What's new

Saving America's Pension Plans Is A Rare Chance For Bipartisan Accomplishment | Opinion

jimmy g said:
I suspect they put money into the PBGC as the answer, and send it back to the House?
Click to expand...
That poses a question that I'd like your opinion on. I know that you are not in favor of bailouts. Wouldn't funding of the PBGC be considered a bailout? If congress were to fund or bailout the PBGC wouldn't that go against the constitution as you interpret it? If congress doesn't fund the PBGC are they not breaking the law as canary suggested?

PBGC receives no funds from general tax revenues. Operations are financed by insurance premiums set by Congress and paid by sponsors of defined benefit plans, investment income
Click to expand...
https://www.pbgc.gov/about/how-pbgc-operates
 
Crystal said:
That poses a question that I'd like your opinion on. I know that you are not in favor of bailouts. Wouldn't funding of the PBGC be considered a bailout? If congress were to fund or bailout the PBGC wouldn't that go against the constitution as you interpret it? If congress doesn't fund the PBGC are they not breaking the law as canary suggested?


https://www.pbgc.gov/about/how-pbgc-operates
Click to expand...
Yes, it would be a Bailout, as we have discussed before (and you gave me a like, so why keep asking the question?). I am against bailouts, but sense one is coming, so I compromised and went the Guaranteed Route. The PBGF gets funding from both employers and government. This would be fulfilling that guarantee/promise, but not rewarding a fund for going belly up with full $$$$$$.
 
jimmy g said:
Yes, it would be a Bailout, as we have discussed before (and you gave me a like, so why keep asking the question?). I am against bailouts, but sense one is coming, so I compromised and went the Guaranteed Route. The PBGF gets funding from both employers and government. This would be fulfilling that guarantee/promise, but not rewarding a fund for going belly up with full $$$$$$.
Click to expand...
I don't know why you think I confronting you on your bailout position. You're my go to guy on bailouts. The question in my mind was if it's a bailout then is congress breaking ERISA law by using taxpayer money to fund the PBGC? And if they were to let the PBGC go bankrupt then are they breaking the law by not keeping it funded? I was just looking for your opinion and not trying to box you into a corner.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-118.pdf

PBGC is required by ERISA to be self-supporting and receives no appropriations from general revenue. ERISA states that the “United States is not liable for any obligation or liability incurred by the corporation,
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Crystal said:
I don't know why you think I confronting you on your bailout position. You're my go to guy on bailouts. The question in my mind was if it's a bailout then is congress breaking ERISA law by using taxpayer money to fund the PBGC? And if they were to let the PBGC go bankrupt then are they breaking the law by not keeping it funded? I was just looking for your opinion and not trying to box you into a corner.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-118.pdf
Click to expand...
Congress makes laws, so, as long as they pass it, and the President signs it, there is nothing they can do that is ILLEGAL. Yes, they can pass laws that are UnConstitutional, and have those stopped- but LEGAL, is whatever they do...
 
PBGC is required by ERISA to be self-supporting and receives no appropriations from general revenue. ERISA states that the “United States is not liable for any obligation or liability incurred by the corporation,
Click to expand...

Nothing in that quote states the USA canNOT put money in. Just says the USA doesn’t owe it anything. If Congress passes more appropriations to add to it, oh, well....
 
According to the PBGC.gov web site,......they are an insurance-based solution to both single-employer and multi-employer fund failures. The funds required are Guaranteed , by Law, to be appropriated by Congress.
The only way that it would not be a violation of Law to appropriate these funds ,...is if Congress would amend or...repeal the ERISA Act of 1974...
According to their web site,....in 2018.....there were 861,000 retirees in 4,919 Single-Employer Pension funds that were covered fully by PBGC insurance,...due to their Funds failing.....

There were only ....81 MEPFs,.....covering 62,300 retirees requiring assistance from PBGC,...due to failure.....Yet, since the Multi-Employer Reform Act of 2014,.......the Funding for MEPF failures has been cut,...Because of the "alternative Plan restructuring" allowing funds to ...cut benefits instead of applying to PBGC for....FULL pension benefits.
Because of this...."reform"...in 2014,....Congress cut the Funding for MEPFs ONLY,....the Funding for Single-Employer Fund Failures is still at pre-2014 levels,....enabling the PBGC to provide FULL benefits to failed Single-Employer funds.....

.....while forcing MEPFs to internally cut benefits to retirees,....before applying to the PBGC for "relief".....and to pay Full benefits.....

