When Marian Hood, of Gonzales, retired, she assumed she would receive all the benefits she had earned during 35 years of private employment and 10 years with the state.

While Hood receives a modest state pension, the 71-year-old retiree gets only about one-third of her anticipated Social Security benefits because of federal rules that limit retirement income.

On top of that, the rising cost of living has used up all her extra savings, said Hood, who lives on about $10,000 a year.

“Just enough to make ends meet, I’m finding ways,” she said.

If relying solely on pension benefits, up to 30 percent of the retirees from the two largest state employee retirement systems would be living under the federal poverty line.

The 2008 U.S. federal poverty levels are $10,400 a year for a single person household and $14,000 a year for a two-person household.

Officials with the Teachers’ Retirement System of Louisiana, called TRSL, and Louisiana State Employees’ Retirement System, called LASERS, said they do not know how many retirees survive on pensions alone.

“Those benefits are very modest,” TRSL spokeswoman Lisa Honore said. “Everybody would like to see retiree benefits that help them meet their living expenses.”

Louisiana is one of seven states where state employees do not typically participate in Social Security. If employees receive Social Security benefits from other jobs or spousal employment, the benefits could be reduced because of federal restrictions.

“We don’t agree with that,” Honore said. “We feel that this is money that you’ve either earned or are entitled to get.”

LASERS Executive Director Cindy Rougeou said she believes attempts to repeal the federal restrictions — called the Windfall Elimination Provision and Government Pension Offset — stall in the U.S. Congress because of an estimated $80 billion price tag.

“But, as you know, that’s like a drop in the bucket,” Rougeou said. “It’s just negatively impacting so many state retirees and so unfairly.”

State employees retirement benefits are based in part on how many years they were employed by the state and their highest earnings. 

So, the longer a state employee works and the more they earn, the more they receive in benefits.

Hood said if she had known about the Social Security offsets, she might have stayed in the private sector.

“The state offered more stability and at the time I was 42 years old, had gone through a divorce and needed to think about my retirement years,” she said. “But at the time, it wasn’t clear … that these changes to Social Security would effect my retirement that drastically.

“I thought I’d have the best of both worlds,” she said.

The state House of Representatives passed a study resolution this year to look at retirement benefits, particularly with regard to cost of living adjustments, called COLAs, and minimum benefits. 

Last month, the House Retirement Committee discussed the different aspects of COLAs and minimum benefits, including how to pay for them and who they benefit.

Committee Vice Chairman state Rep. Jean Doerge, D-Minden, who called for the study, said legislators are looking at ways to help retirees receiving less than $1,000 in monthly benefits.

LASERS and TRSL officials are working on numbers of how many people that would affect and how it would affect their finances, she said.

Officials from both retirement systems said COLAs are beneficial but those given in recent years have not been enough to significantly reduce the number of retirees living under the federal poverty line.

The state does not have the money to just give across-the-board raises, Doerge said. System officials and retiree associations suggest paying down the outstanding debt from past unfunded retirement benefits, which would free up money in the future, she said.

“Right now we’re in the research stage,” Doerge said. “And hopefully when we get this all together, we can draft legislation to take care of some of that.”