Replies

Pensions are supposed to be guaranteed by whom? A pension is a contractual right to be enforced against one’s employer, just like a CEO’s bonus. If the employer can’t pay, they can’t pay. The government is not a party to that contract. The only reason the government is involved is because, through ERISA and the PBGC, the federal government has decided to give preferential treatment to workers who have received pensions as a benefit of employment (largely unionized), and discriminate against the majority of taxpayers who must rely on other methods of funding their retirement.

Chrysler’s pensioners should be treated like any other creditors, and should get in line with the rest of them according to the law of bankruptcy. They have no right to expect the taxpayers to guarantee their own private contract rights. And, seriously, you don’t see anyone here applauding taxpayer funding of executive bonuses, so I don’t see how that straw man is particularly relevant. Frankly, I’m sick of people with pensions claiming that society owes them a secure retirement when the rest of us have to fend for ourselves.

As for your earlier reply to me, I did read the article, and I just read it again, as well as a Wall Street Journal article on the same subject. None of them mention a plan for Chrysler to offload its pension obligation onto the UAW or anyone else. It merely mentions “protection” of the benefits. I’d be interested in seeing the details of this plan you’re mentioning. If they get their retirements taken care of because they’re part of a politically well-connected union while Chrysler’s other creditors get hosed (which indirectly includes a lot of middle-class Americans through their own private retirement accounts), then yes, it is wrong.

Where does it end? It ends when the government enforces contracts like they’re supposed to rather than mucking around with them and altering their terms. That’s the role of government in a market economy, which we’re still supposed to have, allegedly.