FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Greenspan’s Pension

 

Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan has caused a political furor by calling this past week for a cutback in the benefits that the Baby Boom generation can expect to receive from Social Security when they retire–something that will start to happen in 2011.

Greenspan made this proposal during his latest appearance before Congress, claiming the hit on boomers would be necessary because of the staggering deficits facing the U.S. in the wake of President Bush’s unprecedented tax cuts.

Now aside from the fact that Greenspan failed to suggest to Congress the obvious alternative solution for eliminating those staggering deficits–rescinding the tax cuts that are causing them (in fact he said he favors making them permanent, instead of letting them expire as would currently happen without any Congressional action to keep them)–it seems fair to ask what Greenspan himself is doing about his own retirement.

In fact, Greenspan, who was born in 1926, has been very careful to prepare a very comfortable retirement for himself. According to some accounts, one key reason he left Wall Street and went into government service was for the pension. As the story goes, Townsend-Greenspan & Co, a pension management firm that Greenspan founded, actually did such a poor job of predicting the direction of the market that the enterprise was about to go belly up and had to be liquidated. As one former Greenspan competitor, Pierre Renfret, recalls, ‘When Greenspan closed down his economic consulting business to go on the Board of the Federal Reserve he did so because he had no clients left and the business was going under. We even went so far as to try and hire some of his former employees only to find out he had none for the 6 months prior to his closing. When he closed down he did not have a single client left on a retainer basis.”

According to Renfret, it was the failure of Greenspan’s company that led him to turn to government employment, initially going to work for the Ford Administration, and later taking a job with the Federal Reserve Bank.

Since the early–90s, when he hit retirement age, Greenspan has been cashing a monthly Social Security check that is at the maximum benefit rate–currently just over $1800. That might seem chump change for a guy who’s pulling down a salary of $172,000 a year, but it will rise when his wife, NBC journalist Andrea Mitchell, starts collecting her Social Security and retirement pension checks, too.

Then of course, there will be that fat federal pension check that will start arriving when Greenspan finally decides to step down from his sinecure at the central bank. According to people familiar with the workings of the federal pension program, Greenspan can probably expect to collect close to $100,000 a year in his dotage, making his total personal retirement take just from pension and Social Security about $121,600 a year. Of course, it’s unlikely that a man with Greenspan’s income and background (he’s trained as an economist, worked on Wall Street and is the son of a stockbroker), wouldn’t also have availed himself of the Keogh and IRA tax breaks available to him, which means he must have a sizeable private retirement fund too.

It’s more than ironic–cynical and callous are probably better terms–that a man with these kinds of assets, and who has benefited so handsomely from the New Deal’s most famous legacy, would be out front calling for diminished benefits for the next generation scheduled to begin retiring just after him.

It’s particularly galling that this call for benefits cuts is coming from a guy who contributed so mightily to the mismanagement of the U.S. economy in the late 1990s — mismanagement that led to the collapse of the stock market two years ago, and the needless and wanton destruction of millions of people’s retirement funds. Writing in a Morgan Stanley research report, analyst Stephen Roach says Greenspan, despite admitting in closed meetings of the Federal Reserve Board that there was a dangerous stock market bubble developing, publicly endorsed the ludicrous theory that America has entered a ‘new economy” in which earnings didn’t matter, and failed to advocate any significant measures, such as an increase in margin requirements or a major increase in short term interest rates, that would have deflated that bubble, preventing the subsequent crash.

It ill befits those who are well fed to tell the starving classes to eat less. Neither should those who will retire like kings advocate taking away the meager income of those who will have little or nothing to live on when they are too old to work.

Dave Lindorff, currently on a Fulbright Senior Scholar residency in Taiwan, is working on “This Can’t Be Happening,” a collection of CounterPunch columns and other musings for Common Courage Press.

 

More articles by:

Dave Lindorff is a founding member of ThisCantBeHappening!, an online newspaper collective, and is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press).

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550
Weekend Edition
January 24, 2020
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
A Letter From Iowa
Jim Kavanagh
Aftermath: The Iran War After the Soleimani Assassination
Jeffrey St. Clair
The Camp by the Lake
Chuck Churchill
The Long History of Elite Rule: What Will It Take To End It?
Robert Hunziker
A Climate Time Bomb With Trump’s Name Inscribed
Andrew Levine
Trump: The King
James Graham
From Paris, With Tear Gas…
Rob Urie
Why the Primaries Matter
Dan Bacher
Will the Extinction of Delta Smelt Be Governor Gavin Newsom’s Environmental Legacy?
Ramzy Baroud
In the Name of “Israel’s Security”: Retreating US Gives Israel Billions More in Military Funding
Vijay Prashad
What the Right Wing in Latin America Means by Democracy Is Violence
Jeremy Kuzmarov
Biden’s Shameful Foreign Policy Record Extends Well Beyond Iraq
Louis Proyect
Isabel dos Santos and Africa’s Lumpen-Bourgeoisie
Nick Pemberton
AK-46: The Case Against Amy Klobuchar
Evaggelos Vallianatos
Promtheus’ Fire: Climate Change in the Time of Willful Ignorance
Linn Washington Jr.
Waiting for Justice in New Jersey
Ralph Nader
Pelosi’s Choice: Enough for Trump’s Impeachment but not going All Out for Removal
Ted Rall
If This is a Democracy, Why Don’t We Vote for the Vice President Too?
Mike Garrity – Jason Christensen
Don’t Kill 72 Grizzly Bears So Cattle Can Graze on Public Lands
Joseph Natoli
Who’s Speaking?
Kavaljit Singh
The US-China Trade Deal is Mostly Symbolic
Cesar Chelala
The Coronavirus Serious Public Health Threat in China
Nino Pagliccia
Venezuela Must Remain Vigilant and on Guard Against US Hybrid Warfare
Robert Fantina
Impeachment as a Distraction
Courtney Bourgoin
What We Lose When We Lose Wildlife
Mark Ashwill
Why Constructive Criticism of the US is Not Anti-American
Daniel Warner
Charlie Chaplin and Truly Modern Times
Manuel Perez-Rocha
How NAFTA 2.0 Boosts Fossil Fuel Polluters, Particularly in Mexico
Dean Baker
What Minimum Wage Would Be If It Kept Pace With Productivity
Mel Gurtov
India’s Failed Democracy
Thomas Knapp
US v. Sineneng-Smith: Does Immigration Law Trump Free Speech?
Winslow Myers
Turning Point: The new documentary “Coup 53”
Jeff Mackler
U.S. vs. Iran: Which Side are You On?
Sam Pizzigati
Braggadocio in the White House, Carcinogens in Our Neighborhoods
Christopher Brauchli
The Company Trump Keeps
Julian Vigo
Why Student Debt is a Human Rights Issue
Ramzy Baroud
These Chains Will Be Broken
Chris Wright
A Modest Proposal for Socialist Revolution
Thomas Barker
The Slow Death of European Social Democracy: How Corbynism Bucked the Trend
Nicky Reid
It’s Time to Bring the War Home Again
Michelle Valadez
Amy Klobuchar isn’t Green
David Swanson
CNN Poll: Sanders Is The Most Electable
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
Our Dire Need for “Creative Extremists”—MLK’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail”
Robert Koehler
FBI, King and the Tremors of History
Jill Richardson
‘Little Women’ and the American Attitude Toward Poverty
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail