It's your money they're after - Clinton administration proposal to augment pension regulations to be able to use funds for public development and infrastructure projects - Editorial

National Review, August 1, 1994

THE Administration learned a lesson when Congress rejected its stimulus package last year. Why risk busting the deficit or raising taxes for things you can sneak through "off budget"? This time the Clintonites want low-income housing, infrastructure, and other "investments" to be financed by your pension funds.

Why pensions? As Willie Sutton would say, because that's where the money is--$3.4 trillion, or 40 per cent of the nation's total financial assets. Of course, this money hasn't been gathering dust. It's fully invested, generating $150 billion a year in pension benefits for millions of retirees. To protect against mismanagement and corruption, pension-fund managers operate under strict federal rules requiring them to seek the maximum safe return for their beneficiaries.

Enter Labor Secretary Robert Reich and HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros, hoping to divert that money into politically inspired projects that the present regulations would prohibit as too risky. Mr. Reich recently announced new ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) regulations governing pension investments. These will, in the words of a Joint Economic Committee press release, "facilitate safe and profitable investment in needed public development projects." Mr. Cisneros also helped the cause, announcing "new and future HUD projects designed to attract pension capital for affordable housing, community development, and job creation."

Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, America's private pension system is in no shape to do the dirty work of balancing Bill Clinton's budget. The gap between what major corporations promise to pay retirees and what they have in their pension plans skyrocketed to $38 billion in 1992 (the latest available figures), up 31 per cent from 1991. It was the fifth consecutive year that the unfunded liability grew. Pensioners are sleeping easy, however, secure in the knowledge that their benefits are fully insured by the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, a federal agency. In 1992, the PBGC assumed the obligations of 118 failed pension plans.

The parallels between the pension mess and the S&L debacle are uncomfortably obvious. Federal deposit insurance encouraged the weakest S&Ls to make the riskiest loans. If they paid off, the banks got stronger. If they failed, the government picked up the tab. Similarly, weak companies have every incentive to save money by substituting generous pension commitments for wage hikes. Heads, they win. Tails, the taxpayers lose.

Ideally, federal pension insurance should be phased out. This could be accomplished by encouraging companies to switch from defined-benefit plans to defined-contribution plans. Alternatively, pension funds should be required to purchase private insurance. As long as taxpayers are at risk, however, any deviation from a squeaky-clean, market-driven pension investment policy is strictly off limits. Congress should take a cold hard look at what Messrs. Reich and Cisneros are up to--and blow the whistle before your financial roof caves in.