> Because both are paid for with tax dollars, while private sector pensions and 401(k) accounts are not. Moreover, the public can't be forced to raise taxes to bail out underfunded private sector pensions, while courts are doing just that with public pensions.

Both private sector and public sector employees receive Social Security benefits. It makes no sense to pretend that Social Security benefits are exclusive to private sector employees. The article makes it seem as though only public sector employees can retire at 59 and expect to get anything, while hardworking private sector employees must wait until 67. This is certainly not the case. Private sector employees are (sometimes) offered pensions and (almost always) offered 401(k)s, both of which allow for early retirement.

> I'm outraged because I'm paying for it with tax dollars. I love paying my taxes, but now that we're at the point where a dollar that goes to pensioners is a dollar that doesn't go to schools and infrastructure, it's definitely legitimate to question how comfortable a living we want to provide to public employees at taxpayer expense.

We should pay them every dollar we owe them. It isn't their problem if they paid in every year and the government did not meet its obligations. If you must, cut off pensions for new employees. Don't change the rules on the old ones.

As for 'taxpayer expense', you may be interested in this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pension_Benefit_Guaranty_Corpo...

If too many private pensions start failing, taxpayers may still be on the hook.