Congress eyes new bills that toughen 401(k) rules
July 2, 2009 by Jim GiulianoPosted in: Employment law, Money, Pay and benefits, Records documentation, Special Report
Voters are screaming at Congress about the roller-coaster dip in 401(k)s. And Congress is listening — and reacting.
The House Education and Labor Committee is looking at two new bills aimed at tightening administration of 401(k)s and making them more transparent and less risky — or at least giving that appearance.
The 401(k) Fair Disclosure for Retirement Security Act would require that fees associated with 401(k) plans be:
- disclosed on quarterly statements
- shown in simple dollar amounts (not percentages), and
- broken down into investment management fees, transaction fees, administrative fees and other fees.
Besides keeping employees better informed about the factors that chip away at 401(k) earnings, the the purpose of the bill is to force administrators to reveal all costs, and maybe be less likely to add fees that might cause complaints from account holders.
The Conflicted Investment Advice Prohibition Act is aimed squarely at the people who run 401(k)s and manage the investments. The bill would prohibit investment advisors from:
- offering investment advice on 401(k) plans if the advisor has an interest in any of the funds in which plan participants invest, or
- advising on a 401(k) if the plan’s choice of investments would affect the advisor’s income.
Some members of Congress have expressed concern that workers — already bruised by stock-market losses and cuts in employer matches — are losing confidence in 401(k)s as retirement vehicles, and want to show a wary public that the investments are safe. So count on the proposed bills to get special, speedy treatment in Washington.
Tags: 401(k), 401(k) Fair Disclosure for Retirement Security Act, Conflicted Investment Advice Prohibition Act, congress
July 6th, 2009 at 9:56 am
Again, why do people think that investing is “safe”? There is always a risk. Why is it now politically correct to have capitalism with a safety-net? I know, I know, capitalism plus a safety-net is not actually capitalism, but if it is so obvious, why doesn’t the government and the general public realize this?
July 6th, 2009 at 10:02 am
Its about time start with fidelity
July 6th, 2009 at 10:14 am
We’re all for fair disclosure. Our company switched retirement brokers in 2009 and one of the main reasons we chose our current provider is because they were extremely clear about their fees. The fees were clear, upfront and fixed unlike some of the other providers who submitted proposals. Investments are confusing in their own right, so we support standard disclosure requirements from all providers.
July 6th, 2009 at 10:18 am
The law shoujld never have permitted employers to ditch reliable, real pension plans (defined benefit) in favor ofthe cheaper and much less dependavble defined contribution (401(k)) type plans that dominate today. Whoever honestly believed that the typical American employee had the smarts to invest for himself over a 30 year run in a way that would insure a decent retirement income was nuts – and recent events prove it! We are on our way to becoming, yet again, a nation filled with poor elderly people. Wait and see…
July 6th, 2009 at 10:19 am
While I would never support a 401K “Safety Net”, I completely support full disclosure rules that require managers to completely communicate “all” fees and any conflicts of interest. Full disclosure does not impede capitalism, it fuels it by properly informing consumers to make the best buying decisions.
In fact, another idea to help consumers gain confidence in 401K investments is to unhook them from employment. Like healthcare, company run 401Ks limit consumer choice. If individuals were able to purchase 401Ks outside of employer control AND maintain their corporate match and tax benefits, we might see less skepticism on the part of consumers.
Unfortuantely, I don’t think we will see any legislation soon that provides for that kind of unhooking. Why, it is not favorable to businesses and depends upon individual investors to handle their money responsibly. Our government does not believe we can or should.
July 6th, 2009 at 10:32 am
to BLC:
I agree that full disclosure of all fees is great, although I do believe that fees are disclosed, just often in a confusing fashion.
Consumers may invest in an IRA at any time. This is the “Unhooked 401k” I believe you are referring to. There are even Roth IRA’s and CD IRA’s. There is no need for “Employer Unhooking”. The nice part about employer 401k’s is that often, an employer matches a percent of what the employee invests. This is a great benefit for many employees.
July 6th, 2009 at 10:35 am
Dozer, I think it’s because we are talking about retirement. Saving for your “old age” is a time honored habit and when people do it they expect to at least have protection on the principal. Nowadays even putting your money in a savings account has risk. And in many companies the only option that people have is to “invest” their retirement fund.
