Click here if video does not appear above.

Here, by the way, are some articles in which Tom Sgouros indicated that funding pensions (and other post-employment benefits) is not such a big deal:

• Providence Journal, June 2014: “The returns of the last couple of years have been encouraging. But there is no slack any more [in large part because of the pension reform. Before, when the target rate was not met, the debt might tick up slightly. For a debt with a term of decades, this is cause for concern, but only a crisis when it happens many years running. So long as returns exceeded 3 to 4 percent, no money was lost.”
• RIFuture, November 2014: “In other words, these [other post-employment benefit] projections are complete malarkey, compiled by actuaries whose noses are so deep in their spreadsheets that they can’t seem to see they are predicting the end of civilization.”
• WPRI, October 2011: “There is a pension funding problem. What makes it a crisis, though, is not the needs of the retirees or the agreements already set. What makes it into a crisis is the rules by which we are supposed to fund the pensions.”
• WPRI, April 2011: “The people who say we can’t re-amortize our pension obligations because it would make it more expensive would have you believe that we are going to pay off the liability by 2029, as called for under the current schedule. In truth, it’s an absurd argument because neither option is going to happen. The cost of paying off the unfunded liability is what’s breaking our backs, not the cost of servicing current obligations.”