even expanding it. Private equity funds invest in non-publically traded assets; like hedge funds, they also promise higher returns—in exchange for high fees and often more risk. And historically, private equity has been a bust for pensions, too. Research by economists Josh Lerner, Antoinette Schoar, and Wan Wong found public pensions underperformed in private equity relative to other institutional investors such as endowments, private pensions, and insurance companies. In the period they looked at (funds raised from 1991 to 2001), the pension funds’ private equity investments didn’t do much better than an equity index fund.

So why the preference for private equity? It sure looks like performance chasing. According to the Journal, private equity investments returned more than 10 percent to large pension funds in the last three years. Accordingly, pension funds have dived in.

Just 0.6 percent of Ohio’s state pension assets were invested in private equity in 2002. By 2013 it took up more than 9 percent. The California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) increased its investment from less than 1 percent to more than 12.4 percent of its assets between 2001 and 2013.

In 2013, Ohio celebrated its move: The five-year return on private equity was almost 12 percent—one of its best-performing asset classes. That means either pension fund managers have been luckier since 2001, more skilled, or private equity is having its day. Private equity is risky, and you’d expect high returns some of the time. The question is, can they keep it up?

Fund managers have every reason to be bullish. After all, they’re tacitly rewarded for chasing investments that promise higher returns. The funds use their expected return on their assets to figure out what they expect to owe pensioners in the future. The higher the expected return, the smaller their future liabilities appear. The only way to jack up the expected return is to pay for it, either by paying for access to more exclusive markets (like private equity) or by taking on more risk, or both. If pension funds invested only in low-cost index funds, it would be harder to justify the 7 percent to 8 percent return states currently forecast. This leaves pension fund managers with an incentive to constantly chase the latest, greatest, and most expensive assets.

China Offers to Help Russia and Wean the World Off the Dollar

China offers to help Russia...and wean the world off the dollar

December 22, 2014

Yahoo! Finance - It’s been a tough year for Russia. The sliding ruble, plunging oil prices and economic sanctions have all cut a swathe through the economy. China, Russia’s biggest economic partner is now offering to help. Think of it as an olive branch filled with yuan leaves. 

Henry Blodget says this is an example of the changing global economy: 
“The world is realigning. This is the big picture. China is getting stronger and stronger. Russia is in trouble.” 
Don’t tell that to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Putin doesn’t consider his country’s current economic state as a crisis and he remains defiant that the Ruble will bounce back.

China and Russia are both trying to decrease dependence on the U.S. dollar in international trading. In October, the countries agreed on a $24 billion currency swap to strengthen the ruble and make trading easier between the two partners.

Perhaps, not looking to offend Putin, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi says they would only help Russia, if they needed it and that he believes Russia has the wherewithal to get out from under its problems. Blodget disagrees and sees some bumpy roads ahead: 
“You’re going to get destabilization. China and Russia are cozying up. China is playing it both ways. Saying not too much help here and keeping their options open.”
China and Russia both need each other. Earlier this year China signed a 30-year $400 billion deal to buy Russian gas and shore up their energy supplies. Western economic sanctions placed on Russia after its meddling in the Ukraine have also forced the country to import more from China. China’s exports to Russia are up over 10% from last year.

Russia’s struggles are also a prime opportunity for China to showcase its economic prowess. China’s buying power and global emergence is altering the global landscape. 
 “This idea that the U.S. and Europe control the whole world is starting to change,” says Blodget. Look for China to continue to find ways to assert its economic power in the coming year.

China is Providing Pakistan with Military Assistance and Equipment and has Repeatedly Exhorted the People's Liberation Army to 'Be Ready to Win a War'

Over the last several months, Chinese leader Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party have repeatedly exhorted the People's Liberation Army to "be ready to win a war." Xi has repeatedly called for greater military modernization, increased training, and enhanced overall readiness of the Chinese army, navy, and air force. These repeated calls have alarmed China's neighbors from New Delhi to Washington. The question on everyone's mind: what is all this preparation for? Is the Chinese leadership preparing for something? Are they gearing up for a military operation, or merely the option to carry one out? Or is there a more innocent explanation for all of this? [Source]



India has conveyed concern to Beijing over Chinese activities in PoK, govt tells Lok Sabha

December 17, 2014

Times of India - Confirming that a recent BSF report had flagged attention to weapons training exercises conducted by the Chinese troops for Pakistani Army in forward posts located in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), the government on Tuesday said the information, however, was not corroborated by any intelligence agency.

