Eeyore's News and View

This a big deal if it effects you and be aware of what is happening to your pension. Watch out in the future as the Congress start raiding the Government pensions and the then the private pensions and do what they did to Social Security to them. When they start that, you need to watch out.
Pension Funds Beg Congress to Suspend Billions in Contributions
By Brian Faler
Dec. 8 (Bloomberg) -- Pension funds at Pfizer Inc., International Business Machines Corp., United Parcel Service Inc. and dozens of other companies have joined the parade of businesses seeking relief from Congress amid this year’s economic meltdown.
Instead of money, they want legislation to suspend a federal law that would make them pump billions of dollars into retirement plans to offset stock-market losses as many struggle to find enough cash just to stay in business. They’re pressing Congress to consider the issue this week before this year’s session adjourns.
“The companies are not out there with their hand out for a bailout,” says Mark Ugoretz, head of the ERISA Industry Committee, a Washington advocacy group representing big businesses on benefit issues under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. “This is not about money; this is about time.”
About 800 companies in the Standard & Poor’s 1500 Index have pension funds, and they were collectively $280 billion short of the sums needed to pay projected benefits as of Nov. 30, according to a study by New York-based benefits consulting firm Mercer LLC. Those 800 funds started the year with a $60 billion surplus, Mercer estimated.
To gain help from Congress, the companies will have to overcome skeptics who say they are using the market plunge to undermine retirement-funding provisions in a 2006 law they didn’t like in the first place.
“They’re trying to stampede Congress,” says Jeremy Gold, founder of Jeremy Gold Pensions, a New York-based actuarial consulting firm. Funds with prudent investment strategies were able to moderate market losses, he says.
‘Losers’ Cry ‘Help!’
“This is a failure of risk management by America’s pension plans,” Gold says. “They failed to reduce their exposure to the equities markets, they continued to gamble, and they lost the gamble. So like all the other losers, they’re standing on the Capitol Hill steps, saying ‘Help!’”
While employers increasingly offer 401(k) and similar retirement-savings plans, about 44 million private-sector U.S. workers, retirees and spouses still are covered by traditional defined-benefit pensions.
Starting this year, the Pension Protection Act of 2006 requires companies to increase pension-fund assets gradually to put them on firmer financial footing, reducing the chances the government will have to take them over for failing.
Full Funding
Previously, plans generally had to have about 90 percent of what they needed to meet future obligations. At the end of this year, the new threshold will be 92 percent. By the end of 2011, the law requires 100 percent funding. Companies that don’t reach a given year’s threshold can be required to immediately jump to full funding. Plans falling below 80 percent funding may face added limits on actions that would further drain assets, such as some lump-sum payments.
About half of the 800 companies in Mercer’s study are in danger of missing this year’s target, Mercer analyst Adrian Hartshorn says. World markets have been so volatile, though, that the outlook may change significantly -- for better or worse -- before year’s end, Hartshorn says.
The 800 companies’ pension plans, as of Nov. 30, had aggregate assets covering about 80 percent of projected liabilities, down from 97 percent in September, Mercer reported. Those estimates, based on financial statements prepared under U.S. accounting rules, give a rough idea of where companies stand in relation to this year’s target. The federal law, however, has its own standards for measuring pension funding.
Desperate for Cash
Pfizer, IBM and UPS and almost 300 companies, trade groups and unions petitioned Congress last month to suspend the funding mandate. The law requires “huge, countercyclical contributions” at a time “when companies desperately need cash to keep their businesses afloat,” the group says in a letter to lawmakers.
Spending to pump up pensions may cost jobs by diverting scarce capital from business operations, Ugoretz says. “If a company has to dump $150 million into their pension fund, they’ve got to make it up some place,” he says.
Atlanta-based UPS, the world’s largest package-delivery company, supports pension-law changes because “given where we are economically today as a country, we think that some reform that allowed those funds to be used in other ways would be beneficial to the economy,” spokesman Malcolm Berkley says. Calls seeking comment from Pfizer and IBM weren’t returned.
Investment losses by pension funds have hit companies in a range of industries as the S&P 500 plunged more than 40 percent so far in 2008. Houston-based Lyondell Chemical Co.’s pension fund lost $154 million in the first nine months of the year, a 17 percent drop, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing.
Record Losses
Assets fell a combined $130 billion during November in the S&P 1500’s 800 or so pension plans, Mercer estimated. That topped total losses in the first nine months of 2008, and broke October’s record $110 billion decline.
“Without relief, plan sponsors must shoulder the immediate burden of sudden, unexpected, large increases in plan contributions at a time when cash may be difficult to generate internally or to obtain in the credit markets,” Mercer’s Hartshorn says.
