Morning Sentinel Staff
Maine's leaders are considering plans to help meet the state's long-range obligation to fund its public employees' retirement needs.
But their ideas aren't new -- one in fact, is decades old.
It would shift some of the state's obligation to Social Security, the federal system implemented in 1935 that now covers most public and private workers nationwide.
But 6 million U.S. public employees work outside the Social Security system, a policy that a few states, including Maine and Louisiana, are reconsidering.
Workers, however, may remember reading Social Security is having to cash in some of its Treasury bonds, years ahead of schedule, to pay current benefits.
While that is a direct result of the current recession and may cease once the economy recovers, sooner or later income from the bonds (which must be paid from general federal revenues) will resume as a full-time practice.
That has increased the volume of calls to put the system on a sounder footing by altering Social Security benefits, increasing the amount of total income subject to payroll taxes or raising the retirement age.
Thus, joining it may not seem like the best guarantee public employees could receive to fulfill the pension-fund promises they have received from the state.
Nor is the price associated with such a switch. As Susan Cover reports today, legislative budget-watchers are cool to the notion of increasing the cost of funding retirements for state workers in this period of tightening belts.
But the fact the state's pension fund lost $2.25 billion in 2008, according to a story Wednesday in The New York Times, puts on leaders to diversify the funding sources that undergird their obligation to provide workers with the full amount of their promised retirement income.
The Times said the principal reason the state has met its obligations to date is because only one in five state employees works long enough to draw a pension.
If the state were paying full benefits to all current or past employees, it would have exhausted its retirement funds long ago.
But private workers -- i.e. taxpayers -- are facing the prospect of picking up the tab for state worker retirements due to chronic underfunding and the economic maelstrom of the past two years.
For those who are accustomed to counting Social Security benefits as part of their retirement planning, then, the question might be why the state has waited so long to consider joining a system that requires no commitment to maintain a fund of its own.
Were you interviewed for this story? If so, please fill out our accuracy form
3 COMMENTS
DTOM said...
"The proposal may meet resistance, however, because it does not fill the gaping hole in the state’s pension fund. A shift into the federal program is also hard to plan because Social Security has a financial imbalance — one that will worsen as the population ages. At some point, Congress is expected to either raise taxes or cut benefits." ++++ http://www.zerohedge.com/article/social-security-tackle-state-pension-woes ++++ ++++ "It may be here sooner than you think, what with Andy Stern on Obama's new commission." ++++ http://www.seiu.org/2009/03/seiu-coalition-partners-launch-retirement-usa-initiative.php ++++ ++++ MSEA/SEIU ---- "Task Force Report: Current Public Employee Pension System Is More Affordable Than Social Security for State of Maine" (for the Task Force's 82-page Report...) ++++ http://www.mseaseiu.org/Story36.html ++++ http://www.mseaseiu.org/bulletin/030910TaskForceReport.pdf
July 23, 2010 at 6:08 AM Report abuse
rogerthat said...
Life is tough. Stupid politicians made promises to state workers for their own political benefit that taxpayers can no longer afford. They need to man up and tell state workers that the gravy train is over and the promises will not be honored in full.
July 23, 2010 at 3:45 PM Report abuse
null said...
The basic problem here is that pension benefits are set by the legislature. For years, pension & retiree health benefits have been improved without adequate funding or give backs by the unions. Pension and retiree health benefits should be part of the collective bargaining process for both teachers and state employees. Under the current system, unions negotiate higher wages with employers and separately lobby for better benefits in the legislature. It doesn't make sense. It's all compensation in one form or the other. Also, the Board of Trustees is principally a labor appointed group so the taxpayer is not well represented there either.
July 27, 2010 at 7:33 AM Report abuse