Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Stimulus; Legislative roundup; Pontiac (use all caps in password)
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax
Posted in:
*** UPDATE - 2:09 pm *** Sen. Chris Lauzen’s SB 600, which mandates elections for state central committeepersons, just passed out of committee on a vote of 5-4 with just one Republican “Yes” vote, Sen. Dave Luechtefeld. The bill was opposed by the GOP powers that be. Background can be found here.
[ *** End of Update *** ]
* The governor said today that he’s for a two-tiered state pension system…
Gov. Pat Quinn says Illinois should offer new state employees fewer pension benefits to save money.
Quinn told reporters in Springfield on Tuesday that he’s looking at a two-tiered pension system to maintain current employees’ benefits but offer a less-sweet deal to new workers.
Any such proposal would have to be negotiated with the unions.
Senate President Cullerton is of the same mind…
The only possible cuts Cullerton suggested were reductions in pension benefits for future state employees – “The unions are not going to like it, but we’re definitely going to have to look at it.” – and state-provided health care.
* What the governor is apparently doing today is projecting a message that he’s for cuts before he comes out for tax hikes in his budget address next week…
Faced with a historic budget hole a week before laying out his budget plan, Gov. Pat Quinn wouldn’t talk Tuesday about tax increases, but said his focus is on making cuts in state government.
“We have to cut, cut and cut costs in the budget. That’s really the number one focus. The first thing you do is look for every opportunity to economize and to save money to the taxpayers,” Quinn said at a news conference in his Statehouse office. […]
The governor also said he’ll propose a $25 billion construction program, but not funded by a gasoline tax increase.
Cullerton says the gas tax needs to be discussed, however…
An increase in the state’s 19-cent-a-gallon gas tax “must be on the table” if there is to be a construction bond program this year. He said a 16-cent increase would be needed to provide enough money to finance a multiyear, $25 billion capital plan. “The capital bill’s definitely going to pass. We will not have a budget without a capital bill,” he predicted.
* Meanwhile, potential US Senate candidate Bill Daley was mentioned at the trial of Mayor Daley’s former Streets and Sanitation Commissioner Al Sanchez yesterday. Here’s what Bill Daley told the Tribune…
Former city worker Roberto Medina testified that he was involved in founding the scandal-scarred Hispanic Democratic Organization at the urging of William Daley and others.
“I don’t think I’ve ever heard of the guy,” William Daley said of Medina. “I have no memory of him.”
Daley asked when Medina said their meeting supposedly took place. Medina testified Monday that the meeting was in the early 1990s at a restaurant on Fullerton Avenue and that it also was attended by top mayoral strategist Timothy Degnan, U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) and mayoral Cabinet member Ben Reyes.
“A restaurant on Fullerton Avenue?” Daley said. “I may have had meetings in ‘91 or ‘90 about Rich’s election. It surely wasn’t about creating some organization.” […]
“There was a lot of political stuff going on,” he said. “Everybody could interpret it however
Denial or not, that allegation won’t look good in a campaign ad.
* From Greg Hinz…
Rep. Sara Feigenholtz, D-Chicago, who finished third in the Democratic [5th Congressional District] primary won by Mr. Quilgey, has emerged as the clear front runner to get his current job as a county commissioner.
The choice will be be made by Democratic ward chiefs in Quigley’s district, and while Mr. Quigley is pushing his chief of staff, Kim Walz, for the job, the inside money is on Ms. Feigenholtz.
* Before we get to this next part, please remember my standard admonishment that bills assigned to a committee mean little. They ain’t laws yet. Even so, these two are so out of the ordinary that they’re worth a look here.
Rep. Rosemary Mulligan (R-Des Plaines) has two bills in the House Executive Committee.
Sec. 9-8.5. Restrictions on election communications.
(a) Any form of communication, in whatever media, including but not limited to a newspaper, radio, television, or Internet communication, that refers to a clearly identified candidate or candidates who will appear on the ballot at the next general election or general primary election is prohibited (i) with respect to the general primary ballot, until January 2 before the general primary election and through the day of the general primary election, and (ii) with respect to the general election ballot, until September 2 before the general election and through the day of the general election.
(b) The State Board of Elections may impose a civil penalty for a violation of this Section not to exceed $5,000, except that the civil penalty may not exceed $10,000 for a violation by the holder of a statewide office, a candidate for statewide office, or a political committee established to promote the candidacy of a statewide office holder or candidate.
…Adding… To be clear here, the bill doesn’t apply to the news media. It applies to candidates.
Amends the Election Code. Prohibits electioneering communications that negatively refer to a clearly identified candidate or candidates who will appear on the ballot during the 15 days before an election or primary. Requires the State Board of Elections to define negative references. Authorizes the State Board to investigate complaints of and impose civil penalties for violations. Requires the State Board of Elections to appoint a screening board to review (i) alleged violating communications and (ii) the compliance of prospective communications with the prohibition.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 12:37 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Stimulus; Legislative roundup; Pontiac (use all caps in password)
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Wow…seems William Daley has the same disclaimer responses that his brother has…Now we know “mumbles” is a family trait…just pathethic!
