Another pension bond deal? Maybe
Wednesday, May 21, 2008 - Posted by Rich Miller
* The Tribune has the scoop…
Illinois Senate Democrats are looking hard at borrowing $16 billion, pumping the cash into the state employee pension systems and hoping the investments can beat the market—all as a way to ease budget pressures.
It’s an idea that so far has worked after Gov. Rod Blagojevich took a chance on a $10 billion bond package in 2003. He caught the markets at a terrifically low rate of just over 5 percent and the pension systems took their portion of the proceeds and mostly invested wisely.
Several senators emerged from the Senate Democratic caucus Tuesday saying the latest pension bond idea will emerge in the budget plan they hope to roll out soon. […]
But Sen. Susan Garrett (D-Lake Forest) said she is skeptical about voting for a $16 billion pension bond and the newly proposed $31 billion construction plan when a state operating budget remains unsettled.
* That won’t be easy to pass. The AP did a story on this idea earlier in the week…
Critics, including business groups and Republicans, say borrowing to pay off old debt, even if it’s at a lower interest rate, isn’t wise. It just puts off the problem.
They say there’s also too much risk in a pension bond. It only works if the invested proceeds from the bond get a better return than the interest rate on the amount borrowed, which could be 5 percent a year. In a shaky stock market, critics warn, nothing is guaranteed and the state’s pension debt could get even worse.
“This is a craps game, and you shouldn’t operate the state’s finances based on taking those kinds of risks,” said Eden Martin of the civic committee of the Commercial Club of Chicago.
* The Civic Federation had some harsh words about the idea in a recent report…
“Until Illinois political leaders dedicate themselves to putting the state’s fiscal house in order, Illinois taxpayers and the Civic Federation will not have confidence that any new revenue will be spent effectively,”
* If the plan is met with stiff opposition, it might be dumped like a hot potato…
“I don’t think there’s a will from any member to be down here this summer,” said Sen. Donne Trotter of Chicago, the budget point man for the Senate’s Democratic majority.
* More evidence of that apparent willingness to abandon ship and get out of town…
The House is expected to first push a “bare-bones budget” and follow up with spending expansions as agreement can be found.
Senators, however, say they don’t plan on entertaining more spending until there’s a deal on producing the needed dollars.
“You can’t order up the dinner and know that your Link card, the ATM card’s gonna bounce, MasterCard, whatever they (House members) think they have over there. We’re broke,” said state Sen. Rickey Hendon, a Chicago Democrat.
* But there’s also this…
.Blagojevich spokeswoman Rebecca Rausch said the governor is more focused on seeing a good budget that meets the right priorities than having something done by a specific date.
Except almost nobody really believes that they can pass a “good budget” this year, so why bother sticking around?
- Vote Quimby! - Wednesday, May 21, 08 @ 9:16 am:
Does Rickey know Link cards can’t be used to buy prepared food consumed on premesis? Is any Senate Democrat knowledgable about our great welfare programs? To quote Dr. Julius Hibbert: Why do we live in a (state) where the smartest have no power and the stupidest run everything? Maybe I should just move back to Alabama.”
- wordslinger - Wednesday, May 21, 08 @ 9:20 am:
The pension bond deal is riverboat gamble — kind of like trying to come up with the rent at the roulette wheel. It can work, but it probably shouldn’t be Plan A.
Any ideas out there that don’t involve gambling?
- Vote Quimby! - Wednesday, May 21, 08 @ 9:27 am:
Just that increase in sales or income tax rates… darn those pesky campaign promises! It’s the only shred of credibility he has with the ‘working’ people.
- Cassandra - Wednesday, May 21, 08 @ 9:29 am:
So an administration nobody trusts is going to be trusted with respect to its financial predictions, that is, its ability to beat the market?
If we taxpayers go along with that, we really do deserve whatever fiscal debacles await.
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, May 21, 08 @ 9:33 am:
The GA and the Governor have different needs for this budget session. They want to pretend to fix our fiscal disasters and make no news, while Blagojevich loves news.
