How Safe Is Your Pension
Recently there was a comment to one of Jane's[ Firedoglake
] posts that really set my mind to thinking. I don't recall which post it was, nor whom the commenter was. Let it suffice to say, the thought was not mine, but it made the hair on the back of my neck rise. So chilling were the implications.
I'll try to paraphrase it as best I can."There is, I believe, an underlying issue percolating, the disappearance of pensions entirely. Look at the trend. The airlines (as well as GM and Ford)have all been making noise about the bottom line and walking away from their pension commitment. The Governor of California, I forgot his name, is talking about ending the pension system, for state employees. President Bush’s SS reform is a move away from the concept of a federally underwritten pension safety net."
This comment became even more concerning when I read the following from an article over at the FOX website."The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) is one of those federal agencies most people never hear about unless it’s bad news. Just as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation insures bank accounts in the event a bank becomes insolvent, the PBGC insures pension benefits when an employer cannot afford to pay them. So if you’re hearing from these folks, it probably means your company pension has gone up in smoke.
The important thing to understand is that, like the FDIC, there is a limit to this insurance."
I can think of very few people who's lives this doesn't directly impact. Most of us in one way or another are relying on a pension plan to see us through our retirement years. If that pension fails to adequately provide for us, we may have no alternative but to partially rely on Social Security.
Which brings us to Bush's plan to reform
From the beginning I felt that Bush's agenda with Social Security was not the repairing, or saving
of the program but the ultimate demise of it. Who in their right mind wouldn't/couldn't realize that by pulling funds away from the SS fund, you'll eventually have a fund that is depleted. Which is what private accounts do. Especially when you factor in that those who would be most likely to choose private/personal accounts would be those in higher income brackets, thus taking away the larger amounts paid into the fund by those incomes.
Republicans have long hated Social Security. This is just their most recent attempt to do away with what they consider an entitlement program
While for the moment the issue seems to have become a 'no-go' for Bush. Don't believe he has given up. Not for a second. As Bush himself has said "When you have this kind of political capital, you don't waste it..." and "In my line of work you gotta keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kinda catapult the propaganda.
" Don't underestimate this man, nor his party and their intent. We cannot sit back and relax, assuming the fight is over. He may have temporaily lost the battle, but make no mistake, the war is still waging. Much the same as the battle over John Bolton. Just as Bush can make an end run around Congress and simply appoint Bolton to the post at the UN, he can if pushed, do much the same with his plans for Social Security.
The next time you stop and think about Social Security and your own retirement pension, take a few minutes and read the following article.[ How Safe Is Your Pension
You may be in for a few surprises. That pittance you expect to be receiving from Social Security may turn out to be more important than you think. In which case, you'd better hope the system is there and still working if and when you need it.