49 Comments - 47th Ward - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 12:32 pm: ===“The spring session will be all about trimming Medicaid costs.”=== That’s probably true, and true for the next year as well. Has anyone analyzed the impact of the Health Care Reform Act on future Medicaid expenditures on the state level? I realize the Supreme Court is likely to strike down the key part of the law, but assuming they uphold it, does anyone know what the impact of the full implementation of Obamacare will be? I’m no expert, but it seems like once everyone buys private insurance, the Medicaid rolls will trim themselves. It won’t “solve” the problem necessarily, but it sure seems like it will take the pressure off the state budget. - Leroy - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 12:36 pm: I don’t think its likely/unlikely the SC will strike down parts of the law, awfully hard to make that assumption right now. However, we are very, very limited in approaches to curbing Medicaid costs and frankly trimming people off the rolls is a red herring. The law is the law in terms of eligiblity. I think the media and the legislature is not prepare to let the reforms they passed last year work themselves out, too much immediate election year pressure. - Gregor - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 12:38 pm: I agree with your pitch regarding the pension funding, Miller. I’m confused though as to why neither side of the aisle, nor the governor, have proposed re-visiting that law and modifying the ratio to something easier to keep up with, rather than this zero-sum-gamesmanship with cutting state funded programs and services. It seems to me that modifying the percentage put away towards fully funding the pensions is the least painful thing to do, rather than promote more tax hikes or draconian service cuts. So why ain’t this happening? Or is it under way, but we don’t know about it yet? Seems like it would give the current legislature and governor some much-needed cover. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 12:41 pm: ===So why ain’t this happening? === Because the NY and DC powers that be have decided that it must be so, so it is so. It’s quite maddening. - RMWStanford - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 12:50 pm: A lot of problems could of been prevent had we just properly funded the pension system years ago. That being said I see no reason it should be funded at 90%, that makes no sense for a state. - He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 12:52 pm: I think they should try for 65-70% funding. It is more reachable. - jeff - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 1:04 pm: These numbers are still based on unrealistic rate of return. Barry Ritholz presented to the National Association of State Treasurers last month. He thinks States and Corporations are deliberately overstating expected rates of return to avoid making payments. Here’s the link. http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/01/not-even-corporate-managements-believe-their-own-equity-return-assumptions/#comments If he’s right, more than our heads will spin. - Image It... - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 1:12 pm: Think of how simpler state politics would be if there were no pensions! - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 1:17 pm: ===Think of how simpler state politics would be if there were no pensions! === It would be amazingly simple without people. Just sayin… - wordslinger - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 1:18 pm: Ninety percent funding is unnecessary and silly. And given the vagaries of the stock market, why would you put that much of the nut at risk? Always a couple of perennials in Illinois: Chicken Littles crying that the sky is falling over pensions, and every pensioner getting their check in full and on time. - Reality Check - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 1:29 pm: Pre-funding costs more in the short run but less in the long run. That’s all there is to it. If your eye is on next year’s budget or the year after that, underfunding may seem attractive. Of course, politicians who habitually did this is exactly what created the current pickle. Considering the long view, it’s far cheaper to pay more sooner and let the investments work for you over time. - Irish - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 1:36 pm: Is it possible that those in the know in the GA want the situation to remain grim so they can continue to beat down the employees with the support of the voters? If the situation was made better with Rich’s suggestion of a lower funding rate then the GA would have to find another scape goat to take the scrutiny off the poor job they are doing. The GA has done basically nothing over the last couple of decades to improve the fiscal condition of the state, instead focusing on their own re-elections. They didn’t start on the problem when they should of and they got caught with their pants down. They successfully shifted the blame to the money grabbing state employees and now they are unwilling to give up the headway they have gained with the voters by siding with them against the nasty golden pension hogs. They are like the sleazy snitch who when fingered goes with whichever side seems to be on top. They can’t say they miscalculated or there might be a better way. It is easier to go with the status quo and continue to pad their own pockets. