![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 12 of 12. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by shar on March 2, 2003, at 12:19:37
I received this in an email from a friend my age. It doesn't apply to me so much because I'm unemployed and had to cash in my retirement to live on. But...for those of you with pensions, I thought you might be interested. Warning: it's definitely biased in a non-rich folks direction.
The "harder" news starts where I put the ###. And the "how to respond" to this starts where I put the ***.
==============================================by Molly Ivins 2/27/03
AUSTIN, Texas -- You ain't no John Snow when it comes to pensions. Snow, our new
treasury secretary, was CEO of the railroad company CSX Corp. and got a platinum
parachute when he bailed. He gets $2.47 million a year for life in retirement
benefits. This package was based on the premise that he'd worked for the company
for 44 years, even though he'd
been there only 25. Now that's creative accounting.Plus, CSX decided to let him factor in the stock benefits he had received as
regular income, instead of just salary, as is normally done. At the same time
CSX was giving Snow this lovely deal, it was cutting the health benefits in its
retirement plan for lesser workers. Since Secretary Snow is now in charge of
pension policy at the Treasury, can we look forward to
similar deals for ourselves? Nope, we're in the class that gets the cuts.### The Bush administration has a plan (those are rapidly becoming the six most
chilling words in the English language) to de-improve your pension. It allows
companies to switch from traditional fixed-benefit retirement plans to what's
called the cash-balance pension plan. You will be unsurprised to learn that
corporations just love it because it saves them millions of
dollars a year, as much as $100 million in the case of huge companies.Under the administration's proposed rules, companies can eat away at the
retirement benefits they owe workers by using "reasonable" interest rates and
mortality rates to calculate the value of a pension as the company converts to
the cash-balance scheme. Presto: Hey, look honey, I shrunk your retirement
package.The cash-balance plan is particularly harmful to older workers, so if you've got
any gray hair, you might want to take a look at what they're about to do to you.
Under fixed-benefit plans, retirement is based on the employee's salary and
years of work at the company. This gives older workers a chance to rack up
benefits. When companies started switching to cash-balance plans, the AARP, the
Pension Rights Center, the AFL-CIO and other groups set up a mighty holler. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission received over 800 age-discrimination
complaints. As a result, the IRS stopped approving these conversions in 1999.But the Bush administration, operating on its cardinal principle -- Whatever
Bill Clinton Did Was Wrong -- has naturally decided to reverse course. If
Clinton did it, it can't be good (and what splendid results they've gotten so
far), so the new rules will give companies that convert to cash-balance plans a
tax advantage, as well as giving them protection from
age-discrimination suits. Don't you love it? The perfect Bush plan: They get to
screw workers and get a tax break, and nobody is allowed to sue.More than 200 members of Congress have written Bush asking him not to let the
proposed rules become law. The General Accounting Office did a study showing
that annual pension benefits of older workers can drop by as much as 50 percent
under the new plan.*** There is a 90-day period for "public comments" on the proposed rules, and it
might well behoove you to put pen to paper over this one. The public comment
period ends March 13. You can call the Treasury Department at (202) 622-6090 or
6030 to find how to submit a comment. The Communication Workers of America
website also has some how-to advice:
It's at www.allianceibm.org/pension/treasuryletters.htm.Rep. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent, has a bill to require companies
that are going to convert to allow their employees to choose which plan works
best for them. The bill requires companies to provide workers detailed
information that allows them to make an apples-to-apples comparison.If you're wondering why you haven't heard much about this, let me suggest two
reasons. One is that TV news is in its one-story, Dead Diana mode: All they have
time for is Iraq and the occasional nightclub fire. The second is the
consequence of having all the media owned by a few giant corporations. It is not
in the interest of these corporations to have such news
widely reported.Am I suggesting (gasp!) censorship? Nope, just that even though this affects
millions of people, those millions are not a large percentage of the total
television audience, and pension de-form is not as gripping as war or nightclub
fires. That's the way media gigantism affects news. You can't save your pension
with duct tape, so get on this.