July 6th, 2009 at 10:39 am
GaryDL,
While I agree that not All people are mart enough to save for 30 years to insure a decent retirement, if all we had was defined benefit plans we would have a worse situation with companies going broke and no money in the plans. This would be another situation for the imperial federal government to come to the rescue….. NOT.
Why don’t we have a sizeable portion of our Social Security contribution put into individual accounts that the owner can control the investments and make the desicsions about their own financial future instead of the imperial ferederal government?
This would mean personal choice and personal responsibility. What a great but dying concept…..
July 6th, 2009 at 10:40 am
Thanks for the clarification Dozer and it looks like we are in good agreement. I realize that an individual can invest in any of several tax deferred retirement accounts outside of employer control (I should have been more thorough). My point is that many employer programs get preferred treatment by investors because of employer matching programs, ease of use and internal marketing.
My point is that unhooking the matching benefit from employer managed (or outsorced) funds could increase competition and provide individual investors with more control. More control would tend to fuel a more capitalistic approach and increase investor confidence. It would also put more pressure and questionable fund manager’s to compete fairly.
July 6th, 2009 at 10:40 am
In capitalism there is no such thing as protection in investing, unless there is some insurance company out there offering such a thing.
Also, savings accounts have no risk because of the FDIC. If someone is over the FDIC limit, just open another bank account.
July 6th, 2009 at 10:45 am
The recent catastrophic dip in 401(k)s is not due to hidden fees for crying out loud, it’s due to the tanking of the economy in general….dah! Congress, in typical fashion, responds in knee jerk fashion by implementing more rules for businesses to follow having nothing to do with the root cause of the problem.
July 6th, 2009 at 10:49 am
Unfortunately I see this all leading to the “hanging” of employers who offer 401k’s. The masses do not seem to accept responsability for the risk of investing there own money and the money that was given to them in the form af matching contributions, anywhere from 25% to 100% instant return on their investment. As for GaryDL have you seen what the defined benefit plans did for the steel industry in the past and is now doing to the american auto industry, bankruptcy. I’m not saying this was the only cause, but it certainly played a large part in it.
People have to understand they cannot spend all or most of their income while working and expect to retire at 55, after 30 years of working, and have income like they are still working.
July 6th, 2009 at 11:25 am
Do you really think that increasing awareness about fees and monitoring investment advise would have curtailed the investment losses suffered by the majority of 401(k) account holders? The issue is that of who owns the risk. For 401(k) plans, the risk is clearly on the employees. The issue is the lack of retirement security: (1) The investment strategy of our Social Security System is archaic, and (2) the Federal Gov’t and FASB has done a great job destroying Defined Benefit Plans. We are setting up ourselves for future generations to be taxed heavily with little retirement benefit. Knowing this, our Government offers this as a solution?
July 6th, 2009 at 11:27 am
Use JEE only — if you use this comment on this site.
I know from experience that 90% of employees who enroll in and contribute to 401(k) plans have NO idea how the market works or how to chose funds. It’s a total shot in the dark for most and we need to educate employees before encouraging them to place their savings in this vehicle.
July 6th, 2009 at 11:40 am
I personally don’t want the same polticians who set out the law allowing (forcing) banks to lend to people they should not have and securitizing the dodgy loans fooling around with my 401k. The value has not declined due to fees but the market value of investments, which is directly tied to the credit and housing bubbles promoted by politicians.
Even now, with conclusive evidence that interest-only, no deposit loans are far more likely to end up in foreclosure, Barney Frank has succeeded in pressuring Fannie/Freddie to lend at 125% OF MARKET VALUE to get people into homes (until they get foreclosed on). This is absurd, they are incompetent and should be recalled.
Look at how the Crap + Tax bill was passed in the House. This is not good government but a circus, naked power politics and selling favors. Do you really want these people messing even further with your life?
July 6th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Of course employees have the risk. It is their(and my) choice to invest in something, 401k or otherwise. That is what employees need to be educated about. Employees need to realize that there is a risk in investing, and it is NOT a bank account, and there is NO guarantee. That is how investing works.
July 6th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
to LCB, et al.
