Posted on 01/30/2007 8:58:42 AM PST by LSUfan
“It is unconscionable for our country's public pension systems to permit investment in companies that provide revenues, advanced equipment and technology to countries that threaten our vital security interests.” U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.
The post-Sept. 11, 2001, war on terror has been costly to American taxpayers. An estimated $400 billion has been spent to date, and President Bush is asking for another $100 billion. The more painful cost, which is unquantifiable in monetary terms, is the 25,000 military casualties including more than 3,000 American lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan.
After the Sept. 11 attacks, the U.S. government instituted new steps to seize funding to terrorist groups. Why? Because money is the mother's milk of terrorism. Terrorists require funding to pay for safe harbors, training, logistical support, false documentation, and, of course, weapons.
The Center for Security Policy reports that to date only $132 million in terrorists' finances have been seized.
Given the terrorists' need for funding to keep solvent, why are American taxpayers investing in Iran, which supports terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah and the Islamic Jihad?
In the Golden State, the California Public Employees Retirement System, or CalPERS, and the California State Teachers Retirement System, or CalSTRS, oversees California public employees' and school teachers' taxpayer-funded retirement funds. In 2004 they had invested over $30 billion of taxpayer-funded retirement dollars in companies with ties to foreign states that sponsor terrorists. CalPERS invested over $17 billion and CalSTRS over $12 billion.
One hundred and forty-four CalPERS and 139 CalSTRS-funded companies had investment ties to the Islamic Republic of Iran.
According to the U.S. secretary of state, Iran has “ . . . repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism . . .” and is subject to sections of three laws:
The Export Administration Act
The Arms Export Control Act
The Foreign Assistance Act
Sanctions resulting from these laws:
Include restrictions on U.S. foreign assistance
A ban on defense exports and sales
Certain controls over exports of dual use items
Miscellaneous financial and other restrictions
Given these legal restrictions, and the laser-like focus of America on fighting terror since Sept. 11, how can public employee retirement systems in the United States continues to invest hundreds of billions of public employees' taxpayer-funded retirement funds in corporations doing business with countries that support terrorist groups? Why do we not do everything we can to assist our government in unplugging the life support of terrorist regimes?
I believe that California's citizens and public employees will be appalled to learn that Iran, which is being sanctioned by the United Nations for pursuing nuclear weapons technology, and supports terrorists, is being aided by California's taxpayers.
Yesterday, I introduced Assembly Bill 221 to stop California's investments in Iran. It would require CalPERS and CalSTRS:
To sell or transfer any investments in a company with business operations in Iran.
To provide annual reports to the Legislature from the retirement systems on the status of their investments in any company with business operations in Iran.
This “divestment” legislation is inspired by late 1980s, early 1990s anti-apartheid divestiture legislation. The first was AB 134 – authored in 1986 by now-Congresswoman Maxine Waters, D-Los Angeles – which restricted investments in South Africa.
My bill is specifically modeled after former Democratic Assemblyman Paul Koretz's AB 2941, which passed the Legislature last year with strong bipartisan support. AB 2941 targeted retirement funds invested in Sudan, whose government has been involved in genocide against its own people.
CalPERS indicates that the impact of Waters' AB 134 was estimated to have been over $590 million. The Sudan-related law – AB 2941 – when proposed, had an estimated result in first-year transaction costs, relative to divestment in companies doing business in Sudan, of about $25.9 million and ongoing costs of over $1 million. Current costs have not yet been determined.
As a pro-business Republican, my natural instincts are not to limit businesses' investment activities. But it is outrageous for California taxpayers' money to be invested in companies whose business activities benefit a nation that sponsors terrorists who target American citizens.
Anderson, R-El Cajon, represents Assembly District 77. He serves on the California Assembly Committee on CalPERS, and represents east San Diego County, including all, or portions, of El Cajon, La Mesa, Santee, Alpine, Jamul, Ramona, Lakeside, Borrego Springs and the city of San Diego. Anderson can be reached via e-mail at Assemblymember.Anderson@asm.ca.gov.
neither motorists nor homeowners should either, as we are doing to the tune of billions. The ultimate solution is not cutting off their funding, but just cutting them (ie: Severely) period so they cannot use this funding.
OK, but they "won't play Sun City".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.