Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x3 - It’s a pause, not a shut-off *** Rauner: State to suspend accepting new Syrian refugees
Next Post: *** UPDATED x2 *** Compare and contrast the two sets of proposals
Posted in:
* Greg Hinz…
A top political operative with ties on both sides of the aisle is shopping a big-picture compromise plan to resolve Illinois’ budget war, and while it includes something to offend almost every interest group, its author says it’s received at least some positive feedback from Springfield powers.
The plan comes from Greg Goldner, a former campaign manager for ex-Mayor Richard M. Daley and then-Congressman Rahm Emanuel whom some in Springfield nonetheless consider a front for GOP Gov. Bruce Rauner, even though he now runs the well-funded Democratic group Illinoisans for Growth and Opportunity.
The proposal, quietly discussed with political leaders in recent days, calls for an increase in the state income tax, extension of the sales tax to cover more services and a tax on some form of retirement income. […]
I won’t be surprised if Madigan balks, particularly since the speaker has personally accused Goldner of preparing to field candidates against Democrats in the upcoming primary.
Goldner denies doing that, at least so far. “We have not recruited candidates—to date,” he put it.
It’s not a horrible plan (from what I can gather, the revenue stuff looks very much like a bipartisan proposal by mostly female legislators which went nowhere when the governor turned thumbs down), but it has the worst possible supporter considering the times. Despite what Goldner claims about his candidate recruitment, he might as well just let Ken Dunkin sponsor his bill. Sheesh.
* Most of the dot points…
INCREASE REVENUES, CUT SPENDING & LIMIT GROWTH […]
• Increase the Personal Income Tax. +$3.3B/YR Increasing the personal income tax rate to 4.75% from the current level of 3.75% would generate roughly $3.3 billion in additional net revenue per year. Assuming passage of a bill before the end of the taxable year, this tax should be applied retroactively from July 1, 2015, for FY 2016. While the Civic Federation recommends 4.25%, given the massive scale of the problems for FY 2016 due to the failure to pass a budget, this rate would be insufficient at this time. [Center for Tax and Budget Accountability, 9/09/15]
• Increase the Earned Income Tax Credit to Offset Broad Tax Increases. -$136M/YR To offset the regressive impact of higher income tax rates and a broader sales tax on low income residents, the state should gradually increase its Earned Income Tax Credit to 15% of the federal amount by FY 2018 from the current 10%. Using the estimated FY 2016 federal EITC of $2.7 billion, increasing the state EITC by five percentage points would cost approximately $136 million in addition to the current credit.
• Increase the Corporate Income Tax to 5.75%. +350M/YR Increasing the corporate tax from its current 5.25% to 5.75% would bring in an additional $350 million a year. The tax should be applied retroactively from July 1, 2015, for FY 2016.
• Maintain the Local Distributive Share Rate at 8% (Personal) and 9.14% (Corporate) After the Tax Increases. -$296M/YR Keep the portion of the state personal income tax for local governments at 8% and the corporate income tax at 9.14%, the current allocations through the Local Government Distributive Fund (LGDF), after the tax increases. In 2011, the local distributive share was held constant, despite the income tax increase. The City of Chicago estimated that it would have received more than $400 million in total additional revenues if local governments had not been excluded from sharing in increased income tax revenues from 2011 until 2015. Under a 4.75% tax rate, preserving this 8% and 9.14% shares for local governments would generate an additional $296 million for local governments beyond current levels.
• Eliminate Corporate Loopholes. +$400M/YR Limiting EDGE tax credits, eliminating tax breaks for companies investing out of state by decoupling Illinois’s exemption from the federal domestic production deduction, taxing income held offshore as domestic income, taxing companies in Illinois for offshore drilling, and closing accounting loopholes like requiring combined reporting would generate $400 million a year.
• Expand the Sales Tax to Consumer Services. +$2.1B/YR Illinois ranks last among the 45 states that levy a sales tax on services in the number of service industries it taxes. Expanding the sales tax base to include consumer services - while continuing to exclude professional and business-to-business services - would generate nearly $2.1 billion more. This would also increase funding to local governments by an additional $529 million, as 1.25% of the purchase price collected is distributed to local governments. B2B transactions are excluded because they encourage “tax pyramiding,” while only six of 45 states tax any professional services, as it is complicated and cumbersome to do so.
