A18
R
KLMNO
FGHIJ
Pretend pensions
an independent newspaper
EDITORIALS
A California study bolsters the case for reform.
H
ERE’S MORE evidence that state govern- ments are not leveling with their citizens about the costs of pensions for public em- ployees: A new Stanford University study commissioned by California Gov. Arnold Schwar- zenegger (R) has found that that the state’s pen- sion funds are understating their likely unfunded liabilities by almost half a trillion dollars. California’s three largest funds, with a com- bined $442.1 billion in assets as of mid-2008, cal- culate their projected liabilities based on rates of return of between 7.5 percent and 8 percent. These assumptions yield a relatively modest $55.4 billion gap, easily covered by adjusting annual contribu- tions. But this rosy scenario begins to look implau- sible when you consider that it requires fund man- agers to beat the 5.3 percent annual rate of return
Fiscal combo platter
How a new commission to address the federal deficit can succeed
I
T IS EASY, and perhaps even justified, to be pessimistic about the prospects for the newly created Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. The panel is supposed to report
to President Obama and Congress by December with a plan for getting the federal deficit down to manageable levels; the rules require agreement from 14 of the 18 members. That means that two of the Republican congressional appointees would have to concur in the recommendations of the commission, which is conceivable but not likely. Look at it this way: What are the chances of
achieving consensus in a group that includes liberal Democrat Rep. Jan Schakowsky (Ill.) and conservative Republican Rep. Jeb Hensarling (Tex.)? The other Republicans, for the record, are Sens. Judd Gregg (N.H.), Michael D. Crapo (Idaho) and Tom Coburn (Okla.), along with Reps. Paul D. Ryan (Wis.) and Dave Camp (Mich.) The chances aren’t great, but then again, there’s no opportunity cost in trying. Fiscal responsibility is unlikely to sweep Congress before the midterm election. And there are arguable benefits to the ex- ercise even if it fails. First, there is a possibility that the commission could focus effectively on a more modest target, such as putting Social Security on a sustainable footing. The elements of a Social Security deal — changes to reflect increased life expectancy, an in- crease in the amount of earnings subject to taxa- tion and altering the indexation of benefits — are obvious. Both sides have incentives to make a deal: the administration and Democrats to show their ability to tackle the deficit, Republicans to get the issue off the table during the Democrats’ watch. Second, and more likely, even a splintered com- mission could come up with competing plans for addressing the fiscal problem. These could in turn be a framework for future discussions or for rec- ommendations by the president, whose advisers insist that he is serious about tackling the fiscal sit- uation. A timely reminder of the need for action came last week from Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke. “To avoid large and unsustainable budget deficits, the nation will ultimately have to choose among higher taxes, modifications to enti- tlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare, less spending on everything else from education to defense, or some combination of the above,” Mr. Bernanke said. “These choices are diffi- cult, and it always seems easier to put them off — until the day they cannot be put off any more. But unless we as a nation demonstrate a strong com- mitment to fiscal responsibility, in the longer run we will have neither financial stability nor healthy economic growth.” The only realistic solution is Mr. Bernanke’s combination platter: The neces- sary savings can’t be achieved on the tax or spend- ing side alone. The fiscal responsibility commission could do
the nation a service by acknowledging this diffi- cult truth, or at the very least by offering a clear picture of how unappetizing the extreme recipes of both sides would be.
that U.S. stocks rang up in the 20th century. The Stanford researchers used a far more conservative and — given both distant and recent history — re- alistic rate of 4.14 percent, roughly what the funds would earn if invested in risk-free U.S. Treasury se- curities. The result was an estimated unfunded lia- bility 10 times bigger than the official figure. To be sure, there is absolutely nothing illegal or improper about the way California’s pension funds do the math now. The vast majority of states and local governments calculate their liabilities simi- larly. It is, in fact, perfectly permissible to do so un- der guidelines set by the Governmental Account- ing Standards Board (GASB), the official body that sets norms in this area. But that’s just the problem: Everybody does it. According to research by Rob- ert Novy-Marx of the University of Chicago and
Joshua D. Rauh of Northwestern University, doing the same calculation for the rest of the states that Stanford did for California yields an estimated $3.92 trillion nationwide shortfall for the period 2008-2023. It’s no mystery why states got into this fix. Politi- cians want to court public employee unions with generous promises without having to ask taxpay- ers for more money. Pretending that investment income will solve the equation helps them avoid hard choices — though it gives fund managers a strong perverse incentive to take excessive risks in hopes of meeting unrealistic targets. The GASB has been considering a change in its standards to bring them closer into line with requirements in the private sector. The California study provides another strong argument in favor of reform.
