There was an error in this gadget
0
----------
Truck
Now, that beats my bumper sticker...
</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=1367f4f6cfbe4087&attid=0.1.1&disp=emb&zw&atsh=1>
SIGHTED AT SAM'S CLUB, Downtown BANGOR, ME
</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=1367f4f6cfbe4087&attid=0.1.2&disp=emb&zw&atsh=1>
Check out the license plate.
KEEP YOUR TRUST IN G-D. YOUR GOVERNMENT HAS FAILED YOU MISERABLY.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
---------
I'll try to summarize this cluster bomb as best I can...
A company in charge of a nuclear cleanup site gets $2 billion in stimulus funding, loses roughly 200 jobs in the end, then gets a $1.3 million grant to help the laid off workers find jobs.
http://mentalrecession.blogspot.com/2012/04/company-that-received-196-billion-in.html
--
Please visit The Mental Recession at http://mentalrecession.blogspot.com
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Barack Obama Warns Americans about His Second Term as President of the United States
If you think Barack Obama has been bad for the country during his first term as president, just wait till he is re-elected.
During the first three years in office, he has openly ignored and violated dozens of federal laws as well as numerous provisions in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. There has never been a president in the history of our nation guilty of more crimes against the American people than Barack Obama.
He publicly stated that he didn't care what the Constitution said. He's also publicly told us that he does not intend to uphold all of the immigration laws. Then he turned around and ordered the Department of Justice to stop enforcing the Marriage Defense Act. A sitting president does not have the legal power to disregard an act of Congress, but he doesn't care about the law.
Obamacare has at least 4 central provisions that are unconstitutional, but that doesn't stop him from enacting it anyway. Besides being unconstitutional, Obamacare will raise taxes of every American by a substantial amount, even though Obama promises to not raise taxes on middle and poverty class citizens.
Barack Obama has also declared war on Christianity. His directives have been aimed at destroying Christian liberties while at the same time giving many of those liberties to his Muslim brothers.
The list of his atrocities against the American people is too long to list here. But it will be nothing compared to what he has planned for his second term and he's told us so, indirectly.
When he met with out-going Russian President Dimitri Medvedev last week, Obama told him to wait for his second term as he will be more flexible to do more. He's also said it several more times, which is a clear indication that the worse is yet to come.
I've read a number of commentaries on this exchange and most of them seem to center upon a possible secret deal with the Russians, but Obama's statement goes much further than that, it's a warning to Americans as to what will be next.
Believe it or not, Obama has held back many of his desired policies for a second term. His main goal at this point is get re-elected. He doesn't want to do anything too drastic that would hurt his chances of re-election.
However, once elected to a second term, he doesn't have to worry about another election. He will be much freer to 'be more flexible' with his agenda to take completely transform America into a socialist state.
If the past three years are any indication, feeling he has more flexibility in a second term should be terrifying to all of us. Couple this new flexibility with his blatant disregard for the Constitution, Congress and federal law, there will be no stopping him from carrying out his sordid plans.
Both Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum should pick up on this and hammer it into the minds of every American from now until the election. They need to use this as one of their main campaign issues. Perhaps this will resonate with more Americans.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
WordPress.com
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
----------
Rush predicts Obama's response to Supremes
If health care gets tossed, Limbaugh doesn't expect pretty picture
Published: 2 hours ago
<http://www.wnd.com/files/2012/01/Joe-Kovacs_avatar.jpg>by Joe KovacsEmail | Archive
If the U.S. Supreme Court tosses out Obamacare, radio giant Rush Limbaugh predicts President Obama will blame Republican justices, whose homes might become the target of political protest.
"Obama's gonna make tracks for the first microphone and camera and he's going to say something like this," Limbaugh said this afternoon.
"'For 60 to 75 years, we have been struggling to achieve fairness and justice for all people in this country, not just the privileged few. We've recognized that the way health care has existed in this country is emblematic of the injustice and the discrimination that has defined this country since its beginning. And look what happened. Republican judges just took away your health care. Republican judges just decided you were about to get too big a piece of the pie. Republican judges determined that you're not important enough to have health care.' And then he'll throw in, 'We've seen similar struggles since the days of Jim Crow' or throw in some identifier, throw in some code word. And then he'll relate the loss of health care to civil-rights battles that have occurred. And he'll do this in his best professorial voice. And he in the process will be lighting another fuse."
