|
The Missouri General Assembly is now in a special session, called by Governor Jay Nixon, for the purpose of enacting incentives for Ford to create and retain jobs at its Claycomo plant and paying for those incentives by creating a second tier retirement system for new state employees.
You know, robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Peter, in the form of HB 1 (on pensions)
.... (2) Requires any person who first becomes a state employee on or after January 1, 2011, to be a member of the Missouri State Employees' Retirement System (MOSERS) Year 2000 Plan....
....A member of this plan must contribute 4% of his or her pay to the system.... [emphasis added]
Paul, in form of HB 2 (on incentives for job creation/retention incentives directed at Ford, though not by name), from the Bill Summary:
....(2) Defines "qualified supplier" as a company that:
.... d) Provides health insurance to employees and pays at least 50% of the insurance premiums.... [emphasis added]
Uh, is offering a tax incentive to a company which requires they offer health insurance considered "socialized health care"? Just asking. And to think the bill was sponsored by a republican in the Missouri General Assembly. But, I digress.
Then there's this gem of a quote by the sponsor of the Senate version of the pension bill, Senator Jason Crowell (r), in today's Kansas City Star:
....Crowell, the architect of the reform legislation, said changes are critical for the state to keep up with broader trends in retirement.
"If you look at where this pension system is, based on where the private sector is, I think any taxpayer would call this necessary reform," Crowell said....
Is Senator Crowell (r) endorsing a private sector pay scale for all public employees in the State of Missouri?
Then again, the comparison doesn't quite work - from a technical note in the Bureau of Labor Statistics Employer Costs For Employee Compensation - March 2010 [pdf] news release:
...Compensation cost levels in State and local government should not be directly compared with levels in private industry. Differences between these sectors stem from factors such as variation in work activities and occupational structures. Manufacturing and sales, for example, make up a large part of private industry work activities but are rare in State and local government. Professional and administrative support occupations (including teachers) account for two-thirds of the State and local government workforce, compared with one-half of private industry....
And in higher education [pdf] (the provisions of this bill would apply to public higher education employees in Missouri):
...Salary is one of many factors considered by prospective faculty members in weighing offers of employment; many of today's academics are prepared to move among institutions (and private sector industries) for a more favorable compensation package. When top faculty members leave to pursue other opportunities, local and regional economic development can suffer through the associated loss of external funding, technology transfer and other entrepreneurial activity, and the loss of talented researchers and graduate students brought and attracted by cutting-edge scholars....
What effect do you think a reduction in pension benefits will have on recruiting and retaining new faculty at Missouri's public higher education institutions? Just asking.
So much for promoting the long term economic development potential of the state, eh? That defeats the whole stated purpose of the special session, don't you think? Peter and Paul, meet the Missouri General Assembly.
Retaining and and creating new jobs at the Ford Claycomo plant and for their suppliers is a good thing. It's the General Assembly's proposed method of paying for it that has me worried about the unintended consequences elsewhere.
In the Senate SB 1 [pdf] also addresses the public employee pension issue. The different language in the House and Senate bills will have to be reconciled. The Summary of SB1:
|
