State Representative Henry Zuber (R-Margaritaville) issued the following statement.
“I appreciate the Board’s passion for our retirement system. It is a passion I share based on the strong belief that Mississippi must keep its promise to retirees. That promise is sacred and my commitment to it is steadfast and unwavering. Thus, the need for HB 1590 to candidly address this serious topic. To our retirees: I understand your concern. The bill does not change benefits in any form or manner and PERS is fine in the near term. However, there are long term issues for concern brewing on the horizon! While the Board suggests that HB 1590 is an attempt to politicize a new Board, nothing can be further from the truth. The bill requires a Board with a high standard of knowledge and qualifications. The bill implements a governance structure nearly identical to the process that our IHL board members are appointed and is based on national models for public pension governance. Furthermore, concerning the assertion that there would be a loss of institutional knowledge and continuity, I point out that the present board is subject to turnover and elections.
The bill is simply based on the following: the plan was 72.4% funded in 2005 and as of 2023 was only 56.1% funded while during the same time the employers’ (including school districts) contribution increased 6.65% and the employees’ rate increased 1.75%. I am disappointed that the Board did not take the opportunity to recommend its proposal for LONG-TERM VIABILITY. Its recommendation of a 5% employer contribution increase over 3 years is a short term and stop gap measure. I request the Board to provide its proposal to get the retirement plan to a minimum of 80% funded over a 30-year amortization period. Past inaction is inexcusable and the intent of the bill is to make the plan solvent for future retirees!
The Board repeatedly states they have a fiduciary duty to the Plan. I have a fiduciary duty to the current retirees in addition to future generations of teachers, state employees and tax payers. Disagreement is healthy and debate is good. Posing tough questions and demanding answers is the way I obtain the truth and best information to base decisions. Consequently, I urge and encourage the Senate to move HB 1590 so that we can find a solution. Our present and future retirees deserve nothing less! Retirees that I talked to realize there are long term issues and that it will take a combination of recommendations. I urge all retirees to review their June/2023 statement evidencing the 56.1% funding status. We must begin to take steps to ensure that our retirees can count on their retirement. HB 1590 is the first step to a long-term viable solution.”
31 comments:
I doubt pure altruism. Who's yanking his chain?
Such moral commitment as he SLRPS up his own retirement benefits at an exaggerated rate.
You can smear lipstick all over that pig’s mouth, buddy, but it’s still a pig.
Take your feigned concern and happy ass back to the Coast.
I am in the pets system and this guy is right!!!
"I have a fiduciary duty to the current retirees in addition to future generations of teachers, state employees and tax payers."
You might want to look up the definition of a fiduciary before you make that claim. Legislators ain't it, clearly.
He wants to solve the issue by eliminating the funding increase and without cutting benefits. That’s how we got here in the first place.
The same people complaining about bailing out student loan debtors will be pushing for a bailout for PERS. Yes, it's a little bit different, but the principle point remains - any bailout (i.e. public appropriation directly to PERS) should be coupled with structural reform to the system (i.e. modification to a defined contribution plan for new employees). Protect current plan members, fine, but stop the cycle forever.
Nothing convinces me more that an ambulance chaser is telling the truth than him issuing a press release swearing nothing could be further from the truth regarding something from his opposition. And, again, not under oath, nor with peer review from a 3rd party professional, but just his, "I'm a lawyer, honest. Trust me."
Yeah.
Back to Biloxi, Bubba Three Sticks.
Projection is a true human trait, especially when it comes to the issue of trust. A person with a strong fiduciary character, usually projects that trait on to others, regardless of being justified, or not.
A dishonest person, projects their deceitful trait, the same as any other trait. These people have a tendency to not trust anyone, because they can't be trusted. Ain't that right 12:52, and 1:10?
Will the last one in the room.....
I have known Mr. Zuber for a number of years. He is known by his peers, judges before whom he appears in court, and his constituents to be an honest and ethical man. His defense of the bill may raise questions as to its effectiveness, but Mr. Zuber's intentions I believe are honorable.
How come he didn’t propose doing away with SLURP ? Actions
speak louder than words. Lead by example.
If Zubar supports the system and wants it to be funded properly, then why does his bill remove the 5% increase? He claims to want the system funded to 80% but fights against measures to meet that goal.
I'm sure the board would love a long-term solution, but the legislature does not want to hear the solution or fund the solution. The board wanted 5% immediately, but the political blowback delayed the increase and caused a piecemeal implementation - if it happens at all due to Zubar and Co.
