*First published in the Laurel Chronicle newspaper
The long-term sustainability of our state retirement system is the greatest fiscal challenge facing Mississippi in the foreseeable future. It’s an issue that really presses my buttons. So when it got used as a political talking point in the U.S. Senate campaign, I felt compelled to respond.
PERS is the acronym for the Public Employees’ State Retirement System, which covers employees of state agencies, cities, counties, community colleges, universities, and school systems, including teachers.
There are a lot of voters – more than 90,000 retirees and 162,000 active members – who depend on PERS, rendering it a so-called “third rail of politics.” Any politician brave enough to even broach the issue of its long-term sustainability may have committed political suicide.
Which makes it all the more rare that an official would address the issue head on, but that’s exactly what Gov. Barbour did by creating a PERS Study Commission in 2011. The need for the commission was brought to a head when the economy fizzled during the Great Recession. The pension plan was already suffering from the irresponsibility of the Mississippi Legislature, which chose to grant retroactive benefits in the 1990s and early 2000s without paying for these massive new costs. Excessive benefit enhancements coupled with the market downturn crippled our system.
Taxpayers contribute more than $900 million annually to PERS, and costs keep on rising. In just ten years, taxpayer contributions have jumped 60 percent, largely because of the plan’s $15 billion in unfunded liabilities.
To put that into perspective: The state of Mississippi currently has about $4 billion in bonded indebtedness. What we owe to PERS in the future is nearly four times that amount! You get the idea. This isn’t sustainable.
Yet last week, Chris McDaniel policy director Keith Plunkett criticized Barbour’s efforts, saying his candidate “stood up against [the PERS study commission].” Plunkett implied that Gov. Barbour’s intention in creating the study commission was to change the cost-of-living adjustment for teachers and other retirees.
In his comments, Plunkett quoted McDaniel from 2011: “Misleading retirees and state employees as a political ploy is inexcusable.”
Amen. Now let’s examine who’s misleading who.
First: The executive order creating the PERS Study Commission specifically defined its purpose, which was to make “recommendations on improving the financial, management, and investment structure of PERS.” At no point did the order even mention “cost-of-living adjustment.”
Will Flatt, a financial expert and member of the study commission, explained on Facebook that “Governor Barbour only gave us direction to study PERS. He gave no specific judgment or pre-conceived guidance” on any issue.
So Plunkett’s story doesn’t add up on the first point.
His second claim was that Chris McDaniel opposed this plan to study the state’s retirement system. Let’s examine.
In 2011, the Miss. Senate passed S.C.R. 678 to “develop and make recommendations on improving the financial, management, and investment structure of the retirement system.” That language sounds familiar, doesn’t it?
A majority of the Senate, including Senator Chris McDaniel, voted in favor of the resolution. It was the right vote to make. The only reason S.C.R. 678 didn’t succeed is because the Democrat-led House of Representatives killed it. Only then did Gov. Barbour establish the study commission via executive order.
Plunkett’s claim that McDaniel opposed Barbour’s study commission is wrong based on verifiable legislative record, which leads me to draw one of two conclusions: Either Plunkett doesn’t know where his candidate stands on the issue (not a good quality for a policy director, mind you), or McDaniel now agrees with the Democrats who wanted to – and did – kill the PERS resolution.
Finally, back to that quote from McDaniel about “misleading retirees.” Remember that in 2011, Democrats were afraid (and rightly so) of losing their hold on the Miss. House, so they latched onto any issue that might give them traction. They used many scare tactics but none so aggressively as PERS. Democrats claimed Republicans were trying to dismantle the retirement system and balance the budget on the backs of retirees. This Democrat argument ultimately rang hollow with voters, who saw past this contrived political smokescreen.
Now it seems the McDaniel campaign is attempting to use those same Democrat tactics to confuse this legitimate issue during the heated Senate primary. It’s a bad political move and terrible policy.
State Senator McDaniel cast the right vote in 2011 to study the PERS system. Back then, he said the system’s exploding unfunded liabilities “could become problematic” in the future if not addressed.
But U.S. Senate candidate Chris McDaniel appears to have sacrificed sound policy for political expediency. Sure, PERS is a political hot potato. I get that. But that’s what elected officials are selected by voters to do – deal with difficult issues. That’s what the Chris McDaniel campaign has promised to do: Never surrender. Never back down. Lead the good fight.
