Retirement bill amended

Advocate Staff Photo by Travis SpradlingState Rep. Kevin Pearson, R-Slidell, reacts as voting begins Tuesday night on an amendment that he ultimately could not accept to his legislation that would create a 401(k)-type pension plan for future state employees. Show caption
Advocate Staff Photo by Travis SpradlingState Rep. Kevin Pearson, R-Slidell, reacts as voting begins Tuesday night on an amendment that he ultimately could not accept to his legislation that would create a 401(k)-type pension plan for future state employees.

Gov. Bobby Jindal’s proposal to move to a new 401(k)-type pension plan for future state employees ran into trouble Tuesday night in the House of Representatives.

The House voted 55-46 for an amendment that would enroll new employees in Social Security, a move that would add to retirement expenses.

Approval of the change came as the measure was nearing a vote after about three hours of debate.

House Bill 61 sponsor state Rep. Kevin Pearson, R-Slidell, stopped debate after the amendment passed and returned the measure to the calendar before the House could vote on the bill. Pearson said he would bring HB61 up again Wednesday.

The legislation is part of a package of bills pushed by Jindal, who claims pension changes are needed to reduce the state’s financial exposure. Jindal said taxpayers are responsible for $18.9 billion in liabilities of Louisiana’s four statewide pension systems that provide retirement benefits for state government employees, teachers, school employees and State Police.

HB61 would implement a “cash balance” retirement plan for state employees, including those in higher education, beginning July 1, 2013. Employees would have investment accounts made up of employee and employer contributions as well as investment earnings on those dollars. It would differ from a traditional 401(k) because the individual’s account would be protected from investment losses.

State employees are currently offered a “defined benefit” retirement plan that guarantees a regular payment for life, based on years worked and salary earned, which Pearson told the Louisiana House is too costly to continue.

Critics of the “cash balance” plan contend state employees could end up being wards of the state if their investment earnings run out before they die and they have no Social Security safety net.

State Rep. Joe Harrison, R-Napoleonville, offered the amendment that would enroll new employees participating in the cash-balance plan into Social Security.

“People are looking for security ... If it takes Social Security, that’s what we have to do,” Harrison said.

Harrison said new state employees should have the same benefits as private sector employees are offered. “If you are trying to compete in the private sector for employees we need to run this state we need this,” he said.

Pearson said Social Security is a tax. “We won’t want to go into Social Security for our state employees because it’s not that great a plan,” Pearson said.

As debate opened on the bill, Pearson told his House colleagues the cash balance plan would stop the growth of new pension system debt associated with future members of the Louisiana State Employees Retirement System and higher education members of the Teachers Retirement System of Louisiana.

He said the current defined benefit plan “puts every bit of the risk on the taxpayer.”

State Rep. John Bel Edwards, D-Amite, questioned why teachers, school employees and hazardous-duty employees are not included in the cash-balance plan.

“If it’s such a good plan for the employees of this state, why not?” Edwards said. He said the state employee pension system accounts for 35 percent of the $18.9 billion in pension benefits. The rest is shared by teachers, school employees and State Police. “Why pick out only state employees?,” he asked.

Pearson said K-12 teachers are local — not state employees. “That (retirement expense) is not part of the budget we control,” he said. “Hazardous duty is a different type of individual, looking at earlier retirement age because of the demands and stresses of the jobs,” he said. “This is not necessarily a system designed for them.”

Before Pearson sidelined the legislation, the House added provisions designed to protect disability and survivors benefits and help with administration of the plan which would be optional for current employees.

As debate opened, Edwards challenged House Speaker Chuck Kleckley’s ruling that only a majority vote was needed for passage of the legislation when a two-thirds vote was called for earlier. The House voted 63-37 to uphold Kleckley’s ruling.

