Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: OK, so what’s your solution then? (Part 59,482)
Next Post: Question(s) of the day
Posted in:
* I don’t disagree with Civic Federation President Lawrence Msall’s viewpoint that the pension reform negotiations probably should’ve been far more data-driven. But I do have some significant quibbles. First, let’s hear him out…
The publicly debated and data-backed effort to repair Medicaid resulted in a package of bills that will likely prevent the collapse of vital services to the state’s most vulnerable residents. The closed path to pension reform lacked any meaningful data and led nowhere.
The road to repairing Medicaid included three key components that were absent in this week’s disjointed legislative maneuvering surrounding pension reform.
• First, lawmakers identified a shared goal of what the state needed to achieve: cut $2.7 billion from the Medicaid program. Lawmakers must be able to identify an equally specific goal for pension reform. The state currently projects it will spend 22.1% of its operating revenues on pension costs in fiscal year 2013 (including both contributions and payments on pension bonds). This percentage has grown from only 3.6% in fiscal 1996 and is expected to reach nearly 30% by the 2033 budget year. These costs are obviously unsustainable and will continue to crowd out the state’s ability to pay for basic government services. What percentage of operating resources can the state afford to spend on pensions? This answer to this question is essential to defining the goal of pension reform.
• During the Medicaid deliberations, lawmakers and the general public also had access to detailed information on the implications of all proposed options for achieving the shared goal. The Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services made information widely available on each of the proposed changes and their projected savings. The various pension reform proposals did not come with this kind of detailed analysis. Lawmakers and the public could only speculate on what the vague notions of cost savings would imply for the state, local governments, employees and retirees.
• Finally, meaningful reform requires a rigorous debate on the proposed options, involving all stakeholders. Such debate on pension reform was impossible without access to the kind of detailed information provided on the Medicaid program.
In the absence of a shared goal, detailed information and rigorous debate, pension costs will continue to crowd out other state spending priorities. There is no time to waste to get pension reform right: Every day of delay makes the solution more painful.
* I agree, generally, with the argument that Gov. Pat Quinn set a $2.7 billion goal for Medicaid and probably should’ve set some sort of hard long-term savings goal for pensions as well. Quinn had a plan, but he was malleable on all points.
I also agree that the various pension reform proposals should have come with lots more data and been publicly disseminated. I think there was probably a worry that sharing too much would harm some pretty delicate and intense negotiations. But a bit more openness and a lot more data should’ve been the rule here.
Also, it’s tough to foster any public debate - available data or not - when the unions refuse to discuss the finer points and insist on sticking to their public talking points about how the government’s historic underfunding is to blame and that workers shouldn’t be made to shoulder the entire burden.
We need more data. For sure. But right now I’d settle for a quietly negotiated agreement.
You?
Make sure to keep in mind that Msall’s Civic Federation and Ty Fahner’s Civic Committee of The Commercial Club of Chicago are two separate entities. Msall is the guy who sounded the legitimate alarm on the Medicaid crisis. The Civic Committee is the group that paid for that goofy billboard truck which was spotted near the Statehouse last week.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Jun 4, 12 @ 10:49 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: OK, so what’s your solution then? (Part 59,482)
Next Post: Question(s) of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
As a business owner in southern Ill there should have been a debate on the economic impact of sucking hundreds of millions of dollars from the downstate economy by raising healthcare premiums on retireed workers.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Jun 4, 12 @ 10:57 am
Last year SERS income exceed its expenditures. This is one of those “data points” that gets lost in looking at the overall numbers. I’m not sure what the other systems reports say—-I just looked at the SERS report of last complete fiscal year.
Somebody somewhere came up with the big $83 billion unfunded liability number and it has taken on a life of its own. It might even be true, but the whole thing needs to be reassessed by somebody neutral.
Comment by Cassiopeia Monday, Jun 4, 12 @ 11:07 am
I agree with Msall that more data was needed. I was not directly involved nor impacted by the debate but even I kept asking what are the cost involved since in the future it is going to effect the budget annually. No one seemed to be able to put dollars figures to proposed options.
A year ago I think very few people in this state realized that teachers pensions made up such a large percentage of the total. Republicans kept saying we need to cut the bloated state budget and lay off state workers to solve the problem. Then they started looking at the data and realized that it was the teacher at their kids school that was going to be the angry caller to their legislative offices and their tune changed.
Comment by Been There Monday, Jun 4, 12 @ 11:13 am
As a taxpayer (who’s voice should matter the most), my concern is that NONE of the proposals go far enough.
