Thinkstock
Re: “PERA future still far from settled,” Oct. 21 editorial.
Once again, we are being warned of the folly that is the Colorado Public Employees’ Retirement Association (PERA) and its effort to put taxpayers on the hook for an antiquated benefits program. The latest report by Pension Trustee Advisors illustrates the state of Colorado’s inability to adequately sustain PERA’s defined-benefits program. This program needs to be immediately replaced by a system more in tune with today’s world — a defined-contribution program, similar to the system the vast majority of citizens with investments participate in.
To expect the taxpayers of Colorado to be responsible for investment performance is patently unfair, as it removes accountability and consequence for ineffective investments on PERA’s part.
David Oyler, New Castle
This letter was published in the Oct. 23 edition.I worked for the state Department of Revenue for 20 years until an unforeseen disability cut my career short. Thankfully, the Colorado Public Employees’ Retirement Association (PERA) was there for me. Without the benefits of PERA, I wouldn’t be able to volunteer my spare time to my kid’s schools, run a small family-owned business, and contribute to the thriving Grand Valley.
I’m glad the legislature now has an innovative, first-of-its-kind tool for determining the health of PERA, and that tool has given it a green light. PERA members and retirees have a big impact on the state economically. PERA retirees receive $3.5 billion every year, and the Colorado communities that count on them to spend their retirement dollars can’t afford a reactionary approach.
I encourage the legislature to keep retirees and members like me in mind if they consider making changes to PERA.
Desiree Turner, Grand Junction
This letter was published in the Oct. 23 edition.
Submit a letter to the editor via this form or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
