When government sponsors of public pension plans experience tight fiscal constraints, they manipulate the plans' actuarial assumptions to lower their required contribution. Examining the salary growth assumption, amortization period, and expected rate of return, we find evidence that entities facing financial constraints are more likely to have optimistic accounting assumptions than those which are not. Additionally, we find these plans have a greater propensity for underfunding than plans from less fiscally constrained states. Finally, the problem is further complicated by the political pressure placed on some pension plans. We find evidence that plans subject to political pressure are also more likely to have optimistic accounting assumptions and to be more underfunded than those plans not facing political pressure.