I linked to a great post on this bill back in June.
However, what you may have missed was why some of the opponents suggested voting against this bill.
Here is a snippet from The Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry's John Callahan, Director of Government Relations:
Legislation to re-amortize both the Pennsylvania State Employee Retirement System’s (PSERS) and State Employee Retirement System’s (SERS) unfunded liability, allow for the smoothing of assets from 5 years to 10 years (PSERS only) and institute arbitrary collars on contribution rates was approved by the House Appropriations Committee on June 7, 2010. The PA Chamber believes this “reform” legislation would continue to defer already unaffordable costs and further underfund these plans leading to increased unfunded liabilities. According to a the Public Employee Retirement Commission (PERC) analysis this type of deferral will result in a $40 billion cost for PSERS and a $12 billion cost for SERS in order to ramp up the employer contributions over 10 years rather than over 3 years. This $52 billion burden on future generations and would do nothing to provide cost control, affordability or predictability to PSERS or SERS. Of significant note, these funding estimates are based upon the attainment of an 8% annual investment assumption.The document with the above quote is worth a read. It makes some realistic, pragmatic suggestions for an actual fix to the current system. This house bill allows our government to continue to underfund liabilities therefore blowing a bigger bubble down the road that will be even more difficult to tackle. The frustrating thing is that in the near term, this will feel like somewhat of a fix to local taxpayers as the contribution rates to employers in the near term will be less than they need to be to fully fund the pension. This is "accomplished" at a significant cost, however. It's akin to putting a bandaid over a bullet hole.
Thanks for reading.
James
