Tragic, I heard this yesterday.
Unfortunately when I heard the circumstances all I could think was "see what happens when government tries to plan and control economics?". Sad stuff. I'd almost think many liberals would be concerned about such a constant stream of evidence of government planning failures undermining their position. But then, they will no doubt somehow twist this into the fault of those who earn more and don't rely on government. It's maddening.
Oh brother.
See I knew at some point in this thread this would come up.
And alas I was right.
What people like Mach fail to understand is that the problems with pensions aren't just a government issue, they're a government and a private issue, and not because of bad planning, but because when these programs were put into place, the idea that the population would be the way it is today, was simply impossible to fathom.
When things like Social Security, or even company pension plans were put into place, there were more people working to support those benefits and so it all made sense.
This was the population by age group in the US in 1950.
This is what it is today:
This is what it's projected to be in 2020
The idea that this could happen, was unfathomable at the time for companies and governments.
When times were good, and companies wanted the best and brightest, they often offered such benefits not at the behest of Unions alone, but to hold on to employees because there was so much choice.
Many Californian cities are paying for that big time at the moment because when municipalities were competing for public employees such as Policemen and Firefighters they offered outrageous benefits based on the good times never ending, which were deals all made in good faith and fairly.
Both Governments and Private Companies made these miscalculations, and to go the whole "It's the liberals fault" route is absolutely untrue.