Public Employee Pensions and Benefits
"They are going to take away your pension!" is a common scare tactic used by Pennsylvania government union leaders to oppose pension reform (even though private school unions have agreed to pension reform).
Such a scenario is no longer fiction for workers in Detroit. Yesterday a federal bankruptcy court ruled the City of Detroit has the ability to renegotiate pension benefits, like any other contract with the city’s 100,000 plus creditors. The dramatic development has widespread implications across the country—including Pennsylvania, where unfunded local and state pension liabilities surpass $50 billion.
Ironically, union officials' refusal to consider reform has endangered the very pensions they claimed they were protecting.
We've noted before the desperate municipal situations in Scranton, Pittsburgh, Allentown and Harrisburg. Government union leaders' unwillingness to compromise and ignore fiscal reality have put these cities on Detroit’s destructive path—harming taxpayers, residents and government employees.
Only by depoliticizing government pensions with 401(k)-type plans will state and local workers be able to keep their pension and create a system that’s fair to new workers and taxpayers.
Pennsylvania's fiscal outlook looks bleak according to a detailed report examining state revenue and spending released by the Independent Fiscal Office (IFO) last week.
The agency projects a general fund budget deficit every year for the next five years. In 2018-19, the IFO projects a budget deficit of almost $2.1 billion. To make matters worse, these projections assume an improvement in economic conditions, which would mean more tax revenue to help pay for state government’s ever-growing expenditures. But such an improvement is far from certain.
This budget shortfall is not a new problem, but one caused by years of overspending. State general fund spending has exceeded state revenue for six consecutive years. This overspending was made possible through federal stimulus funds, along with using the "Rainy Day Fund," and transferring more than $3 billion from other funds for one-time revenue.
The report hits on the two main causes of Pennsylvania’s structural fiscal problems: welfare spending and employee compensation. Recent news reports have brought renewed attention to the rampant waste and fraud in welfare spending. Lawmakers cannot begin addressing our fiscal cliff without taking steps to address abuses and enacting reforms to mend our safety net.
Further, increases in most areas of the state budget will be dwarfed by massive increases in state pension contributions. The report projects state pension contributions will increase from $1.4 billion to almost $3.4 billion, an increase of nearly 143%. This is why pension reform is critical.
Lawmakers must begin to rein in this out-of-control-spending, as these spending trends are unsustainable, and taxpayers—already burdened with the 10th highest state taxes—cannot be asked to simply pay more.
Thousands of school teachers in Philadelphia will see their retirement plans switched to 401(k)-type plans next year—and the union representing those teachers is okay with the reform.
I should have noted this is happening in Catholic schools.
The Archdiocese of Philadelphia is transitioning employees (including parochial school teachers and church employees) into a 401(k) plan going forward, which will match employee contributions with a 4.5 percent employer contribution. The reform will allow the Archdiocese to pay off its unfunded liability over 30 years (with no mention of the transition cost myth that has been used to undermine public pension reform).
The union representing some of the teachers affected thinks employees should be okay with the move, as Harold Brubaker at the Philadelphia Inquirer reports:
Rita C. Schwartz, president of the labor union that represents 650 teachers in archdiocesan high schools, said the move was not surprising, given the financial restructuring underway at the archdiocese in the last year.
"My concern is that our teachers don't panic," Schwartz said. "The pension's not gone. It's there."
Why did the private sector union take a different tact from the PSEA's misinformation campaign slogans like "Your pension is under attack" and "Keep the promise"?
Simply put, private unions recognize that employers need to have sustainable retirement plans or they may go out of business—costing union members their jobs. In government, the assumption is taxpayers can just keep paying more (though in reality, higher pension costs result in teacher layoffs too).
Lawmakers should take a lesson from the private sector in adopting meaningful pension reform.
Today, Rep. Glen Grell unveiled a state pension reform proposal.
We applaud Rep. Grell’s efforts to address the impending pension crisis. Absent reform, pension contributions will continue to soar, consuming more of our state budget while requiring property tax increases or teacher layoffs at the school district level.
We agree with Rep. Grell that we cannot afford to do nothing about the pension crisis. But we urge lawmakers to work for stronger reforms, most importantly, creating a 401(k) for new hires. We must find a solution that can pass both legislative chambers and preserve retirement for workers while protecting taxpayers.
There can be no doubt that Pennsylvania families and workers need lawmakers to take up pension reform now.
To learn more about pension reform, click here.
