Pension reform has potential $37B extra cost |

Pension reform has potential $37B extra cost

HARRISBURG — Reports showing a proposed pension reform plan could add as much as $37 billion in costs could stymie efforts by Republicans to move future employees into 401(k)-style plans.

An analysis by the Public School Employee Retirement System pegged the added cost of a House plan by Rep. Warren Kampf, R-Montgomery County, at about $33.8 billion. And a report by the State Employee Retirement System found a similar measure would cost that system about $3.2 billion more. Both have billions of dollars in unfunded liabilities now.

“There is considerable support in principle to moving future employees to a defined-contribution plan,” said Rep. Glen Grell, R-Cumberland County. “However, anyone looking at those possible costs would have to take a second look because I don’t think many members want to do something that would cost these systems 30-plus billion dollars considering they already have considerable unfunded liability.”

Gov. Tom Corbett and Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, R-Delaware County, say they support a plan from Sen. Mike Brubaker, R-Lancaster County, that would place elected officials, once re-elected, in 401(k)-style pension plans along with new state employees. No cost analysis has been released for Brubaker’s plan.

Grell, who has been deeply involved in pension reform, said he thinks a compromise by June 30 is unlikely. But House Republican spokesman Steve Miskin said, “Absolutely, it’s possible.”

Staff writer Tom Fontaine and Pennsylvania Legislative Correspondents Association intern Josh Fatzick contributed to this report. Kari Andren is a staff writer for Trib Total Media.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.