Print This Post Print This Post

Jun

14

Flowers moves HB 151 to Rules and Reference committee aka it’s been killed


From yesterday’s Ohio House journal. The Akron Beacon Journal reports here that it’s been re-referred to the rules and references committee by a motion that was “agreed to.” I believe this means it’s been deep-sixed, but readers can correct me if I’m wrong. Here’s the legislative glossary for Ohio.

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 1:06 pm June 14th, 2007 in Politics 

Comments

4 Responses to “Flowers moves HB 151 to Rules and Reference committee aka it’s been killed”

  1. 1 Anonymous on June 14th, 2007 3:52 pm

    Someone may have reminded the House about ORC 3307.15. When one reads that state law, it’s pretty clear that the foremost LEGAL priority of a pension system is to grow the funds and take care of members’ retirement – NOT dabble in foreign policy. It’s about fiduciary duty and accountability. Someone in the House got afraid of a lawsuit similar to Illinois’ and wanted to get rid of the problem now. This may be a way of wiping the egg off their faces without anyone noticing. BUT I LOVE IT!!!!!

  2. 2 tdg on June 15th, 2007 1:04 pm

    it seems strange to me that progressives, who have no problem using the tax code to advance social policy, would object to using state money to advance policy in a different arena. here’s a question: if the sudanese government owned a majority stake in an oil company (which it very well may), would it be proper to object to the investment of ohio tax dollars in that company? certainly, such an investment would benefit a government engaged in behavior that nearly all would consider reprehensible; however, from my reading, it would appear that trying to keep ohio tax dollars from flowing into sudan would be considered by many progressives to be an improper restriction on money managers, whose job it is to grow the funds they manage by all means necessary. how strange then that many of the same people go all a-twitter when anything is done to benefit walmart. or, heaven forbid, what if these pension funds invested in companies shipping jobs overseas? would progressives object? would no one cry out against investing ohio tax dollars in companies that might be hurting ohio by shipping our jobs to china? i see no difference under the present circumstances. my guess is that if a democrat had proposed this bill, we would not be having this conversation.

  3. 3 Jill on June 15th, 2007 1:49 pm

    I don’t recall by name the Democrats supporting the bill – there are 29 co-sponsors. But Josh Mandel has discussed the bill in terms of it having bi-partisan support since the proposal went public in March.

  4. 4 Anonymous on June 15th, 2007 2:29 pm

    I believe that Rep. Mallory, a Democrat, is one of the co-sponsors of the bill. I just glanced at the list. I assume there are more.

    According to yesterday’s WSJ article, isn’t the Bush administration against this kind of legislation??? Wellll??? And isn’t Sen. Barack Obama trying to get legislation passed that would protect fund managers from liability as a result of such legislation, which proves to me that they expect the funds to lose money??? Isn’t Barack Obama a DEMOCRAT??? And there’s the other gentleman (name escapes me) who served in the Clinton Administration, who came out in favor of such legislation. He’s a Democrat, too. There are two parties represented on both sides of the agreement.

    As for tax dollars investing in the proposed boycotted stocks…..When I was teaching, we CONTRIBUTED a percentage of our paycheck, by PAYROLL DEDUCTION, to the State Teachers Retirement System (STRS). We were paid, THEN they took out for taxes, healthcare premiums, STRS, 403b’s, tax-sheltered annuities, etc. That’s not taxpayer money – that’s OUR money. The oversight is provided by the state, but it’s NOT state money. Once you pay someone, it’s their money. You don’t have a vote in how other people spend THEIR money. If the state can reach in and grab OUR pension fund money, then what’s to stop them from reaching in and grabbing our 403b’s and tax-sheltered annuities? Then they can come after YOURS.

    Furthermore, if this is such a MORAL ISSUE, then why are they allowing EXCEPTIONS such as the Alternative Retirement Plans, as proposed in HB 152??? Why are they exempting the Ohio Tuition Trust Authority? Why are they exempting mutual funds? Why hasn’t Rep. Shannon Jones sold her boycotted stock yet?

    This has less to do with so-called “morality” and more to do with taking out a HIT on Defined Benefit Plans. Connect the dots between HB 151 and HB 152.

Leave a Reply




"));