The funded ratio is the current value of assets divided by the present value of all future obligations of the system to current employees and retirees. The calculation DOES NOT consider future contributions by employees and employers or investment income. The condition of PERS is the same as a person having $56,000 of investments with the present value of their mortgage and all loans payments being $100,000.
Gonna fix it by eliminating the contribution increase and by not cutting benefits. Seems like we tried that before.
Mr. Margaritaville, why don’t you put your money where your mouth is and move to put politicians like yourself on the same footing as other retirees. Do away with SLRP. Apply the same vesting period and years of service requirements to legislators as applies to State employees. But you won’t, because you’re not genuine.
someone ask him how SLRP is doing
2:49
Smart guy go back and listen to supertalk today with the Pers boss president and he says this has been overblown and people don’t need to freak out and take their money out. He also says SLRP has absolutely no effect on the pers situation at all!
"Trust me, I'm from the government and here to help." Right.
Mr. Zuber, if you are going to cancel the increase and still keep benefits the same, how on earth do you propose making it more financially solvent? Not one person for HB1590 has answered this.
Don't be fooled, this is the first step in them doing away with the defined benefit plan.
Make no mistake, these people are bought and paid for:
Mark my words...this new board will do nothing to fix PERS, but you can bet your ass some new financial advisors are going to get rich. This is no different than the Jackson water money coming from the Feds or the construction work on Continental Tire. Once an elected official gets a sniff that there is money to steer to political favorites, they can't resist.
This board needs to be independent of political influence. Its not as if this board can change benefits or make major changes. The legislature already has that responsibility.
PERS contributor here with a lot of years left before retirement. It’s clear the current board and structure need a shakeup. Kingfish’s reports over the years prove the math doesn’t work and this thing will eventually crater. While I do welcome someone shining light into this abyss, you’ll have to excuse me if I don’t exactly trust legislators to know how to fix this. I also don’t see anything in terms of the new board proposed structure that gives me confidence the right people will be in charge of this thing. If you want to sell me on this, Ms Leg, tell me how you plan to cut fees back to something even remotely close to practical. My Roth IRA is full of nothing but super low commission fee index funds outperforming practically any managed mutual funds. It’s also time to have a hard conversation about a cut off point for the pension and transition to a traditional 401K for new hires.
"The bill implements a governance structure nearly identical to the process that our IHL board members are appointed..."
One of the Big Three university presidents told me in a private conversation that the appointment of the IHL board members is the most political appointment in the state and has nothing to do with merit.
Zuber's exZuberance is pure political theater at its worst.
His diatribe constitutes a mockery of the elected position he holds.
In short - A poor closing argument.
The question that Mr. Zuber needs to answer is how much money has the company that is privatizing government jobs situated on the coast H2O Innovation Operation & Maintenance, LLC putting in his pocket and or campaign fund to kill PEERS.
There is the PEER Committee and there is PERS, but there is no PEERS.
Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review Committee
Public Employees Retirement System
The possums and raccoons want to get into the henhouse.
8:47
You are exactly right...political appointments with no regard for merit. I know from experience it takes those IHL Board members three years (or more) to have a basic working knowledge of that Board's activities. Make no mistake IHL is ran by the MSU and UM presidents. Using the IHL as a model for the PERS board and expecting a positive outcome is absurd.
In hindsight...How often, if ever, has a House or Senate committee requested that members of the PERS Board appear before the committee for this type of 'fact finding' venture?
I guessing the answer is 'never'. Supreme example of 'horse before cart'. This whole dog and pony show could have been avoided had either committee bothered to discover the competence of Board members.
Can someone explain the difference between PERS underfunding and Social Security underfunding?
If you listen to the Senate hearing from last week Zuber and the House were exposed. Randy McCoy spoke on behalf of the board and clearly knows his stuff. The legislature may not like it but their predecessors caused the problem by giving benefits and then not funding them. The fees being paid are not out of line with industry standards. The rate of return has beat the average and many other pension funds. As a member changes need to be made. The high four needs to be changed to the high ten, or some other average. You should only be able to contribute limited quarters of PTO to retirement. You shouldn't be able to collect until you are 62, or even later. But, the board does not need to become a political football- period.
All of this yack from a few house and senate members about The Board not following advice given by those they pay to advise...Give examples of that to prove your claim. If you can't, you have no credibility. And...you can't.
You’ve used a lot of very pretty words to say that the State is taking over our retirement, and we (retirees) have no say so what so ever in this matter. We just want EQUAL representation. I realize fair and just are concepts not familiar to the state legislature or any of our elected state leaders.
Post a Comment