* Reboot Illinois has a pretty good side-by-side comparison of House Speaker Michael Madigan’s pension reform bill and Senate President John Cullerton’s bill. Click the pick for a much larger image…

Other than the silly boxing gloves, any thoughts?

       

52 Comments - Amalia - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 11:22 am: $150 billion vs. $46 billion. big difference. - Cassiopeia - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 11:27 am: Some would argue thats it is $0 vs $46 billion when/if Madigan planned ruled unconstitutional. - Frenchie Mendoza - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 11:27 am: – $150 billion vs. $46 billion. big difference. – $150b vs. $0. Even bigger difference (if signed into law and then found unconstitutional). Wouldn’t the courts look upon Cullerton’s as the least drastic between the two (and therefore the more likely to work itself successfully through the challenges)? - Bill White - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 11:29 am: Instead of: Whose pension bill will reign supreme? I would suggest: Whose pension bill will rein in the supremes? - Joe M - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 11:31 am: Too bad a “constitutionality” comparison can’t be included - but then that is not black and white and would be for the courts to decide But at least the final row should instead read, “How much money would the State be projected to save over the next 20 years IF THE BILL IS UPHELD IN THE COURTS” - Tsavo - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 11:34 am: The first line “The Basics” should not Choice A in SB 2404 be “receive retiree healthcare access” not “trade COLA reduction for free health insurance”????? - Captain Illini - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 11:35 am: Bill White…geez your illiteration is illuminating…now I see you’ve taken the gloves off… - Small Town Liberal - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 11:41 am: If Madigan’s cap pensionable salary were added to Cullerton’s bill, what would the 30 year savings be? - Liberty First - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 11:49 am: the first line under “the basics” says Cullerton’s bill trades the COLA for “free” health insurance. It seems the dishonesty in describing these bills never ends. - PublicServant - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 12:04 pm: Isn’t Reboot Illinois funded by a Hedge Fund Billionaire who’s married to another Hedge Fund Billionaire? Just asking. - RNUG - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 12:20 pm: The first thing that struck me as wrong was the description of Cullerton’s Choice A as being free health insurance. Here’s the exact language from the bill: (b) As adequate and legal consideration for making an election under paragraph (1) of subsection (a) or (a-5) of Section 2-110.3, 14-106.5, 15-132.9, or 16-122.9 of the Illinois Pension Code, as the case may be, each eligible Tier I employee and each eligible Tier I retiree shall receive a vested and enforceable contractual right to participate in a program of health benefits while he or she qualifies as an annuitant or retired employee. That right also extends to such a person’s dependents and survivors who are eligible under the applicable program of health benefits. (c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), eligible Tier I employees and eligible Tier I retirees may be required to make contributions toward the cost of coverage under a program of health benefits. - RNUG - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 12:25 pm: The second item that jumped out was the statement about the payments being guaranteed for both bills. The knowledgable readers / commentators here know that: (a) SB0001 has no individual right of enforcement (b) SB2404 has an individual right of enforcement but only after the retirement systems fail to act (c) in truth, there is no way to force a future General Assembly to abide by the guarantee terms - RNUG - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 12:26 pm: Joe M @ 11:31 am: Actually, if we were to assume the past rulings of the IL SC would apply to these bills, it would be easy to rate the constutionality … and at least portions of both would fial that test. - G. Willickers - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 12:33 pm: @Rich - “Other than the silly boxing gloves, any thoughts?” It’d be nice to have a few billionaires on the left to balance things out. For all the “aura” of neutrality Reboot tries to put out it still puts a right-wing tinge on almost everything it does and some cases are more obvious than others. “Two Democrat heavyweights”? Grammar much? Didn’t Anne Griffin hire a bunch of former newspaper editors? A small nit to pick on this one, but other Reboot infographic/astroturf pieces have been over the top on their right-wing memes. - soccermom - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 12:33 pm: I realize this is a minor point, but “Whose (whatever) will reign supreme?” is a reference to Iron Chef, not boxing. And actually, the Iron Chef analogy is more apt, because the idea is that each chef takes the featured ingredient (in this case, reduced pension costs) and tries to create a menu that is palatable and “expresses the unique qualities of the theme ingredient.” - Mouthy - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 12:35 pm: Given a choice the legislature will vote for the Cullerton bill and against the Madigan bill. This is due to the fact that in Madigan’s plan legislative retirees are thrown under the bus with the common, average pensioner. In Cullerton’s plan the bus just goes over their toes. In Cullerton’s bill, by the way, choices are really not choices. By design, they are structured to insure that the low earning pensioners have to select option A and the high earning pensions will want to select option B. The velvet hammer has been out foxed because Cullerton got the unions to go in the tank and give themselves cover and go easy on the “big” pensions. So Madigan either has to poison Cullerton’s bill with something like downstate districts covering pensions or not calling it at all because it will pass the house, IMO, as is. Also, IMO, the house bill will not pass the Senate. Why would they vote to gut their own pensions when they can gut the pensions of people like me. I’m opposed to both plans simply because I don’t like to be robbed or fleeced. - titan - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 12:36 pm: My teacher friends are asking me what happens under Cullerton’s Choice A to the money that was deducted from pay checks all those years for health care in retirement. Would it be refunded? And if so, straight or with interest? I don’t have any idea. - Dinosaur - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 12:42 pm: All of the pension plans are not on the same footing when it comes to health care. Senator Rezin told me that many current and retired state workers still pay nothing toward health care. I have never had free insurance, when I was working or now as a retiree. In TRS our HMO costs $203 a month and a PPO costs almost $500 a month. Maybe this should be equalized somewhat. - RNUG - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 12:46 pm: titan @ 12:36 pm: I don’t remember the bills having anything to say about that. If I remember correctly, technically that money didn’t go into the pension fund, it went into a seperate fund. The intent / purpose of that fund was to help defray the cost of retiree health insurance. I have no idea about the solvency, or lack thereof, of that insurance fund. If it is solvent, it could possibly continue to provide the same subsidy level to retirees as it does today. - CircularFiringSquad - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 12:48 pm: We found the chart nearly illegible and went to REBooters home page to find larger version…nothing new. We did find a Matt D. op ed pinining away for the Big Jim GOP Daze, blending in Gags Brady stuff, the Gidwitz rant and linking to hate speech from one of WhackyJack’s clones on the ChumpionNews website. It makes one dizzy Fire,Aim, Ready! - wtf - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 12:49 pm: There’s been a lot of discussion about the Tier II not complying with ERISA because retirees are worse off than with Social Security. Haven’t looked closely at Cullerton’s plan but does that have similar issues? How about a young employee who elects for a salary cap with COLA and then 30 years later goes out with a salary 2 or 3 times the initial salary? Does the State’s contribution towards a pension of only a fraction of the actual salary really comply? - RNUG - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 12:50 pm: Should have added to the 12:46pm post … that fund / pre-payment applied primarily to teachers in TRS (THIS/TRIP) and some SURS - rusty618 - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 12:57 pm: So the question is, which is the lesser of two evils? Obviously, the Cullerton plan. Some clarifications are needed though. The healthcare is not free. There are still deductible and copays to meet, which are both increasing again this year. Just no premiums. In Cullerton’s bill, Choice B, what exactly is “receive retiree healthcare access as consideration”? Is that the 1% this year and another 1% next year taken from retirees for health insurance? - cover - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 1:04 pm: Cullerton’s bill still does not give current employees the option of keeping their current pension plan as-is. The closest they can get is choice B, option 1 - but future salary increases are not pensionable. Wouldn’t the courts find this to be a diminishment of the benefit as well? If so, then Cullerton’s bill saves the same amount as Madigan’s: exactly $0. - titan - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 1:11 pm: @ RNUG - The teacher pals are relatively well compensated 35+ year people retiring in the next couple years…the AAI (”COLA”) is a big difference over time for them, but they have many thousands of dollars taken towards the pre-payment of health insurance (if they’re current checkstub witholdings are an indicator - perhaps in the $30,000 neighborhood over their career). - thechampaignlife - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 1:11 pm: The “projected savings” can also be rephrased to “the projected loss to retirees”. Any clue on what the savings/loss is relative to the current estimated pension cost for the next 30 years? That % decrease would be good to know. I’m thinking Madigan’s bill may intentionally be a worst case scenario red herring to scare everyone into choosing the Cullerton plan - the unions, the supremes, legislators, etc. From the sounds of it, it just may have worked. Me personally, I’d gladly take choice B option 2. Is there an issue with option 1 for non-Social Security employees? Won’t Social Security require contributions of some sort if a $30k/year employee today becomes a $60k/year employee in the future but only has a pension on $30k? - RNUG - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 1:17 pm: rusty618 @ 12:57 pm: None of the bills restore the “premium free after 20 years” health insurance some of the retirees had. - RNUG - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 1:18 pm: rusty618 @ 12:57 pm No, the real question is will the IL SC find either of these bills constitutional? - Shore - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 1:24 pm: these infographics are incredibly helpful. more please. - nikki - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 1:58 pm: too bad madigan does NOT know the constitution.also too bad he forgot the oath he has taken for a million years,to follow the constitution. - Joe M - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 2:04 pm: Working SURS participants pay (and retirees paid) 1/2 of 1% out of each paycheck for “Automatic Annual Increases In Retirement Benefits” Will SURS participants get that money refunded if their COLA is tampered with? - RNUG - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 2:06 pm: Joe M @ 2:04 pm: Participants in GARS, TRS and some SURS all pre-paid for the AAI. - Ruby - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 2:13 pm: @ 11:41 am: If Madigan’s cap pensionable salary were added to Cullerton’s bill, what would the 30 year savings be? Any changes of this kind to the Cullerton pension bill will bring the other unions into the IRTA lawsuit. - Joe M - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 2:23 pm: Lets hope the Illinois Supreme Court is consistent with previous statements: “No principle of law permits us to suspend constitutional requirements for economic reasons, no matter how compelling those reasons may seem.” - Jorgensen v. Blagojevich 211 Ill.2d 286, 811 N.E.2d 652 “Those difficulties are undeniable, and we are highly cognizant of the need for austerity and restraint in our spending. As administrators of the judiciary, we make every effort to economize whenever and however we can. One thing we cannot do, however, is ignore the Constitution of Illinois.” - Jorgensen v. Blagojevich 211 Ill.2d 286, 811 N.E.2d 652 “Neither the legislature nor any executive or judicial officer may disregard the provisions of the constitution.” - People ex rel. Lyle v. City of Chicago 360 Ill. 25, 195 N.E. 451 - Bigtwich - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 2:50 pm: Rather early to award a laurel wreath. - facts are stubborn things - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 3:08 pm: RNUG What happens if the CullertonPension plan becomes law, and the courts rule that retirees are entitled to their contractual(5% per year of service)free health insurance permium? - Anon. - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 4:13 pm: rusty618 ==Some clarifications are needed though. The healthcare is not free. There are still deductible and copays to meet, which are both increasing again this year. Just no premiums.== New Section 6.16 of the State Employees Group Insurance Act in the Cullerton bill requires educational materials for retirees/employees to state “YOU ARE HEREBY ADVISED THAT THE PROGRAM OF HEALTH BENEFITS OFFERED IS FOR ACCESS TO A GROUP HEALTHCARE PLAN ADMINISTERED BY THE DEPARTMENT, AND YOU MAY BE REQUIRED TO PAY FOR THE FULL COST OF COVERAGE PROVIDED BY THE PLAN, INCLUDING ALL PREMIUM, DEDUCTIBLE, AND COPAY AMOUNTS.” If the Maag decision is reversed by the Supreme Court, there is no consideration in the Cullerton bill to support taking away COLAs, etc. Promising to fund an obligation is consideration only if you could get out of paying it through bankruptcy, etc. - mid-level - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 4:26 pm: Could it be that the IL Supreme Court upholds the Maag case just so they have an “out” with regards to finding the Cullerton consideration scheme constitutional? - RNUG - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 4:26 pm: Facts are stubborn things @ 3:08 pm: Going out on a limb with few facts to go on and a lot of guess work … In that case, I would assume at least part of Cullerton’s choices go out the window. And I have to believe Cullerton (or maybe Eric Madiar) considered that (and Marconi) when they drafted the latest version of SB2404. The expectations are that the IL SC will rule on the “Maag” appeal this fall or early winter. For most employees and retirees, SB2404 sets up a choice period between Jan and May of 2014 and the choice takes effect July 1 … which