Part 2 Corruption destroying governments and organizations worldwide.

Government, corporations, organizations around the world are suffering from corruption.  People have lost faith in institutions and are throwing up their hands feeling hopeless against the tides of corruption.

World soccer officials arrested overseas for taking bribes, issuing contracts and making decisions with their hands out for bribes.  Getting arrested doesn't make you guilty of any crime, but when they are refusing extradition to the United States to answer charges it makes you realize someone has something to hide.

Drug companies and others buying their way, local things like zone changes thereby increasing land use and property values.  Building permits or inspections all subject to private conversations and dealings between two individuals are subject to misdeeds.

Corruptions in all forms particularly dishonest behavior by those in positions of power, such as managers or government officials. Corruptions can include giving or accepting bribes or inappropriate gifts, double dealing, under-the-table transactions, it simply boils down to dishonest actions that destroy people's trust.

Lets say we are both members of the Legislature and I see a couple industries in my district that are spoiling the environment with pollution from their activities.  I don't want to be the one to cost them money or eliminate jobs, their employees would be up in arms and probably cost me votes and my next election.  However, I know it is wrong and has to be stopped.

I go to you and ask you to introduce a bill that would correct the excesses and cleanup the mess they are making.  My hand prints will not be on the legislation, in fact I could put up a huge fight to stop your bill.  You say you are willing to help me if I can use my position on the Transportation Committee to move a state highway one mile east of its proposed route so it goes right by Uncle Charley's farm.  

Uncle Charley now has prime highway frontage which just increased his farm land in value.  Corruption or criminal activities or just plain under-the-table transactions neither of us wanting to take credit or responsibility.

One hand washes the other, no one is really hurt.  Next election I can go to the people with those industries, the employees and their families for campaign funds and votes.  You have your Uncle Charley in great financial debt to you.  A winning formula for soft corruption.

Let's take a high school teacher and coach getting elected to Congress and moving up in position in the Congress to be third in line to be President if something should happen to the President and Vice President of the United States.  

This happened in recent times, Vice President Spiro Agnew resigned under the cloud of corruption that happened before his election as Vice President under Richard Nixon. Now the United States is without a Vice President, no replacement until after the next election.  Sometime later President Nixon resigned as a result of Watergate and political pressure.

Who became President, Congressman Gerald R. Ford who was Speaker of the House of Representatives.  So who elected President Ford, the people of one Congressional District in Michigan.  No other voter in all the United States ever voted for the 38th President of the United States before he became President.   He actually lost the next election to Democrat Jimmy Carter.

So lets look at the high school teacher who became Speaker of the House.  It has been reported he was paying someone money to the tune of $3.5 million to keep some private matters from being made public. How did a high school teacher and a Congressman obtain a of bank account where he could pay that kind of hush-money?

Plain and simple like so many government officials from the Military, Executive Department appointees to former members of Congress their access to those still in positions of government power, decision makers has real value around a town like Washington, DC.

It's sweet to go to lunch with someone in the know, especially having worked with you before you took up your job as an influence peddler, I mean consultant.  {Lobbyist}  I don't need you to deliver the contract to me, just let me know who and what the other bids are, I can manage it from there.

Bill Curry former White House counselor to President Clinton writing for SOLON online said, "No public-sector budget itemizes the cost of corruption, but here's a safe bet: America loses more to corruption than to shoplifting."

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXAdvertisement

Not since Watergate in the 70s when a number of election reforms were enacted has much been done to insure clean and fair elections. Campaign finance and reporting requirements were put in place, ethics rules along with some new campaign laws.  Of course the problem in matters like this, adequate money is never given to the enforcement agencies so not much gets done on the enforcement side. 

People see campaigns point fingers at each other talking about election law violations,  but that's just feel good talk most likely nothing will come of it.  Crying foul in elections is just another tactic to draw attention to a candidate and maybe pick up a few votes because of the attention and maybe a  sympathy vote or two.

The voters stand back,  feel it's "old hat" and get back to their favorite cable TV program.  Then they proceed to ignore total election involvement. Unless turning to no one in particular and declaring nothing in it for me, darn politicians!

Everyone's attention has been drawn to money in politics since "Citizens United" but you can bet your last dollar political consultants, media organizations, advertising agencies and those who benefit from all the money spent in campaigns won't support many changes.