Posted by noa on March 2, 2003, at 12:49:26
In reply to Political Stuff re Pensions, posted by shar on March 2, 2003, at 12:19:37
Thanks, Shar. I had heard an earlier report about this idea, but didn't know the details or about the comment period.
I love that Molly Ivins.
Posted by Ritch on March 2, 2003, at 17:48:30
In reply to Political Stuff re Pensions, posted by shar on March 2, 2003, at 12:19:37
> If you're wondering why you haven't heard much about this, let me suggest two
> reasons. One is that TV news is in its one-story, Dead Diana mode: All they have
> time for is Iraq and the occasional nightclub fire. The second is the
> consequence of having all the media owned by a few giant corporations. It is not
> in the interest of these corporations to have such news
> widely reported.
>
> Am I suggesting (gasp!) censorship? Nope, just that even though this affects
> millions of people, those millions are not a large percentage of the total
> television audience, and pension de-form is not as gripping as war or nightclub
> fires. That's the way media gigantism affects news. You can't save your pension
> with duct tape, so get on this.
>
I couldn't agree more with your assessment. I thought the National Enquirer used to be bad.
Posted by mair on March 3, 2003, at 6:53:15
In reply to Re: Political Stuff re Pensions, posted by noa on March 2, 2003, at 12:49:26
The worst of it is that the Bush administration will come up with some credible-sounding statement about why this will put money in the pockets of "ordinary Americans."
Mair
Posted by noa on March 3, 2003, at 19:34:59
In reply to Re: Political Stuff re BIG Media, posted by Ritch on March 2, 2003, at 17:48:30
Actually, the one TV news program where you do hear about other news is the News Hour on PBS. And I do find that NPR All Things Considered gives me more comprehensive news --more of all the news and more in depth, than other news programs. It was NPR where I did hear something about this issue.
I was just thinking of writing to complain to local tv news because they have stopped doing local reporting. Mostly, they show feeds from the network, which only get repeated on the national news! Practically the only time we see a lot of the reporters is during weather events. And at those times, they are not doing anything resembling journalism--it is simply information and not news. They mostly stand out in the cold (rain/wind, etc.) and repeat the same thing over and over and over. Their reportage consists of stupid man-on-the-street interviews about the weather, like we had never seen weather before. All other news gets pushed aside for this monotonous repetition. Arrgghh.
The newspaper does offer more info, but I have to admit I tend to be lazy and read the paper in depth way too infrequently.
Posted by noa on March 3, 2003, at 19:50:03
In reply to Re: Political Stuff re Pensions, posted by mair on March 3, 2003, at 6:53:15
Frankly, I would rather not get my stupid $300 refund and see it go to necessary social programs, or to pay off some of our debts as a country, because as a single check for $300 (minus, of course the cost of administering the refund) it is rather low impact, but pooled with all the other $300 or $600 checks, it could have a much bigger impact for funding. I know that the refund impact is bigger on people of few means. In that case, provide a bigger earned income tax credit(I think this is one of Richard Nixon's better moments--he had some great liberal economic policies!), not a blanket refund!
But the double-speak isn't limited to Bush (I am just more suspicious of it with him). The supposed personal information privacy legislation that was passed during Clinton's time is really more of a personal information for sale at the highest bid legistlation! Sometimes when I see certain companies' "privacy policies" I have to laugh because they really are "disclosure policies", not privacy policies. I got such a policy, and the info was sent to me AFTER I had given them my information (a store credit deal for 3 months delayed payment for a big purchase I made--big mistake--definitely not worth it). I had to sign a "consent" form specifying my "privacy" preferences, (read "disclosure preferences") but the choices were all unacceptable in my view. It was essentially a choice between "we can give away your personal information to all of the companies in our huge circle of 'affiliates' (and btw, with huge corporations structured as they are these days, 'affiliates' can include just about anyone, it seems!), or we can give it away to any damn entity that asks us for it!"
well, you got me started!!