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 1:42 pm: ===Considering the long view=== Yeah, in the long view we’ll all be dead. Also, inflation works both ways. - Cook County Commoner - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 1:55 pm: The consternation over the state retirement plans is misplaced. The state’s taxing and bonding ability should ennable it to make ends meet well into the future. However, I’m not so sure the same applies to the 600 plus county and local government pension plans in Illinois. Check the Illinois Dept. of Insurance biennial report on state-wide government employee pensions for the precise number. Many have been doing the same thing as state government, ie., not properly contributing the employer’s portion, allowing lowball employee contributions when compared to benefits granted and early retirement ages, and granting outsized benefits when compared to the private sector retirement plans. If California is any example of what’s to come, pension induced taxation and deterioration of services due to gov employee pensions will occur at the local gov levels long before the shoe begins to really pinch at the state level. And then there’s the health care benefits which I understand are funded without reserves from day-to-day revenues in many cases. And this all pales compared to what the federal employees get. In many cases, fed employees receive a pension (FERS), a 401k-like plan (FTP) and social security. But like Illinois, not to worry. The feds can borrow and bond and, unlike the states, merely print more dough. The more interesting aspect of all this is why workers in the private sector tolerate funding retirement benefits for the estimated 22 million fed, state and local gov workers that some estimate they would need to dedicate 50% of their salary to match. - Reality Check - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 2:11 pm: inflation works both ways. We’re talking about investment returns, not inflation. I am not aware of any medium- to long-term period (20, 30, 40, 50 years) in which investment returns have been negative. In the long run and if you have the wherewithal, it is always smart to invest and let your money work for you. - zatoichi - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 2:25 pm: ‘Harris and his fellow Republicans have said Illinois could save billions of dollars by “trimming” people from Medicaid.’ Statements like that coordinate very well with the current effort to develop a managed care system in the Chicago collar counties based on Medicaid rate structure. Once people get trimmed from Medicaid where do they go for medical care? Back to the ER for free services? Hospitals will be thrilled. - thechampaignlife - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 2:31 pm: ===I do not know why we need to have 90 percent of all possible pension payouts for the next 30 years on hand at once.=== As I understand it, they’re not aiming to have 90% of payouts on hand but to have some percentage on hand that, when coupled with some assumed level of investment returns, would yield 90% of the projected payouts. Another way of saying it: they’re not looking to have $180B sitting in the bank because they expect to pay $200B in the next 30+ years. Rather, they’re looking to have $180B sitting in an investment account earning 8% so that they’ll have the $1.6T they expect to need to pay out over the next 30 some odd years. That said, though, I agree that striving for an “in-case-of-bankruptcy” funding ratio makes no sense for an entity that cannot declare bankruptcy. I’d even argue that a funding ratio of just enough to cover the next 5 or so years’ payouts would be sufficient. Nothing wrong with a pay-as-you-go system, that’s how I roll with my cell phone and I’ve got no complaints. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 2:31 pm: First, let me encourage everyone to read this excellent, independent and easily readable report on the State of State Pensions by the Pew Center on the States. A few salient points: - There’s little question that Illinois’ has the largest unfunded pension liability in the nation. As of a year ago, only two states were below 60%…us and Kansas. Our unfunded pension liabilities were at $54 billion a year ago. - At the same time, the Pew Report notes that there is disagreement among actuarians as to whether 90% funding is needed or 80% is healthy. - Rich is on-point that public pension systems amount to a taxpayer subsidy for traders. The total value of all state and local public pension systems a year ago was $2.35 Trillion while the global market capitalization (the total value of all publicly-traded stocks in the world) was $44.5 Trillion. In other words, the pension systems basically controlled 5% of the market. - Given how much of the market we the taxpayers own, I suggest the Occupy Wall Street folks think long-and-hard about a state-by-state campaign to leverage our ownership of the market to address issues like CEO bonuses. - At the same time, Pew points out that states’ unfunded liabilities for non-pension retiree benefits — primarily health care — are in many ways as bad if not worse that our pension liabilities. - Illinois’ non-pension liabilities for retiree benefits like health care total $39 Billion. - Unless I’m mistaken, the Constitutional protections for pension benefits do not extend to retiree health care benefits. - If I’m right, I predict that Illinois will use threats of curtailing health benefits or increasing premiums to either force unions to accept changes in pension benefits