Many assume that mandatory coverage will reduce the
cost of keeping current pension promises.

Shifting contributions to Social Security and away from current programs would leave public plans with significant funding challenges – perhaps this helps explain why some anti-defined benefit advocates have come to support mandatory Social Security coverage.

The assets contributed to a public plan to fund future benefits are invested.  The investment returns earned on these assets help in a major way to cover the cost of future benefit obligations.  Reduced contributions will result in lower investment earnings and will further compound funding concerns.  As contributions to the public plans decrease, the associated investment earnings will be lower, requiring government (taxpayers) to make up the difference in order to maintain current benefit levels.

Advocates for mandatory coverage rarely – if ever – honestly account for the impact of the mandate on current plan participants or the funding of current plan legacy costs.