- Credits
- 539
Yellow | No Tooth Fairy On Pensions?....Get Serious!
- Thread starter Kennesaw Kid
- Start date
Interesting read to say the least. But I'm curious as to why the author does much to criticize John Kline the Republican he barely mentions George Miller the Democrat who along with Kline co-authored the original bill.
"The change, authored by Reps. John Kline, R-Minn., and George Miller, D-Calif., would apply to an estimated 1,400 multi-employer pension plans that cover about 10 million people. It is the bipartisan success few want to claim."
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/unusual-victory-for-unions-pension-reform/article/2557478
- Credits
- 539
Because if you had read the whole story, you would understand he is critizing HIS Representative from HIS state and the comment HIS Representative made previously in another story....and the au th or is part of HIS state Pension Reform Committee. ....KK
I read the whole story, I just prefer more accuracy. The author can criticize anyone, his call. But the bill was bi-partisan, the author implied it wasn't. Misleading information to be sure.
- Credits
- 539
His criticism is based on facts that all the retirees involved in this movemet also know to be facts.....you are entitled to your opinion, but that is all you get....just YOUR opinion...many know the facts just as it was exposed to the US Treasury....KK
What do these comments of yours have to do my comments about the accuracy of the author's article? I criticized the author of the article for one thing and one thing only - for not accurately indicating that the bill was bi-partisan, authored by both a Republican and a Democrat. The author's article implied it was the work of only Kline, the Republican. That's not an opinion, that's a verifiable fact even you can see by reading the article yourself.
- Credits
- 251
That's how they roll.
- Credits
- 539
It was HIS Representative that screwed HIM and HE is critizing HIS Representative in HIS state......pretty simple to understand HIS letter to the editor...KK
What's pretty simple to understand (to anyone but you it seems) is my response to this particular comment of the author:
"On the subject of John Kline: His Multiemployer Pension Reform Act (MPRA) was literally written in the dark of night and inserted as a rider in a must-pass budget bill. It had never been debated, and almost no one knew its contents when it passed."
That comment, implying that John Kline was the only sponsor of the bill, was the only thing in the article that I objected to. Anyone reading the article who didn't know better would come away thinking the rider was the work of Kline only. That's slimy if you ask me. The bill was co-sponsored by Kline, a Republican and Miller, a Democrat. Instead the author says (referring to Kline) "His Multiemployer Pension Reform Act". That's totally inaccurate. What part of that don't you understand. Stop with the pathetic smokescreen already.
In fairness to Miller it was only at his insistence that we have a vote on the pension cuts. I'm no fan of Miller or the bi-partisan amendment but apparently he did fight for our interests. If not the MPRA of 2014 and Nyhan's solutions not bailouts might be even worse
The vote that don't count?
Because of it's size a no vote for any CSPF cuts could have been overruled by the Treasury Dept. But the law amending ERISA affects every MEPF. Many of which would not bankrupt the PBGC and their no votes couldn't be overruled. So IMO Miller, the ranking democrat, did try to protect the retirees.
Here is the C-SPAN video of the House Rules Committee that allow Kline-Miller to be attached to the funding bill. I found it very interesting. If you have the time the pension amendment discussion starts at about the 39 minute. At minute 42 to my surprise a republican makes a comment attacking the entire process.If you're in a hurry just go right to minute 102 where you will hear Miller, the democrat, explain how he fought for our right to vote on any proposed pension cuts.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?323191-1/house-rules-committee-meeting-federal-spending-bill
I quit reading after the first line. The idea that it's ok to screw over a large group of people but take care of a few "good ol boys" make me wanna puke. You realize PGBC takes care of a lot of white collar boys and girls to the tune of $50,000 dollars a year. We can't have a bunch of Teamsters asking for their $12,000 a year and rocking the boat.
