PERA changes unfair to retirees

Move could deter people from seeking a public service career

Let me preface my remarks by saying that I am retired and a member of New Mexico PERA, and as such am dependent upon that plan.

From very early on until the end of my police career, I was required to contribute 16½ percent of my gross pay into PERA and was assured my retirement benefits were secure and not subject to change after retirement. Another factor affecting my overall retirement benefits is that as a police officer, I was not given the option to participate in Social Security. As a result, the smaller Social Security benefit that I will be entitled to based upon other employment will be penalized and made even smaller by the Social Security Administration because, as police, we did not participate in the Social Security System.

New Mexico’s PERA retirees have already experienced unexpected changes to our retirement benefits when the annual cost-of-living adjustment was reduced from 3 percent to 2 percent. And I recently read a letter in the Journal’s Op/Ed section in which the writer recommends that all cost-of-living adjustments for retirees should be “frozen” until the PERA and ERA retirement systems are 100 percent funded — which he writes could be accomplished in 30 years. Freezing my cost-of-living adjustments for 30 years would probably be for the rest of my life.

I am retired, in my 60s and no longer have the option of extending my public service career or contributing more into PERA. Nor do I have the option of never having had that career in public service in the first place. I do not claim to know how to resolve the funding issues with PERA, but I feel that it is unfair to ask retirees, who did what they were required to do, to shoulder responsibility for it.

If changes like these to retirees’ benefits are allowed to be implemented, I feel that it will be a cautionary flag for anybody that might be considering a career in public service, that you cannot depend upon our government to do what it says it will do. The wages in public service are generally not as attractive as in the private sector, but the benefits, especially retirement plans, are very attractive as most private employers no longer offer pensions. Freezing the cost-of-living adjustment would also affect retirees to come.

PERA has already increased the service requirement to receive full retirement. In addition, most PERA employees will not receive their first cost-of-living adjustment for several years after they retire, or until they turn 65. The move to freeze the cost-of-living adjustment could deter people from seeking a career in public service.