Discussion in 'Central States Pension Fund Discussion' started by Freightmaster1, Nov 20, 2017.
(From the article)
The report explains why the fund supports the UPS-backed plan to save the fund with federal assistance. They state the IBT/Brown proposal will not gain Republican support and thus has little chance to pass, and may distract and delay consideration of a proposal which can pass. The report states that time is short as the fund could reach the point of no return (pages 6-7).
If the suggested Bill won't pass, and the UPS one will-- why mess around with the Sen Brown Bailout from yhe taxpayersBill that won't escape the Finance Committee???????
If you go to the TDu article it allows you to open the special report on CSP fund for the second quarter. It's a bit confusing because it has Nov 7th on the report, but the info is not updated with the newest Brown Bill proposed.
Jimmy, I too have shared your pessimism and doubt. I consider myself a very conservative person who definitely does not believe that taxpayers should " bailout" the fund. But after attending a recent committee meeting and listening to VP of IBT ,Murphy, as well as the committee members, and because of the recent introduction of the bill, I come to the realization, that at this time, this is " the only game in town". From my understanding the UPS plan is just presently a proposal which has never been introduced as a Bill. There is even a letter from a UPS representive appauling sentor Brown for the introduction of the bill and drawing attention to the issue.
Make no mistake about it, the UPS plan will also require government assistance. They're looking to receive loans from the government at 1% . If they were to use government bonds to fund the loans, the government pays more than 1% to purchasers of bonds so there would definitely be a lose to the Treasury on these bonds. The report talks about the political aspect of the 2 proposals and in there opinion, they believe, that there needs to be shared sacrifice. But if you take the political aspect of it into account, who on either side of the asile is willing to endorse a bill that cuts benfits to a retiree? Yes they did do it with MEPRA ,but I think that they didn't fully grasp the severity and actually how impactfull these cuts would be to a member of a fund such as Central States.
I support equal cuts to ALL. if there are no cuts to retirees, no one gets anything in a short time. People who say they can't live on 80% refuse to answer how they'll live on ZERO.
Separate names with a comma.