The PBGC projects that....it will run out of....funding for the Multi-Employer side of the Insurance program , by 2025. The Single-Employer side of the Insurance Program.....is fully funded.....

Discriminatory?......Look at the "failure" rates above.......They are right off the PBGC's own web site...the Annual report from W. Thomas Reeder,...Director of the PBGC.
861,000 retirees in ...failed Single-Employer Funds...are getting Full Benefits,......while 62,300 retirees in Multi-Employer had to "accept" a 30%-40% cut in their benefits,....to keep their MEPF...."viable"......
....instead of "Fully Insured"....by PBGC......

Should Congress fully fund BOTH sides of the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation Insurance program.....as required by ERISA of 1974?
 
canaryinthemine said:
According to the PBGC.gov web site,......they are an insurance-based solution to both single-employer and multi-employer fund failures. The funds required are Guaranteed , by Law, to be appropriated by Congress.
The only way that it would not be a violation of Law to appropriate these funds ,...is if Congress would amend or...repeal the ERISA Act of 1974...
Click to expand...
Congress can do whatever it makes, passes, and gets signed into law. They fund what they can pass, and get signed. Some we like, some we don’t like. That’s why the House and 1/3 of the the Senate gets elected every two years. Every single law in American History can be changed, if you have the votes and the President’s signature.
 
Last edited:
SAC75 said:
Actually the government had something to do with it. It forced higher payouts on pension funds that ran over 100% funded. They forced CSPF to double pension payments. If that didn’t happen would we be in this predicament? I don’t know for sure but I would bet we would have been fine
Click to expand...
Actually the ERISA law of 1974 which was aimed squarely at central states pension fund to supposedly protect us from corruption had it's own flaws. Under ERISA when a multi-employer fund had excess money it was not allowed to hold money in reserve. They had to issue 13th checks, raise benefits, or become fully funded. It's too bad that in 1999 when We were a whisker away from being fully funded, our leadership chose a different path and here We are. If central states is left alone to become insolvent, it would not only be catastrophic to members and beneficiaries but would harm the economy. And why shouldn't the government bail us out. We as taxpayers bailed out the big banks and insurance companies that caused the great recession in the first place!
 
We’re still in the business of “bailing out” people......16 billion to soybean farmers hurt by Chinese tariffs.....among other things....

And,....a loan program such as the Butch Lewis Act......should be much more .....palatable....than just giving out subsidies.....

W. Penna. pension fund was giving out “13th” checks in 2002.....to prevent tripping the ERISA trigger that would allow companies to quit paying into the fund........
Yet,.....our tax dollars went ,.....as TARP subsidies.....to bail out the very people who caused the Crash of 2008.....

Yet, we have Congressmen who sniff sanctimoniously, and say: “ We don’t subsidize private businesses......” when asked about supporting the Butch Lewis Act.......

Disdain for sweaty working people,...and “crocodile tears” for wealthy Wall Street bankers.......

( Most “soybean farmers” are large bank-owned industrial conglomerates........those that are privately owned, are heavily bank financed.......so, once again, we are subsidizing the.....investors......to prevent “failure”......Adam Smith is rolling in his grave...)
 
canaryinthemine said:
( Most “soybean farmers” are large bank-owned industrial conglomerates........those that are privately owned, are heavily bank financed.......so, once again, we are subsidizing the.....investors......to prevent “failure”......Adam Smith is rolling in his grave...)
Click to expand...
So, since you don’t like bailing out banks, big biz, and now, farmers- be consistent and stand against bailing out Pensions. That’s the only way to not be hypocritical. Also, the only way to follow the US Constitution.
 
jimmy g said:
So, since you don’t like bailing out banks, big biz, and now, farmers- be consistent and stand against bailing out Pensions. That’s the only way to not be hypocritical. Also, the only way to follow the US Constitution.
Click to expand...



Ahh,....but the Butch Lewis Act is not a.....bailout. It is a long-term loan program with very favorable terms.
Unlike just....giving money to "farmers" to make up for lost sales,......giving TARP money to Wall Street investors.....

GM and other car manufacturers eventually paid back their loans........

How about we use the money earmarked to buy Greenland,...to loan the troubled MEPFs the funds to restore promised benefits?

Or,....just follow the Law, and fully fund PBGC,...so that they can pay full benefits for MEPFs that fail. They have decided to ...fully fund the Single Employer part of PBGC,.....they pay full benefits to more than 860,000 pensioners.
Why can't they....fully fund the MEPF side of the PBGC.....as required by Law?
 
canaryinthemine said:
Ahh,....but the Butch Lewis Act is not a.....bailout. It is a long-term loan program with very favorable terms.
Unlike just....giving money to "farmers" to make up for lost sales,......giving TARP money to Wall Street investors.....

