How to slash the state.

• Author: Stroll, Ted
• Position: Letters - Letter to the editor

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

I'm a California state employee. If I survive to retirement, I will receive a defined-benefit pension for which I'm exceedingly grateful. Contrary to Tim Cavanaugh's view that we California state employees don't fund our plan ("How to Slash the State," November), I've paid into mine through hefty deductions for more than 20 years. I fund part of it, the plan's investments fund much of it, and the taxpayers fund the rest.

Cavanaugh proposes to end such plans because "public servants," "like the rest of us," should bear the responsibility of "manag[ing] their own retirement nest eggs." That is not a core libertarian position--at least not a sound one--nor does it make economic sense.

Assuming there's an efficient labor market, my salary is lower than the salaries of others similarly situated because the benefit of a set future income is valuable. If a public entity wants employees with certain skills and qualifications, it must pay them a certain amount or lose them to competing employers. Whether the amount comes in the form of current income (the higher salary that must be paid to someone with a 401(k)) or a combination of current and anticipated future income (including the lower salary that may be paid to someone with a defined-benefit plan) shouldn't matter economically, assuming rational and well-informed employers and employees.

People might argue that if the foregoing is true, the form of payment doesn't matter. We may...