| |
11/21/08
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
June 02, 2005 I wonder if the people who think Social Security is a form of socialism, communism, or a business the federal government should not be engaged in realize that since 1974 the government has been insuring private pension programs for any corporation or private company willing to pay the fee. Of course, this does not apply to the employees of United Airlines whose company didn’t bother to sign up and pay the premiums. The main page of PBGC directs United people elsewhere. PBGC insurance is not mandatory, but perhaps it should be, at least for the companies that offer pension plan incentives to a sizeable number of employees. For the past 31 years, the federal government has been running a business that insures private pension plans in much the same way AIG insures private insurance companies or the FDIC insures banks. But then, AIG is not a government operation and is currently under investigation by the Security & Exchange Commission. Created in 1974 under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the PBGC has two basic insurance packets; (1) the single employer program protects 34.6 million workers and retirees in 29,651 pension plans and (2) the multiemployer program protects 9.8 million workers and retirees in 1,587 pension plans. “Multiemployer plans are set up by collectively bargained agreements involving more than one unrelated employer, generally one industry.” “In a distress situation, where the plan does not have enough money to pay all benefits, the employer must prove severe financial distress – for instance the likelihood that continuing the plan would force the company to shut down. PBGC will pay guaranteed benefits, usually covering a large part of the total earned benefits, and make strong efforts to recover funds from the employer.” PBGC declares emphatically that taxpayer money does not support this operation. The corporation gets its assets from premiums paid by the insured and investments made by PBGC. That's good, but were there any great two year debates and Supreme Court decisions about whether a not-for-profit government could charge private enterprise for this insurance? Where are the arguments used against the worker's supplemental retirement insurance, Social Security? Think about it. Wouldn’t it be nice if the federal government set up a pension guarantee program for Social Security? Our Federal Old Age & Survivors Insurance could certainly use a guarantee company to support beneficiaries when the baby-boomers start to retire and payouts finally exceed the enormous surpluses the system has been generating. That's when the system begins to go bankrupt according to President Bush and would be eligible for relief. All the government would have to do is set up a new corporation to guarantee our supplemental retirement system, endow it with a load of “special” nonmarketable Treasury securities that wouldn’t cost them a thing, dump in some more every year as annual interest, and let the taxpayers handle it from there. But then, there’s really no need for such new innovation is there? They've already got such a system with you the taxpayer set up to cover possible loses and with $1.7 trillion representing 22 percent of the national debt under the Pay-It-Again Sam scam. Instead of setting up a corporation, after stealing the profits the pirates use a bogus trust fund stuffed with "special" securities every taxpayer in the country is committed to paying off. You can and will cover any loses Social Security suffers until the “trust fund” runs out of marker/chits in 2041, 2042, or is it 2052 by now? The scam is self generating. You see, the more they steal the larger the "trust" becomes. The larger the trust, the longer it will last. At the same time, if withdrawals are ever necessary you will still be paying whatever payroll tax rate they decide on in the upcoming debates to “fix” the system. They only need to increase the premiums, increase the surplus booty and the "trust" will grow even more. Think of the many ways they can increase surpluses by taxing you more today – by simply increasing your premiums while they spend the extra revenue on wars, pork, more nukes, and new military bases in Iraq . The Social Security loses in money spent elsewhere amount to $434 billion in the same time period PBGC is complaining about losing $14.3 billion. And Social Security is charged compound interest on top of that. Why shouldn't every company in the country set up a similar scam? If Daddy Warbucks can do it, so can they. It's an open invitation. On Sunday,
May 29th, the New York Times Business Section published an article called
"A Mini-Enron
On Every Corner?"
Visit Ed Henry's own web site! Send a message to your elected representatives. Click here to start. Be sure to send a copy to Ed Henry.
|
Open Letter To President Bush & Congress Parkersburg Papers At The Bureau Of Public Debt The Job Market Reflected In March Payroll Taxes Changing Direction On Social Security Reform Cacophony - Don't Feed The Animals Your Money - Gone, But Not Forgotten Another Confession, Like Pulling Teeth FERS - The Federal Employees Retirement System Lost Pensions Plaguing Workers Prepare For An Onslaught Of Garbage Complete Archives for Ed Henry | ||||||||||||||
 |
Submit
Feedback
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
