40 Comments - Bill - Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 11:00 am: What more is there to say? Maybe you should try two a day ConCon shill posts. The e-mail contains less factual errors than Zorn’s column (see comments regarding social security for teachers,for example),but, whatever, it is up to the voters, now. Spend $100 million for nothing while gov’t stagnates for about four years or work under the current system to change what needs to be changed and protect and keep what needs to be protected and kept. Don’t underestimate the voters abilitry to see through the hype and judge ConCon for what it is, an expensive, unnecessary, windfall for political wannabees, lawyers, and various other hangers on. - Secret Square - Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 11:07 am: I favor Con-Con and will vote for it, but at this point I don’t think it can win. If it goes down, though, we aren’t any worse off than we are now, and we can turn our attention to electing a good, or at least reasonably sane and adequate, replacement for Blago in 2010. I have to agree with something Vote Quimby said a few days ago, that I’d gladly give up a con-con in return for getting rid of Blago as quickly as possible. - Harry Caray's Glasses - Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 11:12 am: Secret Square, If you follow Quimbys logic then lets throw out a good Constitution because of a bad Governor. Isn’t that a little short sighted? Shoud we throw out the U.S. Constituion because Bush was able to get around illegal search and seizure protections? Bill is correct a YES vote on the Con Con is a vote for no change in the next 4 years. VOTE NO! - Phineas J. Whoopee - Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 11:15 am: I believe handing out the new version of the language could actually assist in people voting yes to the con con even more than correcting the language on the actual ballot. One thing that should be watched very closely is precinct captains outside the polling place handing out something similar-but urging voters to vote no-therebye confusing voters. I suspect their might be shenanigans because the boys really don’t want a new convention. Bye the way, the machine is telling government employees that if there is a con con the State will tax their pensions. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 11:17 am: ===Bill is correct a YES vote on the Con Con is a vote for no change in the next 4 years.=== LOL. Huh? I will bet you a buck that if the referendum passes the teachers and public employee unions wll demand an immediate fix for the pension systems to head off what could happen at a con-con. - John Bambenek - Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 11:29 am: As far as the pensions, key point. Whatever has been promised has to be delivered if and until the state is in bankruptcy. That is the only potential process to reduce pension benefits, and as seen in California, it is increasingly tried. There is nothing in the Constitution now that REQUIRES new hires to be offered a pension or to be offered defined benefit only. They could make all new hires have defined contribution pensions today if they wanted (ok, well 3 reading days in both houses). Health benefits are not conferred in the constitution, they are a creature of statute and everyone agrees those aren’t contracts now. The “vote no to protect Rod and Todd coalition” are making odd arguments. Nothing compels the offering of pensions, nothing assures health benefits now. No one is going to write a constitutional amendment to ban retirement plans for public workers. There is an argument that all the defined benefit plans can be converted to defined contribution. I’ve argued this repeatedly with many and convinced them it is not only legally impossible, more importantly it is practically impossible. Let’s say you have $100,000 in your defined benefit plan. Right now, the actual cash on hand is more like $60,000 (depending on the plan). Fidelity, Prudential, et al, are not going to take $60,000 and a bunch of IOUs and hand you a $100k 401(k). The entire balance of pension debt would be due immediately to convert those employees. No way a $42 Billion pension bond gets approved, even if there was anyone willing to fork over that kind of credit in this economy. This pension lie is nothing more than shameless fearmongering from those who want to protect the special interests and the status quo while scaring voters away from the political process they are entitled to by right. - Bill - Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 11:32 am: Oh so now you admit something could happen to public employee pensions at a con con. It is about time. LOL - Rich Miller - Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 11:34 am: Bill, I’ve never denied that some action would be taken on pensions. I wrote a syndicated column about that very possibility. - Bill - Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 11:36 am: “…to protect Rod and Todd coalition…”. That sounds like an Republican ad running in a suburban legislative race. When all else fails and you know you will probably lose, Start chanting Rod and Todd, Rod and Todd…yeah that’ll work (not). - VanillaMan - Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 11:42 am: Bill talks out of both sides of his mouth here. On one posting today he is advocating Obama’s, “Spread the Wealth” economic policies, and on this one he is hoarding an empty box