Pension Reform II may cost you money

I’ve blogged in the past about the comments of several members of the Pension Reform Commission who have talked about possibly raising the amount spent on pensions for public employees.

Now that the Commission has submitted their initial list of potential proposals to PERAC’s actuary for costing, several members have reinforced my initial opinion:

“The whole idea of cost neutrality, I don’t know how you balance that when it gets to the legislature,” said state Sen. Kenneth Donnelly, a former commissioner with the Public Employee Retirement Administration Commission.

“I think the chairman (Munnell) believed it would be good to have a cost-neutral proposal. I don’t know if that’s really possible,” the Arlington Democrat said.

and

“Reform does not mean ‘take away,’”[state Senator] McGee said. “It means to improve, to make better. The system needs to be improved, but it will probably take additional tax dollars to do that.

I’d note that all three appointees from the Senate have now stated publicly that pension reform may require additional funds.

I’m curious if this is what Senate President Murray had in mind when she promised that “we will also continue to look at more complex issues within the system for more comprehensive reforms and savings for the Commonwealth“.