Letter to the Editor

I thought you might be interested in a message I sent to the Seattle Times in response to the lead editorial in the Times today (Feb 25).  The assault on state workers, both active and retired, continues. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Editor:

I find it absolutely outrageous that the Governor, the Seattle Times, and some elements in the Legislature are zeroing in on retired state employees who receive PERS 1 benefits as if they are a significant part of the state's budget problem.  A Seattle Times editorial today refers to the "much-too-generous Plan 1 funds" while acknowledging that the plan was closed to new members in 1977 (almost 34 years ago).

It is seemingly not enough that state budget problems (including the long-standing and intentional underfunding of PERS 1) are expected to be resolved, in part, on the backs of current state employees, but now the oldest group of retirees (and a very few remaining active employees) finds itself faced with proposals to renege on the promised benefits they worked so long and hard for.

Breaking faith with state retirees at a time of escalating health care costs (now over $1,000 per month for basic coverage for my wife and me - IF we stay completely healthy), energy costs, increasing real estate taxes (ours have gone up every year, even though property values have decreased), would be simply shameful in my view.  The purpose of retirement Plans 2 and 3 was in fact to revise the state retirement system - employees under plans 1, 2 and 3 knew what their program benefits would be at retirement, and have a continuing right to expect that their promised benefits will continue as AGREED once they have retired. 

As a retired State administrator, my benefits allow my wife (who continues to work) and me to live comfortably, but by no means luxuriously, in our paid-off house.  Our two children completed college (in Washington State schools) and are productive adults.  I do not expect to be brushed aside, labeled as some sort of fiscal problem due to my "entitlement" to an "overly generous" retirement program.  I struggled against such labeling of my department's elderly and disabled program participants throughout my career at DSHS, and it is ironic to find myself in the same boat. 

Seemingly in these tough times there will be no stone left unturned in the effort to find solutions for the state budget deficit that don't involve encouraging the rich to contribute their fair share. 

Mark Dalton

821 32nd Avenue

Seattle WA 98122

206-322-0614