Jackson Jambalaya

I agree with the comment. What's the issue with it? Barbour is quacking like all lame ducks quack. He wants part of his legacy to suggest that he revamped a retirement system, when in reality he didn't do a damned thing about it for seven and a half years and then pretended to see a flaw in the system. Let's go walkin' Mississippi, away from this goofball.

BS a contract is a contract ONLY when it benefits an existing state bureaucrat; forget about the many special needs kids kicked off Medicaid recently. At least Haley is saying no sacred cows, but his Comm. Sir. Maybe missed the memo? Career limiting move IMO.

There may be a deal in place with retirees but there is no deal with current employees. Employers are free to change terms of employment. Current employees should be demanding that PERS be reformed immediately because the underfunded liabilities will not magically go away.

The PERS investment model is far beyond broken and to listen to disingenuous+deceitful politicos like Cecil Brown (who manages other people's private nest eggs for a living) make it sound like PERS is just fine for political gain is pathetic and the height of intellectual dishonesty.

Haley can't control The Tax Commissioner he appointed either.

Mr. Morgan can't slip an expensive boondoggle by the voter, so he wants a " study".

If the hired guns say Mr. Morgan is "dressed beautifully" or " has on a loin cloth", we'll still know he's "wearing no clothes".

Also, KF,you need to check out how Mr. Morgan is spending his budget. If employees are so swamped they need to work overtime, then that's an argument for a bigger facility with more bells and whistles and to hire more employees...unless the employees shouldn't have had to overtime.

The more employees you handle in state government, the more " important" you are.

In what Kangaroo Court is a contract not a contract? And enough of the Clintonesque whining about 'the children, the children, this is for the children'. Name a 'special needs' child who has lost benefits or whose needs are not being addressed. And while you're doing that, please refrain from comparing oranges to telegraph lines.

While in many cases an 'employer is free to change terms and conditions of employment' that's rarely the case when a contract is in place or other written assurances exist. And when 'you' say 'an employer', which of a hundred agencies are you talking about and which part of the multi level PERS umbrella system are you talking about?

It may be time for Phil to appoint a committee of State PERS Retirees to study and suggest changes to the SLRP program or MHP retirement program.

Rulian spends most of his time working on issues other than Medicaid for which he is paid. He is constantly blabbing about other subjects on blogs, etc.

Got a copy of that guaranteed contract Shadowfax?

Shadowfax - your ignorance is overwhelming. HIPPA prevents me from revealing the names of my patients who have been dis-enrolled from the state's Disabled Children Living at Home program since fall 2010, but several of them have testified before the state legislature about the hardship this has caused their parents. Those patients' names are public knowledge, and their testimony was reported widely. Google is your friend. Try educating yourself on a topic before spouting off. This is old news on this blog.

9:41. ShudderFart does this constantly.

Shadow your ignorance is showing. I was employed with a pension in place that was removed and altered and closed after a year of participation. Perhaps as a aself-employed individual you may not understand what I am talking about. This was done circa 2002. Government is always behind the curve. BTW no pension.

And you completely missed my point. PERS is no different a social contract than Medicaid.

Just found out Medicaid is now covering reversal of tubal ligation even to people with 3 children that are getting state money because father is incarcerated and 561.00 n food stamps. She wants 2 more children.

Shadow, as if enough people have not already shown your lack of intelligence on this post (as is the case on most every post), let me throw in the Federal Government's change from CSRS to Trift Savings Plan in the early 80's. CSRS was a defined benefit plan that was heading to the same hellhole as our PERS is today. The Feds changed it to the Thrift Savings which gave any thoughtful government employee a much better retirement program.

Also - to claim that HRB is 'just now' dealing with this issue is just flat showing your ignorance. The structure, board composition, and general plan has been an issue with the Gov and Legislature at least twice during his term, not including the 'fight' this year when PERS again came to the legislature demanding that the state pick up the shortfall by increasing the employer contribution to the system.

NOTE: PERS yesterday testified that next year they will be back to the legislature asking that the employer portion be increased yet again! Study the issue and you will find that something has to be done if former, current and future employees of the state expect to have a retirement income from the state.

Francis Rullan is a merit employee of Medicaid, not a political(i.e., will and pleasure) employee. The Governor does not have the ability to appoint a communications director at the Governor's Office, Division of Medicaid, courtesy of the Mississippi Legislature. So don't report his comments as the comments of a supporter the Governor.

If it were my pension, I'd be happy that some folks are volunteering their time to look at the programs solvency.

I'm certainly no lawyer, but a PERS handbook containing the rights and rules of the system that employees and retirees have and can expect is considered a legally binding contract, is it not? I've actually recently laid eyes on one of these forty page documents. And when one of these people retires, and selects her retirement options, most of which cannot be altered, and PERS honors that with a letter stating its obligations and methodology, moving forward, that is a contract, is it not?

As to Kangaroo-Court's introduction of HIPAA to the conversation, who among us did not support purging the rolls? I think Kangaroo wants to suggest there are thousands of starving children with twisted limbs and running ears who can no longer survive in this state. Hogwash.

(Hold on while I post a couple of times as 'anonymous')

shadowfox; you know better by now than to post something that in the lease contradicts or appears to contradict something posted by mister kangaroo or the moderator.

Kangaroo is right Shadow. Google is your friend. That's why HE is busy looking up the definition of contract. He seems to have a very elementary understanding.

I am a state retiree and have a folder full of signed, acknowledged documents guaranteeing the so called 13th check, advising me of my limitation to change anything in my contracted decisions made when I retired, and carefully detailing that I have a right to either spread out the cost of living guarantee over my monthly retirement payments or take it as a lump sum on Dec 15, each year following the year in which I retired prior to July 1, as well as many other retirement options, elections and guarantees. I look at that as a contract.

If we're bringing up Medicaid...

KF, why don't you put something up about 25 so we can discuss how some common forms of birth control ( which prevent the fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus and don't prevent conception) will become (to add to the stupidity) unconstitutional in MS?

Should this idiocy succeed, we should see increased Medicaid costs as many women can't tolerate estrogen based birth control and need IUDs to keep the Medicaid rolls from increasing in the number of "persons with legal rights".

We can't edit our sacred MS Constitution to get rid of language that no one can explain, but it's not so sacred as to add a Constitutional Admenment that will outlaw some common forms of birth control?

Throwing out the baby witht he bath water and unintended consequences come to mind.