November 29, 2004
Who Drained the Pension Pool (Or: Further Thoughts on Why the Democrats Lost the Election)
This image accompanied a piece in this weekend’s NYTimes
Week In Review titled “A Premature Sunset for Pension Plans?”
I don’t think an
article has irked me this much in a long time. In clear and simple terms, it explains how the notion that pension funds are unaffordable or outdated is simply not true. The fact is, they work just fine. The reason they are disappearing (to the extreme detriment of middle and lower income workers), however, is because they are traditionally built around conservative, low yield investments and investment companies don’t want any part of them. What they want, instead, are funds they can use to play the market and rack up huge fees. (In other instances, funds are disappearing because they were turned over to traders who gambled away large chunks of assets, and the funds are no longer viable.)
This story has many facets. In part, however, it points out a problem with the Democrats. Isn’t it the party’s traditional role to protect the working class? Wasn’t that “the base?” The issue, however, is that the Democrats — like Republicans — have become so beholden to the finance industry that it prevents them from taking a real stand.
So now, what we have is the dominant party proposing to hand over the Social Security and Medicare system to the special interests — the same way they have let the finance industry undermine the “institution” of the pension. (Next time you hear the phrase “ownership society,” make sure to insert the word “corporate” in front of it.) At the same time, we have an opposition party which just stands around and looks the other way.
The image accompanying the article couldn’t be more ironic. Just like this man in the lounge chair, it seems most of the public is blinded to the existence of this scam. What’s even more incongruous is the warning along the edge of the pool. While huge pension funds, filled with lifetimes of hard earned employee contributions, are drowning as a result of unnecessary risk, there’s no lifeguard on duty to prevent the dive.
(photo: Ed Kashi/Corbis in the NYTimes)
comments powered by Disqus.
Comments Powered by