|
 The National Institute on Retirement Security (NERS), a non-profit
group that has defended traditional public pensions, issued case
studies on three states that switched to 401(k)-style defined
contribution retirement plans.
In all three states, Alaska, West Virginia and Michigan, problematic
funding gaps widened, the report said. When the changes were made,
backers of the switch predicted it would solve funding problems.
Critics of the report said it used faulty methodology and was
politically motivated. They said NERS has an agenda to keep
traditional public pensions in place.
In 2006, Alaska switched newly hired state workers from its two
biggest traditional defined benefit plans to a defined contribution
plan. Yet the funding gap doubled, from about $6 billion in 2006 to
$12 billion last year, according to the state. In 2014, Alaska made
a $3 billion cash infusion into the defined benefit plans to shore
them up.
One problem in Alaska, critics of the switch said, was that the old
pension plans still had to pay out pension benefits to workers hired
before 2006, but lacked contributions from new workers.
"I voted against the change, and now the state has had to come in
with a bailout. It's exactly what I said would happen," said Mike
Hawker, an Alaska Republican assembleyman.
Union-backed defenders of public pensions have been battling
reformers looking to curb rising costs. Reformers say state
contributions are lower and more predictable for defined
contribution plans, and that once the contributions are made the
long-term financial risk falls on the employee.
Pension costs were significant factors in bankruptcies of Detroit,
Michigan, and California's Stockton and San Bernardino. Recent
ballot initiatives in various states aimed at switching traditional
pensions systems to 401(k)-style plans have sparked bitter debate
and campaigns have attracted tens of millions of dollars in funding
from both sides.
Illinois Republican governor Bruce Rauner, in his first state of the
state address on Feb. 4, called for a switch to a less generous
401k-type plan for future state workers.
New Jersey Governor, Chris Christie, a Republican mulling a 2016
White House run, said last year his state must "stop the insanity of
a defined-benefit pension system that we cannot afford."
[to top of second column] |
NERS Executive Director Diane Oakley called the case studies a
"cautionary tale" for states thinking of making the switch.
Among critics of the NERS report were the Laura and John Arnold
Foundation, which has assets of $1.3 billion according to its latest
tax filings.
Hedge fund billionaire John Arnold, who runs the foundation with his
wife Laura, has donated millions of dollars toward efforts in U.S.
states to switch to defined contribution plans.
Josh McGee, vice president of accountability at the foundation, said
NERS has a history of "placing a heavy thumb" in favor of
traditional plans. He said the report was flawed because it assumed
that underfunding problems occurred in Alaska, West Virginia and
Michigan because of the switch to defined contribution plans.
McGee argued that "the states would have been in an even worse
fiscal position today had they stuck with their legacy plan for all
employees." He said there were already excellent defined
contribution plans in existence in the public sector in states
including Oregon, Colorado and Indiana.
"The defined benefit plan versus defined contribution plan debate is
beside the point," McGee said. "It is well designed plans that
matter."
(This version of the story corrects name of Laura and John Arnold
Foundation in 13th paragraph)
(Reporting by Tim Reid; Editing by David Gregorio)
[© 2015 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2015 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
 |
