Video & Transcript Research : 'pay'
Page 19 of 500
CA
California 2025-2026 Regular Session
Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee May 12th, 2026
Energy, Utilities and Communications
Transcript Highlights:
- and you're not going to pay.
- never, never could they pay.
- the state may need to pay, some utilities may need to pay some, and ratepayers may need to pay some—various
- So that's why you're paying.
- If companies that start fires pay less, everyone else is forced to pay more.
Summary:
The committee held the first of several informational hearings on the SB 254 Natural Catastrophe Resiliency Study, focused on wildfire risk, utility liability, and how to finance catastrophic losses. Chair Allen opened by describing California’s recent utility-ignited wildfires, the creation of the wildfire fund under AB 1054, and SB 254’s extension of that fund and requirement for a study. The California Earthquake Authority, as wildfire fund administrator, presented the report’s process and findings, emphasizing that the study was intended to be neutral and broad, based on extensive stakeholder outreach, and that the status quo is not working well for survivors, communities, ratepayers, insurers, or utilities.
CEA’s report organized recommendations into three policy pathways: continued mitigation investment, more equitable allocation of catastrophe burdens, and expanded state roles in catastrophe financing. For utilities, the report discussed options such as setting a binding risk-tolerance standard, preserving safety certificate accountability, tying executive compensation more directly to safety, creating confidential reporting with safe-harbor protections, reforming utility liability including possible changes to inverse condemnation, limiting damages, reducing insurance subrogation, and creating a fast-pay facility for survivors. The financing analysis compared a more durable wildfire fund, risk transfer/reinsurance, liability reforms, and state-backed mechanisms such as a state insurer, a state backstop, and broader funding for community wildfire mitigation.
The CPUC said wildfire mitigation oversight has improved, but wildfire-related costs are driving electricity bills higher and creating an affordability crisis. The Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety highlighted its wildfire mitigation plan review and field inspections, and recommended stronger safety reporting and more safety-weighted executive compensation. In member discussion, senators and assemblymembers focused on the cost of the status quo, whether the burden should be shared by ratepayers, utilities, the state, or other parties, and whether California should consider broader disaster-financing approaches. Several members raised concerns about inverse condemnation, the pace of survivor compensation, local land-use responsibility, and the need for a more comprehensive statewide solution rather than piecemeal bills. No votes or formal actions were taken; the hearing was informational only.
NH
New Hampshire 2025 Regular Session
House Commerce and Consumer Affairs Afternoon Subcommittee Work Session (02/12/2025)
Transcript Highlights:
- Who says the insurance company doesn't have to pay the bill? Well, they pay the bill.
- Oh, right, they don't pay it in full. Do they? Do they pay what they want to pay?
- pay whatever is that's going to pay pay whatever is going<00:28:55.120>
to <00:28:55.240>be - They are saying Howard was paying 50%; other insurance paying like 40, 30, like that.
- They are saying Howard was paying 50%; other insurance paying like 40, 30, like that.
Summary:
The subcommittee discussed three ambulance reimbursement bills and tried to distinguish their approaches. House Bill 185 would require insurers to pay the full amount billed by an ambulance provider when there is no contract rate, with no balance billing to the patient; the Insurance Department clarified that emergency ambulance services are already covered under the benchmark plan, so the bill’s reference to policies without ambulance coverage is effectively meaningless. House Bill 725 would set reimbursement at 325% of the Medicare rate for non-contract ambulance services and prohibit balance billing. House Bill 316 was described as addressing the broader problem that Medicare/Medicaid rates are low and that current balance billing shifts costs to patients or municipalities; its sponsor said the bill would require insurers to pay a rate that gives providers a fighting chance to remain in business, and he viewed 325% of Medicare as the most logical option.
Members debated whether insurers should pay the billed amount, a negotiated in-network rate, or a regulated percentage of Medicare. Some argued that out-of-network ambulance providers are underpaid and that in-network rates are often too low to sustain service, especially for emergency providers who cannot steer patients. Others said ambulance companies should not be able to bill whatever they want and questioned the fairness of charging insured patients or insurers more than the service is worth. There was also discussion of whether rate schedules should be reviewed by an oversight body and whether different costs in rural areas justify different reimbursement levels.