Once Obama finishes his assault on the GOP-appointed members of the bench, he says leftist "sycophants will hit the trail and we will hear slogans like 'We shall overcome the court.'
"Then his buddies at the Daily Beast will start writing columns that the judges who voted to overturn it need to be impeached. Where they live will be discovered and publicized. And just as the Democrats sent Occupy people and union people up to the homes of the executives at AIG, so too might they do this to various judges, justices and so forth.
While Limbaugh said every event may not occur, he added. "I guarantee you there will be, with all the rest of this, a defiance [of] 'Why do we have to listen to them anyway? … Why? They keep their health care. They didn't get rid of their own, but they just got rid of yours,' and it's off to the races for the 2012 presidential election. That's what's going to happen."
Yesterday, Limbaugh said President Obama was threatening Supreme Court justices with his comments about his signature health-care law.
Obama had said: "I think the American people understand and I think the justices should understand that, in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to ensure that people with pre-existing conditions can actually get health care."
"Obama's put a bounty out on the Supreme Court, figuratively speaking, since bounties are in the news lately. There's no question," said Limbaugh. "This is a message to the conservative justices: Anthony Kennedy, look what you will be taking away if you strike down my law. Look at the people you will be hurting if you strike down my law."
http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/rush-predicts-obamas-response-to-supremes/
FREE Emoticons for your email - by IncrediMail
</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=1367f0112cde8414&attid=0.1&disp=emb&zw&atsh=1>
Click Here!
</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=1367f0112cde8414&attid=0.2&disp=emb&zw&atsh=1>
<http://www2l.incredimail.com/gcontent/stamps/new2011/pixel.gif?upn=603982181986837650>
__._,_.___
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity:
Visit Your Group
IF YOU DON'T STAND BEHIND OUR TROOPS, FEEL FREE TO STAND IN FRONT OF THEM! Please visit: www.operationshoebox.com
<http://l.yimg.com/a/i/us/yg/logo/us.gif>
Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
.
<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=12603557/grpspId=1705303296/msgId=376232/stime=1333570636/nc1=3848614/nc2=5758219/nc3=4836037>
__,_._,___
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
| |
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
"Conservatives often cheer on the presidencies of Teddy Roosevelt -- a progressive if ever there was one -- and New Dealers like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. They also defend a leviathan different from that envisioned by the progressive left more as a matter of degree than of kind. On economics, all too many conservatives have embraced the national welfare state, and although they are still more attuned to traditional limits on state power in this arena, they are often worse than the other side when it comes to policing and warfare issues. All in all, both wings of the modern spectrum have been different flavors of the progressive ideology that completely conquered the Republican Party a century ago, and then overtook the Democrats and modern liberalism as well. Many of the features of "conservatism" from the Cold War to George W. Bush -- militarism, national statism, welfare statism with paternalistic garb, police statism, anti-immigration sentiment, cozying up to big business while expanding the regulatory state -- have clear origins in the progressive presidencies of Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and even Woodrow Wilson. Thus I find the question as to whether Bush was a conservative or a progressive to be a trick question. He was both."
Modern Conservatism = Rightwing Progressivism?
By Anthony Gregory | Monday April 2, 2012 at 11:08 AM PDT
Mary's post perfectly exposes the key problem with these progressives. No objective moral standards. No basic respect in human dignity.
One thing that troubles me about the political climate is just how extensive this moral bankruptcy is. Glenn Beck did a service in demonstrating the collectivist ethical situationalism of progressives to a whole generation of fans. Unfortunately, many Americans have fallen under a spell of modern conservatism that is itself simply another flavor of progressivism, and at times a particularly nasty one.
On the health care debate before the Supreme Court, the liberal justices during oral argument sounded much more dedicated to the malleable nature of the law and moral standards. Yet another case before the Supreme Court has shown just how bad the other "side" can be when it comes to a different set of political questions. As the New York Times reports:
This only serves to remind us that there are no good justices on the Supreme Court. There are those who believe the national government has unlimited power to regulate the economywhich is to say our very livesand there are those who believe that in the name of domestic and foreign security, there are no limits on state power in the most intimate and personal of areas: our rights not to be strip-searched, our rights not to have our property ransacked, our rights not to be detained indefinitely at the whim of the president. While Kennedy has been at times better than either the conservatives or liberals on the Court, his vote on Kelo, upholding eminent domain for the sole purpose of expanding the corporate state, and Raich, upholding the federal government's right to jail sick people who used medicine legal under state law, remind us that he too often sides with collectivist violence against the individual without any principled hesitation at all.