Voting FOR an amendment to provide Social Security for future state employees (55): State Reps. Abramson, Anders, Armes, Badon, Barrow, Berthelot, Billiot, W. Bishop, Brossett, Brown, Burrell, Cox, Dixon, Edwards, Foil, Franklin, Gaines, Greene, Guillory, Harrison, Havard, Hazel, Hill, Honore, Howard, Hunter, G. Jackson, K. Jackson, James, Jefferson, Johnson, Jones, Lambert, T. Landry, LeBas, Leger, Mack, Montoucet, Moreno, Norton, Ortego, Pierre, Pope, Price, Reynolds, Richard, Ritchie, Schexnayder, Smith, St. Germain, Thibaut, Thierry, A. Williams, P. Williams and Willmott.

Voting AGAINST the Harrison amendment to HB61 (46): Speaker Kleckley and state Reps. Adams, Arnold, Barras, S. Bishop, Broadwater, Burford, H. Burns, T. Burns, Carmody, Carter, Champagne, Chaney, Connick, Cromer, Danahay, Dove, Fannin, Garofalo, Geymann, Guinn, Harris, Henry, Hensgens, Hodges, Hoffmann, Hollis, Huval, N. Landry, Leopold, Ligi, Lopinto, Lorusso, Miller, Jay Morris, Jim Morris, Pearson, Ponti, Pylant, Robideaux, Schroder, Seabaugh, Shadoin, Talbot, Thompson and Whitney.

NOT Voting (4): State Reps. Gisclair, Pugh, Richardson and Simon.


Please log in to comment on this story

Comments (30)


1) Comment by Grannee - 02/05/2012

Jindal, Whocares, Legislators, etc. stop being deadbeats and pay the state's bill to LASERS.

2) Comment by Grannee - 02/05/2012

Whodat, Suzsnne, ElderlyMan and the rest your post are wonderful. Whocares reminds me of my 21 year old son...It's like beating a dead horse trying to get them to understand something and Lord I just get so tired of repeating the same thing over and over. WhoCares, pay attention and listen to this. On June 30, 2012 LASERS has the legal right to demand that the state treasurer to pay from the state's general fund the debt it owes to the UAL, this is in Louisiana's constitution. The truth of the matter is this, ALL of the parties except state employees have failed their obligation to the state retirement system (LASERS). Now, in order to avoid its obligation, the state is trying to change the rules. It is like dead beat parents reaping the benefits of producing a child, but once it's here, backs out on their obligation. You should understand this whocares.

3) Comment by IMVOR - 02/05/2012

Many employees enrolled in LASERS are making wages below the federal poverty level, less than half of the $50,000 example. Their retirement after 20 years of service, in some cases, will be nowhere near $20,000 a year. Nobody wants to pay for anything anymore. "You get what you pay for" is a cliche for a reason. How exactly is Louisiana going to attract top teachers or skilled workers for any job when the pay is low, raises virtually unheard of, and the retirement benefit insufficient to retire on? I'm sure next session, we'll weasel out of paying health insurance benefits to state employees, too. Won't the world be so much better a place when we go back to the good old days before the Great Depression when there was no eight hour day, no unemployment compensation, no medical insurance, and no guarantee of any kind of retirement benefit? Won't we all be so much happier then? I can hardly wait.

4) Comment by JL70710 - 02/05/2012

I agree with @SuzanneMS. In addition, should, God forbid, your 401K tank in value--either due to economic downturns or corruption within your company (you're young, but perhaps you remember a little company called Enron that not only went bankrupt, but stole all the 401K money of its employees so that the CEO's could live lavishly), then you will at least be able to collect your social security. This is not an option for state employees. Take away the pension that we've paid into, we have nothing. There is no long-term benefit to society to create a large number of indigent elderly. The problem of what to do with pensioners spurred the creation of social security in the first place. The only solution I hear from people like @WhoCares is fundamentally narrow: "I have a 401K, everyone should have one. We can't afford social security." The problem is you can't afford NOT to have social security. Believe it or not, there are a lot of people in this country who spend their lives working hard in very low-paying jobs. IF they have a 401K option available, they can't afford to contribute. What do you propose to do with those people? Watch them starve? By the way, I also pay taxes, volunteer, and contribute positively to my community. The "Jindal hate" is the result of 6 years of being personally blamed for the economic conditions of this state by a governor who took the state from surplus to crisis in as many years so that he could transfer tax money from taxpayers to corporate and wealthy donors.

