Congress pushing $165 billion union pension bailout

[Rustbelt]

I cannot believe that these people are even thinking about this. If they do this they will kill the Democratic party for years.

Now wouldn't that be a shame?

 

[blastoff]

This is an exceedingly dumb move by Washington Democrats. With only about 12% of American workers union members, they set themselves up for truly bipartisan backlash from the 88% of the work force that isn't going to like their taxes going to pay for the mistakes of lousy - and often corrupt - union management. A non-union Democrat or independent is gonna think this is a good idea?

Sure the dumb union clowns will be happy, buy you've already got their votes anyway. But how many votes will it cost you? They'd best hope the change isn't too severe.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Congress pushing $165 billion union pension bailout

A Democratic senator is introducing legislation for a bailout of troubled union pension funds. If passed, the bill could put another $165 billion in liabilities on the shoulders of American taxpayers.

The bill, which would put the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation behind struggling pensions for union workers, is being introduced by Senator Bob Casey, (D-Pa.), who says it will save jobs and help people.

As FOX Business Network’s Gerri Willis reported Monday, these pensions are in bad shape; as of 2006, well before the market dropped and recession began, only 6% of these funds were doing well.

Although right now taxpayers could possibly be on the hook for $165 billion, the liability could essentially be unlimited because these pensions have to be paid out until the workers die.

The mother of all taxpayer bailouts is right around the corner.

Union bosses want taxpayers to foot the cost for bailing out the labor organizations’ many failing pension plans that millions of their members are counting on to “be there” when they retire. Unfortunately, the average union pension plan has only enough money to cover 62 percent of its financial obligations.

Such a low level of funding puts those plans on the government’s critical list. Pension plans funded below 80 percent are considered “endangered” by the government. Below 65 percent is “critical.” With union membership declining, that puts these funds into a tailspin from which they’ll likely never pull out.

The government’s Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation only guarantees pensioners $12,000 a year, should their pension plan fail. Good luck retiring on that.

But as the economy sours, there’s increasing pressure to bail out workers from failing unions. Last July, for example, the PBGC agreed to take on $6.2 billion in pension liabilities from bankrupt auto parts manufacturer Delphi. And that’s just one company. In 2007, the PBGC was already running a deficit of nearly a billion dollars. Things will only get worse as the PBGC is expected to assume $86 billion in liabilities by 2015.

You gotta be shittin' me!!!!!!!!!!

 

[boedicca]

Congress pushing $165 billion union pension bailout

A Democratic senator is introducing legislation for a bailout of troubled union pension funds. If passed, the bill could put another $165 billion in liabilities on the shoulders of American taxpayers.

The bill, which would put the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation behind struggling pensions for union workers, is being introduced by Senator Bob Casey, (D-Pa.), who says it will save jobs and help people.

As FOX Business Network’s Gerri Willis reported Monday, these pensions are in bad shape; as of 2006, well before the market dropped and recession began, only 6% of these funds were doing well.

Although right now taxpayers could possibly be on the hook for $165 billion, the liability could essentially be unlimited because these pensions have to be paid out until the workers die.

The mother of all taxpayer bailouts is right around the corner.

Union bosses want taxpayers to foot the cost for bailing out the labor organizations’ many failing pension plans that millions of their members are counting on to “be there” when they retire. Unfortunately, the average union pension plan has only enough money to cover 62 percent of its financial obligations.

Such a low level of funding puts those plans on the government’s critical list. Pension plans funded below 80 percent are considered “endangered” by the government. Below 65 percent is “critical.” With union membership declining, that puts these funds into a tailspin from which they’ll likely never pull out.

The government’s Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation only guarantees pensioners $12,000 a year, should their pension plan fail. Good luck retiring on that.

But as the economy sours, there’s increasing pressure to bail out workers from failing unions. Last July, for example, the PBGC agreed to take on $6.2 billion in pension liabilities from bankrupt auto parts manufacturer Delphi. And that’s just one company. In 2007, the PBGC was already running a deficit of nearly a billion dollars. Things will only get worse as the PBGC is expected to assume $86 billion in liabilities by 2015.

the article is lacking in critical information....