The Court is perhaps an interesting proxy for the political spectrum, since it features modern liberalism and modern conservatism at its most thoughtful and sophisticated. It also proves that progressivism has won the day across most of that spectrum.
Conservatives often cheer on the presidencies of Teddy Roosevelt-- a progressive if ever there was one -- and New Dealers like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. They also defend a leviathan different from that envisioned by the progressive left more as a matter of degree than of kind. On economics, all too many conservatives have embraced the national welfare state, and although they are still more attuned to traditional limits on state power in this arena, they are often worse than the other side when it comes to policing and warfare issues. All in all, both wings of the modern spectrum have been different flavors of the progressive ideology that completely conquered the Republican Party a century ago, and then overtook the Democrats and modern liberalism as well. Many of the features of "conservatism" from the Cold War to George W. Bush -- militarism, national statism, welfare statism with paternalistic garb, police statism, anti-immigration sentiment, cozying up to big business while expanding the regulatory state -- have clear origins in the progressive presidencies of Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and even Woodrow Wilson. Thus I find the question as to whether Bush was a conservative or a progressive to be a trick question. He was both.
This only bolsters the point Mary makes at the end of her blog. Because when the rightwing progressives recapture government, we can hardly expect them to be any better than the progressive leftwingers who now run the show.
Modern Conservatism = Rightwing Progressivism?
By Anthony Gregory | Monday April 2, 2012 at 11:08 AM PDT
Mary's post perfectly exposes the key problem with these progressives. No objective moral standards. No basic respect in human dignity.
One thing that troubles me about the political climate is just how extensive this moral bankruptcy is. Glenn Beck did a service in demonstrating the collectivist ethical situationalism of progressives to a whole generation of fans. Unfortunately, many Americans have fallen under a spell of modern conservatism that is itself simply another flavor of progressivism, and at times a particularly nasty one.
On the health care debate before the Supreme Court, the liberal justices during oral argument sounded much more dedicated to the malleable nature of the law and moral standards. Yet another case before the Supreme Court has shown just how bad the other "side" can be when it comes to a different set of political questions. As the New York Times reports:
- The Supreme Court on Monday ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that officials may strip-search people arrested for any offense, however minor, before admitting them to jails even if the officials have no reason to suspect the presence of contraband.
This only serves to remind us that there are no good justices on the Supreme Court. There are those who believe the national government has unlimited power to regulate the economywhich is to say our very livesand there are those who believe that in the name of domestic and foreign security, there are no limits on state power in the most intimate and personal of areas: our rights not to be strip-searched, our rights not to have our property ransacked, our rights not to be detained indefinitely at the whim of the president. While Kennedy has been at times better than either the conservatives or liberals on the Court, his vote on Kelo, upholding eminent domain for the sole purpose of expanding the corporate state, and Raich, upholding the federal government's right to jail sick people who used medicine legal under state law, remind us that he too often sides with collectivist violence against the individual without any principled hesitation at all.
The Court is perhaps an interesting proxy for the political spectrum, since it features modern liberalism and modern conservatism at its most thoughtful and sophisticated. It also proves that progressivism has won the day across most of that spectrum.
Conservatives often cheer on the presidencies of Teddy Roosevelt-- a progressive if ever there was one -- and New Dealers like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. They also defend a leviathan different from that envisioned by the progressive left more as a matter of degree than of kind. On economics, all too many conservatives have embraced the national welfare state, and although they are still more attuned to traditional limits on state power in this arena, they are often worse than the other side when it comes to policing and warfare issues. All in all, both wings of the modern spectrum have been different flavors of the progressive ideology that completely conquered the Republican Party a century ago, and then overtook the Democrats and modern liberalism as well. Many of the features of "conservatism" from the Cold War to George W. Bush -- militarism, national statism, welfare statism with paternalistic garb, police statism, anti-immigration sentiment, cozying up to big business while expanding the regulatory state -- have clear origins in the progressive presidencies of Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and even Woodrow Wilson. Thus I find the question as to whether Bush was a conservative or a progressive to be a trick question. He was both.
