02-19-2017  8:43 am      •     

BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) -- Neil Carpenter took a pay cut when he accepted a job as a Louisiana state accountant more than 12 years ago, but he figured he would make up for the loss with a retirement check that would guarantee long-term financial security for him and his family.

Now the 41-year-old finds his life plan teetering as Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal seeks to restructure the pension system for rank-and-file workers, potentially requiring higher employee contributions and delaying the retirement plans of employees like Carpenter.

"Do you really want to breach a contract with the employees who have committed a long part of their lives to the state of Louisiana?" Carpenter asked state lawmakers recently.

For years, state governments lured workers with the promise of lucrative pensions that provide nearly the pay that employees earned on the job. But after years of budget crunches, nearly every state has revamped public retirement benefits in an effort to shrink the long-term obligations that are billions of dollars short of what is needed to cover benefits.

The moves have triggered a legal and political battle over whether states are reneging on their promises to millions of public-sector workers.

The National Conference of State Legislatures reports that since 2009, 43 states have boosted the slice of money workers must pay toward their own retirement, changed the age when a retiree can get benefits or modified their pension plans in other ways.

"In most cases, the changes affect only people hired after the legislation was passed. In a few plans, the changes apply to non-vested members as well," said Ron Snell, a public employee pension expert with the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Governors as ideologically apart as the conservative Jindal and California Democrat Jerry Brown are facing intense opposition from labor groups, workers and even members of their own parties as they try to change pension rules. And some battles have shifted to the courts, because most states have some sort of legal protection for public pensions.

Florida lawmakers last year passed a law requiring state workers to start paying 3 percent of their salary toward their pensions. Unions representing state workers challenged the law and won in a lower court. The lawsuit awaits a state Supreme Court decision.

Arizona legislators also backed a 3-percentage-point increase in retirement contributions for public employees, but they're working on reversing that increase after it was successfully challenged in court.

A New Hampshire judge ruled that recent pension changes in that state illegally raised contribution rates for workers vested in the state retirement system.

Few states have moved to raise the retirement age or change existing service requirements for current workers, as Jindal proposed. But most are grappling with the issue in some way:

-In New York, lawmakers voted to require new public-sector employees to pay more toward their retirement and to wait longer to get benefits. Public employee unions had strongly opposed Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo's efforts to cut benefits for future workers.

-In Illinois, Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn proposed raising the retirement age for public employees, requiring them to pay more toward their pensions and making school districts and colleges share in the costs. He said employees should not be allowed to retire with full benefits until age 67. Unions rejected the proposal as irresponsible and unconstitutional.

-Washington lawmakers reduced benefits for future state workers who take early retirement. Those who retire before age 62 are already penalized with lower pension benefits. Now, workers hired in May 2013 will face a 50 percent reduction if they retire at age 55 - a move expected to save $1.3 billion over 25 years.

One of the biggest battles is being waged in Louisiana, where pension programs are more than $18 billion short of the funding they'll need to pay for promised benefits. The governor says the shortfall threatens funding for critical state services as well as the state's overall ability to provide pensions to workers.

"What we're doing today is not sustainable. Part of the reason we're in this hole is for too many years, politicians made promises without paying for those promises," Jindal said.

Jindal wants to raise the contribution rate for current state workers and public college employees from 8 percent to 11 percent of their pay. He also wants to push the retirement age from as early as 55 for current workers to as late as age 67, depending on how many years they've been in the system and their age. He's seeking to create a cheaper 401(k)-style of pension plan for new hires.

The proposals would affect the retirement plans of 50,000 current state employees, including workers at public colleges.

The ideas have faced resistance so far from lawmakers and constitutional questions about diminishing benefits already promised to employees. Opponents, including leaders of the state employee retirement system, call the proposals illegal, saying they break agreements made with employees when they were hired.

"People entered into state government with a state contract provided for specifically in the Constitution," said Roy Mongrue, general counsel for the Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana and a former assistant attorney general.

Secretary of State Tom Schedler said the governor's retirement proposals threaten to drive off some of his most qualified election workers.

"I'd leave too, quite frankly, but it's a very scary position for me," said Schedler, a Republican.

Jindal is opposing attempts to make the bills apply only to future hires.

In California, Jerry Brown faces an even-larger unfunded liability for the state's two retirement systems - $150 billion.

Brown wants to increase the retirement age for future workers, require current and new local and state government employees to pay more, increase the years a new employee must work to qualify for retiree health benefits and place new workers into a hybrid plan that includes 401(k)-style accounts.

