I guess my subtle implication was too subtle.
If a State wants to reduce the cost of benefits that retirees receive for their lifetimes they can either reduce the benefits or reduce the lifetimes. Which one did Michigan choose?
Not at all.
The State does not want to reduce the cost of benefits. Benefit payouts buy votes. What they will do is cannibalize the taxpayers. Look for ever-increasing property taxes that effectively liquidate the middle class. And look for "cost-of-living" increases which protect Government employees from those same tax increases.
No, the politicians do not care if that crashes their State economy. Government employees will always vote for higher incomes - and those same Government employees count the "votes" in "elections". Politicians know what will get them elected, and fiscal responsibility is not it.
This only ends when States become insolvent and default on payments. If they can get Federal bailouts, it ends with 10,000 percent inflation on a national scale, and collapse of the entire US economy.
There are of course alternative endings to the story. Every one of them features somebody getting stiffed on payments to which they believed they were entitled.