While Gov. Chris Christie is still several weeks away from announcing his proposal to overhaul New Jersey’s pension and retiree health benefits system, his plan seems most likely to center on a “hybrid” model that would give current employees a smallersupplemented by a 401K-style defined contribution plan.
Christie, who was forced to make alast week to balance the budget, has repeatedly made it clear that he believes the only way out of the state’s deepening pension crisis “is to stop the insanity of a defined-benefit pension system that we cannot afford.”
The problem, Treasurer Andrew Sidamon-Eristoff told the Senate and Assembly budget committees last week, is that a “hard cutover” from the current defined benefit plan to a 401K-style defined contribution for current employees would actually increase the state’s annual pension bill because employee contributions are needed to help amortize the system’s $54 billion unfunded liability.
However, Sidamon-Eristoff said “there are ways to phase in” the transition from a defined-benefit system -- under which retirees are guaranteed a set monthly check based on their five years of highest pay and number of years worked -- to a 401K-style defined contribution system that could convert into an annuity based upon how much is in the account at retirement.
Sidamon-Eristoff said Christie administration officials have been analyzing pension reform plans in various states for “many months.” He emphasized that the final decision on pension reform would be made by Christie, but he specifically cited the hybrid pension system that Rhode Island’s independent governor and Democratic Legislature approved in 2011 as “an interesting model that bears analysis” in an Assembly Budget Committee hearing last Wednesday. Under the, state employees with less than 20 years of service who paid 8.5 percent toward their traditional defined-benefit pensions now continue to pay 3.5 percent toward their regular pensions, but put the other 5 percent into a 401K-style defined contribution plan with a choice of mutual funds.
Gov. Lincoln Chafee later-- “much to my disappointment,” Sidamon-Eristoff noted – in an effort to avoid a lawsuit by the public employee unions, but the unions sued anyway. A trial is scheduled for September -- the same month that the plan’s author, Treasurer Gina Raimondo, is favored to win a Democratic primary for governor that is being dominated by the pension issue.
“We’ll know by the fall whether the Rhode Island plan holds up in court or not,” said Eileen Norcross,at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center. “Rhode Island’s the only state so far that has created a combined defined-contribution and defined-benefit system for current employees, not just new hires. The advantage is that it switches some of the risk to the employees, and it reduces the unfunded liability.”
Four other states -- Tennessee, Virginia, Georgia, and Utah -- have also passed hybrid plans that reduce defined-benefit pensions for new employees, and either require or allow employees to pay into 401K-style defined-contribution plans, the.
“Michigan switched to a defined-contribution plan for new hires in 1997 knowing that it would face a problem 20 years down the road,” Norcross noted. “But when you have a short time horizon and a large liability, as New Jersey does, your options are limited.”
Part of the challenge is that New Jersey already has enacted significant pension changes.
Christie and Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D-Gloucester) declared that they had put New Jersey’s pension system on the road to solvency in 2011 when they teamed up to push through legislation that saved $74 billion over 30 years by cutting retiree cost-of-living increases -- a cut that is being-- and another $48 billion by requiring employees to pay more toward their pensions, reducing pensions for those taking early retirement, and raising the retirement age from 62 to 65.
The 2011 law followed one year after passage of an equally important law committing the state to a seven-year ramp-up to the full actuarially required pension payments by Fiscal Year 2018 to make up for 15 years of underfunding of the state’s pension system by Democratic and Republican governors and legislatures alike.
It was that earlier law that Christie decided to ignore when he announced that he would retroactively cut the required third-year pension payment for FY14 from $1.58 billion to $696 million, and the scheduled fourth-year FY15 payment from $2.25 billion to $681 million to plug a $2.7 billion budget gap that suddenly emerged in April when income tax collections from wealthy taxpayers nosedived.
Sidamon-Eristoff last week billed the two-year pension cut as a necessary short-term fiscal maneuver and said the state intended to make a $2.5 billion payment in FY16, putting it on schedule to ramp up to actuarially required funding in 2019 -- one year behind schedule -- when the required payment would most likely top $5 billion.
But Senate Budget Chairman Paul Sarlo (D-Bergen) questioned last week how the Christie administration could possibly find enough money to increase the state’s pension payment next year from $681 million to $2.5 billion -- a funding jump that would probably exceed the total increase in state revenues that year.
Each year that the state fails to make the actuarially required payment, the unfunded pension liability grows. In fact, the state’s share of the total $54 billion unfunded liability for state and local government will grow from $38 billion to more than $40 billion over the next year just as a result of the pension payment cuts Christie announced last week. Further, the portfolio’s funded ratio will drop from 53.72 percent to 50.8 percent, Sidamon-Eristoff acknowledged.
Christie started the drumbeat for further pension and retiree healthcare cuts in January when he declared that soaring pensions, retiree health benefits and debt-service costs were eating up 94 percent of the revenue increase in this year’s budget.
While Christie originally planned to push for pension and retiree health benefit changes as part of his FY16 budget plan next January, April’s budget crisis, the, and the need to cut the pension payments led him to speed up his timetable.