Now that Piyush Jindal has shoved the education reform bills down our throats with minimal time for debate and even less attempt at actually reading the bills, he is ready to turn his attention to his state retirement reform package.
First up are three bills by Sen. Elbert Guillory (D-Opelousas). Senate bills 51, 52 and 740 are scheduled to be heard by the Senate Retirement Committee, which Guillory chairs, beginning at 9 a.m. on Monday.
The bills may have Guillory’s name on them but make no mistake: they were written by corporate members of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and spoon-fed to Guillory to introduce at Jindal’s behest.
SB 51 would require rank and file state employees who are members of the Louisiana State Employees’ Retirement System (LASERS) to work until age 67 before being able to realize full retirement benefits. Those retiring before that age would receive sharply reduced benefits under terms of the bill.
SB 52 would require members of LASERS, who have not had a pay raise for three years, to contribute an additional 3 percent of their salaries. Originally, that increase was to have been offset by a corresponding reduction in the amount the state contributes. The money saved by the state would have gone into the state General Fund to help Jindal fill in a big hole anticipated in the state budget.
That would have meant that employees would not have realized any advantage either toward reducing the LASERS unfunded accrued liability (UAL) or in providing increased retirement benefits, thereby defining the increase as a tax—illegal during an even-number year’s legislative session.
Now, though Jindal, in his usual method of smoke and mirrors economics, says the 3 percent additional will go to pay down the UAL.
The really curious thing about Jindal’s incessant barking about the UAL is that LASERS presently has a UAL of $6.3 billion, only about a third of the total UAL of the four retirement systems–teachers ($10.8 billion), school employees ($863 million) and state police ($313 million), yet he continuously blathers as if the entire amount is the liability of LASERS alone.
Smoke and mirrors.
The governor soldiers on with his ALEC-inspired bills despite a report by the Dallas law firm Strasburger & Price which says that virtually all components of the retirement bills would be ruled unconstitutional if subjected to legal challenges—as they will most surely will be.
The report was commissioned by Legislative Auditor Daryl Purpera.
Jindal dismissed the Strasburger report through his press lackeys, saying the analysis was conducted without a thorough read of the bills and that the 38-page analysis was done with no examination of case law.
It appears that the Strasburger report was the document that did not receive a thorough read—from the governor and his “brown shirts,” to borrow a term from Rep. Sam Jones (D-Franklin)—because the report specifically cited case law from 18 other states and a handful from right here in Louisiana as legal precedents.
Smoke and mirrors.
If Jindal’s bills are passed and somehow survive legal challenges (highly unlikely), we might brace ourselves for an attempt in his three-plus years left as governor (He is not going to be Romney’s veep, though there is a chance he may run for the U.S. Senate against Mary Landrieu) to reduce benefits for already retired state employees. We certainly would not put it past him.
Regardless of the legal outcome of the retirement bills, he will probably make another run at abolishing Civil Service as he did through Rep. John Schroeder (R-Covington) two years ago.
In contrast to Jindal’s slash and burn tactic of benevolent governance, the words of former Gov. Edwin Edwards come to mind. Quoted in the book Bad Bet on the Bayou by Tyler Bridges, Edwards, who grew up the son of a sharecropper, said, “I remember when government made it possible for electricity to be brought to my house.”
He was referring to President Franklin Roosevelt’s Rural Electrification Act of 1936, when Edwards was just nine.
“I remember when the government made it possible for a (school) bus to pick me up and drive me eight miles into town,” he continued. “I remember when government made it possible for me to eat a free hot lunch at school. I remember when government made books available to me that I otherwise would not have been able to have.”
If the governor pushes his retirement bills through, then the sins of Edwin Edwards will pale by comparison to the cumulative harmful effects of Jindal’s privatization of the Office of Risk Management, the Office of Group Benefits, Medicaid, his “reforms” to education and state employee retirement, his cutting of higher education, thereby forcing tuition increases, his granting of tax cuts to favored corporations, his allowing friendly former legislators to settle into do-nothing jobs at six-figure salaries (jobs for which they are woefully unqualified), and the sale of state prisons.
