Let's broaden the options for dealing with underfunded public employee pensions.

As we look at options for public pensions (hopefully local and state politicians will look at this hard during 2011) the options discussed are always far too narrow.

Some cities are discussing putting new employees on 401k type programs with no pensions and leaving the older workers alone. Some cities are discussing breaking the contract, and telling their pensioners “we know we promised you a $2,000 a month, but we can’t do that anymore, so we are going to pay you $1,200 instead.”

But one concept that is never discussed is how the private sector segued from pensions to 401k programs. They rarely reneged on their pension program promises, but when they didn’t make sense anymore they said “no mas”. They said: "you get what you have been promised. But tomorrow, you will not get a penny more added to your future pension payment. Instead we will put dollars each year into your 401k program and it is up to you to manage."

Why isn’t this part of the discussion for underfunded and broke public pensions?