Retirement plan too sweet

e-mail this story discuss this issue in our forums

That explanation may be too simplistic for the complexities of government retirement plans, and it may overlook what a few state employees claim is a glaring inequity considering the sweet retirement deals available to many state employees. But in a state as poor as South Carolina, it's just impossible to justify a proposal to essentially double the salaries of prosecutors and judges who want to continue working after they become eligible for retirement under what is now an exceptionally generous system.

Solicitors now can draw 90 percent of their retirement benefits after 31 years on the job, and state judges can draw 90 percent of their retirement after 32 years on the job. Those benefits already are sounding good to many state residents who have seen their defined pension plans eliminated.

But 13th Circuit Solicitor Bob Ariail of Greenville has been lobbying for legislation to allow solicitors and judges to retire, collect their retirement benefits and then come back to work at full salary. Supporters also include state Supreme Court Chief Justice Jean Toal, who makes the argument that the more favorable retirement option is necessary to keep experienced judges and prosecutors on the job. As it now stands, these employees who stay on the job past full retirement do so for about $12,000 a year.

In the case of solicitors, they are paid $116,650 per year and get $6,000 for expenses. If allowed to stay on the job and collect their retirement pay, they could earn more than $220,000 a year — a salary that simply cannot be justified even when allowing that a chunk of it is retirement pay earned under the system in place.

Legislators and even Ariail say the proposal — introduced as a bill by Sen. Glenn McConnell — is dead this year. Sunshine killed the bill that, as introduced in the Senate, didn't even require the solicitors and judges to continue making contributions to the state retirement system out of their salaries. State Rep. Jim McGee, R-Florence, had planned to amend the Senate bill so at least the retirement contributions would continue.

Ariail and others make a good point when they claim that most state employees already are allowed such sweet retirement options, but judges and prosecutors are not. This is correct, but it's hardly a good reason to continue sweetening the pot. South Carolina created a retirement monster a few years ago by allowing most state employees to retire, collect those benefits and continue working for another paycheck.

The push in Columbia should be to design a more realistic retirement system for all state employees — one that recognizes that 28 or 32 years is not a full career in most businesses.