Ms. Kennedy is seeking Hillary Clinton’s Senate seat. 

This is a cheap, easy way to become a Senator without having to seek the vote of the New York electorate.  It requires no profile in courage to seek public office in this manner.  One has to ask themselves very quickly, “Well, then why didn’t Caroline Kennedy seek the position in the last election?”  Perhaps, you know because Caroline would have to convince voters that she is, like qualified.  I wonder if Caroline could convince Sarah Palin she’s qualified?  Speaking of being qualified to be a Senator, Caroline states that:

[I]t’s about what I can do to, you know, help New York get its fair share [stimulus funds], help working families, travel the state [like Hillary did], bring attention to what is going on up there. So that’s why I think I would be good. 1

“My lawyer won’t let me tell you about it.”

Getting right to the point.   When the Democratic Governor Blagojevich story hit the news, one of my initial reactions to Jessie Jackson Jr.’s potential involvement was this.  Why has Mr. Jackson lawyered up so quickly?  My next thought was; U.S. Attorneys’ are not stupid nor are they often wrong.  This particular U.S. Attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald is successful, well-known for sure, and famous for his work ethic.  He’s the attorney who prosecuted the CIA leak case which almost got Karl Rove in trouble.  Fitzgerald is also the prosecutor who put Scooter Libby away for a short while.

Yes, we all know the presumption of innocence applies to Jackson–and to Democrat Blagojevich as well.  However, most of us have a tendency to believe that when you have nothing ["absolutely no involvement in any wrongdoing"] to hide, you seldom need a mouth-piece.  Let’s review some of the facts as we know them, and maybe a reason or two will surface as to why both Jackson’s have run to their lawyers.

However, before reviewing facts, let me have a bit of fun and point out to you that in my November 7, 2008 blog post “Gold Flush”, I said (because Obama won the election):

Jessie Jackson, Jr. will soon replace The Organizer [Obama] in the U.S. Senate and therewill be brotherly love again between Jessie Jackson and The Organizer.

People that read the article probably know I was being a bit factious.  But, I do admit, there is a smile is on my face.  So, one of the latest Jackson statements is that “he openly sought appointment to Barack Obama’s Senate seat but denied offering favors in return. . .” but, just two days ago, J J said, “I never sent a message or an emissary to the governor to make an offer, to plead my case or to propose a deal for the U.S. Senate seat, period.”   How does Jackson openly seek the appointment to Obama’s Senate seat and yet at the same time claim that he never sent a message, or emissary to the Democratic Governor Blagojevich to plead his case?  Come on, J J do you think we are all stupid.  Just two months ago, Jackson was on stage with the Democratic Governor.  Regardless of whether Jackson did anything wrong or not, I can hardly believe he is really telling the American people that he never indicated to Blagojevich what his DREAM was?  The Governor, Jackson, and President elect Obama, are Democrats, all in politics, all from or in Illinois, and all worked hard to defeat Bush in the election.  Hhmm, the thought that Blagojevich would be appointing a replacement to the U.S. Senate never crossed Jackson’s mind while he was “openly seeking the appointment.”  The rampant deceit is insulting.  Let me give you another example.

Jackson has been reported as saying this:

Jackson Jr. added that his meeting on Monday with the governor about the Senate seat was the first time he had a meeting with Blagojevich in four years. Jackson Jr. said he presented his qualifications during the 90-minute meeting, and did not discuss any kind of pay-to-play deal.1

This 90 minute meeting with Blago would have been Monday, December 8, 2008.  It is also reported that Jackson received a call on Monday evening, the night before the Blago was arrested from the U.S. Attorney’s office advising him that Blago’s arrest was happening!  Imagine you’re Jackson.  You’re getting a call (at home?) on Monday night (the same day you met with Blago for 90 minutes) from the U.S. Attorney.  You’re being advised that Blago is going to be arrested.  Most likely, if you’re Jackson you would ask the caller, “what is he [Blago] going to be arrested for?  You suppose?  Apparently the answer would have been, “for attempting to sell the appointment to the Senate to replace Obama.”  Oh, by the way the U.S. Attorney surely said; “Blago tells us that you [Jackson] are the one willing to buck-up serious dough for the appointment.”   Don’t you realize the only purpose for the U.S. Attorney’s office to call Jackson was to take a measure of his response to Blago’s statement?  Trust me, the U.S. Attorney’s office did not owe Jackson a “heads-up” call prior to arresting Blago.  The next day, the arrest takes place and Jackson and his father have lawyered up.  I’m just saying, doesn’t this smell just a little.  Isn’t this all just a bit coincidental?  By the way, apparently the federal agents showed up at Blago’s house to arrest him at 6 a.m. for trying to sell Barack Obama’s senate seat to the highest bidder.  Ouch, hope he had at least his first cup of joe.  Most likely Governor Blagojevich doesn’t own a Clover but he probably can afford one. 

