Will new pension bill protect the corporations - or the workers?

[papau]

The New Pension Bill that has passed both the House and the Senate, but in different versions, did not get out of the legislative conference committee by April 15th as planned, and now the new informal deadline of the end of May may not be met.

The problem is easy to understand. The Senate version is friendlier to workers and would impose stronger restrictions on companies, while the House version focuses on protecting businesses.

Little things like the Senate relief for airlines, especially Northwest Airlines, so as to avoid a dump next year of $3 billion in pension liabilities on the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., is not in the House Bill. And the Senate Bill's provision for cash balance pension conversions - where the older worker finds he is no longer accruing an increase to his pension - is a worker protection provision, and that is not where the GOP compassionate conservative members of the House want to go. The Senate provision would prevent "wear-away" of pension benefits of older workers when the conversion is made. In effect, the Senate proposal would require that cash-balance plans accumulate benefits to the same degree that traditional pensions do.

And of course Bush is trying to kill this compassionate conservative idea by the usual Bush technique of saying the worker deserves a stronger bill. Warshawsky speaking for the administration said the industry-specific relief (Northwest Airlines) would "weaken the funding regime". And of course the Senate provision to increase in PBGC guarantees for benefits for airline pilots (which would likely become the law for all workers) is not an increase in the social safety net that Bush wants to see. And the Senate's retiree health benefits funding via pension plan surplus improvements is not part of the Bush compassionate conservative agenda.

And for those who are 401k plans, Bush seems to want a lower matching requirement - of course calling that screwing of the workers a quid pro quo for allowing automatic enrollment get by the non-discrimination safe harbor required matching contributions requirement. Don't look for logic in this idea - there is none except the usual help the rich logic.

Of course Bush feels that personal accounts - this time the ones we already have for Heath care called HSA's - need improvements so as to not have the tax code biased in favor of inefficiently large amount of wasteful health care consumption. As we all know the answer to the health benefit crisis is to reduce corporate insurance (and benefits) and move folks to saving for that next hospital visit.

This scenario that is playing out now should help clarify for the voter what "compassionate conservative" really means - if there are any left who still do not understand where the GOP heart is.

[bananas]

1. Is that a rhetorical question - or one you already know the answer to?