for current retirees or act unilaterally. - The second largest tax expenditure in Illinois — over $1 billion in lost revenues every year — is our exemption for pension benefits. Many, MANY times I’ve heard middle class folks complain that public union retirees “don’t even pay taxes.” Most are shocked to learn that nobody pays taxes on retirement benefits in Illinois. - Someone smarter than me ought to be able to figure out how to put together an agreed bill that includes a cap on the pension tax exemption and reduces our public retiree liabilities. Having said ALL of that…it’s easy to beat up on Chicago teachers, union leaders, or public employees and demand reductions in their pension benefits. But let’s keep a few stubborn facts in mind: - Even Tom Cross has admitted publicly that the unfunded pension liabilities are the fault of the politicians, not workers. Workers made their payments. - If you’re in the “All Chicago teachers/union employees are incompetent and should be fired tomorrow” camp, ask yourself who exactly you think is going to replace them if we start cutting their pensions, taking away their health benefits, stripping their collective bargaining rights, etc. Its a free market folks, and highly talented people are choosing to go work for Google or Microsoft instead of teach high school math or computer science for a darn good reason. And wealthy suburban school districts pay higher salaries and offer better benefits if they can for a good reason. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 2:33 pm: ===Nothing wrong with a pay-as-you-go system=== That’s how DoD does it. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 2:35 pm: ===, when coupled with some assumed level of investment returns, would yield 90% of the projected payouts.==== Yeah, but we’re paying interest in lieu of projected returns on all that unfunded liability right now. - Team Sleep - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 2:50 pm: I think it’s time to institute a tier system based on how close you are to retirement. This would be similar to Paul Ryan’s Medicare proposal: altering future benefits but keeping benefits the same for those close to or currently in receipt of Medicare benefits. For people like my wife, who is not yet 30, alter the pension system and make a hybrid of determined benefits and an elective of either deferred comp or a 401(k) (or both). Have seminars and send out numerous reminders that the program will change and that employee must either invest in deferred comp or a 401(k) (or both) if they want to retire with a full pension. They wouldn’t be required to invest, but ensure they are aware of the risks should they not. For people 10-15 years older, keep the determined benefits higher but require/encourage employees either pay into deferred comp or a 401(k) (or both) should they want to retire with the same level of benefits. For people 50 and older, leave their benefits alone but allow them to invest in deferred comp or a 401(k) (or both). Those options are not a violation of the state constitution. You would still guarantee some benefit payouts but keep the system solvent. As for Medicaid, I still advocate charging premiums and raising co-pays for those not in the spend-down program. The alternatives are to kick people out of the program or beg Congress and HHS for additional funding. With the way things are in D.C., I cannot imagine the Congressional GOP would jump up and down to give Illinois more money for Medicaid expenses. - Louie - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 2:59 pm: +I can understand why the feds want corporations to do this because most corporations eventually go under.+ An irrational statement, if ever. - wordslinger - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 3:03 pm: –An irrational statement, if ever.– Nice driveby. What exactly do you mean? No corporations have gone bust and hosed their pensioneers? - Peter Snarker - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 3:05 pm: Look no further than the United States Post Office. The USPS - and rather than provide a bunch of links just go google this - is essentially going “bankrupt” and proposing draconian service cuts (hundreds of thousands of employees laid off, nationwide clousures of thousands of post offices, less days of delivery) not primarily b/c of the oft-cited examples of email and electronic communications replacing physical mail (though, obviously, that is a part of it) - it’s b/c Congress demanded that the Post Office FULLY FUND its next 75 years of pension obligations in 10 years time. So you think 90% goal by 2045 is causing real world problems, the Post Office is essentially being forced into “bankruptcy” or a shell of itself in order to 100% fund pensions in far less time. Just sayin’ - Retired Non-Union Guy - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 4:08 pm: Team Sleep, There is already a two tier system for employees under the SERS system (the actual State employees). With the various pension revisions the last few years and long existing options such as a non-matching 457 (401K / deferred comp version for state employees) plan plus anyone can start a Roth IRA with after-tax money, a lot of what you are suggesting is already in place. It’s not really anything new. At the time I retired in 2002, I had money in deferred comp (457) plus Roth IRA’s for both my wife & myself plus the State pension I earned and, in a few years, Social Security. So a lot of change has already been made to the