labeled, “MY MONEY”, like a homeless loon with a shoebox. I guess it is easy to see where Bill is coming from here - your wages should be taxed for my benefit, but my wages are MINE! No touchee! Look into your shoebox Bill! You will find IOUs and “I Screwed You’s” signed by your buddy Blagojevich. Your political support greased Blagojevich’s conscience as he raided our system. By advocating and pushing your Nanny State politics, those who were elected with your blessing are ensuring that everyone pay, including you! Vote “yes” for the Con-Con and stand up for your rights as citizens! - Pat collins - Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 11:46 am: I voted early, as I’ll be out of town for several weeks. They gave me a blue card for the con con Q. I ignored it, as did most of the others I saw voting. As for pensions, your CURRENT benefit is frozen, but FUTURE additions can easily be changed. That happened to me at my job, and new workers get no pension, just a little more match to their 401K. - VanillaMan - Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 11:59 am: Bill - You are like Farrah Fawcett in “The Burning Bed”, except you’d be bald and more feminine than she was. She was a battered wife who stayed in her abusive marriage until she snapped and torched him in their bed while he was sleeping off a over night binge. I can just see you now, creeping down the hall, afraid of waking the Democrats you married as they sleep off another night of partying with our tax money. Close up shot of your torn blouse, exposing your sunken chest, your eyes blankly staring as you pour gasoline throughout the house. You throw a lit matchbook with Barney Frank’s private telephone number into the house and run as it explodes. You cry out, “Eight years of Republican rule has destroyed my life!”, as the fire trucks arrive. You lay in the front yard, as the firemen racing around you think you are a garden gnome. One day you will snap Bill. It will probably be the day you finally see how your best buddies failed to deliver on their promises of fairness, wealth-spreading, and economic revival. When you do snap, I hope it is made into a TV Movie of the Week starring Heather Locklear in “The Burning Bed, or How Bill Finally Got His Groove”. R rated - Heather Locklear is hot! - Bill - Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 12:02 pm: VanMan, I’m not sure what you are talking about but I don’t have a problem with paying my taxes. I would gladly pay more in exchange for adequately funded schools, health care for children,and all those other “nanny state” programs you hate so much that would lend a helping hand to those less fortunate than me. Yes, I supported Blagojevich because he promised to address those issues. He tried. Am I a little disappointed”? Maybe, but that doesn’t mean that the constitution is flawed. It means that our elected officials are not living up to expectations. Our recourse? Certainly not to throw out our Constitution. Rod and possiblt Todd will be gone before any new Constitution would be ratified and take effect. I’ll be supporting another candidate who promises to address these same issues. You, I assume, will do the same for the graft and greed, me first party. That is what makes America great. - VanillaMan - Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 12:42 pm: ==I would gladly pay more== Then stop damning our ability to review our state constitution. Your pension fears should not be realistic if you would gladly pay more for what we all have. What we need right now is a chance to remake our state government so that our citizens will support our state government. Bludgeoning people and demanding under penalty of jail time that they follow a broken government is no way to get citizens to support government. There has never been a worse constitution created after a state has held a constitutional convention. There are too many safeguards within our democracy to have this go wrong. If you don’t want to participate, go right ahead and sit on your hands. But stop damning those of us eager to do our civic duty for the first time in 2 decades. Your claim that Rod and Todd could be gone before a new constitution could be in place completely misses the point that this is not about them. It is about a constitution that has not evolved with our political times and is now a misfit. This constitutional convention isn’t about individuals, it is about the limits we as citizens will place on our state government. We are supposed to do this. Sorry you don’t understand or believe in some kind of political tooth fairy. Enough is enough. Time to get to work and fix this state! - curly - Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 12:51 pm: I think all the news coverage of the ballot issue helps publicize the con-con and brings out the “yes” vote. Voters who become aware that the legislative committee sneakily tried to manipulate the vote will do the opposite of what the manipulators want. - John Bambenek - Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 1:14 pm: Actually, the “coalition to protect Rod and Todd” line isn’t mine, it came from a Dem months ago before the GOP started even pushing the issue. I wrote an entire op-ed exclusively on the pensions… Sure there will be attempts to fix the constitutional defects of the language, there can be no successful attempt to take them away. Period. The pension section was INTENIONALLY written to require payment of pensions but not FUNDING of pensions. The only way your pensions can be reduced is by bankruptcy and that is exactly where we are headed. I’ve been up front and detailed about exactly how I plan to reform pensions. I’ve written the language I intend to use. All I plan to push is to require the state to actually fund them and make that requirement enforceable. There is no secret nefarious plot here to wage war on workibg families. If black helicopter theories is all you got, it goes to show why the case for a concon really is ironclad. - Bill - Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 1:33 pm: I personally don’t have any pension fears but people should be given accurate information about what may be at stake for them should a constitutional convention be held. On the pension issue, business groups, like the Civic Federation, and government groups, like the local Mayors and Managers Associations, want that protection clause out. Ask them. That will be their priority. Now, ask yourself, why would they want that out? The answer is obvious. Education groups are going to push for fudning reform along with the obligation to pay for it with tax increases. All different types of taxes can be imposed but mosy likely would be a graduated income tax. That’s what the Chamber and Retailers oppose. Add in some cultural issues like gay marriage, abortion, see the posts above if you think this issue is dead, concealed carry of guns,etc. to bring the whackos and single issue zealots out. There is no upside that I see that we can not accomplish through the legislative and ammendment process. There is no reason to go to the expense, put the business of the taxpayers on hold for several years, and open up our civil and human rights to assault. Do yourself a favor. Fight waste in government. Save the taxpayers some money. VOTE NO on ConCon - Correcting Zorn - Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 1:53 pm: To paraphrase what I wrote on Mr. Zorn’s blog, and to provide an example of what John Bambenek stated, the City of Vallejo, CA (home to the old Mare Island Naval Shipyard) is declaring bankruptcy in Federal Court TO GET OUT OF PAYING GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE PENSIONS. If those Federal Court opinions Zorn cited were worth the paper they were written on, Vallejo would not even been allowed to file this case. If it works for them, politicians all over Illinois and Blago / Filan will do the same to avoid their obligations to properly fund employee pensions. - Squideshi - Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 2:01 pm: A link to the lower court decision would be helpful. - Fortunato - Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 2:08 pm: A con-con will put pensions in severe jeapordy? Why the desparation? I suspect the fear is not what will happen to pensions but will happen to the power and who controls things and who might have to share power they dont have to share now. I am voting for the con-con, while not a guarantee that we will be able to address the entrenched corruption of our institutions in this state, it does represent a hope –and perhaps our only hope, in returning government to the people and having meaningful checks and balances in State and local government. - John Bambenek - Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 3:12 pm: The business groups may want it out but it is irrelevant. Pensions were not federally protected in 1970. They are now backed up by decades of opinions that states are bound by the contracts they make under the Contract Clause. The cities in California are in bankruptcy because they are insolvent. Bankruptcy is the same tool businesses use to get out of contracts when they can’t pay. But Bill, parroting the union line would have us stick our head in the sand while the state continues to underfund the pensions and the exponential growth of the debt drives this state into bankruptcy. We can fix the problem now or the entire state goes into bankruptcy because you and your union buddies want to play fiscal chicken instead of fixing a constitutional defect everyone knows is there. - Cassandra - Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 3:45 pm: But how underfunded are the pensions? I thought state contributions will start going down in a year or so, suggesting that there is a plan which is reducing the underfunded portion over time. Just as the Social Security system is not going to go under in the next few decades, even if we don’t change anything, I doubt the pension system is going to turn Illinois into Vallejo California. There may well be pension envy among non-government employees driving some of this. Private employers, as we’ve heard ad nauseum, have increasingly switched out of defined benefit pensions and into defined contrib. Maybe instead of pension envy, Illinoisians as a group should demand a pension system for all–state or fed-based, so we can all have pensions, in addition to Social Security, like our lucky government employees, who have done nothing more than anybody else to deserve it. The money is there–our money—it’s just a matter of priorities. - Phineas J. Whoopee - Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 3:53 pm: Bill, I don’t always agree with you but I must admire your restraint regarding VanillaMan’s 11:39 a.m. post. That was one of the most obscure things I’ve read in a long time. I think he was channeling Ed Wood. LOL - Phineas J. Whoopee - Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 3:58 pm: Sorry, I meant 11:59 a. m. - Concerned Voter - Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 4:22 pm: Wow Cassandra, what state employee did you wrong. Seems like every time I see your name on a thread, there’s bashing on those “lucky government employees who have done nothing more than anybody else to deserve” their pensions. The pensions, just like many of the other bills the state owes are late or underfunded. Some of that pension money during periods of the last 20-30 years was money the state said they would pay for the employees in lieu of a salary increase. How would you like your private sector boss to say I can’t give you a raise, but I will put money into your 401k, then find out he didn’t put all that he said he would in there? We don’t have an option to keep our money and invest it ourselves, as those in the private sector do. They do let us, if we choose, take out additional money from our paychecks to put into a deferred comp account which also has some disadvantages. Whenever the fed. govt. makes available the option to withdraw money from a 401k for a first time home buyer, or to assist a close relative with a 1st time home purchase, without penalty, state employees that do put money into deferred comp can’t because the def comp account is not technically a 401k, its a 403b I believe. Also, I am sick of the union wasting money sending scary fliers that all say “vote no con-con” and the also wasting money sending voting info which basically might as well say vote a straight dem ticket. Whether you want to believe it or not, there are some good hard working governmental employees that take pride in doing a good job. - PeteSakes - Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 4:22 pm: To Cassandra, who wrote…”Illinoisians as a group should demand a pension system for all–state or fed-based, so we can all have pensions, in addition to Social Security, like our lucky government employees, who have done nothing more than anybody else to deserve it”….OUCH, as a non-union state employee I have gone without raises for several years and continue to do the best that I can in a job that pays less, because the benefits make up the difference. Comparable responsibilities in the private sector would pay at least 50% more than I currently earn. - VanillaMan - Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 4:36 pm: Yeah - Ed Wood should direct that movie! Ignoring my odd comments and slogging onward is one of Bill’s most charming attributes. It is even better when he takes the bait! Bill does the same thing when he is in the mood, but does it in an entirely different way. That’s why I like Bill! He’s nuts - but then, he’s our nut! - Correcting Zorn - Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 5:27 pm: Bankrupt? If Illinois government had to meet the solvency standards of insurance companies, it would already be in receivership. The private sector (particularly airlines) routinely use bankruptcy to break union contracts and pension obligations - or use that as a club to get employees to voluntarily agree to reductions. Illinois is there - and people should consider that (along with many other issues) when considering Con-Con. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 5:30 pm: CZ, as you may know, contractual obligations, even state constitutional ones currently in place, can be broken during extreme financial emergencies. Con-Con has nothing whatsoever to do with your point, which is unclear at best anyway. - Bill - Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 6:17 pm: Gee, John. You sound like you are anti-labor. That couldn’t be it, could it? What makes you think I am in a Union and have “union buddies? I guess you are just motivated by the common good and have no personal agenda whatsoever. - retired non-union state guy - Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 6:34 pm: Rich, I have to disagree with you on this one. Check into the Alden v. Maine and Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents Supreme Court cases that took away federal age discrimination protection for state employees. THE PRECEDENT HAS ALREADY BEEN SET THAT FEDERAL LAWS DO NOT PROVIDE PROTECTION TO STATE EMPLOYEES. Most State employees do not realize this. When it comes to age discrimination, State employees only recourse is to sue in State courts; if they lose, that is the end of it, sorry Charlie. So YES, State employees have LESS PROTECTION than private company employees and, in theory, yes someone can mess with EXISTING State pensions IF the State Constitution is changed to allow that. I’ve already voted early and you can surmise my vote. - retired non-union state guy - Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 6:43 pm: Concerned Voter, it’s a 457 plan which has both disadvantages and advantages compared to a 401K. Major disadvantage is all the money in a 457 technically belongs to the State while it is in there and the major advantage is that, once you leave government employment, the money can be withdrawn without penalty at any time regardless of age, you just have to pay the normal taxes on it. - Concerned Voter - Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 7:20 pm: Thanks retired non-union state guy for the correction, I didn’t remember the right designation for the plan. I remember looking into it when buying our house and being told the bad news. - Arthur Andersen - Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 