No pension 'fix'
Does anyone really think the state would honor a commitment to make contributions to public employees' individual 401(k)-style retirement accounts?
The state did not honor its commitment to contribute to the existing retirement systems for 14 consecutive years, leaving Pennsylvania's taxpayers on the hook to the tune of $49 billion and putting the financial security of hundreds of thousands of retirees and public employees at risk.
Follow the private sector's lead? The first thing employers cut when their budgets tighten are contributions to employee 401(k) plans, if they even provide such plans.
More than half of all Pennsylvanians working in the private sector have no retirement plans of any kind from their employers. Better than 90 percent who do have employer-sponsored retirement plans are accumulating nowhere near enough to pay basic living expenses in retirement.
These “Republicans” advocating that the state follow the private sector's lead are creating the welfare state they claim to abhor.
Close the existing retirement plans to establish individual retirement accounts for new employees, and taxpayers — all of us — will be on the hook for an additional $42 billion. (This is the conclusion of three nonpartisan, nationally renowned actuarial firms.)
The so-called “pension reform” advocated by Gov. Corbett and his right-wing supporters in the Legislature is not about saving taxpayers money; it is about privatizing investment of public employees' retirement savings and profiting the politicians' Wall Street contributors.
The media would be well advised to investigate the extent to which entities that stand to profit from this privatization attempt are making campaign contributions to Corbett and his allies in the General Assembly.
Barry N. Kelly
The writer is president-elect of the Pennsylvania Association of School Retirees (pasr.org).
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.
- Give thanks for vets
- For their own benefit
- Family first
- Voting insanity
- Gruber, then & now III
- Bible under attack
- Postal questions
- Gruber, then & now II
- Gruber, then & now I
- Enforce immigration laws
- Quarantine quandary