Unfunded
Pension Liabilities: Should Lawmakers Worry?
by Christine Stuart |
Jun 15, 2010 5:00am
Recent reports single out Connecticut as one of the wimpiest states
when it comes to funding its pension liabilities and retiree benefits, but is
it something lawmakers should be worried about?
A recent report by two University of
Connecticut economists says it is, but one union official gives their paper a
“C-“ for being incomplete, while one lawmaker says it shows the state should be
doing more and yet another believes it’s still on the right path.
A report
published in the summer edition of The Connecticut Economy by Peter Barth and Arthur Wright concluded the state‘s unfunded
pension liabilities along with its unfunded retirement benefits, will create
“serious long-term consequences for economic growth and jobs, especially
through effects on business location decisions.”
“Yielding to
temptation under budget duress to reduce or postpone payments meant to
strengthen the funding of retiree obligations will only compound the problems,”
Barth and Wright wrote. “In effect, doing that is
filling current-spending holes with material dug from future-spending holes.”
The two
economists based their report partially on information the Office of Policy and
Management which says the Nutmeg states’ unfunded retiree liabilities jumped to
$42.6 billion on June 30, 2008. That’s a 22.1 percent increase from 2006. And
the rise was despite the $2 billion in bonds injected into the Teachers
Retirement System in 2007.
“The prime
source of the boost was, of course, the financial market meltdown. But more
retirees (in part due to retirement incentives) and rising health care costs
doubtless contributed,” Barth and Wright wrote.
Connecticut’s unfunded
liability for state retiree pensions and benefits totals $7,395 for every man,
woman and child in the state, based on 2009 Census figures. Compared with more
other states, Nutmeggers’ liability is 2.6 times New York’s, 3.2 times Massachusetts’,
and 4.4 times California’s.
“The segue in this riff: Can anyone think of an area of Connecticut’s state
budget that is ripe for cuts?” Barth and Wright
wrote.
Bob Rinker, executive director of CSEA/SEIU Local 2001, said
the report ignores the changes made in 2009 to the State Employees Bargaining
Agent Coalition agreement.
He said
under the 2009 SEBAC agreement all new employees contribute 3 percent of their
salary to health insurance and all employees with the five years of state
service contribute 3 percent until they reach 10 years of service.
“There’s a
lot of money coming in to reduce the unfunded liabilities,” Rinker
said Monday. He said the $26 million in unfunded post retiree benefit cited in
the report is reduced substantially by those two measures.
He said
changes made in 1997 also reduce the liability by creating a Tier II and Tier IIa retirement plan. The Tier I employees, who receive the
richest retiree benefits, are dying and new employees are coming in and paying
more into the system, he said. There were also provisions added to move the age
employees received their benefits closer to the age of Medicare eligibility.
Over fiscal
year’s 2009, 2010 and 2011 state employees agreed to allow the state to delay
$314 million in pension contributions to help it close the state budget
deficit.
“We agreed
to some forgiveness because we didn’t want to see cuts in services,” Rinker said.
House
Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero, R-Norwalk, said he
disagreed with the decision to delay the pension contributions.
“We rejected
that and fully funded it in every budget we proposed,” Cafero
said Monday.
He said he
doesn’t understand why the state employee unions would agree to allowing the
state to balance the budget on the backs of retired workers. He said the state
should pass a constitutional amendment which forces it to fund the pensions at
a specific level.
“We
fundamentally disagree with that simplistic solution to the problem,” Rinker said of the suggestion for a constitutional
amendment. He said it ignores the fact that the pension is something
negotiated.
The contract
which includes the current state employees health and
pension benefits doesn’t expire until 2017.
House
Speaker Chris Donovan, D-Meriden, agreed with Rinker.
He said this movement to get rid of pensions and replace them with private 401k
type investing tools “doesn’t seem like a good idea.”
“Movement
away from pensions makes people less secure,” Donovan said.
He said if
the report doesn’t point out that these investments are made over long periods
of time then it’s not accurate. He said if the mortgage came due on someone’s
home over night they would have a hard time paying it, which is why mortgages
like pensions are spread out over 30 years.
“Forces try
to put down pensions, but without them middle
America would be lost and worried about their futures,” Donovan
said. “We want to be constructive and make sure seniors are secure.”
Barth and Wright conclude that state lawmakers have three broad
choices when it comes to solving the $42.6 billion unfunded pension liability.
The state
can increase its contributions, a solution which the
two conclude “would face strong headwinds—more like head-gales.” They also
suggest reducing future costs, which they admit is a direction the state has
been moving in for years, however, they described the movement as being at a
“glacial pace.”
And last but
not least the two suggest the state could seek a higher rate of return by
making riskier investments. Admittedly, “the problem with this ploy is that
higher investment returns are always associated with higher risks,” Barth and Wright wrote.
“To end on a
political note—for that’s ultimately where the solutions have to come from—we
repeat Wright’s question from the last issue (on the State’s budget crisis):
Why are there so many candidates for Governor this election year?”