Plans with more conservative investment strategies have at least softened the blow. General Motors Corp., the biggest corporate pension sponsor with $84 billion in projected benefit obligations at the end of 2007, is among companies that shifted assets from stocks before the worst of the market rout. The biggest U.S. automaker decided in 2006 to cut its target allocation for equities to 29 percent, from 49 percent.
GM made a “determination that, for the best interests of maintaining the funded status as well as we could, we needed to make that shift into the fixed-income market,” says Nancy Everett, chief executive officer of GM Asset Management Corp.
Notably Absent
GM was notably absent from the five-page list of companies and organizations asking Congress for relief from the asset thresholds. GM said its pension plans had a $1.8 billion deficit as of Oct. 31, down from a $20 billion surplus 10 months earlier. At that level, GM’s plans would top the pension law’s 2008 asset threshold.
David Zion, head of accounting research for Credit Suisse Securities USA, says investment managers should have been able to control volatility.
“I just find it interesting: You take some risk in the plan; if it works in your favor, then great,” Zion says. “If it works against you, then go ask Congress for help.”
On average, the 800 pension plans in the S&P 1500 had 61 percent of their assets in stocks at the end of 2007, Mercer’s Hartshorn says.
Bigger Stock Bets
Some made much bigger bets on stocks. Investment strategies at more than 20 S&P 500 pension funds allocated at least 75 percent of their assets to equities at the end of 2007, according to an October report by Goldman Sachs Group Inc.’s Global Markets Institute.
Fannie Mae, the mortgage-finance company taken over by the U.S. government, ranked fourth with 84 percent of pension assets in stocks. Because of the market plunge, Fannie Mae made an unplanned $80 million payment to its pension fund last month “to offset some of the recent investment losses,” according to an SEC filing.
Bradley Belt, former executive director of the federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., says lawmakers should endorse a case-by-case approach that lets the government pension agency negotiate funding requirements with individual companies and reserve assistance for those in danger of bankruptcy.
Compromise Measure
The top Democrats and Republicans on both the Senate Finance and the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committees -- Democrats Max Baucus of Montana and Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, and Republicans Charles Grassley of Iowa and Mike Enzi of Wyoming -- are backing a compromise. It would maintain the funding targets but ease the consequences of missing them, scrapping the threat of an immediate 100 percent-funding requirement.
That proposal was stymied last month when supporters couldn’t get unanimous consent in the Senate to consider it.
The bill “strikes an appropriate balance between helping plan sponsors cope with the recent economic downturn while also protecting the worker safeguards established two years ago,” Grassley says.
The ERISA Industry Committee’s Ugoretz says the proposal doesn’t go far enough.
“We’re going to have to go back to them to explain again what needs to be done,” he says. “We’re not blowing smoke here.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aBAw1CQXcZMg&refer=home

Close call for WMD commission December 8, 2008 - 4:51am
J.J. Green, WTOP Radio
WASHINGTON - Concerns about an attack on the U.S. were revived when a report from The Commission on Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism was delivered to Congress last week.
For the commission, the report is more than just words on the pages. While working on their report, commission member and President of the Center for National Policy Timothy J. Roemer says the commission had an extremely close encounter with the terrorism.
"On one of our trips overseas on Sept. 20, we were on our way to Islamabad. The State Department called our commission, and said, 'We were about three hours from our hotel. We've got good news and bad news. The good news is you haven't arrived at your hotel yet, the bad news is you don't have a hotel anymore.' The hotel we were supposed to stay at had just been attacked by terrorists, and it was demolished."
The report, entitled World at Risk, concluded, "unless the world community acts decisively and with great urgency, it is more likely than not that a weapon of mass destruction will be used in a terrorist attack somewhere in the world by the end of 2013."
Roemer told WTOP, "The cascade of threats are growing, and the margin of safety is shrinking."
The commission also concluded that terrorists are more likely to obtain and use a biological weapon rather than a nuclear weapon, and says that the U.S. government needs to move aggressively to limit the proliferation of biological weapons and reduce the prospect of a bioterror attack.
Vayl Oxford, director of the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office in the Department of Homeland Security, agrees.
"I would say from a nuclear weapons point of view, I think we're confident that the threat doesn't exist within the U.S."
However, he adds, "We are worried that a potential dirty bomb could be constructed based on materials available within the U.S. itself."
There are roughly 1,300 high-risk agents that could be used to construct a crude weapon of mass destruction currently being used by the medical community in the U.S.
That is what concerns Oxford the most. He believes a dirty bomb attack is coming.
