'Lose-lose' on pensions
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Sunday, Feb. 17, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
The editorial “Corbett's budget: Likes & red flags” (Feb. 7 and TribLIVE.com) incorrectly describes Gov. Tom Corbett's plan to force new public employees into 401(k)-style plans as “a commonsense move” away from defined-benefit pensions. The move makes no sense whatsoever for workers or taxpayers.
This proposal is a “lose-lose” proposition. It will cost taxpayers nearly twice as much as the current plan, while providing teachers, nurses and law enforcement officials with smaller benefits. The AARP correctly described the Corbett plan, saying it “would provide lesser benefits that cost taxpayers more money to provide.”
The program would require the state and school districts to pay 4 percent of salary into the plan. The Pension Reform Law of 2010 provides taxpayers a better deal because new-employee benefits now only cost employers 2.2 percent of salary. There are no proposals from the governor or others that provide lower costs than this 2.2 percent solution.
It would close off the current defined-benefits plan, which studies from other states show dramatically drives up employer costs by as much as 50 percent and weakens the overall system.
In 2010, teachers, nurses and police officers agreed to reduce pension benefits and raise the retirement age to save Pennsylvania taxpayers $33 billion over the next 30 years. Now, politicians need to fulfill their promise by paying the employer debt and honoring the commitments they made.
The writer, a mathematics teacher, is president of the South Fayette Education Association and a member of the Pennsylvania State Education Association's Western Region board of directors.
Show commenting policy
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.
- Saved her life
- Lebo’s coyotes
- Fix icy hazard on Rt. 66
- Beneficial, irreplaceable
- Weakness shows
- Apollo-Ridge excellence
- Wildlife & humans
- Quit drilling in state forests
- Not reviled abroad
- Conspicuous by absence
- Needs sign added