AP: Senate Passes Bill to Shore Up Pensions

[DFWdem]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051117/ap_on_go_co/pensions_shortfall

Hoping to reverse the deterioration of pension plans covering 44 million Americans, the Senate voted Wednesday to force companies to make up underfunding estimated at $450 billion and live up to promises made to employees.

The Senate legislation, passed 97-2, takes on the daunting task of compelling companies with defined-benefit plans to live up to their funding obligations — without driving those companies into abandoning the plans and further eroding the retirement benefits of millions of people.

Voting against the bill were the two Democratic Michigan senators, Debbie Stabenow and Carl Levin.


Guess it's safe to say the Detroit auto industry has these 2 in their pockets. It's about time Congress did something to address the pension shortfalls.

[madfloridian]

1. Levin and Stabenow voted against it, huh?

Interesting.

Now that is siding with the industries, not the people.

[Journeyman]

2. Better to force the corpos to back up their promises. . .

than to ask taxpayers to shoulder the burden, as the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation proposes. To me, that's an idiotic approach. Corporations make pie-in-the-sky promises to their workers, take no steps to ensure the promise is funded properly, and then their duped employees expect the government -- and by extension, those of us who may not even be covered by such a bogus promise -- to cover the costs of what proves to be a miserable lie the workers were told by the corporation for which they labored.

Though I have to admit, the PBGC is a pretty little scam for those who can crowd under its ever-diminishing umbrella. I started a defined benefit pension for my employees this year -- it's only my wife and a couple of other people -- but under my plan I've promised them all a pension of $18,600 a month, plus medical and beer money, payable on the first month after my company goes bust (when my wife will need a retirement plan to take the place of our current draw). Since the PBGC is in the business of funding the outrageous lies corporations blather to their minions, no one will mind if it takes over and begins payments to cover the falsehoods I've passed off to keep my employees happy (and stupid).

Can anyone tell me how my plan differs from that of the Big 3 automakers or the airlines, who also made no provisions to fund the falsehoods they foisted on their employees?

[DFWdem]

3. If I'm not mistaken...

This bill is designed to make employers back up their promises to employees by forcing the companies to make up the shortfalls in their defined benefit pension plans. I see that as a good thing.

spelling edit

[Journeyman]

4. And that's exactly what I'm saying . . .

but that doesn't mitigate my anger at being forced to cover these corporate lies in those instances where there was no funding to back up the blatant falsehoods they've sold their employees. The PBGC is running a deficit of $22.8 billion this year alone to cover these bogus promises. Why should you and I be on the hook to cover the cost of pensions we were in no means responsible for, nor have any expectation of benefitting from -- in other words, if there was no money on the dresser when these employees woke up, they got screwed and got nothing for it but empty promises. Why should everyone else on the street have to cover the cost of another's naivete?

So I've gotta repeat: How does my scam to get my wife an $18,000+ pension each month differ from the bogus lies peddled by those corpos who promised the moon but made no effort to ensure it would happen -- other than they wore a suit and aren't as honest as I am that it's all a scam?