The Kingwood Tea Party recently hosted a debate between Bill King (against) and Councilmember David Martin (for) on the subject of Mayor Turner’s pension plan scheme. I was curious to see why a “conservative” would support Turner’s scheme to continue to spend money at a level that has sent our city into insolvency. Following the debate, research of Martin’s campaign finance reports led me to understand why he supports Turner on this issue.
Date of Contribution | Contributor | Contribution |
9/26/2012 | HPOU | $ 2,500 |
10/22/2012 | Baker Botts PAC | $ 1,000 |
10/19/2012 | Houston Retired Police PAC | $ 500 |
10/23/2012 | Locke Lord | $ 500 |
1/31/2013 | Houston Fire Fighter PAC | $ 3,000 |
6/21/2013 | HPOU | $ 2,500 |
4/1/2013 | HPOU | $ 2,500 |
2/25/2013 | Houston Retired Police PAC | $ 500 |
1/24/2013 | HPOU | $ 2,500 |
9/11/2013 | HPOU | $ 2,500 |
12/12/2013 | HPOU | $ 2,500 |
9/11/2013 | Houston Retired Police PAC | $ 500 |
8/12/2013 | Houston Fire Fighter PAC | $ 7,000 |
10/30/2013 | Locke Lord | $ 500 |
9/11/2013 | Locke Lord | $ 500 |
10/30/2013 | Seafarers Intl Union | $ 250 |
3/4/2014 | Baker Botts PAC | $ 1,000 |
11/30/2015 | Seafarers Intl Union | $ 250 |
5/11/2016 | HPOU | $ 2,500 |
5/11/2016 | Plumbers PAC | $ 500 |
5/11/2016 | Locke Lord | $ 500 |
5/11/2016 | Houston Retired Police PAC | $ 500 |
11/15/2016 | HPOU | $ 2,500 |
TOTAL | $ 37,000 |
Nothing I heard during this debate changed my belief that the best and most fiscally conservative way to solve Houston’s pension problems is to file for bankruptcy and dissolve the city. The County does a much better job at running local government and they steal less.
The most disturbing new revelation is that the four actuaries hired to work on the Turner scheme have entered into a non-disclosure agreement (NDA). Say what? Yes, you read that right. Even though the taxpayers are responsible for the city’s poor financial decisions, you are not permitted to learn about the methodology behind the scheme. With that decision, you can be certain that the deal is going to be bad – really bad.
A previous City actuary Towers Perrin, predecessor to Towers Watson, provided actuarial services to the City of Houston for the original mess. The ridiculous numbers got us to this place and Towers was ultimately sued by the City of Houston for their fraudulent methodology. Towers was off by billions of dollars. This was not the only new revelation that came out during the debate.
The person drafting Turner’s bill is uber-liberal “Republican” Dan Flynn, a Straus henchman from Van, Texas. Flynn, House Pension Chair, reportedly drafted a 150 page bill for his union friends that promises to burn a huge hole in the pockets of every property taxpayer in Houston. The City has distributed the proposed legislation to the Greater Houston Partnership and the Arnold Foundation; but, you, the taxpayer, aren’t good enough to see it. Bill King made an open records request to the city, which was sent to Ken Paxton to delay release of the information. There is not a siren loud enough to alert taxpayers to these shenanigans.
As a state representative, Turner carried much of the union legislation; so, in reality, he is trying to “fix” his own mess. Turner along with Senators John Whitmire and Mario Gallegos (deceased) drafted and sponsored the chaos now being inflicted on the city’s finances. It should be noted that Gallegos was a city firefighter, so his support was self-help.
Turner’s conflicts include receiving political endorsements and contributions from these unions as a state representative and (three-time) mayoral candidate. Whitmire has actually served as an administrator of one of the unions. The conflicts, self-dealing, and corruption are fundamentally grotesque.
Now if the actuaries won’t tell you how they got their numbers and the politicians won’t let you see how this scheme is to be implemented, it is time for bankruptcy and dissolution. Our city government has failed.
Readers need to know that David Martin admitted during the debate that he has seen neither (1) the actuarial figures nor (2) Flynn’s bill. Yet, Martin defended Turner’s plan until the end.
This legislative session, the city is frantically attempting to add a 30 billion dollar mortgage onto the already heavy backs of Houston taxpayers. Thankfully, Senator Paul Bettencourt, the Tax Man, is trying to come to the rescue. Uncle Paul has sponsored a bill that would require a vote on the pension bonds that belong to Turner’s scheme.
