Algernon, you could probably do a better job, but here's my take on this recent DP eLetters blog comment:

"small adjustment":  COLA reduction from a fixed, guaranteed 3.5% to a range of zero to 2.0% is close to one-third reduction in annuitized payout over a 20 year period.

"barely scratched the surface of PERA's problems":  the COLA reduction removed at least $9B from PERA's unfunded liability.

"grossly overcompensated relative to their worth":  mandated, statutory salary surveys are conducted regularly to ensure proper compensation levels relative to private sector counterparts.

"promises made simply cannot be honored":  the Colorado Court of Appeals has ruled the retiree COLA is contractual, not simply a promise that can be broken with ease, or arbitrarily.

"we do not have the money":  disingenuous statement.  What the commenter really meant to say was the money would be better spent elsewhere. 

DP Comment:

"The small adjustment made by the legislature a few years ago barely scratched the surface of PERA’s problems. The elephant in the room is the fact that public employees have been grossly overcompensated relative to their worth for decades and the promises made simply cannot be honored because we do not have the money".

http://blogs.denverpost.com/eletters/2013/08/01/is-pera-really-doing-as-well-as-its-chief-says-it-is-3-letters/24333/