Pension shortfalls the fault of towns

"Listen to your cities on growing pension impact," Our View, April 2, 2008, misleads the public and insults police officers and firefighters. You cite funding levels of police pension funds have declined from 1999 to 2007, but you failed to mention that in 1993 the method for funding those pensions changed. A 40-year period was allowed to reach full funding; and rather than level funding, it allowed for smaller payments in the earlier years, with payments ballooning over time.

Diligent municipalities maintained level funding, realizing the future impact of not doing so. I suspect the municipalities you support irresponsibly embraced the initial smaller payments, and are now facing increasingly larger payments.

Are you aware taxpayer money is not the only funding source for these pensions? Employees contribute nearly 10 percent of their salary. More important, returns from investments should be significantly more than the fund receives from taxpayers.

Regarding the firefighter who retires after 30 years and receives a 75 percent of salary pension (it's the same for police), I will remind you why we receive a pension. It's a reward for facing the risks of death or injury, suffering adverse health risks from working unusual hours, working weekends and holidays more than most other jobs, as well as a modest salary.

These pensions are earned, and you insult all who serve by saying a person is receiving a pension for "doing nothing." I dare you to proclaim the same of Social Security recipients who paid into a retirement system and now receive a pension for, as you say, "doing nothing."

If you believe municipalities can't meet pension obligations, remember the municipalities are responsible for proper funding. Taking aim at the recipient of the pension is irresponsible journalism. Instead, demand accountability from each municipality of its past and current funding and investments.

Myles Greenberg

Elk Grove Village