Lame-duck Congress a threat to private pensions?

There appear to be two measures on the table after the mid-term elections next month. It's reported that the current Congress, in its final, so-called 'lame-duck' session before the newly-elected Congress takes over in January, may consider both and try to ram them through.

The first is a measure to force the US taxpayer to fund gold-plated union pensions. The second measure seeks to 'nationalize' privately-held pension funds (in things like 401(k) accounts) and institute a Government-controlled national pension scheme in their place. Human Events reports:

Democrats in the Senate on Thursday held a recess hearing covering a taxpayer bailout of union pensions and a plan to seize private 401(k) plans to more "fairly" distribute taxpayer-funded pensions to everyone.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee heard from hand-picked witnesses advocating the infamous "Guaranteed Retirement Account" (GRA) authored by Theresa Guilarducci.

. . .

In a nutshell, under the GRA system government would seize private 401(k) accounts, setting up an additional 5% mandatory payroll tax to dole out a "fair" pension to everyone using that confiscated money coupled with the mandated contributions. This would, of course, be a sister government ponzi scheme working in tandem with Social Security, the primary purpose being to give big government politicians additional taxpayer funds to raid to pay for their out-of-control spending.

. . .

As reported in HUMAN EVENTS the Casey bill from Sen. Bob Casey (D-Penn.) is a new entitlement program that would set up a permanent bailout of the union multi-employer pension plans that are desperately underwater through a new "fifth fund" at the government Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). Casey’s bill would create a line item on the federal budget through the PBGC to fund these union pension bailouts annually -- union pensions that are underwater as a result of mismanagement that pre-dates the 2008 financial upheaval.

. . .

And, of course, the theme of the day was "fairness" as it's somehow "fair" to take what one person has earned in the free market and give it to another in a government-run wealth redistribution retirement scheme.

. . .

Overall McMahon said the pressing issue for the lame duck is the union pension bailout with new Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) rules currently set to take effect December 15. These new rules would force companies to account for the cost of penalties to extract themselves from these union pension plans against their bottom line.

"The pension bailouts are something they need desperately and they need quickly because as everyone involved with the forthcoming new FASB rule acknowledges, you cannot stop the accounting board from a new transparency requirement," McMahon said. "It's going to hurt."

. . .

The lame duck session would offer the last chance for unions and companies to be able to place liability for their underwater pensions on the taxpayers' backs before the new FASB rule goes into effect.

There's more at the link. Earlier articles in Human Events covering this issue may be found here, here and here; and an article on CNN's Web site addressing (and arguing in favor of) the 'nationalization' of 401(k) plans and private pensions may be found here.

Needless to say, I think both proposals are nothing more than a politically-motivated boondoggle. If I've taken the trouble to provide for my own retirement by funding my 401(k) or some other plan, just who the hell does any elected representative think he or she is, to turn around and tell me I have to hand over my hard-earned savings to the government? And why should I, as a taxpayer, fund union retirement plans that the unions - and the companies unfortunate enough to have to put up with them - have mismanaged and under-funded?

Both ideas are yet another 'Big Brother' attempt to steal from those who have, and redistribute the proceeds to those who don't. I suggest readers find out whether their elected representatives are in favor of either or both concepts, and if they are, vote them out of office as quickly as possible - then make sure to hold the current Congress' feet to the fire during its lame-duck session, to make sure outgoing politicians don't try to pull a fast one and ram this through over our objections.

Politicians! Grrrrr!





Peter