“After I graduated from UNH, I decided to work for the state of New Hampshire because of the retirement benefits.  My father currently works two jobs five years after he ‘retired’ and I wanted to make sure that the same thing wouldn’t happen to me.  I wanted a secure retirement.  But after watching what’s gone on for the past six months, 'secure' is the last word I would use to describe our retirement benefits.”
          Kim Beers, SEA Chapter 50 Councilor, testified 
          at a Senate ED&A Committee hearing.

The Anti-Employee Retirement Bill is chock full of bad ideas.

Bad idea #1: The Bill would get rid of four union representatives on the Retirement System Board of Trustees, and give “political appointees” the ability to make investment decisions, instead.
This “reform” ignores the fact that the member-representatives on the Board of Trustees have an excellent track record with their investment decisions. 

• The NHRS has a better investment record than the huge California Public Employee Retirement System (CalPERS) – which has been considered such a successful system that many private employers want to join it.  Over the past 20 years, the NHRS has averaged a 10.59% annual return on investment – while CalPERS has averaged only 10.53%.
• The NHRS has been keeping pace with the biggest of the private-sector pension funds.  Since Milliman, Inc. started keeping track in 2000, the 100 biggest private-sector pension plans have averaged a 6.89% annual return-on-investment, while the NHRS (investing much smaller amounts) has averaged 6.70%. 

Because NHRS Trustees follow a conservative investment strategy, those comparisons may look even better next year (high-risk investments have taken a beating in recent months).  So why replace our Trustees with political appointees?  Ask yourself: who benefits?  Who gets harmed?

Bad idea #2: The Bill would get eliminate the current Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) system and replace it with a “13th check” system.  That means benefits would increase by only $10 or $20 a year, total.

The Anti-Employee Retirement Bill is so full of bad ideas that we can’t even tell how much the “13th check” is supposed to be. 

• The Bill says it would be $500, minimum. 
• But the Bill also sets a maximum amount – which is supposed to be 2.5% of the median retirement benefit.  The median retirement benefit for public employees is about $10,000 a year – which means the Bill would set a $250 “maximum” limit on the 13th check. 

Whose bad idea was it, to have a “minimum” amount that’s twice as big as the “maximum” amount?  Who decides whether the “13th check” is $500 or $250?  Ask yourself: why are they trying to confuse people like this?