This only bolsters the point Mary makes at the end of her blog. Because when the rightwing progressives recapture government, we can hardly expect them to be any better than the progressive leftwingers who now run the show.
Veterans Agency Made Secret Deal Over Benefits
By David Evans - Sep 14, 2010 11:12 AM CT
The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs failed to inform 6 million soldiers and their families of an agreement enabling Prudential Financial Inc. to withhold lump-sum payments of life insurance benefits for survivors of fallen service members, according to records made public through a Freedom of Information request.
The amendment to Prudential's contract is the first document to show how VA officials sanctioned a payment practice that has spurred investigations by lawmakers and regulators. Since 1999, Prudential has used so-called retained-asset accounts, which allow the company to withhold lump-sum payments due to survivors and earn investment income on the money for itself.
A sample "check" for a Prudential retained asset account. Photographer: David Evans/Bloomberg
Sept. 14 (Bloomberg) -- Bloomberg Markets magazine's David Evans talks about an agreement between the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and Prudential Financial Inc. that enabled the insurer to withhold lump-sum payments of life insurance benefits for survivors of fallen soldiers. The veterans agency said today that Prudential will now send beneficiaries a check when they ask for a lump-sum benefit payment rather than keeping the money and mailing a checkbook. Evans speaks with Margaret Brennan on Bloomberg Television's "InBusiness". (Source: Bloomberg)
Attachment: 2009 VA/Prudential Contract Amendment
Attachment: 2007 VA/Prudential Contract -- Part 3 of 3
Attachment: 2007 VA/Prudential Contract -- Part 2 of 3
Attachment: 2007 VA/Prudential Contract -- Part 1 of 3
Attachment: VA 1999 Internal E-Mail.
This signed amendment to Prudential's contract is the first document to show how Department of Veterans Affairs officials sanctioned a payment practice that has spurred investigations by lawmakers and regulators. Photographer: Jonathan Fickies/Bloomberg
U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Photographer: Brendan Smialowski/Bloomberg
This signed amendment to Prudential's contract is the first document to show how Department of Veterans Affairs officials sanctioned a payment practice that has spurred investigations by lawmakers and regulators. Photographer: Jonathan Fickies/Bloomberg
The headquarters building of Prudential Financial Inc. stands in Newark, New Jersey, on Thursday, July 29, 2010. Photographer: Emile Wamsteker/Bloomberg
The Sept. 1, 2009, amendment to Prudential's contract with the VA ratified another unpublicized deal that had been struck between the insurer and the government 10 years earlier -- one that was never put into writing, Bloomberg Markets magazine reports in its November issue. This verbal agreement in 1999 provoked concern among top insurance officials of the agency, the documents released in the FOIA request show.
For a decade, until the contract was formally changed, Prudential wasn't fulfilling its obligations to survivors of fallen service members, says Brendan Bridgeland, an insurance lawyer who runs the non-profit Center for Insurance Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
'Violated Terms'
"It's very clear they violated the original terms of the contract," says Bridgeland, who is retained by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners to represent consumers.
"Every veteran I've spoken with is appalled at the brazen war profiteering by Prudential," says Paul Sullivan, who served in the 1991 Gulf War as an Army cavalry scout and is now executive director of Veterans for Common Sense, a nonprofit advocacy group based in Washington. "Now vets are upset at the VA's inability to stop Prudential's bad behavior."
That the VA allowed Prudential to issue retained-asset accounts for 10 years while the contract required lump-sum payouts is "more evidence that the VA was asleep at the wheel for a decade," says Sullivan, who was a project manager and analyst at the VA from 2000 to 2006.
"When grieving families check the box that they want a lump sum, they should get it. We remain disappointed and irate at the VA's failure to provide advocacy for veterans," he says.
State and U.S. Probes
Since July 28, when Bloomberg Markets first reported that Prudential sent checkbooks instead of checks to survivors requesting lump-sum payouts, state and federal officials have demanded the retained-asset system be investigated and reformed. The VA itself launched a probe of its life insurance program the day the first story was published.
The next day, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo launched what he called a "major fraud investigation" of Prudential and other life insurers over their use of retained- asset accounts. Since then, Cuomo's office has issued subpoenas to Prudential and at least 12 more insurance companies.