Comment by Da Mare Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 12:46 pm
) Any form of communication, in whatever media, including but not limited to a newspaper, radio, television, or Internet communication
So, if when I am in some foreign land, I upload a video that accurately and truthfully portrays Plann’s Parenthood favorite Rep Rep, this bill will fine me?
Good luck on that.
But I can surely see WHY RM would want to see such a bill.
Comment by Pat collins Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 12:48 pm
BTW, Unions always eat their young. They have absolutley no qualms about giving them up, NONE. You have to start somewhere. They should consider HRA’s for health care after retirement. That is an EXCELLENT way in which people can save so they have a retirement medical pool.
Comment by Gameplan Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 12:50 pm
Just because I’m curious — does RM’s first bill exempt media reports?
Comment by Concerned Observer Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 12:51 pm
Maybe we could look at the legislatures pension system also.
Comment by Reality is Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 12:54 pm
So, if the legislature won’t move the primary, RM is going to try and shorten the campaign season anyway with HB 4116?
Comment by ValleyGal Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 12:58 pm
I don’t think Rosemary has heard of this free speech thing we have in this country.
Comment by Been There Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 12:59 pm
What about municipal elections? The “general” elections are in April - what happens to them?
Comment by babs Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 1:00 pm
Ah. I RTFB (read the f’in bill) and see that it does exempt media reports, etc. Good…the excerpted part made it REALLY funny.
Comment by Concerned Observer Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 1:03 pm
There should not be a two-tiered pension system. If it’s good for the newbies, it should be good for everyone. Those already in a state job should do some serious introspection and be willing to give a little where it makes sense. It’s too easy to give up someone else’s benefits.
Some ideas:
- Raise the retirement age
- Offer defined contribution as an option for everyone (option, not mandate, I know it’s a “slippery slope”, but I’ve given up those arguments for lent)
- Change the legislature’s pension system to be more like the rest of the systems (longer to vest, one day in a new job does not lead to higher retirement benefits, 6% salary increase ceiling)
Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 1:04 pm
These two bills are WAY too broadly written and do infringe upon free speech IMHO. Let’s hope they don’t get out of committee.
As it’s written, if I send a buddy an email with a candidate’s name in it, I think I can be fined!
Comment by ChiTownGuy Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 1:07 pm
HB4116 needs work. Incumbents couldn’t send an email, just too over the top. The other part, and it would depend on how you define a candidate, but if they defined a candidate using the same criteria that the new ethics law did (HB824 Fritchey) then you’re not officially a candidate until you file your petitions and statement of candidacy. Under the current calendar that’s happening around Halloween now. So basically this law would only apply from Halloween until New Years, how weired would that donut hole of darkness be?
Comment by Scooby Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 1:07 pm
So, Governor, you are telling the voting public we will be paying more money for less state services. Good luck with that!
Comment by Vote Quimby! (a/k/a/ Bob Barker) Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 1:13 pm
Well,Bill Daley’s comments will not look good in a campaign add.But,what’s worse? That or him being on the board of directors of Fannie Mae?
Comment by Steve Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 1:16 pm
Steve…remember there’s a very, very large portion of the population that immediately thinks “Mint Meltaway” when it hears “Fannie Mae”, including myself.
So to answer your question, probably neither — the allegations themselves are the worst part. His comments likely won’t even register much of a blip.
Comment by Concerned Observer Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 1:23 pm
Of course the Committeemen want to appoint SF; then they get to appoint a state rep too.
42 1739 9%
43 5253 26%
44 8708 44%
46 4275 21%
Comment by Fly on wall Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 1:27 pm
Is CMS capable of printing money? I don’t see how a $25 billion capital program can be funded without raising the gas tax. The state income tax should only be raised to feed the general fund (”base” state services), and only when all agencies’ staffing, missions and processes have been examined to throw out what is not needed.
Once again, I’m all for a capital bill, but let’s remember that we are issuing 30 year bonds for work done today. The work done should last as least as long as we are paying off the bonds…on things that last, like buildings and bridges.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 1:27 pm
Take money/reduce benefits - but I haven’t heard one word as to the employeer living up to its obligations. Yes any reductions will have to be negotiated with state employee unions. But remember today’s benefits were also negotiated with the unions. State employees have put every nickel they ever agreed to into the retirement systems. It is the state who has failed to live up to its obligation.
Comment by Leave a light on George Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 1:30 pm
I’m fairly certain that the Mulligan election bills won’t go anywhere. Among the political problems they cause, they look to me as clearly subject to a successful First Amendment challenge. I don’t think Madigan will call an election bill that will immediately be subject to a lawsuit, throwing all campaigns into some form of chaos.
Comment by the Other Anonymous Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 1:33 pm
Funny on that SB 600. I received this email title from you know who.
CAROL J. RONEN, 9TH C.D. /48th ward Democratic CommitteeWoman.
Does she know something we don’t?