A recurring issue was balance billing and who ultimately bears the shortfall. Several members said balance billing harms patients and often does not get paid, leaving cities and towns or property taxpayers to cover the difference for municipal ambulance services. Others argued that shifting the cost to insurance premiums would spread the burden more fairly, though it could raise premiums by a few dollars per person per month. No vote or final action was taken in the excerpt; the discussion focused on clarifying the bills and weighing their policy tradeoffs.
MN
Transcript Highlights:
- <00:04:09.760>
$9,000 trap, and she was asked to pay $9,000 trap, and she was asked to pay - pay provisions. pay provisions.
- In other types of stay or pay contracts, employers have demanded that departing workers pay them for
- This is just around pay and stay.
- got to pay us a month
KY
Kentucky 2026 Regular Session
Public Pension Oversight Board. (2-13-26)
Transcript Highlights:
- They don't pay into the system. program. They don't pay into the system.
- <00:26:46.080>
for they could pay uh they could pay for they could pay uh they could pay for - programs would pay the normal cost. programs would pay the normal cost.
- It's like pay now or pay later. It's like pay now or pay later.
- report to us that do not pay into. report to us that do not pay into.
Keywords:
Meeting Start: 00:00:00
Attendance Roll Call: 00:00:17
Approval of Minutes: 00:02:09
Legislative Proposals:
HB 213: 00:02:13
HB 516: 00:25:00
HB 589: 00:39:30
Kentucky Public Pension Authority: 00:44:52
Adjournment: 01:14:07, 958, all
Summary:
The Public Pension Oversight Board met on February 13 and approved the minutes after establishing a quorum. The committee then took up three pension-related bills, beginning with Rep. Callaway’s proposal to allow certain retired police officers with 15 to 19 years of service to be rehired by local law enforcement agencies. Callaway and Brandon Lincoln of the FOP said the bill is intended to help recruitment and retention, especially for departments facing staffing shortages, and emphasized that it would be optional and would not allow double-dipping. Committee members raised concerns that lowering the service threshold from 20 to 15 years could create an unfunded liability and weaken the pension system, and several members said they did not yet fully understand how the pension and insurance provisions would work. The sponsor said she was open to working on the bill, and the chair noted the committee would continue to examine it with help from KPA staff.
The second bill, presented by Rep. Lewis with Brandon Lincoln and Jeff Taylor, addressed probationary employees in CS agencies, including firefighters and police officers. The bill would let certain former probationary employees purchase service credit for time spent in probation, and would extend line-of-duty death and disability protections to employees who are injured or killed during probationary service. Testimony said the measure is optional for employers, could be used as a recruitment tool, and would allow employees within six months of the probationary period to buy back the time themselves if they choose. Members generally supported the concept, noted a negligible fiscal note, and discussed whether current employees could buy back older probationary periods; the sponsor said the bill did not appear to allow that, though he was open to further discussion.
Throughout both bills, members focused on whether the proposals would create new pension costs or liabilities and how they would interact with existing retirement tiers and contribution rules. Several members asked for clarification on whether rehired workers would contribute to the pension system, whether employers would pay normal cost or any contribution at all, and whether the bills would affect future retirement benefits. The sponsors and witnesses repeatedly said the measures were limited, optional, and intended to address staffing and fairness issues without changing the core retirement system, but the committee did not take final action on the bills during the discussion.
MA
Massachusetts 2025-2026 Regular Session
Joint Committee on Revenue Jun 21st, 2026 at 10:00 am
Joint Committee on Revenue
Transcript Highlights:
- Like Dave said, at a time when working people are choosing between paying for medication or paying for
- They pay taxes into any jurisdiction they pay.
- They pay taxes into any jurisdiction they pay.
- We pay taxes; we all pay taxes. The big corporations should pay the taxes too.
- We pay taxes; we all pay taxes. The big corporations should pay the taxes too.
Summary:
The Joint Committee on Revenue, chaired by Senator James Eldridge and Representative Adrian Madaro, opened its hearing with a moment of silence for the late Lowell State Senator Ed Kennedy and reviewed hearing procedures and deadlines. The committee then took testimony on several corporate tax bills, including S. 2033/H. 3110 on offshore tax avoidance, H. 3248 on a manufacturing tax exemption, H. 3057 on a tiered corporate minimum tax, and S. 2041 on a corporate tax haven blacklist, along with a separate business interest deduction bill. No votes were taken during the hearing.