"In the next five to 10 years, there's a growing likelihood. Maybe a 50 percent probability over the next decade."
"If stolen," says Oxford, "they could become the source of a dirty bomb attack, so we are working closely with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as well as The Department of Energy to enhance the security of some of the sources that could be likely constituents in a dirty bomb."
In addition to dealing with problems rounding up resources for dirty bombs, Oxford is concerned about intelligence shortcomings.
"I'm less comfortable that in the very near term, we'll be able to have what I call 'The Strategic Warning' that is necessary. I think we're a lot more comfortable with monitoring activities in some of the nation-states like Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, etc... but some of the other activities require a new approach to intelligence and our strategy."
Still, the insecurity of nuclear weapons and materials around the world pose the biggest long-term threat for Oxford.
"One of the challenges that the government continues to push for is to continue to right-size the U.S. as well as the former Soviet Union stockpiles. There's an ongoing debate in terms of what the size of those stockpiles needs to be, and that is one of the challenges - to make sure we understand those stockpiles as well as enhance the security of the materials associated with them."
The commission recommends the U.S. undertake a series of mutually reinforcing domestic measures to prevent bioterrorism:
Conduct a comprehensive review of the domestic program to secure dangerous pathogens.
Develop a national strategy for advancing bioforensic capabilities.
Tighten government oversight of high-containment laboratories.
Promote a culture of security awareness in the life sciences community.
Enhance the nation's capabilities for rapid response to prevent biological attacks from inflicting mass casualties.
WTOP's Capitol Hill Correspondent Dave McConnell contributed to this report.
http://wtop.com/?nid=778&sid=1541068

Obama could change relations with Cuba
If Fidel Castro survives through January, he will not only celebrate the 50th anniversary of his takeover of Cuba, he may also witness the most dramatic shift in U.S. policy toward the nation since it became a dictatorship.
An assortment of liberals, businessmen and farm-state politicians have been pushing for the easing of sanctions against Cuba for years, but every president, no matter the party, has done little to alter Cuba policy based on the apparent refusal to accept a totalitarian regime 90 miles from the U.S.
President-elect Barack Obama's stated position that he would like to revisit U.S.-Cuba policies has some viewing his administration as the first chance in decades to dismantle laws that restrict travel, investment, exports and cash mailings to Cuba.
"The election of Barack Obama clearly will serve as a catalyst for enhanced efforts," says Rep. Bill Delahunt, D-Mass. "I think it's a moment in time to move forward."
Not yet, others say.
Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez says any weakening of sanctions will merely provide the Castro dictatorship — Raúl Castro is the current president — with the cash it needs to stay in power. Gutierrez says Cuba must offer reforms first or the U.S. would be giving it something for nothing.
"There's a good reason why this policy has been in place since President Kennedy," Gutierrez says. "I would be very careful before declaring that nine presidents have been wrong."
Contact with relatives
U.S. relations with Cuba soured quickly after Castro captured Havana in January 1959. The U.S. imposed an economic blockade in 1960 and broke off diplomatic relations in 1961 as Cuba aligned itself with the Soviet Union.
A group of U.S.-trained Cuban Americans invaded the island during the botched Bay of Pigs affair in 1961, and Cuba's attempt to allow the Soviets to base nuclear missiles there threatened to start a war.
Few changes were made over the next several decades. President Clinton eased the embargo in 2000 by allowing U.S. companies to sell some agricultural and medical goods to Cuba, resulting in more than $430 million in trade in 2007.
President Bush tightened restrictions on Cuban Americans in 2004. They can visit immediate family members once every three years and cannot send relatives more than $1,200 a year.
During a May speech before a group of Cuban Americans in Miami, Obama said his strategy toward Cuba would start with lifting the restrictions on relatives. He said that Cuban Americans should be able to freely visit their relatives and that the money they send back can help them become "less dependent upon the Castro regime."
"There are no better ambassadors for freedom than Cuban Americans," Obama said.
Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, a Cuban-American Republican from Miami, says unilaterally lifting those sanctions before Cuba changes any of its policies would send the wrong message.
"It just shows (Cuba) that you can continue to oppress people, you can continue to jail people, and the response will be, 'We'll lift some sanctions,' " Diaz-Balart says.
Easing the embargo and travel for all Americans is even more controversial.
Brooke Anderson, a spokeswoman for Obama's transition team, would not speculate on changes Obama might make to U.S. policy toward Cuba.
He could reduce restrictions placed on relatives of Cubans through an executive order. Any changes to the embargo require Congressional approval.