This is one I really laugh at.  On Wednesday, Jackson is:

“. . . shocked and saddened to learn that Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was arrested yesterday by federal law enforcement officials.”

Despite knowing all about it since Monday evening, Jackson is of course still in a state of shock on Wednesday as if to infer that he’s like us and just found out about it.  Jackson may indeed be saddened because most likely Blago will not appoint him to fill the Senate seat while the alleged “corruption” lingers.   

America, here’s another insult to your intelligence.  Do you truly believe that Obama himself had no conversations with Blago as to whom should be appointed to fill the Senate seat?  I can smell the Illinois political stench way up here in British Columbia.  I agree with what the Voices of Kansas City said:

Still, the charges against Blagojevich have raised the ugly stench of Illinois-style corruption around Obama at the most inopportune time — as he’s preparing to become president.

If you were to ask Obama about it directly, I’m confident that his reply would be something like this.  ”Don’t you realize that the origin of the land called Illinois is: Algonquin for “tribe of superior men.”  I’m  just saying.

America, here’s more insult to your intelligence [of course, you should be used to it by now].  Obama said, the one thing he was certain of was that he did not have any discussions with Blago concerning the appointment of his replacement to the Senate.  If you believe that, I feel sorry for you.  If you do believe that, you’re telling yourself that Obama never considered who would replace him in the U.S. Senate if indeed he were to win the Presidential Election.  Are you kidding me?  But here is the real a great example of the stereotypical spin.  Obama said that he would find out for us if any of his staff had any contact with Blago bla bla bla, and after he {Obama} has had a chance to “gather the facts,” he’ll get back to us on that.  Are you holding your breath for the detailed factual disclosure coming your way.  It is always amazing to me how the most important people in the world never seem to know what “their staff” is up to when questioned about shady conduct.  Surely the American people can accept the fact that Obama is far to busy to concern himself with what his staff is doing or whom they’re talking to.  I mean, come on, for God’s sake He is the President elect.  Just want to remind everyone that “change in Washington has arrived.”

It is difficult to believe that no one else will be charged.

It would be refreshing, if indeed Jackson committed no wrongdoing.  But just because he jumps out there talking about his good name and character does not convince me of anything.  I know, few people would admit that they feel the same way but I am confident that I am not in some small minority.  In any event, it is difficult to believe that if Blago is guilty of trying to “sell” the Senate seat, then my question is this; Was there no one out there that actually offered quid pro quo?  In other words, do we believe that if Fitzgerald has Blago dead to rights there is no one single person (candidate) on the other side of the potential transaction that is culpable?  If Blago has been caught red-handed, my money bet is that there will be an additional criminal complaint filed against someone Blago was potentially going to do business with.  If you think I might be far off on this point, then take at look at what the Chicago Tribune generally had to say about this:  The Chicago Tribune:

reported today that businessmen with ties to Blagojevich and Jackson Jr. discussed raising at least $1 million for Blagojevich’s campaign as a way to encourage him to pick Jackson for the Senate seat.2

Keep in mind that the prosecutors allege that Blagojevich was considering awarding the seat to a politician identified as “Senate Candidate 5″ because emissaries for that candidate were promising to raise as much as $1.5 million for Blagojevich’s campaign fund.  Jackson is the Senate Candidate 5 that is identified in the criminal complaint.  Man, there is serious smoke here.  Just like the wood stove in my home, when there’s a billow of smoke in the stove, there’s usually some fire coming shortly.

Jackson may not be the one to get burned but someone will other than Blago.  He’s probably going to want to make a deal with Fitzgerald and the quid pro quo for Blago, if he’s guilty, will be to testify against someone else i.e., “fully cooperate” with the U.S. Attorney.  ”The next step is anybody who thinks they may have some culpability is going to be running with their lawyers to Fitzgerald’s office to broker some sort of a deal,” said James Cohen, a professor at Fordham Law School. “This is really just the beginning.”   Professor Cohen believes that anyone that thinks they have any culpability will lawyer up. Hhmmm. 

Thank you in advance for reading and feel free to comment.