If you only read my first line then it's unlikely that you'll bother reading this. But most of us know the pension underfunding problem rests with the congress. Congress sets the pension fund contributions rates to the PBGC. IMO the reason the PBGC SEPF pays over 4 times what the PBGC MEPF pays is because the SEPF per capita contribution rate was over 4 times what the MEPFs paid....................Like I said before I'm not looking to argue. It is my opinion that Miller fought the republicans as best he could. I honestly believe that if not for him the MPRA of 2014 would be even worse for us.
Not trying to be a wise a**, but how can you say "Miller fought the Republicans" when he co-sponsored the bill in the first place? I'm having a bit of trouble understanding that.
Back when we first heard of Kline-Miller it was said to be a back room deal hammered out at the eleventh hour. After my watching the C-Span hearing I believed Miller when he said he fought for our right to a vote. You know I'm no friend of congress and the MPRA of 2014. You also know my pension situation. We both have time in the same pension fund. You know that if that fund were to get a plan approved and we voted it down the Treasury couldn't overrule that no vote. Granted the huge CSPF is in a different situation. But many of the roughly 200 MEPFs in the red zone are no where near the size of CSPFs and that vote could be a valuable option for us.
All this voting crap only means the retired vote no and continue to draw until it's gone and the people still working vote yes and hope there is something left. Unless you are in CSPF and then it's only an exercise in stupidity and a waste of money. Anybody that had anything to do with the MEPRA bill and the attachment to the must pass budget bill are not your friends no matter how much lip service they offer up
Summary of the pension cutback provisions in the Omnibus spending law [UPDATED]
In December 2014, Congress passed and President Obama signed into law the 2015 Omnibus spending bill, which includes provisions that allow trustees of certain multiemployer plans to cut retirees’ pensions. Here is a summary of these provisions:
11. "Plan trustees must allow all participants to vote on cuts before they are implemented. However, this right is largely illusory. First, a majority of all workers and retirees in a plan – not just a majority of the ones who vote – is required to block cuts. Thus, a vote to block cuts fails even if 100% of those voting oppose the cuts, if only 49% of participants actually vote. Moreover, ballots can be distributed by e-mail, which means that retirees who don’t use the Internet might not vote."
12. "Even if all participants vote against cuts, the Treasury Department, in consultation with the Department of Labor and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC, the federal pension insurance program) can override the vote and uphold the trustees’ decision to make cuts if it concludes that the plan’s insolvency would increase the PBGC’s projected liabilities by $1 billion or more."
http://www.pensionrights.org/take-action/act-now/summary-pension-cutback-provisions-cromnibus
"Even if all participants vote against cuts, the Treasury Department, in consultation with the Department of Labor and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC, the federal pension insurance program) can override the vote and uphold the trustees’ decision to make cuts if it concludes that the plan’s insolvency would increase the PBGC’s projected liabilities by $1 billion or more."
I'll try one more time to explain my position and then just let it go. Since day one I have been against solutions not bailouts and Kline-Miller as being the first pension cutting options. I have been against the classification of pension orphans since day one even though I'm not an orphan. My opinion on this thread was only about Miller's attempt at fairness with the ability to vote.
I don't know how many pension funds have a projected liability of $1 billion or more. But I do know that none of the funds I'm aware of with the exception of CSPFs are over $1 billion. So in funds like 560, 641, 478, and 701 with their ratios of retirees to active workers a yes vote is highly unlikely. And a no vote couldn't be overruled by the Feds. So I thank Miller for the ability to vote if it becomes necessary.
I'll try one more time to explain my position and then just let it go. Since day one I have been against solutions not bailouts and Kline-Miller as being the first pension cutting options. I have been against the classification of pension orphans since day one even though I'm not an orphan. My opinion on this thread was only about Miller's attempt at fairness with the ability to vote.
I don't know how many pension funds have a projected liability of $1 billion or more. But I do know that none of the funds I'm aware of with the exception of CSPFs are over $1 billion. So in funds like 560, 641, 478, and 701 with their ratios of retirees to active workers a yes vote is highly unlikely. And a no vote couldn't be overruled by the Feds. So I thank Miller for the ability to vote if it becomes necessary.