We don’t need just pension reform with going from automatic increases to inflation-adjusted increases. We need to STOP allowing pension schemes are more ponzi than policy.
For example, I live in Aurora. The mayor, who many believe is corrupt and/or incompetent, is going to collect a massive pension when he retires, but because his political buddy, Pat Quinn, appointed him to the Illinois Tollway Board, he’s getting two public salaries and will get his pension boosted beyond what he currently makes for the rest of his life.
He’s one of thousands of examples of people getting FAR more than what the pension system was designed to provide. There’s plenty of outrageous examples, but the problem is that none of the current proposals really CHANGE the underlying problems.
When I step back and realize that someone like Mayor Daley, who used his office for his personal power, is getting paid a massive pension (not to mention security guards), it makes you wonder why bother working hard for a living in this state? Why should I, the lowly taxpayer, work to fund all these people exploiting me?
So, I disagree with the idea of a “quietly negotiated agreement” since we somehow should just accept that there’s power in a few and we should just take whatever they give us.
We have a right to know ALL the data, ALL the facts, ALL the figures. We have an obligation to speak up loud and clear, urging our elected officials, to CHANGE paths.
Otherwise, if anyone believes a negotiated agreement between the same incompetent or corrupt fools who got us into this mess is going to somehow magically get us all out and Illinois will be a thriving place to do business, you are hallucinating.
People and business ARE looking or leaving for opportunities outside Illinois because this no longer is a worthwhile investment of my hard earned taxdollars.
Comment by RD3 Monday, Jun 4, 12 @ 11:14 am
“But right now I’d settle for a quietly negotiated agreement. You?”
Actually, no. Daylight will help every State worker and retiree, as well as some people’s favorite bogeyman-the unions, and other stakeholders understand what choices can be out there; what the costs will be; what the actual savings will be; and what folks need to give back to make pensions work. For State workers, retirees and the State financial mess, this would be a fairer approach. To keep dwelling on the issue that State workers and retirees didn’t create this pension mess is counterproductive and a red herring at this point. An open and transparent process would benefit everyone.
“…and that workers shouldn’t be made to shoulder the entire burden.”
And State workers and retirees SHOULD NOT BE MADE to to shoulder the entire burden.
Workers and retirees have ’shouldered’ their burden to the extent they were directed. While I agree that every ’stakeholder’ needs to share a portion of the burden and understand the impact of that burden, what does any State worker or retiree know at this time? Nothing.
Not so anybody may really care, but what effect do folks think there is on current State worker morale and production in every State agency for the last couple of months and until they know more about what IL government is planning to implement next?
Cassiopeia
“Somebody somewhere came up with the big $83 billion unfunded liability …”
Big numbers get folks attention. Regardless of where someone pulls it from. As I recall, there was discussion here about what percentage needed to be funded by a particular date, as well.
Cassiopeia
‘…but the whole thing needs to be reassessed by somebody neutral. ‘
THAT would be great and helpful to the entire dialog and process. Let’s hope.
Comment by sal-says Monday, Jun 4, 12 @ 11:23 am
Normally I don’t get that upset, but after running the numbers I’m having trouble writing calmly on this one …
More information is always good. But even with the limited information out there, by making a few reasonable assumptions (life expectancy, non compounded average COLA @ 1%, health insurance inflation at 7% compunded, paying 1/2 the health insurance), I could calculate what the personal impact of the COLA / health insurance trade-off meant personally and it was HUGE.
Someone needs to figure a way to solve the unfunded problem without the entire burden being placed on the employees, which is what the failed proposal did. I think most of us are willing to pay some more; we’re even willing to take a double hit in the form of increased school taxes, and the expectation of a income tax on pensions (or some other expense reduction / revenue action). But forcing the COLA reduction and health insurance payment down our throats is a quadruple hit with a big impact.
Anonymous @ 10:57 am has it right; when the retirees quit spending, there is going to be a second dip in the Illinois economy and State sales tax revenues will go down.
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Monday, Jun 4, 12 @ 11:28 am
So we are told the pension debt will reach 30% and then we are told there is no data available. Saving are claimed fro 50 billion to 112 billion. The wild numbers keep floating around while the pension systems provide the individual data to their members every year.
How can you target a saving number for money that is already contractually obligated?
