The Maine Wire
  • News
  • Commentary
  • Maine Wire TV
  • Podcasts
  • About
  • Contact
Facebook Twitter Instagram
Trending News
  • Buxton Man Convicted by Federal Jury for Threats Against Jewish People on Twitter
  • Portland Police Report Pair of Incidents Where Men Attempted to Lure School-Aged Children Into Vehicles
  • King, Collins, Pingree Request DHS Rule Change to Help Fund Shelter and Services for Migrants
  • Your Choice of Automobile Will Soon be Controlled by Californians
  • Maine Man Faces up to 5 Years, $250,000 Fine for Making False Statements to DEA Officer
  • CMP’s Alleged “Excessive Spending” in 2022 at Center of Upcoming Maine PUC Hearings
  • The Supreme Court Case That Could Make the Taxation of Unrealized Income Unconstitutional
  • Maine Hospital CEO Threatens to Fire 500 Employees If They Don’t Get Flu Vaccine
Facebook Twitter Instagram
The Maine Wire
Login
Friday, December 8
  • News
  • Commentary
  • Maine Wire TV
  • Podcasts
  • About
  • Contact
The Maine Wire
Home » News » Despite making required contributions, Maine's Pension Plan still considered endangered
News

Despite making required contributions, Maine's Pension Plan still considered endangered

Steve RobinsonBy Steve RobinsonNovember 26, 2012No Comments3 Mins Read
Facebook Twitter Email LinkedIn Reddit
Share
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email

As prescribed in Maine’s constitution, the state has been funding the Maine Public Employees Retirement System (MainePERS) in amounts equal to the annual required contributions calculated according to Governmental Accounting Standards Board rules since 1998.

Despite this good funding record, MainePERS was still considered endangered as of June 30, 2009, because its  asset-to-liability level is only 67.7%.   Put another way, the state had less than 68 cents to cover every dollar of benefits promised. The plan’s funding ratio has also been hurt by investment losses.

At that time MainePERS only had $8.3 billion of assets to cover the $12.3 billion of pension benefits promised.  Federal law considers a pension plan “endangered” when its funding ratio falls below 80 percent.

A great deal of this underfunding occurred before 1998 when elected officials promised pension benefits without setting money aside to fund these commitments.  Investment losses have also contributed to this underfunding.  In 1995 the state constitution was changed to end this practice in relation to the pension plan, but as mentioned below this practice continues today in relation to the retirees’ health care plans.

The schedule above also indicates that pension benefits promised equal more than 2 times current payroll.  Of course, all the amounts and percentages are based upon an assumed rate of return on investment of 7.5%.  If the plan assets make less than that rate of return, then the taxpayers will have to pay additional money to adequately fund the plan.

The increased money could be considerable if you take into account a U.S. Government Accountability Office study that indicated pension plans’ historical rates of return have only been 4.5%.

The schedule above also displays dismal percentages for the state’s OPEB plans.  These plans are for Other Post Employment Benefits, mostly retirees’ health care benefits.  As indicated very little money has been set aside to fund these benefits.  Less than 5 cents has been set aside for every dollar of benefits promised.  In dollar terms, only $117 million has been set aside to fund more than $2.4 billion of retirees’ health care benefits  promised.

Like the promise of pension benefits, the promise of retirees’ health care benefits has been used by elected officials to make the state budget appear balanced, while not including all of the compensation costs incurred during the budget period.  More than $2.4 billion of unfunded OPEB liability has been accumulated by using this deferred compensation scheme.  This liability was obscured until 2008 when the Governmental Accounting Standards Board started to require the disclose of this liability.

The state is now required to disclose this liability in the footnotes of its financial statements and to report an annual required contribution (ARC) on its income statement.  Unlike the pension plan, the state does not fund the OPEB’s annual required contribution.  In 2009 the state only contributed 56.6% of the annual required contribution.

If the state contributed the ARC each year, then the OPEB plans would be fully funded in 30 years. By not contributing the ARC, the unfunded liability continues to increase.

The Institute for Truth in Accounting believes a state budget is not truly balanced if the annual required contributions are not made into the state’s pension and OPEB plans.  Therefore in 2009 the state’s budget was out of balance by at least $62 million.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
pension
Previous Article$6.7 billion burden shifted to Maine's future taxpayers
Next Article 4 Reasons Warren Buffett Is Wrong on Tax Hikes
Steve Robinson
  • Twitter

Steve Robinson is the Editor-in-Chief of The Maine Wire. ‪He can be reached by email at Robinson@TheMaineWire.com.

Related Posts

Buxton Man Convicted by Federal Jury for Threats Against Jewish People on Twitter

December 8, 2023

Portland Police Report Pair of Incidents Where Men Attempted to Lure School-Aged Children Into Vehicles

December 8, 2023

King, Collins, Pingree Request DHS Rule Change to Help Fund Shelter and Services for Migrants

December 8, 2023

No Comments

  1. Anonymous on November 28, 2012 10:55 PM

    Maybe we should have fewer government employees and fewer promises. Attrition works in the former case – if implemented. In the latter instance, making alterations/amendments to PERS, Title 5, Part 20, Chapter 423, Subchapters 3, 4, & 5 would bring the system into a more affordable, fair, and balanced budgetary position. It would not hurt to simplify this overly elaborate & complex Statute so that ordinary working people who pay these people’s salaries could understand it.
    This should happen in any upcoming negotiations between the union(s) and our hired “representatives” looking out for the welfare of the State & its budget – that is, its requirement to be in balance.

Leave A Reply

Recent News

Buxton Man Convicted by Federal Jury for Threats Against Jewish People on Twitter

December 8, 2023

Portland Police Report Pair of Incidents Where Men Attempted to Lure School-Aged Children Into Vehicles

December 8, 2023

King, Collins, Pingree Request DHS Rule Change to Help Fund Shelter and Services for Migrants

December 8, 2023

Maine Man Faces up to 5 Years, $250,000 Fine for Making False Statements to DEA Officer

December 7, 2023

CMP’s Alleged “Excessive Spending” in 2022 at Center of Upcoming Maine PUC Hearings

December 7, 2023
Newsletter

News

  • News
  • Campaigns & Elections
  • Opinion & Commentary
  • Media Watch
  • Education
  • Media

Maine Wire

  • About the Maine Wire
  • Advertising
  • Contact Us
  • Submit Commentary
  • Complaints
  • Maine Policy Institute

Resources

  • Maine Legislature
  • Legislation Finder
  • Get the Newsletter
  • Maine Wire TV

Facebook Twitter Instagram Steam RSS
  • Post Office Box 7829, Portland, Maine 04112

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.

Sign In or Register

Welcome Back!

Login below or Register Now.

Lost password?

Register Now!

Already registered? Login.

A password will be e-mailed to you.