Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Politics

"Pension Smoothing" Helps Feds, Corporations Avoid Reality for Just a Little While Longer

Nick Gillespie | 8.20.2014 7:32 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

The Washington Post reports on how "pension smoothing," an accounting gimmick that's part of the recently passed Highway and Transportation Act of 2014, allows both the feds and the companies that pay the gas tax to avoid reality for just a little while longer.

The law allows companies to put off otherwise mandatory contributions to their defined-benefit employee pension funds, which increases tax revenue for the Treasury, since those contributions would have been tax-deductible. Actually, smoothing increases tax revenue in the short run but decreases it later on, when companies have to make up for the missed payments. But dollars gained exceed dollars lost over the 10-year interval within which Congress, somewhat artificially, calculates the fiscal impact of its policies, so lawmakers can claim that the bill doesn't increase the deficit.

Meanwhile, pension plans will be underfunded, exposing the federal pension insurance fund, and the taxpayers who ultimately back it, to greater risk. But who cares about that. For the big companies that lobbied in favor of pension smoothing, the money saved by skipping pension contributions outweighs the cost of losing the tax deduction….

The…problem is the dysfunction of a federal government reduced to running one of its major infrastructure programs on a year-to-year basis, held together with the budgetary equivalent of chewing gum and bailing wire.

Read the whole thing.

Hat tip: Twitter feed of Mercatus Center's Eileen Norcross.

The highway bill shells out over $10 billion a year for infrastructure projects. Last month, Reason Foundation transportation guru Robert W. Poole explained why the Highway Trust Fund was running out of money and why there was no way that a gas-tax increase was up to the task of repairing the nation's highways, bridges, and the like. Poole argues that when it comes to the interstate system—which needs something on the order of $1 trillion in repairs and expansion to meet current traffic needs—the only way to go is with a "true user fee" in the form of tolls. Controversial? Yes. Compelling? Also yes.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Jacob Sullum on Rand Paul's Challenge to Conservatives Who Reflexively Support Law Enforcement

Nick Gillespie is an editor at large at Reason and host of The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie.

PoliticsPolicyEconomicsScience & TechnologyPensionsTransportation PolicyBudget
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (25)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. prolefeed   11 years ago

    Or, we could just sell the roads to the highest bidders.

    1. UnCivilServant   11 years ago

      "This county route isn't very profitable, so we want to reclaim its asphalt and use it to add a lane to our trunk link."

      1. prolefeed   11 years ago

        "This government built county road is overbuilt for the light traffic on it, so we will bid low on it and if we acquire it, let it slowly revert to gravel unless housing tracts are built that would generate enough revenue to make it profitable to upgrade."

        versus

        "We will rob other people via taxes to get the money to overbuild this road to buy the votes of the handful of farmers there."

        1. UnCivilServant   11 years ago

          Or even worse

          "We got a no-bid contract to re-pave broken roads to buy votes, decided to use subpar materials so we could pocket most of the funds, and in a few years our 'friend' in the legislature can agitate for more infrastructure funds"

      2. perlhaqr   11 years ago

        Can you recycle asphalt that way? I mean, I know it works with railroads, but...

        I guess as long as you remixed the aggregate with more tar, and maybe cycled in some extra volatiles to replenish what had evaporated out, it might work.

        Actually, I wonder if you could do it in place. Build a machine that chews up the road, heats the aggregate, retars it, and then lays it out, and rolls it smooth behind. Just drive down the lane, eating bad road up front and pooping out good road behind. Just bring in trucks on a side lane to replenish the tar vat every once in a while.

        Of course, the unions would crucify you for building a machine that only took one person to operate, instead of an entire paving crew.

        1. UnCivilServant   11 years ago

          Asphalt is completely recyclable. Most of the asphalt used for paving today comes from old roads. It's not what evaporates out but what gets worn off by the action of tires that needs replenishing from new.

      3. CE   11 years ago

        See, more efficient already.

  2. AdamJ   11 years ago

    Not sure why governments think they don't need to follow standard accounting practices. Oh wait, FYTW.