1. http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Unidentified-Characters.html
2. http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=6443337&page=3

The second question I have is, “why should we care?” Mr. Lewenza is quoted as being fighting mad. He’s mad because Parliament was suspended before a “stimulus package” was in place for the Canadian automobile companies. Lewenza says, “there’s a battle to wage.”1

I happen to believe its a good thing that Lewenza is mad; I will explain below.

An aside, Lewenza apparently loves the use of hyperbole, and he likes to point with two fingers, sort of revolver style. Lewenza became the Canadian Auto Worker’s union boss just this past September. He was the only candidate in a special election held when the previous CAW president, Buzz Hargrove, was retiring. What’s interesting here is that one of the first things Lewenza is quoted as saying just this past September is:

. . . many [auto industry] jobs have been lost as buyers moved to more fuel-efficient cars made by foreign companies — even though the cars are often assembled in Canada or the U.S.

Lewenza is peeved because we, the buyers, have been purchasing fuel efficient cars and therefore, the government should do something about it. Does that seem logical to you?

A little more background is necessary.

In 2005 then CAW president Buzz Hargrove threatened to make sagging auto sales an election issue. What? Three plus years ago, Hargrove and other union leaders were suffering acute anxiety that the auto companies would soon be demanding labor concessions as a solution to the admitted fact that the “auto industry” was in trouble.2 In 2005, Hargrove offered his solution to the problem of sagging domestic car sales. The CAW’s definition of the “auto industry” appears to only include domestic car manufacturers–not those evil import companies.

The way to solve the problems of the auto industry today is to stop the imports from killing us or get the opportunity to export to those nations that won’t let us sell our products today. 3

Hargrove made the above statement at a CAW leadership meeting in November 2005, which was convened to discuss ways to “fight” the expected demand for labor concessions from auto parts manufacturers. Hargrove failed to offer any explanation as to why concessions should not be on the table; of course the answer to that question is quite obvious. If labor concessions were on the table how would that be in his best proprietary interest or that of the workers. At the 2005 meeting, the CAW formulated its “7 point action plan” which by the way reads like a strategic battle plan in anticipation of a war being declared; and even before any diplomatic efforts have been made. The first of the seven strategies stated below, tells us what we need to know.

1. Resist concessions at all costs: We will demonstrate with actions, when words are not enough, that auto parts companies cannot solve their problems on the backs of their workers through concessions in wages, pensions, and benefits. If this requires demonstrations, plant occupations, strikes, or any other non-violent action by CAW members and their community allies, then the CAW will be ready. Parts makers who attempt to solve their problems by forcibly extracting concessions from their workers, will find their ability to effectively do business in Canada severely constrained.4

Okay, stop right there; a little review is necessary. We know that in 2005 the CAW leadership was acutely aware the “auto industry” was in serious trouble. I am quite confident that Hargrove and the 200 other CAW leaders were acutely aware of the situation long before the 2005 meeting. In any event, the CAW president clearly presented his solution i.e., that someone [government?] needed to stop the import companies from killing us [domestic companies] or “get the opportunity to export more cars to those nations that won’t let us sell our products to them.” [sic] Please note that Hargrove did not offer any facts to support his assertions nor did he identify the countries that he was claiming were not allowing our cars [domestic products?] to be imported. Hargrove also failed to offer any details on who was supposed to stop the imports [companies?] or how to stop the imports, or why Canadian citizens should want to for that matter. It is no surprise that Hargrove failed to take any responsibility for the market conditions, nor did he assume any accountability on behalf of the domestic auto industry for the state of affairs. It’s always someone else’s fault–not ours! It’s not the CAW or manufacturers’ fault that Canadian citizens are buying import products, it’s the government’s fault. It is also worth noting; there never seems to be an explanation from any labor representative why concessions are not a possible partial solution to high labor costs!

Despite the fact that auto industry analysts cite labor and product as the two primary reasons for the sales woes of the domestic auto companies, Lewenza comes out of his corner swinging. He immediately draws a line in the sand vowing to fight the Harper government and demands a stimulus package for the car manufacturers! He says, “ . . . that victory means the union will keep pushing for a stimulus package that suits the needs of Canadians and the auto industry.” What does a stimulus package that suits the needs of Canadians look like? The CAW boss is fighting the minority government on behalf of the auto companies. How oxymoronic is that?

Shouldn’t the CAW Targets Be The Banks?

