just posted my opinion on the Federal Register site for Pension Law comments . Here it is ----------
It is a failure of the government at all levels to allow pension benefits that were paid for through employer contributions to be reduced .That the reduction allowed is a mere 10% above the PBGC guarantee will result in tens of thousands of retirees ,many of whom can no longer work , to become destitute .The American dream is nothing without the thought of having a safe and secure pension and retirement .
Why would you have $12,000 worth of insurance on a $37,375 plan . That is what the PBGC has done for years , and it has the stench of failure .And the retirees are downwind .
The law also fails on technical points as well as humanitarian levels .That employers,(who are represented on the Board of Trustees) of these very same Pension Funds are given the opportunity to have a drastically reduced withdrawal liability after 10 years of benefit reductions is wrong on every level . Those same corporations should be forced to pay increased contributions to provide the funds adequate funding levels .
The fact that that a surcharge on employer contributions is allowed under the Pension Plans Rehabilitation Plan is moot. Why ? In the case of my pension , Road Carriers 707 Pension (TAX ID # 51-6106510), the Board of Trustees applied to relieve the funds largest contributor (YRC) from the 5% and 10% surcharges listed in the Rehabilitation Plan ,and supposedly required under the law.The application was made to the Treasury Dept.and was approved , thereby guaranteeing the Funds insolvency , currently scheduled for 2/1/16 .
And to further point out the governments failures regarding this process, I see no penalties for failure to follow the guidelines regarding the notification process .Again , as it pertains to the 707 Pension , if I had not called the DOL-EBSA ,I would not have been made aware that the 707 Pension Plan application to the Treasury Dept. was rejected . Why ? Despite clear language that requires the plan to notify all participants that the application was submitted , the Plan Administrator chose not to do so . Why not ? No penalties to face seems an obvious answer .Congress did want the reduction process to be transparent to participants , but did not put any teeth into the law .
Furthermore , why would a plan that has been posting staggering losses not automatically trigger an audit ? Until a former Union President and Fund Trustee complained in 2013 that the 707 fund had not been audited since 1998 , the DOL , despite receiving a 10-99 annually pointing out huge losses , did nothing .And it the same DOL that allowed a Fund Trustee to become the Plan Administrator. Rome burned as Nero fiddled , and the government had the best seats in the house .