Comment by Liberty_First Monday, Jun 4, 12 @ 11:37 am
If you’re against a quietly negotiated settlement, then maybe you should look to the results of the very public Pension Modernization Task Force of 2009. Public meetings were held on a bi-monthly basis for the better part of six months, everybody had a seat at the table, everbody got the chance to air their talking points, and absolutely nothing was accomplished. The final report of the task force was issued without a majority of the task force members agreeing on it. This is why I get so frustrated that to this day, people talk about “bringing everyone to the table.” If everyone at the table couldn’t agree on a meaningless report (and they were all the same actors as today), then how in the heck do you think they’ll agree on a major piece of legislation? This needs to be done at the leadership level, and a behind-the-scences approach is probably the only way to accomplish it.
Comment by The Elderly Man You Used to Love Monday, Jun 4, 12 @ 11:39 am
and what we really need is a retroactive tax to pay for the mess the general assembly created…. isn’t that the fair solution?
Comment by Liberty_First Monday, Jun 4, 12 @ 11:40 am
More data is always good — although, to be fair, sometimes data dumps obscure the best solutions.
I do take issue with the idea that it’s the employees and retirees who should be the ones giving everything up, absent the abuse issues (which don’t come close to solving the problem).
We (as the state) cut a deal to pay these pensions, partially as a way to keep state salaries low. We (as the state) underfunded pensions for many, many years as a way to keep services without increasing revenues (taxes). So it just seems disingenuous to approach the problem as one caused by “greedy state workers.”
On the other hand, reality is what it is — the idea that state workers and retirees will not have to give up anything is rather unreasonable. But I think the rest of us should recognize that state employees and retirees are, in fact, sacrificing something to which they have a legal right, something that they earned.
It is possible that the best way to get some sacrifice from state employees and retirees is through rather quiet, private negotiations. In that case, Rich is quite right. But the terms of the public debate on this really need to change if we want to see unions specifically engage in the conversation: we are asking them to sacrifice, and we should show our appreciation for the sacrifice.
Comment by the Other Anonymous Monday, Jun 4, 12 @ 11:42 am
I hate to keep repeating myself, but. When we consider Lawrence Msall’s point (a good one), we must also keep in mind the need for our data to accurately reflect what we are looking at, and there are two pieces.
“Normal cost” is what the pension program costs us, and it’s really pretty modest, a little over $2B a year, and growing at a fairly modest rate. Debt service on unfunded liability is most of what we are spending on pensions, and that mainly represents costs already incurred just unpaid in the past.
It’s important that we not forget that principle, because if we do we are tempted, unwittingly or purposely, to try to attack “costs” to control “spending”.
Comment by steve schnorf Monday, Jun 4, 12 @ 11:47 am
I agree data is good, but solid analysis of the data is better. Anyone can give a number and get numbers to support their agenda.
So let’s use the analysis of the data, break it down by each pension system, then look at the solutions. A single solution will not fix all the pension systems, since there are different drivers to the cost/underfunding for each, and the underfunding varies based on system. The funds of each system are not pooled. So let’s get a fix done by each system and start with GARS.
Comment by illilnifan Monday, Jun 4, 12 @ 11:51 am
–Somebody somewhere came up with the big $83 billion unfunded liability number and it has taken on a life of its own. It might even be true, but the whole thing needs to be reassessed by somebody neutral.–
Part of the problem is that we (media, the public, pols) aren’t great about talking about pensions and in particular things like unfunded liability. Pension funds almost always have substantial unfunded liabilities, because they include people who are currently working. If the state hired more people (headcount has been in decline), unfunded liabilities would go up–but more people would be paying into the system, too.
The problem is the ratio, and even that’s tricky. 60 percent seems to be the level at which all actuaries start to freak out. But some freak out at 70, 80, even 90 percent.
I think of it like being sick: “healthy” people can be at 90, 80, 70 percent. At 50 percent, maybe it’s like having diabetes–you can live for decades with it, but with more caution and less health. 20 percent might be, say, AIDS: you can live with it, but with immense amounts of caution and expense.
Comment by whetstone Monday, Jun 4, 12 @ 11:51 am
More and better data on impact of proposed solutions themselves, yes.
One problem has been that the Civic Committee especially, and almost all stakehoders (other than the retirement fund trustees and staff themselves) have been putting out nonsense data on the problem, to support their respective political stances.
I am generally with Rich on this, because any real long-term solution, which we absolutely must have now, will have so many ugly elements, that continuing to play with this on the table will just add more “no” votes from every direction. Every stakeholder looking at their own situation will believe the solutions unfair.
It is the time for true political leadership and courage to resolve differences, and then to defend their call for shared sacrifice.
