Why should taxpayers be liable for mismanaged union pension funds?

Question

And what about businesses becoming liable not just for their own employees, but for every worker in this proposed plan regardless of how the plan is managed or mismanaged? 

Excerpts:

Rep. Earl Pomeroy, North Dakota Democrat, is drafting legislation that would amount to a massive, employer-crippling bailout for struggling union pensions. The congressman is trying to spin this as a cheap, proactive way to shore up said pensions. He claims that his bill is a response to an "urgent plea [from employers] for manageable and predictable pension funding rules as the nation works [its] way back to recovery."

In reality, the bill as currently drafted would be a costly sop to unions, which have done so much to get Mr. Pomeroy elected. (Twelve out of his top 21 donors are unions, according to opensecrets.org.) It would allow the unions, which have badly mismanaged pension funds in the past, to make new companies liable for the pension obligations of workers at other companies, in other industries. It also would create an explicit taxpayer guarantee if it all comes crashing down.

The devil is in the details of the draft, the text of which can be found on the congressman's Web site. The changes it introduces are chilling.

The draft would allow union-controlled multiemployer pension plans to form alliances with one another. It also would create something known as a fifth fund that the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp., with taxpayer help, would use to prop up failing union pension plans. 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/07/pomeroys-lucre-for-labor/

Does this have anything to do with twelve out of his top 21 donors being unions?

blue317 · Accepted Answer

We should not be held liable? But we are, why?

1. Unions supported the Democrats with millions of dollars of campaign contributions.
2. Unions got most of the stimulus bailout money.
3. Remember the little Union meeting held this summer in Miami...That our VP went to...behind close downs...
4. SEIU...Andy Serns is the number 1 visitor to the White House...
5. The Unions were huge supports of the Obama care...which would have put the taxpayers liable for the union health care also...Remember how Obama changed the Cadillac insurance premium after the unions came to the White House and threw a fit...then Obama moved the plan up...

The Democrats want to act all holy and righteous...about Republicans and Corporations...when they are in bed with Unions...hypocrisy...

? · Answer

Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-OH): They’ve run this diagram and it really is a, I think, blaspheming my good friend Pat Tiberi from Ohio and indicating that there are nine Republicans supporting a bill that will bail out unions. Well, that’s nonsense and I don’t know who the pin head and weenie is at Fox News that decided to put that story together. But the true facts of this piece of legislation are as follows. This bill will save the taxpayers by saying to those corporations that have union pension plans, if you find yourselves in a bind, rather than thrusting that upon the taxpayer, it spreads out over five years the ability to bring those pension plans up to speed. That’s good government, it’s a good bill. It’s a good Tiberi bill and I don’t know what they’re doing at Fox News, but they should stop smoking it and get back to reporting the facts.

libsticker · Answer

This is exactly what is wrong with too much government intervention.  Let the pension funds fail, and then the rank and file will hold the Union accountable.  If the Union was to let the pension funds fail, with no bailout, they know they would no longer have a Union or a Job, that is what should happen when people fail, they get sanctioned for their actions.

bwlobo · Answer

This made me so mad when I read your comments & the source!  The Liberal Left Extremists have snagged the unions, who may no longer actually help the working man with job contentions... they only thing the unions seem to do today, is give money to perpetuate the socialistic agenda of "workers unite" against the "horrible, no-good, very bad" corporations (who are, in reality, the source of their job benefits). 

If you look on the donor lists for Obama, Pelosi, Reid and other liberal politician... (Michgian's senators: Stabenow & Levin), you will find HUGE donations from unions. Teacher's unions, united auto workers, AFL-CIO, and SEIU for public workers!!

The bribe system is in full swing, especially in the Democratic party!!  Justice cannot be true when bribery exists because outcomes are so twisted!

Anonymous · Answer

We should not give our money to mismanaged union pension plans what we should be doing is charging union officials and put them in prison. The only way to fix the problem is stop the crooks at the source if they ask for money start suits on the upper management of that union and deal with the problem it is time to use the law to the fullest extent on all of these white collar crimes.

KevinM · Answer

Nixon did this back in the 70s. Every Union pension is backed by the US government. If they fail, you and I have to pay them.

Ed: I've included a link to Nixon's commments on the bill when it passed back in 1974. It's called the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC - a government entity like the FDIC). That link is below too. I'm not saying it's good - we SHOULDN'T be backing these funds. I'm saying that it's already the law.

Anonymous · Answer

Why is your newspaper misspelling the name of a Federal Agency? It's "Guaranty" with a 'y'. 

Rev. Moon sunk $1.7 billion into that rag and they can't afford SpellCheck? CLASSIC!!!

Anyway, if investors can't get rich off it then it ain't worth doing.

That's the AMERICAN way!!!

"I am particularly concerned with the temptation, and, indeed, growing tendency, to use the pension insurance fund as a means to obtain an interest-free and risk-free loan to enable companies to restructure. Unfortunately, the current calculation appears to be that shifting pension liabilities onto other premium payers or potentially taxpayers is the path of least resistance rather than a last resort."

DAR · Answer

What is hilarious about this is they are trying to cut social security (all their talk of reform is essentially to not live up to the deal they cut to pay on the taxes they collected back when those dollars were actually valuable enough to mean something, prior to giving the pot of money away in part to people who never paid in.)   Yet they plan to bail out private parties who are equally bad managers to the government, and offered better benefits?

And in answer to your question, I'm sure it has nothing at all to do with his top donors mostly being unions.  (Sarcasm.)

Paul Grass™ · Answer

We should never be liable for the foolishness of others, who freely voted in their Union leaders and paid their dues, yet 0bama is now paying his union dues by pushing bailouts of them

Butt...butt · Answer

They shouldn't.

It irks me that every large campaign contributor can get his pet projects paid off on the taxpayers dime.

Trending News

Why should taxpayers be liable for mismanaged union pension funds?

13 Answers