Public-sector pension dilemmas

I MUST compliment attorney Robert Gillispie on his excellent op-ed ("Bay State's big selloff," July 27). Finally, someone is speaking intelligently about the elephant in the room, namely unfunded pension and healthcare costs for state and municipal employees. This burden can't possibly be met without huge tax increases on the population or -- perish the thought -- much less lucrative pensions for employees. Unfortunately, there is another elephant, namely the continuing flight of stable, middle-income, intact families who are leaving the Commonwealth for more affordable housing, more opportunity, and less taxation. Add to this a retirement-age population that can, and will, migrate from the Commonwealth for any number of reasons, and you have to ask the question that Mr. Gillispie did not. Who will be around to pay the increased tax burden?

FRANK McGRANE
Waterville Valley, N.H.

ROBERT GILLISPIE makes a good case that something dramatic must be done if municipalities are to be able to pay off their unfunded liabilities for healthcare benefits and pensions. But what about taking steps to prevent or at least mitigate future liabilities?

For example, we might reconsider the blanket offering of pensions. Years ago it was common for employees in both the public and private sector to receive a pension. Nowadays the private sector pension is fast disappearing. And those in the nonprofit sector have known not to even expect a pension. What this means is that taxes paid by people who work in the private sector, or nonprofit sector -- many of whom earn less than many in the public sector -- are going to pay for the pensions of public sector employees. The public sector pension program could be converted into a 401(k) program for new employees, grandfathering in those who are already in the system, so that promises already made are kept.

EMILY NORTON
Newton