107 Comments - Chicago Cynic - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 12:13 pm: Neither solves he problem but house get MUCH closer. They’re both going to result in lawsuits so let’s go for the better solution. - Coach - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 12:13 pm: No since it will be held up in the courts system for a few years and it will mostly likely rule against the state just what we need at this point - not! - Captain Illini - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 12:14 pm: Look…it’s simple really. Actuarial numbers and statistics are meaningless in the face of certain legal challenges. Passing legislation for the purpose of hyperbol is criminal in my mind, so Cullerton’s version, albeit probably challenged as well, will have at least taken into account the specific legality of pension reform. Madigan’s bill is best served as background material in an episode of the “Walking Dead”… - G'Kar - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 12:15 pm: I do not support SB 1–I believe it to be unconstitutional. That said, I voted yes because I want some sort of conclusion. Pass it and send it to the courts so we can get a ruling. - Reality Check - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 12:16 pm: Both chambers should vote on both bills and democracy should work its will. SB1 would fail in the Senate and SB2404 pass the House with a bipartisan majority. - Huh? - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 12:16 pm: Why do we need gouge workers for $187billion when we have a 90-some billion dollar problem? - 47th Ward - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 12:17 pm: I voted no, because I think there are bigger Constitutional questions with the House bill. Yes, both bills will be challenged, but I think the Senate bill is the better approach, because it has the agreement with the unions. If they amend it to include a gradual cost-shift to local school districts, so much the better. The House bill might save more than the Senate bill, but it won’t save anything if the courts toss it out. - Captain Illini - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 12:18 pm: I might add that I do believe the Senate should “vote” on Madigan’s bill though…a fair hearing and debate, then summarily voted to the ash-heap of history. - Stones - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 12:18 pm: Why pass something that is most likely (by most accounts) unconstitutional? Assuming the Court rules against the bill you are that much more in the hole. Cullerton’s proposal makes more sense. - Anon. - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 12:22 pm: It’s unconstitutional, unfair and immoral, but I voted “No” because of the statement that it knocks “$1.9 billion off first-year payment.” The problem is not solved until we pay off (or successfully reneg on) the unfunded liability. Until we do, we are effectively borrowing at 6.5% or whatever the actuarial assumption is for earnings on the fund. It’s the compounding of this amount that got us into trouble, and taking a (partial) pension holiday now just starts us down that road again. Plus, of course, after the courts find the bill unconstitutional, we’ll just be that much worse off for not making the payment. - Mouthy - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 12:23 pm: 100% funding. Even the premise is a scam. - PublicServant - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 12:24 pm: === there is no wiggle room in these numbers, and no ranges of savings from scenarios that bring unpredictability into play === While Cullerton’s bill, SB2404, provides a range of savings depending on the choices made by annuitants and current employees, Nekritz is incorrect about the certainty of savings in her bill. Her savings numbers are either the actuarial figures which are estimates in and of themselves, or ZERO when it fails to pass constitutional muster. - Wensicia - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 12:28 pm: ==I voted no, because I think there are bigger Constitutional questions with the House bill. Yes, both bills will be challenged, but I think the Senate bill is the better approach, because it has the agreement with the unions.== I agree and voted no. - Will Caskey - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 12:28 pm: Well that’s not a loaded question at all. - lake county democrat - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 12:28 pm: Rule of law > fiscal sanity. Though if this wasn’t at the Constitutional level, I’d be tempted. - In_The_Middle - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 12:28 pm: It will eventually go to the courts where it will languish for years and no savings will be realized - Tobor - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 12:29 pm: unconstitutional - Calhoun Native - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 12:30 pm: No. SB1 is clearly unconstitutional. Sure it’s about the numbers, but it’s also about upholding the constitution. - kimocat - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 12:32 pm: I agree with the others stating that SB1 is unconstitutional. But it is also both immoral and unethical. And if MJM, the one most responsible for the pension funding shortfall gets away with this, then there will never be any justice for public employees in Illinois. Nothing we have earned will be safe from the next theft. - Tim Snopes - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 12:32 pm: If the Speaker / Illinois Democratic Party Chsirman says his bill is constitutional, pass it and move on. - Tired - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 12:34 pm: This Bill is not “preserving benefits earned by workers and retirees—.” as stated by Nekritz. - foster brooks - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 12:35 pm: No . you’ll be back to square one in a couple years. - Joe M. - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 12:35 pm: Madigans bill is unconstitutional. The “savings” it talks about are really reductions in contracted pension benefits the employees and retirees under the five pension systems earned. Madigan’s bill is a flat-out diminishment of benefits based on the belief that the Courts will consider Illinois’ finances a police state emergency - and thus the Constitution and contract law can be ignored. However, the Illinois Supreme Court’s ruling from Jorgensen v. Blagojevich stated, “No principle of law permits us to suspend constitutional requirements for economic reasons, no matter how compelling those reasons may seem.” - doedoa - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 12:37 pm: What should be clear to the representative is that neither bill solves the problem created by the legislature. This is a revenue problem not a benefit problem. If it is true that Illinois only charged $25,000 for casino licenses when they could have charged millions, then it is clear that there is a revenue problem. Both bills will be struck down by the courts. The answer is in progressive tax, taxing services, and re-amortize the debt. - rusty618 - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 12:37 pm: I voted no. There is too much emphasis being put on resolving the pension shortfall at the expense of the rank and file state workers. I believe there are other steps that should be taken first like closing all corporate tax loopholes, amortizing the debt and scrutinizing entitlement programs. - enddd - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 12:37 pm: The Senate did pass a pension bill. The Senate President has been very strong in his resolve to back a constitutional solution and he should hold to that position. Otherwise, we should start calling the House the upper chamber. - Small Town Taxpayer - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 12:38 pm: “I voted no, because I think there are bigger Constitutional questions with the House bill.” I fully agree. It should also be noted that neither the House or Senate bill will get Illinois even half way to funding the pension liabilities that have been built up over the years. Both bills are very deficient when it comes to funding a solution. “a real math-based problem, and any reform must be driven by the math” There is no math-based problem as I see it. The math is clear and has been for years. The problem is political and the solution will need to be political. The GA wants to keep everyone, especially the voters, happy, it has for years, and has chosen to ignore the math. I say it is time for the GA to bite the bullet and make someone unhappy, in the political sense, and give in to the reality of the math. The only question is who will the GA make unhappy? - Anonymiss - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 12:40 pm: I voted ‘no” - just like Senators should on SB1. It’s illegal and will get struck down by the courts, while the debt keeps racking up and we’re back here again in 1-2 years. I don’t know about anyone else, but that’s reason enough to take a step forward - even if it’s not big enough for the Tribune! - with SB2404. - Nickypiii - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 12:40 pm: NO! Savings assumptions aside, this bill cannot be Constitutional. This bill admittedly and clearly diminishes benefits and that is specifically why the guarantee clause was included in the 1970 State Constitution. - GA Watcher - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 12:41 pm: Perhaps the two leaders should consider doing what President Cullerton did in his original SB 1. Have each chamber pass each others bill as a sign of good faith, but add provisions to both so that if SB 1 is found unconstitutional in a court of law, then SB 2404 is implemented. - Mason born - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 12:44 pm: I voted No. Passing Madigan’s bill and then waiting for it to be thrown out only deepens the hole we are in. While Cullerton’s doesn’t do as much it also appears to be more likely to stand up to judicial scrutiny. - Proud - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 12:51 pm: I know this is slightly off topic, btu I feel that the clause in question in the constitution needs to be legally challenged. I dont get why our constituion has a clause clearly meant for a small sub sector of the Illinois citizenry. - Tim Snopes - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 12:52 pm: It is evident that state employees are blogging en force today. Of course, it is the lunch hour. - Downstate Dem - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 12:54 pm: Constitutionality has never a priority with the legislature. Why start now, send both bills into play and let the courts sort it out. No attempt has been constructively made in the past to solve this, it’s just been kicked down the road for decades. Neither bill totally solves the delemna, but SB 1 seems closer in cleaning up the financial liabilities. - biased observer - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 12:56 pm: vote yes….do what is best for most of the state of Illinois, not just the unions. and remember even the Madigan doesn’t come close to solving the issue and much further works needs done. this site does not reflect the views of the Illinois citizens at large as it is heavily dominated by union types. but if it makes you guys feel better to sit around and listen to each other create spin, i’m happy for you. the only opinion on constitutionality which really matters is the IL supreme court….many experts think Madigan is constitutional based upon the overriding principle of doing what is best for the welfare of the entire state. but again, only the judges matter. pass Madigan and send to the judges. passing cullerton, is very close to doing nothing on this issue. we will be having the same conversation in a couple years if cullerton is