Comment by mark walker Monday, Jun 4, 12 @ 12:03 pm
We need more data. For sure. But right now I’d settle for a quietly negotiated agreement.
Not me. Let’s see the data that will show how the sacrifice should be shared.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Jun 4, 12 @ 12:23 pm
It’s not the SERS system driving pension reform, it’s SURS. Their pension reform report was issued in February. You can check it out at NIU Today.
Comment by Emily Booth Monday, Jun 4, 12 @ 12:28 pm
I think Msall makes some good points, particularly on establishing a target.
Schnorf’s points as to the debt service on the unfunded liability should be required reading for everyone, as well.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Jun 4, 12 @ 12:44 pm
Liberty_First @ 11:40 am:
And the Way-Back Machine so the payments can be made …
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Monday, Jun 4, 12 @ 12:49 pm
I’d like more data. In particular, I’d like to know the number of state and local government employees and retirees vested into or collecting from one of the over 600 gov employee pension plans in Illinois. I’d also like to know the number of near dependents attached to the group. This would give us a fair idea of the power of this voting bloc when combined with knee-jerk voting Democrats. When one takes into account the non-voting citizens, the number may disclose an unbeatable constituency. If that is the case, at least some of us may be able to leave and save ourselves.
Comment by Cook County Commoner Monday, Jun 4, 12 @ 12:49 pm
Laurence Msall provides no evidence that a lack of actuarial data or cost projections for actual school districts in the case of the cost shifting were critical factors in the failure of SB 1673. This bill failed because of the cost shifting issue and would it have passed if local school districts outside of Chicago were not addicted to passing on costs to the state. The actual dollar costs did not matter, it simply would cost local taxpayers more, so the answer was simply no deal.
In my opinion passing the cuts to Medicaid was relatively easy because the main impact of the cuts fell on the backs of poor people without much in the way of significant clout in the General Assembly. While the hospitals and not for profits could raise the specter of disaster it did not have much of an impact overall.
SB 1673 dealt with people who are real taxpayers, voters, and municipal entities like school districts that have lobbyists and are organized to defend their interests. More data does not fix this reality.
Comment by Rod Monday, Jun 4, 12 @ 12:56 pm
Keep speaking Mr. Schnorf. Emily, SURS isn’t pushing pension reform it is the U of I IGPA along with university presidents.
Again- the only “fair” thing is for the citizens of Illinois- it is their state- to cough up the money and we need a retroactive tax to cover the expenses from the mismanagement of the elected officials…..
Comment by Liberty_First Monday, Jun 4, 12 @ 12:58 pm
Good point Cook County. In my small household, there are three “voters” directly affected by one person’s state employment.
Comment by Ready To Get Out Monday, Jun 4, 12 @ 1:01 pm
Someone needs to come up with the % of payroll the state has actually paid into the system….
Comment by Liberty_First Monday, Jun 4, 12 @ 1:03 pm
I agree with Rod. At one point of the discussion on Medicaid changes the number of medically vulnerable people who might die was an actual point of open discussion. That such an issue could be so openly discussed is pretty strong evidence that the people affected by these medicaid changes couldn’t really organize a strategy to work against the changes and weren’t politically strong enough to execute a strategy if they had one. So the parties involved in the negotiations were able to have candid public debates about the issue without much fear of being thwarted by those most affected.
Not so with pension reform where the people who are expected to sacrifice the most are well organized and have political strength.
Comment by The Captain Monday, Jun 4, 12 @ 1:11 pm
This is from NIU’s Fact Sheet re: pension reform:
Current unfunded liability for the 5 systems: $83 billion
Expected payments 2012 – 2045 under existing law: $309.9 billion
Unfunded liability remaining after 2045 under existing law: $32.7 billion
Estimated annual payments from the 5 state systems for FY 13: $8.7 billion
FY 13 general revenue fund contribution; triple the 2008 payment: $5.2 billion
FY 13 payment constitutes 15 percent of general revenue fund spend, compared to 6 percent a few years ago
Only 22 percent of the $5.2 billion pension cost this year is actually for the retirement costs of state employees
78 percent of this pension cost is for non-state employees—from suburban and downstate teachers, to our university and community college employees
Comment by Emily Booth Monday, Jun 4, 12 @ 1:12 pm
Here’s the problem:
You won’t know the savings data until you know how many people take “the deal” and how many don’t. For now you have hypothetical ranges based on everyone or no one taking it.
Much of the data will depend on the decisions people make based on what’s in the law. Keep in mind the constitutional argument here is that you’re giving employees “a choice.”
