Clinton, General Electric, Algeria and Money

As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton boast about being the most traveled of any U.S. diplomat, landing her plane in 112 countries. Hillary held 1700 meetings with world leaders and had 755 meetings at the White House. Her travels included dancing in none other than Columbia, Malawi and South Africa.

In October of 2012, Hillary traveled to Bosnia Herzegovina, Serbia, Kosovo, Albania, Croatia and Algeria. Perhaps it was quite telling as of this writing, interesting deals were made in Algeria, a country full of corruption led by President Bouteflika.

It should be noted that on October 19 of 2012, meetings were held in Washington DC where the topics were bilateral and regional concerns as well as economic and security cooperation under the title of U.S.-Algeria Strategic Dialogue. There was also a United Nations Security Council resolution authorizing West African States to perform a military intervention to remove the Islamist rebels from North Mali.

Two years earlier, The Clinton Foundation received $500,000 from Algeria without approval from the State Department ethic office or legal counsel. Algeria alleges the money was earmarked for the relief efforts in Haiti. At the same time, Hillary tells the public relations team her objectives with Algeria was to address human rights issues as well as to nurture the relationships between the United States and Algeria.

Of particular note, in 2010, Algeria also spent more than $400,000 in lobbying the U.S. government officials as specified by records under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, while sending representatives more than a dozen times to the United States to visit top political and diplomatic operatives.

Reports have been often published where the U.S. State Department have found that Algeria lacks any transparency, has a history of random killings and widespread corruption. Hillary even notes the facts of Algeria being a failed state in her book, “Hard Choices”.

Algerian security forces also benefit from U.S. cooperation programs. Obama Administration officials have stated a desire to deepen and broaden bilateral ties, including in the aftermath of a four-day terrorist hostage seizure at a natural gas compound in southeastern Algeria in January 2013, in which three Americans were killed. The attack highlighted the challenges the United States faces in advancing and protecting its interests in an increasingly volatile region.

The terrorist group that seized the hostages is a breakaway faction of Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), a regional network and U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization with roots in Algeria’s 1990s civil conflict. Given Algeria’s large military and available financial resources, U.S. officials have expressed support for Algerian efforts to marshal a regional response to terrorist threats. Yet Algeria’s relations with neighboring states are complex and sometimes distrustful, at times hindering cooperation. Meanwhile, any U.S. unilateral action in response to regional security threats could present significant risks and opportunity costs. Algeria’s macroeconomic position is strong due to high global oil and gas prices, which have allowed it to amass large foreign reserves. Yet wealth has not necessarily trickled down, and the pressures of unemployment, high food prices, and housing shortages weigh on many families. Public unrest over political and economic grievances has at times been evident, though other factors may have dampened enthusiasm for dramatic political change.

Algeria’s foreign policy has often conflicted with that of the United States. Strains in ties with neighboring Morocco continue, due to the unresolved status of the Western Sahara and a rivalry for regional influence. The legacy of Algeria’s anti-colonial struggle contributes to Algerian leaders’ desire to prevent direct foreign intervention, their residual skepticism of French and NATO intentions, and their positions on regional affairs, including a non-interventionist stance toward the uprising in Syria and an ambivalent approach to external military intervention in neighboring Mali.

 

When it comes to Algeria’s economic status, both the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization have assumed unusual positive forecasts on Algeria. The U.S, State Department in 2012 declared that Algeria has stabilized and all efforts were underway to enhanced the U.S./Algeria Trade Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA). This bring to light a company called Sonatrach, which exploits hydrocarbons for global consumption under research and development.

From the State Department’s website, Algeria concluded commercial agreements with several U.S. companies including Northrup Grumman and General Electric. The number of foreign trade missions to Algeria reportedly grew from 30 in 2010 to 60 in 2012, illustrating the increased focus and competition in the local market. In 2012, Algeria concluded commercial agreements with several Arab and European nations. U.S. firms, such as Northrop Grumman and General Electric won multi-million dollar tenders. President Abdelaziz Bouteflika appointed former Minister of Water Resources, Abdelmalek Sellal, as the new Prime Minister. Sellal is trusted by the political elite and viewed as a pragmatic politician who seeks new economic partnerships to tackle long-standing issues, such as housing shortages and unemployment. Algerian leadership remains focused on building domestic production capacity and reducing imports and seeks U.S. expertise and partnership. Minister of Commerce Mustapha Benbada visited the United States in December 2012 for discussions with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative related to Algeria’s World Trade Organization (WTO) accession and cooperation under the U.S.-Algeria Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA).