Blagojevich wants to rock the boat, and is free to do so. This means that while the legislators take risks for those with political opponents, Blagojevich doesn’t care if me does anything that could make them lose.
From where he stands, he isn’t opposed to seeing new faces in office next January. He can’t get lower in the esteem of the current legislative body. So what’s to lose?
So he will rock the boat to win PR points, and doesn’t care who pays the price for it.
After last year, the GA knows that Blagojevich cannot be trusted to play a helpful role in this election year. If they were smart, the GA should do everything it can to get this deadline met and work around Blagojevich as he tries to find something with which to make headlines. They need to do their jobs without him as much as possible.
Blagojevich has proven to willingly make things difficult and uncomfortable for those who he feels harms his public image. As a result, he is not merely political poison a-la-George Bush, he is Typhoid Mary trying to get into a crowd to sneeze and cough on those who get too close.
- TomD - Wednesday, May 21, 08 @ 10:03 am:
Not to stray off-topic, but that Civic Federation report — that “Illinois taxpayers and the Civic Federation will not have confidence that any new revenue will be spent effectively” — raises what has always been my biggest concern about the Olympics in Chicago . . . . . with the history/culture in Chicago and in Illinois more generally, an Olympic bid involves a pot of way too much money.
In fact, it seems like a full-employment act for US Attorneys.
- Bluefish - Wednesday, May 21, 08 @ 10:56 am:
A $16 billion pension bond will generate a lot of fees for the “right” consultants.
- Hickory - Wednesday, May 21, 08 @ 11:22 am:
Thought for Con con. Bond proceeds can only be used to acquire assets with a life of more than 5 years. Examples: Roads and buildings.
- You Go Boy - Wednesday, May 21, 08 @ 11:27 am:
Rebecca R……LEAVE ALREADY!!!!!
- Truthful James - Wednesday, May 21, 08 @ 11:28 am:
Say, maybe the Sports Authority Bonds could be bought by the Pension Funds, capital funding bonds as well. Talk about tripling the consultant fees.
- Garp - Wednesday, May 21, 08 @ 11:46 am:
This administration is not getting bailed again. The Speaker probably has other issues on his mind than helping Blogo get out of this budget mess.
I believe the Governor is in check and about to be mated.
- plutocrat03 - Wednesday, May 21, 08 @ 12:25 pm:
Any financial advisers out there who think that putting new money in the markets now is a wise idea?
What are the concequences to the pension funds if there is a 15% to 20% ‘market adjustment’?
- Ghost - Wednesday, May 21, 08 @ 12:42 pm:
We havent paid for the last bond deal!
and FYI, after putting the roughly 3bil into the SRS from the last bond, the Gov redirected over the next several years over 2bil of contributions. Thus he yanked out employer contributions of almost the same amount elminating the bumb from the bond, which we still have to pay for!!
- Excessively rabid - Wednesday, May 21, 08 @ 12:55 pm:
Just in case anyone thinks we are the only ones with a moronic state government, Pennsylvania is working on leasing the PA Turnpike to a multi-national “provider of infrastructure services.”
http://uk.reuters.com/article/tnBasicIndustries-SP/idUKL197129020080520
I suppose now roads are not “inherently governmental” and need to be contracted out. That raises the question of what state governments now do - the choices are apparently nothing or entertainment.
- Bill - Wednesday, May 21, 08 @ 1:59 pm:
Wrong, Ghost.
The GA declared a pension holiday with a budget that your idol, the Speaker, advocated, not the Governor, who hesitantly signed the bill when he was promised that there would be pension reforms.
The POB deal was a good one for the state and this one will be also. They should really “re-finance” the whole 43 billion while the rates are favorable.
