What's new

Statement From The Ara And The Afl-cio On The Grassley-alexander Pension Proposal

Freightmaster1

Freightmaster1

TB Legend
Credits
603
Check this out (below) from the Alliance for Retired Americans and the AFL-CIO.





mail


Dear Multiemployer Pension Participant,
The Alliance for Retired Americans, together with leaders of 17 labor unions, released a strong statement today in opposition to Senate Republicans’ proposal for shoring up multiemployer pension plans.

The bill, sponsored by Senators Chuck Grassley (IA) and Lamar Alexander (TN), purports to address the multiemployer pension crisis but will in fact make it worse. It provides no federal financial assistance and imposes burdensome new costs that will most likely prompt the collapse of all multiemployer pensions.

“Contrast this to the over $700 billion that the government provided to the banks and Wall Street in 2008, or to the 2017 massive tax giveaway for corporations and multi-millionaires,” said union leaders signed on to the statement. “Here, under the guise of a federal solution, Grassley and Alexander have crafted a tax increase that hits hardest those who do not bear responsibility for the financial challenges faced by troubled multiemployer pension plans—including retirees, pension plan participants, unions and employers.”

There are other proposals that aren’t so flawed and will be much more effective at tackling the multiemployer pension crisis. One of them, the Butch Lewis Act, has passed the U.S. House and now needs Senate approval.

1.3 million Americans’ earned pension benefits are at risk. Please click here to urge your Senators to pass the Butch Lewis Act.

Congress bailed out Wall Street in 2008 and gave billions of dollars in tax breaks to corporations in 2017. It’s time for them to help working and retired Americans in their time of need.

Click here to send a message to your Senators.

Sincerely,

Robert Roach, Jr.
President

and

Statement of the AFL-CIO Retirement Security Working Group on the Grassley-Alexander Multiemployer Pension Plan Proposal | AFL-CIO




Statement of the AFL-CIO Retirement Security Working Group on the Grassl...
Senators Grassley and Alexander have put forward a proposal that will not only injure the retirees and active pe...



:hissyfit:
 
Any multiemployer pension legislation should, at a minimum, do no harm. This proposal fails that basic test. Instead, it is punitive in nature, imposing hefty new costs that even healthy plans will be unable to survive. For example, in one sizeable national plan, there would be an eleven fold increase in Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) premiums that would double the cost of that plan’s administration.
Click to expand...

120 MEPFs are in trouble partly due to the unintended consequences of government regulations. And if the AFL-CIO quote is accurate then more funds will be hurt due to the intended consequences of this republican plan.
 
Anyone with half a brain would of known the Republican plan would destroy and not help.
Most will be gone next year, that’s why many choose to retire then get tossed out
 
What is Sen. Grassley's opinion of the Butch Lewis Act? The Senate version , S. 2254 has been sitting in his Finance Committee since July 24th......after being passed by the House.

And now he's come up with a.....worse version of a Multi-Employer rescue plan?.... What was wrong with Butch Lewis?

As of today,....the "bailout" plan for farmers impacted by Trump's tariffs on farm products....has now exceeded the amount of money paid out by the TARP fund rescue of the auto industry in 2009.......

Maybe we should declare all Multi-Employer funds ......"farms".......Then we could get in on this massive Government largesse being handed out to...private farmers........
 
Freightmaster1 said:
It provides no federal financial assistance
Click to expand...
Freightmaster1 said:
Contrast this to the over $700 billion that the government provided to the banks and Wall Street in 2008, or to the 2017 massive tax giveaway for corporations
Click to expand...
Freightmaster1 said:
There are other proposals that aren’t so flawed and will be much more effective at tackling the multiemployer pension crisis. One of them, the Butch Lewis Act,
Click to expand...
Freightmaster1 said:
The Alliance for Retired Americans, together with leaders of 17 labor unions,
Click to expand...
Blah, blah, blah , blah blah.
Key points:
It provides no federal financial assistance: in other words, give us a taxpayer funded bailout. Why do they never give a number as to what they think they need this year, next year, and every year thereafter and how will they pay it back? Payback, who said anything about paying it back?
Contrast this to the over $700 billion that the government provided to the banks and Wall Street in 2008, or to the 2017 massive tax giveaway for corporations. In 2008, wasn't Obama, the friend of the labor unions, in charge. Why didn't he give the money?
There are other proposals that aren’t so flawed and will be much more effective at tackling the multiemployer pension crisis. One of them, the Butch Lewis Act. Anyone, with a quarter of a brain, knows that the Butch Lewis Act has a built in exit so that pension funds don't have to pay the money back. They want a no strings attached bailout, because why? They were stupid, they want a do over, and now they want everyone else to foot the bill, on their non secured promise.

120 MEPFs are in trouble partly due to the unintended consequences of government regulations. And if the AFL-CIO quote is accurate then more funds will be hurt due to the intended consequences of this republican plan. So, now the Republicans are baby killers because of their intended consequences. Seriously?
 
I fully support the Grassley-Alexander Proposal, and have told my two Senator’s Offices so. I did ask that an amendment be slipped in eliminating Re-Employment Rules in every case where reduced payouts occur.

Butch Lewis is a scam, kick the can down the road and never be paid back Bailout. Grassley-Alexander only funds the PBGC, as the Federal Government is already required to do. It ensures that Everyone gets Something- where currently, only the already retired get fully paid, and in three years or so, No one gets Anything. Under Grassley, at least us “Orphans” get 56 cents on the dollar, instead of the current 30.

Richard Neal of the House Finance Committee (who introduced Butch Lewis Act) has said they will have to work together to produce something within four weeks. Probably aiming at the Dec 20 Continuing Resolution to Fund the Government. I expect it becomes the Grassley Act, with changes. Last November, the proposal was supposedly to raise PBGC to 67 cents from 30. I expect something like that, with changes to the guarantee, and not a real Bailout where everyone gets everything. We want help- we’ve gotta cooperate...
 
jimmy g said:
Butch Lewis is a scam, kick the can down the road and never be paid back Bailout. Grassley-Alexander only funds the PBGC, as the Federal Government is already required to do.
Click to expand...
I'm confused on this. It is my understanding that tax dollars are not used to fund the PBGC. You say that the Federal Government is required to fund it. Are tax dollars a required government funding or a bailout?
 
Crystal said:
I'm confused on this. It is my understanding that tax dollars are not used to fund the PBGC. You say that the Federal Government is required to fund it. Are tax dollars a required government funding or a bailout?
Click to expand...
First of all I want to preface my remarks by emphasizing that I do not consider myself an expert on the PBGC. My understanding is that the PBGC is a Federal Corporation established by Congress but it is NOT backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. Therefore, it is unlike agencies such as the FDIC or NCUA which insure funds on deposit with either banks or credit unions and ARE backed by the full faith and credit of Federal government. The PBGC insures defined benefit pensions both single employer and multiemployer up to limits which are specified by law. The insured pension funds are also required by law to pay insurance premiums into the PBGC at rates which are also specified by law. These premiums are used to pay the benefits to participants whose plans have become insolvent just as an insurance company would pay on a loss claim. While the PBGC is not backed by the full faith of the United States I cannot conceive of a real world situation where an agency created by the government would become insolvent and the government would simply allow it to default on it’s obligations. Remember pension funds are REQUIRED by law to pay premiums into the PBGC. The agency was designed to be self supporting however over time events have changed that. The agency is now on the road to insolvency itself. The Grassley proposal would actually provide or inject federal funding into the PBGC to support the newly created partitioned plans. Call it a bailout if you wish but in a nutshell it would extract the “orphan” liabilities from plans and transfer them to a newly created plan with Federal support. Unlike the Grassley Proposal, I do not believe that the Butch Lewis Plan creates the structural changes needed to actually fix the Multiemployer Pension problem.
 
Last edited:
Freightmaster1 said:
Why Does the AFL-CIO Oppose The Senate’s Multi-Employer Pension Rescue Proposal?

"But it is simply incorrect to assert that the proposal lacks federal financial assistance."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer...mployer-pension-rescue-proposal/#37a712413f72

:6788:
Click to expand...
Why opposition from the AFL-CIO? Just a guess but the plan call for all stakeholders to contribute to the PBGC Fund including the unions. In fact, both employers and unions would each be required to contribute $2.50 per employee/member a month. That’s something they have not been required to do before. Insurance premiums paid by the pension funds themselves would increase. I believe that is proposed as a risk based premium. As an “orphan” my particular pension would be partitioned requiring me to contribute through a 10% reduction in my pension. As for federal assistance yes that is there too in the form of Federal funds being transferred into the PBGC for support of the “new” partitioned plans. One thing is for sure, the status quo is not working.
 
Crystal said:
I'm confused on this. It is my understanding that tax dollars are not used to fund the PBGC. You say that the Federal Government is required to fund it. Are tax dollars a required government funding or a bailout?
Click to expand...
Like Cooper, I'm not an expert. But PBGC is on the verge of bankruptcy, and the Government has made it law, so they must back it by injecting dollars into it. And the Grassley Proposal authorizes raising the pay. So I see it as a compromise and a partial bailout already. It's both required funding And a Bailout. Where Butch Lewis creates an entire new Bureau to do a Bailout- much like TARP.
 
canaryinthemine said:
And now he's come up with a.....worse version of a Multi-Employer rescue plan?.... What was wrong with Butch Lewis?
Click to expand...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer...e-multiemployer-solvency-crisis/#27b7b7c16f15
Butch Lewis was supposed to LEND money, with the expectation that the funds could repay the loan.
....The Central States plan, and other troubled multi-employer plans, in their reporting, would have access to low-interest (1%) loans in the amount of their retiree liability, would pay interest on those loans for 29 years, and then repay the full loan amount in year 30. ....
Years 1-29 the fund is supposed to make enough profit to pay the interest and then, 30 years down the road, the plan is supposed to make a multi billion dollar balloon payment, that would repay the principal, which would retire the loan. The plan is bleeding money now and it's just going to get worse as the number of actives decrease and the number of retirees increase. Where is the plan going to come up with the money to repay the interest much less the principal?

Here's the out and it sucks.
If a plan is unable to make any payment on a loan under this section when due, the Pension Rehabilitation Administration shall negotiate with the plan sponsor revised terms for repayment reflecting the plan's ability to make payments, which may include installment payments over a reasonable period and, if the Pension Rehabilitation Administration deems necessary to avoid any suspension of the accrued benefits of participants, forgiveness of a portion of the loan principal.

So, if the plan can't repay the interest installments or can't repay the principal, then the Pension Rehabilitation Administration can forgive, wipe out, bail out, let the non fund taxpayers eat the loss, an forgive a portion, which could also mean forgive the whole damn thing.

Who is going to be picked to run the Pension Administration, who will make this decision? A politically motivated appointment, who is going to dole out money based not on ability to pay but based on how many votes can be bought.
That's what's wrong with Butch Lewis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top