Jack Maybank is hoping that will happen. His Charleston, S.C.-based shipping company was the first to send a barge of U.S. goods to Havana after the embargo was relaxed in 2000.
"I'm not a politician," he says. "We are strictly business people … and we're definitely following what the U.S. act says."
Watching what Obama will do are those on the left who believe the Castro regime is a socialism success story undermined by a hostile United States.
Toppling the Castro brothers
Saul Landau is a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) in Washington, D.C., which says it advises the Congressional Progressive Caucus, a coalition of left-leaning House members.
An admirer of Castro and Cuba's revolutionary "success," he says the embargo has never served its intended purpose: to hurt the Castro brothers.
"I would argue that neither Castro brother has suffered the loss of a single meal," says Landau, who said he did not speak for the IPS. "They have not been punished. The only people who have suffered have been the majority of the Cuban people."
Some policymakers say the embargo should be lifted to take down the regime.
Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, says easing the embargo and travel restrictions on Americans is the best way to topple the Castros. Crapo says an infusion of Americans and dollars would hasten the Cuban people's desire for a change.
Supporters of the embargo counter that there's no reason to think the Castros would suddenly reverse course.
Talks of ending the embargo are dangerous at a time when Cuba is realigning itself with Russia and further strengthening its ties with China and Venezuela, says Frank Calzon, director of Center for a Free Cuba, based in Arlington, Va.
"You'd like to see some sort of signals coming out of Havana that we welcome change and we're prepared to talk about this or this," says Ray Walser, a former 27-year State Department employee and a Latin America analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. "You don't see any of that."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-12-07-obamacuba_N.htm

Can anyone explain this? It does not make any sense at all.
9/11 suspects ask to deliver confessions in Gitmo court By Alan Gomez, USA TODAYGUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA — Five men charged with plotting the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks asked a judge Monday to halt their proceedings in their war-crimes tribunal so they could immediately confess and enter guilty pleas."We, the brothers, all of us, we would like to submit our confessions," Ramzi bin al-Shibh told military judge Army Col. Stephen Henley.The announcement means the five could enter guilty pleas before President-elect Barack Obama is inaugurated Jan. 20 and before he acts to close down the controversial military commission system created by President Bush in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks.The five co-conspirators had made the request Nov. 4 in a joint letter to the judge, but Henley said he was not able to read the letter until he reached a secure facility Sunday night.Henley allowed three of the men — including the self-confessed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed — to withdraw all their pending motions Monday. He told two of the men that pending reviews of their mental health, and their ability to represent themselves before the court, needed to be completed before he could accept any plea.Henley said the court would conduct a thorough review process before accepting their guilty pleas and warned that it would not be in the "near future" because of the preparation needed to enter such a decision.Still, each of the defendants expressed their desire to move forward as quickly as possible."I don't want this theater to continue," said Walid bin Attash. "I am ready."Mohammed, who appeared Monday with a thick, gray beard and spoke mostly in English to the judge, said the process was "wasting our time" and he was tired of filing motion after motion."We want to enter the plea," he said.Major Jon Jackson, the lawyer for Mustafa al-Hawsawi, and other defense attorneys in the case have warned that Mohammed has been influencing and intimidating his co-defendants during occasional meetings in the detention center and during conversations in court hearings. But the men said Monday that they were acting independently."All of these decisions are undertaken by us without any pressure from Khalid Sheikh (Mohammed)," said bin al-Shibh.The surprising revelation came as relatives of victims from the 9/11 attacks were in the courtroom for the first time. At least five relatives of those killed sat behind a glass wall that separates the courtroom from a viewing area that is usually occupied by court observers and reporters. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-12-08-gitmo-court_N.htm

Puppies save missing 3-year-old December 9, 2008 - 5:41am
One of the pups that was with the boy. (Photo courtesy of WDBJ)
HALIFAX, Va. - A missing toddler is now safe, thanks to two puppies that kept him warm while he was lost in the woods in Virginia.
About 300 searchers looked for 3-year-old Jaylynn Thorpe of Halifax County after he wandered away from his home last Friday.
He was missing for 21 hours.
Rescuers found him sitting on a log at a pond a half-mile from his home.
The family's puppies were right there with him, and had kept him warm as the temperature dipped to 24 degrees.
"Without those dogs, I don't believe he would have made it through the night," says Bob Wingfield, Commonwealth Search and Rescue, tells WDBJ.
The dogs were rewarded with food, right after the boy was found, reports WSLS, a TV station that was there when the toddler was found.
Sarah Ingram, Jaylynn's mother, tells Fox News he son later told her that he left the yard to go "hunting and fishing."
http://wtop.com/?nid=600&sid=1542749