Supporters of S. 2033/H. 3110, including labor unions, health care workers, educators, public health advocates, seniors, and several legislators, argued that Massachusetts needs new revenue to offset federal cuts to Medicaid, SNAP, health care, education, and other services. They said the bill would raise roughly $400 million annually by increasing the share of offshore profits included in the state tax base from 5% to 50%, and they framed it as a fairness measure that would require large multinational corporations to pay more while leaving most local businesses and workers unaffected. Testimony emphasized risks to MassHealth, PCA services, adult dental care, hospitals, schools, and public health programs if new revenue is not raised.
Opponents, including the Mass Taxpayers Foundation and the Council on State Taxation, argued the proposal is poor tax policy and likely unconstitutional because it would tax foreign-source income without allowing foreign tax credits or a comparable apportionment method. They said Massachusetts should take a broader, coordinated approach to federal tax changes rather than a standalone bill, and warned of litigation risk and possible double taxation. Supporters such as MassBudget and former tax counsel Don Griswold countered that the bill is a reasonable rough-justice approach, consistent with federal and neighboring-state treatment, and that it would primarily affect a small number of very large multinationals. On S. 2041, the Global Business Alliance opposed the proposed tax haven blacklist, while supporting a separate bill allowing business interest deductibility.
MN
Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session
Personal care assistance and community first services and supports 3/10/26
Minnesota House Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- We were initially able to get them to agree to pay Cynthia the higher wage with back pay.
- >
back <00:06:58.160>pay. - <00:07:19.680>
time would no longer commit to paying time would no longer commit to paying - <00:07:26.240>
They not paying workers as much. They not paying workers as much. - Instead of us paying for two, we just enhance the pay that we are...
TX
Transcript Highlights:
- But the Texas Teacher Bill of Rights is not just about pay.
- I think we were all in favor of the teacher pay raises.
- When we shift. a historic record amount of billions of dollars to the state to pay teacher pay. raises
- Chairman, what I heard, sir, West says that we're paying, we're paying extra because we're acknowledging
- They're paying $250 a month. month for their cars when they used to pay $125,000 five years ago.
Keywords:
teacher compensation, education funding, public school educators, teacher retention, teacher designation, lottery, gambling, internet gaming, mobile application, criminal offenses, aquifer, water management, Edwards Aquifer, sustainability, regulatory framework, SB 565, Texas Water Code, TCEQ, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, compliance agreement
ND
North Dakota 2025-2026 Regular Session
House Industry, Business and Labor Apr 8th, 2025 at 02:45 pm
Industry, Business and Labor
Transcript Highlights:
- How are we going to pay the bill?
- How are we going to pay for this?
- Do they all pay dues, or is it...? They all pay dues. They're different, like retired members.
- They pay smaller dues.
- In fact, they can pay for a lifetime due, or they pay a little bit every month.
Bills:
SB2160
Keywords:
health insurance, public employees, uniform group insurance, retirement, state employees, 908, all
Summary:
The committee resumed work on Senate Bill 2160, which would move the Public Employees Retirement System health plan from grandfathered to non-grandfathered status under the Affordable Care Act. PERS officials Rebecca Frickie and Derek Holbein explained that the bill would allow more flexibility in plan design, including higher deductibles, co-pays, and out-of-pocket maximums, while also adding enhanced preventive benefits. They clarified that ACA “essential health benefits” apply to individual and small-group markets, not to PERS as a large employer, and that the bill’s projected cost increases were based on actuarial estimates and prior bid scenarios from Sanford and Blue Cross Blue Shield.
Members debated whether the bill would actually save money or simply shift costs to employees. Supporters argued that non-grandfathered status would create more levers to manage medical inflation and could produce net premium savings through plan redesign, citing prior bid comparisons showing potential reductions of 1% to 8% depending on the option. Opponents, including Representative Schauer and North Dakota United president Nick Archelette, questioned how the state would pay for the estimated $25 million to $30 million in added benefits and warned that employees could face higher out-of-pocket costs amid already strained household budgets. Frickie said the legislature would control funding decisions and that current law requiring the state to pay full family premiums could be changed only by statute.
The committee also discussed reserve funding, with members noting that a $4.3 million reserve draw in the bill was intended to cover the final months of the biennium and could be modified. After testimony and discussion, Vice Chair Johnson moved a do-pass recommendation and referral to Appropriations. The motion passed 10-3-1, with Representatives Ostlie, Schatz, and Schauer voting no. Representative Gump agreed to carry the bill.
