Pa.’s public pensions: Runaway gravy train |

Pa.’s public pensions: Runaway gravy train

With this year’s burdensome $1.1 billion cost of Pennsylvania’s runaway state-and-school-employees pension train on track to rise to a ruinous $4 billion in 2016, it’s time to slam on the brakes.

This gravy train has been accelerating since 2001. That’s when lawmakers passed a 25-percent increase in state and school employee pensions under a deal that got them their own 50-percent pension hike. As a result, 658 such pensioners now collect more than $100,000 annually, up from 253 in 2007.

Some get more than $300,000 a year. That’s a stinging blow to taxpayers — especially with Pennsylvania’s mean household retirement income at $18,240 in 2010, according to the U.S. Census Bureau — and a level of largess they simply can’t sustain.

Pennsylvania can’t legally cut such benefits for current employees or retirees. But it can switch new hires from traditional, defined-benefit pensions to 401(k)-style defined-contribution plans — and continue denying them the 2001 boost, as it has since 2011 began.

With Gov. Tom Corbett concerned but saying lawmakers likely won’t act until next year, necessary urgency is lacking. The longer Harrisburg takes, the harder it’ll be to stop this runaway train — and the more taxpayers will suffer.

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.