The word in the backrooms of the campaign offices is, "money is round and was made to roll around."   The big boys in politics have invented pay-to-play now days.  I wasn't there but I wonder if today we have much over Tammany Hall of New York or the Pendergast Machine in Missouri from political machines of yesterday?

Political bosses, backroom politics are old fashion, today it's bundling money together for so-called Independent Expenditure Committees.  In days gone by it was making friends, passing out favors, doing little things for people like having recommendations for jobs and then at election time those folks are expected to do things for you.  Like show up and vote for the party's slate of candidates.

I remember the days when a letter from a legislator could get you a pretty easy and well paid job at a dog or horse race track.  Those folks working those ticket betting machines and remember there were plenty at every race track were personal friends or family members of state legislators. In fact in the back offices doing minor jobs were a few state legislators themselves.

Of course it had noting to do with allowable racing days set by state law, or regulations put forth by racing commissions tied to state lawmakers.  A better system than dark money flowing into campaigns from who knows where?

It is interesting to hear some of these candidates attack their opponents ethics and campaign funding with some strong hints of corruption.  But and this is important, what election reforms are they proposing?  As a result a few people think government is rotten, politicians worthless and get right down to it, WHY VOTE?

To get some real change we will have to cut through all the denials and manipulation  of the system.  Jeb Bush put his foot in his mouth before he actually declared his candidacy and it slipped out he was running for President.  That's a great BIG NO-NO acknowledging your candidacy before formal declaration and avoiding the laws limiting contributions to candidates.  

Some {I hate to say this.} like Hillary Clinton attend fundraisers for her "independent" Political Action Committee {PAC} but leaves after greeting and thanking everyone and before the real business starts of collecting the money everyone know they are there to give.

This type of action beats the candidate and their campaign committee working directly with the so-called "independent" PAC which again is against the law but no one believes many follow the law.  Just another reason for people not to show up at the polls, fingers are pointing back and forth until the voter shakes their head and decides to get home early before the vote count comes in and watch their television.  Why bother to vote everyone knows politics is all rigged.

In elections the Democratic voters aren't inspired to vote and the game is rigged by Republican state legislatures who have successfully gerrymandered legislative and congressional districts in favor of the GOP candidates.  

Independent Election Commissions which draw more attention and opens the reapportionment process to public view have been set up by citizen initiatives in a few states are being challenged in court.  Legislative leaders in many states are not about to give up the power of drawing election district lines without a fight no matter how much it costs the taxpayers of their state to pay the legal bills.

Politicians are tied to their donors, and after the elections jobs are found for those folks out of work who ran the Independent Expenditure Committees, many just get rehired on the politician's staff or take their regular job at a local business who loaned them to the candidate's committee.  In return for the campaign assist the candidate will turn out to be quite grateful.

If this sounds quite an autocratic or authoritarian with little input from the population ruled over, not to worry the majority don't vote anyway and leave the decisions to the few who do.   In order to insure participation in the voting process some countries have voting required by law.  Other countries don't have elections the guys in charge of the police and army pick the leaders and have heavy punishments for those who protest.      

One Problem Facing all Governments--Corruption!

The United States needs a WAR, not in the Middle East over control of oil or a War on Drugs to show who is tough on crime, but a real war on political corruption.

Political ethics involving judgements, public policy, political actions, and favoritism abound just when we should be holding public officials to higher standards than are necessary in private life.  Private decisions are expected to reap rewards in the form of more business, mutual cooperation. They should be afforded the right to privacy. Ordinary citizens can make those decisions without being held to the same accountability as public officials who must be concerned with conflicts of interest. The public has the right to know about the total decision making process. 

Sweetheart public contracts, appointments. hiring of government workers, extended pay and personal benefits to campaign supporters and their family members on public payrolls  occur on a daily basis. Crony politics" such as workers doing "favors" as instructed by their employer is often thought of as soft corruption" as opposed to "hard corruption."  Such practices, while not new, should not be overlooked.

What is new is the blame game attributing corruption to the Supreme Court's declaration in the Citizens United case. Sorry, but corruption and political favoritism existed long before corporations became people, at least in the Court's collective mind.

It has long been a practice of consolidation of power through favoritism, it is the use of that power attained through the handout of political plums or citizen involvement that matters.

Let's face it: Reformist movements are part of the process to end corruption. The women's temperance movement to promote and enact prohibition against alcohol was propagated on a religious basis, but would have gone nowhere were it not supported by factory owners who had massive absenteeism on Mondays.