TX
Texas 89th 2nd C.S.
Health Care Affordability, Select May 1st, 2026
Health Care Affordability, Select
Transcript Highlights:
- Yeah, it pays itself, but it pays itself more than it pays independent providers.
- much higher prices than what I am paying as a cash pay consumer.
- Pay less for care.
- Regardless of who pays it.
- I mean, you'd rather pay 30% more, but only pay when it works.
MO
Transcript Highlights:
- pay the 100% and they're going to pay at a higher rate because they're a large user.
- customers will be paying.
- customers will be paying.
- Somebody's got to pay taxes.
- And they have to pay people. And we pay people.
Summary:
The Committee on Utilities held an informational hearing on data centers in Missouri, with the chair explaining that the goal was to hear from three speakers with different perspectives and allow committee questions, but no public testimony. The first witness, Matt Edelow of the International Union of Operating Engineers and Columbia-Jefferson City Area Building Trades Council, spoke in support of data center development for its construction jobs, long-term employment, tax revenue, and local economic benefits. He said the Montgomery County projects had already put about 200 Missourians to work, described the facilities as using closed-loop water systems and generator noise levels that he said would be limited by setbacks and acoustics, and urged local hire and apprenticeship requirements. Committee members asked about water use, noise, cybersecurity, labor, and tax revenue, and he said one project could generate about $13.1 million annually at full buildout.
The second witness, Rob Dixon of Ameren Missouri, testified that Senate Bill 4 and the Public Service Commission’s large-load tariff provide strong protections for existing customers. He said large data center customers must sign long-term contracts, pay 100% of interconnection costs, post collateral, pay at least 80% of contracted demand, and face exit and reduction fees, with load-shedding rules applying to them like other customers. Dixon said Ameren’s planning process includes engineering reviews and MISO review before projects proceed, and that the utility’s integrated resource plan calls for 5.3 gigawatts of new generation by 2030, with 2.2 gigawatts of signed large-load agreements already in place. He also said large customers can help spread fixed grid costs and put downward pressure on rates, and noted that the protections apply to investor-owned utilities, not co-ops or municipal utilities.
The final witness, John Kaufman of the Consumers Council of Missouri, argued that the current protections are not strong enough and that data centers could raise rates through construction work in progress, stranded generation costs, and other risks if projects change or technology shifts. He urged greater consumer protections, including more upfront financial security from data centers, reconsideration of construction work in progress policies, and possibly requiring data centers to bring their own power in some cases. Committee members debated his claims about SB 4, QIP, and rate impacts, with some members saying the law already contains clawbacks and consumer-benefit requirements, while others echoed concerns about transparency and public understanding. The hearing ended without any votes or formal action, and the chair said the committee would continue the discussion in future meetings.
AR
Transcript Highlights:
- But getting to my question, before the pay plan, we had a thing at the HDCs, a differential pay plan.
- So prior to the pay plan, So prior to the pay plan being implemented this last July, we were essentially
- The new pay plan significantly increased what we pay CNAs and RNs and LPNs.
- , that they weren't required to pay more?
- We're already paying for a pharmacy there. We're already paying for security.
MA
Massachusetts 2025-2026 Regular Session
Joint Committee on Education Jun 21st, 2026 at 11:00 am
Joint Committee on Education
Transcript Highlights:
- I'm here to testify in support of Page 733, an act relative to educator pay.
- My daughter pays $3,000 a month.
- ESPs and for, and this minimum pay for teachers. Right.
- I urge you to support and act relative to educator pay to address the educator pay crisis and ensure
- House Bill 733 and Senate Bill 370, an act relative to educator pay.
Summary:
The Joint Committee on Education held a public hearing on a large slate of bills, with most testimony focused on two main topics: improving access to augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) for students with disabilities, and raising educator pay statewide. On the AAC bills (House 514/Senate 418), parents, advocates, and attorneys described how AAC devices and communication books help nonverbal or minimally verbal children communicate, participate in class, and reduce frustration and behavioral issues. Testimony emphasized that while districts are generally required to provide devices, many teachers and school staff lack training to use them effectively; the bill would direct DESE to update licensure and training requirements so newly licensed teachers are prepared to support AAC users. Committee members asked about current teacher-prep practices, implementation, and whether DESE could act without legislation, and witnesses said the proposal was intended as a long-term solution and had previously received some support and compromise language.
