The cost of pensions — those currently being paid and those owed to employees in the future — is strangling the state and its cities and towns.
Yet legislators have failed to make the tough decisions necessary to reform the system to provide a fair retirement to public employees without bankrupting the commonwealth.
Indeed, not only do they avoid needed reforms, legislators are continuing the age-old practice of granting special retirement benefits to favored individuals.
Just this week, Gov. Deval Patrick allowed to become law without his signature two bills granting enhanced retirement benefits to two public employees, according to the State House News Service.
One, a 30-year public employee from Lee, was granted full retirement benefits even though he had not completed the required years of service. He had contracted cancer and was unable to work the additional time.
The other, from Martha's Vineyard, had been told by the retirement board to expect about $1,000 a week on her retirement but when her checks began arriving, they came in at about $700 a week instead. The bill granted her additional years of service to make up the difference.
These are, particularly in the case of the employee with cancer, sad stories. But it ought not to be the place of the Legislature to hand out additional taxpayer money to every public employee who suffers some misfortune.
Public employee retirement benefits — much better than Social Security — are funded through a combination of employee contributions, investment income and taxpayer funds. Republican gubernatorial candidate Charlie Baker has suggested that in the future the state pension system be self-funded, with taxpayer funds used solely to pay down the yawning gap between what's been promised and what's actually available to pay current employees when they retire.
They would apply to those with 10 years or less in the system, along with all new hires. Provisions include:
Raising the minimum retirement age from the current 50-55 years to 55-60 years;
Capping pensions at $90,000 a year regardless of pre-retirement salary;
Eliminating the "high three" method of calculating pensions based on one's three highest earning years rather than average salary; and
Eliminating the practice of "group jumping" by which employees can enhance their pension by having their job moved to a higher classification.
As Baker points out, the goal when these pension plans were first formulated was to guarantee workers "adequate" compensation in retirement, not the "glorious" benefits some now enjoy.