• Immediately Cut $1 Billion from Expenditures. -$1.7B While Moody’s recommends $1.7 billion of expenditure cuts for FY 2016, less than half the $3.7 billion of savings in the governor’s proposed budget that were not related to employee benefit reductions, $1 billion is more practical immediate goal. Cuts should hold harmless education funding and funding for human service providers, which was not funded through a mandatory appropriation or court order, and thus have already been subject to massive cuts, the failure to receive due payments, and uncertainty for FY 2016.
• Restrict Discretionary Spending Growth. +$260M/YR The state should restrict discretionary spending growth from the 2.7% level shown in its three-year projections to 2.0%, closer to the rate of inflation. This could reduce total state spending by $1.3 billion over five years. Funding for K-12 education should not be subject to mandatory cuts.
• License Chicago to Operate a Casino. +$200M/YR The state should license the City of Chicago to operate its own casino, with proceeds earmarked to pay for City pensions. The casino would also generate $200 million in gambling taxes for the state.
INVEST IN EDUCATION […]
• Increase State K-12 Education Funding With Revenues from a Retirement Tax and Commit to Reforms. Numerous studies have ranked Illinois last, or nearly last nationally in state education funding. According to statistics compiled by the National Education Association, in 2013-2014 the average portion received from the state to fund K-12 schools was 46.4%, whereas Illinois provided only 19.6% of total funding. The U.S. Census reports that on average, U.S. states provide $5,650 per student on education, while Illinois provides only $5,021. Increasing education funding from the state by $1.05 billion from a retirement tax would not even put Illinois as “middle of the pack,” but is a good start.
• Tax Some Retirement Income to Benefit K-12 Education. $1.05B/YR (revenue neutral) Illinois is one of only five states with an income tax that does not tax any retirement income. This tax base would also expand over time at a higher rate than regular income. Eliminating the full deduction for retirement income on a graduated basis for adjusted gross incomes over $50,000 would raise $1.05 billion in new revenue at a 4.75% income tax rate, while protecting low and fixed income seniors. The whole of this tax should go to education.
• Reform Education Funding to Make the System Fair. Illinois has the most unfair school funding system in the nation, with students living in poverty receiving nearly twenty percent less than more affluent students. A single, fair, and need-based funding formula should replace the current opaque and complex system, which has not updated since 1997. A bipartisan committee will study how best to develop a new system for school funding for two years, while at the end of those two years, the existing and outdated GSA formula would be abolished.
• Provide Relief for Chicago Public Schools and Create School District Mandate Parity. -$200M/YR over 2 YRS Require the state to pick up the $200 million annual “normal costs” of Chicago teachers’ pensions for two years, at which time the state-wide education funding reform process will consider the future treatment of Chicago Teacher’s Pension Fund. School districts comprise approximately 60 percent of an Illinois property tax bill. In addition to increasing public support for schools, all districts should be given the relief from mandates that the City of Chicago has been given, to achieve savings for taxpayers and improve outcomes for children. Repealing the statute that severely restricts third-party contracting and providing schools relief from other unfunded mandates will free up additional resources to invest in the classroom.
IMPROVE GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS AND INSTITUTE REFORMS […]
• Pass the Cullerton Pension Reform Plan. +$1B/YR State workers should choose between two options: keep the 3% annual compounded interest on cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) and give up the ability to count pay raises toward pensions or continue counting salary increases toward pensions and take a decreased, non-compounded COLA. This will generate an estimated $1 billion in savings a year. [Chicago Tribune, 5/13/15]
• Study the Consolidation of Local Pension Funds. Because state law requires municipalities of 5,000+ residents to create employee pension funds, Illinois has more than 600 individual, locally-controlled pension funds for cops and firefighters outside the city of Chicago. Consolidating these funds across Illinois can save money on administrative costs, similar to the way municipal workers’ retirements are structured. [WBEZ, 5/12/14; CGFA Report, January 2013; Msall, Chicago Tribune, 9/17/15]
• Create a Realistic Repayment Timeline for the State’s Five Pension Funds. For years, state legislators borrowed against what was owed to the pension systems to subsidize operating expenses. This practice became law and established a “Pension Ramp” that provided for an “incredibly back loaded repayment schedule, which grew in unattainable, unaffordable annual increments.” The current repayment schedule, arbitrarily established by Springfield, is unsustainable and unaffordable. While borrowing and pension holidays in part created this mess and are not the answer, the state must create a new, realistic repayment timeline as it is obligated by the Constitution to pay for its pension commitment. There are excess revenues in this plan that should be devoted to appropriate legacy pension debt payment, as determined by legislative action. [Center for Tax and Budget Accountability, 9/09/15]
• Create a Realistic Repayment Timeline for Fire and Police Pension Funds Across Illinois. Locally controlled police and fire pension payment schedules were also arbitrarily dictated by the General Assembly, including the City of Chicago and Cook County. Legislators should reconsider these schedules, as in the bill passed by the General Assembly this session that deferred from 2040 to 2055 the date by which the police and fire funds must have at least 90 percent of the assets needed to pay promised retirement benefits.