 

General Electric continues to court Algeria in partnerships and joint ventures in 2015. Sonatrach is a company rocked by constant scandal including fraud suspicions and prison terms, in fact the country itself is ranked 105th out of 176 in fraud.  The national hydrocarbon group Sonatrach and the American company General Electric (GE) signed Thursday in Algiers a memorandum of understanding on the creation of a joint company for the manufacturing of equipment used in oil and gas industry. This new unit, of which Sonatrach will hold 51% stake through the oil services holding (SPP) while 49% will be held by GE, will be set up in the form of a joint stock company. This unit will manufacture and develop, among others, equipment of drilling and production, equipment for measurement and supervision as well as provision for services and trainings relating to oil fields.

General Electric CEO, Jeffrey Immelt stated on April 22, 2015, he refused to turn over emails between himself and Hillary Clinton or those exchanged with the State Department. Immelt was also brought into the Obama administration as the ‘Job Czar’ and tendered his support for Obamacare while transferring his GE X-ray division to China to avoid the Obamacare taxes applied to medical devices. Immelt does need to provide evidence of the collusion especially when he authorized GE to contribute up to $1.0 million dollars to the Clinton Health Access Initiative.

Numerous sources, including the Wall Street Journal and the New Yorker, have recently reported that, while Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton lobbied foreign governments on behalf of companies including General Electric at a time when those companies were making donations to the Clinton Foundation. In late 2012, for example, Clinton urged the Algerian government to award a power plant contract to GE. GE contributed to the Clinton Foundation. Then in 2013, Algeria awarded the power plant contract to GE.

By donating to the Clinton Foundation while receiving a huge favor from the Secretary of State, did we not expose our company to the risk of being charged with honest services fraud? I am not accusing the company of any wrongdoing. But you have to admit that the optics suggest a quid pro quo could have occurred, and a public official pushing a foreign government to buy a company’s products while that company makes a generous donation to that public official’s family- run foundation appears to fit even the more limited definitions.

Since Mrs. Clinton had control of her business emails during this time and has said she deleted many of them, GE presumably is the only entity with evidence that everything was above board. To prevent the company from being the focus of any media or public investigation, would you consider making public all the Company’s written communications with the State Department during the relevant period?

Obama Still Owes Big Campaign Money

From the Federal Election Commission and per Obama’s best friend Marty Nesbitt, the campaign treasurer:

The actual report is here.

REPORT OF RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS

By An Authorized Committee of a
Candidate For the Office of President or Vice President
(Summary Page, FEC FORM 3P)

FILING FEC-1003858


1. Obama for America

PO Box 8102
Chicago, Illinois 60680

2. FEC Committee ID #: C00431445

This report contains activity for a Primary Election

4. Report Type = APR QUARTERLY

For election on 11/06/2012 in the State of ____

Filed 04/15/2015

SUMMARY
DETAILED SUMMARY PAGE
ALLOCATIONS BY STATE
Schedule A Filings (ITEMIZED RECEIPTS)
Schedule B Filings (ITEMIZED DISBURSEMENTS)


SUMMARY

5. Covering Period 01/01/2015 Through 03/31/2015

6. Cash on Hand at BEGINNING of the Reporting Period 1545621.22
7. Total Receipts This Period 157567.45
8. Subtotal (6 + 7) 1703188.67
9. Total Disbursements This Period 1602644.79
10. Cash on Hand at CLOSE of the Reporting Period 100543.88
11. Debts and Obligations Owed TO the Committee 0.00
    Itemize all on SCHEDULE C or SCHEDULE D
12. Debts and Obligations Owed BY the Committee 2334041.69
    Itemize all on SCHEDULE C or SCHEDULE D
13. Expenditures Subject To Limitation 0.00
14. NET Contributions (Other than Loans) -1025295.97
15. NET Operating Expenditures 41464012.91
Treasurer: Martin H. Nesbitt
Date Signed: 04/15/2015

(End Summary, FEC FORM 3P)


