The retirement benefits landscape is complex, but one federal law stands out for its role in regulating private-sector pensions: the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Enacted in 1974, ERISA introduced accountability, transparency, and worker protections.
However, its exemption for state and local government pension plans has resulted in widespread underfunding, opacity, and risks that could burden national taxpayers through potential bailouts. Amending ERISA to eliminate this exemption would foster a more sustainable and equitable public pension system by depoliticizing the management of these systems.
Why ERISA Matters
ERISA's primary objective is to protect workers' retirement benefits in private-sector plans. It sets rigorous standards for employers offering pensions, including proper liability accounting, actuarially sound funding, and management in the best interests of participants. Before ERISA, corporations often underfunded defined-benefit plans, putting employees at risk. The law addressed this, but exempted public plans.
The Public Exemption: A Failed Trust
Congress exempted state and local governments, assuming they'd self-regulate responsibly. This trust has proven misplaced, leading to the very issues ERISA aimed to prevent: chronic underfunding and fiscal risks. On average, states have saved only 69 cents per dollar of promised benefits. Eight states would qualify as "critical" under ERISA (below 65% funded), including Illinois and New Jersey, both under 50% funded. Pension costs have tripled as a share of state/local budgets since 1972, squeezing services like education and infrastructure, and saddling future generations with debt.
Hypocrisy in States' Rights Claims
Critics argue that applying ERISA to public pensions violates states' rights. Yet this stance is hypocritical, as states already comply with federal mandates for tax advantages. For instance, Illinois—despite its dismal pension funding—used adherence to the IRS’s Safe Harbor mandate as justification for passing legislation to increase the pensions of Chicago police and firefighters, which will cost Chicago $11 billion over 30 years. Nobody claimed states' rights with this issue.
Additionally, states comply with IRS requirements under the Internal Revenue Code to maintain tax-qualified status for their plans, thereby ensuring that deferred taxation applies to contributions and benefits. IRC Section 457(b) covers deferred compensation plans for state and local government employees, also allowing for tax deferral if the plan is compliant.
This voluntary submission to federal oversight for fiscal perks undermines claims of sovereignty when resisting similar ERISA standards for proper funding and accountability. If states accept IRS mandates to borrow cheaply via tax-exempt bonds or secure other federal aid, it's reasonable to expect uniform national standards for pension management without infringing on core state authority.
Key Arguments for Amendment
Extending ERISA's funding and transparency rules to public plans would protect employees, taxpayers, and stability:
-
Fiscal Responsibility: Curb rising pension costs crowding out essential services.
-
Transparency and Accountability: Address trustees' conflicts, prioritizing solvency over politics.
-
Equity: Align public standards with private-sector requirements.
-
Sustainability: Mandate realistic funding and quicker debt repayment.
-
Crisis Prevention: Avoid federal bailouts, as seen in recent union pension rescues.
-
Flexibility: Allow states to reform benefits or adopt defined-contribution models.
The federal government already imposes standards on private pensions, health plans, and corporate accounting. Public pensions, involving trillions in liabilities, deserve no less to ensure promises are kept. Amending ERISA isn't about a federal takeover; it's about enforcing baseline transparency and responsibility, which remains unaffected in well-managed states where some public plans voluntarily adopt ERISA-like practices for better governance.
Amending ERISA will eliminate playing politics with pensions. It will bring transparency and accountability to the promises being made to public workers, who deserve to know the truth about their pensions.
Truth in Accounting does not provide financial advice. Consult legal and financial experts for retirement concerns.