Columbus Dispatch, June 19, 2007
Section: Editorial/Letters
Don’t limit funds’ ability to make money
I understand a newspaper’s need to characterize complex issues in easy-to-understand language, but I must object to the choice of words in the June 8 Dispatch article "Lawmaker’s arm-twisting gets Ohio pensions to divest," on the pension-fund-divestment issue.
Calling the issue "an affront to their (pension funds’) ability to make money for government employees" is a terribly misleading statement. The issue is whether pension-fund employees and board members should be held to their sworn duty to act as prudent fiduciaries in the management of members’ money. That is not a matter to be taken lightly. The term fiduciary carries volumes of case law and statutory mandates. It has nothing to do with being taken aback by the divestment issue.
Further, the article’s use of government employees to describe the members of state pension funds, while partially accurate for those still working, implied that this is a matter of greed on the part of overpaid government employees gorging themselves at the public trough. In fact, the money in the pension funds either has been contributed directly by retirees over a lifetime of service to the citizens of this state, or was paid to the fund by their employing state agencies and school districts as part of their compensation package while working. The balance of the money needed to pay a retiree’s pension benefits comes from the income generated by investments.
Decisions on these investments must not be hamstrung by ill-conceived, poorly-worded legislation drafted by politicians seeking to wrap themselves in the flag for grandstanding purposes.
Fighting terrorism and genocide are noble goals, but these should be pursued by a coherent national strategy, not by individual states targeting small pockets of citizens to bear the burden of the effort.
JAMES McGREEVY
Zanesville
<< Home