Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696

    Why Dems are Pushing the $165 Billion Union Pension Bailout

    Why Democrats are Pushing the $165 Billion Union Pension Bailout

    by LaborUnionReport
    Comments 105

    Somewhere lurking in the hot, putrid halls of Congress this summer is a union bailout bill of epic proportions and long-term ramifications. Whether or not Democrats can ultimately push it (or something like it) into passage is yet to be determined. However, with rumors that Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) signed on as a co-sponsor on Thursday, it would appear that the union bailout is quietly creeping along. If it passes, though, its ramifications surpass the mere $165 billion-plus price tag, as it will influence the political landscape for decades to come. In sum, Democrats need the bailout desperately and Republicans should shun it like the plague.

    Likely to surpass the touted $165 billion it is estimated to cost, Create Jobs and Save Benefits Act (S. 3157) http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=19400 was introduced on March 23rd by Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) and is designed to bailout unions’ underfunded pension funds by transferring the liability of those funds onto the backs of the taxpayers. http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=19215

    Under these bills, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) would, at the request of the plans, have the authority to take over the pension obligations of employers who have withdrawn from the plans, and pay the benefits out of taxpayer dollars, says Furchtgott-Roth:

    * Once the PBGC shoulders that obligation, it would keep making payments until the last retiree or designated survivor dies.
    * Since many multiemployer plans are in financial difficulty, this legislation, if enacted, could dramatically increase the federal deficit, putting even more pressure on the American taxpayer and the economy.
    * Depending on events, it might add billions to government spending — current underfunding levels are estimated at $165 billion-bumping up future deficits.

    According to a June 24th article published in the Bureau of National Affairs Construction Labor Report (subscription required):

    If enacted into law, the bill would convert a private funding shortfall for collectively bargained multi-employer plans into a public obligation, said Brett McMahon, vice president of Miller and Long Concrete Construction and an ABC member.

    The legislation would transfer a portion of multiemployer pension funding obligations to a new insurance program that would be operated by the PBGC and paid for with taxpayer dollars instead of employer-paid premiums, F. Vincent Vernuccio, a spokesman for the trade group’s advocacy organization, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said during the call.

    At the heart of the union pension problem are companies that, in many cases, agreed to put retirement money for union workers into “multi-employer plans
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  2. #2
    billscarver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    1

    Media Bias

    This article and most of the comments posted appear to be presumptuous and uneducated to the point that truth has been distorted. Readers are lead to believe the following false assumptions.
    1 - Union pension funds have been mismanaged and performed poorly.
    2 – The funds have not delivered what was promised.
    3 – Impending financial challenges of the union pension funds are unlike the impending financial challenges of Social Security or Medicare funds.
    4 – Union pension funds represent money invested by employees.
    5 – Employees have been misinformed future status of their pensions.
    6 – The future critical status of the funds has nothing to do with industry demographics or anti-union sentiment.
    More…
    https://docs.google.com/document/edit?i ... 12k&hl=en#

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •