I am pretty sure you do understand. Your appeal to compassion for "those for whom commitments are made" is a powerful one, but ultimately fails as fiscal policy. The city dies, the remaining 706 thousand people of Detroit get to watch their city turned into a cesspool of crime, uncollected garbage, and unreliable services. And those old folks lose their pensions too. Governments have made commitments that they are mathematically unable to keep. You need look no further than the unfunded CalPers (California's Pension) fund to see what is coming on the horizon.

At this point there are no "good" answers, but the path to the "right" answer is pretty clear, it is unsustainable to balance the retirement of a few on the labors of others.

I've made a number of suggestions to folks in Sacremento, pretty much anyone who asks and some that don't. On various ways the system might work. One outcome though is you don't get "lifetime income" unless you do what Mr. Money Mustache suggests and convert your lifestyle into something that can survive on a 3-4% annual withdrawal rate of your accumulated benefit.

retirees, regardless of position, should get a set amount. It really should not be more than they made per year while an employee - many systems let them game it by popping overtime on it, unpaid vacation, and the like. There are cops with 100k+ pensions who retired at 50!. There are politicians with even bigger payouts, judges making over 200k in retirement.

There needs to be a "retirement" value for government employment that results in a good retirement but not extravagant. Sorry, but once you start passing the fifty thousand in retirement your getting a bit much. I would cap any retirement at median for your region, with minor and I mean MINOR boosts to cover medical for special circumstances, like really hurt in line of duty.

Go look at the bad retirements that people are paying.