Jackson Jambalaya

I totally agree. The legislators get free breakfasts, lunches and dinners and other perks, plus per diem and travel, plus pay. Why do they deserve the extra retirement? Most have full-time jobs to start with. Other state workers never get freebies, rarely get reimbursed for using their own car to get to work and out and about FOR work, and are forced into the state retirement plan, whether they want it or not. I don't even get reimbursed for lunch on a day trip working out of town! (we would eat lunch anyway is the excuse - ha - try taking your lunch with you on the road with your boss).

KF,

Got to give you Kudos! This has been an issue since you brought up the discussion during the legislative session and it continues to be a thorn in the side of the taxpayers. Great to see WLBT jump on board and provide us a little transparency. This is one of the first times any legislator has address SLRP directly.

Can't understand why the Ethics Commission hasn't ruled, YET.

KK

I must have missed it last night...they did say SLURP, SLURP, SLURP....

Sort of like MHP's enhanced retirement. Makes absolutely no sense.

Living like no other so they can live like Kings with the pomp of Jack Ass's upon retirement. Mississippians lovvvve to give their elected officials lifetime jobs, wonder why.

I don't have as much of a beef about the MHP, as they truly do put their lives in danger and their pay sucks, and this is their primary job.

Kingfish for Governor!!!

Where do I send my contribution??

Came Across this....you might want to check out the financial section...

http://www.pers.state.ms.us/pdf/financials/2009AR/Statistical.pdf

Based on my projected calculations of all members currently serving my total number for SLRP Reserves in 2011 ($7.5 Million) jives pretty well with the 2009 calculation of $6 Million. I used the PERS numbers provided as assumptions and confirmed those with the actuarial tables provided in the attached report.

My total estimate on the amount spent on SLRP for 2010 is $392,000 and for 2011 is $392,000 for about 55% of the legislators. The reason for no change is that the roughly 45% of legislators today are not eligible under the plan because they have served less than 8 years. I searched for the date on the change on vesting from 4 to 8 years and could not find it. Someone maybe help? What I find funny is that roughly 20% of the legislators will have 7 years of service at the 2011 election cycle. The remaining 25% have less than seven and would have to more than likely win two more terms before they are eligible for SLRP.

The other thing I came across is the Supreme Court case where McRae dissented vs. the majority court.

http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/HDList/..%5COPINIONS%5CDillar.pdf

I do believe suspending it for this entire 2008-2011 legislative session could bring a little over $1.5MM to the coffers. Suspending it indefinitely saves roughly $392K a year. They should play by the same rules as everyone else, the MHP guys deserve what they get because of the hazard. There is nothing hazardous about passing mundane laws and appropriating money. I am not sure, but only the legislature can unwind SLFP because it is a law? Like that's gonna happen.

What you have to look at is the payout. The money paid in during the early years in no way is going to cover "the average of the four highest paid years". This would be the reason to extend the vesting period to get younger representatives to pay for SLRP coverage for established SLRP recipients AND their dependents in case of expiration.

Dean will have 19 years service in 2011 and Cecil will have 11.

Another (what should be) huge issue is why do we have so many members in the house of representatives.

@1:12

Perhaps so, but how more than any other cop or firefighter in this state? I have worked alongside a trooper, and they don't know how to do squat compared to a city or county cop. They can't work a domestic violence call or burglary. But they can write a speeding ticket really fast.

It is a slap in the face to that cop that shows up at your house when someone breaks in, or is trying to.

5:53 I think the rule is one rep per school district ;-)

What we need is a unicameral legislature that meets biannually.

This is not about the MHP retirement plan. Stay on topic.

'stay on topic'


you must be new 'round here

Listen again, Cecil said it's political issue in the legislature and they need to get the politics out of it. I understand that to mean he doesn't think it should be about politics either but is being used to create a partisan issue.