Comment by The 'Broken Heart' of Rogers Park Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 1:34 pm
Two-tier, COLA changes, and other pension tweaks for new hires doesn’t get PJQ squat in immediate cash. AA hopes that he hasn’t sipped any Filan Kool-Aid along with his tea and is thinking of trying to spend tomorrow’s savings today again.
That’s yesterday’s news and it didn’t work.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 1:40 pm
If you follow the link to SB 600, a flock of Republican co-sponsors signed on in early February and then bailed on Feb 25 and today. Amusing.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 1:51 pm
on SB 600, did a Democrat abstain or vote “no”? There are 5 Dems on the Elections committee.
Comment by Ravenswood Right Winger Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 1:55 pm
Why is everyone concerned about this SB600?
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 1:56 pm
I agree that the same pension cuts imposed on other new state employees should apply to new legislators, newly elected statewide officials, judges and any new paid state board or commission appointments. Anyone now in those positions also should be brought under the same restrictions as other state employees: no vesting for five years, increase in contributions, etc.
I realize the money savings wouldn’t be all that great, but it’s the principle. They are state employees, too.
If lawmakers don’t impose them on themselves through legislation, there should be a drive for a constitutional amendment, a process that Quinn has pushed and endorsed for years.
Comment by Songbird Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 1:57 pm
Reality/Pot
I agree whole heartedly. If the GA wants to talk about limiting pensions the talk should be across the board. Judges, Legislators, other elected officials etc. Unless Legislators believe they are in some way a superior class of state employees and they should not share in this hardship how can they figure they are exempt? I would call on the GA to show the voters that they do not feel they are elite and beyond the circle of those who should give up their earned benefits. I cannot believe that any Legislator or elected official could make the comment that the state employees have such a “sweet” deal. They don’t have to work eight years just to be vested. The rank and file state employee don’t get pensions for life simply by taking office. The other part of this that makes me livid is that THEY are the cause of this tremendous debt not the rank & file state employee. WE paid our share for the last 30 years, year in and year out, THEY were the ones that didn’t make the state’s share instead putting that money into pork projects to get themselves re-elected. If this goes through I hope the members remember and send a message to those elected that now it is our turn to limit their benefits at the ballot box. I guess they still didn’t get the message that they are not above recall themselves.
Comment by Irish Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 1:59 pm
Amen…to looking at the Legislative Retirement plan too. But while everyone’s at it, may as well take a look at the Judges, teachers, etc., etc.
Comment by SpfleJimbo Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 1:59 pm
Rosemary’s Baby has problems.
“Prohibits electioneering communications that negatively refer to a clearly identified candidate or candidates who will appear on the ballot during the 15 days before an election or primary.”
If 10 days before election a candidate learns of his opponent’s armed robbery conviction, he/she is muzzled from letting the voters know.
Comment by True Observer Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 2:04 pm
Assuming she gets the appointment, why would Sara Feigenholtz want to quit her state rep job to be a county commissioner? That seems like a step down and a career ender.
Comment by Cheswick Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 2:15 pm
If I remember right, before his reform administration went south, and in much better economic times, our Blago tried to get some changes in the pension system aimed at new workers and failed utterly.
Maybe in worse economic times, taxpayers will be more likely to strongly back a two-tiered pension system but the whole concept of a defined benefit pension is becoming so exotic out in the real world that maybe they won’t understand it enough to pay attention. In which case, the unions will win hands down on pensions. It’s not like General Motors. The state negotiators can’t threaten that the state will go out of business if the unions don’t concede.
On Quinn’s part, this sounds like he’s posturing
about cuts to smooth the route to a tax increase.
I suspect in the end we’ll see teensy weensy cuts and a great big tax increase for most of us.
Comment by Cassandra Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 2:32 pm
The pension thing is obvious and a no-brainer… I mean at one time when defined benefit pensions were the norm the “people” of Illinois would support Gov’t workers getting that. Now that very few private industry workers get pensions, no way it can be supported by the general population.
Ditto for health care costs, as more and more private employers go to HSA’s, large co-pays, huge deductibles, etc.
The problem for the state though, truthfully, is, private industry pays more. The lure of state employment for anyone with options to be in private industry was and is largely, in fact, those very benefits.
If state workers get the same benefits in private employment, and compensated better, then there will be an obvious “brain-drain” in state government (insert joke here… but it is true).
Call me provincial if you will, but while that may not matter in locales (ie., Springfield) where non-gov’t employment options are limited, in Chicago you’ll get a lot of people to go b/c they can do better in the private market if benefits are cut to private industry levels.
That may be good, may be bad. Just saying.
Comment by In and Out Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 2:33 pm
Well one problem with a two tier system (a small one a that) is you will really not solve the Nursing faculty issue at the University and JC level.
Mrs. OneMan has the education and background to do that gig and the only way the paycut would be worth it (she isn’t a floor nurse, most MSN nurses are not so her working hours and conditions are not bad) is the fixed pension and retiree healthcare (something most other places in medicine do not offer).
So take that out of the picture and the situation gets worse.
Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 2:42 pm
In and Out…
No problem. If all the “brains” leave state employment, they will just be hired back as consultants. Twice the pay, but the state won’t be accumulating health and pension costs.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 2:45 pm
Somebody please decipher this for me. PQ, from the Trib:
“I think we need to take a look at new employees when they come into state government or they want to be a teacher in Illinois, a system that is like Social Security. I think is a pretty good pension system,” Quinn said. “We have to have that sort of philosophy because we want to make sure we have adequate money not just to pay the pensions of public employees, which is an important policy goal and it’s a legal requirement, but we also want to have money to invest in health care and education and having public safety.”
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 2:50 pm
A two tiered employee pension system will actually cost more money. At least some of the skilled State positions pay less than private industry so people stay around because of the pension and retiree health benefits. It would be a lot cheaper to pay the retiree contributions (on time!) than to pay 30% or more higher salaries to hire and keep qualified people. All of this would be immediate money out with the savings coming many years later.
Yes, there are pension abuses; most of us know about how lucrative the various legislature and judicial pension structures. The legislature does contribute more percentage wise but the benefits accrue even quicker. They should be treated like any other state employee; vest in 8 years, vest in full medical at 20, retire at 60 or rule of 85.
The whole TRS pension design deserves a serious review. I realize teachers can argue they are underpaid and some may well be, so let’s pay the good ones what they are worth, get rid of the bad ones, and rework the TRS system so it can’t be gamed by last year raises and promotions. The whole design of that where local school boards can obligate the state is ridiculous. If the local boards had to include the pension costs in their budget each year, it might change.
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 2:52 pm
ONEMAN -
You are exactly echoing my point - for many employees with options, and nurses are a great great example, you take away the benefits and you suddenly lose any reason to stay (or start) in gov’t employment.
The argument that state employees should not be “better off than” what private industry employees are getting in terms of benefits (look, benefits today, not 15 years ago, not 30 years ago, but the reality of benefits today) is well taken.
However, the converse of that is that private industry is paid better.
Nurses and many, many others that have private employment options are going to be gone. Might not happen overnight given current economic situation, but it will happen.
Of course, no one is talking about TAKING AWAY PENSIONS to current employees, this is a go-forward step only.
Comment by In and Out Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 2:52 pm
ANON @ 2:52
I agree with you and am making the same point above - however, it still might save the state money overall b/c probably more positions than not are not of the nature of skilled positions like nursing… in other words, for every nurse salary you have to bump to attract nurses, you probably save just that much on the prison guard who cannot as easily translate his/her employment skill set into private industry.
Ditto for state troopers, etc. etc.
Your point is well taken (as I made it as well), but still could save the state some money.
I think what the deeper problem is, the market might suggest better benefits for nurses than for janitors (not picking on anyone), but the benefit plans dont allow for that differential as I understand them.
Comment by In and Out Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 3:01 pm
Anon, Just one comment. One the few things that were done during the Blago years that were good was the curtailing of the last year bump ups for teachers/administrators by school boards that obligated the State. That was changed. Now if a school board bumps up the last years salaries to increase the pension they are limited to a percentage cap. I used to know what that was but I do not recall it now. If the board goes over that cap the school district is on the hook for the whole amount of that raise for as long as that employee draws those benefits.
Comment by Irish Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 3:12 pm
As a state employee I am obviously concerned about the pension system. Plenty has been said about the issue here. I want to make sure that the pension system is healthy since that will lower costs in the long run. Won’t help much now, tho. I am willing to put more into the system but fear that whatever I put in the state will subtract and we’ll end up in the same place a few years from now. I remember when the Lottery was supposed to pay big money into the education fund - and it did. However, for every dollar the lottery put into the system the state removed the same amount from the education budget so it was no net gain. How do we make sure that my increased cost actually goes to the pension fund? How much does that help with the overall budget picture? Everywhere you turn you see a bleak picture. I fear a tax increase but I fear the damage it will do to the state economy as much.
Comment by dupage dan Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 3:20 pm
Irish - I missed that change; guess they actually did something right by accident. My aunt was retired teacher and I always thought that was the screwiest pension funding plan … it still is even with that change.
In & Out - I think we posted basically the same comments at the same time. I wasn’t going to get into the whole skill set thing but you are right, some people like Doctors, nurses, engineers, skilled technical workers, etc. have lots of options at higher pay for their skill set. Others with just average skills such as receptionist, clerk, etc. are paid the same or even a premium over the private sector. It would take a detailed study to know for sure but my gut says the higher pay for the skilled set would offset the cost savings for the rest of the employees. I’ve been shocked by the run up in union salaries since I retired in 2002. In the field I was in, union people who were making $60 - 70K then are now making over $100K before overtime … a 50% or better increase over six years. And we all know the union rules reward the incompetent along with the good people.
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 3:25 pm
#- Cheswick - Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 2:15 pm:
Assuming she gets the appointment, why would Sara Feigenholtz want to quit her state rep job to be a county commissioner? That seems like a step down and a career ender.
For starters, you don’t have to commute to Springfield. That’s gotta be a huge plus.
