Opponents of Gov. Bobby Jindal’s retirement legislative package won a token victory Monday when the Senate Retirement voted down Senate Bill 17 by Sen. Barrow Peacock (R-Bossier City) that could have resulted in changing state employees’ retirement from a defined benefit plan to a defined contribution.
The action, as was the delayed vote of committee chairman Sen. Elbert Guillory, was nothing more than bad theatre, however, as it was necessary to kill Peacock’s bill in order to keep Gov. Jindal’s retirement reform package on track.
In stage magic, the ploy is called misdirection.
The bill itself would not have mandated the conversion to a defined contribution plan but rather would have placed the matter on next November’s ballot as a constitutional amendment to allow the legislature to make the switch if it so desired.
That conflicted with Jindal’s package, as presented in bills supposed authored by Guillory but in reality drafted by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and which the administration contends is constitutional.
To vote a constitutional amendment out of committee would have been tantamount to what one witness described as passing a constitutional amendment on the premise that it serves as “backup” to another law that the administration believes may not stand up in court.
SB 17 was not part of the governor’s retirement reform package and was not an administration bill. The bills filed by Guillory in the Senate and House Retirement Committee Chairman Rep. Kevin Pearson (R-Slidell) accomplish statutorily what Peacock was attempting with his constitutional amendment.
Because the administration insists that its bills are constitutional, Peacock’s bill would have had the consequence of saying the constitution must be changed in order to switch from a defined benefit to defined contribution.
For those who might still look upon the vote as a victory for opponents of Jindal’s retirement reform, consider this:
On the surface, the voted appeared to amount to wasted investments by Jindal and ALEC who, together with Jindal, contributed $95,200 to three of the committee members who voted no.
Three of the “no” votes came from Chairman Elbert Guillory (D-Opelousas), Sen. Gerald Long (R-Natchitoches) and A.G. Crowe (R-Pearl River).
Guillory received $45,200 from corporate members of ALEC and another $7500 from Jindal. Jindal’s contributions were in increments of $2500 each from August to November of 2011.
Long received $33,000 from ALEC corporate members and another $2500 from Jindal, campaign records show, and Crowe received $4500 from ALEC corporate and $2500 from Jindal.
Neither of the three would dare go against such generous benefactors—especially a governor who has already shown his predisposition to allow no dissention from his troops. And there’s no way Guillory was going to risk his chairmanship with the memory of the fate of State Rep. Harold Ritchie still fresh in everyone’s mind.
Ritchie, sitting as a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, voted against legislation pushed by Jindal and was immediately stripped of his vice-chairmanship of another committee, the House Committee on Insurance.
His demotion came so lightning-fast that Insurance Committee Chairman Rep. Greg Cromer (R-Slidell) was not even informed of the action until after the fact.
It’s uncertain if Peacock’s bill was an inadvertent obstacle for Jindal or if it was intentional. Jindal had supported Peacock’s opponent, Jane Smith, with a $2,500 contribution in last fall’s elections
For added drama, however, Guillory was the deciding vote. Following a 3-3 vote and to provide sufficient drama to the moment, Guillory paused for several seconds before saying, “I’m going to vote no, so the bill is reported unfavorably.”
It looked for all the world as if Guillory was actually pondering all the pros and cons of Peacock’s bill when in fact, he’s just another bad actor in what has quickly become a very bad play that in spite of all the bad reviews, is going to run for 85 days.
Mary Patricia Ray, spokesperson for the Louisiana Federation of Teachers, apparently felt the committee members were sincere in considering Peacock’s bill. She testified that amending the State Constitution should not be a “backup” plan in case the governor’s bills did not stand up constitutionally.
“If the members of this committee are willing to amend the Constitution on the premise that it serves as ‘backup’ to another law that they believe may not stand up in court, I think we’ve really got to re-examine what it means to amend our constitution,” she said.
Whether she misread the committee’s true intent or not, she still got a strong point across when she said, “My teachers don’t have social security to fall back on. They aren’t private citizens. They chose to dedicate their lives to teaching the children of this state.
“What we’re discussing doing here amounts to the complete opposite philosophy that we’ve been hearing this whole session and that is we absolutely respect our teachers and public servants.”
She said the bills “say we don’t value them; we don’t care what happens to them and their families when they retire and that we’re willing to continue a destructive patter of tax exemptions and other measures and ask state employees to foot the bill.”
She was referring to five-year revenue losses of more than $22.5 billion from various tax exemptions granted by the state since Fiscal Year 2009. More than a third of that amount, $8.1 billion was in the form of corporate income tax and corporate franchise tax exemptions and tax incentive and exemption contracts.
The combined unfunded accrued liability of the four state retirement systems is less than $19 billion, or nearly $4 billion less than the total tax exemptions granted by the state.
Stacy Birdwell, secretary-treasurer of the Professional Firefighters of Louisiana testified that even though Jindal’s current retirement reform package does not affect firefighters, if Jindal’s retirement reform passes, “we’ll be next.”
Louisiana Voice 