Some pension changes needed by June, Pennsylvania budget secretary says
HARRISBURG — Lawmakers need to reduce taxpayers' share of payments into Pennsylvania's major state pension funds in the next few years even if the rest of Gov. Tom Corbett's pension-overhaul proposals bog down, the governor's top budget adviser said on Wednesday.
Budget Secretary Charles Zogby said Corbett's $28.4 billion state budget plan for the year starting July 1 includes $175 million in savings from a proposed short-term reduction in taxpayers' contributions to the pensions of hundreds of thousands of state and school employees. Similar deferrals would avert sharp increases in the following two years.
Failure to approve the changes would require cuts elsewhere in the budget, he said.
“It's imperative that we leave here in June with something on pension reform that's going to deal with the immediate effects of this coming budget as well as the next couple of budget years,” Zogby said at a news briefing about the governor's plan.
Corbett's pension initiative has yet to be introduced as legislation nearly two months after he revealed it, and the reaction from legislators has been cool at best. Yet Zogby and James Schultz, the governor's chief counsel, talked about the package as if it is not only likely to pass but also likely to be upheld in the courts.
The chairman of a House Republican task force working on the pension issue said he could not support deferring pension obligations for short-term savings.
“I don't have much appetite to do that because that's what we've done for years — under-funding the pensions to pay for other stuff,” said Rep. Glen Grell, R-Cumberland.
The most radical changes in Corbett's plan would reduce the future pension benefits of more than 370,000 members of the Public School Employees' Retirement System and the Pennsylvania State Employees' Retirement System to save $12 billion over 30 years.
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.