Congratulations to the editors of the New Haven Register for bringing into focus the major problem in Connecticut's (and many other states) budget crisis: state employee retirement benefits and pensions.
Most workers these days, unlike state employees, will not retire before age 65 and will rely more on a 401(k) plan than a pension. Any pension that uses overtime in its calculation will obviously be inflated. The ability of state workers to retire before 65 and receive inflated pensions, in conjunction with the latest life expectancy statistics, puts an undue burden on the Connecticut taxpayer.
No one is blaming the state employees. One would be foolish not to take full advantage of any program where you could retire early, keep benefits after retirement, and work overtime hours to count towards your pension. And, who could have predicted that the average person in this state would survive into their 80s?
But these realities suggest that the original idea of lifetime benefits calculated this way, after an early retirement, is presently not economically sustainable.
Reopening the 20-year agreement certainly seems like a necessary move to change this fiscally draining system into a more contemporary retirement plan. One has to wonder how any financially responsible party would have allowed a 20-year agreement in the first place. Financial predictions are hard enough to make one year in advance, let alone 20 years.
Revisiting the agreement now makes good sense, but only if all parties involved enter negotiations with an open mind and long term goals for the good of the State of Connecticut.
Michael Santacroce
Cheshire