Posted by Ritch on March 3, 2003, at 23:57:47
In reply to Re: Political Stuff re BIG Media, posted by noa on March 3, 2003, at 19:34:59
> Actually, the one TV news program where you do hear about other news is the News Hour on PBS. And I do find that NPR All Things Considered gives me more comprehensive news --more of all the news and more in depth, than other news programs. It was NPR where I did hear something about this issue.
>
> I was just thinking of writing to complain to local tv news because they have stopped doing local reporting. Mostly, they show feeds from the network, which only get repeated on the national news! Practically the only time we see a lot of the reporters is during weather events. And at those times, they are not doing anything resembling journalism--it is simply information and not news. They mostly stand out in the cold (rain/wind, etc.) and repeat the same thing over and over and over. Their reportage consists of stupid man-on-the-street interviews about the weather, like we had never seen weather before. All other news gets pushed aside for this monotonous repetition. Arrgghh.
>
> The newspaper does offer more info, but I have to admit I tend to be lazy and read the paper in depth way too infrequently.
I get nearly all my news from the BBC World Service online nowadays! I work evenings and I do miss "All Things Considered" on NPR in the afternoons. I tune out all the domestic TV cable channel tabloid news completely! We complain about dictators in other countries controlling the press-well what about money interests controlling the news? Not so much the CONTENT, but *LACK* of content......?
Posted by jay on March 4, 2003, at 1:18:43
In reply to Re: Political Stuff re BIG Media, posted by Ritch on March 2, 2003, at 17:48:30
> I couldn't agree more with your assessment. I thought the National Enquirer used to be bad.
>
>
National Enquirer, Newsweek, Time...all the same, right? Heh.
(Warning, political rant..but I am not looking for any more 'blocks'. So even though I always do, I will try to do my civic (civil?) duty.)These stories of people having so *much* wealth...like I don't mean just being a millionaire, or a billionaire, but a multi-multi-multi-multi billionaire!(Like owning wealth equal to the GDP of some country!) (And some!) While there are millions in the U.S. who don't even have indoor plumbing or running water! Like, is there not something a bit wrong with this picture?
Even though I think he sometimes gets carried away (but it does bring humour to a sad situation) Michael Moore's first book "Downsize This!" is a excellent, fact filled book of how the smallest fraction (Something like the top one percent) of the wealthiest people in America own the majority and massive percentage of wealth. (I don't have the exact figure on hand.) Of course his latest book, "Stupid White Men", is really excellent too and he goes after Bush and all his rich crony friends with a metaphorical razor blade.You know, the weird things is that I, and I know most of you who feel the same way, as well as the other millions out there, are *not* some kind of "Red Communist Diehard" or anything like that. We have NO problem in the world with people making good money, and no problem with *rich* people. We are all basic capitalists who buy and sell in a capitalist market. And, that is fine!
But, these are not JUST rich, but *ultra-super-multi-multi-multi(x etc)* rich! And like the Enron case showed, they ARE making it off us, the average, and even upper-average and of course lower-average folks. These people just can't fathom where or *what* "average" is.
The thing that really irks me is so many "average income" Americans vote for the party and person who is FOR the rich. (Actually a little note of caution with that, as there is over HALF of eligible voters who don't even vote.)
Ohhh..man...gotta take a few clonazepam or I am going to just get all worried and wound up with nothing to (immediately) do about it. :-( Just, in this 2004 election, think about what I and has been said, and please make a promise and do vote. Maybe it won't make a *great* difference, and it is sad both major parties in the U.S. tow the same line...heck they mind as merge! But, maybe we will have the chance to give that other party who claim to represent the "average" folk a major quick swift in the pants. You should tell 'em that in areas where there is a close race between the two major parties, you will deny them your vote by voting for a 3rd party. (Take your pick.)