He also said he didn't think anyone served for the retirement benefit and if the figures reported are accurate,our lawmakers are pretty hard up if that paltry 10% amount is important to their retirement.

I did the math and while I'm ok with looking at SLRP as an item up for budget cuts, the numbers are so small , it doesn't amount to beans in the budget.

I think if we are going to worry about legislators profiting, this isn't where you look either. You look at their business ventures and see if their personal income improves while serving and if so, how that happened.

So,this seems like " much ado about nothing" to me.

The appointed boards of each junior college can raise your local taxes every year ...taxation without representation since you didn't elect them...you can vote your legislator out of office. To me, THAT'S important but is politically untouchable for all the wrong reasons.

But, if you're going to beat this drum, be SURE to not only record how this vote goes down, record how those voting this time voted when it came up before. That way we'll know who either doesn't know what the hell they are voting for the first time or who did and thought it was wrong then but did it anyway thinking we wouldn't notice.

Now THAT would be fun.

You are simply a Democrat apologist.

Listen again, Cecil said it's political issue in the legislature and they need to get the politics out of it. I understand that to mean he doesn't think it should be about politics either but is being used to create a partisan issue.

Really? Name for me ONE Republican, much less politician who is pushing for SLRP's removal? You can't.

He also said he didn't think anyone served for the retirement benefit and if the figures reported are accurate,our lawmakers are pretty hard up if that paltry 10% amount is important to their retirement.

No one, not even me, is accusing the legislators of serving because of the retirement benefit. No one has made that claim and you and Kirby are using that as a straw man to defend this perk.

I did the math and while I'm ok with looking at SLRP as an item up for budget cuts, the numbers are so small , it doesn't amount to beans in the budget

You seem to think you are the only one who can count. I myself have estimated the annual state contribution at a half million dollars a year or slightly less. Hard to know because PERS won't tell me, which you seem to be just fine with. However, as tight as the budget is and will be, they are much more deserving programs that need that half a million dollars or even three hundred thousand dollars than a bunch of good ole boys meeting for three months a year.

The point is the PRINCIPLE of it. They should not get time and a half on retirement. PERIOD. I don't care if its one extra dollar or if the state can easily afford it in flush times, it is indicative of what is wrong with this state and how the legislature considers it above everyone else. I am merely asking for them to play by the same set of rules as the rest of us.

You wouldn't be Jere, would you?

KingFish,

I thought private citizens didn't have standing (the right) to petition the Ethics Comission for an opinion.

I thought only governmental bodies or their members could petition the EC for an opinion.

Have I been misinformed all these years?

Why don't you go look in the Mississippi Code?

KF, not Jere Nash or even a Democrat.

The " politics" of this is "who's in the drivers seat" on retirement...PERS or the legislators. Getting the politics " out of it" means giving PERS " the wheel". This one isn't about Republican or Democrat.

As for the math...well I do know some folks ...saw KK's figures as well...follow the money to " payout". First, you have to retire or be retired by the people...ask those questions...how much of the money paid in gets paid out and under what conditions?

The reporter should have asked Pat to be more specific. She knows...one smart lady and ethical and realistic...smart enough to know people's eyes glaze over at the details so her comments were rather " benign" to put it kindly as well.

I'm with you on the principle of it. I'm good with cutting it but you might end up having to put the money back into PERS some other way.

Love you, but think you don't like Brown ( other comments were equally meaningless) and are hanging your hat on something that's small potatoes compared to other unethical issues ...like unelected people getting to raise our taxes that you ignored.

52.25% ( was $155 million plus in 2005)of junior college money comes from state tax.
12.48% comes from local taxes set by the unelected TRUSTEES of junior and community colleges many of whom serve for life and are alums... around 37 million tax dollars in 2005 ( last PEER review) is some real money. And, that 12.48% is taxation without representation any way you look at it.

Kingfish,

Went to MEC website.

Viewed the complaint form.

I do believe you will never get an opinion on your complaint because you have violated the oath you took when you signed the form to keep your complaint confidential.

