re: Are voters sending Landry a message?

quote:

---

The logic of a liberal woman.

---

Does whatever logic you claim tell you Landry will not be re-elected?

quote:

---

Could their overwhelming rejection of more amendments symbolize a rejection of Landry?

---

Symbolize? No. This WAS a rejection of Landry. It’s just a reflection of your kind’s new approach to politics. OMB is bleeding into everything else for you folks. Patently reject anything the person you don’t like does, says, or supports; regardless of merit. This election was slanted to Democrats and the results are a reflection of that. Not that people, by and large, aren’t just stupid and incapable of reading. It’s a combination.

quote:

---

Is that what you are claiming?

---

I am not aware of any district that will save than the $2250 / $1125 they are required to spend,

So yes, that is what the rules would have been.

quote:

---

Where are you getting those amounts from? I’m not aware that those are spelled out in the legislation. It reads that money saved will have to be used on raises. It doesn’t state what percentage of that money that was saved. You are implying that it is 100% of that money. I would like to see documentation that states that.

---

Did you actually read the amendment?

quote:

---

Do you support an amendment to fund a $2,250 teacher pay raise and $1,125 support staff pay raise by utilizing the remaining savings from paying down the debt of the Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana with monies from certain constitutional funds?

---

quote:

---

That doesn’t mean the districts.

---

The districts are the ones who pay into the retirement funds…

Are you not understanding or intentionally trying to be obtuse?

quote:

---

I was told by someone with the system that St. Tammany was set to save FAR more than what was received from those trusts.

---

Considering the total statewide spending from those funds was about $17 million I’m guessing every district can say that.

Let’s take it from the top.

1) state currently is spending the $2000/teacher and $1000 for support worker (the bonus)

2) districts pay into retirement plans, both a regular contribution and a special contribution to make up the unfunded account liability (UAL)

3) state currently takes earnings from the trust funds and gives to districts for various purposes

4) plan was to cash out the legacy funds and pay down the UAL

5) now districts have lower retirement costs due to lower UAL charges

6) districts would then direct that savings from lower UAL charge to pay the bonus

7) since the districts will now cover the bonus, the state will not, saving the state $200 million per year

8) since there is no more trust funds, there is no more interest from trust funds used to oay districts, so districts lose $17 million for that spending (or whatever actual figure is)

End results:

Pension funds are in “better” current shape

Teachers get a small $250 gross wage ($2250 vs $2000)

Districts are neutral on raise / retirement expense swap

Districts lose $17 million in funding unless state makes it up

State cuts $200 million in spending (unless they make up the $17 million)

quote:

---

4) plan was to cash out the legacy funds and pay down the UAL

---

It would only pay down 5% of the UAL too. Doesn’t seem worth it.

quote:

---

No, my 81 yr old mom is as pro Trump as you can get and likes Landry. She voted no on all amendments.
The boomers, sadly, use facebook ads for who to support. They fail miserably at doing any research on items or issues that don’t have a name.

---

Perhaps she is old enough to remember the gambling boats tax revenue will be dedicated to education. The gas tax will be used to repair our roads. The BP billions will be used to restore our coast. The truth is that most politicians enrich themselves and overtax the middle class and get NOTHING done. I usually vote no on any new tax or amendments......except St George schools, why would anyone want to stay in EBR schools?

So you are claiming that this amount:

quote:

---

5) now districts have lower retirement costs due to lower UAL charges

---

Equates to this amount:

quote:

---

8) since there is no more trust funds, there is no more interest from trust funds used to oay districts

---

Correct?

Because I was told that those numbers are nowhere near being equal.

quote:

---

Because I was told that those numbers are nowhere near being equal.

---

No.

I am claiming the reduction in UAL assessment is close to equal to the bonus payments that the districts will now be responsible for.

The reduction in state funding due to losing the trust fund interest is relatively minor compared to these other issues.

quote:

---

It's pretty clear that your post is just an emotional desire for it to be true. I quickly browsed through 4 pages and I think the most specific argument you've made to support the premise was...

---

Why didn’t you post evidence supporting your emotional desire that voters are aligned with Landry?

He is facing a lot of backlash right now including a recall campaign and voters rejecting a second set of amendments on ballots. If you are rejecting those facts as evidence, what is your evidence demonstrating voters are happy with Landry?