No matter what the shortcomings of Edwin W. Edwards, he never shafted teachers or state workers. For that matter, he never turned his back on Louisiana’s working citizens. Nor did he ever dodge a reporter’s questions or refuse an interview—claims Jindal could never make. When a reporter left a message for Gov. Edwards to return his or her call, it was Edwards, not some flunky, who personally returned the call.
But enough with the reminiscing; let’s turn our attention to the makeup of the respective House and Senate retirement committees and the key campaign contributions of the members of those two committees.
The heavy hand of ALEC is ever-present, as is that of Jindal himself.
Following are members of the Senate Retirement Committee and the contributions received from corporate members of ALEC and from Jindal’s own campaign fund:
• Guillory—$45,200 from Alec, $7500 from Jindal;
• Page Cortez (R-Lafayette), vice chairman—$2500 from Jindal;
• Conrad Appel (R-Metairie)—$2500 from Jindal;
• A.G. Crowe (R-Pearl River)—$4500 from ALEC, $2500 from Jindal;
• Gerald Long (R-Natchitoches)—$35,000 from ALEC, $2500 from Jindal;
• Barrow Peacock (R-Bossier City)—No contributions;
• Jonathan Perry (R-Kaplan)—No contributions.
Both Crowe and Long are members of ALEC.
Following are members of the House Retirement Committee and the contributions received from corporate members of ALEC and from Jindal’s campaign:
• Kevin Pearson (R-Slidell), chairman—$2500 from Jindal;
• Nick Lorusso (R-New Orleans), vice chairman—$6500 from ALEC;
• Anthony Ligi (R-Metairie)—$20,500 from ALEC, $5000 from Jindal;
• Jack Montoucet (D-Crowley)—$6000 from ALEC;
• Alan Seabaugh (R-Shreveport)—$11,750 from ALEC, $2500 from Jindal;
• Kirk Talbot (R-River Ridge)—$5000 from Jindal;
• Jeff Thompson (R-Bossier City)—No contributions;
• Paul Hollis (R-Covington)—No contributions;
• Sam Jones (D-Franklin)—No contributions;
• Edward Price (D-Gonzales)—No contributions;
• Eugene Reynolds (D-Minden)—No contributions.
Lorusso, Ligi, Montoucet, Seabaugh and Talbot are ALEC members.
One state employee said in a recent email to LouisianaVoice that Jindal’s proposed comprises on his retirement bills “are in no way acceptable.” The compromises, he said, “are still breaking a contract with state employees.”
Here is the rest of that email:
“Sometimes people forget that pensions are the sole source of retirement planning for many state employees. We receive no match on any IRAs we may be able to afford on our relative low salaries and we are not allowed to contribute to Social Security.
“I think some legislators need to be reminded that they do not answer to a political party, to a governor, or to their largest campaign contributors. They answer to the people, the taxpayers and the voters of this state. And contrary to what many legislators believe, state employees are, in fact, people, taxpayers and voters. We have the same financial obligations that private sector employees have, yet we are ‘solely’ asked to bear the burden of a historically irresponsible legislature.
The true measure of a society is how it treats the weakest among it. State employees are the weakest among all civil servants; therefore, we have been intentionally targeted. Our hands are tied by ridiculous civil service regulations that do not afford us the same opportunity as teachers or law enforcement officers to speak on issues that directly impact us. In addition, many state employees have been intimidated into thinking that they cannot speak out against these reforms for fear of retribution.
“This targeted approach is both abusive and discriminatory towards state workers. In my opinion, (legislators’) true character will be especially clear after this vote. While many of us are afraid to speak out, we can vote. We can sign a recall petition. So, please do not play unnecessary politics with the livelihoods of your constituents.”
