The multiplying risks of public employee pensions to state and local government budgets

Reuters

Detroit city workers and retirees carry signs protesting against cuts in their city pensions during a protest against the city's municipal bankruptcy filing, outside the Federal courthouse in Detroit, Michigan October 23, 2013.

Article Highlights

  • Pension risks to government budgets have multiplied by a factor of 10 over last 4 decades.

    Tweet This

  • Pension assets have nearly tripled to 143 percent of government outlays.

    Tweet This

  • More modest benefits and increased risk sharing could reduce pensions' risks to government budgets.

    Tweet This

Subscribe to
The Ledger
Get AEI's weekly snapshot of economic news, views, and cues.

First Name:
Last Name:
Email:
Zip Code:

State and local government pensions tout their ability to couple generous, guaranteed benefits for public employees with low and stable contributions from taxpayers. In reality, the risks that public pensions pose to taxpayers and government budgets have multiplied by a factor of 10 over the past four decades. While elected officials—including a number of Democratic mayors—are pushing for reforms, even they may not be aware of how much pension risk government budgets are truly bearing.

State and local governments contribute to public employee pension plans on the expectation that they will receive high and steady returns on the plans’ investments. Public plans generally assume annual returns of around 8 percent and calculate their required contributions on the assumption that they will receive these returns going forward.[1]

But pension investments are risky. If actual returns fall short of the assumed rate, the sponsor must make larger catch-up contributions in future years. These catch-up contributions—referred to as amortization payments, as they pay off unfunded liabilities generated when investment returns fall short—increase pensions’ burden on government budgets. This is particularly true because investment returns tend to be correlated with the state of the economy. This means that a plan often will need to increase its pension contributions in bad economic times, precisely when tax revenues are lowest and the call on tax revenues for other purposes are greatest.

If contributions rise too high, governments may even skip making them. This alleviates the immediate budgetary burden but obviously only worsens the problem for the future. This is especially problematic because the future payments must also include interest at the 8 percent rate that plans assume for their investments. Public plans have seen both higher required contributions and skipped payments over the past decade.

What many elected officials do not understand is how much these risks have grown.

Read the full report.

Also Visit
AEIdeas Blog The American Magazine
About the Author

 

Andrew G.
Biggs

What's new on AEI

We still don't know how many people Obamacare enrolled
image The war on invisible poverty
image Cutting fat from the budget
image Speaker of the House John Boehner on resetting America’s economic foundation
AEI on Facebook
Events Calendar
  • 22
    MON
  • 23
    TUE
  • 24
    WED
  • 25
    THU
  • 26
    FRI
Monday, September 22, 2014 | 2:30 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.
Policy implications of the new US labor market normal

We welcome you to join us as a panel of economists discuss US wage and price prospects in the coming months and the implications for the Federal Reserve’s current unorthodox monetary policy.

No events scheduled today.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.