We have recently reported on the $1.02 trillion federal deficit for 2019. What amazes me is that we are constantly told that the Republican lead U.S. Senate can’t support H.R. 397 (the Butch Lewis Act) and nearly 1.4 million multiemployer pension plan participants because it wouldn’t be “fair” to the American taxpayer. Please stop with this charade. The total cost to save the critical and declining pensions is a drop in the bucket compared to the lost annual economic activity produced by the benefit payments and the lost revenue collected in taxes by federal, state, and municipal entities.
The CBO’s analysis found “that under H.R. 397, the government would disburse $39.7 billion in loans to certain multiemployer pension plans. (That total excludes some forms of assistance that resemble loans but do not receive FCRA treatment because they do not meet the definition of a loan under FCRA.) Under CBO’s official approach (which excludes grant assistance), the present value of loan repayments would total $7.9 billion, CBO estimated, leading to a net subsidy cost of $31.8 billion. Under the alternative approach (which includes grant assistance), the estimated net subsidy cost would be $5.8 billion because some loans would be repaid using grant assistance. The subsidy cost for all loans (regardless of the estimating approach) would be recorded as direct spending.”
The $39.7 billion would represent <4% of the current deficit, if accounted for in one year, but less than 0.1% per year if spread over the life of the loans, which is 30 years. Any claim on the part of our Washington DC leadership that the failure to address our burgeoning pension crisis is because they are trying to protect the U.S. taxpayer is a joke. As we reported, the federal deficit has and will continue to be stimulative to our economy, and shouldn’t create inflationary pressures provided the additional demand for goods and services can be met by our economy’s ability to meet that demand.
No one in DC has earned the right to call themselves fiscally conservative!
It is rather amusing that you try to portray $37 billion as a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of a Washington Cesspool that has created a deficit number so high it has entered the Twilight Zone and the realm of the Brothers Grimm However it is still $37.9 billion and will come out of the pockets of taxpayers to bail out Unions. Further you are ignoring the additional costs that will be added as we just saw with with the PBGC giving a small Laborers Local in NY a $26.7 million bailout and forcing a solid fund to take in a failing fund and “the financially secure plan assumed responsibility for paying the full plan benefits of the participants and beneficiaries in the failing plan with which it merged” So while your 37 billion being portrayed is as a drop in the bucket it is not the true cost to taxpayers for a bailout of Unions.That flood gate has just been opened and we shall see how fast the PBGC is drained in the rush of Unions trying to shore up funds they have looted and managed . In regards to the facilitated merger and financial assistance the PGBC said “PBGC is exercising its authority under the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014″ That is a lie and MPRA gave no such authority for a $26.7 million bailout.
Of course without rehashing MY contention that the BLA written by the well documented crooks at the IBT will not solve this crisis,will not result in the loans paid back 100% and is a bailout of Unions to name a few of the conflicts with the lies being told in regards to the BLA let me ask you. What do you think of PBGC Director Hartogensis stating for the record”H.R. 397 may be well-intended, but it is not the solution taxpayers, workers,and retirees need. Furthermore,the bill is unlikely to solve the fundamental problem” and “Unfortunately, this legislation contains no reforms that would protect workers, retirees, and taxpayers from more plan failures and more bailouts” Is he lying as well??
Good afternoon, Richard, and I hope that 2020 has started well for you. I saw that the PBGC has approved for the first time the shoring up of merged plans. I don’t know whether or not this is permitted under MPRA or not. Furthermore, I don’t know if the three contributions will be enough to accomplish the objective of actually shoring up this combined entity. With regard to your questions related to PBGC Director Hartogensis, I don’t know the man and I don’t what his agenda might be. I know that if I were designing a plan from the start, I would use some of the elements suggested in competing proposals. However, we have an existing issue that needs tackling, and it is still my contention that the only plan that addresses this issue is the BLA. I hope that you have a great day.