the only t hing passed. not even close to enough. - Chavez-respecting Obamist - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 1:03 pm: I voted no.It is the one that’s unconstitutional, right? - CJA - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 1:09 pm: It’s unconstitutional…it diminishes: the total pensionable salary, the COLA, and the amount the COLA is figured on. What’s so difficult to understand about that. - skeptical - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 1:12 pm: “preserving benefits earned by workers and retirees” - Using that logic, the GA could raise the income tax rate to “preserve benefits earned by taxpayers” - Makandadawg - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 1:13 pm: No: none of this discussion defines what a real pension should be. Just ask the tier 2 people what they have now. The math only adds up to what you put into the equation from the beginning. - Downstater - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 1:17 pm: =I voted no.It is the one that’s unconstitutional, right= Must be one of those low information voters you always read about. - Ray del Camino - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 1:18 pm: By my “yes” vote, I meant vote *on* it. Each chamber, as has been said, should vote on the other’s version and let the chips fall where they may. - Bobbysox - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 1:19 pm: No. Unconstitutional. Actually saves too much money! It goes way beyond what would be required even if a fiscal emergency was acknowledged. Let’s get real. - kimocat - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 1:21 pm: So baised observer just thinks we need to do “what is best for the state.” I guess then it would be best for the state’s taxpayers for Illinois to just throw that backlog of bills owed out of the window — much better than paying them. And I was never in a union. - Rudy - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 1:34 pm: I answered no to the question. In my opinion, the Senate should not necessarily “pass” the House bill, but it should call the House bill for a vote first. Since the House bill is more sweeping, the House bill should be voted on first. If the votes are not there for the House bill, then the House should call the Senate’s bill, which is more of a compromise position. But I wouldn’t expect the Speaker to call the Senate bill without poisoning it first, so Cullerton should insist on a gentleman’s agreement with Madigan to do so, before he calls the House bill. If these gentlemen are both afraid to blink and cannot work with each other, if their personal issues are bigger than the State’s problems, they should take the summer off and reconsider it in the veto session. - Roadiepig - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 1:36 pm: Kimocrat- no need to feed the troll. Rules of law don’t apply when you have an ax to grind ( hatred of unions) so you are wasting your time … - Anonymous - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 1:44 pm: I voted no selfishly as a recently retired state employee. My question for the Governor is: If both bills are passed and sent to you, which, if either, would you sign? - Casual Observer - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 1:45 pm: Anonymous 1:44 was me, sorry. - dupage dan - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 1:45 pm: === The House bill might save more than the Senate bill, but it won’t save anything if the courts toss it out === yep - don't waste time w/SB1 - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 1:46 pm: SB 1 is straight-up unconstitutional! So in the long run, it is absolutely not certain savings, in fact it will be no savings at all. - D P Gumby - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 1:47 pm: They are both unconstitutional, unfair, and bad policy…Madigan’s is worse. - saddened observer - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 1:50 pm: Both bills deserve an up or down vote. I would say the Senate should vote no on Madigan’s bill, and I would hope the House would pass Cullerton’s bill. I think Madigan’s bill is clearly an unconstitutional waste of time. Let’s see if Cullerton’s bill passes constitutional muster and then move to the next step as needed. - Matthew - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 1:55 pm: Why not pass the house bill with the provision that if the courts rule it out, the senate bill becomes the law? - Dirt Diver - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 1:58 pm: Yes, because the longer we don’t have an answer, the longer this charade continues. Rather than sit about and speculate how the Courts will rule, why not send them a case to adjudicate and answer this question once and for all? I bet the answer is that the Courts will rule both SB 1 and SB 2404 un-constitutional. - Frank P - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 2:01 pm: Degree in math and involved in politics for 20 years. A political spokesperson saying there is certainty and that there is no wiggle room in the numbers? Spare me. It is unconstitutional, and is overly harsh on retirees (who paid their share). The problem needs to be solved, but not as harshly (so maybe something will pass and will survive) and in a way the provides accountability instead of allowing the Legislature to create the problem yet again. - archimedes - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 2:04 pm: Is SB1 “inseverable”? i.e. can some of it be found to be OK and other parts ruled illegal. Ex. can the increase in age to retire and the increase in active member payments be legal and the decrease in earned benefits (such as annual increases already earned) be found to be illegal? Same for SB2404 - can portions be legal and other portions be illegal? - illinifan - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 2:08 pm: As a retiree I want someone to just get moving, so vote