LETTERS: PERS doesn’t require changes
To the editor:
With the publication of yet another hit piece on the Nevada Public Employees’ Retirement System, the Review-Journal continues to do a disservice to Nevada citizens. The op-ed by Geoffrey Lawrence, of the Nevada Policy Research Institute, failed to define what was identified as the major problem with PERS, the unfunded liability, nor did the article provide the history of PERS and the viability of its funds, which would discount Mr. Lawrence’s assertions.
Simply put, the unfunded liability is what the state would have to immediately start paying if all currently working members vested in PERS would immediately retire, all at once, or if the Legislature were to stop funding PERS. The first scenario is something that any sane person would agree just would not happen. However, ceasing to fund PERS is something that many of the uninformed propose. This would trigger the unfunded liability.
Looking at the history of PERS and the state of its funds, one can see that this doomsday storyline of massive liabilities is, in fact, not the case. PERS was started in the 1940s as a way to attract qualified workers to move to the state and work in public service in different government agencies by offering retirement benefits. When PERS started, it was 100 percent unfunded.
Through years of member contributions, government contributions and investments made by the retirement board, PERS is more than 71 percent funded; the unfunded liability is less than 29 percent. The unfunded liability is on pace to being retired over the course of the next 23 years.
The PERS trust currently holds $33.5 billion in assets to support its ability to pay out benefits. The finances are reviewed and audited annually and comply with accounting requirements and disclosures. The “sky is falling” alarm by Review-Journal editors, opinion writers and contributors is disingenuous. The system is not broken, it is healthy and viable. Leave it alone.
THOMAS A. FARNSWORTH
LAS VEGAS
Bundy land dispute
To the editor:
Bob Klarich claims in his letter that the land Cliven Bundy grazes his cattle on is owned by the citizens of the United States (“Bundy article one-sided,” Monday Review-Journal). If that is the case, then I own one-three-hundred-millionth of that land.
Of course, that is ridiculous. The federal government owns the land, and that means whichever bureaucrat is in charge of the Bureau of Land Management controls that land, and in effect owns it. Mr. Bundy’s claims on that land are much stronger than the government bureaucrat’s claim, therefore Mr. Bundy should have the freedom to graze his cattle there. I’m sure he will be a much better steward of that land than any bureaucrat in Washington, D.C.
TOM PORTER
LAS VEGAS
Lacking sports coverage
To the editor:
I seriously cannot believe how abysmal the Review-Journal’s coverage of college football has been in recent weeks. With the season racing to a thrilling finish and the inaugural college football playoff, the Review-Journal has seen fit to dedicate two to three pages of coverage to a horrible UNLV football team and less than that to the entire rest of the nation.
Several upsets and exciting finishes have had no effect on the Review-Journal’s coverage, and last Sunday, only two nationally ranked games were even mentioned. I am at a total loss for words to describe how ridiculous and unprofessional the coverage is. So the best and most succinct thing I can say is that when my subscription ends, the Review-Journal will lose yet another long-time subscriber due to its lack of common sense and care about its readers.
KEN CATRON
LAS VEGAS
