Welfare, Medicaid and Social Services

Re: 2007 House Bill 4530 (Balance budget with reduced school pension fund contribution )

Johnnie — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 17:49:08 GMT

So, how's this workin' for ya now that the market is down?

Would hardly call...

Anonymous Citizen — Thu, 24 May 2007 18:06:14 GMT

that a case of 'not paying my bills' but rather let's cut our expenses. You can do it, Anon, by not ordering so many pay-per-view movies, not go out to dinner as often, etc. If I can do it, Lansing should be able to do it, too.

Good idea

Anonymous Citizen — Thu, 24 May 2007 12:06:08 GMT

I'll try balancing my budget by not paying my bills. Hey, it works. Thanks for showing me the way, politicians.

What a mess.

Anonymous Citizen — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:47:40 GMT

Great, fuzzy math. That will solve the problem in years ahead, won't it? What in heaven's name is wrong with the thinking that went into this mess?

2007 House Bill 4530 (Balance budget with reduced school pension fund contribution )

admin — Mon, 01 Jan 2001 05:00:00 GMT

Introduced in the House on March 22, 2007, to allow a one-time revision in the formula used by the school employee pension fund to determine how large an annual state contribution is required to cover part of the liability created by promising school employees a defined level of annual post-retirement pension benefits in the years ahead. One of the elements in actuarial liability projections is the value of equities (stocks) in the pension fund’s portfolio, and the usual practice in determining the required annual contribution is to use a five-year moving average of their value, to account for market fluctuations. The bill would allow a one-year average, which given a strong stock market in the past year, has the effect of reducing the state contribution by $190 million less than the true actuarially sound amount, under generally accepted accounting principles. Also, to allow a one-time only “interest only” pension contribution, which is $93 million less than the true actuarially sound amount. The bill is part of Gov. Granholm’s plan to close a gap between desired spending and expected revenues in Fiscal Year 2006-2007 (and this element has also been adopted in a Senate Republican plan to close the gap)

The vote was 107 in favor, 1 opposed and 2 not voting

(House Roll Call 94 at House Journal 35)

Click here to view bill details.