S.1783, the Pension Security and Transparency Act of 2005

The provisions of S. 1783 that I support include:

· Stronger rules to fully fund pension plans,

· Measures to prevent future pension plan failures,

· Protections for older workers in conversions to cash balance pension plans,

· Safeguards to prevent corporate executives from lining their pockets while workers’ and retirees’ pensions suffer, and

· Provide greater pension retirement security for widows and former spouses.

The measure http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00328">just passed in the Senate, and every single Republican voted for it. I don't get it. Why are they supporting this legislation? They would rather see beneficiaries starve before forcing corporations to keep their pension promises.

I don't think it's a case of their having seen the light. Right now they're gutting social services to fund even more tax cuts for the wealthy elite, so they certainly haven't changed their ways.

to retirees whose corporate pensions are eliminated by bankruptcy. They may not replace the pensions dollar for dollar but they do pay something toward them. This fund is financed by insurance fees paid by the corporations, but they have not been sufficient, so the fund is itself close to bankruptcy and Congress might have to come up with money to bail it out -- or let seniors starve.

Remember, any dollar they pay to retirees they cannot give to their billionaire cronies.

Thank you for sharing these thoughts. It is true that there are fears that taxpayers might have to bail out the http://www.pbgc.gov/">Pension Benefits Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), and that is surely at play here. It's good to make corporations accountable for pension obligations, which are simply a form of deferred compensation. But it is out of character for Republicans to force corporations to do so. I know they want to avoid a taxpayer bailout so that they can give more tax cuts to the wealthy elite, but it would be more like them to do it on the backs of the working middle class, or what's left of it.

When the new rules hit, what will corporations do? They'll howl that earnings will decline, therefore they must eliminate defined benefit pensions and transition to defined contribution pensions.. Or 401K plans.

What happens next? As the corporate defined benefit pension goes away, expect public sector versions to do likewise.

In the end - no such thing as a defined benefit pension. Hence no retirement security.

Welcome to the neocon ownership society. :mad:

Workers generally have more security in a 401(k) plan that THEY control, not their employer.

I would much rather have a 401(k) plan that allowed me to invest in a diverse array of securities than a defined-benefit pension that could be reduced or eliminated depending solely on the economic health of my former company. That would really suck for me now if I retired from a typewriter company back in the '70s.

People think of defined-benefit pensions as "guaranteed," but they really aren't -- they are subject to the whims of corporate executives or union leaders. I don't like the neocons, but I do like the idea of you having your OWN retirement account, with YOUR name on it, that no corporate exec can touch.

Ask yourself why companies are so eager to eliminate the defined benefit pension plan - you can easily find (via Google) that the number of such plans has declined substantially over the years.

Fundamentally, the corporations seek to shift the risk from the employer to the employee.

Now, ask yourself - why?

For an answer, read "Target Investing" by Mauldin. You'll find that the present market parameters suggest a lower than usual rate of return for the next decade or two.

What might that mean for the amateur pension fund manager? The word "poverty" comes to mind.

that was passed - with the PBGC premium lowered to $30 from the GOP's original $50 per person, so as to not drive away defined benefit plans.

Unlike the Causality Insurance/Heath Insurance side of the insurance industry, the life and pension side have a history of trying to be reasonable as to public policy.

It was the health side that refused to convert to administrative services only companies back in 73 and again in 93 when single payer national health was proposed by many folks looking at the numbers.