on the bill. If it passes and is signed into law, we can then move onto the court challenge. If overturned then we know the playing field and can craft a better bill. If not overturned we retirees have our answer. I just want to get moving past this state of constant arguement and debate - Earnest - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 2:12 pm: I voted yes. Something needs to be passed in order to prevent the catch-up pension contributions from eating up the entire state budget. The state has had to make a lot of un-fun, painful choices in recent years. This is one more and, sadly, even if it passes, likely wont’ be the last. - walkinfool - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 2:14 pm: Yes, on Nekritz/Cross/Madigan approach. Either take a giant step to fix this stinking problem, or continue to pretend with half-measures. The only real alternatives — a big permanent tax increase, or no defined benefit pensions in the future, are even more unlikely than surviving a court challenge. - SO IL M - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 2:15 pm: No. Passing a bill that will be struck down is a waste of time and effort. - Frenchie Mendoza - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 2:18 pm: @BiasedObserver: In every single one of your posts you repeatedly state that the views here do not reflect the views of the state. (Although you’ve stopped giving shout outs to your “friends” with each post.) Where, exactly, do you get your sense that the views here should be discounted and aren’t reflected across the state? What poll are you looking at? What people — friends? — are you talking to that have convinced you that most Illinoisians are ready to slash the constitutionally protected benefits to actives and retirees? - Dude Abides - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 2:19 pm: The problem needs to be solved but we should all demand that it be resolved in a moral fashion. If your average retiree ends up with one third less money than they were contractually promised (the Madigan plan) they will be thrown into or near the poverty level. The Cullerton plan will diminish their retirement about 10%,which would cause some pain but not catastrophic like the Madigan plan. - reformer - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 2:20 pm: There never was any doubt that Madigan/Nekritz would take more out of the hides of retirees and workers. If that therefore makes the bill desirable, then I suppose an even more draconian IPI bill that simply ended all COLAs would be even better. - Skirmisher - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 2:22 pm: I voted “No”. Constitutional questions aside, the Bekritz proposal completely tosses the pain on the only people who ever acted in good faith in this mess, and puts none of the burden on the General Assembly and taxpayers who acted in bad faith and eagerly stole the pension funds for other purposes. If there is going to be pain, then everyone has to share and share equally at very least. - Tim Snopes - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 2:28 pm: Pass only the Cullerton bill and you’ll be back here again in a few years trying to save your pension. Get serious. - ellapalmommie - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 2:46 pm: Judges are not included in any version. The House will pass and Senate will pass a bill agreed on cost shift legislation for downstate districts and go home. Bye. - new to politics - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 2:53 pm: It won’t save money if it is found to be unconstitutional which seems likely. It does not provide an actual fix to the revenue side as does Cullerton’s bill. Without requiring the general assembly to pay what it must the same as the public employees must pay, it is a grossly unfair bill. - southof80 - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 2:59 pm: Pass Cullerton’s version along with cost shift that allows school districts to levy….yes, it will probably raise local taxes, but that tax is transparent. The public can then go to the local school board meetings and voice their concern at the public hearings. Otherwise any cost shift will take $ out of dollars that educate children. - Soccer tease - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 3:02 pm: I voted no. I think the only responsible thing to do is pass a constitutional bill. This whole charade is wasting time, is costly and everyone will eventually see that including the bond rating agencies. - RNUG - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 3:05 pm: Voted no because (a) some members of the GA are already talking about spending the “savings” instead of using it to address the pension underfunding and (b) neither bill does anything to address the underlying revenue problem and the GA won’t pass anything to increase revenue if they can band-aid for another year or two. - Cook County Commoner - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 3:15 pm: Yes. The Senate should pass the House pension bill. Both bills appear to violate the constitution’s pension anti-impairment clause. Sen. Cullerton’s effort appears to allow for a choice of impairments. Both appear to require the IL Sup Ct to permit impairment because of dire need (police power argument). If that is the case, roll the dice with the one that may help taxpayers and the state’s fiscal situation the most. Also, I favor sending the strongest bill to the IL Sup Ct so in the event it rules it unconstitutional, it may provide a road map decision on how far the GA can go in crafting relief. Also, such an opinion would be a useful tool for the likely county and local government pension plans which will experience difficulties in the near future. - Anonymous - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 3:25 pm: It is about proportionality. Too much of the tax payer dollar is presently allotted to pension payments. When Illinois