Opponents of pension reform often cite partisan politics and ideology as the driving forces behind efforts to repair underfunded retirement systems.

This claim, exemplified in a recent Bradenton Times editorial by Dennis Maley, criticized efforts to further reform Florida's pension system.

Unfortunately, Mr. Maley ignores the truly bipartisan nature of many successful pension reform efforts around the country.

A recent study revealed that the average public employee's pension plan in the United States is only 41 percent funded -- bringing total state and local unfunded liabilities to an estimated $4.6 trillion. Florida's total state and local unfunded liability is estimated to be about $90 billion.

The fact of the matter is that pension reform attempts to address one of the largest financial problems facing states today and these efforts have been supported by policymakers from both sides of the aisle.

Few would accuse Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, a lifelong liberal and former White House chief of staff under President Obama, of being ideologically opposed to pensions or public-sector unions. However, Mayor Emanuel addressed the city's $20 billion pension shortfall in 2012 with a set of concrete recommendations, which included increases in the retirement age and a freeze in cost-of-living adjustments.

"If we follow along the current path," Emanuel explained in a letter to city employees, "we know we will confront two stark choices: Either the city's pension payments will squeeze its ability to offer the essential services that you provide, or each of our pension funds will go bankrupt, leaving you and your families without retirement security."

One could hardly call this an ideological proposition; rather, it seems to be an honest acknowledgement of reality and the consequences of inaction.

There are also several examples of states that have worked across the aisle to implement sound budget and pension practices. One such instance occurred in Rhode Island in 2011, when the overwhelmingly "blue" state enacted major reforms that created a 401(k)-style hybrid plan. Despite facing some opposition, Speaker Gordon Fox and state Treasurer Gina Raimondo (both Democrats) worked together to stabilize the pension system and reduce the state's unfunded liability by $3 billion.

Utah also tackled pension reform head-on in 2011 with the leadership of conservative Sen. Dan Liljenquist. Utah eliminated its old defined-benefit pension plan, creating a new system for enrollees hired after July 1, 2011. New employees now have the option of a 401(k)-style plan or a hybrid pension program. Without these reforms, the Utah retirement fund, which was the nation's best funded before the 2008 crash, would have faced a 50 percent chance of becoming insolvent by 2028.

These examples of sustainable, responsible pension reform offer a model for other states looking to proactively address this important issue. Most importantly, none of the efforts described above represent attempts to "ideologically attack the idea of a pension," as Mr. Maley's editorial misleadingly suggests.

Opponents of reform often throw around charges of partisanship, but the accusations are far from reality.



Jonathan Williams is the director of ALEC's Center for State Fiscal Reform; Fara Klein is a research analyst for ALEC’s Center for State Fiscal Reform.