Editor's note:
This is a response to last month's article Reforming Pensions for Future Solvency by Senator David G. Argall.

This is strictly a suggestion based on what I read in the above article. It is very one-sided since the state senator obviously supports this legislation. I wish a counter-argument to David Argall's article was written to show the opposing side of the pension reform issue.

Defined Benefit Pension Plans are designed to be self-sustaining.  In good times, the funds experience substantial earnings, usually beyond expectations.  That compensates for the lean years when profits on investments are not as high.  For example, PA legislators allowed the state and Pennsylvania school boards to pay the Public School Employees Retirement System a much smaller percentage than originally designated for a decade prior to 2010. The retirement fund had done very well, and the legislators felt they could give the state and school boards a break.

This produced an artificial dilemma when the economy took a major downturn. I am not an economist, so my description is lacking, I am sure. My main point is, those with 401K-type plans as their retirement lost their shirts and, for many, their hopes of retirement anytime soon when our recent downturn hit them. PSERS Defined Benefit Plans had enough to keep them afloat due to wise investment and overseeing, and enough members still contributing to weather the storm.

Sometimes a lower salary in the public sector is only accepted by workers because the benefit and pension package—"Defined Benefit"—is better than the private sector. There have also been many "give-backs" by public workers in recent contracts, but those same workers still get bad-mouthed for protecting what they worked hard and sacrificed for with lower salaries over the years. And they are still the brunt of major cuts by our state senators and representatives.

Someone familiar with he research showing that Defined Benefit Pension Plans actually cost less than Defined Contribution plans would be ideal to compose an argument opposing that of Sen. Argall. 

I also feel very strongly that workers in the public or the private sector (though public employees have been most targeted) should not bear the total cost of the economic downturn, when our state is giving corporations huge tax breaks for the development of the Marcellus Shale industry, and not taxing those that can afford it to pay at least the same percentage as the middle class because tax loopholes allow them to pay comparatively little..  

Sincerely,
Jeanine M. Dimmick

The Pension Rights website gives some objective information on the different types of pension plans. Thank you for considering this.