DETAILED SUMMARY

Of Receipts And Disbursements

Column A
This Period
Column B
Election
Cycle-To-Date
Column C
I. Receipts
16. Federal Funds (Itemize on Schedule A-P) 0.00 0.00 0.00
17. Contributions (other than loans) From:
    (a) Individuals/Persons Other than Political Committees
          (i)   itemized 0.00 529349.14 0.00
          (ii)  unitemized 85.00 1239238.50 0.00
          (iii) Total contributions 85.00 1768587.64 0.00
    (b) Political Party Commitees 0.00 0.00 0.00
    (c) Other Political Committees 0.00 0.00 0.00
    (d) The Candidate 0.00 0.00 0.00
    (e) Total Contributions (11(a) + (b) + (c) + (d)) 85.00 1768587.64 0.00
18. Transfers From Other Authorized Committees 0.00 8711995.18 0.00
19. Loans Received:
    (a) Loans Received From or Guaranteed By Candidate 0.00 0.00 0.00
    (b) Other Loans 0.00 0.00 0.00
    (c) Total Loans (19(a) + (b)) 0.00 0.00 0.00
20. Offsets to Expenditures (Refunds, Rebates, etc):
    (a) Operating 0.00 4994560.09 0.00
    (b) Fundraising 0.00 0.00 0.00
    (c) Legal and Accounting 0.00 0.00 0.00
    (d) Total Offsets To Expenditures (20(a) + (b) + (c)) 0.00 4994560.09 0.00
21. Other Receipts (Dividends, Interest, etc) 157482.45 7275087.42 0.00
22. Total Receipts 157567.45 22750230.33 0.00
II. Disbursements
23. Operating Expenditures 1602599.79 46458573.00 0.00
24. Transfers to Other Authorized Committees 0.00 0.00 0.00
25. Fundraising Disbursements 0.00 0.00 0.00
26. Exempt Legal and Accounting Disbursements 0.00 0.00 0.00
27. Loan Repayments Made
    (a) Repayments of loans Made or Guaranteed By Candidate 0.00 0.00 0.00
    (b) Other Loans 0.00 0.00 0.00
    (c) Total Loans (27(a) + (b)) 0.00 0.00 0.00
28. Refunds of Contributions To:
    (a) Individuals/Persons Other Than Political Committees 45.00 2793883.61 0.00
    (b) Political Party Committees 0.00 0.00 0.00
    (c) Other Political Committees 0.00 0.00 0.00
    (d) Total Contribution Refunds (28(a) + (b) + (c)) 45.00 2793883.61 0.00
29. Other Disbursements 0.00 7829285.40 0.00
30. Total Disbursements 1602644.79 57081742.01 0.00
III. Contributed Items (stock, Art Objects, Etc.)
31. Items On Hand To Be Liquidated 0.00

 

(End Detailed Summary Page, FEC FORM 3P)


ALLOCATION OF PRIMARY EXPENDITURES BY STATE

For A Presidential Candidate


1. Obama for America

   PO Box 8102
   Chicago, Illinois  60680

2. FEC Committee ID #: C00431445


Allocation By State

State Allocation
This period
Total
Allocation
To Date
State Allocation
This period
Total
Allocation
To Date
Alabama 0.00 0.00   Nebraska 0.00 0.00
Alaska 0.00 0.00   Nevada 0.00 0.00
Arizona 0.00 0.00   New Hampshire 0.00 0.00
Arkansas 0.00 0.00   New Jersey 0.00 0.00
California 0.00 0.00   New Mexico 0.00 0.00
Colorado 0.00 0.00   New York 0.00 0.00
Connecticut 0.00 0.00   North Carolina 0.00 0.00
Delaware 0.00 0.00   North Dakota 0.00 0.00
District of Columbia 0.00 0.00   Ohio 0.00 0.00
Florida 0.00 0.00   Oklahoma 0.00 0.00
Georgia 0.00 0.00   Oregon 0.00 0.00
Hawaii 0.00 0.00   Pennsylvania 0.00 0.00
Idaho 0.00 0.00   Rhode Island 0.00 0.00
Illinois 0.00 0.00   South Carolina 0.00 0.00
Indiana 0.00 0.00   South Dakota 0.00 0.00
Iowa 0.00 0.00   Tennessee 0.00 0.00
Kansas 0.00 0.00   Texas 0.00 0.00
Kentucky 0.00 0.00   Utah 0.00 0.00
Louisiana 0.00 0.00   Vermont 0.00 0.00
Maine 0.00 0.00   Virginia 0.00 0.00
Maryland 0.00 0.00   Washington 0.00 0.00
Massachusetts 0.00 0.00   West Virginia 0.00 0.00
Michigan 0.00 0.00   Wisconsin 0.00 0.00
Minnesota 0.00 0.00   Wyoming 0.00 0.00
Mississippi 0.00 0.00   Puerto Rico 0.00 0.00
Missouri 0.00 0.00   Guam 0.00 0.00
Montana 0.00 0.00   Virgin Islands 0.00 0.00
  TOTALS 0.00 0.00

