« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Armageddon Averted: Democrats & Unions Get Temporary Reprieve from Reality

Union bosses and their Democrat cronies are breathing a collective sigh of relief.  On Wednesday, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) gave them something to be thankful for this Thanksgiving and they must be positively giddy. As opposed to reality biting on December 15th, as was originally scheduled, FASB just threw a temporary lifeline to companies with union multi-employer pension fund liabilities.

Last month, we told you about the financial Armageddon that is looming for unions, unionized companies and Democrats. The date was set as December 15th for a new accounting rule that requires companies to more accurately account for the pension liabilities owed to union multi-employer pension. On Wednesday, FASB punted, giving those companies more time to keep their pension liabilities hidden, while allotting unions, as well as Democrats, more time to come up with some other solution to deal with their pension ponzi scheme:

Disclosures about an employer’s participation in a multiemployer plan. The September 2010 Exposure Draft, Compensation—Retirement Benefits—Multiemployer Plans (Subtopic 715-80): Disclosure about an Employer’s Participation in a Multiemployer Plan, had proposed that public entities would begin providing enhanced disclosures in financial statements for fiscal years ending after December 15, 2010, with a one-year deferral for nonpublic entities. The Board decided that a final standard will not be effective for the 2010 calendar year-end reporting period. It will decide on an effective date at a future meeting, after it has substantially concluded its redeliberations.

While FASB did not give a reason for the delay, some obvious political possibilities spring to mind:

  • With the resounding “shellacking” that Democrats experienced on November 2nd, it looks less and less likely that the $165 billion union pension bailout bill would make it through the Senate (lame duck or not).
  • FASB may be trying to stave off a shock to the stock market that liability transparency could cause once the unionized companies reveal the true nature of their liabilities.
  • Lastly, FASB may be merely trying to give Democrats (and unions) time to try to convince Republicans to back a bailout, or work up some other political solution.

Whatever the case, although eventually there will be a reckoning with reality, Democrats and their union bosses have been given a gift for the Holidays.

__________________

“I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.”  Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776

X-posted.

For more news & views on today’s unions, go to LaborUnionReport.com

Follow laborunionrpt on Twitter

COMMENTS

  • Ann_W

    Even though it was a huge deal also for private companies.

    It’s nice to know that even the FASB is political.

    • ihateliberals

      was a joke from the beginning. The only way to fight poverty is to fight liberalism, communism, socialism and keep high paying jobs on shore instead of exporting them to India. Actually keeping all jobs possible onshore instead of exporting them to Mexico, China, S Korea, Japan, Taiwan, etc. If America isn’t 1st then it doesn’t matter who is second. America has to return to being self sufficient. It it time to return conservatism being taught in schools including college. There has to be balance so they can make judgments for themselves. Conservatism and Capitalism is what made this country the most powerful in the world. We need to lift other countries up instead of tearing America down. That is the only equalizer that will work. One more thing on the War on Poverty, get US out of the UN and throw the UN out of America. It Sucks….

      • bruceinva

        should receive one last payment from the United States of America. That would be fair market value plus 10% for all the Turtle Bay properties. Then the UN could go buy new digs anywhere someone would have them. It just would not be on any US soil. Let’s get the corrupt UN out of America. Let’s get their stupid anti-American rhetoric out of one of our major media centers and see if anyone pays attention when they speak from Kuala Lumpur with no Americans present to hear their speeches.

        • http://www.scragged.com petrarch

          In all seriousness: I’m not certain that the UN owns its own digs, or that it paid for them in the first place. I can’t help but suspect that their HQ was “a gift from the American people.”

          In which case, morally we ought to kick them clean out, but I daresay there’s some sort of extraterritoriality treaty preventing it.

  • dmartin

    Just like social security, medicare, etc….All cancers that we are refusing to treat, and like all untreated cancers they will run their course to the inevitable end.

    We will acknowledge these problems as soon as the checks start bouncing, after it is too late.

  • WY_Cowboy

    Having watched the FASB and AICPA in the wake of the Enron, et al, scandals, I have another theory.

    It could be that the FASB had been receiving pressure in private from the SEC and the PCAOB to not issue this statement. Why would they do that? Simple, the SEC is an agency in the US Department of Treasury, headed by Tim Geithner. We all know who has all the influence completely throughout the Obama Administration – the unions. It would be intersting to read the communications between the FASB and the SEC over this draft. FOIA requests might be in order, and maybe Congressional oversight.

    In the final analysis the SEC allows the CPAs to set their own rules and police themselves. In the end, if the SEC wished to end that practice, they could and probably through the rule making process. So the SEC provides the pressure to delay implementation, at the direction of the political appointees, and the FASB caves because they have no spine. At least having no spine is consistent witht he FASB.

  • bobojake
    • bruceinva

      will be bankrupt without a government bailout. Unfortunately, the only alternatives are: that the unions renegotiate lesser pension benefits for their members (snowball’s chance in you know where); or, all the companies in the multi-employer plan file for bankruptcy as the only way to void the union deal. Then the healthy companies will still end up paying a big chunk to the union. End result is healthy companies weakened but if they’re lucky, they get rid of the union. Along with that you hope the greedy union is out of business.

  • bobbymike

    mark to market rule that gave the “bookkeeping” reason for massive government intervention (too complicated to post here and I acknowledge good arguments on both sides pro and con) and could not be changed or modified and now this.

    We are living in a soft tyranny no question about it.

    • bruceinva

      rolling over to international accounting standards. FASB hasn’t the guts to defend US standards on the world stage.

  • megsmom

    After all the money that unions spent on this past election (not counting the past years), I can not wait to see what the bottom line is going to be.
    I did not like them using union money to promote the races the uniom bosses wanted to win. I did not like who they choose to back.

    All I can say there will HELLO to pay if I can not retire when I get there and with the amount I was promised by the union.

    Plus I do not think it is fair that union should spend our money any way they want and not listen to their members. I know if I did not belong to a union I sure would not want to pay union memebers retirements because you have stupid people running them.

    I think it is time union members take back their union and vote on what money will be spent and on what.

    • izoneguy

      They have two years to revolt.

      Unions are NOT helping them keep their jobs.