7:25 pm: RNUSG, go back to law school. Those cases don’t have blanket applicability to Illinois pensions. AA isn’t a lawyer either, but I work with the best there are and your argument is just wrong. Your caps also make my eyes bleed. Do us all a favor and don’t post unless you are a subject matter expert or are quoting one. Bill, here’s your chance to set the record straight. Are you a member of a recognized union? Do you associate with known union members? Have you ever met Billy Ayers? Were you a member of the SDS? Did you attend Woodstock? Where were you on September 11, 2001? Just kidding, man. John, your DB/DC “conversion” argument is both ridiculous and factually incorrect. No one on either side of this question, even Bill Burton lookalike Larry Msall, is lobbying to swap current state DB pensions into DCs. More importantly, your “$60,000/$100,000″ argument is intellectually bankrupt. Any active member’s accumulated contributions to the pension plan, or the “account balance” as you call it, is a mere fraction of the amount that actually funds the member’s final benefit. Over time in Illinois, the member’s contributions and the State’s contributions comprise about 20% each of the retirement systems’ revenues, or the sources of benefits paid, with the remaining 60% coming from accrued investment income earned on the other 40% over time. You are in effect trying to review a movie after seeing one frame of the film, and that’s unfair. The effect of repeated State underfunding is acutely felt when one leg of that three-legged stool is sawed off over and over by irresponsible Governors and General Assemblies. Further, the annual actuarial reports done for the pension systems show clearly in the aggregate how much, in the unlikely event of fund termination (or stupid theoretical conversion to DC) what percentage of benefits are covered by current assets. IIRC, the reports show that current retirees’ benefits are 80-90% funded along with active members’ contributions, which under Federal tax law must be REFUNDED first if the DB plans are terminated (another matter Larry and his homies always forget about which adds about $12 billion to the cost of this DC), and future benefits payable are basically totally unfunded. In my view, that fact, not any rumor, innuendo, or fear-mongering makes State workers’ and teachers’ concerns entirely reasonable. Snarky and illinformed putdowns from the likes of Eric Zorn (it was nice that the Obots gave him the day off) do little to freshen the conversation or clarify a very complicated issue. - Arthur Andersen - Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 7:30 pm: RNUSG, wrong again. The 457 money in no way shape or form “belongs to the State.” The State, through CMS and ISBI is a fiduciary and a custodian of the State Employees’ assets in the Plan. The assets at all times belong to the employees, no ifs, and, or buts. Now, go look up those words and stop posting about things you clearly don’t know squat about. Did you retire from CMS, by any chance? - Snidely Whiplash - Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 8:03 pm: I agree on both points, but nonetheless oppose a con-con. Both points are illustrations of feable attempts to mislead to the uninformed, and serve little purpose other than to provide fodder for the counterargument that ALL arguments against a con-con are unfounded and brought with self-serving intent. Which should lead to a point three, which should criticize those who point to the misleading pension argument and then argue by implication that every other argument against a con-con is similarly disingenuous. As always, it seems to go both ways. - retired non-union state guy - Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 8:33 pm: AA … I remember the form I signed eons ago (at least 25) had language to that effect in it (I’ll have to dig into my old tax records and find it) … and when I questioned CMS at the time about it, I got a line about it being required federal language. - Bookworm - Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 8:33 pm: Whatever your opinion of con-con and its potential effect on pensions, the fact remains that SOMETHING has to be done to bring benefits and contributions back into line. It is true that public pensions do not absolutely have to be 100 percent funded, because every state employee does not retire at the same time, nor can a state abruptly go out of business the way a private company can. But years and years of shorting pension payments have taken their toll. If Bill and other con-con opponents really want to protect their pensions, they had better start insisting that they be properly funded. - Anon - Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 10:30 pm: Retired, I’m pretty sure that Blago and the Gen. Assemb. have waived the State’s Eleventh Amend. immunity for federal age and disability claims. So the State can be sued in federal court for those things. - retired non-union state guy - Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 10:42 pm: AA - You are correct that today all 457 funds must be held in trust. But that was not always the case and was amended by SBJPA-1996 to include the trust requirement. Prior to that date (actually up to the beginning of 1999 for existing plans) they could use (and I’m quoting from the IRS web site so that should be an expert authority) “bookkeeping accounts” or “hypothetical accounts”. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.