Also, this letter appeared yesterday…Patrick Murphy Demands End to Insurer’s Secret Profits on Soldiers’ Death Benefits
Bucks County Congressman outraged over revelations of life insurance company making millions in profit off of soldiers’ death benefits, demands money is returned to families
(Washington , D.C.) – It seems almost incomprehensible that life insurance companies would make millions in secret profits off of the death benefits of fallen U.S. servicemembers. But according to a groundbreaking report released yesterday by Bloomberg Markets magazine, that’s exactly what is happening to thousands of spouses and parents of troops who gave their lives serving our nation.
After learning of the ongoing scam, Pennsylvania Congressman Patrick Murphy (D-8th District) wrote a letter to the head of Prudential Financial, Inc. demanding that they end the practice immediately, disclose the exact amount of profit they made off troops’ death benefits, and return the money to the families. Murphy also made clear in his letter that while he hopes public outrage is sufficient cause for them to stop this practice, he’s already working with colleagues to pursue legislation to ensure it never happens again. While these practices may not be illegal, he said, they’re immoral and should stop immediately.
Murphy released the following statement after these revelations became public:
“I am outraged to learn that life insurance companies are ripping off parents and spouses of troops who sacrificed their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, making millions off benefits that should be going directly to the families.
I hope that it doesn’t take an act of Congress to force life insurance companies to do the right thing by military families, but you can rest assured I’ll do everything in my power to stop insurance companies’ outrageous practice of secretly profiting off the death of U.S. troops.”
For the full Bloomberg Markets magazine report, click here.
For a chart demonstrating how insurers benefit from soldiers’ death benefits, click here.
A one-on-one meeting in May; jobs fairs in June and July; a veterans' information meeting. Wow! Congressman Patrick Murphy sure doesn't just sit behind a desk and read the newspaper all day!And as you can imagine, there was plenty of wingnut umbrage in the comments; funny how they have no trouble dishing it out, as they say, but all kinds of trouble taking it.
A recent letter writer wanted to know "where are the jobs?" while criticizing the "... glossy mailer" that notified people of a jobs fair. (Complaining by some cannot be avoided; it's all these types have to offer.)
A letter devoted to complaining about Patrick's one-on-one meeting in May where he offered the public a chance to talk to him personally; his staff getting their contact information afterward (I've been to a few; very helpful.). The man complained that the venue should have been changed into a town hall meeting to accommodate an unruly group led by GOP congressional candidate Mike Fitzpatrick, who the letter writer called a "calming influence; (he) defused what could have been a volatile situation." Spare me! These same people showed up at Murphy's Bristol office on a Wednesday night at 6 p.m. after office hours wanting a one-on-one!
I've been to several of Murphy's meetings. They might be in the produce section of the Acme, they might be at a church in Warminster, they might be at his campaign office, they might be at a local union hall, and they might be at a church in Bristol; not to mention several telephone conferences. They all count. He's out there!
But, as I say, some just want to complain. The complainers have taken hold of a new word: "unconstitutional."
I think the crux of it is that these people are angry that they do not have the power. They want it; not that they know what to do with it.
Patrick Murphy is doing a tremendous amount of work and using our tax money wisely and for the right reasons: for the good of our community!
Barbara Stakes
Oakford, PA
And to reward good behavior, click here (and kudos to Murphy for this also).
HouseTo force Pancake Joe into retirement for good, click here.
Extended jobless benefits. Voting 272-152, the House sent President Obama a bill (HR 4213) to provide unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless through November, with the $34 billion cost added to the national debt. The bill will fund payments to those who have exhausted their initial 26-week allotments of state-funded jobless benefits and will deliver lump-sum retroactive payments to qualified individuals who lost eligibility after June 2. The bill keeps 99 weeks as the maximum eligibility period for receiving state-federal unemployment compensation.
A yes vote was to pass the bill.
Voting yes: John Adler (D., N.J.), Robert E. Andrews (D., N.J.), Robert A. Brady (D., Pa.), Michael N. Castle (R., Del.), Charles W. Dent (R., Pa.), Chaka Fattah (D., Pa.), Jim Gerlach (R., Pa.), Tim Holden (D., Pa.), Frank A. LoBiondo (R., N.J.), Patrick Murphy (D., Pa.), Allyson Y. Schwartz (D., Pa.), Joe Sestak (D., Pa.), and Christopher H. Smith (R., N.J.).
Voting no: Joseph R. Pitts (R., Pa.).
Tariff reductions, suspensions. Voting 378-43, the House sent the Senate a bill (HR 4380) reducing or suspending tariffs on the import of thousands of components and raw materials used by U.S. companies to manufacture made-in-America products. The bill is designed to boost production and create jobs in industries such as automobiles, agriculture, chemicals, electronics, machine tools, pharmaceuticals, and textiles.
A yes vote was to pass the bill.
Voting yes: Adler, Andrews, Brady, Castle, Dent, Fattah, Gerlach, Holden, LoBiondo, Murphy, Schwartz, Sestak, and Smith.
Voting no: Pitts.
And based on this, it looks like health care reform is on its way to achieving a similar level of acceptance by the vast majority of this country.
(Also, we recently observed the 20th anniversary of the signing of the Americans With Disabilities Act, and in that spirit, I think this is an excellent idea also.)
To support that claim, Varroney tells us the following (about the economic challenges also faced by JFK)…
In 1962…President Kennedy proposed a broad and bold series of tax cuts with the aim of spurring private-sector job creation. Kennedy believed the federal government's "most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures." Acting on those beliefs, Kennedy called for a reduction in personal and corporate tax rates and simplification of the tax code.Varroney then uses this as an excuse to extol the supposed tax-cutting success of The Sainted Ronnie R, which “went on to generate 16.4 million new jobs between 1983 and Inauguration Day 1989. Even more impressive, total tax revenues nearly doubled and personal income tax revenues increased by more than 54 percent by 1989.”
The Kennedy tax cuts ultimately spurred the creation of 9 million new jobs and increased federal revenues from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion by 1968.
Yeah, well, even supply-siders such as Greg Mankiw tell us here that "Most economists ... believe that taxes influence national income but doubt that the growth effects are large enough to make tax cuts self-financing."
Been there, done that, people…
The main reason why I’m pointing this out, though, isn’t to try and kill another “zombie lie” about tax cuts being supposedly deficit-neutral and leading to growth. It is to say that I actually agree with Varroney a bit on one point (shocking, I know); President Obama should be more like President Kennedy.
I’m talking about our 35th president who stood up to U.S. Steel, as noted here (every Democrat, not just President Obama, should read/listen and learn).
The Church tells us that NFP is a “safe, effective, and morally acceptable method of ‘spacing’ children.”
And this from an organization of men not allowed to marry or father kids of their own.
I don’t like criticizing my faith – it’s as important to me at least as it is to any Catholic. But it is wanton foolishness to think of NFP as anything other than a means to determine the optimum conditions for conceiving a child.
If anyone who happens to be reading this has been able to apply NFP successfully within their married lives, hey, good for you. But if you’re trying to prevent conception of a child as opposed to merely ‘spacing’ pregnancies, learn about actual methods of birth control and save yourselves some unnecessary heartache and/or anxious moments.
To paraphrase a bumper sticker I often see in our church’s parking lot (along with the ones about not believing the “liberal media”), it’s a child AND a choice.
No comments:
Post a Comment