The first real indication of just how painful Pennsylvania school districts' day of underfunded-pension reckoning will be for taxpayers suggests it will be painful indeed but doesn't fully reflect how bad the situation is.
The Public School Employees Retirement System (PSERS) is notifying districts that their pension costs will rise from 16.9 percent of payroll this school year to 21.4 percent for 2014-15. The Pennsylvania Independent says that rate could change a bit when it's finalized. But 21.4 percent would be the highest “since at least the 1950s.”
That quantifies the foolishness of Act 120 of 2010, which made this day of reckoning worse by putting it off, and by establishing “artificial collars.” Those allow state pension-fund contributions well short of what's actuarially necessary — while pension obligations grow by $3.9 million daily, one lawmaker estimates.
The key step needed to curb pension obligations' growth? Replace traditional, defined-benefit plans with 401(k)-style, defined-contribution plans for new school employees — which will require lawmakers to put taxpayers' interests ahead of teachers unions'.
Taxpayer outrage over school tax hikes and program cuts resulting from that 2014-15 spike in districts' pension costs should motivate the Legislature to do so. If it doesn't, taxpayers must express their outrage via the ballot box — by electing lawmakers with the guts to do more than kick Pennsylvania's pension can down the road again.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.