GM and other car manufacturers eventually paid back their loans........

How about we use the money earmarked to buy Greenland,...to loan the troubled MEPFs the funds to restore promised benefits?

Or,....just follow the Law, and fully fund PBGC,...so that they can pay full benefits for MEPFs that fail. They have decided to ...fully fund the Single Employer part of PBGC,.....they pay full benefits to more than 860,000 pensioners.
Why can't they....fully fund the MEPF side of the PBGC.....as required by Law?
Click to expand...
You change your position (surprise surprise). You called GM a bailout before. Now you call it a loan. So, this means you 100% support TARP??? I didn't. It's not the job of Government to bail out "too big to fail" entities.

If you actually READ my posts instead of projecting your thoughts as mine (that is your standard post)- you would have read that I support funding the PBGC as the plan.
 
Canary, I am well aware of your style of posting. If I posted "only blue skies today! No black clouds allowed"- I expect you to post "jimmyg discriminates! Says no blacks allowed!" Its why I often ignore you and your arrogance.
 
jimmy g said:
Its why I often ignore you and your arrogance.
Click to expand...
I enjoy canary's style of posting and have given him many likes. I don't see arrogance in his posts. I also enjoy reading your posts but rarely give them likes because I don't agree with your opinion on the topic. I don't like the name calling and ganging up on the poster instead of attacking the opinion in the post...................There is a lot of arrogance on this website mostly from those on the right.
 
Crystal said:
I enjoy canary's style of posting and have given him many likes. I don't see arrogance in his posts. I also enjoy reading your posts but rarely give them likes because I don't agree with your opinion on the topic. I don't like the name calling and ganging up on the poster instead of attacking the opinion in the post...................There is a lot of arrogance on this website mostly from those on the right.
Click to expand...
I see it totally opposite. Guess well have to agree to disagree.
 
Crystal said:
I enjoy canary's style of posting and have given him many likes. I don't see arrogance in his posts. I also enjoy reading your posts but rarely give them likes because I don't agree with your opinion on the topic. I don't like the name calling and ganging up on the poster instead of attacking the opinion in the post...................There is a lot of arrogance on this website mostly from those on the right.
Click to expand...

I know you agree more with Government being the Provider, as opposed to my being more with the Constitution (the 9th and 10th Amendments) and Individual Responsibility.

That's not the part where canary and I split. I see his "crowing"/ staccato style of posting what I see as assorted lectures, as more of Foghorn Leghorn strutting around the barnyard crowing "look at me", than quiet innocent TweetyBird being carried into a mine. He doesn't normally engage in discussions. He crows, while framing and isolating his target. That is taught as the Alinsky method of debating by Communist Professor Saul Alinsky, taught in Marxism in schools like Columbia, Harvard, and U of Chicago (to Obama and Hillary). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals
13: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

What I notice on many places is the Canary in the Mine Symbol is used as a must be listened to harbinger of foreboding to come in many union forums. That's actually backwards, and ironic: in reality, the Canary in a mine can only be important by dropping dead and being silent.
 
Last edited:
Looks like I touched a....nerve.....

As I was a Union Steward for 16 years up to my retirement,...I am very familiar with the Ol' Management Tactic of....what to do when someone asks...uncomfortable questions....
....and that is to....Attack the Questioner......

jimmy g said:
"What I notice on many places is the Canary in the Mine Symbol is used as a must be listened to harbinger of foreboding to come in many union forums. That's actually backwards, and ironic: in reality, the Canary in a mine can only be important by dropping dead and being silent.
Click to expand...
"

Sorry, there, Jimmy G.......I'm in Hale and Hearty Health,......Ain't "dropping dead" anytime soon.....(..barring Lightning from Divine Retribution...).....

Back to the Question at Hand.........I'm glad to see you're in favor of fully funding PBGC,......The Question at Hand,..is whether Congress is deliberately....underfunding the MEPF side of Pension Benefit Guarantee Insurance.....at the behest of....
.....their donors?...lobbyists?....Wall Street?

If you read the Annual Report from W.Thomas Reeder, Director of PBGC,.....you see that he plainly states that although failure rates for Single Employer Plans are at a rate of more than 60 times higher,...and are covering the pensions of 798,700 more people....fully, I might add......than MEPF plans that have failed,.....
....the MEPF side is underfunded to the point that he declares funding will end for the MEPF "program",...while the Single Employer program is.....fully funded.