    1. Bardas Phocas   11 years ago

      Smooth Operator
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TYv2PhG89A

      1. Heroic Mulatto   11 years ago

        Careless Whisper

      2. Scruffy Nerfherder   11 years ago

        I prefer Vanessa Daou, Sade's harlot little sister

    2. Ivan Pike   11 years ago

      Not sure why governments think they don't need to follow standard accounting practices. Oh wait, FYTW.

      Looks like it is standard accounting practice.

      Under ASC 715-30-35-18, "a gain or loss results from a change in the [measured] value of either the projected benefit obligation or the plan assets resulting from experience different from that assumed or from a change in an actuarial assumption." ASC 715 does not require immediate recognition of such gains and losses as components of net periodic pension cost in the period in which they arise (commonly referred to as "smoothing" of gains and losses). ASC 715-30-35-21 indicates that "[g]ains and losses that are not recognized immediately as a component of net periodic pension cost shall be recognized as increases or decreases in other comprehensive income" (OCI). Under ASC 715-30-35-23, the "amount recognized in accumulated [OCI] affects future net periodic pension cost through subsequent amortization . . . of the net gain or loss."

      Deloitte

      1. -Umbriel-   11 years ago

        Yeah, just 'cause it is a standard accounting practice doesn't mean it makes sense.

        1. Ivan Pike   11 years ago

          Yeah, just 'cause it is a standard accounting practice doesn't mean it makes sense.

          Didn't say it made sense, only that it was standard practice, in answer to AdamJ's question.

          1. AdamJ   11 years ago

            Fair enough. I was conflating this with public sector pension accounting practices. My bad.

  3. Bo Cara Esq.   11 years ago

    " But dollars gained exceed dollars lost over the 10-year interval within which Congress, somewhat artificially, calculates the fiscal impact of its policies, so lawmakers can claim that the bill doesn't increase the deficit."

    Ah, short term thinking, is their any problem that it can't cause?

  4. Adans smith   11 years ago

    let's get rid of the federal gas tax.Let the states handle it.I'
    m sure they would ,of course ,raise theirs in response.It would cut out the middle man and eliminate pork barrel and strings attached projects.Eliminating the Davis-Beacon act would help also.Before someone here says the feds built the highway system,or,omg roads,I remind you ,no they did not.The feds took taxpayer money and paid private companies to do the work.Government does not build roads

    1. AdamJ   11 years ago

      They can't increase the gas tax in TX, any new taxes tax is a lightning rod due to the tea party here. Till roads have also become a no-no. Of course it doesn't help that half of the proceeds from the gas tax goes to schools instead of roads. Which makes sense if you consider that "you didn't build that!" They're building the roads that lead to your factory and educating te populace that work in your office at the same time!

      1. Christophe   11 years ago

        Tax increases would be more palpable if they happened in immediate response to decreases at the federal level.

    2. Poppa Kilo   11 years ago

      There's economic trouble.

      Light the Davis-Beacon!

    3. CE   11 years ago

      Shut down DC. It's middle-men all the way down.

  5. userve32   11 years ago

    Kinda scary when you think about it.

    http://www.Anon-Surf.tk

  6. -Umbriel-   11 years ago

    ...but decreases it later on, when companies have to make up for the missed payments

    As if that'll ever happen.

  7. Lady Bertrum   11 years ago

    As if that'll ever happen

    New Jersey hasn't been making the required state employee pension fund contributions for decades, since about the Whitman administration. Christy played a bit of catch-up but then the next budget underfunded again.

    Every trick possible will be used to extend the Ponzi. Then one day, poof - all gone.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DT7bX-B1Mg

  8. CE   11 years ago

    They're not "interstate highways". They're "freeways". You can't charge a toll, by definition.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

How Trump's Tariffs and Immigration Policies Could Make Housing Even More Expensive

M. Nolan Gray | From the July 2025 issue

Photo: Dire Wolf De-extinction

Ronald Bailey | From the July 2025 issue

How Making GLP-1s Available Over the Counter Can Unlock Their Full Potential

Jeffrey A. Singer | From the June 2025 issue

Bob Menendez Does Not Deserve a Pardon

Billy Binion | 5.30.2025 5:25 PM

12-Year-Old Tennessee Boy Arrested for Instagram Post Says He Was Trying To Warn Students of a School Shooting

Autumn Billings | 5.30.2025 5:12 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!