I found this on the site of the Insurance...PBGC

Welcome To PBGC new user button

PBGC is a federal corporation created by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. It currently protects the pensions of more than 44 million American workers and retirees in more than 29,000 private single-employer and multiemployer defined benefit pension plans. 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, assets from pension plans trusteed by PBGC, and recoveries from the companies formerly responsible for the plans.

I guess I would need to know exactly how this supposed bailout would work?

Do they charge the companies more that decided to buy this insurance for their retirement plans?

If they can recover these funds from the private sector that bought the insurance eventually, then I suppose I could agree to it.

But I have lots and lots of questions about how these corporations mismanaged their pension funds?

the retirements are not paid by unions are they? Retirement pensions are pensions paid by the corporation or business the person works for are they not?

So the BUSINESS that hired union workers messed up, right?

Regardless, if the money comes out of tax payer's money, then I am AGAINST this measure....especially at this time in the game...too many other people have lost their butts in their 401k's that they were forced in to if they wanted any company retirement, much more so that the 38% less these workers are going to receive if no bailout is done for their retirement pensions...

people only having SS as their retirements are going to be forced to take less in benefits when the time comes as well...

where the heck were the gvt agencies that regulates keeping retirement pension funds funded at 80%? What did the corporations or businesses do with the money they were SUPPOSE to be funding their pensions with go to...the boss's salary, the stockholder's profit/earnings?

It's like Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac. Taxpayers are the deep pockets for when they run into financial problems. Congress recently lifted the $400B bail out ceiling for FM/FM.

If this bill passes, we'll be bailout out union pension funds for a far larger amount.

A better question to ask is: what good is the union leadership when it can't adequately monitor the pension plans it negotiates for the membership who pay dues?

 

[VaYank5150]

At what point do we have to admit that we have no money?

Then, why are people on the right, such as Piyush Jindal screaming for Federal intervention in the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico? If we have no money, I mean...

 

[blastoff]

At what point do we have to admit that we have no money?

Then, why are people on the right, such as Piyush Jindal screaming for Federal intervention in the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico? If we have no money, I mean...

Maybe because they heard Barry in the broadcast booth at last year's All Star game tell the world we're broke, but then go on to spend a trillion or so more bucks?

 

[boedicca]

Maybe it's because gulf sourced oil fuels 10% of our economy. Wiping out that industry along with the gulf seafood one will make the U.S.'s financial situation even worse.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

At what point do we have to admit that we have no money?

Then, why are people on the right, such as Piyush Jindal screaming for Federal intervention in the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico? If we have no money, I mean...

Hey...TURN THOSE PRINTING PRESSES BACK ON!!!!!! Obama did it for a healthcare law only the kook lefties want....why not do it to repay the Unions for getting Obama elected...we got plenty of paper....cheap too!!!!

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Maybe it's because gulf sourced oil fuels 10% of our economy. Wiping out that industry along with the gulf seafood one will make the U.S.'s financial situation even worse.

There are already predictions of this causing another dip in the economic recovery that is allegedly taking place.

 

[boedicca]

Maybe it's because gulf sourced oil fuels 10% of our economy. Wiping out that industry along with the gulf seafood one will make the U.S.'s financial situation even worse.

There are already predictions of this causing another dip in the economic recovery that is allegedly taking place.

We were set up for a double dip already with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts combined with the Obama increases in 2011 and the sovereign debt crisis.

It's gonna get ugly. With 17% U6 unemployment and the deficit at record levels, the government has not ability to spend its way out the recession.

 

[syrenn]

just wait to see the next union bailout.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So the BUSINESS that hired union workers messed up, right?

Union pension funds are generally administered by the union. This is not true in all cases, but I believe it is true in most.

The largest problem with most public sector pensions is that the pensioner gets a percentage of their earnings the last year worked. This means that they can cram a lot of overtime into that last year, and end up with a pension payout that actually exceeds their salary. In other words, it is not based on what a person pays in, or even their salary.

