There is no requirement that the Study Commission disclose how its operations are funded and whether private pension fund managers or others with a vested interest in changing the PERS system are paying for this work.So who exactly is paying for the 17-member PERS Study Commission?
There is a wealth of information at that site, and there are more questions than answers surrounding the Republican-led attack on PERS. Stay tuned....
7 comments:
Considering you know probably next to nothing about PERS and have yet to read a single financial report or any other data on PERS, its pretty hard to take your line of questioning seriously.
Assuming quite a lot, aren't you Jimmy? You know what happens when you assume...,
Oh, we want to go down that path? No problem Matty, Two can play at this game.
Well, then since you are now an expert on PERS despite the fact I've never seen you at a board or committee meeting, I'll assume you think a retirement system running at a funding level of less than 70% (yes I know the assets are more than liabilities right now), has a board with little if any financial expertise apart from the treasurer, oh, and the taxpayers themselves have little if any representation on a board that controls over a billion dollars that is provided by the taxpayers through employer contributions and employee salaries is just fine.
So since I'm assuming too much, why don't you start discussing the asset allocation of PERS? The target goals for the core real estate portfolio? The use of Mercer in the past as an adviser? What do you think will happen when the treasury bubble burst? I'm waiting.
My money is on Kingfish. No ... wait. I'll double-down without seeing my cards on Kingfish versus the journo-fool pretenders at Cottonmouth.
The first part can be responded to in a comment, but the second part requires separate posts. Since I'm just now getting to bed after writing the mock trial problem for our state's high schoolers, I'll stick to a comment.
To begin with, going to meetings doesn't make you an expert any more than watching American Idol makes you a pop star.
Second, you know full well that, once the effects of the recent economic downturn are erased through recovery, the longterm financial stability of PERS looks much better. It is of no surprise to anyone that private fund managers are looking to scare folks into buying their products right now like the gold bar hucksters on SuperTalk. Painting a horrific picture with myopic numbers is the modus operandi of both sets of folks.
Finally, it is a surprise that folks fall for it. Because, if your concern truly is taxpayer oversight, turning over control of the state's retirement fund to unaccountable private entities makes sense, right?
So I ask again, who is paying for the PERS study? Someone who stands to make a mint if we move to a defined contribution plan? Surely not. No way anything like that would ever happen in Mississippi....
Who is paying for it? I'm sure the members serving are volunteers which often is the case on commissions such as these.
You're right Mattie, reading the reports, going to the meetings, talking to the people making the decisions makes someone less of an expert than someone who doesn't. Spoken like a true lawyer who mistakes sophistry for logic.
Where exactly did I advocate turning control of PERS over to private entities? come on, don't be bashful? Where did I advocate such a thing?
By the way, tate made the same points you did at the MPACT hearing. Funny how Cecil and Johnny disagreed with him when he said the same thing you did.
Post a Comment