He also states that there are 4,919 failed Single Employer plans,....as opposed to only 81 failed MEPFs.......

Is,.....Uhh.....Congress ducking it's financial responsibility? Why? Is there a....political agenda? Most MEPFs are Union-sponsored,...while most Single-Employer plans cover....non-Union employees.
This....."underfunding"....of only one side of PBGC didn't happen overnight.

What do you think, Jimmy G? Is Congress deliberately underfunding part of PBGC? Would that be a violation of Law,....and grounds for a Class Action suit?

And how about the other posters here? You can make up your own mind as to whether there is a deliberate discriminatory factor with MEPFs,.....by typing in "PBGC Annual report 2018".

I do NOT recommend links,...and hope everyone does their own research...(..and thinking..).....
 
What is the average size of a single employer pension? I dont know, but I'm guessing it's only 1/10th or smaller than MEPFs. SEPFs are typically much smaller biz, with a higher failure rate. Yellow and Roadway have been in biz since the 1930s. The average small biz fails in 3 years. There's no conspiracy. The Government is broke and paying the sqeakiest wheel at that time with made up fiat currency. Since OUR Government is broke- imagine all the other nations..... just wait- as this MEPF thing faces doom- SSI collapse isnt even talked about....
 
There will be riots in the streets if SSI is allowed to collapse......There may be riots in the streets if the Dept. of Treasury allows CSPF to go bankrupt,....and then admit that the Government-run insurance program,......was de-funded, and out of money, too.
That would be another roughly 260,000 people cheated out of their pension........admittedly far less that the 860,000 people who are getting their defunct SEPF fully funded.....

Those figures I’m using, by the way,.....are straight from the “horse
‘s mouth,.....W. Thomas Reeder’s own statements from the PBGC web site.

You’re saying that since the average small business fails in 3 years,...we can assume that any SEPF associated with that business has also failed?
What kind of benefit would an employee get after three years of “service”? Surely not one large enough to cover weekly expenses,..let alone retire on....

Something about the......priorities......of fully funding 4,919 poorly-run, short-term pensions,......
......while allowing funding for long-term, well-run funds, who only got into trouble after 2008,......to have such a severe shortfall, that they are predicting the MEPF program side to be “out of money” by 2024......and this is ....before.....the largest MEPF , with about 260,000 participants goes belly-up.....

You would think Congress would be scrambling to cover their legal obligations.......
No “squeaky wheel” here.......They’ve seen it coming for years......long before they blew the deficit into the trillions.....

They knew for years that they had a legal obligation to fully fund both programs of the PBGC......

And they only provided funds for the SEPF program.....W. Thomas Reeder says so in his letter.....

So you’re telling me certain people in Congress haven’t made a......conscious decision......to cut funding for the MEPF program?
 
canaryinthemine said:
There will be riots in the streets if SSI is allowed to collapse......There may be riots in the streets if the Dept. of Treasury allows CSPF to go bankrupt,....and then admit that the Government-run insurance program,......was de-funded, and out of money, too.
That would be another roughly 260,000 people cheated out of their pension........admittedly far less that the 860,000 people who are getting their defunct SEPF fully funded.....

Those figures I’m using, by the way,.....are straight from the “horse
‘s mouth,.....W. Thomas Reeder’s own statements from the PBGC web site.

You’re saying that since the average small business fails in 3 years,...we can assume that any SEPF associated with that business has also failed?
What kind of benefit would an employee get after three years of “service”? Surely not one large enough to cover weekly expenses,..let alone retire on....

Something about the......priorities......of fully funding 4,919 poorly-run, short-term pensions,......
......while allowing funding for long-term, well-run funds, who only got into trouble after 2008,......to have such a severe shortfall, that they are predicting the MEPF program side to be “out of money” by 2024......and this is ....before.....the largest MEPF , with about 260,000 participants goes belly-up.....

You would think Congress would be scrambling to cover their legal obligations.......
No “squeaky wheel” here.......They’ve seen it coming for years......long before they blew the deficit into the trillions.....

They knew for years that they had a legal obligation to fully fund both programs of the PBGC......

And they only provided funds for the SEPF program.....W. Thomas Reeder says so in his letter.....

So you’re telling me certain people in Congress haven’t made a......conscious decision......to cut funding for the MEPF program?
Click to expand...
MEPFs were doomed when the IRS made the changes in the 1970s, not 2008. CSPF has enough $ for 200,000 pensioners. There are 410,000 Teamsters in it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top