The committee also heard extensive testimony on House 733/Senate 370, which would set a statewide minimum salary of $70,000 for teachers and $55,000 for education support professionals (ESPs/paras), with inflation adjustments and a phase-in structure that would shift costs over time from the state to municipalities. Supporters, including the bill sponsor, MTA leaders, and school employees from several districts, argued that current pay is not a living wage, contributes to staffing shortages and turnover, and forces many educators to work multiple jobs or rely on public assistance. They said the bill would help recruit and retain staff and better reflect the importance of the work. Committee members raised questions about how the state would fund the mandate, how it would interact with Chapter 70 school aid and local budgets, whether other states have similar mechanisms, and whether the proposal could create disincentives for districts already paying above the floor. Witnesses pointed to the Student Opportunity Act, the Fair Share Amendment, and the need for a broader school funding formula review as possible parts of the solution.
The committee also briefly heard and discussed Senate Bill 435/House Bill 736, which would require de-escalation training for school bus operators, with the training paid for by employers. The sponsor and a parent advocate said the bill was prompted by a school bus incident involving a child with cerebral palsy and epilepsy and would improve safety and reduce reliance on law enforcement. Members asked whether the bill should also cover bus monitors and other transportation staff, and whether private contractors and public operators currently provide similar training. At the end of the hearing, the chairs closed testimony on the full list of bills and adjourned the hearing without taking any votes.
AZ
Transcript Highlights:
- a... ...sort of one-off element from private prompt-pay into this situation where public prompt-pay
- Yes, one of the primary differences between the private prompt-pay regime and the public prompt-pay regime
- and private prompt-pay.
- And everybody pays by—I don't know.
- So depending on where you go depends on the price you pay. So if you pay by card, it's $4.73.
Keywords:
insurance regulation, modeling organizations, financial disclosure, rate-making, predictive models, revitalization districts, construction contracts, infrastructure, municipal services, intergovernmental agreements, user fees, landowner agreements, overtime, wages, employee rights, industrial commission, complaints, adjudication, landlord, tenant
Summary:
The Commerce Committee heard and advanced five bills. HB 2174, as amended by a strike-everything, redefined “advisory organization” as a modeling and data organization and allowed models used by insurers for rate-making to be filed with DIFI, with DIFI able to require supporting data to verify compliance. The sponsor said the measure was the product of extensive stakeholder negotiations and technical cleanup. The committee adopted the amendment and then approved the bill 10-0 for a due-pass recommendation.
HB 2496 would require revitalization district construction contracts to include payment protections allowing contractors and subcontractors to pause or stop work if the district fails to pay. Supporters argued it was a fairness measure to prevent contractors from being forced to continue work without payment; opponents, including bond counsel and the League of Arizona Cities and Towns, warned it could disrupt public infrastructure projects, misalign incentives, and create bond-financing concerns. The committee passed the bill 9-1 with one member present.
HB 2910 would extend from 10 to 20 days the time a contractor has to contest an ROC recovery fund claim after notice. The sponsor and Home Builders Association said it was a minor, technical change and requested more time to respond to claims. The committee approved it 10-1. HB 2938, the “penny” bill, would require Swedish rounding for cash transactions when pennies are unavailable, with an amendment clarifying taxes and fees are calculated before rounding and protecting businesses complying with the rule. The sponsor described inconsistent business practices and support from stakeholders; the committee adopted the amendment and passed the bill.
HB 2744 would authorize the Industrial Commission of Arizona to investigate and adjudicate overtime wage violations at the state level. Supporters from the carpenters’ unions said federal enforcement is too slow and workers need a faster path to recover earned wages; the Industrial Commission said it would need additional FTEs and spending authority but not general fund money. One member opposed expanding agency authority over private wage disputes, but the committee ultimately passed the bill 10-1 and adjourned.
LA
Transcript Highlights:
- The scenario where they accidentally or unintentionally pay that, pay it without doing the withholding
- The scenario where they accidentally or unintentionally pay that, pay it without doing the withholding
- They pay the net cost of the drug.
- You pay for the claim cost.
- The member always pays zero.