State pension structure. Because of certain required financial assumptions, some of those changes actually INCREASED the current and near term pension payment requirements but will eventually result in lower future payments. It’s just going to take 20 plus years to start to see a major fiscal impact. - Team Sleep - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 4:23 pm: RNUG, I know state employees have investment options. I’ve got a nice resource file on deferred comp. I am advocating that the state not guarantee all pensions in their entirety and use the investment options as a bridge to retirement. - Some Dude - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 4:24 pm: “I realize the Supreme Court is likely to strike down the key part of the law, but assuming they uphold it, does anyone know what the impact of the full implementation of Obamacare will be?” Right now there are about 1.5 million people without health insurnace in Illinois. Nearly half those people are eligible for medicare. After the implementation of the Affordable Care Act it is estimated that 24% of Illinois residents will be on medicaid. It’s tricky to pin down because no governance structure has been formaly set up for exchanges but most models floated so far allow people to move seemlesly between medicare and the exchange. The short answer is that medicaid costs are going to skyrocket. - Some Dude - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 4:28 pm: Medicare costs are going to skyrocket. - Team Sleep - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 4:56 pm: Some Dude, I agree the exchanges will be the key. HHS will lord over everything each individual state insurance department institutes for each individual state. Of course, this year’s election will have a huge bearing as to how the exchange rules will be set. My guess is that a GOP president would want exchanges that encourage people to pick a private plan over Medicaid. If Obama wins a 2nd term, I don’t imagine the exchanges will be set up to discourage Medicaid enrollment. And less we forget: agencies are nearly fully-controlled by the President. - steve schnorf - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 5:39 pm: I wish people could and would keep this very simple concept clear in their statements and writings. Our pension COSTS don’t continue to escalate at a very high rate, our pension SPENDING is what is escalating at a high rate, but the huge majority of that spending isn’t on new costs, it’s on paying off old debt. - mushroom in the dark - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 8:25 pm: Pension costs to fund debt are going to go up to pay the bondholders. I remember when the 8 percent pension bond sale occurred (about 2003 or 2004) with the money expected to be earned in the markets to pay it back. I thought it was a bad move then Earnings in stock and bond investments since then have been less than 8 percent per year on average. Now we can get much lower rates, but no one wants to borrow to pay off the higher priced debt. It makes no sense. - Quinn T. Sential - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 8:36 pm: +I can understand why the feds want corporations to do this because most corporations eventually go under.+ An irrational statement, if ever. 99% bumper-sticker slogan material. - Earthworm Jim - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 8:38 pm: ==That’s probably true, and true for the next year as well. Has anyone analyzed the impact of the Health Care Reform Act on future Medicaid expenditures on the state level?== http://illinoispolicy.org/uploads/files/overloaded10-20.pdf - Quinn T. Sential - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 8:44 pm: {I’m no expert, but it seems like once everyone buys private insurance, the Medicaid rolls will trim themselves. It won’t “solve” the problem necessarily, but it sure seems like it will take the pressure off the state budget.} I’m no expert either, but auto insurance is mandatory in Illinois and many other states, but there still is a substantial number of drivers that drive without insurance. Mandating coverage has not solved the problem there either, and the end result still remains that those who do buy insurance have “uninsured/underinsured” motorist liability coverage, and in effect are paying premiums for their own coverage, as well as premiums for coverage against the risk of the guy that doesn’t have any coveragee hitting you. I think those that have health coverage will continue to subsidize those that don’t. - 47th Ward - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 8:52 pm: Thanks for the link Earthworm Jim - 47th Ward - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 8:59 pm: I’m not sure what happened at 8:52pm, but I meant to add a disparaging comment about the IPI being your source, Earthworm. Not terribly credible in my opinion. And Quinn T., unless we can substantially reduce the number of free riders on the health system, yes, those with insurance will continue to subsidize those without. That’s why the individual mandate is critical to Obamacare. The difference here is that the IRS will enforce the mandate, unlike with auto insurance, which is difficult to enforce. I think getting rid of free riders will at a minimum, stabilize state medicaid expenditures. It might even reduce them. But like I said, I’m not an expert (and neither is IPI). - CircularFiringSquad - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 9:09 pm: Now here is some “change” all the TeaParty wingnuts can be proud of….Roll Out the Recall, Let’s have a Barrel of Fun” “Three charged in John Doe investigation of Walker aides By Daniel Bice of the Journal Sentinel Updated: 4:30 p.m. |(716) Comments Three individuals - including a former top aide to Gov. Scott Walker - were charged Thursday with felonies as part of the ongoing John Doe investigation into Walker staffers. Tim Russell, a longtime Walker campaign and county staffer, was charged with two felonies and one misdemeanor count of embezzlement. Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm said the charges are tied to Operation Freedom, an annual military appreciation day held at the Milwaukee County Zoo. The complaint says that Russell diverted to his personal bank account more than $21,000 intended for Operation Freedom, using some of those dollars to go on Hawaiian and Caribbean vacations with his domestic partner. Other funds were used, the complaint says, for Russell to attend a weekend political strategy session in December 2010 with Herman Cain and his chief of staff, Mark Block, to discuss Cain’s now-defunct presidential campaign. Chisholm said some of the stolen money was intended for the families of Wisconsin soldiers who were killed in action in Iraq and Afghanistan. Funds also were used for wounded veterans of the war in Iraq. In 2010, Walker’s county administration had asked prosecutors to investigate what had happened to $11,000 raised in 2007 for the event.” - Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 9:21 pm: === our pension SPENDING is what is escalating at a high rate, but the huge majority of that spending isn’t on new costs, it’s on paying off old debt. === And to add to Schnorf’s comments, that “old debt” is due to years when the state, a.k.a. “The Employer”, either didn’t make the full required pension payment OR skipped its payment altogether. Imagine you were about to retire in the private sector after 30 years working for the same company, or maybe even had been there only ten years, and you got a memo from the CEO or the H.R. department telling you that instead of matching your 401-k dollar for dollar, the company had only been putting in a nickel all these years. Would you blame yourself? Maybe. If you’re an idiot. Because in Illinois, We the People are the Boss, and I hear an awful lot of folks here blaming the employees. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 9:52 pm: Rich - According to the Pew report, all but three states (Idaho, Oregon, West Virginia) use a “smoothing” model, and the five year window Illinois uses is the most common, although it does vary. - Peter - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 10:22 pm: “Would you blame yourself? Maybe. If you’re an idiot.” Only an idiot would entrust his future to someone else -especially a corporation or government. - Soccertease - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 10:54 pm: As a 36-yr state administrator who worships at the altar of the GASB (i.e., full actuarial funding) who worked for employers who worship at the altar of ‘fund as little as possible’-see where we are now? - Quinn T. Sential - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 10:56 pm: 47th; thanks for the additional perspective. While I agree that the IRS has the potential to be more effective, in the end, the DMV could/should require proof of auto insurance and they do brick your license when you don’t have it, but people in large numbers simply ignore that too and drive anyway. I thnk it is a moot point anyway though because I think that portion will indeed get struck down. - Peter Snarker - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 11:26 pm: For the healthy risks, ie, young people generally, the IRS fines may not be high enough to offset insurance premiums + co-pay and out of pocket, etc. If enough skip out it collapses with bad risks in and healthy risks taking chances with IRS. - Earthworm Jim - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 11:59 pm: ==I meant to add a disparaging comment about the IPI being your source, Earthworm. Not terribly credible in my opinion.== Then read their sources, instead. Seems more reasonable than dismissing it without review. - Rich Miller - Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 12:10 am: ===99% bumper-sticker slogan material. === And, you know, a fact. - Quinn T. Sential - Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 8:16 am: ===99% bumper-sticker slogan material. === {And, you know, a fact.} Yes of course, the blog owner is always the keeper of all facts - Rich Miller - Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 8:44 am: QTS, are you saying that the majority of corporations don’t eventually go out of business? Because if you are, you’re goofy. - Frank Keegan - Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 1:56 pm: The Big Lie is that the assumptions used to calculate unfunded liability are delusional. Illinois actually has an unfunded liability of at least $160 to $190 billion. That probably got worse in Q3,according to the latest Census report. Paying pensioners soon will begin to eat more and more revenue in a state that already is in deficit. Check it out: http://www.statebudgetsolutions.org/doclib/20110304_StatePensionLiabilityMarch4.pdf - Kristina - Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 4:25 pm: Analysis of coming Medicaid costs: http://illinoispolicy.org/news/article.asp?ArticleSource=4468 Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.