Pennsylvania’s pension crisis is here |
Featured Commentary

Pennsylvania’s pension crisis is here

Pennsylvania’s pension systems are at a crisis point.

Not at some point in the future. Right now.

A lot of attention goes to Pennsylvania’s two major statewide pension plans — the State Employees’ Retirement System (SERS) and the larger Public School Employees’ Retirement System (PSERS) — but the state’s local government pension systems also are woefully underfunded.

Actuarial valuations are revealing and a cause for budgetary concern. According to recent testimony by Budget Secretary Charles Zogby to the Public Employee Retirement Commission, the latest numbers show that SERS has an unfunded liability of nearly $15 billion and is 65.3 percent funded, while PSERS has an unfunded liability of $25.5 billion and is 69.1 percent funded. SERS and PSERS will have unfunded liabilities of $65 billion by 2021.

The potential impact on our state’s budget is staggering. Again, according to Zogby, in the current 2012-13 fiscal year budget, the General Fund appropriation for the commonwealth’s share of the employer contribution to PSERS is $856.1 million, up $255.9 million, or 43 percent, from last year’s $600.1 million. Similarly, Pennsylvania’s contribution to SERS is projected to be $677.4 million in the 2012-13 fiscal year, up $209.3 million, or 45 percent, from last year’s $468.1 million.

The annual increases in contributions to SERS and PSERS are crowding out other important program areas by swallowing limited funding.

This is only half of the story.

You may not be aware that Pennsylvania has more than 3,200 separate local government pension plans — 25 percent of all such plans in the nation! Municipalities across the state face ever-mounting financial challenges. Tax base loss, crumbling infrastructure, and escalating health care and pension costs strain their financial capacity. Federal funding to the states is being curtailed, and that results in less state funding to municipalities.

The pension problem is not just a city problem. Pension stress can be found in boroughs and townships in rural, suburban and urban areas. Sixty-six of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties have at least one municipality with a pension plan that is under a high level of financial stress. About one-third of Pennsylvanians live in a municipality with a distressed pension plan.

It’s also not just a municipal problem. By 2035, local school district pension costs will be 14 times higher than today.

The Pennsylvania Institute of Certified Public Accountants established a Fiscal Responsibility Task Force and in 2011 the first report called attention to the pension crisis. We shared this report with the General Assembly.

This month we joined the Coalition for Sustainable Communities, working closely with its coalition partners to implement a common agenda to promote municipal financial health. Efforts include developing legislation to address the shortcomings of the binding arbitration law, Act 111, as well as legislation to address the shortcomings of municipal pension laws.

This is an enormous issue and taxpayers should become educated about this topic and hold their state lawmakers accountable as proposals to address pension funding move through the legislative process.

Peter Calcara is vice president-government relations for the Pennsylvania Institute of Certified Public Accountants (

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.