The Post was wrong to call state pension programs ‘generous'

What a contrast between The Post's reporting and the editorial page on Jan. 2. The front page told the sobering story of a "lost decade" during which America's middle class saw no real gains in jobs, income, or net worth ["Aughts were a lost decade for U.S. economy, workers"]. But the editorial, "Pension tension," implied that some members of the middle class have it too good -- namely folks who teach our kids, keep our streets safe and provide other public services.

Characterizing retirement benefits that (by The Post's figures) average $1,470 per month as "generous" or even "lavish," the editorial made no mention of the fact that public employees typically contribute a significant chunk of every paycheck to their pensions, sharing the responsibility of financing their modest benefits. The editors also ignored that large numbers of these employees are ineligible for Social Security. In other words, that $1,470 pension check may be the only source of income in old age for a retired firefighter, social worker or school librarian.

While some states have been rightly reexamining their pension programs to ensure their long-term health, the solution cannot be a race to the bottom.

Rather, in light of the intense economic insecurity that Americans are feeling after this lost decade, we must restore the ability of all members of the middle class to achieve a modest, secure retirement.

Beth Almeida, Washington

The writer is executive director of the National Institute on Retirement Security.