Traditional pensions are plagued by their dependence on guesswork—estimates on economic growth, employee behavior, and investment return—writes Grove City economist Mark Hendrickson in a recent piece. The errors in these costs are passed on to taxpayers, those same taxpayers who have seen private employers switch from traditional, defined-benefit plans to defined-contribution plans similar to a 401(k).
In sum, defined-benefit plans beguiled us. Attractive on the surface, they were inherently flawed due to the impossibility of knowing the future. Now it appears that they will cause a huge amount of strife and divisiveness in communities and states across the country in the coming years. There will be a lot of pain, and the political struggle will be over how that pain is distributed. It may take decades to sort out the mess, but ultimately, the only fair and viable (though still imperfect) system would be for everyone to have defined-contribution pension plans. Getting from here to there isn’t going to be easy.
Basically, traditional pensions can be easily manipulated for political gain. Thankfully, efforts to reform Pennsylvania's two pension system by putting new employees into a defined-contribution plan, like SB 922 and HB 1352 and HB 1353 have been making their way through the legislature.
Visit our activism page here to see how you can ensure lawmakers pass needed pension reform.
What do preschoolers with marshmallows and Pennsylvania’s pension crisis have in common? Both demonstrate a failure to delay gratification.
Dr. Joseph Horton at Grove City College compares Pennsylvania’s pension crisis to the classic psychological marshmallow experiment. In the experiment, preschoolers were given one marshmallow and promised two marshmallows if they waited 20 minutes (decades to a preschooler) before eating the first one. The children who were able to wait for the second marshmallow grew up to have more successful careers than the kids who ate right away.
According to Horton, Pennsylvania’s politicized pension system has fallen victim to immediate gratification:
It seems, in examples from all over the country, that we have elected too many politicians who would have chosen to immediately eat the single marshmallow. For example, Pennsylvania, where I live, currently has unfunded liabilities for state employee retirement benefits of approximately $47 billion, according to the Commonwealth Foundation. That means politicians have promised to pay $47 billion worth of benefits for which they have not set aside money. Our politicians have made promises without planning how to pay for them. We have been given the sugar rush today, but the bill will eventually come due.
So how do we instill the value of delayed gratification in state government? In today’s Patriot-News I suggest the solution is to take away politicians power to eat the marshmallow, or take the politics out of pensions. That means transitioning to a defined contribution, 401(k)-style plan where the costs are predictable because pension benefits must be paid as they are earned.
In fact, the primary reason we now have a $47 billion pension deficit is not because of the 2001 pension bump for teachers and state workers, or the 2002 increase for retirees Mr. Rowland lobbied for—though those combined added $10 billion to taxpayers’ debt—nor from underfunding.
Rather the majority of today’s pension liability was because actuary guesses were wrong. Our investments didn’t earn as much as they projected, and now taxpayers are on the hook for paying nearly $1,000 a year more per household for decades.”
It’s time to stop eating the marshmallows and refrain from consuming our children’s and grandchildren’s future success.
In July, a commentary by Matt Brouillette on why pension reform failed in our state legislature ran in several newspapers across Pennsylvania. Now response letters from teachers have been published in Erie, Allentown and Harrisburg that repeat myths on the "costs" of reforming our unaffordable pension system.
Here's the kicker, though: They're basically all the same letter, with slight stylistic differences. Ironic when educators are supposed to police against plagiarism. But then, each letter has been signed by current local or past union officers of the Pennsylvania State Education Association, a powerful foe of needed reform. Here's how each letter opens:
The Harrisburg Patriot-News: "The Commonwealth Foundation tries to promote itself as an advocate for fiscal conservatism. So it's strange that their president Matthew Brouillette actually promotes changes to public employee pensions which would increase costs to Pennsylvania’s taxpayers by at least $42.4 billion over the next 30 or so years."
The Morning-Call: "Although the Commonwealth Foundation promotes itself as an advocate for fiscal conservatism, its president, Matthew Brouillette, in a Your View actually promotes changes to public employee pensions that would increase costs to Pennsylvania taxpayers by at least $42.4 billion over the next 30 or so years."
The Erie Times: "The Commonwealth Foundation likes to promote itself as an advocate for fiscal conservatism. But its president, Matthew Brouillette, author of the Guest Voice 'Big Government Party dooms reforms' in the Erie Times-News on July 17, actually promotes changes to public employee pensions that would increase costs to Pennsylvania's taxpayers by at least $42.4 billion over the next 30 or so years."
More important than the copycat letters, however, is the claims they make. Will switching school teachers and other public employees to a 401(k)-style plan—what the vast majority of private sector businesses have done—actually cost taxpayers more than our current system? The answer is no, and it's plain to see why.
