ShareThis Page
Editorials

Pittsburgh's pension plight: Reform long overdue

| Sunday, Dec. 11, 2016, 9:00 p.m.

Pittsburgh's defined-benefit pension problems are typical for such traditional but unsustainable plans. That's why so many businesses have switched to 401(k)-style defined-contribution plans — as the city should have long ago.

Enough hasn't been going in to yield enough investment earnings to pay retirees. And Pittsburgh's retirement-money investments, worth $374 million 12 years ago, have hardly grown since, losing almost $93 million amid 2008's market crash and worth just $378 million in 2015.

A 2009 state law required minimum 50-percent funding. To avoid a state takeover of its plans, Pittsburgh dedicated $736 million in parking tax revenue through 2041 to pensions. It projects putting enough in by 2018 to cover retirees' annual payouts. But that's questionable because Pittsburgh's fund managers assume an overly optimistic 7.5-percent annual return on investments — and the higher that projected return is, the less the state requires Pittsburgh to put into its pension funds.

Mayor Bill Peduto favors a half-measure: combining defined-benefit and defined-contribution aspects for new employees' plans. But any change requires state lawmakers' OK, and public-employee unions' clout in Harrisburg has long blocked reform.

What's lacking — in Pittsburgh, in Harrisburg and across Pennsylvania — is the political gumption to accomplish what's right for public employees, retirees and the public interest: long-overdue public-pension reform.

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.

click me