IMHO....
Peace...and let's pray for some fairness so all can afford to say consider BUYING a house (or atleast be able to pay the rent!!!) and send kids to college, and have proper health insurance, etc, etc, etc.Jay
Posted by Ritch on March 4, 2003, at 10:39:01
In reply to Re: Political Stuff re BIG Media » Ritch, posted by jay on March 4, 2003, at 1:18:43
> The thing that really irks me is so many "average income" Americans vote for the party and person who is FOR the rich. (Actually a little note of caution with that, as there is over HALF of eligible voters who don't even vote.)
Jay, people need to vote more. I've voted every major election I was eligible to vote since 1980. I've voted for Democrats and Republicans (voted for Bush's daddy the first time around). When you vote for a candidate you are voting for a "package" just like buying a car with options. There is going to be stuff you don't care for to get the stuff you feel is more important. Politicians carefully count all of the beans to get a package that will get one more vote than the other guy. Unfortunately, often either choice seems like a wash. I would like to see Jesse Ventura run for President again :0)
As far as the media thing goes.... It was so interesting to read all of the news stories about the electricity "shortages" back in 1999 and how perplexed everybody was about how to solve the "crisis", and it turned out in the end to all be a big scam.
Posted by noa on March 4, 2003, at 21:43:53
In reply to Re: Political Stuff re BIG Media » Ritch, posted by jay on March 4, 2003, at 1:18:43
Your post made me think of something I was thinking earlier this evening while watching network tv news. They were reporting on how ill prepared rescue pros are to deal with major disasters due to budge cuts,and all I could think about is two things: first, this week's Parade magazine cover story (that they do every year) on what people earn, and how disgusting it is to me that sports pros and entertainers earn grotesque amounts of money, while people who provide extremely important services to all of us earn barely enough to live on today, with housing costs, etc. being outrageous. The second thing is what I mentioned in a previous post about taxes--they are trying to give rich people tax cuts, and at the same time cutting back the ability of our fire departments to protect us in case of an attack! There are many other similar examples of cutbacks jeaopardizing important services to society. What is wrong with this picture?
Posted by noa on March 4, 2003, at 21:49:53
In reply to Re: Political Packaging and Electricity » jay, posted by Ritch on March 4, 2003, at 10:39:01
I agree--going too quickly into deregulatin without thinking through its pitfalls opened everything up to those scams. Not that dereg. is always bad, necessarily (although so far I am very skeptical about it for certain industries) but it changes what is vulnerable and unless we take the time and spend the necessary resources to be ready to deal with the new vulnerabilites, bad stuff is gonna happen. The Montana Power Co. is a good example of how dereg. can be a disaster, especialy hurting consumers and the honest shareholders of a company because dereg conditions made it too tempting for greedy officers to go wild to take care of themselves at the expense of many others and at the expense of the public good.
Posted by Ritch on March 4, 2003, at 23:28:18
In reply to Re: Political Packaging and Electricity, posted by noa on March 4, 2003, at 21:49:53
> I agree--going too quickly into deregulatin without thinking through its pitfalls opened everything up to those scams. Not that dereg. is always bad, necessarily (although so far I am very skeptical about it for certain industries) but it changes what is vulnerable and unless we take the time and spend the necessary resources to be ready to deal with the new vulnerabilites, bad stuff is gonna happen. The Montana Power Co. is a good example of how dereg. can be a disaster, especialy hurting consumers and the honest shareholders of a company because dereg conditions made it too tempting for greedy officers to go wild to take care of themselves at the expense of many others and at the expense of the public good.
It is tough to predict what hidey-holes can be uncovered with a law change. There really is a herd of greedy mice constantly searching for a way to raid the public purse without anybody's knowing. There are many lawyers who are paid LOTS (biblical irony here), to spend their lives searching for the cracks in the levee.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.