Kingfish,

Theres's also that matter of a misdeameanor prosecution and a possible $1,000 fine for violating the confidentiality of the complaint process.

Or am I now reading and interpreting all of that incorrectly?

I am not a lawyer and I do not have the skills, or time necessary to research anything that I have said beyond what I have cited as being read so please don't ask me to read the Mississippi Code again.

A simple yes or no will do.

Frank, its not that you are not a lawyer its that you have major reading comprehension problems, which is one reason I rarely respond to you because you are usually off in another universe with your interpretations and arguments.

In this case, the penalty applies to ETHICS COMPLAINTS!!! If you read the sections and statutes for advisory opinions, which ARE non-binding, you will see they do not state any penalties.

in fact, the "advisory opinion" and "public records" sections do not mention at all any duty to maintain confidentiality of the request. The only penalty mentioned for disclosure is for disclosure of an ethics complaint and that is in the "ethics complaint" section. You couldn't have come up with that unless you were specifically in that section of the webpage.

You yourself said "the complaint process", which is NOT what I said, which is an "OPINION".

Complaint. Opinion. There IS a difference.

Frank, oh Frank, your attempt to derail the fact that this is excess is what us folks online refer to as "fail". I thought I was illiterate at reading the law; you sir take the case. I asked one question in my analysis. Did you bother to look for it? Or did you instead focus on the wrong thing? Your comments are an attempt to derail something that is a very real discussion that transpires here. I welcome your opinion, if founded in fact, however, if you choose to GO OFF TOPIC and focus on matters that are "straw men" then we just look at you and post replies like this. You should at least contribute, at most add to, and at max realize your "straw-man" deflection is juvenile.

GET ON TOPIC.

Caius Verres is brought to trial as a criminal, a man condemned in the opinion of every one by his life and actions, but acquitted by the enormousness of his wealth according to his own hope and boast.

YES!!! My boys are quoting Cicero. I love it. Go get this on some other blog.

Kingfish and Captain Kangaroo,

Please accept my sincerest apologies.

I asked my wife to review our posts and she poined out to me that I had not looked at the Public Records request section.

Lo and behold, anyone who feels they have been wrongfully denied access to public records can file a complaint, with no penalty or confidentialty requirements.

It seems that chemo drugs, like pot, does not improve one's mind.

Again, please accept my apologies.

Anyway, MEC says it will respond to a request for a public records opinion within 14 days.

Kingfish, do you have any idea why it is taking MEC so long to respond?

Sir,

I respectfully admonish my self for attacking a man undergoing chemo. My Dad, a great man indeed, did the same. Understand, this is not personal. Like my father said to me when he passed, "I'm worried for the world"; I took it to heart. You owe me no apology. We all make mistakes. I've learned through discourse to realize that mistakes are what alert us to the reality of truth (if we ever think we come close; check yourself). Never seen you before around these parts, but offer you a big ole' welcome aboard. This big rock we sit on and rotate around with is full of surprises, let us not forget that. I pray your wife and you are strong, I pray for your health; beyond that? Sharing our thoughts is the most powerful freedom we enjoy, I do hope you continue.

Oh, if you are on Chemo, ask the doc about Marionol. It is prescribable in MS. It helps a great deal with appetite and also make sure you are taking Ensure. Call the med co. they are always willing to give a helping hand. Especially when the insurance companies find a way to deny it.

God bless.

Thanks Captain,

I'll certainly ask the doctors here at MD Anderson in Houston about Marionol.

Talk about making lemonade when given leomons, my inabiliy to efficiently read and decipher kingfish's post has been a wake up call to me to always keep in mind that I will have to be more vigilent in my intellectual (read work) life to compensate for the loss of mental acuity inherent in taking chemo drugs.

As for the insults and personal attacks, I ALWAYS expect that from kingfish and his minions on this site, no matter what I say.