Image 01 Image 03

Republicans Slam Biden Over Veto of ‘Bipartisan’ ESG Bill

Republicans Slam Biden Over Veto of ‘Bipartisan’ ESG Bill

The vetoed measure would have overturn regulation allowing retirement-plan managers to consider climate change, governance.

The mainstream American press is chortling with joy over Biden vetoing his first bill….a measure that, by Democratic Party definitions, was bipartisan.

President Biden issued the first veto of his presidency Monday, rejecting a Republican-led measure that would overturn a regulation allowing retirement-plan managers to consider climate change in their investment decisions.

The bill would have overturned a Biden administration regulation on environmental, social and corporate governance guidelines, or ESG.

The bill passed the GOP-led House Feb. 28 on a vote of 216-204, with one Democrat joining with Republicans in support.

Despite the waste of time and resources that businesses are forced to endure to comply with Environmental-Social-Governance requirements, as well as the stifling of innovation and the intrusions into privacy, the occupant of the White House asserted he was saving retirement accounts. In reality, it was just another tedious move to erase a sensible policy implemented by President Donald Trump.

“I just vetoed my first bill,” Biden said in a tweet announcing the move.

“This bill would risk your retirement savings by making it illegal to consider risk factors MAGA House Republicans don’t like. Your plan manager should be able to protect your hard-earned savings — whether Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene likes it or not,” he added, referring to the Republican congresswoman from Georgia.

The Biden administration had previously issued a rule stating that money managers can weigh climate change and other ESG factors when they make decisions for retirement investments on behalf of clients. It replaced a rule from the era of former President Trump that the Biden administration said discouraged consideration of ESG factors “even in cases where it is in the financial interest of plans to take such considerations into account.”

Republicans have slammed this veto.

Congressional Republicans, understandably, are not happy with the president’s move — especially bill architect Rep. Andy Barr of Kentucky.

“President Biden’s first veto is on a bipartisan, bicameral measure that I championed through Congress to protect retail investors,” Barr told Fox News Digital. “Instead of siding with Americans—who are increasingly unable to afford retirement—Biden’s veto puts the climate activists and special interest groups he is beholden to ahead of middle-class American investors.”

“It’s a shame, and it further reflects his priorities and who he really represents in office,” Barr added.

Senator Mike Braun, R-Ind., also slammed the president’s veto, wishing Biden luck on “explaining this one” to the American people.

“Today President Biden used his first veto to reject bipartisan consensus in the House and Senate that Americans’ retirement savings should be invested to get the best return, not to support woke nonsense,” Braun said.

“Good luck explaining this one,” he added.

I expect the consequences of this move will be as dire and as bad for this country as all the other anti-Trump actions have taken.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Hmm. Was anything stopping fund managers from investing in “climate change” investment decisions?

The only thing it could be is that they are lousy investments, and that the Biden regime is requiring them to be considered, to the detriment of investors, and more importantly, retirees.

Biden is full of it.

    artichoke in reply to Dimsdale. | March 21, 2023 at 5:46 pm

    Actually yes, they were required to optimize some tradeoff of risk and return in their investments. Since it’s generally impossible to prove that they didn’t (and they often don’t and just sell you what they’re trying to get rid of) they almost never get in trouble for violating that law.

    But now they aren’t even expected to do that. They can saddle you intentionally with a worse risk-return tradeoff because ESG goals are helped, and it’s legal!

    Capitalist-Dad in reply to Dimsdale. | March 22, 2023 at 9:24 am

    Under current law, fiduciaries—especially 401k and pension managers, and employers—are required to focus on maximizing total return. Of course, there are different risk profiles/potential returns ranging from conservative to aggressive, but within these profiles total return maximizing was the required goal. Enough lawsuits (mostly class actions) have occurred that this “fiduciary rule” can be said to have some teeth. The ESG scam allows advisors an excuse to bring in Woke (DIE) considerations that inevitably dampen total return, making it legalized Green looting.

This was a bad move by Biden politically as the choice for his first veto. If some guy wants to invest their own money under the principles of ‘ESG’ I got no problem with that. I do have an issue with fund managers using ESG principles when they can’t agree upon what ESG is and is not nor with using those principles in ordinary investments.

A better step would be to decide what constitutes ESG and then require each fund using ESG to not only adhere to it but also label that very prominently;
Super America Fund (ESG). In addition require a single page disclosure that ESG means the fund doesn’t invest in X industry, Y country, Z company with a side by side comparison of returns v same fund their company runs that does. IOW very clear explanation and consent, then let people decide to select unicorn and rainbows instead of icky oil and gas or whatever.

    artichoke in reply to CommoChief. | March 27, 2023 at 10:03 pm

    Or, allow funds to label themselves “non-ESG” and audit them to ensure that they weren’t sneaking in ESG reasoning in their investment decisions.

It occurs to me that government employees are going to among the casualties, because some of their retirement plans are managed/controlled by government bureaucrats who will more than likely be “encouraged” to maximize ESG exposure.

    #FJB <-- Disco Stu_ in reply to txvet2. | March 22, 2023 at 8:34 am

    No problem, though, because they’ll be confident of a federal taxpayer-funded bailout to compensate for any shortfalls.

BierceAmbrose | March 21, 2023 at 5:56 pm

While the headlne “Republicans Slam…” is an uncomfortable perspective for me, I grudgingly have to think The Feckless R’s un-feckless on this one. Between stuff like this and McCarthy’s wrangling the house, they are showing the occasional accidental competence.

Of course Gropey Joe had to veto this one. Expanding Federal administrative control is the entire agenda for this administration. To stay in “power” The Operative In Chief has to show he’ll use every power of that position for that. If his, and the party’s political operation can’t keep expanding the grab.

Lovely when you can make your direct fortunes prosper, and create more patronage at the same time. These guys really are good at this administrative state thing.

“President Biden issued the first veto of his presidency Monday…”

Interesting that we have gotten this deep into his presidency before he was forced to act on a bill he didn’t want. Congress has obviously been obedient little puppies.

Contrast that with Grover Cleveland who vetoed 414 bills in his only term in office. Heck, he vetoed 212 in a single Congressional season.

It’s not a good sign when party politics so overcome legitimate debate within the party that bills are rubber stamped in accordance with ‘leadership’ directive.

It’s OK, Joe.
States will grownup governors will just do it on a statewide basis.
In the rest, all those blue investors are welcome to freeze in the dark.

E Howard Hunt | March 21, 2023 at 9:01 pm

Why limit it to ESG?

Fiduciaries should also figure in racial justice, trans rights and the tooth fairy.

as an fyi. two dem senators voted with the repubs, Tester and Manchin, no way they find the votes to override

BierceAmbrose | March 22, 2023 at 10:42 pm

As our Uncle Joe doubtless learned from his namesake, majority rule only counts when it’s the right majority, ruling the right way.

His team also learned that it isn’t who votes, but who counts the votes.

Students of history, it seems.

I read that the ESG investments must be actual shares of stock, not derivatives.

In other words, cash direct to the ESG companies themselves. Solyndra writ large, with a new mechanism.