If McDaniel backs down from PERS, will he back down from other serious issues, too? Being a U.S. Senator is no easy task, and it will take someone with strong convictions to get the job done. Mississippi can’t afford politicians who retreat at the first sign of political sensitivity.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
Thursday, September 26, 2013
News delivery: Times, they are a-changin’
*First appeared in the Sept. 26, 2013 edition of the Laurel Chronicle.
When I first sat down to pen this column, I admit that I was undecided as to the topic of this week’s piece. Looking to the news for a little inspiration, I began my casual contemplation with a mental overview of the week’s current events, which led to me flipping on the television to watch Sen. Ted Cruz’s filibuster.
Responding to a ping on my iPhone, I noticed a fellow politico had mentioned me in a tweet about the filibuster…so naturally I started scrolling through my Twitter feed (for those of you not on Twitter, your “feed” is basically the home page that shows all the activity of the people you “follow”). According to this social media outlet, there was – er, is? – a lot going on in Mississippi and the nation.
Sen. Cruz was giving an impassioned filibuster speech, which some on Twitter referred to as a “fauxlibuster” due to a procedural technicality. Delta-born Jim Henson, best known for his creation of The Muppets, would have celebrated his 77th birthday. The Book of Manning premiered on ESPN and was, according to my feed, a moving documentary about Mississippi’s First Family of Football. Election results were coming in for the supervisors’ races in Hinds County, and, perhaps more importantly, for the special election held in Hattiesburg to elect a new mayor. (At the time of this writing, absentee votes were still being counted and no new mayor of the Hub City has yet been declared.)
After only a few minutes of perusing my Twitter feed, it hit me: Technology has drastically changed the landscape of news delivery and, along with it, the way candidates and campaigns communicate with constituents.
I love Twitter and consider it my number one news source. In a matter of minutes, I am able to scroll through my feed and instantly get a sense of what’s going on in the global marketplace, the national political scene, and the neighborhood next to mine.
Facebook and Instagram provide similar opportunities, though I often think of these sites as more social-based than news-based. But that’s the beauty of social networks – each user gets to customize his or her experience.
Since “all politics is local,” campaigns and candidates have seized opportunities to connect with constituents at a more localized level. Political groups continue to focus on newspapers, radio, and television, but recognize the changing landscape of news delivery. If you can’t articulate a message in 140 characters or less, then you’re probably out of luck in the political communications realm.
Last night, Sen. Cruz read tweets from people across the nation who were following the filibuster and using the hashtag “MakeDCListen.” The Twitter platform allowed thousands of Americans who were, I assume, previously unconnected join together in opposition to Obamacare by tweeting. The power of social networks cannot be underestimated.
Obama for America (OFA) is often heralded as the first campaign to truly utilize the various social media platforms for mobilizing campaign efforts: volunteers, get-out-the-vote (GOTV), and messaging. Subsequently, there is an increasing awareness of the need to incorporate social media into marketing strategies, regardless of political leanings.
According to a 2013 Pew Center study, nearly 72 percent of online U.S. adults use social networking sites, a huge increase over the same study in 2005 that showed just 8 percent of adults used these sites. A stand-alone question about Twitter found that 18 percent of online adults are now Twitter users, roughly double the amount of online adults who said they used Twitter in 2010.
And if you assume that all social networkers are young people, consider that six out of ten internet users ages 50-64 participate in social networks, as do 43 percent of those older than 65.
(Of course, the young generation has the largest social media presence, at 89 percent of 18-29 year-olds active online.)
Social networking coupled with the emergence of 24-hour cable news channels means that even a small gaffe by a candidate or official can become a huge political liability. In a political environment driven by breaking news on Twitter and shrill cries from talking heads, rationality can often times go out the window.
The rise of social media as a political messaging tool can be a two-edged sword: It can effectively mobilize supporters, but can also lead to overreactions and the cheapening of political honesty.
For what it’s worth, I think social networks like Twitter provide citizens like me with access to information that, in other eras, would have been nearly impossible or simply too time consuming to find. To borrow a quote from Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, technologies like his site and others have “revolutionized how people spread and consume information. We often talk about inventions like the printing press and the television – by simply making communication more efficient, they led to a complete transformation of many important parts of society. They gave more people a voice.”