"Blue Monday" was recognized as the name given to the third Monday of January reflecting the most depressing day of the year. Many of employers dreaded Mondays when workers were too hung-over to show up or be productive at work. The answer was to get a reform movement going.

Watch this election cycle as the corruption undergoes massive exposure. Flashlights used where floodlights are needed cause corruption to go largely unpunished.  Corruption steals from the poor all around the world.  Riots in massively populated areas puts fear in the hearts of government leaders in China and Russia. Protest marches in the streets, people holed up in masses in public parks, and yes, the "Arab Spring" and the revolutionary wave of  demonstrations from Northern Africa to the Middle East have fueled world interest.

Some leaders in the Arab world were deposed, removed from office and put on trial. As civil uprisings and major protests proliferate around the world, Civil war rages in Muslim countries such as Syria and Yemen. 

Remember back just a few years when the corrupt undemocratic regime of Ferdinand Marcos, the president of the Philippines caught our attention.  It was not his wife, Imelda Marcos and her collection of some three thousand pairs of shoes that brought down his government.  It was the excess public corruption.

One more little reminder of political corruption that forced the only resignation of a U. S. President, namely, Watergate.  The "fighters" of political corruption in the United States will be out in force in the 2016 elections as the political aspirants strive to capture the public anger.

My next attempt at my brand of Liberal and Progressive thought will expose some quacks, charlatans, just plain fakers, hoaxers and con artists using the "right" rhetoric, but not walking the walk!

Republicans, file this under Family Values

Note:  Since this was written Loretta Lynch has be confirmed and sworn in as Attorney General.

The Republican-led Senate held back confirmation of Loretta Lynch's as Attorney General in response to a disagreement with Democrats over a human trafficking bill.

Who could oppose a bill to combat human trafficking?  Really No One.   Then what is the problem?

The Republican Leadership refuses to let the human trafficking bill pass unless it has language that will impose forced birth on teenage sex slaves. They are refusing to hold a confirmation vote on Loretta Lynch unless they can keep the provision that will impose forced birth on teenage sex slaves. And they are so desperate that they have scheduled five cloture votes that they know will fail in an attempt to ram through the language that will impose forced birth on teenage sex slaves.

Now, it's true that there's a number of the conservative movement that overtly cheers forced birth for teenage sex slaves, but didn't Sen. McConnell say that the new Republican majority in the Senate would be a force for reason and collaboration? Well, it seems instead that Senate Republicans are giving their extremist colleagues in the House a run for their money. With a special emphasis on making sure that kids who are forced into prostitution bear the offspring of the men who raped them.

Existing law has included annual restrictions on taxpayer spending for abortion for decades.   In the proposed bill a victims' fund is envisioned that would be made up of fees paid by criminals.  The Democrats say applying restrictions on abortion spending to that victims' fund money is a restriction they can't accept.  A very simple way of stating the Republican position, young girls held as sex slaves, raped and forced into prostitution who become pregnant can not have an abortion, period.  It doesn't make any difference who pays for it, even money from the criminals who lead to their pregnancies.

So much for "welfare queens" having babies to grab taxpayer money, so much for two parent families.  You know, family values.  Who would have guessed the Republicans in Congress would be leading the effort for kidnapped, young girls being forced to have children of their rapist captors.

The BIG LIE, Republican Congressional Budgets

          It is your DUTY!   VOTE
This is an "edited" article by Stephen Ohlemacher 
to be released March 23, 2015 by Associated Press 
under the Title: "Fact Check".

The new House and Senate Republican budgets make a big boast: They both balance the federal budget within 10 years, without raising taxes.

The Republican's proposals would leave a $90 BILLION shortage each year for the next 10 years!

Their own numbers, however, say millions of American families and businesses would have to pay more in taxes to make the math work — about $900 billion more over the next decade.

Both the Republican Senate and Republican House budgets claim big savings by repealing President Barack Obama's health law. But at the same time, they rely on more than $1 trillion in tax revenue from the health law that they would supposedly repeal.

The two Republican nonbinding political documents that lack details, especially when it comes to taxes.  It  provides important insight into how majority Republicans in Congress would tackle the federal government's finances.  