should be well after the IL SC weighs in on “Maag”. IMO, if “Maag” is decided in favor of the retirees, the more interesting questions are how does it affect the State’s plans to force Medicare eligible retirees onto a Medicare Advantage program Jan 1 amd will retirees be entitled to exactly the same health insurance as employees or will there be two classes of people with insurance? What discretion will the State have in providing the “premium free” health insurance? A retiree favorable “Maag” decision would answer one question but open up an entire new can of worms. - bluecollar - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 4:54 pm: RNUG- I for one truly appreciate your insight on the pension issues. I have read many of the opinions (especially Marconi) and concur with your opinions. I think the Marconi “reversal” pretty well told the lower court what the appellate court thinks of vesting and explicit wording in the contract. Hopefully, that case can continue in a timely manner, as it will affect other cases on the subject. - Mouthy - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 5:29 pm: I made a mistake in my earlier post by referring options A and B instead of the choice of B, options 1 and 2. For what it’s worth. - Bill - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 6:51 pm: The court could very well rule that the premium free health insurance was guaranteed by a contract between the employee and the state at the time of retirment even though it is not a guaranteed pension benefit protected by the constitution. This would make the consideration argument even stronger when they consider the constitutionality of 2404. - Norseman - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 7:29 pm: Bill, how so? What would the consideration be if the court rules free health benefits are already guaranteed to the retirees? - Just The Way It Is One - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 7:56 pm: SB 2404 IS an attractive alternative, but, sadly it IS about money, too, and a lot of it obviously, and in the end just boils down to a GIGANTIC discrepancy for Illinois taxpayers–save $150 Billion or $46 Bil.–and then the choice becomes rather simple…! - inker - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 8:48 pm: ok last question to Mr. Miller the god of reporting. So take me to the cleaners. All the General Assembly is UNION exempt. So Mr. Miller, should the Legislative branch and the Executive branch be considered with legislation now proposed or be amended under SB1 or SB2404. It is not now considered; which I believe will be a problem with the Supremes. - RNUG - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 9:15 pm: inker @ 8:48 pm: Don’t understand the basis for your question; both current bills include all systems except JRS. Other systems, such as TRS, SURS and SERS have both union and non-union employees as members. The union / non-union status has nothing to do with the protections under the Constitution’s pension clause. It MIGHT make a slight difference if contract law is the basis for any decision … but since the State routinely extended the union contract terms to non-union staff, I don’t see it making any difference. - RNUG - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 9:31 pm: bluecollar @ 4:54 pm Thanks. I’ve been following this topic off and on since 1983 when I reached, IMO, the “stay or leave” decision point. I’ve followed it very seriously since I retired in 2002. If you didn’t see it in one my posts a day or two ago, I’ll repeat that Ralph Martire will be speaking at the next RSEA meeting in Springfield May 29th. They are open meetings, you don’t have to be an RSEA member although most the attendees are. RSEA has been scheduling lots of pension and insurance people; this one should be an interesting presentation. - inker - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 9:44 pm: Mr. RNUG: Please understand that the General Assembly is totally exempt under the law from Unions. So, look at the legislation enacted under Governor Thompson. What ever comes forward under SB1 or SB2404 will have the General Assembly EXEMPT in the final legislation. Mr. Miller, bet me and lose. You have a good puppy. Get Invisible Fence. It worked for me. - fake county chairman - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 10:20 pm: when mjm said he could count on certain judges support he is probably right when a judge declares at the county level he has to go to that party chair in that county pay back is a big thing under the table county chairs provide money and support - RNUG - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 7:31 am: One other difference between the two bills is Madigan’s could achieve some “savings” this fiscal year while Cullerton’s doesn’t really start until next fiscal year. - rivercabin - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 8:10 am: Charts show “Free Insurance” as a choice …It is my understanding that it is only “Access to insurance” with the % of salary/pension cost… - facts are stubborn things - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 9:02 am: RNUG@4:26PM Thank you. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.