Martin completely rebuffed Senator Bettencourt’s efforts, claiming that the Tax Man was meddling in the city’s affairs. So, I guess it is okay for senators who favor Turner’s plan to “meddle” but conservatives need to stay home and sit on their hands. Martin wants the taxpayers, including his constituents, to sit down and shut up.
I did speak with Senator Bettencourt who wanted me to quote him. Paul said, “It is frightening that the City of Houston is hiding the actuarial numbers and legislation. If the numbers worked, there would not be a need to hide them.” I concur.
I have linked the debate here for your own viewing pleasure-special thank you to Windi Grimes for making this available and recording the event!
Now, let’s discuss the debate. Before I do, I wish to thank the Kingwood Tea Party for hosting this event along with James Quintero, Director of the Center for Local Governance at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, for moderating the event, and a shout out to Windi Grimes for the use of the video. Since none of the participants had seen the numbers, the debate was highly philosophical and was really more of a discussion on policy.
Martin made a historical argument – the city previously issued pension obligation bonds or POBs without voter approval so the same practice should be a-okay now. The record should reflect that the city has never simultaneously issued a billion dollars’ worth of bonds.
Voters need to really think about this situation. Turner, et al. are dead set on issuing the largest bond ever NOT to repair or build one street, road, water or sewer treatment plant, or library. Every dime will go to the bank accounts of city employees.
Let’s analyze this for a minute. The unions – the same unions who hate investments because they do not like defined contribution plans – want a billion dollars for investments. The thought or idea that unions think investments are risky is blown out of the water by this request. So, the next time you hear a union rube tell you that defined contributions are risky because investments are risky, you should ask why they are demanding a billion dollars for investments. This concept is seemingly above Martin’s head, even though he is a financial executive.
Martin really does not like Senator Bettencourt’s proposed legislation (SB151), which demands a public vote by taxpayers. Martin kept stressing that the Teacher Retirement System of Texas (TRS) is an underfunded state pension. Senator Bettencourt and Bill King have repeatedly denounced the TRS financial problem. Martin somehow thought this argument would make it okay to hamstring city taxpayers because the TRS is underfunded. Faulty logic indeed.
King brought up the need for a public vote by city taxpayers; but, Martin was adamant that a vote is unnecessary and the time is insufficient. King responded that the city is already planning to put a revenue cap on the November ballot. Think about that for a second. Martin is telling his constituents that the time is insufficient to put the POBs on the November ballot; yet, the city is putting the revenue cap on the November ballot.
Make no mistake, this is the largest ‘kick the can down the road’ pension deal ever attempted by a Houston mayor. The fact the actuaries will not release their numbers combined with Chairman Flynn’s bill being hidden from Houston voters should cause all voters to sit up and pay attention. When you see Martin, a supposed conservative, arguing that a vote is unnecessary for the POBs but necessary for the revenue cap is the argument for bankruptcy itself. Are the cats sleeping with the dogs or is this something more?
Dan Flynn headed the pension committee that would not allow Jim Murphy’s bill to give back local control of the pensions in the previous session. I called several of the committee members a couple of years ago and every rural republican I spoke with said the pension issues are the city’s problems. A direct quote from one of Dan Flynn’s staff member on 8/12/15 “He (Flynn) expects the pensions to be made whole by cities that created the problem”. I was told they will ‘study’ the issue in 2017.
In a conversation with Phil Stephenson on 8/11/2015 he stated he believes we can borrow the money to invest in order to make the pensions whole. This must where Turner gets his notion to try the same thing Phil Stevenson was talking about that day.
Anna Hernandez endorsed doing absolutely nothing but putting up the money to make the pensions whole. No plan, no discussion. Just pay.
A local rep I will not name since he provided me the names of the committee members gave me this insight: Joe Straus cannot be bucked. They are afraid of him and the power he wields. As far as the pension deal goes, the Texas house will endorse any deal that the local authorities, the board members of pensions they control and the unions are all in agreement. Notice who is missing from the equation.
Dave Martin’s list of union contributors and their law firms that represent them are no doubt mirrored by just about every Texas legislator from both parties. The Texas tax payers are not well served at all.
Ken Paxton, why can’t RICO statues be applied to this arrangement of self serving politicians?
