Selma city leaders found themselves wedged firmly between a rock and an angry mob of retirees this week as the long budget debate came to a close.

Mayor James Perkins Jr.’s plan to cut retirees’ health insurance benefits in half had several of Selma’s former workers rightfully upset.

Basically, the plan will require retired employees who had 25 years of service and are not yet 65 to pay half their insurance costs when formerly, the city picked up the entire tab.

That means more than 40 former Selma workers are going to have to collectively pay roughly $62,000 a year more in insurance.

It’s easy to understand the retirees’ anger.

The city made a promise back in 1988 and now it appears the current government is pulling the rug out.

There’s more to the situation than that.

While current leaders are bearing the brunt of the blame, the truth is in 1988 Selma’s top brass made a mistake that is all to common in government big and small.

Their mouths wrote a check that their legacy couldn’t cash.

In 1988, city leaders couldn’t have predicted the explosion of insurance premiums.

They couldn’t have predicted the growing roster of city employees. But they went ahead and committed to a plan that would obligate the city to pay for insurance no matter the cost.

During negotiations with city employees, the city gave out these benefits instead of raises. Hindsight being 20/20, it’s easy to look back now and see the city would have been better off giving raises.

Raises are tangible; they can be planned for and built into budgets.

Instead, city leaders got the employees to take the proverbial two birds in the bush rather than the one in the hand.

Instead of paying more money then, they promised to pay an unspecific amount of money later. They obligated those following in their footsteps to pay and pay dearly, come boom or bust.

Their mistakes left Selma in a bad spot.

These employees have every right to expect the money they were promised in good faith. City leaders have to do what’s best for the city.

In this case those two goals don’t mesh.

Whether we cut the benefits this year, next year or 10 years from now, it’s obvious the city would have eventually had to do so.

We simply can’t afford to keep paying no matter what the cost.

Our hope is that another solution can be reached.

We applaud the retirees for thinking outside the box with their proposal to cut the life insurance benefits instead, though at best that would be a temporary solution as both premiums and number of eligible employees would continue to grow.

Even though the budget has been passed, this is not an issue that should simply go away. We encourage both sides to put aside their anger and mistrust and work together for a solution that honors the city’s promise without bankrupting our future.