THE CLAIM: "First and foremost, we balance the federal budget in less than 10 years by reducing spending by $5.5 trillion — without accounting gimmicks or higher taxes." —Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., chairman of the House Budget Committee, in a published opinion article.

"Republicans have put forward a responsible plan that balances the budget in 10 years with no new tax hikes, that protects our most vulnerable citizens, it strengthens our national defense, and it improves economic growth and opportunity for hardworking families." —Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., chairman of the Senate Budget Committee.

THE FACTS: Both Republican budgets say they will generate $41.67 trillion in revenue over the next decade. That is very close to the $41.75 trillion that would be generated under current law, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

<The LIE exposed not by President Obama's Executive Department's fiscal estimates, but the Congressional Budget Office's own nonpartisan fiscal staff.>

Current law assumes that more than 50 temporary tax breaks that expired at the start of the year will not be renewed. They include tax breaks for businesses big and small, as well as provisions that benefit commuters, teachers and struggling homeowners.

All together, the tax breaks add up to $898 billion over the next decade, according to CBO.

Do congressional Republicans really want to eliminate $898 billion in tax breaks?

No!   NOT TO DATE!

Most Republicans in Congress have voted numerous times to temporarily extend them. And over the past year, the Republican-controlled House has voted to make some of the more popular ones permanent.

Then why don't the Republican budget resolutions reflect the costs of providing those tax breaks?

<How many times have we heard this before?>

Republican budget writers assert that they can fill the revenue gap by simplifying the tax code and making it more competitive.

Both GOP plans call for overhauling the taxes paid by individuals and businesses. Without providing many details, they count on that overhaul to spark more economic growth, which would generate additional tax revenue.

<What cutting taxes to create more taxes?   When has that ever worked?>

"Our budget calls for comprehensive tax reform that would include lower rates for individuals and families as well as large corporations and small businesses who often file their tax returns through the individual side of the tax code," says the House plan. "Along with lower rates, we propose broadening the tax base by closing special-interest loopholes that distort economic activity."

The plan doesn't specify which "loopholes" would be closed. That would be left to the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee to figure out later.

<Ground Hog's Day all over?>

The Senate plan creates a reserve fund that could be used to help pay for a tax overhaul or to "extend certain expiring tax-relief provisions." But the budget resolution doesn't allocate any money to the fund.

<Call it the Santa Claus Fund or the Tooth Fairy under your pillow fund.>

Some policymakers in Washington say that letting temporary tax cuts expire isn't the same as increasing taxes. But congressional Republicans don't make that argument, especially about tax breaks that have been around for years and even decades.

To drive home the point, when Congress voted in December to extend the temporary tax breaks through the end of the year, the title of the legislation was the "Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2014."

After the November Elections, the December extending of temporary tax breaks was called, the "Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2014" and the Fox said to Little Red Riding Hood, "All the better to eat you with my dear."

            DUTY CALLS--VOTE!

Government by and for the People, next Joke

This what we voted for, really? 

It is long past time for a serious discussion. Discussion requires listening, inequitable tax codes, regressive sales and use taxes to allow special exemptions and corporate tax reductions has been revealed and no one was listening. Lawmakers don't lack courage, they have plenty of courage when it comes to special interests rewards.

 They have plenty of opportunity to reverse or stop the fiscal wreckage or correct legislative boondoggles and excesses . They enact legislation that takes effect four-six-eight years down the line, the results won't show immediately and by the time it does they will be term-limited out with racy new positions given by those whose favor they curried with legislative special treatments.

Take a roll call of past legislators and government political appointees and check out what they are doing today, with and for who?   It is so difficult to believe, the voters have been stomped on, beat up, totally violated and yet they vote for the sane public molesters time and time again.

In 1998 the voters passed Arizona Proposition 200, also known as the Clean Elections Act. Many of the people chosen by the voters have fought and tried to destroy the Act every since. Turning to this week the Senate rejected a bill to ask the voters to end the Clean Elections Act, then two Republican Senators changed their votes and on reconsideration the measure asking voters to repeal the public campaign funding system was passed and will go the 2016 ballot.

Was there anything wrong with the Act? Couldn't it be amended and fixed? Why if it has been working since 1998 have the political powers finally mustered enough strength to destroy it, who or what is behind it, certainly not the voters who placed it into law?

Another case of voter abuse, is the voter mandate on school finance adopted by the voters in 2000. When the Legislature decided it didn't want to follow the voters requirements, they just ignored them. The Courts have ordered the State to comply with the voters adopted measure.