• Increase the State’s Minimum Wage. Increase the state minimum wage to $11 an hour by 2019. The minimum wage would increase to $9 immediately, with the wage go up by 50 cents annually until it hits $11 in 2019.
• Reform Workers Compensation in a Bipartisan Manner. -$300M/YR The Illinois workers compensation system ranks the seventh most expensive in the country by the Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services study, indicating the need for further reform. To control costs, the state should look at tighter causation definitions and applying the rates of reimbursement recommended by the AMA. Reform would save the state roughly $300 million per year on its own expenses. […]
• Reform the Collective Bargaining Scope for Public Employees. The state should reform our collective bargaining laws, allowing units of government to curb rising public employee costs by limiting collective bargaining for specific personnel issues, including health benefits and work rules.
Discuss.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 1:10 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x3 - It’s a pause, not a shut-off *** Rauner: State to suspend accepting new Syrian refugees
Next Post: *** UPDATED x2 *** Compare and contrast the two sets of proposals
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
This seems pretty terribly one-sided against the Governor. Not that I mind, of course, but I don’t know why he’d go for it.
Comment by Arsenal Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 1:14 pm
==“We have not recruited candidates—to date,” he put it.==
Wasn’t there supposed to be a slate by now? Time’s a-wasting if they’re gonna do it.
Comment by Arsenal Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 1:16 pm
===Not that I mind, of course, but I don’t know why he’d go for it.===
- Arsenal -… Here’s why;
===Reform the Collective Bargaining Scope for Public Employees. The state should reform our collective bargaining laws, allowing units of government to curb rising public employee costs by limiting collective bargaining for specific personnel issues, including health benefits and work rules.===
It’s the Collective Bargaining and Prevailing Wage.
That’s THE prize.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 1:17 pm
==- Oswego Willy - Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 1:17 pm:==
The Raunerbot School of Compromise: it’s only a deal if Bruce gets everything and gives nothing!
Comment by Precinct Captain Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 1:18 pm
@ OW-
Yeah, I saw that, but I just don’t know that a vague, watered-down version is worth all those tax hikes and all that political pain.
Comment by Arsenal Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 1:21 pm
It’s a start, but it did not originate with Madigan and his actions demonstrate he still wants to fight for his throne back. So, Madigan will probably try to torpedo this as soon as he has a chance.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 1:22 pm
===but I don’t know why he’d go for it.===
To get that last bullet point I think. He’d give up everything, including probably a second term, to get that. In the process, a lot of good (and necessary) changes would also be made.
But that last one is a biggie, and that’s where the friction is. Seems like there’s enough lubricant in there to get a deal, but who knows?
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 1:24 pm
$5 billion in new taxes. $1 billion in expenditure savings. +/-. All this to crush unions. OMG!!
Comment by Blue dog dem Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 1:26 pm
- Arsenal -
Respectfully, Rauner will give on a great many things, but the Prevailing Wage, the literal lowering of wages he feels are too high, and Collective Bargaining, those two are Rauner “musts”
… and… it’s either glossed over or forgotten (”… and other things… ) or its last in the list to give the impression, “Boy, Rauner is reasonable, let’s give him… ”
It’s blatently intentional, and obviously hidden, on purpose.
- Precinct Captain -,
You understand.