Also being a Cook County Commissioner didn’t seem to hurt Mike Quigley’s career last time I checked…
Comment by Help Me Help You Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 3:34 pm
Anon. and Irish, the annual cap on raises for TRS (and SURS) salaries used in a pension calculation is 6%.
For those commenters who want to stick it to the GA and/or judiciary, fine, have at it, but keep in mind that 1) most of the really generous GA provisions have been eliminated and apply to a dwindling number of senior lawmakers and 2) the Judges and GA systems are a rounding error in the total State pension liability.
Simply stated, the unfunded liability is driven by the unfunded liability. Everything else is small taters compared to the IOU.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 3:43 pm
Right now, the Illinois Campaign Disclosure law does not prohibit Electioneering Cmmunications, it simply requires discloure of contributions and expenditures which give rise to the communications. RM’s bill would suggest a prior prohibition of political speech. Above commentors are correct; this would not pass free-speech muster.
As for pensions: the state should cap pensions of all elected officials at eight years of service, no matter how much longer they serve. Among other benefits, it would remove a conflict of itnerest between elected officials and taxpayers.
Comment by anon III Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 3:56 pm
Feigenholtz becoming County Commissioner is a political promotion…
- larger constituency than a State Rep. district
- larger staff than a State Rep.
- no commuting to Springfield
- higher salary
- 1 of 17 commissioners instead of 1 118
- more direct connection to constituents daily lives
Some people need to look beyond titles and look at what elected officials actually (supposed to be) doing.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 4:00 pm
How about a 2 tiered system for elected officials?
Why not just give them(elected officials) the opportunity to participate in a 401K
Comment by Taxpayer Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 4:01 pm
In all the other counties of the state, going from state Rep to County Commissioner would be a demotion.
Not in Cook. Commissioner salaries are $85-90,000
State Rep./Senator base is about $65,000.
On Cook Cty Commission, you don’t have a Rules Committee acting as a gatekeeper for all ordinances. If you have one or an amendment to offer on the floor, it will likely get heard. If you know anything about the IL GA, this is not the case.
Further, until recently with Fraud Rod, the Legislature got very little play in the Chicago papers. The Cook County Board always gets plenty of coverage, esp. with the Trib advocating a 2010 revolution. (Granted, this was not the case before the reformers came on board, but it is now).
Finally, this is not unusual for states with large cities. if memory serves, the secretary of state of Ohio or one of their congresspeople went from state rep to state senator to the Cuyahoga (sp?)County Commission (the county that includes Cleveland).
Given all that, going from state Rep. to County Commissioner in Cook County makes lots of sense.
Comment by this old hack Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 4:18 pm
When we have retired IDOT highway maintainers ( big orange trucks ) making more in retirement than when they were ” working ” some is wrong. Could you live on $ 4800 per month in retirement ? They pay virtially nothing in “out of pocket ” expense for health care. Somebody was truely asleep at the wheel when these contracts were negotiated. They have helped break the State !
Comment by bluedog demo Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 4:21 pm
Re: Rosemary
I love the Bill of Rights, every single one of them, 1-10. The most radical document ever proposed and put into practice in the history of our planet.
Ever since those glorious days in Philly, the Bill of Rights has been hated and undermined by everyone, from Washington, Adams, Jefferson and every president and top lawymaker to the most ignorant, intolerant and inbred yahoo and ninkompoop that ever came down the line.
Baby, if everyone with a nickel’s worth of power or attitude hates them, you know they were built to last. Hats off to Madison, Jay and Hamilton.
Thank you, Rosemary, on a dark and cloudy day, in a dark and cloudy time, for reinvigorating the eternal Fourth of July in me.
My check to the ACLU will be in your honor.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 4:27 pm
For all those worried about the GA pension, take note of the following:
House Sponsors
Rep. Kevin A. McCarthy - Michael J. Madigan - Karen May
Hearings
Personnel and Pensions Committee Hearing Mar 12 2009 12:00PM Capitol Building Room 122B Springfield, IL
Last Action
Date Chamber Action
3/3/2009 House Assigned to Personnel and Pensions Committee
Statutes Amended In Order of Appearance
40 ILCS 5/2-103.1 new
40 ILCS 5/2-103.2 new
40 ILCS 5/2-117.4 new
40 ILCS 5/2-126 from Ch. 108 1/2, par. 2-126
40 ILCS 5/2-126.2 new
40 ILCS 5/2-162.1 new
Synopsis As Introduced
Amends the Illinois Pension Code. Requires the General Assembly Retirement System to automatically enroll its newly eligible employees in a self-managed program of retirement benefits instead of the program of retirement benefits currently offered and allows currently eligible employees to elect to participate in the self-managed program. Provides that a self-managed plan shall authorize a participating employee to accumulate assets for retirement through a combination of employer and employee contributions that may be invested at the employee’s direction in mutual funds, collective investment funds, or other investment products and used to purchase annuity contracts. Provides that, to the extent that the changes made by the amendatory Act are determined to be a new benefit increase, the changes are exempt from the 5-year expiration provision. Effective immediately.
