Fine-tune legislators' benefits

The Gazette Editorial Board

--

It might seem at first to be a minor detail, but the costs add up quickly when state lawmakers' per diem payments are factored into retirement benefit calculations.

Per diem payments are intended to offset expenses, not be part of a legislator's salary.

That's why we don't see any justification for continuing to figure those payments into state legislators' retirement benefits.

When lawmakers discuss changes to protect Iowa Public Employees Retirement System's (IPERS) long-term financial viability, as is expected, this is one change that should be on the table.

Revising the law might mean smaller pension payments in legislators' future, but it's a justified correction - and one we doubt will cause financial hardship or dissuade many Iowans from running for office.

Many legislators don't even know they're eligible for retirement benefits until they take office. They, rightly, aren't driven by their pocketbooks to serve.

So they should look past their own pockets in January to make this common-sense change to the law.

Lawmakers are eligible for per diem payments of up to $134 for each day they spend away from their regular jobs.

Those per-diem payments average more than $10,000 a year for each lawmaker, according to a Des Moines Register analysis published by the Associated Press. That's in addition to their legislative salaries, which start at $25,000 per year.

The money adds up when, as state law allows, per diems are included when calculating a lawmaker's retirement benefits.

Including per-diem payments in calculating the maximum benefits of Senate Majority Leader Michael Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs, one of the legislature's highest paid members, for example, adds an additional $10,000 pension payout each year for life, according to the projection.

Gov. Terry Branstad has said he'll push for pension reform in the egislative session beginning in January, building on reforms from the 2010 session that increased contribution rates and change the way IPERS benefits are calculated.

Those changes are expected to save the state $675 million when they are fully implemented. However, in order to protect the public employee retirement system over the long term, more common-sense reforms also are in order.

Branstad has mentioned the possibility of raising the age of eligibility for benefits.

There also has been talk about stopping the practice of “double dipping” - when once-retired government employees return to government work but continue to draw IPERS benefits.

To those and other revisions under consideration, lawmakers should be sure to exclude per-diem payments from their own benefits calculations.

n Comments: thegazette.com/category/opinion/editorial or editorial@sourcemedia.net