Keep Pa. pension system
Re. the Feb. 7 editorial “Corbett's budget: Likes & red flags”: The governor calls his defined-contribution retirement system for new state employees — including all public schools calls employees — a “commonsense move.”
In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Studies repeatedly have shown that the current defined-benefit system not only offers more retirement security, but is easier and less costly to administer than defined-contribution plans. This is because it works with one large pool of funds, allowing a diversified mix of investments resulting in better returns.
West Virginia and Nebraska both tried defined-contribution plans, only to return to defined-benefit programs for their employees. As originally designed, 401(k) plans were meant to supplement an employee's defined-benefit plan, not replace it.
Changing Pennsylvania's defined-benefit system to a 401(k) or some hybrid combination would compromise the strength of the Public School Employees' Retirement System for current and future retirees and ultimately cost the taxpayers of Pennsylvania far more than the current defined-benefit plan.
I have asked my state representative and senator to oppose any attempt to undermine PSERS through the implementation of defined-contribution plans. I urge all current and retired state employees to do the same.
Don't let our pensions fall victim to Corbett's ill-advised scheme.
The writer is a retired Kiski Area teacher.
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.