Actions
Comment by Reddbyrd Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 4:30 pm
I agree with a lot of the posts on the issue of state pensions–all state pensions need to be reviewed for changes —especially those of our elected officials. They should get the same as other state workers. As bad as the situation is here in IL, the legislators ought to give up their pensions. They got us in this mess after all. It wasn’t all caused by the former governor.
Comment by Just a Citizen Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 4:35 pm
“Now that very few private industry workers get pensions…”
Anyone have hard data? I’ve heard that large numbers of employers have frozen or eliminated DB systems, but they are mostly smaller employers - that the number of employers offering a DB is shrinking but the number of employees actually covered is not shrinking as fast…
Comment by countryboy Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 5:30 pm
I think the State should look at the union negotiated wages. People are getting three pay raises a year - two COLA’s - one in July and one in January and then a step increase on their anniversary. Many raises total a 10% pay increase a year!!!!!!! Who is still getting that. Plus 30% of our staff is earning 25 vacation days a year (plus 3 personal days, 12 sick days, and 12 paid holidays).
My agency is paying highly incompetent union employees as much as $60K a year. Those people cannot write a paragraph, run a spreadsheet, or administer a program. It is nearly impossible to fire them. It takes a manager 10 hours a week for six months to provide documentation so they may possibly get fired. These people couldn’t keep a job at Wal-Mart or McDonalds! But the state pays and pays and pays and pays.
Comment by sick Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 5:50 pm
What highway maintainer have you been talking to? I have worked for IDOT for the last 23 years and here is how it works,take my years and multiply by 2.5. Then figure on my last month worked. So it’s 58 per cent times approx.5300.00 which comes to around 3100.00 per month. We pay no state income tax and no social security tax on this so it does increase the amount of take home.If you stay for 32 years you can draw 80 percent of your salary. The union contract got us about 18 percent over four years. Most members I have talked to did not expect this much in raises but remember there are alot more maintainers in Chicago land than in all of the south combined.
Comment by NIEVA Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 5:51 pm
Our insurance is not free,we pay anywhere from 170.00 to 250.00 per month in premiums along with copays that are 15.00 per doc visit and most meds cost 20.00 to 50.00 per prescription. When we retire the employee has free insurance. The spouse still costs around 150.00 per month. The same copays still are in effect after retirement. IT takes 20 years to get to this point. Anything less goes on the five percent plan. For ever year you like making 20 you pay 5 percent. You have to work 8 years to receive any benefit including your pension.
Comment by NIEVA Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 6:03 pm
AFL-CIO’s website states that in 1978, 41% of private sector workers were covered by about 120,000 different defined-benefit pension plans. In 2005, the percentage dropped to 21% and the number of plans dropped to around 20,000. Naturally, AFL-CIO touts union members’ higher percentage of participation in defined-benefit plans compared to the non-union workforce.
http://www.aflcio.org/issues/retirementsecurity/definedbenefitpensions/
Burerau of Labor Statistics info can be found here:
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?eb
They show that in 2006 (the last year available) the private sector had 20% employees covered by defined-benefit (ordinary pension) and 43% covered by defined-contribution (401k or similar) plans.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 6:04 pm
Those bills (4115 & 4116) seem unreasonable. Does this mean that Jim Oberweiss couldn’t be in ads for his own company? Would it prevent a television media person from becoming a candidate? And as far as not going negative, what if your opponent is a scumbag who just hasn’t had the privilege of meeting Mr. Fitzgerald yet.
Comment by Levi voted for Judy Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 6:10 pm
Interesting from AFL-CIO: 68% of all U.S. unionized workers (public and private sector combined) are covered by defined-benefit pensions. Considering IL is heavily unionized, it’s not surprising that state employees have defined-benefit pensions, too - and that they are not likely to give them up without a fight.
Who knows…President Obama and the D’s push to strengthen union organizing, along with the very sour experience of millions of American’s 401k’s tanking, might lead to a reversal of the trend over the long term.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 6:14 pm
SIX DEGREES:
Thanks for posting the hard data.
Look, I want to recieve my state pension, I am not for one second arguing that anyone does not “deserve” this or that benefit.
I have worked gov’t, I have worked private sector, I know people in both. Yes, I know that health insurance is not free for state employees, that there are co-pays and premium, etc.
All that aside, for MOST (and by most, I mean almost all) every state employee, you could not find the level of benefit (for better or worse) in modern day private industry as the state is providing currently.
Higher compensation - yes, for skilled positions such as nurses, engineers, etc. Benefits - nope. Sorry, it just isnt out there (take it from someone who has gone back-and-forth). Maybe it was 10 years ago, not now.
My simple point is, if the taxpayer in the state is not getting close to the benefits, they arent going to pay any attention that the compensation isnt as high as private industry, they’ll just cut bene’s before voting to raise taxes.
The benes are going to be cut going forward. Get used to the idea.