Unfortunately I agree that it looks like employers are going to get blamed for the deterioration of the value of 401k plans – in spite of efforts to contribute to the future retirement of employees. Our company also switched 401k plan administrators last year specifically to reduce the administration costs – resulting in the potential for higher earnings in our employee’s accounts. Unfortunately, the market tanked and so went the value of many 401k plans.
What I see coming is employers fearing law suits and fiduciary liability issues and closing 401k plans entirely – leaving it totally in the hands of the bewildered employees. Our hourly employees cannot afford to hire an investment advisor – they live from paycheck to paycheck. So they will end up taking the easy way out – trying to get by on a bank savings account. And we all know how poorly that kind of account keeps up with inflation!
The politicians are going to legislate 401k plans out of existance!
July 6th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Just another attempt by the goverment to be everyone’s nanny! I have a great idea, why don’t they worry about some important issues instead of trying to protect us from ourselves? What has happened to freedom? Do they think people are really so stupid that intervention from goverment is needed? So what is next? Maybe our employees could be required to email Congress to assure them that they have ALREADY HAD FULL DISCLOSURE. The problem is not employees being unaware, it is the goverment that is unaware of what they are doing. If Obama would stop spending my great grand childrens money maybe the market would not be quite so crazy. Where is Barney Frank “the banking queen” on all of this? Never mind, nobody cares as he is an idiot! Time to take our country back!
July 6th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
I’m not worried at all. I’m buying stock in the companies that supply the Treasury with currency paper and green ink. And by the time that dries up we will be completely socialized with all Americans living on levelized income, doing the work of whatever businesses our government tells us to work in – whether that be assembling hybrid autos that no one will buy, eating the food that the government wants to let us eat and dying before our advanced age becomes economically unviable for society. There’s your hope and change – a big steaming pile of it.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
I can’t believe I’m reading some of these comments. 401k’s are THE BEST vehicle to save money that people have today. They are equally as safe as any investment and whoever thinks that you can get an investment, other than a CD, that does not have risk needs to get some training on teh stock and bond market. These plans suffered as did ALL plans and people who didn’t have any plan but invested in the market. We all suffered the same. However, in many cases, employees at companies who provided them with the level of education they should about the 401k and the investment vehicles that specific company offers probably faired better becasue tehy were more informed than someone who simply invests on their own. Good companies arm thier employees with the information/education they need to understand and utilize their 401k to teh fullest.
Unhooking savings from employers is in place: IRA, ROTH IRA, etc. Go for it. Unfortunately they are NOT as good as the 401k or ROTH 401k a company can provide. OH and this doesn’t even tak into account teh company MATCH that many many companies give thier employees. A bit more disclosure is a good thing. Creating any major disruption in the 401k market is NOT. Bottom line is that employers and brokers and consultants can only do so much and teh REAL responsibility lies with US the employee.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
To Fed Up With Feds: I’m right there with you. In fact I couldn’t have said it any better. It’s nice to read through so many comments on the website that mirror my own thoughts and opinions of our current government. Obviously there are scads of us HR folks that have our heads on straight…too bad more of us aren’t in politics and in the oval office…then perhaps there would actually be some true hope and positive change. As is stands our freedoms are being taken away by each passing year as government decides they have more and more of a right to.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
to ANDY:
I agree with people being able to direct their own social security money. This was actually a plan that was proposed several years back. I was squashed because politicians think the general public is too stupid, excuse me “monetarily challenged”, to be able to do that without losing everything. I agree that I too do not want the government directing any portion of my hard earned dollars.
I am confused/concerned that so many people think that the normal person is too ignorant to handle their own finances. I have worked directly with defined benefit and defined contribution plans for 30+ years and the one thing that has always impressed me is teh intelligence employees of all levels exhibit regarding these plans. That intelligence coupled with education from companies and their consultants will give the employee the ability to take care of themselves.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
One last thought! I am going to be moving my money from a large cap growth fund to an intermational fund. I think I will email Nancy Pelosi and several other people in the government to see if they approve. . . NOT!!!
July 6th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
You guys are cool to opine with…You speak my language. I wish HRMorning.com had an annual conference to counter the SHRM conference. More and more SHRM conferences nauseate me with speeches and programming that is dripping with emptyheaded PC messages that make few salient points.