Rauner held out this long, a “Hang In There!” strategy for the destruction of Collective Bargaining and Prevailing Wage. The rest was added to barter away to get these.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 1:28 pm
If they keep the pension tax over 50k per year I could live with it even though I would have to pay tax on a joint return on about 40k. That would cost us as a retired couple about 2500 dollars a year or a reduction in my check of about 200 dollars a month.
Comment by Nieva Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 1:28 pm
== Pass the Cullerton Pension Reform Plan. +$1B/YR State workers should choose between two options: keep the 3% annual compounded interest on cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) and give up the ability to count pay raises toward pensions or continue counting salary increases toward pensions and take a decreased, non-compounded COLA. This will generate an estimated $1 billion in savings a year. [Chicago Tribune, 5/13/15]
==
Thinking this won’t actually ever take effect?
Comment by thoughts matter Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 1:28 pm
Pass the Cullerton Pension Reform Plan. +$1B/YR State workers should choose between two options: keep the 3% annual compounded interest on cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) and give up the ability to count pay raises toward pensions or continue counting salary increases toward pensions and take a decreased, non-compounded COLA. This will generate an estimated $1 billion in savings a year. [Chicago Tribune, 5/13/15]
==
Thinking this is obviously unconstitutional?
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 1:32 pm
==… and… it’s either glossed over or forgotten (”… and other things… )==
Well, that’s kinda my point; the last bullet point is so vague, that the actual legislative language might not give Rauner what he wants, or might not give enough of it to make a difference.
Just saying, if I’m MJM or JCC, I’m jumping at this as an “extremely useful first step” and directing staffers to put it into language right now.
Comment by Arsenal Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 1:33 pm
Remember when Emil Jones would float things at the behest of the 2nd floor?
Yeah, this Goldner proposal will be met with the same fate of those ones.
In reality, the Governor, whether intentionally or not, just laid his cards on the table in a very public way. Its practically the exact opposite approach Madigan takes which is close to the vest until absolutely necessary.
Comment by Abe the Babe Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 1:33 pm
=== The whole of this tax should go to education.=== Will this be like when the lottery funds were allocated to education? That’s worked out well. I don’t know the numbers but I think if you went back to look at what was spent on education as a percentage of GRF prior to the lottery and compare those figures every year since, I believe you would see a corresponding decrease in GRF contributions because of lottery proceeds (just saying).
Comment by Kerfuffle Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 1:34 pm
===…Madigan and his actions demonstrate he still wants to fight for his throne back===
” - Anonymous - “,
Where is this tgrone you speak?
I can hear the mouth-breathing all the way in Oswego.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 1:34 pm
Wasn’t the Cullerton plan tied to a chained CPI figure? I’m assuming they would back the actual language of that bill because it’s kinda weird how they say ‘non-compounded COLA’ when anytime you ADD a cost of living raise, it will be compounded the next time you add another cost of living raise. Unless you add the COLA only to the original base number and I didn’t think that was part of the Cullerton plan, but I could be remembering wrong.
Comment by Not quite a majority Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 1:35 pm
Are raises to State Employees constitutionally protected? If not why would the Cullerton plan be unconstitutional?
Comment by Iron Duke Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 1:36 pm
“throne”
- Arsenal -
No worries. But let’s keep in mind history;
The property tax relief that excluded the dismantling of Unions… Those bills were called “sham” bills.
All you say, it has boiled down to Prevailing Wage and Collective Bargaining.
Sadly.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 1:37 pm
==The state should reform our collective bargaining laws, allowing units of government to curb rising public employee costs by limiting collective bargaining for specific personnel issues, including health benefits and work rules.==
Interesting that it doesn’t mention limiting collective bargaining for wages? That seems to be an item Rauner was pushing before. Not sure if leaving wages out of the non-negotiable areas is an intentional omission or not.
None-the-less, limiting collective bargaining for health care is enough of a poison pill to draw lines in the sand. Rightfully so, I don’t see public employees and teachers giving up that right without a fight.
Comment by Joe M Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 1:38 pm
BTW, if you step and think: A group that is at best coordinating with Rauner and at worst is being controlled by him just announced a “compromise” that includes only a couple TA items and a host of Dem leaning asks.
Think about that. What did Madigan give up to get to this negotiating position where the governor gave up so much? The answer is nothing.
Rauner, the great businessman dealmaker, fell for the oldest strategy in the book: make them negotiate against themselves.
