VOICE OF THE PEOPLE
Ohio can’t afford wrong decision on pension fund
The ongoing conflict surrounding the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio has reached a dangerous state with investigations, claims of fiduciary negligence and a lack of trust in the system caused by misleading information shared among its membership.
This issue all started in 2012 with the Ohio legislature taking the necessary steps to preserve the long-term stability of the fund by, among other things, eliminating an annual cost-of-living adjustment. I retired that same year after teaching for 32 years and, like anybody else, I’d like to get an annual increase in my pension benefit. However, people need to understand that even an annual 1% increase ultimately adds billions of dollars in liability to the system in the long term.
What’s at stake here is not just the benefit paid to current retirees. Every benefit decision made by the staff and board must take into consideration the overall health of the fund and what would be available for retirees now and those 30 years from now.
Considering a teacher could retire today in their late 50s and receive a guaranteed pension benefit for the next 30-plus years, all while there are fewer active teachers paying into the fund, you can understand the financial stress any long-term benefit increase would cause.
The reforms passed by the legislature more than a decade ago required each public pension system in Ohio to operate in such a way to achieve fully funded status. STRS Ohio, through effective yet tough management decisions, along with strong investment returns, has improved its status from 55% funded in 2012 to nearly 80% funded today.
I’m very concerned the current board membership continues to doubt and question the professional advice and counsel from actuarial consultants and investment staff to restore a permanent COLA.
I understand the argument that retirees are facing serious inflationary challenges, and restoring a COLA would offer considerable relief. However, when I consider the true demographic and financial factors at play, I appreciate that STRS Ohio continues to meet its obligation to me and hundreds of thousands of retired teachers.
That’s breaking news?
I read the New York Times headline: Ruth Westheimer: “Sex therapist dies at 96 in her home with her children at her side.” My condolences to the family.
Yet, should that be “breaking news”? Is that not what we hope for and expect for all of us? Perhaps newspaper publishers need reminding what is “breaking news.”
Breaking news is:
Dozens of children killed and more injured by bombs dropped on playground.
Hospitals, schools, houses of worship bombed as the USA is replenishing Israel’s arsenal.
Thousands of children buried beneath rubble as bombing continues.
Medicine and food denied to sick and starving children.
Health care workers, aid workers and journalists targeted by snipers.
Those are headlines. Because that is not something we should expect or take for granted. Our elderly relatives dying peacefully in their beds is not a tragedy. The children of Palestine never being allowed that kind of full life is a tragedy.
Not a valid survey
The Aug. 11 article titled “Project discovers shared values Akronites agree on” frankly wasn’t worth the paper it was printed on. That 260 residents submitted their suggestions about improving life in our community is laudable, but your story says “people under the age of 40 (were) grossly underrepresented (in the responses), and to a lesser degree, so were people of color.”
There’s not a professional pollster or statistician in the country who would consider that a valid survey.
The results of a study with findings that reflect only the opinions of old white people prove absolutely nothing about what really matters to the community. Try again.
Making the man
Most people have heard the expression “Do clothes make the man?” Of course, the answer is no.
But what exactly does make the man? Various conclusions are sometimes based on where they live or how much money they make, what language they use, or even the color of a person’s skin. But all these criteria fall far short before deciding what qualities make a person.
What is essential for such an important evaluation requires a new set of eyes and an openness of the heart. Once these are developed over the years, only then can a person know how to identify a genuine person. The best conclusion involves character, values and ethical beliefs.
What might seem to be an overwhelming task is not impossible. With maturity, experience and reflection, the true person emerges.
Imagine what a world that would make for all of us if we could only aspire to and identify.
Political hypocrisy
The race for president has seen a whirlwind of upheavals and outright surprises recently.
Yet still, attack speech seems to be what both parties think will help them win, and the media uses it to keep viewers engaged. Unfortunately, this creates an endless cycle of divisive, destructive and negative information for voters to navigate. Sometimes these attacks can expose hypocrisy in the allegations, and that is a source of amusement for me.
While reading an article in the Beacon Journal on Aug. 11, the headline “Walz staked out middle ground in Congress” caught my eye. There was a line about a Republican attacking the Minnesota governor’s liberal stance, citing, among other things, that Tim Walz wanted to make it easier for convicted felons to vote. Outrageous!
Now that Donald Trump is a convicted felon, wouldn’t such a law make it possible for Trump himself to vote?
This Republican called this out like it was a terrible thing. I laughed out loud at the irony!
Lollipops and politicians
In a recent movie I was watching, “The Hunt for Red October,” the national security adviser says: “Listen, I’m a politician, which means I’m a cheat and a liar, and when I’m not kissing babies, I’m stealing their lollipops.”
In this presidential election, it will not be what each candidate says but which candidate Americans believe can better lead the country.
What a contrast
In 1788, our country got started by electing a president who had a reputation for never telling a lie. Now, 235 years later, running for reelection is a former president who has a reputation for always telling lies.