TOM TOLES
SUNDAY, APRIL 11, 2010
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
dletters@washpost.com
Dealing with abuse cases
I am offended by the often-expressed view that one
way to address the problem of sexual abuse by priests is to allow them to marry, because, to quote April 7 letter writer Estelle Jacobs, “celibacy is an unnatural human condition and leads to unnatural conse- quences.”
Since when does abuse have anything to do with
love, sexuality and the relationship between two peo- ple who want to share their lives with each other? Many men and women who have been convicted of abuse were married when they committed these “un- natural” acts against their spouses, their children or the children of others. The victims suffered numer- ous “unnatural consequences” of their relationships with people who should have been loving supporters and protectors.
If you wish to argue that Roman Catholic priests should be allowed to marry, please do not use abuse to make your case. You insult any and all victims of abuse, both physical as well as psychological.
MARGARETDIKEL, Rockville
Michael Gerson [“The pope’s bad rap on sex
abuse,” op-ed, April 7] correctly pointed out the great progress made by the Catholic Church in the United States on dealing with pedophilia. Would that the Vatican could learn from the experience. All I hear from Rome [“Vatican priest fans fire on abuse,” front page, April 3] is how victimized the church hierarchy is, with hardly a word about the real victims. The U.S. church still lags, however, in one impor- tant respect. It maintains its stranglehold on some of the victims’ ability to speak out about their abuse by insisting on the confidentiality agreements it wrest- ed from them in settling lawsuits. Help them heal by letting them speak. The lurid
facts about what Pope Benedict XVI called the “filth” are coming out anyway.
DAVIDMCAULEY, McLean
The roots — and toll — of bullying
Regarding Ruth Marcus’s April 7 op-ed column,
“The wrong hammer for bullies”: The behavior in the case of Phoebe Prince was not “normal girl drama,” as one student quoted in the col- umn said. When I was in high school in Massachu- setts in the 1980s, I never exhibited, was subjected to or witnessed the behavior that has been described in this case.
If I faced this behavior as an adult, I would file a
claim at work or go to the police to press charges. And as for Ms. Marcus’s assertion that we shouldn’t pros- ecute teenagers for this behavior because “the teen- age brain is a work in progress”? Part of the learning experience is having to face the consequences of one’s actions. Teasing is one thing; harassing and throwing objects are something else. Those constitute crimes.
ALEXANDRA SIMPSON, Fairfax
While Richard Cohen was right to berate the per-
Promises, promises
Special interests demand them. Candidates make them. But will voters know?