Minister of state for home Kiren Rijiju, in a written reply to a question in the Lok Sabha, recalled that China and Pakistan have termed bilateral defence cooperation as an important component of their strategic cooperation. China, by virtue of this partnership, has been providing Pakistan with military assistance and equipment.

He said the government had, on its part, conveyed to Beijing its consistent position that "Pakistan is in illegal occupation of parts of Indian state of Jammu & Kashmir since 1947". Accordingly, it has conveyed its concerns about Chinese activities in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and asked them to cease the same.

"Chinese persons have been visiting Pakistan for conducting acceptance tests on the military equipment supplied by them and subsequently training Pakistani soldiers on the same. Both countries regularly hold joint exercises between their Armies, Navies and Air Forces," Rijiju told the MPs during the Question Hour on Tuesday.

According to Rijiju, China has also said that it regards Kashmir as a bilateral matter to be settled between India and Pakistan.

"Government keeps a constant watch on all developments having a bearing on India's security and takes all necessary measures to safeguard it," he added.

According to the BSF report submitted to national security advisor Ajit Doval in November, Chinese troops were reportedly conducting weapons training exercises for Pakistan army at some posts in PoK adjoining Rajouri in Jammu & Kashmir.

The Chinese army trainers, spotted in some Pakistani forward posts in the area of 3rd and 4th PoK brigades opposite the Rajouri sector, were imparting weapons handling training to their Pakistani counterparts. However, the report did not give details regarding the weapons.

December 21, 2014

Democrats Tax-and-Spend, Republicans Borrow-and-Spend: Both Parties are Staunch Supporters of Massive Federal Spending, and Both Parties Support Fighting Perennial Foreign Wars Abroad and Supporting the Creation of a Police State at Home

"The Beat Goes On"

December 11, 2014

Chuck Baldwin Live - The hit song by Sonny and Cher is an apt description of what happens in Washington, D.C. I’m referring to their Top 10 hit song, “The Beat Goes On.” No matter which party controls Congress, the beat goes on. No matter which party’s candidate is elected President, the beat goes on. Rhetoric and campaign promises notwithstanding, the beat goes on.

Here is how the “Potomac Shuffle” is played: Democrats openly and boldly promote Big Government. Oh, it’s masked under the rubric of “compassion,” of course. But there is little doubt that the modern Democrat Party is known far and wide as the party of Big Government. And when they are elected, they keep their word and implement big-government policies.

At some point, the American people awaken to the draconian nature of the big-government policies implemented by Democrats and demand a return to smaller government. The Republican Party is there to answer the bell. They postulate “conservative” ideals and loudly proclaim themselves to be the champions of smaller government and individual liberty. The message of smaller government resonates with voters and Republicans are swept to large victories in national elections. However, instead of reversing the big-government policies that had been passed by Democrats, the newly-ensconced GOP leadership actually SOLIDIFIES those policies. And, as they say, the beat goes on.

The basic difference between the two major parties in Washington, D.C., is that the Democrats tell the truth about promoting Big Government, while Republicans lie about promoting smaller government and then turn around and join Democrats in promoting Big Government. Both parties in Washington, D.C., are the parties of Big Government. 

Another distinction between the two parties is that Democrats want to tax-and-spend, while Republicans want to borrow-and-spend. But both parties are staunch supporters of massive federal spending.

Both major parties are also twin sisters when it comes to fighting perennial foreign wars abroad and supporting the creation of a Police State at home. Oh, the Democrats love to whine about police abuse any time an apparent (whether real or fabricated) injustice is committed within the black community by a white police officer (never the other way around). But, in truth, Democrats are as eager to impose more and more limitations on individual liberties (including those within the black community) as are Republicans.

And Republicans will get on their soap boxes and talk loquaciously about more freedom and smaller government. They will send out a barrage of fund-raising letters to the constituents back home about reining in “big-government Democrats.” Their leadership might even allow an occasional vote to be held where Republican lawmakers can make a symbolic—albeit meaningless—vote against a specific big-government policy, all the while knowing that such a bill is destined to fail in the other chamber or be completely diluted of its original language in subsequent conference committees. And, once again, the beat goes on.

We are witnessing this redundant fraud take place once again. The American people, fed up with the big-government machinations of Barack Obama, swept Republicans into the majority in both houses of the U.S. Congress. In fact, Obama now holds the unenviable distinction of having lost more of his own party’s congressional seats in a mid-term election than any President in history.