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Monday, Jun 4, 12 @ 1:25 pm
Teachers and community colleges are employees of local units of government. Public universities are public corporations owned by the citizens of the state of Illinois and subject to the legislature which is why employees have to take ethics training, follow state regulations and they receive state insurance. It was disingenuous for Madigan or anyone to imply they are not state institutions.
Comment by Liberty_First Monday, Jun 4, 12 @ 1:25 pm
Michelle - There was savings regardless of the “choice” because it was basically coercion. The bill even accounted for the difference with the payment schedule-
Comment by Liberty_First Monday, Jun 4, 12 @ 1:32 pm
Placing most of the blame on the unions not being willing to discuss options is silly. The unions and retirees don’t have that info; the state and financial pension “experts” do. As a retiree, I wondered and the experts should have been able to put this info out there immediately, “what would my pension $ return be if I was stuck into the same pension plan as the new hires are now?” Somebody should have been able to provide me with the estimated figures to compare, so I did not have to choose blindly afterward. And, yes, cost savings should have been able to be determined based upon different category of classes of employees taking certain options. I also want to know, why since everything is insisted to be under consideration and will be court challenged, why they did not also have at least one proposal to chop off the excess amounts in pensions paid to those who they claim unfairly inflated their pension amounts just before they retired or are just above a particular cap level in payouts? Would that save more than what was proposed?
Understand, the first position that the union when negotiating; that first item that they indicate is discussable; whatever position it is it will be regarded as their starting point. And if they give up at the start something regarded as vital later they won’t be able to backtrack to retract the concession. So, it is difficult to expect an amendable discussion when the unions also lack the info figures to determine what effects which and where with these proposals.
Comment by Andy Monday, Jun 4, 12 @ 1:39 pm
The State’s “unsustainable” applies only to the Unfunded Liability. Unfortunately, that is also the most difficult to reduce under contract law - since, by definition, it reflects earned actuarial benefits. The State has two options - reduce the liability within contract law or reduce benefits through police power. Defining how much the cost has to be reduced is essential for prevailing in exercising police power. The latter is the choice Rhode Island took.
Comment by Archimedes Monday, Jun 4, 12 @ 2:06 pm
If the information provided by Emily Booth from NIU’s fact sheet is correct - WOW, just WOW! How could any Legislator no matter what the party look at that info and not think shifting the cost of the Teacher’s pensions to where they came from would not be a good idea? I realize that local teachers and University professors have different employers - that in essence the professors are employed by the State. However, I still think it would be wise for the pension funds of University employees to be included in the University budget and then they can figure out if they are going to find the money through what they get from the state, from tuition, fees or donors. Maybe that way we’d avoid paying a half a million dollar salary to the U of I president’s secretary.
Comment by Both Sides Now Monday, Jun 4, 12 @ 2:07 pm
As far as matching pension savings with Medicaid savings……….I have a problem. Did everyone receiving Medicaid pay into that system for decades out of every paycheck as is the case for the pension fund? DOn’t think so. They get something for nothing. Public retirees are asked to get less for all the “sacrifice” they made. And does anyone ever consider that public employees are taxpayers TOO? Not only are they asked to take a hit on their pensions and healthcare, they’re being asked to pay more as a taxpayer too. I resent the insinuation that somehow it’s taxpayers who are paying for public employees’ pensions. I pay twice. My taxes and my payroll deductions. To ask me to sacrifice when I’m paying far more than you are is outrageous. As far as citing the few sweetheart deals where double dipping occurs…………yeah, you bet that’s outrageous too…in every thinking person’s opinion, I’m sure. But to take those examples and extrapolate them to retirees in general is just ignorant. I guess it would be the equivalent of reading the top ten wealthiest CEO salaries in the Trib and figure just because you work at one of those companies, you’re making it too! As the governor said, shared sacrifice.And even with some of the proposed cuts, public employees are still sacrificing the most.
Comment by Inactive Monday, Jun 4, 12 @ 2:09 pm
Somehow “choice” has been substituted for “consideration.” The proposed bills did not give anything of value to the employees beyond what had already been promised. Instead, the bills simply gave two choices of how much would be taken away. Blatantly unconstitutional. The only solution is for the taxpayers to start sharing in the sacrifices. Not a single proposal has advocated anything other than taking it all out of the hide of the employees and pensioneers.
