Unethical to break pension promises

How simple it is for Jan Shaw to solve the pension crisis. In her recent letter to the editor she indicates that the funding problem can be alleviated by passing a constitutional amendment and “going back on a promise.”

Ms. Shaw believes that taxpayers have no agreement to pay for the pension system. I disagree. In a representative form of government voters (read: taxpayers) elect legislators who have the responsibility of acting for the populace. Those legislators created the Teachers Retirement System and approved all of the subsequent contribution requirements and benefit enhancements.

Unfortunately, those same individuals or their successors failed in their fiduciary duty to fund that system adequately. Their lack of action does not erase the contractual agreement between the TRS participants and the state of Illinois.

Ms. Shaw also uses selective facts to prove the inadequacy of the TRS investment returns. While her 3.7 percent return for the last decade, 2001-2010, is accurate, the return over the last 30 years was 9.3 percent, which exceeds the assumed return rate of 8.5 percent. The return for the 2011 fiscal year was 23.6 percent.

Finally, with her description of average pension amounts and average teacher salaries, she implies that benefit levels are excessive. This argument fails to consider the contributions that each annuitant made to the TRS system without fail.

Teachers have always paid the full contribution amount required by law to generate the defined benefits promised. The benefits received by the annuitants are not the root cause of the pension crisis.

As a TRS annuitant, I am concerned about the pension problem and have a vested interest in its solution. As a citizen and taxpayer, I believe it would be immoral and unethical to solve the problem by going back on the promises made to plan participants.

Dean Bladel

Glen Ellyn