(End Allocation of Primary Expenditures Page, FEC FORM 3P)

Generated Wed Apr 22 00:39:30 2015

Clinton Foundation(s) Collusion

From their website:

Creating Partnerships of Purpose We convene businesses, governments, NGOs, and individuals to improve global health and wellness, increase opportunity for women and girls, reduce childhood obesity

New Book, ‘Clinton Cash,’ Questions Foreign Donations to Foundation

The book does not hit shelves until May 5, but already the Republican Rand Paul has called its findings “big news” that will “shock people” and make voters “question” the candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

“Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” by Peter Schweizer — a 186-page investigation of donations made to the Clinton Foundation by foreign entities — is proving the most anticipated and feared book of a presidential cycle still in its infancy.

The book, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, asserts that foreign entities who made payments to the Clinton Foundation and to Mr. Clinton through high speaking fees received favors from Mrs. Clinton’s State Department in return.

“We will see a pattern of financial transactions involving the Clintons that occurred contemporaneous with favorable U.S. policy decisions benefiting those providing the funds,” Mr. Schweizer writes.

His examples include a free-trade agreement in Colombia that benefited a major foundation donor’s natural resource investments in the South American nation, development projects in the aftermath of the Haitian earthquake in 2010, and more than $1 million in payments to Mr. Clinton by a Canadian bank and major shareholder in the Keystone XL oil pipeline around the time the project was being debated in the State Department.

In the long lead up to Mrs. Clinton’s campaign announcement, aides proved adept in swatting down critical books as conservative propaganda, including Edward Klein’s “Blood Feud,” about tensions between the Clintons and the Obamas, and Daniel Halper’s “Clinton Inc.: The Audacious Rebuilding of a Political Machine.”

But “Clinton Cash” is potentially more unsettling, both because of its focused reporting and because major news organizations including The Times, The Washington Post and Fox News have exclusive agreements with the author  to pursue the story lines found in the book.

Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which includes Mr. Paul and Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, have been briefed on the book’s findings, and its contents have already made their way into several of the Republican presidential candidates’ campaigns.

Conservative “super PACs” plan to seize on “Clinton Cash,” and a pro-Democrat super PAC has already assembled a dossier on Mr. Schweizer, a speechwriting consultant to former President George W. Bush and a fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution who has contributed to the conservative website Breitbart.com, to make the case that he has a bias against Mrs. Clinton.

And the newly assembled Clinton campaign team is planning a full-court press to diminish the book as yet another conservative hit job.

A campaign spokesman, Brian Fallon, called the book part of the Republicans’ coordinated attack strategy on Mrs. Clinton “twisting previously known facts into absurd conspiracy theories,” and he said “it will not be the first work of partisan-fueled fiction about the Clintons’ record, and we know it will not be the last.”

The timing is problematic for Mrs. Clinton as she begins a campaign to position herself as a “champion for everyday Americans.”

From 2001 to 2012, the Clintons’ income was at least $136.5 million, Mr. Schweizer writes, using a figure previously reported in The Post. “During Hillary’s years of public service, the Clintons have conducted or facilitated hundreds of large transactions” with foreign governments and individuals, he writes. “Some of these transactions have put millions in their own pockets.”

The Clinton Foundation has come under scrutiny for accepting foreign donations while Mrs. Clinton served as secretary of state. Last week, the foundation revised its policy to allow donations from countries like Germany, Canada, the Netherlands and Britain but prohibit giving by other nations in the Middle East.

Mr. Schweizer’s book will be released the same day former President Bill Clinton and the Clintons’ daughter, Chelsea, will host the Clinton Global Initiative gathering with donors in Morocco, the culmination of a foundation trip to several African nations. (A chapter in the book is titled “Warlord Economics: The Clintons Do Africa.”)

There is a robust market for books critical of the Clintons. The thinly sourced “Blood Feud,” by Mr. Klein, at one point overtook Mrs. Clinton’s memoir “Hard Choices” on the best-seller list.

But whether Mr. Schweizer’s book can deliver the same sales is not clear. He writes mainly in the voice of a neutral journalist and meticulously documents his sources, including tax records and government documents, while leaving little doubt about his view of the Clintons.

