How bad is it when we can't even count on Ted Kennedy anymore?

[antigop]

http://help.senate.gov/pen.htm

The Senate Help Committee passed a pension "reform" bill yesterday.
Kennedy (along with Hillary and others) voted FOR it. Kennedy was a co-sponsor.

One of the so-called "highlights" of the bill:

"Clarify the law governing hybrid pension plans, both retroactively and prospectively"

THEY LEGALIZED CASH BALANCE PENSION PLANS!

Harkin was the only Dem on the committee to vote NO.

<emphasis, not shouting>
THEY WILL NEVER BECOME THE MAJORITY PARTY IF THEY KEEP VOTING LIKE REPUBLICANS.

[kerrygoddess]

1. I doubt Kennedy would have voted for this if it didn't make sense:

HELP APPROVES SWEEPING PENSION REFORM BILL; WILL SECURE RETIREMENTS OF MILLIONS, ENZI SAYS

Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP Committee) today said the Committee has approved “The Defined Benefit Security Act,” a bill designed to ensure proper funding of pension plans and the secure the retirements of millions of Americans. “Billions of dollars and the survival of hundreds of small and medium-sized companies hinge on Congressional approval of substantive pension reform,” Enzi said Thursday. “Hard-working Americans rely upon these plans and cling to the hope that their plans will sustain them into retirement. We’ve made a point to be mindful of these facts as we’ve worked to produce this sweeping reform bill and have achieved meaningful reforms.” Enzi called the bipartisan bill, cosponsored by the Committee’s Ranking Member, Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA), Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH) and Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) “a worthy product” of the Committee that first produced the “Employee Retirement Income Security Act,” - the same landmark law it will amend.

The reform bill approved achieves five goals Enzi identified early this year as for comprehensive pension reform. The bill will:


Require tougher funding rules to ensure that pension plans are fully funded;

Impose new disclosure provisions providing more accurate, concise and informative plan specific - so that interested persons have access to timely information they need to make informed choices about their retirement plans.

Increase pension premiums to narrow the funding deficit at the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation and revision of current “loopholes” that will preclude companies from shifting costs onto the federal agency;

Clarify the law governing hybrid pension plans, both retroactively and prospectively, and strengthens the law on multiemployer pension plans to ensure that the companies and unions take the steps necessary to avoid funding deficiencies.

Finally, the bill includes some limited airline pension relief, both to keep money flowing into those plans, but also to help keep billions of dollars in additional liability off the PBGC’s doorstep.

[Mass]

3. That is probably the best they could insure and the pension issue is a

major problem. He probably negociated something else in exchange.

[antigop]

4. it legalizes hybrid pension plans -- cash balance plans are hybrid plans

He was the co-sponsor of the bill.

The cash balance stuff didn't need to be put in there.

HE SOLD US OUT!

[antigop]

5. this will allow companies to switch to cash balance plans

HE SOLD US OUT!

[Mass]

6. For those like me who dont know the issue, could you elaborate

what the issue is here?

I am totally ignorant of the issue, so dont flame and explain the situation and the problem.

[lastknowngood]

10. Bull! This is a scam to keep a company from funding a retirement

plan at all. It allows them to promis without any accountability.

[Debi]

2. Thank God Harkin got it. n/t

[Totally Committed]

7. He's got his re-election in 2006 to think about, doesn't he?

This is a sure sign that he knows he has to come home and run for his seat in a state that elected the likes of Romney for Governor.

Viability.

TC

[sinkingfeeling]

8. It's a really screwy bill...trying to cover too many aspects of

employer pensions at the same time. The folks that won the Cooper vs. IBM lawsuit were in attendance. Here is a summary of what Kati Cooper wrote:

There were about 100 people in the audience. Harkin gave a fantastic
speech about the IBM employees, there was applause. Harkin voted
against the bill as written because there were no protections for
early retirees. (that means you can kiss your early retirement
subsidies good-by) Burr also voted against the bill, but I have not
been able to find out why. Everyone else voted for it. Several
amendments were offered but none accepted. If there is to be a fight
with the amendments, it will be on the Senate floor.

What does the bill contain? An odd carve-out for one.
The carve-out states something like 'all cb plans currently in the
judicial branch can stay there if filed prior to August 1, 2005 while
after August 1, 2005, no one can file any more law suits'. There is
an odd caveat that if IBM loses their suit, all the safeguards that
are written in the bill will be removed and if IBM wins their suit,
all the safeguards that are written in the bill will stand. Yes,
there are safeguards in the bill that employers must follow if their
CB plan is to be dubbed 'legal'.

[Mass]

9. Thanks, that makes it a little more clear about the objections to the bill