I wished judges would allow briefs with citations to Wikipedia. I'd love to condense my 50-page monsters down to a paragraph or two.
The MPPAA amended the greater body of law known as ERISA, and included the provisions about full funding upon partial or full withdrawals based upon acturial assumptions that were not founded on reality. In any event...
You're assuming the PBGC is funded by taxpayer dollars, which it only partially is. The vast majority of it's emergency "pot" comes from fees charged to employers with existing defined benefit plans, as well as funding payments due to partial or full withdrawals from a defined pension plan, said payments based on the presumption (generally speaking for our purposes here) that everyone vested in the plan just up and decided to retire all at once, regardless of age. In other words...the PBGC attempts to maintain an overfunded status in case the money is ever needed to cover a defined benefit plan which is underfunded, a rare occurance these days, but what the hell...your money's safe with the government isn't it?
The AARP is a politically liberal bunch of old phuks...one reason why I'll never join despite the discounts. They have joined other liberal organizations in sticking their noses in labor disputes which have not a damn thing to do with retirees or benefits...simply due to political coalition building. Had them sign off on a letter listing every wacko group from Greenpeace to the German Green Party to pressure a client of mine to recognize the UFW back in the 90s.
In this case, they have obviously given you a rather tiny little bit of the facts which bear no resemblence to the conclusion they wish you to draw.
The law based on soundbites, if you will.
