The Department of Labor and the Department of the Treasury (the "Agencies") are currently reviewing the rules under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the plan qualification rules under the Internal Revenue Code (Code) to determine whether, and, if so, how, the Agencies could or should enhance, by regulation or otherwise, the retirement security of participants in employer-sponsored retirement plans and in individual retirement arrangements (IRAs) by facilitating access to, and use of, lifetime income or other arrangements designed to provide a lifetime stream of income after retirement. The purpose of this request for information is to solicit views, suggestions and comments from plan participants, employers and other plan sponsors, plan service providers, and members of the financial community, as well as the general public, on this important issue.

That's a lot of government-speak. Can you read between the lines? What is the real plan here? Behind this nonsense about "lifetime stream of income after retirement" language is a lovely little plan to force you to finance the Democrat's deficit spending. The plan is to play into the current economic fears. "Never let a good crisis go to waste." Remember the words of Rahm? The Democrats want you to question whether or not Wall Street is the right place to invest your money. Wouldn't you be safer if the government kept it for you? The government wants you to believe that it can do a better job of investing and managing your retirement than you can. And for a lot of people who believe that government is the answer, they may fine with this. It's not fine with me, and, I suspect, it's not all that fine with you.

Don't believe me? Here is how these agencies present their reasoning:

Accordingly, with the continuing trend away from traditional defined benefit plans to 401(k) defined contribution plans and hybrid plans ... employees are not only increasingly responsible for the adequacy of their savings at the time of retirement, but also for ensuring that their savings last throughout their retirement years ... In recognition of the foregoing, the Agencies are considering whether it would be appropriate for them to take future steps to facilitate access to, and use of, lifetime income or other arrangements designed to provide a stream of income after retirement.

Here is one of the questions asked in this document from the Treasury Department and the Department of Labor:

13. Should some form of lifetime income distribution option be required for defined contribution plans (in addition to money purchase pension plans)? If so, should that option be the default distribution option, and should it apply to the entire account balance? To what extent would such a requirement encourage or discourage plan sponsorship?

Okay, what is this question really asking? First, it wants to know if the government should FORCE you to contribute money to an income distribution option. Then the second part of the question wants to know if this should be the standard retirement option, unless you choose to also put your money elsewhere.

OK .. I'm a little disjointed here. Let me try to wrap up all of this up in one neat package.

Obama's budget is setting records in deficit spending. Obama is proposing borrowing every close to the amount of money that the Republicans borrowed in a single year .. but Obama is proposing borrowing that sum EVERY SINGLE MONTH throughout his term of office and beyond.

Earlier this week I told you of a story from the investment press which stated that investors now look at blue chip stocks like Coca Cola as better and safer investments than U.S. Government treasury certificates. China has signaled that it is not in the mood to buy many more U.S. government securities. This is how we finance our debt! If investors and other nations won't voluntary finance our debt, what does our government do? Well, our government does what governments always do. Fall back on its unique ability to use force to accomplish its goals. There's a problem here. We aren't going to force China to buy more Treasuries ... so where is the force to be applied? YOU, that's where.

The government is talking about some form of "lifetime income distribution" and "lifetime stream of income." (Isn't this what Social Security was supposed to do?) But just HOW does the government provide this "lifetime" income? Simple ... by FORCING you to take all or a portion of your retirement funds and invest them where China won't go; invest them where private international investors no longer want to go; invest them in Treasury Certificates. Oh yeah ... they'll probably come up with some fancy new name for some fancy new type of T-bill ... but the goal and the effect will be the same. You'll see your money seized by government and used to finance the insane spending plans of politicians .. Democrat and Republican.

Will President Barack Obama nationalize United States pensions? That was the serious question I proposed one year ago in my blog—and it’s time to ask that question again.

Why now? Because President Obama has proposed what one of our experts sees as the "first step in stealth nationalization and forced investment of our retirement benefits."

The bad news comes as part of a tax package said to be aimed at middle-income Americans that was revealed in Obama’s State of the Union speech, as reported by Business Week magazine.

Obama’s stealth proposal is billed by him as an "effort to increase retirement savings by requiring all businesses to offer automatic IRA accounts,” but it drew immediate opposition from U.S. small business associations. Obama claims the plan would let employees automatically enroll in direct-deposit retirement accounts and expand matching tax credits.

Dangerous First Step to Nationalization

But Larry C. Grossman, CFP, CIMA, managing director of Sovereign International Pension Services (no relation to Sovereign Society) and a member of our Sovereign Society Council of Experts, sees the Obama idea as a dangerous move.

Says Grossman, "If you read it closely you will see the heart of the proposal is the requirement to keep 10 percent of the funds in U.S. Treasuries. At the stroke of a pen the president has found a way to bolster the declining demand for Treasuries. I believe forcing retirement plans into U.S. government control is the next step."

This alarm was echoed by Ron Holland, editor of the Inner Circle Intelligence Report published by BFI Consulting AG, a Swiss financial advisory firm, and a long-time member of the Sovereign Society Council of Experts.

Says Holland, "I think the mandatory IRAs just proposed by Obama is the first step in stealth nationalization and forced investment of our retirement benefits to support the U.S. Treasury debt market."

Should you be worried about this latest radical Obama move?

There is an estimated $15 trillion worth of private retirement plans in the United States; $4 trillion in IRAs alone; this constitutes 35 percent of all private assets in America. That is what the Obama government is eyeing to help plug the multi-trillion dollar deficit in his big spending budget.

You could call this move Obama’s attempt to "pull an Argentina."

What’s “An Argentina?”

In October 2008, Argentine President Cristina Kirchner—a peronista—confiscated US$30 billion worth in that country’s 10 privately managed pension funds. This was presented as an emergency measure to meet her faltering government’s financing costs. The Argentine congress went along with this radical property grab of individual retirement accounts, 401Ks and the like.

Could this happen in America?

Grossman’s opinion, "There have been several different academic papers published which have given rise to rumors. At least one congressional hearing on nationalizing pensions has been held. It is difficult to decide in what form it would take if something like this occurred in the U.S. Many believe that if indeed this is approaching, the best way to protect your assets is to place your retirement funds offshore now."

Holland says, "I believe we must fight this proposal and similar plans or else the private retirement system and our retirement wealth will be history in a few short years." Ron has produced a special report on this radical grab entitled, The Obama Retirement Trap Has Started!

Act Now

In my opinion, adopting such a retirement confiscation policy would be another major blow to Americans’ confidence and to any chance of economic recovery. It would further devalue the dollar and it would destroy what little remains of the credibility of Obama and his socialist government.

Folks, I served in the U.S. Congress when Democrats were overwhelmingly in control. I’ve seen what happens when the Republicans are in charge, as well. Meaning simply, anything can happen—so hold on to your wallet… and your retirement account!