With only a routine approval vote from the full Senate to step over Mitch McConnell’s brother-in-law is set to head the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) as announced last Thursday :
- Gordon Hartogensis [Heart-oh-gensis], to serve as Director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
- The Finance Committee has already approved Mr. Hartogensis 25-2, including the support from Ranking Member Wyden. He has extensive experience in financial planning, and his successful entrepreneurial experiences have equipped him to lead PBGC well.
Gordon Hartogensis will need more than “successful entrepreneurial experiences” to lead the PBGC through these minefields:
- Mutiemployer plans slashing benefits with no bailout in sight ;
- Single Employer plans terminating apace due to extortionate premiums ; and
- Small plans going through routine standard terminations subjected to full-cavity-search audits that coalesce the most intrusive practices of the DOL, IRS, and TSA.
Director-to-be Hartogensis is not to blame for any of these issues that have scared plan sponsors away from Defined Benefit Plans and possibly a pension outsider could bring common sense solutions to the disaster that pension insiders have allowed to fester. Good luck to him – and to us.
Posted by stanley on December 4, 2018 at 9:34 pm
Look at the results of the last man in charge. I believe that he did nothing while the MEP PBGC crashed and burned–the MEP PGGC crisis has developed over the past half generation or more and what has been done other than plan on a taxpayer bailout? Gordon will have a good income for a while and won’t have to hit up Mitch and the Missus for lunch money. There’s no cavalry on the way to rescue America’s old timers. Us old timers are on our own and need to get used to the idea.
Posted by Tough Love on December 5, 2018 at 12:27 am
“Old-Timers” or not …………….. why SHOULD Taxpayers B, C, D, etc., “rescue” “A” who didn’t properly prepare for his OWN retirement needs ………. or stupidly counted-on LUDICROUSLY EXCESSIVE DB Plan promises with no reasonable way (for those making such promises) to fund those promises ?
Posted by Anonymous on December 5, 2018 at 2:31 pm
You’re not on your own. Social security and Medicare should keep anyone off cat food as long as they saved even a little bit. Basic needs will be met, anything more I agree most folks would indeed be on their own for that. As they should be.
Posted by stanley on December 5, 2018 at 4:57 pm
” Social security and Medicare should keep anyone off cat food as long as they saved even a little bit.”
The government has been running large deficits for a long time, and many assume that it can go on indefinitely. I can’t say that it can’t, but I won’t bet that it can. I didn’t have as one of my goals to stay off of cat food to be honest about it. Thanks for the encouragement anyway.
Posted by NJ2AZ on December 5, 2018 at 8:43 pm
kudos for the use of ‘cat food’ as a representation of senior poverty. seems to be a dying reference in this day and age
i always say vis a vis pensions (public and private): as a taxpayer i’m on board for assisting so people don’t end up on the street eating cat food, but beyond that their welfare is not my financial responsibility.
Posted by Anonymous on December 6, 2018 at 9:05 am
I concur with you completelyJust because someone is poor or stupid doesn’t mean they should not have some or most of thier basic needs met. Food and rudimentary shelter.
Posted by Stephen Douglas on December 6, 2018 at 11:05 am
Quoting
“…………….. why SHOULD Taxpayers B, C, D, etc., “rescue” “A” who didn’t properly prepare for his OWN retirement needs ………. “
Posted by Stephen Douglas on December 6, 2018 at 12:14 am
Out of curiosity, why draw the line there?
Well and good for you as an individual to assist, but why drag other taxpayers into it?