Comment by Gov't worker Monday, Jun 4, 12 @ 2:29 pm
Actually, given the proposals, public employees are not sharing the sacrifice, they’re making it. In addition to losing health care/lower COLAS, they’ll be paying higher property taxes with the lot of you. Taxpayers are getting off easy, if an increase in property tax is ALL that happens to them! Of course, what actually is agreed upon in the future still remains to be seen.
Comment by Inactive Monday, Jun 4, 12 @ 2:39 pm
We don’t need no stinkin’ facts; all we need to know is that the Democrat Party, which we voted for overwhelmingly in ‘10, and their Big Labor paymasters are looking out for us little people.
lol
Comment by benevolent hegemon Monday, Jun 4, 12 @ 2:40 pm
You can’t take thousand(s) of dollars annually out of the pockets of thousands of middle class consumers who live in Bradley and Bost’s disrticts and not expect a very significant economic impact on their respective districts. This will over a ten year period; equal tens of millions of dollars. If u shut a small facility down u, by law, u have to have an economic impact study. This could be equivalent to shutting down two large prisons… Which if I am correct would have a combined personnel budget of approx. 40 million dollars. I hope they can explain to their constituents how well thought out this vote was.
Comment by Unbelievable! Monday, Jun 4, 12 @ 3:04 pm
The amount that employees are paying toward normal cost is readily available in COGFA’s annual reports on the pension systems, and it varies greatly from system to system. To the best of my recollection and without bothering to go back and look it up, in TRS employees pay more than half the normal cost, and in SERS employees pay about one fourth.
Comment by steve schnorf Monday, Jun 4, 12 @ 3:06 pm
AND by the way, the need for a target is also probably there on the retiree health insurance issue. How much of the current spending are we trying to avoid or shift to the retirees? It seems that CMS couldn’t devise an assessment plan if they didn’t know how much they are supposed to generate.
Comment by steve schnorf Monday, Jun 4, 12 @ 3:24 pm
All the data in the world still won’t over-ride the Illinois Constitution.
Arizona and New Hampshire have similar public pension protection clauses to that of Illinois, in their state constitutions. Their courts rejected those states new laws to force state employees to pay more towards their pension.
“Courts Block Efforts at Public Pension Change”
http://www.governing.com/news/state/sl-courts-block-efforts-at-public-pension-change.html
Lowering colas was also found unconstitutional in Arizona.
“Maricopa County judge: Halting pension raises is unconstitutional”
http://tucsoncitizen.com/arizona-news/2012/05/29/maricopa-county-judge-halting-pension-raises-is-unconstitutional/
Comment by Joe Melugin Monday, Jun 4, 12 @ 3:43 pm
Joe, I’ve written about both of those states more than once. We’ll just have to wait and see.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jun 4, 12 @ 3:44 pm
Any planning aimed at resolving the problem by fairly distributing the costs to all concerned (Taxpayer employers included) ought to be based on a clear objective goal and then be openly discussed and debated. The only reason to keep the deliberations secret is because something outragiously dishonorable and shameful is being contemplated. But then that is the Illinois manner of governance, ain’t it?
Comment by Skirmisher Monday, Jun 4, 12 @ 5:00 pm
Using the NIU numbers posted by Emily, I can see certain goals that would make sense. Reduce unfunded liability by just enough to leave none at 2045 after a reasonable payment schedule. Arrange a payment schedule from GRF that grows no faster than revenue so that the percentage of GRF going to pensions does not grow into the future. Spread the future risks of current costs better between all stakeholders, since at present the state assumes it all.
Comment by muon Monday, Jun 4, 12 @ 5:47 pm
You can add a second case in Arizona and now Florida to those other two cases
NH did not have the pesnion in the constituation but it was still a contract. I assume that is what the judges will argue when 1313 is signed
Comment by western illinois Monday, Jun 4, 12 @ 6:06 pm
32 Billion looks like the real figure for 2045 not 83 billion
Comment by western illinois Monday, Jun 4, 12 @ 7:55 pm
Facts are needed. How much of the problem is due to skipped payments and how much is an actuary based contribution level–for the benefits we’ve been promised vs. the lower benefits they want us to “agree” with? What is an appropriate target–we will never have 100% collecting at once so why isn’t an 80% funding level inappropriate?
Most employees seem to believe contributing more makes sens but phase it in. Why do we have to fix a problem that was 30 years in the making with a 1 year slam rather than a percent or two per year? I don’t like the fact that state didn’t make its contributions but I don’t want the phone call 20 years from now that there won’t be a pension check. Let’s fix it REASONABLY.
Comment by sense of a goose Monday, Jun 4, 12 @ 9:45 pm