Another thing, calling something a fee does not make it not a tax, and congress routinely raids funds that are supposed to be set aside for other things to balance the budget. this means that the fund to protect pensions doesn't exist in reality, and it will have to come out of the general fund, which may or may not get payed back. Would you like to bet on the probability of this payback happening?

 

[uscitizen]

At what point do we have to admit that we have no money?

Never! Admitting our defunct status would make us appear weak.
Just appear weak mind you

 

[Care4all]

Congress pushing $165 billion union pension bailout

the article is lacking in critical information....

I found this on the site of the Insurance...PBGC

Welcome To PBGC new user button

PBGC is a federal corporation created by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. It currently protects the pensions of more than 44 million American workers and retirees in more than 29,000 private single-employer and multiemployer defined benefit pension plans. 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, assets from pension plans trusteed by PBGC, and recoveries from the companies formerly responsible for the plans.

I guess I would need to know exactly how this supposed bailout would work?

Do they charge the companies more that decided to buy this insurance for their retirement plans?

If they can recover these funds from the private sector that bought the insurance eventually, then I suppose I could agree to it.

But I have lots and lots of questions about how these corporations mismanaged their pension funds?

the retirements are not paid by unions are they? Retirement pensions are pensions paid by the corporation or business the person works for are they not?

So the BUSINESS that hired union workers messed up, right?

Regardless, if the money comes out of tax payer's money, then I am AGAINST this measure....especially at this time in the game...too many other people have lost their butts in their 401k's that they were forced in to if they wanted any company retirement, much more so that the 38% less these workers are going to receive if no bailout is done for their retirement pensions...

people only having SS as their retirements are going to be forced to take less in benefits when the time comes as well...

where the heck were the gvt agencies that regulates keeping retirement pension funds funded at 80%? What did the corporations or businesses do with the money they were SUPPOSE to be funding their pensions with go to...the boss's salary, the stockholder's profit/earnings?

It's like Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac. Taxpayers are the deep pockets for when they run into financial problems. Congress recently lifted the $400B bail out ceiling for FM/FM.

If this bill passes, we'll be bailout out union pension funds for a far larger amount.

A better question to ask is: what good is the union leadership when it can't adequately monitor the pension plans it negotiates for the membership who pay dues?

why should they have to? the corporation has fiduciary responsibilities by law, not the unions?

your angst should be directed towards the businesses that FAILED to meet THEIR responsibilities imo....and steaming mad at them, at that!

THEY are the ones needing this bailout because THEY did NOT manage their retirement account for their employees well....the union management has NOTHING to do with this.....???

 

[uscitizen]

There are seperate Union managed retirement accounts. Not sure if the corps contribute anything to them though.

 

[Care4all]

There are seperate Union managed retirement accounts. Not sure if the corps contribute anything to them though.

there are? who pays for them? union dues pay for their own retirement?

 

[uscitizen]

There are seperate Union managed retirement accounts. Not sure if the corps contribute anything to them though.

there are? who pays for them? union dues pay for their own retirement?

Some of your dues and extra contributions by pension plan participants.
I always declined the union pension plans.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

What a joke. This is proof that socialist Unions are a failure. They can't even keep their word with their own sheople workers. ~BH

 

[boedicca]

I'm not claiming that the pension plan management doesn't share responsibility. The plans that are run by a single corporation are in general much better funded, and not in the at risk category.

This bill was proposed to cover multi-employer plans that union members can take with them from one employer to another. These plans are seriously underfunded due to bankruptcies which have removed some corporations form contributions (and hence just shifted the problem to the remaining employers). Sad though this may be for union members, their leadership negotiated this portability feature. It's a private decision which the taxpayers (who have seen their own 401Ks hit by the same market volatility which affected the multi-employer plans) should not have to bail out.

 

[uscitizen]

What a joke. This is proof that socialist Unions are a failure. They can't even keep their word with their own sheople workers. ~BH

Neither are coporations doing very well on this.
Benefits being cut every year.
Many corps have already ended their traditional retirement plans for new employees.