Pension reform

The governing board of the state pension system, which covers some 140,000 public-sector workers and retirees, will spend $50,000 on an independent review of its benefits, funding, investment portfolio and liabilities, and compare it to the pensions of other states.

The study was requested by Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval, who appears to be laying the groundwork for a reform agenda - in 2015 or 2017, once he has been re-elected to his second and final term. There's a good reason he's waiting to pick this fight: It's going to be ugly.

The pension benefits for Nevada's public employees are simply too good to be sustainable. They allow many workers to retire in their 40s, after as few as 20 years of service, with a six-figure annual benefit. Public-sector unions will pull out all the stops and call in every favor to keep what they have, no matter that the state can't afford it. Nevada has more than $11 billion in unfunded pension liabilities - on the low side. Put the country's states and cities together, and they have almost $3 trillion in promised benefits they can't pay for.

Public-sector pensions are such a threat to state budgets - the liabilities are squeezing schools and other services - that they've been studied extensively in recent years. Does Nevada need to commission another study? No.

Debate over reforms should begin this year, not two or four years down the road. A minimum retirement age of at least 60. A benefit calculated based on average compensation spanning most of a career, not just the highest-earning years. An end to buying service credit. And putting future government hires on a separate, 401(k)-style retirement plan.

Taxpayers cannot continue to save for their own retirements while being burdened with the cost of bureaucratic benefits unavailable to themselves.