Republicans say Brown's plan doesn't go far enough but have generally embraced his proposal. "We believe it's a good start," said Senate Minority Leader Bob Huff, a Republican. "It's certainly rare that you see us agreeing with the Democrat governor."

But Democratic lawmakers who control the Legislature in California have not acted on the ideas in the more than six months since Brown offered them.

Concerns have been raised that existing case law makes it difficult to change contribution rates for current employees and retirees outside of collective bargaining. Union leaders have said the proposals cut too deeply into pension benefits, despite a nonpartisan legislative analysis that found California public workers receive some of the most generous pension benefits in the U.S.

Carroll Wills, a spokesman for the California Professional Firefighters, said the union supports some measures, like ending pension abuses, but feels public employees have been maligned in stories about public executives who game the system.

Wills said "the notion that pension funds are an unmitigated drain on tax dollars" is misleading.

Changes to state-backed retirement plans for public employees were rare before 2005, said Snell, of the National Conference of State Legislatures. But then the economic slump and the stock market downturn battered investments and funding levels of retirement systems.

The average funding ration for 126 statewide retirement plans had fallen to about 77 percent by 2010, according to the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. To pay for benefits, more and more tax dollars will have to be shifted to pension payments, threatening to crowd out spending on health care, education and road repairs.

The underfunding isn't the workers' fault. Retirees are living longer, the systems assumed optimistic investment returns but faced losses instead and politicians raised benefits or added workers to systems over the decades without adding new money to cover the costs.

"We made a bunch of promises we couldn't keep. We're where we are because all of us like to make people feel good and promise them things like a 28-year retirement, which sounded great at the time, but we didn't pay for it," said South Carolina Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter, a Democrat who served on a panel that studied that state's retirement benefits.

But public employees, in many instances, don't have the Social Security safety net. They don't pay into that government system and so they can't get Social Security benefits when they get older. That's why they think it's unfair for states to shrink their pensions.

"The state made a commitment," Jerry Pecora, a 25-year Louisiana state employee, recently urged lawmakers. "Don't penalize and punish the people that are working hard to try to provide, to stay off all the welfare, to stay off all the social stuff."

For his part, Carpenter is trying to sort out what the changes may mean for his financial future. The Louisiana Workforce Commission accountant had planned to put his three children through college before retiring at around age 59 with full benefits, about three-fourths of his salary. Now he faces the possibility of having to wait until he turns 64 to reach that level of pension benefits.

"You're paying more to wait longer for less benefits," he said. "One thing is bad enough, but when you combine it with insurance going up, pay staying the same, I'm considering looking at going back to the private sector."

---

Associated Press reporters Judy Lin in Sacramento, Calif.; Paul Davenport in Phoenix and Seanna Adcox in Columbia, S.C.; contributed to this report.

© 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Recently Published by The Skanner News