His reporting largely focuses on payments made to Mr. Clinton for speeches, which increased while his wife served as secretary of state, writing that “of the 13 Clinton speeches that fetched $500,000 or more, only two occurred during the years his wife was not secretary of state.”

In 2011, Mr. Clinton made $13.3 million in speaking fees for 54 speeches, the majority of which were made overseas, the author writes.

*** Now the questions that need to be asked include what policies did the State Department, the NSC and the White House take covertly with regard to diplomacy and those affects on strategies.

Resettlement of Somalis in America, Threat Matrix

Refugee resettlement into the United States where the U.S. State Department in coordination with the United Nations has brought terror recruiting to our homeland. Arrests occur weekly of those that either have traveled to Iraq and or Syria, trained and have returned or are part of a peer to peer process to attack soft targets in America. Each mayor, each governor must demand a stop to this program. Is it happening in a town in which you live? Likely yes. 190 towns across America are targeted locations for resettlement.

In case you have any questions on the matter of ‘Refugee Resettlement’ click here to listen to the facts.

Just this past February in Minneapolis:

Assistant Attorney General for National Security John P. Carlin and U.S. Attorney Andrew M. Luger for the District of Minnesota announced today the indictment of Hamza Naj Ahmed, 19, for conspiring to provide material support to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).  Ahmed is also charged with attempting to provide material support to ISIL and for making a false statement in a terrorism investigation.  Ahmed was previously charged by criminal complaint for lying to FBI agents.  The defendant was detained on Feb. 5, 2015, after making an initial appearance before Magistrate Judge Steven Rau in U.S. District Court in St. Paul, Minnesota.

“Hamza Ahmed is at least the fourth person from the Twin Cities charged as a result of an ongoing investigation into individuals who have traveled or are attempting to travel to Syria in order to join a foreign terrorist organization,” said U.S. Attorney Luger. “Since 2007, dozens of people from the Twin Cities have traveled or attempted to travel overseas in support of terror. While my office will continue to prosecute those who attempt to provide material support to ISIL or any other terrorist organization, we remain committed to working with dedicated community members to bring this cycle to an end.”

The photos above were taken in Minneapolis.

 

FBI Arrests 6 People In 2 States In Terrorism Investigation

The FBI made a string of arrests Sunday, taking a total of six people into custody in Minneapolis and San Diego in a terrorism joint task force operation. The arrests follow an inquiry into young people from the Twin Cities area who have joined terrorist groups such as ISIS and al-Shabab.

Details about the case are still emerging. A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Minnesota office has confirmed the arrests to several media outlets, saying that public safety was not under an immediate threat. So far, it seems that all of those arrested are young men whose families are originally from Somalia.

A news briefing about the arrests is scheduled for Monday morning; we’ll update this post with news.

From Minnesota Public Radio:

“A Somali woman who said she was the mother of two men who were arrested told MPR News that the FBI arrived at her house around noon. One of her sons was arrested at her house; the other was arrested in San Diego.

“She said more than a dozen FBI and police officers searched her house and confiscated a tablet computer owned by the son arrested in San Diego.”

That woman met with other parents whose sons were arrested Sunday; they’re part of a large Somali community in Minneapolis. ***

“We have a terror recruiting problem in Minnesota,” US Attorney for Minnesota Andrew Luger said during the press conference.

“As described in the criminal complaint, these men worked over the course of the last 10 months to join ISIL,” said Luger. “Even when their co-conspirators were caught and charged, they continued to seek new and creative ways to leave Minnesota to fight for a terror group. ”

According to the FBI, authorities on Sunday arrested Zacharia Yusuf Abdurahman, Adnan Farah, Hanad Mustafe Musse and Guled Ali Omar in Minneapolis, and Abdirahman Yasin Daud and Mohamed Abdihamid Farah were arrested in California after driving from Minneapolis to San Diego. All the accused are between the ages of 19 and 21.

 

 

Governor Christie is Desperate by his own Doing

Imagine that you invested in a 4 bedroom home. You raised your family and now the children are adults and have moved on. Three of those bedrooms are no longer occupied by a family member. So one room is an office, one room is a workout room one is a guest room. Well the government steps in and says, you don’t need those other bedrooms you bought and paid for so we are moving in 2 other families less fortunate and you need to provide them with medical benefits, transportation and food. What you say????