July 6th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
I think Brad has it right on. Lawmakers seem to react to cyclical movements in the market with trying to place blame and legislating against those blamed. Fees did not cause the downturn and I suspect that 99.9% of all 401k plans have a stable value fund or fixed income fund of some type that would have provided safety during the downturn. The fact that some near retirement age did not take action to preserve their account principal is not a sound reason to trash the entire system. If the government truly wanted us to save more for retirement (which I don’t believe they do), they would take off the limits and discrimination testing requirements and let it rip. However, if we all became wise and prudent investors (good luck with that) we would have little need for the government’s help. I believe disclosure from vendor to sponsor has improved greatly in recent years and will continue to improve as competition gets more intense. Just once I would like to read of Congress or the President stating they have studied some horrible problem and determined that they are going to allow the market to take care of the solution. I fear I will have a long wait.
July 6th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
BLC, your comment regarding unhooking 401(k) plans from the employer is great. 401(k) plans allow employees to invest up to around $21,000/yr. In addition, the employee can have a personal IRA (regular or ROTH) and put in up to another $6,000/yr. If you don’t have the 401(k) then you are limited to the $6,000 personal IRA limit. So, unlike dozer’s comment that the IRA is the “Unhooked 401k”, they are two different animals. Personally, I could never save enough to have even a basic retirement depending on the maximum allowed by the IRA. Giving employees the option to invest in an unhooked 401(k) and and IRA would be a great way to make the 401(k) concept better. Employers could still have the option of making different contributions to the plan of their employees’ choice, which still allow for competityion among employers.
July 6th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
F5, If you are lucky enough to have enough money to invest in the full potential of both a 401k and an IRA, you can always additionally invest with a broker. Or you can go online and invest in either individual stocks/bonds or mutual funds. Check out sharebuilder.com for an example. I disagree with changing current legislation just to “unhook” from the employer 401k.
July 6th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
I have been working for 42 years paying SS tax.Just think how much money you would have if the federal government placed the money they took from you for SS tax and put it into US savings bonds that you could cash in at retirement. Naw that would be too simple. The interest rate is not great but what the heck, Im -35% in my 401K this year.
July 6th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Dozer, it isn’t about luck. It’s about living within your means to have enough left to invest to provide for your own retirement needs. Personally, I do invest additional amounts privately. But having the advantage of a tax deferred investment is a better opportunity. Why not change the legislation to make the 401(k) better for those for whom it is intended? Changing the 401(k) to “unhook” it from the employer sounds to me to be a better use of our legislator’s efforts than limiting their actions to more rigorous disclosure regulations.
July 6th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Why do people not see this “new” government is moving EVERYTHING they want, where they want it and it is ALL being done very swiftly with very little public knowledge until it is all done? Does this not set off alarms with anyone else? Soon, very soon.
May God bless those who follow Him.
July 6th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Fees are a very small part of the loss in anyone’s 401 (k). We are all victims of the overall economic swings. My employees will not care about the fees…they’d just like to see their own deferrals and company match still be there the day after we send it! I think this focus on fees is merely a diversionary tactic for the much bigger problems we face. P.S. My company matches $.75 on the first 10% deferred. Unhooking and going to an IRA would not help anyone.
July 6th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
We do NOT need the government to hold our hands through every step of our lives whether it’s 401k plans or health care. Capitalism has done a great job of making the US the best economy in the world for as long as I’ve been alive (59 yrs) and it is based upon a phrase I live by “buyer beware”! That is what we all should be all the time. Employers should help to educate their employees about the plans they offer. A financial consultant or broker should educate their clients in teh same way so the client can make an informed choice. The government has a role and that is to put in place macro rules that “govern” but they should not medal in day-to-day processes and transactions. We’ve had downturns like this before and if the marketeplace is allowed to function the way it has in the past it WILL turn around.
July 7th, 2009 at 7:36 am
Wow, great comments! I agree with so many, esp. regarding the “hope & change” we are seeing. What a disaster this new government is!!!!