Keywords:
family leave, insurance, paid leave, employment benefits, caregiver support, liability insurance, coverage defenses, direct action, judgment enforcement, legal procedures, insurance referrals, compensation, non-licensed agents, consumer protection, insurance products, HB 870, Act 907, Louisiana insurance, health insurance, prescription drugs
KY
Kentucky 2026 Regular Session
Budget Review Subcommittee on General Government, Finance, Personnel, and Public Retirement.(6-3-26)
Transcript Highlights:
- <00:14:43.440>
their We will stop paying them their We will stop paying them their retirement - >> In addition to that, they have to pay >> In addition to that, they have to pay back
- [clears throat] are being they're paying [clears throat] are being they're paying the<00:21:53.000
- that wasn't retired, would be paying into the system and helping to pay down the unfunded liability
- continuing to pay what's required? continuing to pay what's required?
Keywords:
Meeting Start 00:00:00
Attendance Roll Call 00:00:54
Pension System Update 00:03:38, 958, all
Summary:
The committee held its first official interim meeting after merging the General Government and Finance, Personnel, and Public Retirement committees, establishing a quorum and opening with the pledge and prayer. Members then received a briefing from KPPA representatives Ryan Barrow and Aaron Sarock on the state retirement systems, including KERS, CERS, and SPRS, and on the importance of fully funding the actuarially determined employer contribution, supplemental appropriations, and investment earnings in reducing unfunded liabilities. They said the systems have made progress toward a statutory closed amortization target of 2049 and emphasized that supplemental funding lowers current employer contribution rates but does not change that end date.
A major topic was federal and state reemployment-after-retirement rules for retirees who return to work with participating employers. KPPA explained that retirees must have a bona fide separation from service, no prearranged agreement to return, and generally a one-calendar-month break in service for retirees on or after January 1, 2024. If a member fails to comply, retirement benefits can be voided, payments stopped, health coverage ended, and benefits repaid. The presenters also noted that rehired retirees do not earn a second retirement account, and employers rehiring them must pay employer contributions and, in non-exempt cases, reimburse health insurance costs.
Members asked about the scale of rehired retirees and the difference between employer contribution and health insurance reimbursement amounts. KPPA said that in fiscal year 2025 there were over 3,500 rehired retirees in CERS and over 5,000 in SPRS, with substantial employer contributions and health reimbursement payments collected. They also explained that some positions are exempt from these chargebacks, including school resource officers and certain law enforcement positions that meet statutory criteria. The committee discussed House Bill 213, which allows cities, sheriffs’ departments, and post-secondary institutions to offer health insurance to rehired officers if authorized by the governing body, effective August 1, 2026, and clarifies the fiscal-year basis for certain exemption limits. No votes were taken.
MO
Transcript Highlights:
- Of course, they will pay for what they use, but if they use less, they are still required to pay for
- going to pay the 100% and they're going to pay at a higher rate because they're a large user.
- customers will be paying.
- Somebody's got to pay taxes.
- And they have to run, and they have to pay people. And we pay people.
NH
New Hampshire 2026 Regular Session
House Children and Family Law (02/24/2026)
Children and Family Law
Transcript Highlights:
- to have to pay more? to have to pay more?
- military pay would be that pay that military pay would be divided<01:21:22.320>
and <01:21:22.560 - <01:45:44.800>
is <01:45:45.119>pay ruled that military retainer pay is pay ruled that - retainer pay is pay and not property. retainer pay is pay and not property.
- retired pay. retired pay.
NH
Transcript Highlights:
- taxed, who pays the tax? taxed, who pays the tax?
- It does pay groceries. It does pay for gas.
- It does pay for groceries. It does pay for gas.
- They pay about 18% of what they would pay if they had to pay on their total assessed value.
- They pay about 18% of what they would pay if they had to pay on their total assessed value.
TX
Texas 89th Regular
Pensions, Investments & Financial Services Mar 3rd, 2025
Pensions, Investments & Financial Services
Transcript Highlights:
- It's a small program, pay-as-you-go, so we just pay benefits. through appropriations.
- At the time, $510 million to pay that out and pay it off by 2054.
- it off quicker, you pay less.
- They pay 100% of those benefits.
- Higher ed does not pay into that, for example.
CA
California 2025-2026 Regular Session
Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee Jun 17th, 2026
Budget and Fiscal Review
Transcript Highlights:
- That means we pay more.
- A lot of people are paying. A lot of people are paying $0 in premium.
- You have relied on us to pay for all of your expenses. It’s time for you to pay up.
- We’re saying we want you to pay your fair share because we’re saying we want you to pay your fair share
- How am I going to pay it and so on?