Current teachers, firefighters, police and other public employees in Alaska are the only public employees in America without a secure retirement. They are not eligible for Social Security, will receive no pension and do not have specifics about health care. This guaranteed financial insecurity has left Alaska a veritable training ground for other states: people get hired, get trained and then promptly move back to the Lower 48 -- all at a significant cost to Alaska. On their way out, they speak of being unsure about the ability to retire here if they were to stay. This is sad.
Alaska has entered a period of fiscal uncertainty for the foreseeable future. Alaskans and institutions should be ready to do more with less and accept higher fees and costs to use facilities. I have faith that our legislators in Juneau can help guide our state through what looks to be a turbulent few years. Voters selected a third-party independent to lead the executive branch of Alaska, and its this same fresh perspective that we should use in proposing ideas that cut costs to the state.
Gov. Walker asked all departments in Alaska to present blueprints of what different levels of cuts would look like to the services provided. It would behoove legislators to cowboy up and work together in making these tough decisions of what cuts to make and where. Many of the choices they have to make in the coming months will be unpopular -- and I am happy to say that a fix to the public retirement system -- Senate Bill 88 -- is not one of them.
SB 88 will provide a choice to all employees that were hired after July 2006 as to which type of retirement option they would like for the duration of their public service. The current option, Defined Contribution, makes sense if you have already had a career, in the military for example. It's a 401(k)-style plan with no guaranteed pension. The other option, Defined Benefit, is the traditional pension style plan that would "fix" a problem with previous tiers: health costs would be revisited every few years and adjusted as the cost of care increases with a cap limiting how much the state could have to pay. Accrued Social Security will be forfeited with either option, but with a large cost savings for the state -- to the tune of $70 million -- and security for eligible workers. Who could be against that?
As a teacher, we are supposed to spread optimism, hope and highlight the bright future of possibilities with each student that walks through our door. This has proven to be increasingly difficult in the face of changing education policy: new state mandates, new state standards, and new standardized tests make our jobs more difficult each day, but we manage. What is hard, is putting on a cheery face when, by all calculations, the current system will leave both employees and the state with larger bills and less security than is necessary. It will be exponentially more expensive to solve this problem in the future, than it would be to deal with the issue today. Yet, this state always seems to have luck on its side, and indeed SB 88 is a win-win for everyone involved.
Standardized testing changes, absentee parents, college entrance stresses, and lack of breakfast and sleep: all of these issues dramatically affect my ability to teach my students. But that's exactly what I signed up for. However, nowhere in my contract did it say "go to work everyday, while also being keenly aware of your ultimate limitations on salary and also knowing you have no retirement security." Witnessing that this is how teachers, firefighters, police and public servants are treated in this state does not reflect the sense of community that I witnessed growing up here, nor is it the sentiment that I desire in a place I want to raise a family.
Last fall, I joined the Army National Guard, in part so that I could start saving for retirement, since the current Teachers Retirement System will not be enough to live on. This semester, I am working two jobs to make up for the time I missed while I was in basic training. All the time I could be, indeed want to be, pouring into my classroom and my students is instead siphoned off for a few more dollars to pay off student loans and pay bills -- I haven't yet crawled to that middle class benchmark of being able to save for retirement. When one of my students expresses an interest in being a teacher, it's hard for me to look them in the eye and tell them to follow in my footsteps when I know the crushing student loan debt and lack of retirement options I know they'll face. The profession I love, my true calling, what I have organized my entire life around, will also be my financial undoing in the end. Imagine seeing yourself be hit by a car in slow motion. Sometimes, that's how I feel when I watch my colleagues deal with the uncertainty and lack of security that young teachers face today.
Alaska is currently the only state (or territory or protectorate) in America that does not have a secure retirement option for public servants in one form or another. While not alarming for the transient population that moves through Alaska for a year or two and then adventures onward, it is alarming to those born and raised here. I am a fourth-generation teacher, and the second generation in my family blessed to teach children in this state. I want to stay here, continuing on with the missionary work of teaching our kids. Will you help me stay? Will you save Alaska millions of dollars and change the current insulting, expensive retirement scheme? Or will I be forced, like so many others, to go to any of the other 49 states that offer a better retirement?
Jake Todd was born and raised skiing in and around Anchorage. A former Peace Corps Volunteer in Jordan, he splits his time between teaching high school, the Alaska Army National Guard and working various low wage food-service jobs to pay off his student loans.
The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)alaskadispatch.com