As far as I’m concerned the people that find themselves with underfunded pensions got exactly what they lobbied so hard for all these years. Promises. From self serving politicians who are now colluding again to push the problem down the road.
DanMan,
We need to watch Senator Joan Huffman very carefully. She wants to put Paul’s language in her bill but move the implementation date to September 30th so the City can sell the one billion dollars worth of bonds before the law goes into effect. My question is who is running against her? I have some great pics of her and gal pal Devon Anderson.
Does Don Hooper stand to benefit in any way or manner, just curious but wondering why the constant attack on the pension plans primarily of HPD and the Fire Department.
Why not have the federal government go under? 20 trillion in debt and looks like they will be adding at least another trillion a year for the next 10 years.
Why not support removing the CAP on taxes for the City.
As to the County, what do I, who live in the city, get from them? Do they pick up my garbage, respond when I call the police, respond when I call the fire department, …
I think this all about the Republicans wanting to make Democrats as bogeyman. Have you looked at Texas pension problems now that they had to change the way they did the accounting?
Why do they (State of Texas) have to take money from city property to put in their coffers, transfer for education?
There are a lot of problems but the Democrats don’t have a monopoly. Why do we have so many DPS officers along the border when they would be better utilized in major metropolitan centers.
In fact when one compares HPD to the County, remember they have all those constables that also respond outside the city, one will find that HPD is a lot better.
http://www.click2houston.com/news/new-harris-county-numbers-show-many-unsolved-crimes
Neither,
How would I benefit? My only benefit would be for the City to file for bankruptcy and a responsible adult would repair the roads before paying people to hunt and fish.
Why try to disparage Hopper? He didn’t put taxpayers in this mess, the unions and the last six Progressive mayors, and lap dog City Councils did.
If one asks a question it is disparaging? I will differ with the categorization just wondering why there is no concern with what is occurring at the Federal Level. Did the Tea Party start with the election of Obama and concern for the national debt? Concern for the Obamacare mandates which now seem that they will be around for at least another two years?
Why look at the little potato when the big ma potato is looking worse? To quote what so called fiscal conservatives are now up to in Washington.
Republicans on the House Budget Committee are floating the idea of changing the standard of “success” for a budget. Budget vice chairman Todd Rokita (R-Ind.) has been speaking to members about ditching the 10-year-balance metric for one that focuses on a debt-to-GDP ratio. Supporters of the idea say it would paint a more accurate measure of the nation’s long-term fiscal situation anyway, as savings from entitlement reforms aren’t often realized until the second decade and beyond — not in the 10-year budget window.
Doesn’t it make sense to apply the same to the City of Houston?
When your first (and only) “question” is to accuse the man of a conflict of interest, then you shouldn’t be surprised when people see that as something of an attack.
As for your concern about the lack of interest in national debt, conservatives have been howling about our national debt problem for years. But BigJollyPolitics focuses on local and state issues. There are other venues that address national topics.
The most significant difference between national and local debt is that the US can print money. Certainly there are negatives attached to monetizing debt, but there is that option. Houston is stuck with a substantial debt that it has no choice but to pay using taxpayers dollars. What’s worse, there doesn’t seem to be any particular urgency on the part of our elected officials to actually address the root cause of the problem. Instead they keep trying to cover it up using accounting tricks.
BTW, I’m heartily in favor of a constitutional amendment that requires all government entities in the US, including the Federal government, to balance their budget each year, including pension and other long-term commitments. The only exception to be a national emergency declared and passed by a 2/3 vote of Congress. It would be painful for the first couple of years, but we’d be better off in the end.
You probably claim that you always balance your own budget. Have you never bought a house with a mortgage? Had a car loan? Student loans? There’s no way to run a government without borrowing money, unless you think there’s no need to build new schools, renovate older buildings, build new highways, etc. Or, we can just raise taxes to a much higher level.
Anyone who thinks a balanced budget amendment is a good idea hasn’t thought through the consequences.
We can agree to disagree, but I find it amazing that you can read my heart (intent) but to claim that Big Jolly never goes national is an alternative fact. We can agree that one can believe in the tooth fairy if one so chooses.
Did not the photo have the image for Tea Party. I believe that the Tea Party became fiscal because of the color of the previous president not any real concern for our country. For the record while I cannot prove it as Texas does not allow me to take a photo of my vote, I never voted for Obama and certainly don’t think he was a good president.
Neither,
FA did not say that we ‘never’ write about national stuff. He said we do not focus on it and that is very true.