Comment by In and Out Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 6:15 pm
Highway employees can retire with 20 years. Most employees have to work 35 years or if there age and number of years of service add up to 85 they can retire under the rule “85″. You receive 1.67 percent of the number of years you have to retire. So if you are age say 53 and have 32 years of service in you can retire under rule “85″ 1.67 percent X 32 years and that is what you get when you retire, that is what I’ve been told.
I would like to know what our state elected leaders receive in way of retirement, health insurance and state benefits. What luxuries do they receive and the state pays for them, like lodging or transportation or meals. That should be made public. Our wonderful Rich Miller or other journalists could find out that information through Freedom Of Information Act and print that on the front page of every paper in the state and then I’m sure the outcry would be so powerful from the public that we would demand that action be taken and this would only be fair to the tax payers. But, we would depend on people like Rich Miller or other famous journalists to let us, the public know the facts. Thank you.
Comment by thunder1 Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 6:16 pm
Thunder1-
The info is readily available, no FOIA required. I found the state legislator pension info in under 1 minute of searching. Maximum benefit of 85% of salary with 20 years of service. GA salary is currently $57,619 a year, so about $49k max pension, which then gets a 3% COLA every year.
http://www.state.il.us/srs/gars/retireben_gars.htm
Now, figuring up every public official’s mishmash of pensions from every public or private job they ever had…good luck.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 6:38 pm
I have done public sector and private sector work - I wnet back t o public sector work - at a more than 50% salary cut - for the fixed work hours and the retirement benefits. I would not have taken that big a salary cut just for the lure of public service.
Comment by krome Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 6:45 pm
KROME -
Likewise here… and I cannot tell you how many people are here for the family health insurance benefits (again, no, I know it is not free, but have you seen lately how high premiums and deductibles have gotten in the private sector?!) while a spouse makes the $$.
The point being, you get what you pay for and anyone in state employ with options (again, think accountants, engineers, nurses, attorneys, doctors, etc.) that can move to a corresponding position in the private sector will make the move if benes are not there. If the state cannot afford it, I completely understand. Private industry couldnt afford it either.
However, you cant offer half the salary, with the same benefits, and in a functioning labor market expect to “last” very long.
But, that’s an HR problem for the next generation, not a budget problem for today.
Comment by In and Out Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 7:04 pm
Some other info from the private sector…84% of private utility workers (ComEd, AT&T, etc.) participate in defined-benefit pension plans, as do 45% of employees of private firms employing 500 or more. According to BLS, in 2008 67% of union members of private employers participate in a defined-benefit pension.
http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/benefits/2008/ownership/private/table02a.htm
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 7:13 pm
Half the salary???? - Look at the salaries paid to state employees: www.state.il.us/cms/download/pdfs/app_09alpha.pdf
Again - my agency pays people who do not have college degree’s or appropriate work experience (grandfathered into the union) $65K for the administrative assistant title. Office Support (clerical) positions are paying $30k to $60k — PLUS nearly 3 months off work each year; Plus the insurance; plus the pension.
Taxpayers should be outraged!
You cannot blast these people out of these state jobs with dynamite.
Comment by sick Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 7:21 pm
NEIVA the “early out ” boys at IDOT are making way more than $ 3100 per month. So your now making $ 5300 per month ? Good God almighty !
Comment by bluedog demo Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 7:39 pm
Yep and we will be at around 70,000 in a couple of years. I know this is a lot of money and I agree it appears they are pricing us out of a job, but we little to say about the contract. This year we ask for comp time when we work overtime. It and several other small requests that would have cost nothing or saved the state money were not in the contract when we were allowed to vote. Of course I voted for the money because I am retiring in 18 months. I just hope the system has the money to pay my pension for the next30 years!
Comment by NIEVA Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 7:52 pm
I have an administrative assistant title and I only make $35,000, and that’s with a bachelor’s degree and more than 20 YEARS of work experience in the private sector before I started! Plus, no raise, not even a COLA, this year or last year.
Three months off work each year? Yeah, right. I get two weeks (10 days) per year, and can’t accumulate more than 20 unused days at any time. I work in the legislative branch, am not union, and that probably makes a big difference.
I have to say, though, I’m not complaining because my private sector jobs were with small-town newspapers (which were always notoriously low paying even before the current crisis). I don’t count on my pension or Social Security anyway, and I assume I’ll just have to work until I die, so if benefits have to be cut, so be it.
Comment by Bookworm Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 7:53 pm
IL does have some high highway maintenance salaries. Part of the reason is that, in northern climates, you need to have a crew at the ready for 3-4 months out of the year that can be called out at will for snow duty. In states like Florida or Texas, the lack of need for “on call” employees contributes to lower pay scales, as well as the general “right-to-work” labor climate down there. But compared to other transportation/utility workers (like unionized railroad maintenance workers or electrical linemen, some of whom are also “on call”) their salaries aren’t terribly out of line.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 8:24 pm
As a 30 year state employee who is about to retire, my pension will amount to a little over half of a calculated average pay. The governor and legislature have a much more generous pension deal with the ability to vote themselves whatever percentage raise they want which only increases their pension and yet I don’t see the gov or legislature voting themselves a hearty pension cut. But they sure seem happy enough to cut the rank-and-file state employees’ pension. Their reasoning? Why SERS is in big trouble. Of course SERS is in big trouble. Governor’s and legislature’s for generations have robbed it blind for their own spending excesses. While I agree there is room for negotiations regarding ways to keep SERS afloat, until laws are passed to protect SERS retirement funds from being used as the legislatures’ personal piggy bank and the legislature agrees to a cut to their extremely generous pension benefits I do not beleive the rank-and-file should be asked to make any more concessions. (Requiring the state to ACTUALLY pay back all the money borrowed from SERS would be a nice start).
