This morning's Standard-Examiner again carries another strong editorial, this time applauding State Sen. Dan Liljenquist, R-Bountiful, for "his efforts in the Legislature to shore up Utah's state retirement system, which took a $6.5 billion hit from the recent recession":
• OUR VIEW: Retirement reforms neededSenator Liljenquist has introduced two remedial public employee retirement bills in the State Senate, SB43 and SB63; and we believe the Standard this morning does a pretty good job of boiling it all down to the basics:
SB43 ends the odious, budget-busting practice of double-dipping, where a state employee covered by the retirement system collects both a paycheck and a pension. That is costing our state about $900 million over 10 years. It must end. [...]We've railed against the "odoriferous" double-dipping practice endlessly on Weber County Forum of course; so for what it's worth, we'll naturally join with the SE foursquare in strongly urging the passage of SB43. This one certainly seems to be a no-brainer... at least to us.
SB63 moves employees hired after July 1, 2011 to a retirement system that de-emphasizes pension benefits and instead shifts the future risks of retirement from the state to the individual.
As for SB63, which would, as we understand it, essentially substitute a defined contribution plan in place of the current budget-busting defined benefit retirement system for all "new hires," we're still sitting on the fence, but strongly leaning in the direction of supporting this latter bill too.
In that connection, we believe the SE makes a pretty persuasive point with this:
[SB63]... transfers an economic reality to public employees that most private-sector employees have been dealing with for years -- that it's up to us to have a secure retirement. The days of a pension taking care of us are nearing the end.So what about it WCF readers? Is it time for our state public retirement system to fall into place with the economic realities of the private sector? Or are there hidden nuances that operate in favor of taking a little more time studying this... or in even perhaps preserving the current system?
And we already know current public employees are already making lots of noise about this; but we're wondering what all the shouting is about, since these above Liljenquist-sponsored revisions would only ostensibly effect "new hires." We don't lay claim to having any particular expertise in matters concerning public employee retirement however, so we invite our board "experts" to edumacate us on these matters.
All WCF readers are invited to chime in, of course; but we'd particularly like to elicit come commentary from readers in the Utah public employment sphere.
Have at it, O Gentle Ones. The world-wide blogosphere eagerly awaits your ever-savvy comments.
Update 2/15/10 1:36 p.m.: Well, Lo and Behold, and in response to our reader invitation, we already have some extended commentary available (submitted via email) from retired Ogden Firefighter and former City Council Candidate Dirk Youngberg, who suggests that Sen. Liljenquist's SB63 needs a little more thought, and isn't quite ready for prime-time:
• Knee Jerk Reaction to the Market?We'd hoped to provoke a robust response to this afternoon's WCF write-up, and indeed that seems to be exactly what we're getting!
Who will be the next to chime in on this topic and further contribute to our online enlightenment?
