It’s complicated. In 2001, Ridge increased pensions on his way out the door. He created the “pension kings” category. Rendell didn’t get the legislature to fund those pension kings so we went from a surplus to a deficit under his tenure. On his way out the door he cut pensions in 2011. Wolf cut pensions again in 2017.

https://www.pennlive.com/politics/2017/06/pa_pension_reform_bill_what_yo.html

Under all scenarios, the fiscal analyses tell us, the workers coming into employment will rest on a new third-tier benefit that is lower than the pension kings living off of Act 9 from 2001, and the post-2011 hires using Act 120.

The Independent Fiscal Office found that under the best-case scenario, a career worker with a final year salary of $60,000 would see a benefit that equals from 82 to 84 percent of a similar worker hired today.

That would equate to a replacement of pre-retirement income of about 55 percent to 57 percent. Coupled with Social Security, that would get our worker to about 90 percent.

Supporters of this bill note that is a good benefit, still well above the 80 percent level than many financial advisors say workers should shoot for. But critics of Senate Bill 1 see a fundamental unfairness in making today's teenagers pay for the mistakes of past elected officials.