  • Default
  • Title
  • Date
  • Random
  • WASHINGTON (AP) — One month after the inauguration, the stretch of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of Donald Trump's White House still is a hard-hat zone. Skeletal remains of the inaugural reviewing stands poke skyward. Random piles of plywood and cables are heaped on the ground inside crooked lines of metal fencing. The disarray outside the president's front door, though not his fault, serves as a metaphor for the tumult still unfolding inside. Four weeks in, the man who says he inherited "a mess" at home and abroad is presiding over a White House that is widely described as itself being a mess. At a stunning pace, Trump has riled world leaders and frustrated allies. He was dealt a bruising legal blow on one of his signature policies. He lost his national security adviser and his pick for labor secretary to scandal. He's seen forces within his government push back against his policies and leak confidential information. All of this has played out amid a steady drip of revelations about an FBI investigation into his campaign's contacts with Russian intelligence officials. Trump says his administration is running like a "fine-tuned machine." He points to the rising stock market and the devotion of his still-loyal supporters as evidence that all is well, although his job approval rating is much lower than that for prior presidents in their first weeks in office. Stung by the unrelenting criticism coming his way, Trump dismisses much of it as "fake news" delivered by "the enemy of the people" — aka the press. Daily denunciations of the media are just one of the new White House fixtures Americans are adjusting to. Most days start (and end) with presidential tweets riffing off of whatever's on TV talk shows or teasing coming events or hurling insults at the media. At some point in the day, count on Trump to cast back to the marvels of his upset of Democrat Hillary Clinton in the November election and quite possibly overstate his margins of support. Expect more denunciations of the "dishonest" press and its "fake news." From there, things can veer in unexpected directions as Trump offers up policy pronouncements or offhand remarks that leave even White House aides struggling to interpret them. The long-standing U.S. policy of seeking a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Trump this past week offered this cryptic pronouncement: "I'm looking at two-state and one-state, and I like the one that both parties like. I can live with either one." His U.N. ambassador, Nikki Haley, the next day insisted, "We absolutely support a two-state solution." Trump's days are busy. Outside groups troop in for "listening sessions." Foreign leaders call or come to visit. (Or, in the case of Mexico's president, cancel out in pique over Trump's talk about the planned border wall.) After the president signed two dozen executive actions, the White House was awaiting a rush order of more of the gold-plated Cross pens that Trump prefers to the chrome-plated ones used by his predecessor. Trump hands them out as souvenirs at the signing ceremonies that he points to as evidence of his ambitious pace. "This last month has represented an unprecedented degree of action on behalf of the great citizens of our country," Trump said at a Thursday news conference. "Again, I say it. There has never been a presidency that's done so much in such a short period of time." That's all music to the ears of his followers, who sent him to Washington to upend the established order and play the role of disrupter. "I can't believe there's actually a politician doing what he says he would do," says an approving Scott Hiltgen, a 66-year-old office furniture sales broker from River Falls, Wisconsin. "That never happens." Disrupt Trump has. But there may be more sound and fury than substance to many of his early actions. Trump did select Judge Neil Gorsuch to replace the late Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court, a nomination that has drawn strong reviews from conservatives. But the president is regrouping on immigration after federal judges blocked his order to suspend the United States' refugee program and ban visitors from seven Muslim-majority countries, which had caused chaos for travelers around the globe. Some other orders on issues such as the U.S.-Mexico border wall and former President Barack Obama's health care law are of limited effect. Trump says his early actions show he means to deliver on the promises he made during the campaign. "A lot of people say, 'Oh, oh, Trump was only kidding with the wall,'" the president told a group of police chiefs recently. "I wasn't kidding. I don't kid." But the Republican-led Congress is still waiting to see specifics on how Trump wants to proceed legislatively on top initiatives such as replacing the health care law, enacting tax cuts and revising trade deals. The messy rollout of the travel ban and tumult over the ouster of national security adviser Michael Flynn for misrepresenting his contacts with Russia are part of a broader state of disarray as different figures in Trump's White House jockey for power and leaks reveal internal discord in the machinations of the presidency. "I thought by now you'd at least hear the outlines of domestic legislation like tax cuts," says Princeton historian Julian Zelizer. "But a lot of that has slowed. Trump shouldn't mistake the fact that some of his supporters like his style with the fact that a lot of Republicans just want the policies he promised them. He has to deliver that." Put Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., in the camp of those more interested in substance than style. "I'm not a great fan of daily tweets," McConnell said Friday, referring to the "extra discussion" that Trump likes to engage in. But McConnell was quick to add: "What I am a fan of is what he's been actually doing." He credits Trump with assembling a conservative Cabinet and taking steps to reduce government regulation, and promised: "We like his positions and we're going to pursue them as vigorously as we can." The challenge may be to tease out exactly what Trump wants in the way of a health care plan, tax changes and trade policy. At his long and defiant news conference on Thursday, Trump tried to dispel the impression of a White House in crisis, squarely blaming the press for keeping him from moving forward more decisively on his agenda. Pointing to his chief of staff, Reince Priebus, Trump said, "You take a look at Reince, he's working so hard just putting out fires that are fake fires. I mean, they're fake. They're not true. And isn't that a shame because he'd rather be working on health care, he'd rather be working on tax reform." For all the frustrations of his early days as president, Trump still seems tickled by the trappings of his office. When New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie visited the White House last week to discuss the national opioid epidemic over lunch, the governor said Trump informed him: "Chris, you and I are going to have the meatloaf.'" Trump added: "I'm telling you, the meatloaf is fabulous." ___Follow Nancy Benac on Twitter at http://twitter.com/nbenac
    Read More
  • FDR executive order sent 120,000 Japanese immigrants and citizens into camps
    Read More
  • Pruitt's nomination was strongly opposed by environmental groups and hundreds of former EPA employees
    Read More
load morehold SHIFT key to load allload all
Carpentry Professionals
Calendar

PHOTO GALLERY

Reed College Jobs
His Eye is on the Sparrow