Failure to pass important legislation to protect and preserve critical and declining multiemployer plans will lead to a national crisis that will not only impact the nearly 1.4 million Americans who were promised a pension, but the economic fall-out will take a much greater toll on the U.S. economy. The economic stimulus provided by annual benefit payments dwarfs the potential cost, yet our august Senators fail to understand this basic math. Could it be that their politics is blinding them? It certainly seems so.
In the latest display of economic ignorance, we have Senator Enzi (Republican from Wyoming) railing about the potential impact as calculated by the CBO of $49 billion over 10 years. Is he kidding? The Republican “lead” (a term that I am using quite loosely) Senate has overseen a series of annual Federal budget deficits that have been topping $1 trillion. The roughly $5 billion per year would be equivalent to <0.05% of the annual deficit.
Furthermore, he is assuming, and we know what the problem with that is, that the loans involved in the legislation H.R. 397 would not be repaid. As we’ve mentioned many times, the actuarial firm Cheiron calculated that all but three of the pension systems receiving the low-interest rate loans would be able to pay back the loan upon maturity significantly reducing that $49 billion estimated impact on the taxpayer. More important, these plans would be able to protect and preserve the promised benefits for at least the next 30 years instead of seeing these plans fail within the next 15 years.
We need true statesmen at this time who will forego their ideological politics by putting forward a bi-partisan approach to solving this crisis. The plan participants didn’t create this crisis, but they are certainly the ones that will be most harmed should our leaders once again fail us. If Senator Enzi thinks that he’s protecting the U.S. taxpayer he should realize that the lost economic stimulus will have a greater negative impact on them and our broader economy.
I think the Senators understand the basic math quite clearly. Sen Enzi did not even have to take off his shoes to use his finger and toes abacus.He is not “assuming” anything. He turned to the professionals at the Congressional Budget Office to cypher and do his gosintas for him.I mean according to your assessment of Enzis ignorance this is not as comical as it sounds.
So to be clear both you and Cherion are claiming only 12 funds would be applying for loans??Of course none of those 12 will be Central States because despite you dodging the question and REFUSING to admit it Central States will not qualify for a loan under the Hoffa Act(HR397) language.12 funds and not Central States and we are supposed to spend billions of taxpayer dollars. For what. I say twelve funds because Enzi is reacting to the Congressional Budget Office opinion which has declared 25% of the loans will not be repaid and the funds will go insolvent anyways DURING the 30 year period .”one-quarter of the affected pension plans would become insolvent in the 30-year loan period”Notice the key word “IN” So much for your “preserve the promised benefits for at least the next 30 years. So you say three …and that is 25% of….Oh never mind..
So for the record are you saying the CBO are liars??Also you mention “Politics blinding them”. Hmm. So why was your post directed as an insult at a politician. Why do you not claim Philip Swagel CBO director is displaying ” economic ignorance”??He gave Enzi the numbers.Now dont get me wrong I do not think the CBO is any better than the crooks at the IBT you run with. And please give us a break with the Bipartisan rhetoric.You must agree we saw the bipartisan act of Bobby Scott at the mark up hearing.I went back and looked for any post from you on Bobby Scots display of ignorance.Crickets
Good morning, Richard. I hope that you are having a great day. Always interesting when I hear from you. Sorry, but when did I ever mention only 12 funds applying for loans? Second, I don’t run with anyone, so please finally get that notion out of your head. Third, who is Bobby Scott? Cheiron’s analysis had 111 of the 114 funds being able to repay the loan, so I don’t know how the CBO came up with their conclusion. I didn’t see their methodology, but I did see Cheiron’s. You are really good at finding issues with what is wrong with the BLA. What is your solution?