By the way, why is the CAW not fighting the banks? Should we assume the auto companies that are begging for a taxpayer bailout have already been turned down by the banks? If so, why? If not, why don’t the not-so Big Three car companies go to the banks for additional funding? If the banks have turned them down, maybe it’s because the business plan stinks. Please don’t tell me that the credit market is frozen and there is no money available except from the government.

So What Did Happen To The CAW 7 Point Plan?

What happened to the call for someone to stop those evil import companies from killing us? What happened to the urgent desperate need to get those closed markets open? We can easily see that the 7 point plan has become a one or two point plan. The plan has been reduced to a couple of simple strategies. One, the chosen method of resisting concessions at all costs is preeminent. It obviously includes supporting a government bailout for the same companies that the CAW would never give concessions to. The CAW battle cry is: “Give’em tax dollars not concessions!” The plan to resist concessions at all costs is an easier path to follow than one which would actually solve the “auto industry” long term problems. The question no one seems to be asking is this. How will a government stimulus package solve the manufacturers’ problem of having labor costs too high to compete in a global competitive market? With automobiles being manufactured here and in Japan, Korea, China, and India for less while offering more value, please someone explain how a government handout of tax dollars will solve the “auto industry” problem.

Below are provisions of the 7 point plan developed by CAW leadership in 2005 that have disappeared:

If a CAW-represented plant or employer faces big financial challenges, CAW local and national representatives will meet quickly with company officials to examine the financial and operational facts of the situation and develop an action plan. (emphasis added)5

and

Draw government into the solution: . . . The CAW will work closely with
government officials where appropriate to stabilize and revitalize troubled facilities. (emphasis added)6

Do you see the smoke and mirrors. The CAW offers solutions to a recognized auto industry problem, but then says “IF” there is a problem such that their members’ employers face BIG financial challenges, the CAW will “examine” operational facts to develop a solution. Would outrageously high labor costs be an “operational fact” to examine? I am just wondering: When do you suppose the meetings were held? You know, the meetings between CAW leaders and the not-so Big Three company officials to examine operational facts and to develop an action plan? Perhaps, there were meetings in 2005 and the action plan that resulted is the one being executed right now i.e., blame it all on the government, and demand that the government use tax dollars to bail them all out. This does not comport with the 7 point plan that included a strategy to work closely with government officials when appropriate, but whatever, it simply must not have been “appropriate.”

Recently, Lewenza has spun some different rhetoric. While insisting that the government increase EI benefit amounts for the “auto industry” (not for all unemployed workers) because its not the workers’ fault sales are suffering, he laments:

The union has shown time and time again that it’s flexible and willing to take creative approaches when finding solutions. We welcome the opportunity to join with other industry players in rebuilding the auto industry.7

Would anyone care to offer some evidence of that assertion? Lewenza stayed with strategy number one by going on to say: “. . .slashing workers’ wages and benefits will do nothing to solve the industry’s problems.”

If Lewenza wins his war, the result is likely that in the short term, the companies win, the union wins, and the auto workers win. How do Canadians win, given the fact that we are consistently purchasing cars now with better gas mileage and more value for the price?

The key survivor of the now demised 7 point plan is the win at all cost strategy to save union benefits:

Plant closures or bankruptcies may jeopardize the future pension or post- retirement health benefits of CAW members. The CAW will enlist its Union in Politics Committees and other allies to campaign forcefully to protect the pensions and retirement benefits of CAW members affected by the fight against concessions, and to step up the fight for stronger policies to protect pensions.8

Do not misunderstand me, I’m not against worker benefits. What I have trouble with is the hyperbole that the CAW leaders will use to attempt to bolster public opinion toward their plan to save their salaries, positions, and existence. The CAW will do what is in their best proprietary interest and will resist all concessions at any cost regardless of the conditions on the ground. I have a problem with the fact that the CAW is in denial–its failure to admit that it and the members’ employers are in the position they are in because of their own doing–it is NOT someone else’s fault!

One fact that is not being discussed is this. The Canadian “auto-industry” is not just Ford, Chrysler, and GM. The other automobile companies, some with manufacturing plants in Canada, are not asking for taxpayers to bail them out. Honda doesn’t claim that Toyota is “killing” it with unfair trade and/or labor practices.

