IBJNews

Pew study questions health of Indiana's public pensions

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint
On The Beat Industry News In Brief

The Washington, D.C.-based Pew Center on the States has “serious concerns” about Indiana’s long-term ability to pay for its public employee pensions. And PEW says Indiana “needs improvement” in setting aside money for retirees’ future health care and other benefits.

In its 2010 report “The Trillion Dollar Gap,” Pew identifies $3.4 trillion in total employee retirement payments that U.S. states have promised cops, firefighters, teachers and other state workers. But states have collectively set aside only $2.4 trillion to pay their bills.

And Pew warns the actual situation may be worse.

“Pew’s numbers likely underestimate the bill coming due because the most recent available data do not account for the second half of 2008, when states’ pension fund investments were particularly affected by the financial crisis,” read the Pew report.

Pew points out that Indiana’s state pension assets increased 99 percent from 1999 to 2007, while its liabilities grew only 76 percent. Even so, it believes Indiana hasn’t set enough aside, particularly in support of its future obligations for retired teachers.

“Indiana’s management of its long-term pension liability is cause for serious concern, and the state needs to improve how it handles its retiree health care and other benefit obligations,” the report read. “It has funded only 70 percent of its total pension bill—well below the 80 percent benchmark that the U.S. Government Accountability Office says is preferred by experts.”

According to Pew, Indiana is one of 19 states that have failed to put money aside to pay for future retiree health care and benefits obligations. It puts the state’s unfunded price tag in this area at $442.3 million.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

  2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

  3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

  4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

  5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

ADVERTISEMENT