workers pension plan is too rich and when compared to the pension of the average taxpayer is off the chart, real reform is a must. - Curmudgeon - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 3:27 pm: Yes. No choice - otherwise the state is in even deeper doo-doo. Alternative of a huge tax increase is unpalatable. Let the courts decide - Speaker Madigan put most of the Judges on the bench! - Happy - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 3:29 pm: No. SB 1 shouldn’t pass. It is unconstitutional and punitive to public servants. It doesn’t address the real problems: Madigan, Nekritz, et al. It would only give the thieves more funds to plunder. - ash - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 3:52 pm: Thw workers did not create the problem and should not be punished for the malfeasance of the GA. SB2404 is a compromise that causes some worker pain despite the fact that they, unlike the GA, never skipped a payment. - Harry - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 3:52 pm: Yes to SB1—SB2404 also has serious constitutional problems (taking away raises being pensionable vs. COLA reductions is clearly an impairment and there’s no valid consideration involved in that one). SB2404 will be a logistical catastrophe (700K elections in 6 months including cognitively impaired retirees…sure), and even if it works it saves less than 1 year’s growth in the actuarial liability. If that’s all you can save, forget the rigamarole and just fund the pensions. SB1 has its own constitutional problems, different from SB2404 but not necessariy worse, but at least it is implementable and saves enough to be worthwhile, if upheld. - mr lee - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 4:03 pm: No. The entire state benefited from the use of the funds that should have been earmarked for pensions. The entire state should share in the burden of repairing the nighmare created by the legislature, not just those in the pension system. And there are ways to do that. Ways that will not be popular with the voting public and thus affect re-elections. Need I say more. - Norseman - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 4:05 pm: === Pass only the Cullerton bill and you’ll be back here again in a few years trying to save your pension. Get serious. === Here’s a not-so-secret point, this exercise is not about saving state worker pensions. This is about: - freeing up funding for other state programs, including a few bits of pork here and there; - placating rating agencies; - providing cover for the legislators on the temporary tax renewal. The pro-reduction forces are more than happy to let the workers believe this is about saving their pension to lull them into accepting this attack on their retirement income. - billcollectors84 - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 4:06 pm: Public workers do not receive Social Security. For them, a pension is often their only means of financial support after they retire. - Ebcdic - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 4:08 pm: Both bills are unconstitutional. I think that we need to include the judges pension and end the legislative pension for all current and past GA members. Maybe it would get them off their rumps as well as obtain the legal opinions of all the judges. Retired state employees have no representation. It makes more sense to let them alone since they are diminishing in size every day. Recall Madigan et.al. - Semper Fi - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 4:13 pm: The civilized way would have been adjust all five pensions. Abolish all 5 pensions boards and make one. Legislature is only in session part time, then they should not be in a pension plan. Use age of 67 older>for four pension plans. Mandatory 15 years minimum for a pension for all four pension plans. Mandatory pay what is owed to the pension plans first. If Legislature would lead by example, instead of exemption, we would not be in this situation. Semper FI ! - kearbs - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 4:31 pm: SB 1 will result in a lawsuit. There should be a shared solution. Public employees did not create this problem. I worked longer to get my pension, receive less benefits then legislators and I worked 12 months a year. Vote NO on SB 1 and yes to HB 2404 with no amendments. HB does have some sacrifice for me as a retired public employee but I am willing to take a share of the solution. Everyone should take a share. - Michelle Flaherty - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 4:43 pm: “there is no wiggle room in these numbers, and no ranges of savings from scenarios that bring unpredictability into play” $0 to $187 billion is quite a range. - kimocat - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 5:24 pm: Has anyone seen an estimate of the savings to the state under Cullerton’s bill of the estimated 50% of retirees losing their health insurance coverage? And why is that savings not factored into this debate, if it is not? - Mama - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 5:25 pm: == RNUG - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 3:05 pm== Rnug - I totally agree with you. The money saved from the state workers & teachers pensions will not go toward paying down any bills. The money will continue to go toward buying votes. - kimocat - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 5:55 pm: Mama — you’re right. CMS starts deducting more money from our pensions in July for health care premiums. They have already publicly said that the delay in payment of our bills, now at about one year, will not decrease next Fiscal year. Why would it be different for other savings funded by workers and retirees? - ToughGuy - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 5:56 pm: No. If this is found to be constitutional it appears the overall intent of the constitution can be watered down and could put other guarantees at