Bailout Committee Hearing Stakeholders (Not Taxpayers)

Taxpayer advocates are in a “complete different universe”

Full ‘stakeholder’ opening statements:




18 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by PS Drone on July 25, 2018 at 1:24 pm

    I love it, Manchin says it is going to take a “loan” to “bailout” the failing MEP plan(s). How does a “loan” get paid back when the proceeds of the “loan” are going to help fund pension benefits that the various funds can no longer pay without the “loan?” Who is going to fund the “loan?” The “non-stakeholder” taxpayers? Who is going to loan them money so that, in addition to paying for their own retirement, they can make the “loan” to the deadbeat MEP?


  2. Posted by MJ on July 25, 2018 at 2:42 pm

    If I am understanding the testimony correctly……these companies and trade unions made risky investments, did not require participants to pay in more based on actuarial data, nor did the companies pay in more, the trustees know what was happening and what would happen and now they want to cut retirees pensions by half and/or have the government bail them out into perpetuity??

    This may sound like a dumb question but weren’t the employees sent information about their pension investments yearly or quarterly? Trustees were aware and did nothing although according to the testimony pay and health benefits were negotiated down and because of those private mistakes, the federal government should bail them out?

    What am I missing??


    • Posted by Anonymous on July 25, 2018 at 11:36 pm

      Relying to MJ “what am I missing”

      I can answer only in a very small way. First thing is that, for the most part, fund participants have absolutely no voice in how their pension fund invests its money. This I know first hand. The second thing I would say (and openly admit it may not be applicable generally) is that on October of 2016 the fund I participate in stated in writing that the fund was solvent for a minimum 33-year horizon. By December 2016 (two months later) the story was that the fund was critical and on the precipice of being critical and declining (less than 20 years solvency). This is a fund with $2B and 50,000 participants. I know this does not address the issue of socializing the costs of these funds but I thought you might like to know that participants are virtually powerless to do anything with whatever information they do get, which by the way they only get because the funds are legally mandated to do so…. if not for that the BOT would probably not report anything. The whole situation is a mess.


      • Posted by Tough Love on July 26, 2018 at 6:59 pm

        Quoting …………..

        “First thing is that, for the most part, fund participants have absolutely no voice in how their pension fund invests its money.”

        So what ? The Taxpayers had ZERO to do with a pension Plan arrangement solely between the Union and the participating companies …… and not a dime should come from the UNINVOLVED Taxpayers to bail out failing MEP Plans.


  3. Posted by Tough Love on July 25, 2018 at 8:49 pm

    Other Than Mr. Rauh, it’s a gang-of-thieves hell-bent on a grabbing the UNINVOLVED Taxpayers’ money.


  4. Posted by Tough Love on July 25, 2018 at 10:09 pm

    Wow, that 1-st video was something………… so TAXPAYERS (with no other “stake” in the outcome), should be NOT be heard because they aren’t “stakeholders” ……. even thought it’s the TAXPAYERS who will ultimately pay for this BAILOUT.

    And that 2-nd video was also a beauty. Clearly the Congressman initially speaking wants to shove down Mr. Rauh’s throat no option but a “loan”, and than asks Mr. Ruah, how else can the situation be “fixed” w/o a “loan”. Clearly he gets pissed-off when Mr. Rauh responds that is NOT the Taxpayer’s obligation to “fix” this but rather it should be an obligation of the employers who contracted for these benefits with the Unions.

    Rauh is the only one with no “agenda” to STEAL form the Taxpayers


    • Posted by El gaupo on July 26, 2018 at 12:30 am

      Hmmmm…….obligation of the employers who contracted with the union. Hmmmm…..sounds like you have the right answer.


      • I see what you did there…
        “Obligation of the employer.”
        Who could argue with that?


      • Posted by Tough Love on July 26, 2018 at 7:49 am

        What you (and Stepohen Douglas/EARTH) choose to IGNORE is that ….in PRIVATE Sector negotiations for compensation (including pensions, if offered) BOTH sides at the negotiating table are looking out for THEIR best interests.

        In PRIVATE Sector negotiations the “employer/payor” is the company (of Companies in MEP arrangements) and they are indeed looking out for THEIR best interests in such negotiations.

        In PUBLIC Sector compensation negotiations (including pensions) the “employer/payor” is the Taxpayers, and absolutely NOBODY at the “negotiating table” is looking out for THEIR best interests. And that BS about our Elected Officials (or the representatives) are doing so rings hollow, as we BOTH know that their favorable votes on Public Sector pay, pensions, and benefits have been BOUGHT with Public Sector Union BRIBES disguised as campaign contributions and election support.

        There is way more than sufficient justification for Taxpayers to renege on the 50+% of Public Sector pension/benefit “promises” that assuredly would NOT have been granted in the absence of that Union/Elected-Official COLLUSION.


    • But public employers are different from private or multi-employer plans.

      ” There seems to be a high likelihood that future generations will have to bear the substantial burden of making up pension benefits for previous generations of state employees. While citizens of states that are particularly hard-hit by the pension crisis may be able to escape to other states, an acceleration of this demographic phenomenon would leave a dwindling taxpayer base behind in the states facing the largest liabilities. This would increase the likelihood of a federal taxpayer bailout in which taxpayers in all states would bear the burden of the states in default. The problem of state and local pension liabilities is therefore a problem for all US taxpayers, not just those in the states with the largest deficits.”

      Joshua Rauh,

      “… it should be an obligation of the employers who contracted for these benefits with the Unions.”

      Tough Love


      • Posted by Tough Love on July 26, 2018 at 7:50 am

        See my above response to El gaupo’s comment.


        • Posted by El gaupo on July 26, 2018 at 9:42 am

          He saw it. He is just noting the double standard in your argument.

          Tell ya what, I’ll let u pick out an alter ego for me to use…. let me guess “moocher”. “Like the quotes?”


          • Posted by Tough Love on July 26, 2018 at 11:34 am

            Re-read my comment …………. there is no “double standard”. ONLY in the PUBLIC Sector does one side in a “negotiation” have NOBODY truey representing THEIR best interests.

            No personal animosity, but your pensions/benefits DESERVE to be reduced by 50+%.

      • Posted by Stanley on July 26, 2018 at 6:53 pm

        Steve, what did you think of the CA DMV employee who caught up on her/his sleep over a 4 year period? Most private employers don’t tolerate sleeping on the job. Get caught sleeping and you are history. At the DMV? Bet she gets a humongous pension payment for life.


  5. Posted by Anonymous on July 26, 2018 at 12:58 pm

    TL, in all honesty it does not seem that the private employer was looking out for their employees…….I get it that public pensions are overly generous and unsustainable but it would appear that private sector pensions are in the same predicament………too many retirees not enough money for endless life time payments

    So maybe pensions should just become a thing of the past in this new normal and educate workers on how to save for their own retirements, avoid debt, live within their means and work as long as they can……IDK


    • Posted by Tough Love on July 26, 2018 at 7:17 pm

      Single-employer Corporate Sponsored Plans (on average) have a funding ratio of over 85% when calculated using assumptions and methodology MUCH MUCH more conservative than those used by PUBLIC Sector Plans ………… about TWICE as well funded as are Public Sector Plans if valued on the identical basis.


  6. […] Pension Plans (Bailout Committee) heard from ‘stakeholders’ last week both verbally and in writing. Here are those texts […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: