For one thing, many of us have been saying that some of the benefit formulas need to be reworked, putting them back to levels seen before pension benefits were boosted back in the late 90s.

Some of us have also advocated for pension funds (of all stripes) to get back into more conservative types of investments — govt bonds and very high quality debt, etc. — and to realign their return forecasts as a result. But this would only work if the Federal Reserve were mandated to stay out of interest rate manupulations except for very rare emergencies. Even then, their moves would have to be closely scrutinized and the pension funds (or a federal agency that oversees govt pension funds) should have some representation in the decision making process at the Fed.

If we want to change the way all financial entities calculate risks, the entire FIRE sector would implode. I’m all for holding people accountable, but we can’t cherry-pick the ones we want to target.

Along the same lines, ALL government guarantees and expenditures need to be much more closely monitored. That includes govt contracts; corporate subsidies (including tax expenditures); guarantees to investors, farmers, etc.; public-private partnerships, etc. — all of which need to be much more closely controlled and scrutinized.

As I’ve noted regarding the author of the LA Times piece, she is harshly critical of public pensions, but doesn’t bat an eye when cheering on our bloated defense spending (with a single unnecessary project costing as much as 1/3 of the unfunded pension debt in her worst-case scenario), or public-private partnerships and govt subsidies of private companies, like Space X, etc.