Letters to the Editor do not reflect the opinions of The Reporter, its publisher or its staff. You can submit your own Letter to the Editor by email to News@ReadTheReporter.com. Please include your phone number and city of residence. The Reporter will publish one letter per person per week.
Dear Editor:
While the nation’s economy has been on a bit of a roller coaster ride over the past few years, Indiana’s economic outlook has largely remained steady due to steady investments made in our state.
New companies from every sector are creating high-paying, quality jobs across the state because of Indiana’s business-friendly economic climate. From the new advanced energy industries investing in northwest Indiana to the statewide business investment that has made us the best state to grow crops, manufacture goods, and host events, Indiana has become a great place to find a quality job, even for public sector employees like firefighters and police officers.
Unfortunately, a hastily created bill that is being considered by the state legislature could threaten further investment from American-owned companies into the state, affecting the pensions of our firefighters, police officers, and teachers in the process.
On its face, House Bill 1008 (HB 1008) is supposed to ensure that the Indiana Public Retirement System (INPRS) discharges its fiduciary duties solely in the financial interest of the participants and beneficiaries of the public pension and prevent environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors from being considered in investments for public pensions.
However, INPRS itself claims it is already acting solely upon financial considerations for the state pensions in order to maximize returns for Hoosiers. Due to HB 1008’s vague wording, a fiscal impact analysis from state financial analysts have concluded HB 1008 could end up costing taxpayers millions, if not billions of dollars, as a result of lower returns on investments.
Meanwhile, in a more common-sense approach to many of these issues, the Indiana Senate recently passed Senate Bill 268 (SB 268), a bill that requires state pension divestment from Chinese Communist Party controlled-interests. I applaud this effort because Indiana currently has more than $1 billion invested in Chinese state-controlled interests. This bill allows for a five-year runway toward full divestment with clearly outlined guidelines and a clearly defined end goal that would not cost taxpayers.
In contrast to SB 268, HB 1008 does not have clearly defined guidelines nor end goals. The threat of the bill’s arbitrary nature could cause INPRS to unnecessarily divest from American-owned companies in order to ensure compliance with very unclear rules. This could significantly lower returns for state pension holders, reduce competition among companies managing INPRS funds, and potentially dissuade American businesses from investing in Indiana. HB 1008 just threatens pensions for firefighters and police officers by creating more hoops for INPRS to jump through and makes advanced American industries worry we may lower the hammer on them arbitrarily.
If the General Assembly is going to instruct INPRS to divest from specific industries (which some may disagree with in the first place), I hope they focus on bills addressing actual threats like SB 268, not statement bills, such as HB 1008, which will have serious unintended consequences.
Indiana is already seeing the benefits from investment in advanced energy sources. I believe we need an all-of-the-above approach to energy. Energy demand is only going to increase. To power the future, we need as much energy as possible produced here, in America and Indiana, specifically. Billions of dollars are coming to the state in the form of electric vehicle battery manufacturing, hydrogen hubs, and much more.
The last thing the state should be doing is enacting a law that does nothing but put state pensions at risk while potentially making businesses skeptical of investing in Indiana. I hope the General Assembly will let INPRS continue fulfilling its fiduciary duty to Hoosiers without adding onerous legislation that will have serious unintended consequences that cost taxpayers.
David Goldberg
Carmel