The estimates of costs are just that: Estimates. Actuaries don't agree on what the actual costs of a defined benefit plan are, because such plans are based on several assumptions.
For example, officials have assumed that our state plans for school employees and state workers will earn a 7.5 percent return, an estimate that has proven far too optimistic and added billions to our funding shortfall—a gap that taxpayers must now fill. It's also been assumed that our state legislature would continually and adequately fund the pension plans year to year, another assumption that's been proven wrong.
By contrast, defined contribution plans have completely predictable costs with no unfunded liability, because pension benefits must be funded as they're earned. Furthermore, if we "let Act 120 work," assuming both the unlikely 7.5 percent return and that lawmakers make payments on schedule, then taxpayers will pay $212.4 billion in pension costs over the next 30 years.
That's the real crisis facing taxpayers and teachers alike—not the supposed costs of fixing the system for our future.
On this BOX Program podcast, Representative Fred Keller (R) 85th District, joins Nathan Benefield to break down what's been happening in the legislature on pension reform. Both the House and Senate have considered bills this session that attempt to address Pennsylvania's failed public pension system by moving new hires to a defined contribution, 401(k)-like retirement plan.
It's a complicated issue, but its impact will reach Pennsylvania taxpayers for generations to come. Listen here.
Pennsylvania’s two main government worker pension systems, the Public School Employee Retirement System (PSERS) and the State Employee Retirement System (SERS), together have more tha than $47 billion in unfunded liabilities, due to past policy decisions and investment returns that failed to meet projections. This shortfall will require dramatic increases in taxpayer contributions.
Pennsylvania needs pension reform that provides state workers with a sustainable retirement system that’s fair to new workers, existing employees and taxpayers. Switching to a defined contribution (DC) plan for new government employees would remove politics from pensions and provide adequate retirement benefits that are affordable, predictable, and current.
- DC plans are affordable for taxpayers, with no risk from investment losses and no debt transferred onto future generations.
- Properly designed DC plans provide adequate retirement plans that workers own and can take with them to other jobs, leave to their children, and withdraw when they want.
- DC plans are predictable for government budgeting—costs are fixed by law and not dependent on actuarial assumptions, investment returns, or paying off past debts.
For more information on the benefits of defined contribution plans, check out Pensions: Past, Present and Future.
Critics of pension reform cite certain actuarial reports claiming that shifting new employees to a defined contribution plan (like a 401(k) in the private sector) will actually cost taxpayers more. These reports need to be read in context of what pension actuaries can actually determine, what assumptions are being used, and what taxpayers will contribute absent reform.
1) Actuarial reports compare costs which are fixed and known in a defined contribution plan to costs which are unknown and indefinite, but estimated, in current Defined Benefit plans.
2) These estimates assume current plans will return 7.5% on investments every year going forward, and that future politicians will keep fully funding these plans. Both assumptions have already proven false, which has created a $47 billion unfunded liability.
3) Under Act 120—assuming both 7.5% investment return and lawmakers continue to make payments as scheduled—taxpayers will pay $212.4 billion over the next 30 years towards SERS and PSERS costs.
4) Assumptions that closing defined benefit plans require less risky investments that will result in lower investment returns have been dramatically overstated. As noted by Pew Charitable Trusts Senior Researcher David Draine in testimony to the House State Government Committee (emphasis added):
In the final years of the plan's existence, the plan may want to keep its investments in less risky and more liquid assets.
But this will happen only in the last few years of the plans' existence, not in the near future as claimed by the actuaries for the State Employees and the Public Schools' plans. For example, the actuary for the State Employees' plan suggests that in 2024 the pension plan should start moving its investments into safer assets. For 2013, actuarial projections for the state employees plan estimate that benefit payments will equal 11.3 percent of plan assets. That same projection estimates that for 2024, benefit payments will be equal to 11.6 percent of plan assets. If liquidity concerns in 2024 will be so great that plan assets need to be in less risky investments than those same changes should be occurring today, regardless of any pension policies under consideration.
 SERS Supplemental Budget Information http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/document/1324311/budgetbinder2013_pdf; PSERS Current Employer Contribution Rate and 30-Year Rate Projections http://www.psers.state.pa.us/content/pfr/resources/contributions.pdf
Total Records: 231
Who are We?
The Commonwealth Foundation is Pennsylvania's free-market think tank. The Commonwealth Foundation crafts free-market policies, convinces Pennsylvanians of their benefits, and counters attacks on liberty.