PECIAL INTEREST groups routinely ask candidates for public office to promise they would back the groups’ pet projects and causes. But not many interest groups have the chutzpah to seek support from politicians for huge public expenditures and even tax increases to fund a specific future deal, sight unseen. That’s precisely what the teachers union in Montgomery County has done in the past. In 2006 the union, known as the Montgomery
S
County Education Association, included this question on its questionnaire for candidates seek- ing its endorsement for the Montgomery County Council: “Would you support a tax increase, if necessary, to fund the school budget and the ne- gotiated agreements [setting salaries and benefits for teachers]? If so, in what way would you in- crease taxes?” Keep in mind that these contracts put taxpay- ers on the hook far into the future for tens of mil- lions of dollars. You’d think that a candidate might want to, say, review the impact of a contract covering 11,000 public employees and packing a massive budgetary punch before promising to raise taxes to pay for it. What’s amazing is that most candidates gave a positive response. Or maybe it’s not so amazing. The teachers union wields such outsized influence in Mont- gomery County that it has been able to persuade candidates, once they receive the union’s endorse- ment, to pony up thousands of dollars to finance the union’s own mailings and campaigns on their
behalf. That perverse practice is virtually unheard of elsewhere. It outsources campaigns to one powerful special interest group. Now, with elec- tion season approaching, candidates are again braced for a barrage of questionnaires — from groups representing business, the environment, animals, firearms, abortion rights, developers, transit — even, implausible as it may seem, good government. A number of groups, not just unions, solicit spending promises, sometimes hefty ones, for their priorities — though generally (unlike with prospective contracts) the price tag is more or less known. In 2006, for instance, the Greater Washington Board of Trade asked candidates in Montgomery if they’d favor construction of the Intercounty Connector, a new highway. The teachers union says that this year’s ques- tionnaire will not seek specific promises to sup- port tax increases to fund future contracts; in- stead, it will ask candidates broadly about their views on “honoring negotiated agreements” — in the case of teachers, agreements negotiated by the school system. To its credit, the union says that it will post all completed questionnaires on its Web site this year; we hope that candidates and other interest groups follow suit. Those are modest steps in the right direction in Montgomery, which, having spent profligately in the past, is in a severe budgetary fix and risks losing its AAA bond rating. Let’s hope politicians are more prudent about their promises in this election cycle than they were in the last.
petrators’ parents for their apparent blindness to the incidents leading to Phoebe Prince’s suicide, he doesn’t trace the lack of parental responsibility back far enough [“Wanted: A few good parents,” op-ed, April 6]. Yes, had parents put an end to their kids’ de- plorable actions, it might have saved an innocent life, but what parental missteps led to this horrific end? If teenagers are, as Mr. Cohen writes, “superficial, cruel, conformist, hedonistic and self-absorbed,” they are mirror images of the parents who failed to instill in their offspring from birth the qualities of kindness, individualism, altruism and compassion. It is not schools’ sole responsibility to impart these values anymore than it is their sole responsibility to put an end to hostile behavior.
By the time children reach adolescence, it’s too late
to cultivate in them a sense of respect and apprecia- tion for others. Kids are not suddenly transformed into monsters at age 13; nor are they born that way. They learn from those who raise them. When parents make parenting their primary goal,
situations such as the one that led to the suicide of Phoebe Prince may cease to exist.
ROBERTARIVET, Arlington
The writer is a former elementary school principal.
Surveys indicate that half of all children are bullied
at some time during their school years, and at least 10 percent are bullied regularly. The National Education Association estimates that over 160,000 children stay home from school every day because of bullying. Chil- dren who are bullied can experience serious emo- tional difficulties. Bullying can interfere with social development, self-esteem and school performance. Victims of bully- ing are also at increased risk for anxiety and depres- sion. Some even attempt suicide in an effort to escape the ongoing harassment, as demonstrated by recent tragedies in Georgia, Texas and Massachusetts. Children who bully thrive on controlling or dom-
inating others. They may be depressed, angry or up- set about events at school or at home. Sometimes, they’ve been victims of abuse or bullying themselves. Children who bully are at risk for future problems at work and in personal relationships. They also have an increased risk of substance abuse and legal difficulties.