5) Comment by Bouncer - 02/05/2012

After reading comments for some time, I'm convinced that many people think that state employees work for 20 years and then retire with nice, fat monthly pensions. Not true for the average drone in state employment. Consider teacher retirement. Let's say a teacher retires after 20 years under the 2% benefit plan. Let's say that the teacher's highest 3 year average salary is $50,000. After 20 years of service, that teacher would receive an annual benefit of $20,000, which amounts to $1666.66 per month. That's not a lavish retirement by any means.

6) Comment by Elderly Man - 02/05/2012

The only solution is for the state to meet its obligation—a contractual one—to its employees. The percentage of income the state agreed to pay is substantially lower than would have been Social Security.//Governor Jindal proposes to steal from the workers of our state. //I considered but thought better of it working for the state. I am very glad I DID NOT do that.

7) Comment by danielf - 02/05/2012

Kudos to Rep Harrison. If they say the want it to be like in the private sector then they should be in SS so long as private businesses are forced to. The "401k like plan" is actually nothing like a 401k. Actually it would be illegal for a private employer to have this kind of plan, plus it's mandatory and employees have no say on how it's invested. again, nothing like a 401k. at least SS has disabity and widowers insurance.

8) Comment by SuzanneMS - 02/05/2012

How are you being self-centered and selfish? Your only concern is yourself. The only "solution" you are willing to accept is one that robs the state employees' of their earned benefit so that you can continue to benefit from lower income taxes while also benefiting from their work -- that's pretty much the definition of self-centered and selfish. How am I being "overly emotional?" I haven't even been emotional, let alone "overly." I have stated facts. If anyone is emotional, it is you. Shrieking about being "saddled with insurmountable debt," and accusing state workers of having "no regard for your kids." What makes you think that there are no state workers in your generation? What makes you think that I'm not in your generation? I also pay my taxes. I also pay for my health insurance. I also volunteer. I pay 8% of my salary into the state retirement system, as required. The only way I would get my salary for life is if I worked until I died, which I may have to, thanks ot you and Jindal. Yes you are wrong. The solution is, as whodat70816 says, for the citizens of this state to meet their constitutionally-mandated responsibility.

9) Comment by WhoCares - 02/05/2012

How am I being self centered and selfish? What is your solution? All you do is spew Jindal hate and have little regard for people outside of the system. I pay taxes, I pay into my 401k, I pay my own health insurance, I volunteer, and I am dumbfounded by your mentality. Im not banging on state workers I'm just stating my opinion. I said I could be wrong, but your are clearly overly emotional about this topic and need to chill. Youre going to get your salary and health benefit or life what are you freaking out about? My generation is going to pay for this and you know it. I'm not ashamed that I voted for Jindal, see name.

10) Comment by whodat70816 - 02/05/2012

@whocares....Since the UAL is a direct result of the State not paying what it said it would pay into the retirement system for decades, and the every citizen of this state enjoyed the benefits from the dollars that should have been going into the retirement systems over the years....then every citizen should have to pay down the UAL. State Workers never missed a single payment into LASERS!

11) Comment by SuzanneMS - 02/05/2012

No, WhoCares, you're being selfish and self-centered. You have no regard for the state employees who entered into the contract with the state in good faith, who paid their required 8% -- 4.2% more than Social Security currently -- in return for the state's paying 3% -- 3.2% less than Social Security currently --and a defined benefit. The state has never paid its full share, resulting in an unfunded accrued liability. This is an undeniable fact. It doesn't matter whether the days of defined benefit pensions are numbered. The state contracted with the employees for a defined benefit. It cannot now renege on that contract. That is malfeasance. My guess is you voted for Jindal, so you have only yourself to blame for your feelings of being saddled with government debt. He's the one who has nearly bankrupted the state, giving away billions in in tax exemptions, credits and rebates to his corporate allies, and slashing income taxes on the wealthy in this state.