What has happened? The Governor and the Legislature just spit in the voters eye and rather than make up the voter approved funds for schools, more financial cuts and demands without money for schools to do more. Yes, with less!

In 2000 the voters in Arizona were fed up with the results of how the Legislature was drawing the voting district lines and gathered signatures to put Proposition 106 on the ballot delegating the power to draw congressional and legislative district boundaries to an Independent Redistricting Commission. The voters decided they wanted an independent commission to complete the redrawing of lines every ten years after the census was completed by the Federal Government.

Behold the voters spoke again, and what has the Legislature done every since?

Fought tooth and nail to get back to their old ways of gerrymandering districts to favor their political needs and retain political power. Once again, right up to today, the choice of the people has been rejected to the point taxpayer dollars are being spent to challenge the decision of the voters in the Supreme Court of the United States.

The elected representatives of the people want to overturn another initiative sponsored by the people and get back their selfish, self-serving ways. Another case of slapping the people governed in the face.

Some how the people keep giving the keys to the government in Arizona to the elected people that pick and choose what voter decisions they like and will accept. Long overdue time for discussion? In Arizona we have what the dark money has bought, what we pay for with our tax dollars and so far what we as voters are allow to have by the political powers in Phoenix.

GOP won't give up tearing down Social Security & Medicare

The News is GOOD

After rising for a decade, the number of Americans experiencing 

financial distress from their medical bills has started to decline, 

a new survey has found.      The result provides new evidence 

that the Affordable Care Act, by providing uninsured people 

with health insurance, is also improving their financial security, 

a major goal of the law.

Michael Hiltzik

LOS ANGELES TIMES-January 19, 2015michael.hiltzik​@latimes.com

The disability program is facing a fiscal crisis that could force a cutback in crisis that could force a cutback in disability payments of about 20% starting next year; Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky) and other Republicans have signaled that they won't accept the customary remedy for similar situations, which involves reallocating some payroll tax revenue from the old-age fund to cover disability's near-term shortfall. Instead, they're demanding a full-scale fiscal rebalancing of Social Security, which in practice means benefit cuts for everyone -- disabled, retirees and their families.

A large proportion of Paul's own constituents would be harmed by his approach. In 2013, his home state of Kentucky had the fourth-highest disability rate in the country -- more than 225,000 residents, or 8.2% of the population -- fostered in part by low educational attainment and lack of gainful employment opportunities. (What has Paul done to alleviate those conditions?)

The most cynical aspect of this attack is  that it comes from some lawmakers who were helped by Social Security in their own lives. The roster includes Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), who received Social Security benefits during his college years, after his father's untimely death, and now thinks that the nation can't afford to keep paying them as currently scheduled.

Another is Rep. Tom Reed (R-N.Y.), the sponsor of the House rules change, whose father died when he was 2 and then was raised by a single mother on Social Security and veterans benefits. Now he talks about Social Security going "bankrupt," which is flatly incorrect, and promotes a measure aimed at cutting benefits for all. This is known as climbing the ladder and pulling it up behind you. If Reed, Ryan and Paul get their way, the only option left to the rest of us will be to hold tight. ###

EARNED BENEFITS PROGRAM-Social Security

A wedge is attempting to be built pitting older generations against younger ones and trying to convince our grandkids to settle for less than what they deserve, which is a secure retirement that they earn through their work.

Every effort to curtail the onward existence of Social Security comes with the pitch to younger people, "it won't be there when you are ready to retire". 

The question, if so many people recognize and understand that by not increasing the minimum wage (most propose to $10.10 an hour) it is draining state and federal poverty programs keeping full time workers incomes so low they can't even support themselves let alone a child or a family, why is the Republican opposition so furious?  Do the Republicans really want people on "the dole"? 

Originally "the dole" was considered a government program for the unemployed, today the Republicans think any government program directed to combat poverty levels and help feed poor people such as food stamps or school free lunch programs are being wasted on people lacking initiative and just plain lazy "folk".

Of course government corporate assistance, special tax breaks, subsidies, farm programs for corporate farms are not the dole!  Money directed to private businesses and corporate, even foreign corporations, represented by millions of dollars paid to unregulated lobbyists and front groups is not government welfare.