The insurance departments in Georgia and New York have also opened probes. The U.S. House Oversight and Reform Committee plans to hold hearings into Prudential's use of retained-asset accounts to pay money owed to fallen soldiers' survivors.
'News to Me'
U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates -- who was in office when the 2009 agreement was signed -- said when the VA started its probe that he had been unaware that survivors were being sent retained-asset accounts.
"Until today I actually believed that the families of our fallen heroes got a check for the full amount of their benefits," Gates said at the time. "This came as news to me."
As a result of the VA probe, the agency announced today that it will change its insurance program, allowing survivors to request and receive lump-sum checks.
Under Prudential's original 1965 contract with the VA and a 2007 revised contract -- both of which were released as part of the FOIA response -- the insurer is required to send lump-sum payouts to survivors requesting them. The contract covers 6 million active service members, their families and veterans.
The checkbooks Prudential sends to survivors are tied to what the insurer calls its Alliance Account. The checkbooks are made up of drafts, or IOUs, and aren't insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Prudential invests the survivors' money in its general corporate account, where it can earn the insurer as much as eight times as much as it currently pays in interest to beneficiaries.
Bond Income
Prudential held $662 million of survivors' money in its corporate general account as of June 30, according to information provided by the VA. Prudential's general account earned 4.2 percent in 2009, mostly from bond investments, according to regulatory filings. The company has paid survivors holding Alliance Accounts 0.5 percent in 2010.
Families that were supposed to receive lump-sum payments under the terms of the contract before it was amended in 2009 may be able to successfully sue Prudential for lost interest, insurance lawyer Bridgeland says.
"Survivors would have a very strong claim for interest earned by Prudential on their money," he says.
Prudential spokesman Bob DeFillippo says his company is following the terms of its agreement with the VA.
"Prudential is in compliance with its contract with the Department of Veterans' Affairs," he says.
DeFillippo declined to comment on whether Prudential was in compliance with its contract between 1999 and September 2009 or to answer any other questions. Prudential chairman and Chief Executive Officer John Strangfeld declined to comment for this story.
Useful Service
In July, DeFillippo said Prudential's retained-asset account was a useful service for bereaved relatives of soldiers. "For some families, the account is the difference between earning interest on a large amount of money and letting it sit idle," he said. Survivors can withdraw some or all of their money at any time, he said.
Veterans Affairs Chief of Staff John Gingrich says the agency approved use of the Alliance Account because it wanted to help survivors.
"We needed to give an option to individuals that allowed them more flexibility and time to react to the tragic family situation," Gingrich says.
Verbal Agreement
VA spokeswoman Katie Roberts declined to say when Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki, who was appointed by President Barack Obama in January 2009, learned of the existence of the 1999 verbal agreement and the 2009 amendment. She also declined to make Shinseki available for comment.
The VA official who verbally agreed in 1999 to allow Prudential to change the terms of the 1965 contract and begin offering retained-asset accounts was Thomas Lastowka, the VA's director for insurance, according to Dennis Foley, a VA attorney. Prudential began sending Alliance Account kits to soldiers' beneficiaries in June 1999.
Foley says the VA and Prudential would have been better off if they had put their 1999 agreement in writing.
"Could that have been done better?" Foley asks. "Probably. Best practice would have been to legally memorialize it at the time."
Foley says the 1999 changes to the 1965 contract were valid, even if they weren't in writing, because they were made by mutual agreement by people empowered to make such decisions.
"It was changed by somebody who was authorized to change it," he says.
Contract Terms
The language of both the 1965 contract and the 2009 amendment make clear that Newark, New Jersey-based Prudential was required to adhere to the original terms until 2009, regardless of any handshake agreements in 1999, insurance lawyer Bridgeland says.
The 1965 contract says any alterations must be made in writing.
"No change in the Group Policy shall be valid unless evidenced by an amendment thereto," it says. "No Agent is authorized to alter or amend the Group Policy."
The VA and Prudential signed a revised contract in 2007, saying it was "amended in its entirety." That contract, with the exact same words as the 1965 agreement, required that Prudential pay survivors with lump sums.
The 2007 revision included the same procedures in the 1965 agreement requiring any changes be made in writing. It contained no mention of the retained-asset system, or of the verbal agreement struck in 1999.