Comment by Abe the Babe Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 1:41 pm
“A top political operative with ties on both sides of the aisle is shopping a big-picture compromise plan *** The plan comes from Greg Goldner…”
I guess the First Lady was busy?
– MrJM
Comment by @MisterJayEm Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 1:41 pm
IllinoisGO proposals=That duck won’t fly.
Comment by DuPage Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 1:43 pm
I don’t think anyone is going to be happy to take a hit of hundreds of dollars on a paycheck for a retroactive tax hike. Don’t see that flying.
Comment by a drop in Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 1:46 pm
A lot of this stuff is simply too complicated for me to understand on first, second, or third reading, and sadly, this blog is literally the only place I seem to be able to reliably find information about these topics (and I’ve only been here for a year), BUT, as a Tier II employee, is it accurate for me to believe I’m really taking it on the chin here? Perhaps more than others? In my mind, I’m 1) already paying for the benefits of Tier I employees who have MUCH better benefits than me, 2) impacted by the income tax 3) given a pretty bad set of choices to further reduce my benefits, and 4) paying an additional tax on my retirement income.
Comment by Johnny Pyle Driver Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 1:52 pm
==A group that is at best coordinating with Rauner and at worst is being controlled by him just announced a “compromise” that includes only a couple TA items and a host of Dem leaning asks.==
And none of the real crowd-pleasers from the TA.
Which, again, so the Governor’s going to go back to the voters saying “Hey, I raised your taxes and did some weirdo technocratic changes to the prevailing wage and workers’ comp”? I guess that might go back to 47th Ward’s point, but I’m not sure the Governor actually is that pathological.
Comment by Arsenal Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 1:58 pm
Five people with ties to Rauner bankroll IllinoisGO.
Isn’t this just Rauner’s proposal, but he doesn’t have to put his name to it?
Who, exactly, does IllinoisGO purport to represent?
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 2:00 pm
==- wordslinger - Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 2:00 pm:==
They don’t even purport to represent anyone specifically, but considering that 5 of the 9 million it has raised comes from a Texas billionaire couple, it represents the interests of Texas billionaires.
http://illinoisgo.org/about/
Comment by Precinct Captain Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 2:12 pm
=== Increasing the personal income tax rate to 4.75%… Assuming passage of a bill before the end of the taxable year, this tax should be applied retroactively from July 1, 2015, for FY 2016.===
It seems to me that making the (inevitable) income tax increase retroactive would provoke a lot of anger. (And also be unfair.)
Tax payers have had 3.75% withheld all year. How do they think people are going to react to being told to come up with the extra 1% on April 15?
People just love paying taxes. They especially love coming up with a big, surprise tax payment on April 15.
Or is this the real purpose of IL GO? Make everyone write a big check on April 15,2016, and tell them the idea came from the “Democrats”.
Comment by Just a Reader Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 2:14 pm
This isn’t going to fly. Too many reasons to vote against it that are legit. However, put it up for a vote, let the Rs vote for a tax increase and see all the Ds jump off. I’m so amazed that the big picture is being lost. Madigan knows that sometimes you lose a battle to win the war. In the context of campaigns next year we have no republicans VOTING for child care, an agreement was made but it’s too complicated to explain. Carol Marin summed it up the best “aren’t you elected to cast Votes Rep. Dunkin?” Can be applied to all the other Republicans. So, Madigan loses some key votes.. He gains in political fire power that the average person (especially downstate) can understand. There is no incentive for any democrats to support this plan, regardless if some of them were supportive of it. Just keep the Rs non-voting and the Ds voting and pop the popcorn for the show next year.
Comment by Paul Smyth Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 2:16 pm
“===Reform the Collective Bargaining Scope for Public Employees. The state should reform our collective bargaining laws, allowing units of government to curb rising public employee costs by limiting collective bargaining for specific personnel issues, including health benefits and work rules.===
It’s the Collective Bargaining and Prevailing Wage.
That’s THE prize. ”
- Always has to include a poison pill. OW - as usual you are on point - This is the golden goose that Rauner is after.