- steve schnorf - Wednesday, May 21, 08 @ 3:00 pm:
How about some reality here on the POBs. One, geniuses, how many rolling 10 year periods since the Great Depression have there been when the systems didn’t hit their actuarial targets? Two, if the systems can’t earn 5%, as some of you fear, then THINK about what happens to their (in that event) underperforming current assets and our pension obligations. Three, we aren’t supposed to have paid off the last bonds yet: they were issued for 30 years, and took advantage of outstanding long-term interest rates. Next, as long as the systems can earn anything, we’re better off: we’ll be paying unfunded liabilities at around 5% rather than 8-8.5%. Next, if our well-managed, well invested, broadly diversified investments can’t average more tha 5% over the next 30 years, pension obligation are going to be fairly low down our list of problems as a country and as a society. And last, thh fees we pay on our state bond issues are very low by industry standards.
- Six Degrees of Separation - Wednesday, May 21, 08 @ 4:26 pm:
Rabid-
The PA deal might be a good one in the long run. The PA turnpike currently generates about $600 mil/yr, about the same as our ISTHA. Not sure if that all goes back into the system or if it is a small cash cow, but my bet is that with 3000 employees, they are breaking even. The deal generates $12 billion cash now for the state, maintenance responsibility goes away for 75 years, and there are requirements for maintenance and limits to any toll increases to protect the owner (PA) and its constituents. And they still own the asset and can lease it out again when the term is up, or if the new owner defaults. If they jack the tolls too high, law of diminishing returns starts cutting into their profits.
- some former legislative intern - Wednesday, May 21, 08 @ 6:13 pm:
Pension Bond borrowing is always a bad idea. Borrowing money to get ourselves out of a jam with pension obligations is simply bad public policy.
steve schnorf: how do you know our investments are: “well-managed, well invested and broadly diversified” as you claim? The trial that recently concluded made me doubt that this administration can manage much of anything right.
- some former legislative intern - Wednesday, May 21, 08 @ 6:16 pm:
the solution is to face the music and raise taxes. Everyone wants a free lunch. Guess what? There is no such thing.
- Arthur Andersen - Wednesday, May 21, 08 @ 6:20 pm:
Oh come on Bill, stop playing Soviet history professor. The centerpiece of the justification for the pension fund cuts in FY 06 and 07 was the Governor’s Blue Ribbon Pension Commission and the GOMB’s bogus actuarial projections that said there was all this money to be saved by “reforming” the pension systems and these ideas are so excellent that we should just grab the savings now when we need the dough instead of leeting them pile up over time. All the Speaker did was write the Governor’s numbers into bill form.
That plan worked out real swell; just like the naming rights and the flu shots. Despite the pension funds’ excellent job of investing the money, the unfunded liability is right back up to where it was before the bonds were issued in 2003; $43 billion, plus the $10 billion bond IOU.
- Bill - Wednesday, May 21, 08 @ 6:44 pm:
AA,
The debt is back to $43 billion due to the 1995 ramp legislation which was revised later to make it even worse that allows the state to make smaller contributions and defer their responsibility to its employees until around 2020. If you think the state payments are bad now just wait a decade. Of course, all of the current office holders except the Speaker will be gone by then so they don’t really care.
- Arthur Andersen - Wednesday, May 21, 08 @ 9:48 pm:
Bill, whose idea was it to lower and flatten, the ramp, making the problem worse?
a) John Filan
b) Osama bin Laden
c) George Ryan
d) George W. Bush
e) none of the above
As much as you would like the answer to be one of the others, the only correct answer is A. You know, as in Public Official A.
The ramp is withput question part of the problem. You didn’t mention it before when you blamed the Speaker for Filan’s vaporous, non-existent “reforms.”
The biggest contributor to the $10 billion Blagojevich runup in unfunded liability, during a time of record investment earnings, is the $3.5 billion funding shortfall caused by the funding cuts in FY 06 and 07 and subsequent reductions on the ramp in 08 and 09. Don’t believe AA? Check COGFA or Holland; they will agree.
- steve schnorf - Wednesday, May 21, 08 @ 11:34 pm:
Intern, if you don’t know the answers to your own questions, your opinions arent worth much.