In this era of boundless information, I can’t help but recall a throwback Dylan tune: “The order is rapidly fadin’, and the first now will later be last, oh the times, they are a-changin’.”
When I first sat down to pen this column, I admit that I was undecided as to the topic of this week’s piece. Looking to the news for a little inspiration, I began my casual contemplation with a mental overview of the week’s current events, which led to me flipping on the television to watch Sen. Ted Cruz’s filibuster.
Responding to a ping on my iPhone, I noticed a fellow politico had mentioned me in a tweet about the filibuster…so naturally I started scrolling through my Twitter feed (for those of you not on Twitter, your “feed” is basically the home page that shows all the activity of the people you “follow”). According to this social media outlet, there was – er, is? – a lot going on in Mississippi and the nation.
Sen. Cruz was giving an impassioned filibuster speech, which some on Twitter referred to as a “fauxlibuster” due to a procedural technicality. Delta-born Jim Henson, best known for his creation of The Muppets, would have celebrated his 77th birthday. The Book of Manning premiered on ESPN and was, according to my feed, a moving documentary about Mississippi’s First Family of Football. Election results were coming in for the supervisors’ races in Hinds County, and, perhaps more importantly, for the special election held in Hattiesburg to elect a new mayor. (At the time of this writing, absentee votes were still being counted and no new mayor of the Hub City has yet been declared.)
After only a few minutes of perusing my Twitter feed, it hit me: Technology has drastically changed the landscape of news delivery and, along with it, the way candidates and campaigns communicate with constituents.
I love Twitter and consider it my number one news source. In a matter of minutes, I am able to scroll through my feed and instantly get a sense of what’s going on in the global marketplace, the national political scene, and the neighborhood next to mine.
Facebook and Instagram provide similar opportunities, though I often think of these sites as more social-based than news-based. But that’s the beauty of social networks – each user gets to customize his or her experience.
Since “all politics is local,” campaigns and candidates have seized opportunities to connect with constituents at a more localized level. Political groups continue to focus on newspapers, radio, and television, but recognize the changing landscape of news delivery. If you can’t articulate a message in 140 characters or less, then you’re probably out of luck in the political communications realm.
Last night, Sen. Cruz read tweets from people across the nation who were following the filibuster and using the hashtag “MakeDCListen.” The Twitter platform allowed thousands of Americans who were, I assume, previously unconnected join together in opposition to Obamacare by tweeting. The power of social networks cannot be underestimated.
Obama for America (OFA) is often heralded as the first campaign to truly utilize the various social media platforms for mobilizing campaign efforts: volunteers, get-out-the-vote (GOTV), and messaging. Subsequently, there is an increasing awareness of the need to incorporate social media into marketing strategies, regardless of political leanings.
According to a 2013 Pew Center study, nearly 72 percent of online U.S. adults use social networking sites, a huge increase over the same study in 2005 that showed just 8 percent of adults used these sites. A stand-alone question about Twitter found that 18 percent of online adults are now Twitter users, roughly double the amount of online adults who said they used Twitter in 2010.
And if you assume that all social networkers are young people, consider that six out of ten internet users ages 50-64 participate in social networks, as do 43 percent of those older than 65.
(Of course, the young generation has the largest social media presence, at 89 percent of 18-29 year-olds active online.)
Social networking coupled with the emergence of 24-hour cable news channels means that even a small gaffe by a candidate or official can become a huge political liability. In a political environment driven by breaking news on Twitter and shrill cries from talking heads, rationality can often times go out the window.
The rise of social media as a political messaging tool can be a two-edged sword: It can effectively mobilize supporters, but can also lead to overreactions and the cheapening of political honesty.
For what it’s worth, I think social networks like Twitter provide citizens like me with access to information that, in other eras, would have been nearly impossible or simply too time consuming to find. To borrow a quote from Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, technologies like his site and others have “revolutionized how people spread and consume information. We often talk about inventions like the printing press and the television – by simply making communication more efficient, they led to a complete transformation of many important parts of society. They gave more people a voice.”
In this era of boundless information, I can’t help but recall a throwback Dylan tune: “The order is rapidly fadin’, and the first now will later be last, oh the times, they are a-changin’.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)