And there is no question that the reason voters put Republicans in charge of Congress was due to their outrage against two of Obama’s pet policies: Obamacare and amnesty. And of the two, amnesty was the straw that broke the back of the Democrats’ dominance in D.C. As for Obamacare, forget it! It’s settled. Republicans will spend no capital trying to reverse it. And most Americans (even Republicans) know this is the case. However, amnesty is another issue altogether.

The American people are fed up with what the deluge of illegal immigration is doing to their country—as well as their communities. And they sent Republicans to Capitol Hill to do something about it. But instead of doing anything to reverse Obama’s executive amnesty, House Speaker John Boehner and his fellow elitists in the GOP are going to SOLIDIFY an amnesty deal. And the beat goes on.

Let me provide readers with just a few samples of how pro-amnesty Republicans like John Boehner and Mitch McConnell are betraying their constituents in working to solidify amnesty for illegal aliens.

*The recent vote by House Republicans that was sold to House members as a vote that would block Obama’s amnesty was actually a vote that STRENGTHENED the amnesty order. In other words, House Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, and Majority Whip Steve Scalise deliberately TRICKED their fellow Republicans. The bill they passed will significantly strengthen Obama’s amnesty order.

See the report here:

Exclusive: House GOP Leaders Trick 216 House Republicans Into Accidentally Supporting Obama’s Executive Amnesty

*The GOP 2015 “omnibus” spending bill includes nearly $1 billion in funding for illegals that are being granted amnesty.

According to a published report, “The GOP’s draft 2015 ‘omnibus’ spending bill reportedly includes $948 million to help poor and unskilled Central American migrants establish themselves in the United States, but includes no effective restrictions on President Barack Obama’s plan to provide work permits and tax payments to millions of resident illegal immigrants.”

The report continued, saying, “Much of the $948 million may also be used to care for the next wave of illegals who could flood across the border during the summer. The influx in the summer of 2015 is expected to be large, because Obama is offering work permits and social security numbers to at least five million illegals already in the country.

“The $948 million fund is part of the one-year, $1 trillion 2015 spending plan described in a late-night report from The New York Times.”

Also see this report:

Pride Goeth: Boehner Begs Hoyer For Dem Votes To Fund Obama Amnesty

*GOP Congressman Pete Sessions (R-TX) revealed that the Republican leadership intends to push an amnesty bill in next year’s congressional session that would subject only the “most dangerous illegal immigrant criminals” to deportation.

According to Breitbart.com, “One of the top House Republican leaders, Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), revealed this week that GOP leaders intend to push an amnesty bill in the next Congress that would subject only the most dangerous illegal immigrant criminals to deportation so that ‘not one person’ who is in the country illegally and has not committed a violent crime is ‘thrown out.’”

The report continued, “Sessions said, ‘We intend to push a bill that would operate under the activity of trying to do under rule of law... But that, even in our wildest dream, would not be to remove any person that might be here unless they were dangerous to this country and committed a crime...that was never even in a plan that I thought about.’”

Sessions went on to condemn Obama’s executive amnesty (just like Boehner does), but not because he, or the GOP leadership, is opposed to amnesty, but because they (GOP leaders) want to enact LEGISLATIVE amnesty.

See the report here:

Congressman Reveals GOP Leaders To Push Amnesty For All But Violent Criminals

The preoccupation and fascination with the two major parties is killing America. Neither party in Washington, D.C., has the liberties and well being of the American people in mind. NOT THE LEAST LITTLE BIT! At the leadership level, both parties are controlled by the same establishment elitists who are working to enrich themselves on the backs of the American people and the Bill of Rights.

Republican toadies love to talk about “compromise.” But it’s not compromise; it’s CONSPIRACY. For the most part, the leadership of both parties is nothing more than the worst kind of sycophants.

As long as the American electorate is stuck in this Republican vs. Democrat, “liberal” vs. “conservative,” and “right” vs. “left” illusion, nothing will change in this country. The American people are being played by D.C.’s “game makers” the way Katniss and Peeta are played by the Capital’s “game makers” in “The Hunger Games” movies.

After two years of capitulation, Republicans will pout, “We couldn’t get anything done, because we didn’t have the White House. Elect a Republican President in 2016, and we will get things done.” It’s the old “Potomac Shuffle,” folks. And the beat goes on.