Background
Public pensions are not governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Although benefits are substantially paid for by investment income, they are also funded by general revenue, by state employers, and by the contributions of participants (a key defining characteristic that distinguishes public defined-benefit plans from those in the private sector).
The two federal civil-service retirement systems (Civil Service Retirement System and Federal Employee Retirement System) and military pension systems are operated largely on a pay-as-you-go basis, whereas most state and local systems are intended to be advance-funded, although they may constantly struggle to achieve that status.
Underfunding of state and local pensions has become a significant issue. The collapse of the stock market in 2008 and early 2009 had a significant negative effect on these funds. Despite the recovery in equity prices since 2009, many states are still facing a substantial difference between projected future revenues and anticipated liabilities. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, more than 43 states have enacted pension reforms in recent years.
A substantial reduction in underfunding is a priority, but the measures to achieve this reduction could be contentious. One possible reform is to increase employee contributions or funding from the employer (i.e., the state and local governments), which will ultimately require some combination of increases in taxes and cuts in spending.
Another option is reducing pension amounts, which could affect retired, active, and future plan members. Reducing benefits for new hires is much easier than reducing it for the other two groups. The basic principle underlying efforts to increase the solvency of pensions should be to avoid changes that harm the most vulnerable people. At the same time, however, any reform plan will need to be judged as a whole.
For more information about retiree health plans, see Chapter 7, Health: Health Care Coverage—Retiree Health Coverage.
Federal, State, and Local Public Pensions: Policy
Defined-benefit plans
Retirement plan reform
Modifications to retirement plans or plan formulas should have as a key objective to hold harmless current beneficiaries and employees, as well as to ensure the retirement security needs of future retirees. Any modifications should be fiscally responsible, ensure the long-term viability of existing plans, and protect the retirement security of workers, especially those who are vested or who are close to retirement. AARP will evaluate reform packages in their totality for their overall potential effect on beneficiaries and the future of the program.
Vesting
Cost-of-living adjustments
Improving reporting and disclosure
States and localities should:
- Encourage pension disclosures that are straightforward and understandable for participants, beneficiaries and taxpayers, and
- examine the feasibility of improving the fiduciary reporting and disclosure standards of their plans as a first step in strengthening their soundness, and
- regularly report to a central government review agency reliable and consistent information on the nation’s public-employee retirement system obligations.
States should monitor carefully the reporting, disclosure, and funding practices of local public retirement systems under their jurisdiction and, where appropriate, administer the plans on behalf of local governments.
Full funding
States and localities should move toward full funding of their retirement systems, strengthen the funding of their plans, consider the short- and long-term costs of benefit improvements, and enact such improvements only if accompanied by clearly spelled-out funding plans
Funding holidays
States should make full contributions to retirement plans, as actuarially determined, and avoid taking funding holidays, which can contribute to underfunding when economic conditions deteriorate.
Consumer representation
Prorated benefits
Retirement benefit enhancement
Retirement funds holding assets exceeding obligations to active employees should consider improving benefits for retirees and their spouses and giving special consideration to the financial needs of those who have been retired longest and whose benefits are likely to have suffered significant erosion of purchasing power.
State and local retirement systems should avoid making long-term benefit enhancements with short-term budgetary surpluses, and should address plan design features that allow end-of-career enhancements that negatively affect the long-term health of the plan.
Integration with Social Security
Health and life insurance
Education
Hybrid and cash-balance plans
States should ensure that cash-balance and other hybrid plans do not discriminate against older workers and maintain important benefit protections of defined-benefit plans.
States and localities should require that in a plan conversion, employers provide each affected individual with a personalized benefits statement that compares the projected benefits under the old and new plans. Such information must be shown in a comparable form (e.g., life annuity compared with life annuity) and provided well in advance of the effective date of any plan change.
Protections from default
In state proceedings for insolvency or receivership by municipal entities and state agencies and instrumentalities, retirees should enjoy statutory priority for all or a part of their earned retirement benefits, in amounts sufficient to ensure that their basic needs can be met.