Comment by RunBikeSwim Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 2:20 pm
The Cullerton Pension Reform Plan is unconstitutional on its face, as of today. The only way the COLA vs. Pay Raise “consideration’ is actually consideration is if a pay raise is a definite number, ie, in 2017 you will receive a pay raise of X amount of dollars. You cannot call a trade-off between something real and a mere potential consideration. So, why waste our time with something that won’t pass muster. And, as of today, if asked to by Rauner, the Illinois Supreme Court probably wouldn’t rule that today is Monday.
Comment by Springfieldish Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 2:22 pm
==Are raises to State Employees constitutionally protected? If not why would the Cullerton plan be unconstitutional?==
Changing a contract (the pension) through consideration would require that the side proposing to change the contract give up something in order to get something. Instead, this proposal forces employees of the state pension systems to choose between two negatives - a form of coercion. Coercion is not how consideration works. Under consideration, there also has to be a choice for the other side to reject changes to the contract and stick with the status quo.
Comment by Joe M Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 2:27 pm
I like how the retirement tax is tied to education. Makes it sound more worthy. But money is money. Doesn’t matter unless total education funding dropped below the retirement tax total. Similar to the lottery sales job.
Comment by Sir Reel Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 2:38 pm
good that it is out there in public
removes the idea that there are no “middle ground” places to arrive.
Comment by walker Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 2:44 pm
How clever of Rauner to have an alleged Democratic front group front his tax hike proposal.
That is all.
Comment by Austin Blvd Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 3:23 pm
Why would any state worker agree to diminish your retirement in any way, especially since the legislatures stole it from us!
Comment by Mitch1959 Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 3:33 pm
I’m no expert on the budget, but where would you find a $1 Billion to cut from it?
Comment by G'Kar Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 3:34 pm
===where would you find a $1 Billion to cut from it? ===
It’s been done before, but your point highlights a real problem with this “mega deal.” It was floated by a guy with absolutely zero legislative experience.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 3:35 pm
Excuse me, but what does collective bargaining have to do with the fact that Rauner lied about whether or not the tax increase was needed? He get’s a cookie for pulling it off? What next, a glass of milk?
Comment by ottawa otter Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 4:03 pm
(Tips cap to - RunBikeSwim -)
Great point that the Trojan Horse of a Faux group of alleged Democrats need to roll out Rauner’s ideas
It’s just interesting.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 4:58 pm
Can’t count the Cullerton Pension “Reform”; it’s unconstitutional as described.
Comment by RNUG Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 5:48 pm
== Are raises to State Employees constitutionally protected? If not why would the Cullerton plan be unconstitutional? ==
The raises themselves are not constitutionally protected … but if the raise is salary and has pension payments deducted from it, then it must be included in the pension calculations and the existing regulations, which can’t be changed for existing employees, include all salary and the 3% compounded AAI.
Comment by RNUG Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 5:53 pm
==The state should reform our collective bargaining laws, allowing units of government to curb rising public employee costs by limiting collective bargaining for specific personnel issues, including health benefits and work rules.==
Employee health insurance IS one of the big ticket items. The cost has been growing much faster than inflation and the retiree health insurance, from an actuarial perspective, is a completely unfunded liability.
Comment by RNUG Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 5:57 pm
== - Johnny Pyle Driver - … as a Tier II employee, is it accurate for me to believe I’m really taking it on the chin here? ==
Not really. They can’t change your ‘Tier 2′ deal to make it any worse.
What they can do is tax retirement income, which will affect everyone, government employee or private enterprise employee or self-employed person.
The other thing they can do, although only in a limited form to retirees, is try to mess with the co-pays and dependent insurance for retirees … but the IL SC has already made it clear during the Kanerva oral argument questioning that they will cast a wary eye on attempts in that area.
Comment by RNUG Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 6:05 pm
The ideas can be judged on their merits regardless of who proposes them, but it’s weird to pretend that IllinoisGO is some sort of independent grassroots organization.
They’re a Rauner front. They have five contributors with ties to Rauner and one mouthpiece.
I’m guessing the Rauner crew is looking to see who other than Dunkin wants some of that “progressive Democratic” $9 million pie.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 7:50 pm
Heck, I’ll take some of that $9 mil. We’re do I sign up?
Comment by Blue dog dem Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 8:48 pm
RNUG, wouldn’t the compounded COLA “choice” apply to me as well?
Comment by Johnny Pyle Driver Tuesday, Nov 17, 15 @ 8:18 am