Comment by Sweet Polly Purebred Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 8:28 pm
To - Thunder1 - We state employees get all luxuries. Like indoor plumbing, toilet paper, soap, and even brown paper towels. Yep, we’re living on easy street here in state employee land. And all we have to do to earn these marvels of modern life is do the work of 3 people, struggle to keep the money flowing to public service programs like Medicaid, Foodstamps, road construction, public safety, child guardianship and advocacy, etc etc etc. Which services would you like to see go away? And once done away with, do you promise not to freak when you need one of the services that have been eliminated? Think about it. The very first thing anyone would do if they needed a service not provided, would be to call their senator or rep and complain, whine and demand that their needs should be met seeing as how they are a taxpayer of the great state of Illinois. You can’t have it both ways. Not now, not ever.
Comment by Sweet Polly Purebred Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 8:44 pm
The state is a very large, heavily unionized employer. If you look at very large, unionized employers, the number of defined benefit retirement plans is pretty constant over the past many years. The people who argue that defined-benefit plans are vanishing are making intellectually suspect comparisons. If the state had 150 employees and wasn’t unionized it would probably have a defined contribution plan, but that is an almost meaningless comparison.
Comment by steve schnorf Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 8:51 pm
Sick wrote:
Half the salary???? -
For some positions, no. But looking at the pilots, engineers, physicians and pharmacists, the state has some fairly lowball salaries. These professions can easily make $150-200k a year in the private sector for experienced people. Would be interesting to know how many of these state workers are being paid at the low end of the range rather than the high end…there’s a lot of overlap there.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 8:51 pm
Steve-
The decline of manufacturing in the US has probably led to a corresponding decline of employee pensions in the US. Many, if not most, of these type firms were large employers and unionized. There were probably 10,000 of these jobs in my area that disappeared over the last 40 years. Of course, the case could be made that unionization and pensions killed the golden goose when these jobs went to the sun belt or overseas.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 8:56 pm
I’m not surprised to see people complain about what highway maintainers make, but I don’t see those people lining up for the job.
What’s it worth to be scooping dead animals off the road when it’s 100+ on the hot pavement? Or plowing snow in a blizzard at 3 am? I know some of these folks and it’s a rough job. Most of them earn what they get.
There are always slackers, but I’m pretty impressed with the IDOT folks, the corrections officers, the DNR people, and even the folks at the SoS Driver’s facilities. Most of them have to cover for all the empty positions that have been replaced with campaign staffers who need a place to sit for the 3 yrs between races or simply eliminated because no one wants to pay for the services they expect to receive.
Whoa! That was quite the rant. Whew! I feel much better now.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 9:17 pm
As a state employee, couldn’t post this from work. A 2 tier pension system won’t help. What is needed, first, is an inescapable way to compel the state to make the pension funding payments necessary to fund what it has agreed to. Without that, all reform will fail.
Comment by Smitty Irving Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 9:34 pm
I think there is little left in the rank and file to cut after running on empty for six years. Perhaps the best gesture is to try “level spending” for a year. Really the tax increase is all there is to it.
On the pensions, in one dimension, I can see that times change and people no longer work for just one employer all their lives, and so a different “slimmer” pension for the way work is now done might make some sense, if your average state worker only works ten years or less before moving on.
But, in another dimension, if that becomes SOP, you give up some important things like institutional memory and continuity of services, as there are no “old timers” kept around who know where everything is and where it goes and what it’s for. If you turn the workforce into uncommitted, ambivalent temps, prepare for worse service.
Finally regarding pensions, anything that reforms the TRS system meets with my approval.
Comment by Gregor Tuesday, Mar 10, 09 @ 9:47 pm
To Sweet Polly from Thunder 1 First of all I am not talking about state employees. I am talking about our electedte leaders. For your information, I am a state employee, and have 27 years of service in. I would have to work 44 years to get 75% of my income. I know that the state leaders get a good income. In fact, how many get more when they leave there elected positions and take a state job and work six months or 4 years and get even more. The sytems needs looked into. That is all I am saying, but no one wants to do it. No one wants to be the one to rock the boat. A I am asking is one of our famous reporters to check into this and let the public know. Its always about attack the state employees and nothing about what our elected leaders receive. How many days out of the year do they actually work? The only way to get an answer to this, is through our media. They can get the attention that is needed. Thank you.
Comment by Thunder Wednesday, Mar 11, 09 @ 5:01 pm