TAKING EXCEPTION
An unfair attack on my Maryland school reform work
The April 6 editorial “Time for an intervention,” opposing the education reform bill I led through the Maryland Senate, turned reality upside down. Of the two reform bills headed to conference com- mittee, the Senate’s is the more thorough. Our Senate action applies statewide the reform lessons that educators have learned in local school districts — lessons I know firsthand as someone who helped create Montgomery County’s Peer Assistance and Review program, a joint union- management initiative that has removed far more failing teachers than other Maryland school systems have. The Senate bill extends another as- pect of this program — serious mentoring for new teachers — throughout the state, while the House version ensures no such effort. Finally, the “wa- tered-down” Senate bill calls for serious efforts to help failing schools by replacing ineffective school leadership and bringing in groups of high-quality teachers to change a school’s culture. The House measure, said the editorial, requires student growth to “account for 50 percent” of teacher evaluations, “while the Senate bill is silent on specifics.” Silent? The Senate bill says that stu- dent growth must be a “substantial” evaluation
yardstick, the same standard the governor origi- nally proposed. To suggest that this difference proves bad faith by the Senate suggests bad faith instead by The Post’s editorialists. That same bad faith may explain the editorial’s
conflict-of-interest charge against me. I first won legislative office in 1986 on a platform that pledged to put my experience as a Prince George’s teacher to work for students. For six Annapolis terms, I’ve done just that — with no “conflict” charge by the Post. Why now? My Annapolis record includes the legislation
that brought the National Board Certification process to our state. Close to 1,700 Maryland teachers have completed the intense professional development that certification requires. Count these teachers as an important part of the reason why Maryland’s public schools rank first in the nation.
Count our Senate efforts to set stronger educa- tion standards as a step designed to keep us there.
PAUL G. PINSKY, University Park
The writer, a Democrat, represents the 22nd District in the Maryland Senate, where he is chairman of the education subcommittee.
ABCDE
EUGENE MEYER, 1875-1959 • PHILIP L. GRAHAM, 1915-1963 KATHARINE GRAHAM, 1917-2001
BOISFEUILLET JONES JR., Chairman KATHARINE WEYMOUTH, Publisher and Chief Executive Officer
News pages:
MARCUS W. BRAUCHLI Executive Editor
RAJU NARISETTI, Managing Editor ELIZABETH SPAYD, Managing Editor
SHIRLEY CARSWELL Deputy Managing Editor
Editorial and opinion pages:
FRED HIATT
Deputy Editorial Page Editor
STEPHEN P. HILLS, President and General Manager
Vice Presidents
ROGER ANDELIN ......................................................................................... Technology KENNETH R. BABBY .................................................................................... Advertising BENJAMIN C. BRADLEE .................................................................................... At Large USHA CHAUDHARY..................................................................... Finance & Admin/CFO JAMES W. COLEY JR. ......................................................................................Production L. WAYNE CONNELL ......................................................................... Human Resources LEONARD DOWNIE JR. ...................................................................................... At Large GREGG J. FERNANDES .................................................................................Circulation JOHN B. KENNEDY ............................................................................................... Labor ERIC N. LIEBERMAN ......................................................................................... Counsel CHRISTOPHER MA ................................................................................... Development GOLI SHEIKHOLESLAMI ...................................................................................... Digital STEVE STUP ..................................................................................... Digital Advertising
The Washington Post Company:
DONALD E. GRAHAM, Chairman of the Board
1150 15th St. NW, Washington, D.C. 20071 (202) 334-6000
d
Business and advertising:
Editorial Page Editor JACKSON DIEHL
How not to bring hope to Ward 8
Eugene Robinson was right to bring our attention to the facts underlying the heartbreaking tragedies in the poorest parts of the District [“The forgotten District,” op-ed, April 6]. It is important to note, as solutions are considered, that many of our past at- tempts at solving similar problems have aggravated the problems we see today. Mr. Robinson noted that the unemployment rate
in Ward 8 is 28.5 percent. Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that among black teens nationwide, the rate is above 40 percent; surely Ward 8’s rate is simi- lar or higher. Studies have concluded that mini- mum-wage laws, which price inexperienced workers out of the market, are to blame. Similarly, drug laws create high-risk, high-return opportunities for dar- ing but poor entrepreneurs, which land a dis- proportionate share of inner-city African Americans in jail. In seeking to alleviate the misery in poor Wash-
letters@washpost.com.
Submissions must be exclusive to The Post and should include the writer’s address and day and evening telephone numbers.
ington, we must look clearly and honestly at what has and has not worked — and what has made things worse.
D. NIGELHAYES, Falls Church
Although bullying is a common experience of childhood, the effects can be significant and long term. Early identification and intervention for both bullies and their victims can reduce the risk of lasting emotional consequences.
DAVID FASSLER, Burlington, Vt.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184