Lewenza is fighting mad, well I hope all citizens are as well. The reason it is most likely a good thing for taxpayers that the CAW president is fighting mad is simply this. He wants taxpayer dollars to support companies that have made strategic mistakes. Lewenza wants our dollars to continue to prop up the high labor costs that the CAW has obviously helped bring about. Despite the fact that consumers are buying other products, Lewenza is mad that the government is not using our dollars to subsidize the failed managerial policies of the not so Big Three. So, here’s the way I see it. I’m better off each and every day that goes by that Lewenza is fighting mad. I sure hope he remains mad for a long time.

Post a comment, let me know what you think.

1. See, http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2008/12/05/caw-stimulus.html
2. See http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2005/11/11/caw-parts051111.html
3. See http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2005/11/11/caw-parts051111.html
4. http://caw.exmi.ca/whoweare/CAWpoliciesandstatements/pdfs/7PointActionPlan.pdf
5. http://caw.exmi.ca/whoweare/CAWpoliciesandstatements/pdfs/7PointActionPlan.pdf
6. http://caw.exmi.ca/whoweare/CAWpoliciesandstatements/pdfs/7PointActionPlan.pdf
7. http://www.caw.ca/en/5201.htm
8. http://caw.exmi.ca/whoweare/CAWpoliciesandstatements/pdfs/7PointActionPlan.pdf

The Question: Is the U.S. Government’s teaching financial literacy a good idea, and has it been working?

The more you look behind the scenes at what is going in any government program, the more perplexed you become.  At least that’s been my experience.  Pick any topic and take a look at which pieces of the puzzle your government has its fingers on.  Any piece of the puzzle that the government is holding is costing you dollars.  Tracing the results and benefits taxpayers receive from government programs and bureaucracies is most often a conundrum.  More taxpayers should try it.  I honestly believe few taxpayers are attempting to find and measure the results, benefits, and costs associated with government (let me help you) programs.  My belief is based upon the fact that that the number of programs continue to grow exponentially without real accountability.  When is the last time any of us questioned one of our elected officials on the necessity or efficacy of any government program or bureaucracy?  This post is one simple example of the maze that the government constructs in its attempt to help you.

What’s the government been up to?

Given the “financial crisis” and all the news talk regarding massive numbers of mortgage foreclosures, and fortunes being lost in the stock market, I recently took at look at the topic of financial literacy in the United States.  “What’s the government been up to?”  That was the question in my mind; so I decided to start with the Executive Branch to perhaps locate an answer.

I quickly discovered that this past January President Bush signed an Executive Order creating a new government counsel.  At the time, Bush had one year remaining in office.  The purpose of his Executive Order was to create the President’s Advisory Counsel on Financial Literacy.  The Executive Order Section One promulgation is:

[T]o promote and enhance financial literacy among the American people. To help keep America competitive and assist the American people in understanding and addressing financial matters, it is the policy of the Federal Government to encourage financial literacy among the American people.

Arising from the above, a nineteen member President’s Counsel was created.  At first, I was a tiny bit impressed.  I then looked at the purpose and function of this Counsel.  The Executive Order states in part that the Counsel is to advise the President from time to time on the status of the citizenry’s financial literacy and the progress of achieving the policies set forth in Section One above, and make recommendations for ongoing further implementation of the policies stated in Section One above.  Uh?  In any event, my general reaction was; too little, too late.  Note to self.  This is almost December, has the President’s Counsel “advised” him yet?  The answer is: “No,” but there is a First Draft report in place.  An optimist might believe that Bush will receive the first report on the Financial Literacy of Americans before he leaves office in less than two months!

But, We Already Have A “One-Stop-Shop” For Financial Literacy.

I instantly became unimpressed with the fact that Bush created another layer of government inefficiency and duplicity.  How and why, you ask? Because, the Advisory Counsel was created for a term of two years by a lame duck President.  Furthermore, because I soon discovered the website, mymoney.gov and thus, the conundrum appeared!

The Mymoney.gov website proclaims to be the “[s]tarting point for information intended by the US government to help improve the financial literacy and education of persons in the United States.”  Read the additional quote below and then ask yourself, is it a content problem or a marketing problem that caused the obvious failure of its mission. The website states:

MyMoney.gov can help you.        

MyMoney.gov is the U.S. government’s website dedicated to teaching all Americans the basics about financial education. Whether you are planning to buy a home, balancing your checkbook, or investing in your 401k, the resources on MyMoney.gov can help you do it better. Throughout the site, you will find important information from 20 federal agencies government wide. (emphasis added).

