It's noteworthy that the Center's director is Alicia Munnell, who once served on the Retirement Law Commission which, until its abolition back in the early '80s, provided studies and analysis of this state's pension law.

Finally completing its study, the BC Center has prepared a report entitled "The Impact of Mandatory Social Security Coverage on State and Local Workers: A Multi-State Review." Not surprisingly, the report finds that mandating coverage for all state and local employees will help Social Security.

Currently, our Association belongs to the Coalition to Preserve Retirement Security (CPERS), whose primary goal is to defeat mandated Social Security for public employees in Mass and other states. According to CPERS, whatever relatively small and short-lived help to Social Security could be derived from mandatory SS, it would be overwhelmed by enormous costs - estimated at $26 billion over the first five years - that Mass and other states would be forced to assume.

"It's interesting that the study does not address the cost issue head-on, but apparently sidesteps it by focusing more on what's fair or equitable if most, but not all, employees are in Social Security," comments Legislative Chairman Bill Hill. "What's somewhat ironic is the study's observation that states, like Mass, are in a better position, than in the past, to assume the massive costs, particularly in light of the passage of Question 4 (tax cut)."

Vice President Al Gore and Governor George W. Bush are on record against mandatory Social Security. Both Texas and Tennessee are among the states, with Mass, that would be fiscally hurt if all public employees had to join.