12) Comment by whodat70816 - 02/05/2012

Give the citizens of La what they want...LOL...this is a great admendment. Give the citizens exactly what they are asking for, put state workers into SS and give them a 401(k) type plan and instead of the state using their tax dollars to contribute only 4% to a state worker's retirement, let the state contribute an additional 6.2% to SS. I love it....and the citizens of La will finally be happy, because state workers would have exactly what they have and it'll only cost them 10.2% instead of 4%. LMAO.

13) Comment by WhoCares - 02/05/2012

So why not identify the tax credit and incentives file a bill and make it happen. The days of defined benefit pensions are numbered. Ive never worked in the public sector and have always had a 401k, savings account, and have paid for an individual health policy. If there is a solution offer it. I'm only 30 and feel like the baby boomers are going to saddle my generation with insurmountable debt with little regard for your kids when it comes to future government debt. I'm just being real. I could be wrong.

14) Comment by LAAPSW - 02/05/2012

Just as I had suspected, Pearson accepted $2,500 from Jindal on 8/4/2011.

15) Comment by Winkchance - 02/05/2012

Why are we so afraid of allowing people to put their retirement options in their own hands?

16) Comment by LAAPSW - 02/05/2012

http://www.facebook.com/pension2012

17) Comment by Winkchance - 02/05/2012

Yeah, because Social Security is going to be there. Let's make a big problem even worse by laying it on the Feds who are going broke. More passing the buck, which is why we have $18.9 billion to make up for now. Good move.

18) Comment by LAAPSW - 02/05/2012

To answer the question of how we expect the State to pay for the retirement plan, how about we stop giving billions away in tax exemptions, credits and rebates? Jindal has said that these "incentives" to lure big business would pay for itself when these companies's and their employees paid their share of income taxes and sales taxes. This never happened. (check out http://www.revenue.louisiana.gov/forms/publications/TEB(2011).pdf) and go to page 17...Since 2009, the State has had revenue losses between 4.4 and 4.9 BILLION per year as a result of Jindal's take from the poor give to the rich reverse Robin Hood mentality. When will it stop?

19) Comment by SuzanneMS - 02/05/2012

The way it was supposed to be paid for in the first place. By the people of this state, who have received the benefit of the state workers' labors all these years. Let's start by getting rid of all of the corporate handouts that Jindal has railroaded through the legislature.

20) Comment by NewsReader - 02/05/2012

sharpie, pretty simple answer to your question: they've been cooking the books for years. For years state workers have contributed their share. And for years the state has managed to hide behind unrealistically high estimated returns (with LASERS actuaries/management being overriden often on their estimated returns) to avoid having to contribute their portion of the required contribution thus constantly tabling it. Combine a reduction in interest rates and poor market performance for a short period of time along with a retiring workforce and you have a huge balance that the state owes. While Jindal is squarely in the bullseye on this idiotic proposal, all of the previous governors and legislatures passing the budget are equally guilty in having turned a blind eye to this impending trainwreck.

21) Comment by WhoCares - 02/05/2012

State workers, how do you think the unfunded liability should be payed for?

22) Comment by sharpie - 02/05/2012

I don't understand how the state was going to get away with only a 4% match, Instead of paying into SS, which can't they up their match to a decent level?

23) Comment by sharpie - 02/05/2012

Traveler - The WEP and GPO may not apply to the new hires if they are paying into SS from the get go. This only affects people who will get a public pension and who did not pay into SS during their employment with the state.

