Thanks to a few ICU-dwelling multiemployer plans, the PBGC's projected deficit is now roughly five times higher today than it was 12 months ago. (There's disagreement, I know, about just how accurate that figure might be, but for the purposes of this discussion, let's just agree that it's bad enough.)

Also read: The truth about multiemployer plans

Troubles at the PBGC aren't new, of course. The Government Accountability Office has put the PBGC on its at-risk list for more than a decade.

In part, that's because unlike other government agencies, including the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., the pension insurance agency can't simply set its own premiums. It must rely on Congress to do so.

Checks and balances are good, generally speaking. Micromanagement is not, especially in an environment prone to being politicized. The PBGC should be given the power to set premiums ASAP.

The lame-o Congress, of course, can't be counted on to do squat, regardless of who's in control of committee appointments or office assignments.

What I'd like to see Congress really do is dust off and give serious consideration to that 2013 report from Randy DeFrehn and his organization, the National Coordinating Committee for Multiemployer Plans.

The recommendation that will no doubt cause the most angina? The reduction or, in worst-case scenarios, the suspension of pension benefits, which would require amending ERISA.

Yes, that could be painful for a lot of retirees. No, I didn't hate my grandparents.

The fact of the matter is that the PBGC really will run out money eventually unless it can raise premiums. And because no one wants to see premiums go too high, benefits might have to be cut, for a small percentage of retirees in the worst-off multiemployer plans.

The alternative? Let things continue as they have, let the PBGC well run dry and then jam through a taxpayer-funded bailout.

There's not much joy in either scenario, but doing something today could go a long way in containing the pain tomorrow.