Company pensions are passe anyway. It's just a hope that the company will still be in existance and solvent 30-50 years from now. Who in his right mind would take that choice if the alternative is to have the money in your own account in your own name? OTOH, it's right up the Dems alley, as it puts people in a dependancy relationship with a large organization who is not really answerable to them. Like the old Lilly Tomlin joke to a complaining customer on Laugh-In: "Sir, we don't care. We don't have to care. We're the PHONE COMPANY."

This just demonstrates once again that the Dems/Liberals absolutely refuse to look at consequences more than on step ahead. Like Chicago just passing a huge minimum wage boost on large stores like WalMart and Lowes--they somehow never consider that their intended victim can merely open a store across the street from the city limits.

oj,
Defined benefit plan equals public employees retirement equals higher taxes.
If only the private sector could succeed this way. Oh, wait, the Left thinks it can!
Mike

"Opting for 401(k)-style benefits that shift the retirement burden onto workers."

Who else? The underwear gnomes?

Don't hold your breath waiting for those on the right complaining about big spending Bush to grasp the impact of this.

"shift the retirement burden onto workers" Shouldn't the burden the workers to bear in the first place?

An example: my husband's "fully funded" company pension changed hands a few times after the company folded. Currently, it's to be paid by the Federal govt.'s Pension Guarantee Trust (or something like that). The pension will be much less than he was entitled to when the pension was supposed to be "fully funded". The tax payers are picking up the tab. 401-K, or whatever plan, that is controlled by the employee is much better than anything that is "guaranteed" by the employer. Ditto for Social Security.

ray:

Point well taken. But, you do know, don't you, that referring to 'Laugh-In' does date you, no?

Also, a lot of defined benefit plans are pretty anemic. I was working in a facility represented by the UAW and did a study of why so many retirement eligible workers had no interest in retiring. After running the numbers on the UAW plan it became obvious that the most of the guys couldn't afford to retire because the pension plan couldn't come close to maintaining their lifestyle. In fact most of the retirees were the ones who had gotten into the company's voluntary 401(k) plan above and beyond the UAW plan.

I've got a Beatrice Foods pension from the mid-80's that is fully vested due to a change in control. I imagine the administration is located somewhere is the bowels of Conagra but I doubt I'll be able to track it down in another decade or so. Probably won't bother to try as it's only worth enough to move me up from the generic store brand cat food to Friskies.

So the objection is that the rules, by requiring that companies actually be able to pay the pensions that they've promised, will discourage companies from making promises that they can't keep (and then trying to offload them on the taxpayer)?

It's really not clear that this decreases actual pension payouts; it certainly decreases promises. But don't promises of payouts that will never be made hurt workers who believe those promises?

It's weird to me to see all the hand-wringing when these issues pop up. No one from my generation expects any sort of pension, social security included. We entered the workforce knowing that we'd have to take care of these things ourselves, and we don't have a problem with that.

Shelton, believe it or not, we, geezers, didn't have a problem with that either, but we had social security and Medicare shoved down our throats with no recourse but to pay the tab and try to stay in front of the curve. Ditto the new Medicare Part D drug insurance.

Health care has become so expensive in part because of government interference and the ridiculous and redundant amount of testing required of drug companies and the proliferation of federal and state rules and regs on the healthcare industry and the high insurance they all must carry to try to stay afloat with predators like ex Senator The Breck Girl roaming free in the land.

Now that the boomers are retiring, our generation is being looked upon as greedy!!!~!

Sorry, we're living so long guys and if it's any satisfaction, we're not really having that much fun.