My first question: Do we really need another editorial on how bad and evil pensions are for state workers?
Are they generous? At face value, yes, but consider this fact:
state workers and teachers are not eligible for Social Security.Once you calculate for that weird quirk in Massachusetts, a typical state worker's pension isn't nearly as generous as it sounds. In fact, it's not even better than someone who collects social security, if that person also invested in a 401(k) program for most of their working life. Furthermore, people who get pensions pay into them - quite a lot every year, at that (and they aren't eligible for social security, even when they had jobs in the private sector for years of their life, paying into the S.S. system). With all that considered, pardon me if I think this constant fixation on pensions in this state is poison. Heaven forbid someone be relatively comfortable in their retirement!
But this is the real kicker:
Public employee pensions have unfortunately become a popular bete noire for limited-government types, who have seized upon some recent high-profile abuses to paint deserving retirees with the same broad brush.Does the Globe not realize or get that it's one of the prime sources in stoking this flame? Remember the old saying, "If it bleeds, it leads?" Well, in the Boston Globe, it's basically, "If it's about a pension, give it attention." The Globe shouldn't stoop so low as to blame this poisonous problem on just the limited-government types: the Paper of Record is far more to blame than any Mass member of the CLT or their brethren. It's the Globe that's spent cheap ink for their hundreds of cheap pension headlines, usually absurd in magnitude, with no real importance to the people of this Commonwealth. Are the editors really going to blame limited-government types in the very same editorial that they're guilty as charged? Really?