—
Call it the issue that lawmakers always talk about, yet never really address.
The cost of pensions — those currently being paid and those owed to public-sector employees in the future — is strangling the state and its cities and towns.
Retirement benefits negotiated when times were good and public-sector salaries relatively low are becoming unaffordable. Indeed, one of the provisions of the municipal "relief" bill passed by the Legislature this past session simply pushes back by another decade the deadline by which cities and towns must fully fund their pension liabilities.
And while that may be seen as a temporary fiscal lifeline to communities like Gloucester and all of our Cape Ann towns, pushing back the problem doesn't even take a baby step toward solving it.
Thankfully, election campaigns can often spur some new ideas and commitments to tackling ongoing issues, And that's the case now, with gubernatorial challenger Charlie Baker taking a stab at reforming a system that is funded through a combination of employee contributions, investment income and taxpayer funds.
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 current employees expect to collect when they retire. And he has other reform ideas as well, with any of these provisions to apply to those with 10 years or less in the system, along with all new hires.
What kind of ideas? Try these:
Raising the minimum retirement age from the current 50-55 years to 55-60;
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 on average salary;
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, even without the abuses some of his proposals are meant to stop, the current system is unsustainable.
After all, he points out, the goal when these pension plans were first formulated was to guarantee workers an "adequate" revenue stream in retirement, not the "glorious" benefits some now enjoy.
But along the way, the business of running state and local government has become a financial loser — and taxpayers have borne the brunt of the burden.
Baker's proposals may be true answers to all that ails our state and local pension systems, but they are reform proposals that deserve a long, hard look from state lawmakers. And they should start looking now.
