Sunday, May 18, 2008
EDITOR:
Last Sunday’s Vindicator editorial, “Pennsylvania’s legislators up to no good on pensions,” which relied on information from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, a conservative newspaper that would privatize almost everything under the guise of protecting the taxpayers, was not only unconscionable but inflammatory since it contained misrepresentations, information that does not accord with the truth, and fraudulent tampering with facts in such a way to demean Pennsylvania pre-Act 9 retired public state individuals.
The Lawrence County School Retirees (LCSR) authored HB 2084, sponsored by Rep. Jaret Gibbons, D-Beaver and Lawrence counties, as a partial parity bill, which would come directly from the pension fund for pre-Act 9 school and state retirees with no tax increase, only to have it amended by Rep. Matt Baker, R-Tioga and Bradford counties, in the State Government Committee, to match HB 2379, introduced by Rep. Steven Nickol, R-Adams and York counties, in the Finance Committee. The original HB 2084 was for only those who were forgotten in Act 9, which gave a 25 percent increase to school employees, state employees, and 50 percent increase to the General Assembly members in their retirements after July 1, 2001 (not 2002 as your article stated). HB 2379 and the newly amended 2084 include post-Act 9 school and state retirees.
To understand the dilemma for the pre-Act 9 retiree, one only has to look at the vast disparity between two Lawrence County teachers from 1977 in New Wilmington and 2002 in New Castle. Under Act 2379, and the newly amended HB 2084, a 1977 retired New Wilmington teacher of 30 years would have the highest percentage increase of 25 percent added to her $945 a month pension for a total of $1181 after her $236 increase. Under Act 2379 and amended HB 2084, the 2002 New Castle retired teacher of 30 years would have a percentage increase of 9.15 added to his monthly pension of approximately $3,000 for a total of $3,274 after his $274 increase. More money is received by the one with more money.
Act 9 was an excellent piece of legislation in that it provided the state and school retirees, in most cases, a pension that would provide the financial dignity befitting a state retiree. The problem for pre-Act 9 retirees arises from three facts: 1) Pennsylvania is last of all 50 states in the number of COLAs granted. 2) All school and state retirees were forgotten in Act 9; (3) The pre-Act 9 retirees retired at a much lower salary or wage then the post-Act 9 retirees, therefore, their pensions were much smaller. Older pre-Act 9 retirees do not have Social Security since they made so little money years ago that they did not sign-up to have more money deducted from their checks.
The average income in your article of $21,000 is drastically inflated since it includes the post-Act 9 state retirees who received much higher wages and salaries plus a 25 percent to 50 percent increase in their computations. I paid for medical coverage for my wife and myself until Medicare coverage.
The General Assembly members, state employees, and school retirees of post-Act 9 do not need increases in their retirements until some sort of parity is enacted in Pennsylvania for the pre-Act 9 retirees.
VINCE SCIALABBA
New Castle, Pa.