Enter New Jersey Governor Christie and his proposal to reform social security in this state. Imagine his proposal saying that anyone earning over $200,ooo per year and having paid into social security, does not really need their funds at age 65, so Governor Christie wants to offer it to others. Does this mean socialism? Why yes it does. But is he proposing this now? Simply said, he made both bad decisions and no decisions and is out of money. Then it is suggested you find out what is going on in your state.

Follow The Money

Respectfully submitted by Lawrence E. Rafferty (rafflaw)-Weekend Contributor

 

Over the last few years we have seen many stories and articles that discuss the problems States and Municipalities are having in paying their public pension payments and how various politicians propose to fix those “problems”.  The politicians almost always seem to blame the pension problems on the overpaid government workers and their unions. The idea that Wall Street might have something to do with these government pension plans being underfunded is rarely discussed.  Until now.

A significant portion of the funds deposited in government employee pension plans is invested with Wall Street. According to one recent study, the public pension plans are paying at least $5.4 Billion dollars each year to Wall Street.

“Currently, about 9 percent — or $270 billion — of America’s $3 trillion public pension fund assets are invested in private equity firms. Assuming the industry standard 2 percent management fee, that quarter-trillion dollars generates roughly $5.4 billion in annual management fees for the private equity industry — and that’s not including additional “performance” fees paid on investment returns. But even the $5.4 billion number could be drastically understated, according to CEM.” Reader Supported News

$5.4 Billion dollars is a lot of money, but as usual, Wall Street may be getting an even bigger piece of the pie. “If CEM’s calculations are applied uniformly, it could mean taxpayers and retirees may actually be paying double that $5.4 billion number — or more than $10 billion a year. Public officials are overseeing this massive payout to Wall Street at the very moment many of those same officials are demanding big cuts to retirees’ promised pension benefits. By comparison, the total budget of the Environmental Protection Agency is just over $8 billion.” RSN

In order to fully understand the scope of the costs these pension plans are paying to Wall Street, it may help to see how these huge fees are paid on the state level.

“California’s report said $440 million. New Jersey’s said $600 million. In Pennsylvania, the tally is $700 million. Those figures are public worker pension fees being paid annually by taxpayers to Wall Street firms, and they have kicked off an intensifying debate over whether such expenses are necessary.” RSN

When you consider that the CEM study figures that public pension plans are paying from $5.4 Billion to more than $10 Billion a year in fees, it is no wonder that so many politicians want to privatize Social Security and bring other public pensions into the Wall Street fold.  Using just the standard 2% fee noted above, just how many billions would Wall Street rake in if Social Security was privatized? How many billions more would Wall Street collect if the entire public pension asset pool was also “invested” with Wall Street?

At the least, shouldn’t these States insist on a full disclosure of the secret fees that the CEM study alleged?  And if the study is correct, shouldn’t Wall Street refund the secret fees back to the pension plans?  In one example, the State of Pennsylvania is balking at its high fees and the Governor and the Legislature are trying to find a way to make the cost of their underfunded pension plans more manageable. Both sides of the aisle differ in their approaches to solve the problem.

In New Jersey, the evidence is mounting that the Governor steered public pension money to political allies and donors.

“This week, after an International Business Times investigative series found that Republican Gov. Chris Christie’s officials were not disclosing all state pension fees paid, New Jersey pension trustees announced a formal investigation of the fee payments. Some of those fees have flowed to firms whose executives made big donations to political groups affiliated with Christie. In just the five years since Christie took office, New Jersey fees paid to financial firms have more than quadrupled. At the same time as fees spiked, Christie has said the pension funds do not have enough money to pay promised benefits to retirees.” RSN

Do you think Gov. Christie will ask his cronies for New Jersey’s money back?

In various states, one side of the discussion wants to use bonds to make the payments more palatable and the other side is pushing to put new hires into a 401(k) system where the employees do their own investing.  Of course, neither plan will quickly solve the problem of underfunded pension plans when state and municipalities have reduced or ignored payments to the pension plan for years and in some cases like in Illinois and other states, for decades.

And if the 401(k) plan that is being promulgated for Pennsylvania and other states is incorporated, who do these employees invest their retirement money with?  Wall Street, of course.

I believe that a reasonable taxpayer would think that at the least, the politicians should be able to agree on reducing the cost of the Wall Street investment fees and demand an accounting of all undisclosed fees and if possible, a refund of those undisclosed fees.   With both Democratic and Republican administrations involved in allowing or funneling public pension funds to supporters and donors,  politics and cronyism may get in the way of a real and equitable fix.  What do you think?