July 7th, 2009 at 7:42 am
Interesting discussion. Obviously the Congress could better spend their time fixing the economy which they themselves had a hand in breaking. I believe most people voted in the last election with the idea that those they elected would right those things that caused the meltdown and put people back to work. Instead, they are playing around with “reform”, cap and trade, a stimulus bill that has stimulated nothing, all at the expense of the taxpayer. All the while they believe a larger government that controls even more of your life than they did before is good for you. 2010 isn’t that far off…
While transparency in 401k fees is a great idea, I’d like to first see transparency in my government – we’ve seem to have lost that as bills are rammed through Congress without the light of day or ordinary citizens having had the opportunity to know what is being passed before it is.
July 7th, 2009 at 8:10 am
100% amen to Jim
July 7th, 2009 at 9:48 am
In general, even though IRAs, Roth IRAs, etc are available as “unhooked” from employer plans, they take a backseat to 401Ks, etc. I think what BLC was suggesting (forgive me if I’m wrong) is that more employers should treat these other investment mechanisms similarly to 401Ks by providing a match etc to them too. The problem is that most employees are “hooked” to the 401K due to an employer match but are left out in the cold to fend for themselves if they go with an “unhooked” retirement planning option. There are a lot of companies that match any deferred amounts, but I think most only match amounts deferred into their employer-sponsored plans.
The risk is shifted in IRAs & 401Ks to employees from employers, but that could (at least for most people) be compensated in additional education to employees. More straight-forward information on the (short-term and long-term) risks/returns of “investments” and more easy-to-understand information on fees, etc. and tax consequences would be beneficial to the average employee.
Part of the problem with today’s employees is the complete lack of planning for the future. Instead of putting money aside for 30-years down the road, people will spend $350 on an iPhone with $150/month plan. They want to have all the gee-whiz gadgets, HDTVs, satellite/cable TV, clothes, cars, and party lifestyle today without planning and putting something away for the future. Later in life when they are destitute who do you think will be asking the “governement” to help them and who do you think the goverment will come to (tax) to “help” these people out (those who led prudent lives, planned, and put money away for the future).
I have been working for 25 years and paying SS/Medicare taxes. I will work for at least another 15 years and pay even more SS/Medicare taxes. However, when I’m retirment age in 2037 SS will be underfunded such that only about 2/3 of promised benefits could be paid (if the money was actually in the SS “trust” accounts… which it isn’t… politicians have already spent that money on “current” projects/programs and put “IOUs” into the “trust” accounts). In all reality, my generation will not have any money left for SS/Medicare benefits and future generations will be taxed even more for even less benefits.
I trust my own knowledge and private investment opportunities much more than the government. I deferred my gratification by going to school and obtaining an undergraduate and a graduate degree so that I can have greater life-long earning potential. I have worked hard to get where I’m at in life. I fear for the future that the few of us that have taken the time to read and learn about investing (instead of worrying about the latest pop star, sports hero, party club, or whatever other use of their time is apparently more important than taking a little time to learn about and plan for their future). In the not-so-distant future, those of us who have any financial means are going to be hit heavily to support popular programs for the uneducated or unmotivated masses who choose to take the easy/fun route now.
July 7th, 2009 at 10:17 am
Does the Social Security ponzi scheme remind you of Bernie Madoff? Should we send all of our government reps to jail for 150 years? Same deal, only the government can print money to make up its losses!
July 7th, 2009 at 10:37 am
The 401K was passed in congress to give Kodak the right to offer an alternative plan to paying out traditional pension plans. Afterwards many companies followed suit, because they could save money. To learn more watch the video “Can you afford to Retire?” by PBS. I believe it is in the state of Nebraska that pensions have done well. Having traditional pension plans contributes to employee loyalty, low turnover rates, higher referral rates and happier employees. By not doing so informs employees of how much you truly value them. Bottom line, if a bank does not lend you money to play stock market, then why should companies contribute and encourage this form of gambling!!!
