The governing board overseeing Colorado’s Public Employees’ Retirement Association released a report in December outlining its progress toward ensuring that PERA becomes fully funded. In it, the PERA board says that because of legislative reforms enacted in 2010, the agency has reduced its unfunded liability by $15 billion.

State Treasurer Walker Stapleton disagrees.

Well, of course he does. To agree would be to accept that PERA is a good thing and perhaps even well run. For politicians of a certain ideological bent, that seems unacceptable.

Stapleton couches his objections in terms of fiscal responsibility, prudence and conservative investing, but his real problem with PERA appears to be PERA itself. He questions its board’s predictions and assumptions, but over time, they have generally been right. And with that, the PERA board tends to ensure the continuation and ongoing popularity of a pension plan many on the political right would probably like to see vanish.

The problem critics have with PERA is simple. It is a defined benefit pension plan, which means that its recipients are promised a specified benefit that the employer – in this case, the state of Colorado – must figure out how to provide. This is in contrast to a defined contribution plan such as a 401(k) in which employees set aside a specified amount of their pay to be invested and, they hope, grow.

The private sector has largely moved away from defined benefit plans. To be adequately funded, they require careful, prudent planning and wise investments. Above all, they create a liability, a debt that must be paid.

Defined contribution plans, on the other hand, are not the employer’s problem. How well they work out for workers is a function of their willingness to kick in, how prudently they invest and how well the overall economy performs.

At one time, many private sector workers had defined benefit plans. But it is easy to see why private sector employers have moved away from such traditional pension plans. It is also easy to understand why workers might want to keep them. When and where that can happen depends on the nature of the employer.

All businesses face a number of challenges. They must deal with the vagaries of the markets they operate in as well as the financial and political climate. They face often unpredictable challenges from new competition, new technologies and new tastes, fads or fashions. For all those reasons and more, businesses come and go. And in the 21st century, the marketplace has become increasingly fluid and dynamic. Few businesses today can be assured of lasting long enough to manage pension plans that will have to span decades. (PERA’s board projects it will be fully funded in 38 years.)

Governments can take that long view. While there are inevitably budget issues at all levels – incompetence or malfeasance can happen too – states and the federal government have the resources, the ability and, above all, the time to administer defined benefit pension plans.

If Stapleton has evidence of actual wrongdoing or demonstrable ineptitude at PERA, he should produce it. Failing that, the PERA board’s report sounds like good news. Perhaps it is time for the treasurer to take yes for an answer.