So what does the minimum wage have to do with Social Security and the Republican opposition?  The GOP dependence on the financial favors of a few huge campaign money machines and shadow "unconnected not for profit advocate groups" may have a little bit to do with their opposition.  How many elections would the GOP win without the dark money blasting and distorting Democrat policies and values? 

Time after time every poll and expression of public opinion supports and favors Democrat ideals and positions of issues.  Yet the confusion, and constant negative rhetoric has taken a toll on election results as in Statehouses, State Legislatures and the Halls of Congress itself. 

Changes advocated for Social Security, Medicare and opposition to lifting the minimum was all have to do with profits, the amount of money the fat cats get to keep.  Payroll taxes in the percentage of paid wages are lower with lower minimum wages, increase the minimum wage more taxes would be collected for the Social Security Trust Fund for Medicare. 

It's the payroll taxes!  Think about it, higher pay, less people on the government dole, cut spending on government assistance programs, more chance to balance the federal budget, bring down the deficit, more money for the expanding Medicare rolls,  and protecting the earned benefits of Social Security.

Voucher out Medicare, snake oil solutions for future Social Security benefits and maintaining high corporate profits all the while pointing, yes, giving the finger to the working poor!  No solution to immigration without allowing low wage guest workers, no path to citizenship for millions living under the cover of darkness, and absolutely blocking every effort to empower people's the right to vote.

Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare)

On the other hand, less than a third (31 percent) of Americans 65 and older favor the law. A lot of their opposition may be rooted in the misconception that Obamacare “cut” Medicare. And, of course, there’s the fact that people in the 65+ age group have access to Medicare and don’t face many of the problems the law was designed to solve - like being turned away by insurers because of pre-existing health conditions or paying sky-high premiums because of age.  {I got mine attitude}

Retirees, disorganized, not equipped for legal battles are being attacked.

• The Alliance for Retired Americans
 

Friday, December 19, 2014

<Mostly members are retired union members from various labor organizations who have joined together under one alliance.  This a direct reprint which I will add comments.>

****

Paul Ryan’s Way of Cutting Medicare to Reemerge in New Congress

The next Republican budget will look a lot like those written by exiting House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI), the incoming House Budget Committee Chairman said last Friday. That would mean eliminating deficits in 10 years by calling again for massive cuts to the federal Medicare and Medicaid programs. Rep. Tom Price (R-GA), who takes the reins of the U.S. House budget panel in January, told reporters he will “build on” Ryan's proposals by devising ways to put more federal benefits programs under the control of states. Ryan will take over as chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.

Price said a Republican-controlled Congress can now advance policies pioneered by Ryan, including his controversial Medicare plans. Those plans would cut Medicare by limiting beneficiaries to a set amount of money every year to buy private health care insurance. Known as "premium support," the program would mark a dramatic shift from the current Medicare system, under which the federal government helps pay for all medical services that an individual uses.

<In short, here is a voucher for health insurance, now go negotiate a health plan for yourself.>

“‘Premium support’ is vouchers and would gut Medicare and shift costs to seniors,” said Richard Fiesta, Executive Director of the Alliance. “It is another way of saying, ‘Here’s a nickel, you’re on your own for the rest of your health care costs.’” More from Reuters at http://tinyurl.com/nuuhany.

<Alliance for Retired Americans sponsors "Letters to the Editor" and awards a special pen to members who get published and forward their information to the organization.>

Budget or another Topic on Your Mind? Write a Letter to the Editor

Letters to the editor are a terrific way to get our message out.

===================================================

Huffington Post December 15, 2014

When the Senate approved the omnibus spending bill to prevent the government from shutting down, it also delivered a blow to some retirees who collect pensions. In a little-discussed provision of the bill, certain multi-employer pension plans were given the go-ahead to reduce pension checks to current recipients by up to 60 percent. 

<Watch this, also Koch Industries major employers are looking for ways to limit or reduce employee pension benefits.>

===================================================

Huffington Post December 19, 2014

The United Steelworkers union negotiated a series of collective bargaining agreements stipulating that retired employees "will receive a full company contribution towards the cost of [health] benefits." The union believed the benefits were guaranteed for life. The company contends it could take away these benefits whenever it chose--which it did in 2007.

The retirees challenged that action. The retirees won in the lower courts, and now their case is pending before the Supreme Court.

<Watch this, many retirees whose benefit includes company paid health benefits, may not be guaranteed for life as they thought.>

====================================================