Editorials

There is a simple equation in any budgeting process. When costs exceed income, you either cut costs or raise more revenue.

That is the situation Alabama is facing with the benefits promised to the more than 260,000 active and retired teachers and other public employees. The costs of pensions and health insurance have grown so much faster than income during the last decade that if something is not done the state could lack the money to hire teachers or state troopers and provide other services.

The state has options, including reducing benefits. But that will be politically difficult since promises have been made to a large, powerful voting bloc. Also, retirement and health insurance are two things used to recruit skilled and talented employees who might not otherwise come to Alabama. Tread lightly here.

The state can provide more money, but since it doesn't have additional funds in the current budget, the Legislature would have to raise taxes or shift funds from other programs. Neither are popular up on Goat Hill.

The state could stress wellness to produce healthier employees who are less expensive to insure. That's a nice idea, but there has to be an incentive to get people to adopt a healthier lifestyle.

The state could raise premiums and other costs that employees pay, though employees and their unions have opposed this in the past and likely would again.

Nevertheless, something must be done.

As this page has noted in the past, health insurance for state employees is better than a bargain. Single coverage for a teacher is $2 a month. Family coverage is $134 a month. Although employee advocates have successfully fought changes, the time has come to revisit these figures, compare them to what other states offer, and bring them into line.

In addition, the Legislature has to show fiscal restraint. Despite protests from those who manage the state pension funds, in 2005 and 2006 senators and representatives voted cost-of-living increases for future pension payments but did not increase payroll deductions to pay for them. You don't need a degree in economics to see where that leads.

The state also needs to take a serious look at how the surcharge for smokers has worked. Employees who smoke must pay extra for health insurance. This was touted as a way to get people to quit or to raise more money to help pay for the health care smokers will need down the road.

If this has worked, then the State Employees Insurance Board should move with plans to charge obese employees an extra $24 a month — although the administration of such a plan (would there be yearly "weigh-ins"?) has a lot of bugs to work out.

The time has come for the state and state employees to face the situation and deal with it. Delaying will only make matters worse.