"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.
Crystal, I wasn't trying to contradict you with that post, just showing what the wording was. Totally understand the $1 billion threshold.