Showing posts with label REFORM. Show all posts
Showing posts with label REFORM. Show all posts

MISSISSIPPI FORUM

By Warren Yoder

Just when we need it the most, thousands of Mississippi workers are being denied unemployment benefits because of a broken, outdated system. When the national unemployment system was created in 1935, the work force was made up predominately of full-time, male workers. Today, that work force includes more part-time and female workers. Although America’s economy has changed, our state unemployment insurance system has not. This spring, fewer than 4 of 10 Mississippi workers qualified for unemployment benefits.

Because of the base period the state uses to consider eligibility, workers can have up to six months of their most recent earnings excluded when determining eligibility for unemployment benefits. This rule disproportionately hurts low-wage workers, because monetary qualification is based on earnings during the base period. A Mississippian can work more than other employees, yet not receive unemployment benefits simply because they are paid less. This is one of the reasons low-wage workers are half as likely as higher wage workers to receive unemployment benefits.

Recognizing the need for reform, Congress provided funds through the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for states to modernize their unemployment insurance system. Mississippi is eligible for nearly $60 million of this incentive funding. Should the state adjust its base period, as mentioned above, and consider workers’ most recent earnings, Mississippi can receive as much as $21.7 million. It can receive another $37.4 million by making two of the following four changes:

• Allow unemployment compensation for certain people seeking only part-time work (More than 40% of women heading families with children work part-time).

• Allow unemployment compensation for persons leaving work for compelling family reasons, such as domestic violence, illness or disability of an immediate family member, or the need to accompany a spouse whose employment is beyond commuting distance;

• Allow unemployment compensation for permanently laid-off workers who need extra unemployment benefits to continue participation in training authorized under the Workforce Investment Act;

• Allow a dependent allowance of at least $15 per dependent for workers who qualify for state benefits.

The Mississippi Department of Employment Security has adopted some reforms in recent years, including allowing victims of domestic abuse and workers forced to relocate because of military service of a spouse to remain eligible for unemployment benefits.

Opponents of reform claim the changes will increase employer taxes and threaten solvency of the state trust fund. But the National Employment Law Project estimates the federal dollars would cover the additional benefit costs for up to 4.5 years, after which Mississippi can determine whether to eliminate or scale back the reforms to ensure system solvency without raising Mississippi business taxes. Even should the state choose to keep the reforms after federal dollars are gone, concerns about cost are exaggerated. Many newly covered workers will be low-wage workers who receive 25 percent to 40 percent smaller benefit checks. The National Employment Law Project estimates that the average payout from the state unemployment trust fund will increase by only 4 percent to 6 percent in a typical year -- certainly no threat to solvency.

In truth, additional unemployment benefits could provide a boost to the state economy when it's most needed. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, every $1 paid in jobless benefits causes the economy to grow by more than $1, because these benefits are spent immediately and have multiplier effects. Thus, $56.1 million in stimulus funds for unemployment benefits could generate almost $100 million in economic activity for Mississippi.

More important than the potential boost in economic activity are needs of struggling families. Almost 40,000 Mississippi workers could benefit from this money. These families are suffering from the greatest recession since the Great Depression. They did not get fired because of misconduct, and they did not stop looking for work. They are not strangers; they are sisters and brothers, neighbors and friends, fellow church members, and fellow Mississippians.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yoder is executive director of the Public Policy Center of Mississippi.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2010 by the Mississippi Forum. 3/10

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

What is State Investment Fund Reform?

NEW MEXICO EDITORIAL FORUM

By Sen. Timothy M. Keller

Almost 10 years ago, our country was coping with a series of corporate accountability crises in the wake of Enron, World Com and other breakdowns in organizational governance. Widespread public outcry led to responses through our legal system and in Congress. Hundreds of lawsuits were filed in an effort to retrieve squandered funds and lawmakers responded by passing the Sarbanes Oxley Act. It’s now time for New Mexico to act.

Currently, a similar crisis faces state pension and investment funds across the country and at home in New Mexico. Our State Investment Council (SIC) has been drained by scandal costing over $5 million in legal fees. State funds finished 2009 in the very bottom 1 percent of performance nationwide, down a whopping $2 billion. Like those affected by Enron, our citizens and state should push legal actions to get our money back. We must also address the state investment fund’s inherent structural flaws much like Congress did with Sarbanes Oxley to prevent further deterioration of investor confidence and improve performance.

A central tenet of good governance is to have any board of directors be as diverse in experience as possible. Much attention has been given to ideas directed at diluting the Governor’s influence on our SIC. This idea is warranted, however, it’s only the tip of the iceberg. Our state has numerous structural conflicts of interest built into statute.

In January, an independent review of New Mexico fund governance reported 40 plus recommendations for structural change issued to the Governor and Legislature. The report noted that the State Investment Officer (SIO) has sole control of decision making during the SIC, while the state investment board acts, in reality, as an “advisory” board. Herein lies the root cause of systemic conflicts of interest built into the statutes for our state investment funds.

Right now, all contractor agreements, including financial advisors and legal counsel – which amount to about 85 percent of the $35 million SIC budget -- are at the sole discretion of one person, the SIO. The SIO also has a seat on the SIC so that if they (voluntarily) decide to bring an issue to the SIC, they get to vote on the same issue they are recommending. This structure creates potential for a serious conflict of interest. Considering our state funds manage $30 billion plus dollars, it is crucial that we build into law real accountability and transparency into our state funds.

Further, our investment fund board lacks basic qualification requirements. In Senate hearings we have heard testimony from top state fund officials who declared that their board “recently learned how to read a prospectus,” and “have E*TRADE accounts,” and “used to work at local bank;” as examples of “expertise.” In the professional investment world, these kinds of statements show an embarrassing lack of understanding.

Successful modern investing translates into a keen understanding of “alternative investments.” These are not traditional stocks and bonds; they are private equity, venture capital, derivatives, hedge funds, commercial backed mortgage securities, etc. In the private sector, individuals are not permitted to invest in most of these unless they are a “qualified investor” nor have various certifications, yet we allow or state funds to be invested in them by a board that has almost zero experience in these areas. Faced with the choices of not investing in these types of assets or hiring in house the requisite talent, we rely on almost 40 different advisors to make decisions for us.

Lastly, basic governance concepts such as quorum rules, transparency rules, vice chairman requirements, attendance requirements, designee rules, government conduct act provisions and fiduciary requirements are all virtually non-existent in our state laws.

A proposal, which is now making its way through our state Senate, includes many provisions to specifically address these glaring weaknesses. These changes are imperative in order to ensure best practices in investment bodies. In doing so, this will improve and protect objectivity and independence in investments, foster greater public confidence, establish structural and institutional confidence and promote honest and ethical conduct.

Our state funds, in addition to tax revenue, are the basis for our annual budget and are the $30 billion endowment for our state’s educational services. I hope New Mexico can lead the way in enacting comprehensive investment fund reform.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keller (D-Bernalillo-17) is a state senator who previously worked in private equity, investment banking and corporate governance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2010 by the American Forum. 2/10