The Daily Citizen, Dalton, GA

Opinion

Discussion

Welcome to our online comments feature. To join the discussion, you must first register with Disqus and verify your email address. Once you do, your comments will post automatically. We welcome your thoughts and your opinions, including unpopular ones. We ask only that you keep the conversation civil and clean. We reserve the right to remove comments that are obscene, racist or abusive and statements that are false or unverifiable. Repeat offenders will be blocked. You may flag objectionable comments for review by a moderator.
comments powered by Disqus
September 3, 2010

Close the spigot on 'Union Bailout Bill'

The Daily Citizen

If there is one word that we would just as soon never hear uttered again in connection with the U.S. government, it is bailout.

In the last two to three years, American taxpayers have been called upon to bail out banks and other financial institutions, the auto industry and public employees, just to name the most high profile cases.

And, with tens of billions of stimulus money still left to be handed out, we could be called upon to help shore up other failing businesses as well if we fall into a double dip recession.

We have given government money to so many companies and organizations that it seems like the only entity not getting a bailout is us, the average taxpaying citizen, who right now could use a bailout a whole lot worse than anybody who has gotten one so far.

Which is why it is galling to see that a bill calling for yet another bailout could be in line to gain some traction in the Senate this fall.

The bill in question is called the Create Jobs & Save Benefits Act of 2010, but it is widely being referred to as the Union Bailout Bill.

The bill, which was introduced by Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, is aimed at protecting employees, primarily union members, whose pensions are covered by multi-employer pension plans. A similar bill has also been proposed in the House.

According to a report in the Wall Street Journal, the bill would transfer tens of billions of dollars worth of retiree liabilities to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. and from there to the taxpayers.

The Journal story says the crux of the issue are multi-employer pension plans, in which companies across an industry pay into a single pension pool. The plans are predominately run by unions and for years have distinguished themselves by poor management. The Labor Department in 2008 listed 230 multi-employer plans that were either endangered (less than 80 percent funded), or critical (less than 65 percent funded), or that had applied to government for funding relief. By 2009 that number had soared to 640.

Our problem with this bill is that our taxes and your taxes shouldn’t be spent to make sure that union retirees can keep their benefits.

These people do not deserve to be cheated out of their promised benefits and if poor management of these funds is the issue then steps should be taken to bring in new financial leadership.

But many Americans no longer have guaranteed pensions and thousands of employees have already been cheated out of money and benefits that they thought they were going to have when they retired because their companies went belly up or failed to adequately fund their retirement plans.

None of those people had a senator looking out for their interests, however, and to ask them now to help shoulder the load of paying for a bailout of failed union pensions is obscene.

Whatever money would be siphoned off to pay for this bailout could be better spent in a number of different ways, or, dare the thought, perhaps not spent at all.

We have to get serious about saving money in this country and remember that taxpayers aren’t an unlimited spigot of cash.

Unless something compelling happens to change our mind on this issue, we suggest that members of Congress start their austerity plan by saying no to this bill.

Text Only
Opinion