The FACT Act named the Secretary of the Treasury as head of the Commission and mandated the Commission include 19 other federal agencies and bureaus. The Commission coordinates the financial education efforts throughout the federal government, supports the promotion of financial literacy by the private sector while also encouraging the synchronization of efforts between the public and private sectors.2

Uh?  At this point, I’m reminded of the Shaw Wow commercial where the guy says, “Are you with me camera guy?”

Let’s review where we are so far.  Five years ago, Congress passed a law mandating Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions (how’s that been working?).  The savior for America’s financial literacy was born–the Financial Literacy and Education Commission (FLEC)!  The FLEC put up a website; Mymoney.gov and a “National Hot Line.”  The fact that the FLEC put up a National Hot-line infers an emergency or a sense of urgency, does it not?  The number is 1-888-MyMoney.  I dialed the number but the call could not be completed from Canada which is where I live.  You try it and please let me know what you discover.  The purpose of the hot line is to serve as a primary portal to provide consumers the educational information they need on a wide-variety of important financial topics.  Congress charged the FLEC to:

improve the financial literacy and education of persons in the United States through development of a national strategy to promote financial literacy and education.3

So, the FELC was to develop and implement a national strategy to improve the financial literacy of Americans.  Two years later, the National Strategy was complete; it’s 162 pages and available in .pdf format.  In its content, The FLEC touts its effort of thoroughness.  You decide.  First, about nine months after the FACT was passed, the Commission published a notice in the Federal Register seeking “succinct and responsive” comments from the public on the development of a national strategy.  In the event you misplaced your copy of the notice, you can click on the link and review it.  A massive public response ensued with the FLEC receiving “more than 150” comments.  Obviously, it took some time to read and absorb the content of the these many comments.  But, indeed the FLEC did move forward in its development of an urgent national strategy by next holding a series of “six-sector specific” meetings (all held in Washington D.C.) to gather more information from respondents to the Notice in the Federal Register!  These meetings concluded in March 2005.  The finale of its thoroughness was that it convened a working group consisting of 13 government agencies.  The working group met eleven times between June 2004 and June 2005.  There you go.  A year or so later, the FLEC produced our National Strategy.  The cost to develop the National Strategy was only $1,000,000 dollars, not including salaries or travel expense.

Again, note that the National Strategy is dated “2006.”  In attempting to determine what the FLEC has been doing since it published its national strategy report, I discovered that as of April 2007, there has not been a FLEC meeting since September 2005 according to the Office of Domestic Finance.

This is troubling given the fact that the FACT contains a specific provision that requires the FLEC to report to Congress annually.  I was unable to locate any progress report made to Congress.  However, I did find that the Government Accounting Office produced a report and submitted it to Congress in December 2006.  In that report, it is noted that Congress did not provide any funding for fiscal year 2006 to the FLEC Commission.  That might be why there were no meetings beyond September 2005.  Nonetheless, the GAO in its report, pretty much labeled the National Strategy as a good narrative but not very strategic.

The Commission (FLEC) is still in existence and is being managed so to speak by the U.S. Treasury Department (an Executive Branch Cabinet) but up-to-date information on what it is actually doing is nonexistent at the official web address.  Despite the fact the GAO refers to the National Strategy as not being strategic in content, the U.S. Treasury Department has taken a lead role by initiating a profusion of meetings across the country.  These meetings have been the Treasury Department’s independent attempt to implement the various calls to action contained in the National Strategy report.  What comes to mind here is that the Treasury Department is one of the President’s Cabinets.  So, given the close relationship between Bush and Treasury Secretary, Hank Poulson, a taxpayer would think that Bush would be aware of the FLEC and all of its strategic calls to action and work.

SEC Chairman Cox Provides Startling Testimony.

Again, despite the apparent fact that the FLEC has not provided Congress with annual progress reports, this past May, the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs held hearings to discuss FLEC’s agenda of boosting financial literacy in the United States.  Various representatives of the 20 different governmental agencies testified before the Senate Committee.  The Securities Exchange Commission big-dog Christopher Cox provided Congress with “new information” in his testimony to the Committee:

The SEC Chairman Christopher Cox noted that a growing population of retirees is [sic] being targeted by financial scam artists. He called for more education and scrutiny of “free lunch” investment seminars aimed at seniors. “Sadly, some industry professionals target seniors for inappropriate investments,. . .4

Now, there’s some new vital information that Congress can work with.  How come we didn’t know this before? One Senator, claiming to be a proponent of financial literacy (who isn’t?), Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) reported to the Senate Committee that progress was being made toward promoting more user-friendly investment materials.  “I’ve noticed that the materials are becoming less complex,” he said.5