July 7th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Societies choose to succeed or fail. Government, according to some, should do for individuals what they cannot do alone [pooling together of resources for the greater good of the society the individuals live in]. What makes anyone think the average person in the US is qualified to invest their own money to insure a stable retirement? In recent decades, and only in the US, the individual has assumed all the risk of failure with no upside/return for taking that risk. Of the industrialized countries, we are the only ones that have no basic, minimal health care provided to all and very little to none of the remaining safety nets related to severance for long term service [unlike Canada, Brazil, and Europe]. As someone who has always maxed out the 401k option, started a ROTH, worked for the past 35 years, and utilized a name brand 401k provider [i.e. Fidelity, Vanguard], I’d like to understand why has principal eroded over the long term. Where is the analysis that rolls back multi million/billion dollar pay packages that went to CEO’s instead of to the shareholders as the earnings should have been in the form of dividends? Now there would be a telling analysis, like the year Home Depot had negative earnings but would have been positive if not for the CEO bonus. Pay for performance, not. Risk should be compensated by a higher return. Returns today hardly compensate for the risk, hence the lower demand for equities. Get the returns to match the risk, and demand will come back.
July 7th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
I find it interesting how many HR people blame “our current government” for all our ills — our sitting President has been in office all of 6 months, and I guarantee you the economic meltdown is not a result of his policies — it has been coming for a long time. Our government in general has made lots of mistakes, liberal or conservative, because we are actually governed by special interests, not political parties. Instead of trying to blame Obama or Bush or Greenspan (although he deserves some of the blame), we should be trying to figure out how to survive and hopefully make things better, for our companies, our employees and ourselves. We need to stop wasting energy blaming this politician or that president, and instead focus our energies into finding solutions that work for us.
July 7th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Prag,
So you want the goverment to manage teh risk you take on your investments. . . that’s called a “T” Bill. Oh by the way, the countries you mention pay for their “socialized” health care by taxing the public. France has 60% plus taxes. Yes they get universal health care BUT you wait for months to get a surgery unless it’s an emergency. In addition, all those countries have health systems that have not worked and they have been moving more toward our health care system design for years offering private insurance plans that supplement the government plan.
Individuals can ABSOLUTELY invest on their own and succeed. “Good things come to those that help themselves!” educate yourself, get help from your company’s 401k plan advisors, go to your investment company’s website (Fidelity) and learn. My 401k plan has grown from nothing in 1980 to multi hundreds of thousands of dollars and NO OTHER savings prgram could have done that. YES the last year has been hell financially and it is due to the unscrupulous people in the mortgage industry and in some major financial companies who were basically GREEDY beyond belief and their greed helped destroy our economy. Oh by the way, the government was supposed to be monitoring the mortgage and financial industries, that worked well didn’t it. Some of the bank auditors were corrupt. You can’t legislate against that.
DO you know that the stock market has gained close to 25% since January? If you continued to put money into your 401k and left what you had before the crisis right where it was, you would have seen quite a nice recovery in just 6 months. Capitalism works if teh government leaves it alone and puts programs into place that put money into the hands of small business and individuals so they spend it and the jobs are created to produce the goods and services these people are buying.
Let goverment put regulations in place that regualte at a macro level to protect us as much as possible and then let capitalism do its thing.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:06 am
Right on RandyG. Quit blaming the current administration for something that took years to happen and was contributed by both parties. Both houses of congress have had air heads there for years. I agree that more of us should run for office and straighten it out but how many of us want the media looking at everything we or are family members have done over the last 30 years. I would love to serve but it has become such a media circus to run for office that I am not interested in doing that to my loved ones. Truly good people can’t get elected without selling out to special interest groups. Then they are no longer good people. Vicious circle.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:21 am
I think that’s what we are doing Randy – but if you say the President is going in the wrong direction, people accuse you of being political. Regardless of how long it took to get here and who is to blame, we need to take the right steps now. Certainly the “stimulus” was not the right step, nor is health care reform, or cap and trade. All lead to larger deficits – you’ll recall in the election, the Democrats told you how bad deficits were and how the Bushes squandered a surplus. Now we have mega deficits that the non-partisan CBO says will sink the country inside 10 years. So, I believe what we are saying is you are going in the wrong direction Mr President – fix the economy first, worry about the rest of this stuff later. Polls would suggest that support is waning and most people say we’re going in the wrong direction. If that’s political, so be it, but the consequences of going in the wrong direction are grave and we don’t have the luxury of time at the moment. We need credit markets freed up, real stimulus to companies that employ people, and toxic assets taken out of banks. What we don’t need is pandering to unions and trial lawyers and the demonizing of the health care industry. We don’t need manufactured crisis that must be fixed by ramming through legislation no one has read.