24) Comment by Warp7 - 02/05/2012

It is nice to see that some in the Legislature are now standing up to Little Hitler Jindal and the Brown Shirts. We need more of our Legislators to start thinking for themselves and not be afraid of the 4th floor of the Capitol. We already know most of the GOP is going to follow Little Hitler Jindal blindly as they seem to think he is the second comming!. We are also seeing a double standard when it comes to who they want to impact the most, while at the same time protecting one set of state employees. As State Rep. John Bel Edwards, D-Amite, questioned why teachers, school employees and hazardous-duty employees are not included in the cash-balance plan??? If it is so great, why has Little Hitller left these folks out. Certainly the follower Pearson could have come up with a better response, which was totally lame. Also, who stands to gain by handling any 401 Plan for the state? What company is set to handle this should this bill eventually pass. Our quick talking Governor has been silent, as the rest of his brown shirts. We all know that these bills were actually created by the Governor's Office and not the Legislators who are handling the bills for them. They convient forget that State Employees are tax payers also. They pay federal and local income tax, property tax and contribute to the economy of this state by spending thier money here in Louisiana.

25) Comment by SuzanneMS - 02/05/2012

Of course the legislature doesn't want to allow state employees to pay into Social Security. The state would actually have to pony up its matching funds. The federal government wouldn't allow them to get away with kicking that can down the road. What is most disgusting about all of this is the implied attitude that state employees are nothing more than charity cases living off of tax payers. State employees are tax payers, which means that they are actually contributing to their own salary. And state employees are employees. They work for their salary and they work for their pension. They are not being "given" anything. They have earned it.

26) Comment by bettergovt - 02/05/2012

The fact of the matter is that Pearson is a just a fancy insurance salesman. He does not understand pensions, social security, or other retirement plans other than how to sell against them. He wants everyone to have an investment account because thats what the gov wants and he is used to selling them. He can pull out all the charts he wants about projected growth and how it compares to the current plan. The truth of the matter is it is all ***** made up by the administration. None of it will ever pan out. If you every bought any investment product or whole life policy, just pull out the projections they gave you when they were selling it to you and compare it to what you have now. Its all lies designed to get you to give the salesman your money. The legislative actuary's report contradicts him and all he can say is it is wrong. I am sorry but actuaries are a lot smarter than insurance salesmen when it comes to calculating investment returns. Insurance salesmen are a lot smarter when it comes to lining their own pockets with your money. Pearson is trying to do to new state employees what he does for a living. Which is convince you that your pension is ***** and their IRA is golden.

27) Comment by CountryBoysCanSurvive - 02/05/2012

Booby Jindal does not worry about any stinkin' retirement plan. He will have a career, answering the telephone, saying Velcome to A.O.L. my name is Bobby may I have your screen name please. I vill certenally try to help with your problem.

28) Comment by Traveler - 02/05/2012

Louisiana is one of 15 states in the union that is affected by two federal laws: the Government Pension Offset and the Windfall Elimination Provision. These laws can be repelaed only by the United States Congress. The laws are lengthy in wording and complicated in formula, but basically they work to diminish the Social Security earnings of pensioners dramatically. In summary,a pensioners cannot receive the FULL benefit of two government pensions. Let's say that a teacher is vested in the Teachers Retirement System of Louisiana but has also paid into Social Security for a minimum of 44 quarters. When that teacher retires, if he/she takes full retirement benefits from TRSL, then his/her SS benefits are reduced (according to that complicated formula) enormously. One retired teacher who came to my attention was expecting to supplement his TRSL pension with about $900 a month from SS (a benefit earned through years of holding a second job in the evenings and in the summers). After the GPO was applied, his SS benefit was reduced to a little more than $300. Apparently, the legislator who introduced the SS plan to "soften" the governor's retirement blow is unaware of the federal laws. Ah, well, why should we expect legislators to KNOW the law?!

29) Comment by Michael Gary Scott - 02/05/2012

About time the legislature grew a set and started fighting back against the hateful RINO bully. The people of Louisiana own Louisiana, not the Bobby Jindal Political Promotion Fund.

30) Comment by Elderly Man - 02/05/2012

I have never understood why the state gets to avoid paying into Social Security. I know that it does not because it would cost a lot of money but that is not reason not to take part in that system.