ShareThis Page
Responsibility, please |

Responsibility, please

| Thursday, May 19, 2005 12:00 a.m

United Airlines — as did US Airways before it — hopes to take off now that it unloaded its excess baggage onto the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. But it could be taxpayers left holding the bag.

The skies might be a little friendlier for United, which is trying to emerge from Chapter 11 bankruptcy. A judge allowed it to jettison $9.8 billion of pension liability onto the PBGC in exchange for up to $1.5 billion in notes and convertible stock in United’s parent company.

The PBGC insures corporate pensions, although not necessarily for face value. Companies pay the premiums. But the agency is far overextended. PBGC obligations currently exceed its assets by $23.3 billion.

Companies in other industries also are on the verge of begging for similar billion-dollar bailouts. The PBGC estimates it soon could be on the hook for an additional $96 billion if other struggling concerns such as American car and auto parts companies also do a fiscal crash and burn.

If corporations continue taking the easy way out by making pension promises they cannot hope to keep, only to dump them onto the PBGC, this nation’s economy could be on a nonstop flight to economic ruin.

The short-term fix is to raise the premiums corporations pay for PBGC rescues. The long-term fix, of course, is for corporations and labor to negotiate responsible contracts.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.