2009 Amendment
It wasn't until Sept. 24, 2009, that the changes agreed to by VA official Lastowka and Prudential in 1999 were put into writing. The 2009 amendment allowing Prudential to hold onto death benefit payouts was made retroactive to Sept. 1, 2009, not back to 1999.
By putting in writing a change that was verbally adopted 10 years earlier, the VA is effectively trying to backdate the amendment, says Jeffrey Stempel, an insurance law professor at the William S. Boyd School of Law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, who wrote 'Stempel on Insurance Contracts' (Aspen Publishers, 2009).
"They're trying to reinvent history," Stempel says. "You really can't do that. This is a blatant giveaway by the VA with nothing for the agency or the people in uniform."
Nine of every 10 survivors ask Prudential for lump-sum payments, the VA says. Prudential sends those families "checkbooks" instead of checks.
'Disasters Do Happen'
Documents released in the FOIA request show some signs of concern within the VA after Prudential proposed the retained- asset accounts in 1998. Lastowka, the official who allowed Prudential to introduce the Alliance Accounts, said that the insurer's "checkbook" system wasn't protected by the FDIC.
"Disasters do happen," wrote Lastowka, in an e-mail dated June 9, 1999, to Stephen Wurtz, the agency's deputy assistant director for insurance.
Lastowka said in his e-mail that the lack of FDIC coverage could backfire on survivors.
"Who is responsible if Alliance goes belly up?" Lastowka asked. "I think we have to also be prepared to defend the use of the Alliance Account."
Lastowka also asked whether Prudential had adequately disclosed to survivors that the Alliance Accounts weren't covered by FDIC insurance. "Did Pru alert us to the non-FDIC fact?" he wrote to Wurtz. "Or was it in small print as the notice to beneficiaries?"
Documents turned over by the VA didn't include a response from Wurtz.
'Aware of Issues'
Lastowka says his e-mail shows the decision to allow Alliance Accounts was carefully considered.
"This e-mail demonstrates simply that the VA's Insurance program was aware of issues that might be raised as we implemented the payment method and that we should be prepared to respond to inquiries," Lastowka says. "We were confident that we were making a decision which would benefit survivors."
The FOIA documents show that on June 10, 1998, Prudential gave a presentation to the VA. It included 10 pages of key points, saying the Alliance Accounts would benefit survivors because they would provide safety, flexibility in how and when to use their money, competitive interest rates and customer service.
In fine print, at the bottom of one of the pages, was this caveat: "Funds in the Alliance Account are direct obligations of The Prudential Insurance Company of America and are not insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation."
Sheila Bair
Twelve years later, the issue of the lack of FDIC protection in retained-asset accounts flared anew.
FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair said in August that consumers could incorrectly conclude that retained-asset accounts were insured by the FDIC.
"The insurance company must take care to avoid implying in any way that these accounts are in fact FDIC-insured," she wrote in an Aug. 5 letter to state insurance regulators.
Some families of veterans have taken their complaints to court. Five survivors filed a federal fraud lawsuit in Boston on Aug. 30 against Prudential claiming the insurer has earned as much as $500 million in profits by improperly keeping beneficiaries' money instead of paying it out in a lump sum.
The suit, Lucey vs. Prudential Insurance Co. of America, says the insurer fraudulently claims to beneficiaries that the Alliance Account is a lump sum.
'This Ruse'
"Initiation of this ruse does not constitute payment of anything to anyone," the suit says. "The Alliance Account is merely a bookkeeping device used by Prudential to hold on to beneficiaries' money."
Prudential hasn't yet filed a response in court. Spokesman DeFillippo says he can't comment on the case.
"It is important to note that several federal judges have rejected claims against accounts like our Alliance Account, concluding that beneficiaries are in virtually the same position they would be in had the insurer sent them a check," DeFillippo says. He cited the dismissal of a case against MetLife Inc. on Sept. 10.
Insurance contract professor Stempel says that regardless of the outcome of that lawsuit, it's clear that Prudential and the VA wrongly manipulated a federal contract at the expense of military members and their relatives. "At a minimum, survivors ought to be made whole with their missed interest," he says. "The VA really seems to have had the best interests of the insurance company at heart, instead of those of the soldiers and their families.
To contact the reporter on this story: David Evans in Los Angeles at davidevans@bloomberg.net.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bruce
Check out this video on YouTube:
They Don't Like Black People - David Brock, Media Matters for America
Sent from my iPad
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