What I don’t understand is why a guy that ran for Houston city council doesn’t want to know what the city is up to and the reason that a council member takes a certain position on an issue.
I thought Don’s post was very enlightening. Where else are you going to find out that Councilman Martin is being funded by the unions? Certainly not in your hometown newspaper.
Neither,
I never spoke or addressed you intent, nor did I accuse you of anything. I simply pointed out why other readers might might misconstrue your post.
And, then you turn around and do exactly the thing for which you accuse me. How can you possibly know the intent of the members of the Tea Party? Have you been to a lot of meetings? Had conversations with the organizers? Discussed political philosophy with members?
Before you start spouting “Racist” accusations, you’d better have your facts straight. Otherwise a lot of folk will simply assume that you’re another idiot liberal and stop paying any attention to you at all.
Ross,
Yep, you got me. I bought a house with a mortgage, and I’ve used loans to pay for things like cars, etc. So friggin what!?!?!?
I paid off my mortgage. And I paid off my loans, and I sure never needed to borrow money every stinking month, just to pay the damn bills. If you had actually read my post your would have seen the exception for outstanding needs. I’m perfectly willing to allow any exception you think is necessary – as long as it requires a roll-call vote and a minimum of 2/3 majority in Congress to pass.
The current debt obligations of the US Federal Government exceed 90 TRILLION dollars.
Anyone who thinks that we don’t need a balanced budget isn’t thinking at all.
We need to make it harder to issue bonds. TRP Platform in 2010 & 2012 & again 2016:
https://www.texasgop.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/2014-Platform-Final.pdf
—
Bond Elections- State and local bond election ballots should be required to include the amount of debt currently outstanding, current debt service payments, current per capita debt obligations, the amount of new debt being proposed, estimated debt service for the new debt, and estimated per capita burden being proposed. Any bond election (state or local) must pass with at least a 2/3 majority of voters to affirm the bond. The bond issue must obtain a yes vote of a minimum of 20{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} of registered voters. All elections of personnel responsible for adopting a budget and a property tax rate and all elections involving bond indebtedness shall be held on the November uniform election date and administered by the County Clerk or the County Elections Administrator. Any government entity should not spend taxpayer dollars in promoting further indebtedness or spending of taxpayer dollars via mass media. We oppose bundling of items on bond election ballots.
Whenever we talk about “improving,” “restructuring,” or changing any pension plan, you run into the problem of cheating people already in the plan. Those employees, whether they work for a private company or government, agreed to work there knowing the pension plan was part of their compensation package. When you cut those benefit in any way, you’re essentially breaching the employment contract you made with those employees.
The blame for the pension mess should go where it belongs, on the heads of a series of mayors and city councils that did not fund the plans plans like they were supposed to. It was kicking the can down the road to their successors’ successors in office. It’s awful easy to say we’re not going to fund the pensions fully this year and we’re going to spend the money on hiring police, fixing roads or whatever.
The same thing happened in private industry. Companies didn’t fully fund their defined contribution/defined benefit pensions and they got into trouble. It’s not just a government problem.
OK. We’re here now. Something has to be done. It isn’t going to be pretty but there has to be some solution to the problem. The longer we wait to do something, the worse it’s going to get.
Why is the subject of blame so important to some of you Tom? Does it really matter that those elected were responsible for the whole mess? That’s water under the bridge at this point because they are long gone. Accept the fact that the employees were cheated out of contractual promises and move forward like the rest of the world.
I don’t live in the city and have no intention of changing that status no matter what changes are made. I disagree with the idea of dissolution to let the county handle city affairs though as there is no mechanism for the county to take over city taxes in the process. On the plus side, city services would be cut to the level of the county so residents could pay for their street lights, trash services, and everything else but on the negative side would be the county having to increase police and fire protection without more funding, creating a burden on those of us in the unincorporated parts of the county. If the city dissolved in such a manner, the rush to move to a different county would resemble the gold rush days.
At least in the case of a bankruptcy, the federal judge or overseer might dissolve all contracts and cut everything, from interest payments on existing debt to salaries and pensions, perhaps even forcing duplicated services to be ended as a means of saving money. Too much uncertainty for my tastes but the legislature should let residents figure it all out on their own, no need to involve the rest of us.
Those of us who live in the City of Houston pay the exact same Harris County tax rate as you, and get little to nothing for it.