I just want to assure him of a couple of things. No. 1, on this notion that we are asking for a different standard of measuring the cost-benefit test, that is true. And the reason is that the standard that applies in the law has no relevance to what is happening in North Dakota. The standard that applies in the law is designed to deal with river flooding, where the water comes and the water goes, and once the damage has been done you can rebuild. That is not the circumstance here. That is why everyone who has examined this circumstance has said the standard cost model is irrelevant.
Kent Conrad: “I just want to assure him of a couple of things. No. 1, on this notion that we are asking for a different standard of…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the relevance of cost-benefit standards in relation to North Dakota's circumstances.
Share
More from Kent Conrad
I would just say our Retirement Security Plans and our Retirement Security Clearinghouses are responding to the underlying dynamic that Professor Mead has done such a good job in describing.
I would say personally I would not go to a company advising me on wealth management that did not have it because I think whoever is advising me ought to have as their highest responsibility to be giving me advice that is in my interest.
It takes guts to do that, and Chairman Arrington, you have certainly led the charge on having a commission.
Can I just respond quickly, Mr. Chairman, and say when Simpson-Bowles went down, a group of six of us in the Senate, three Democrats, three Republicans, were asked by leadership to see if we couldn't come up with a way forward to adopt the…