risk. Cullerton’s bill seems much closer to the mark. Very disappointed in the Speaker pursuing this route. - Gradma and Grandpa's Son - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 6:05 pm: Not only are both bills unconstitutional, they also violate Federal and State laws. These bills are financial exploitation of the elderly and disabled grandparents. Our state retired grandparents did not pay into social security so their pension is both a pension and social security for them as life savings for retirement. It’s sad you are eager takers from old and sick grandparents:( - RNUG - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 6:11 pm: kimocat @ 5:24 pm: I don’t know if the health insurance savings are factored in, but they should not be at this time. We haven’t seen the last act of the “Maag” and “Marconi” law suits. - Skyluvr - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 6:25 pm: The bill does NOT preserve the benefits earned by retirees, if the COLA is essentially eliminated. Members of the SURS were assessed an additional 1% contribution, beginning in about 1980 or 81 to fund the COLA. I never hear that mentioned in all of this debate. Further, I don’t see how the bill could be constitutional. - Facts are stubborn things - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 6:26 pm: No to either bill. Fund the legal contract! We should be a land of laws. - dupage dan - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 6:34 pm: === Public workers do not receive Social Security === That’s not true. I am a state employee (SERS) and will be receiving SSA when I reach that retirement age. The reality is, SSA was not supposed to be the entire retirement income when first instituted. And neither should the state pension. Since reality intrudes on many folks, it does end up being the sole income. That should NOT factor into whether or not these bills pass. There is a contract. Both bills appear to violate the contract. If whatever is passed is then challenged, the courts will decide. - DuPage Dave - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 6:40 pm: All of the bills are unconstitutional, plain and simple. I don’t care if the unions agree not to sue- I will sue on my own as a non-union state worker. The constitution reads “benefits” not “benefit”, as some (e.g., Sen. Cullerton) would have you believe. Those benefits were passed into state law and provided to me and other workers in writing, hence the enforceable contract of the constitution. A better fix is a service tax (a.k.a. “haircut tax”). COGFA has done a nice job of writing this up. Their most recent report was in 2011. Please tell your representatives and senators, as well as the Governor: Pay What You Owe to Workers. - Anonymous - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 7:15 pm: If I were a judge for this, the first question I’d ask: if there’s a fiscal emergency — why not abolish pensions completely and fix the emergency? I’d say: you’re arguing for extra-constitutional powers yet you hedge. You don’t fix the emergency. You bandage it. If it’s emergency, it needs fixing immediately. If it’s an emergency, that is. If it’s not an emergency, then (apparently) we can throw some money toward yet — yet not fix it completely. So I’m confused. Is it an emergency? Or not? - Smitty Irving - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 7:58 pm: No. It appears to be unconstitutional. - Arthur Andersen - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 8:23 pm: No. For a self-styled “pension expert” Nekritz comes off as something less when she represents actuarial estimates of events yet to take place caused by legislation yet to be passed and signed as “certain.” - RNUG Fan - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 8:30 pm: AA you can say that again she sure comes off as something…………. Anon Cullerton said the very existence and passage of his bill proves its not an emergency. The Cullerton bill really depends as RNUG says on Maag/Marconi - jimbo26 - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 10:54 pm: waste of time and more importantly, money, when the bill is unconstitutional. - Anon - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 11:22 pm: The goal of SB 1 is to severely cut Defined benefit pensionnbenefits toward their elimination as most corporations have. We can save the systems with minimal harm to retiree benefits. It is is fiscally available with CTBA’s new 50 year flat payment plan. all these draconian benefit cuts come from squeezing the systems into a100% funding ratio in 31 years remaining under the current 50 year ramp plan that is already fiscally distorted by two pension holidays and rod’s arbitrage play. When supremes toss out sb1 then Ctba is the place to start next time. Nekritz “no wiggle room” is the latest evidence of carrying water for the civic committee a nd chi tribe. - Earl Shumaker - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 11:29 pm: I vote no for the Madigan bill,but think both the Madigan and Cullerton’s bills are unconstitutional I am hoping for the sake of the democratic process and the integrity of the court system in this state, the judges will make a ruling based exclusively on the law and not on politics - Anon - Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 6:21 am: Many of your readers are calling it correctly, the constitutionality of both bills is in question. I firmly believe that SB2404 is the way to go because it is at least taking into account the constitutional language and may be able to pass muster. - archimedes - Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 8:22 am: Kind of lost in the Nekritz discussion is that the Cost Shift becomes meaningless. The benefits are reduced so much and the increase in employee contributions more than covers the Normal Cost - so there is no employer normal cost. In fact - for TRS members, they will be paying more than the full normal cost, so teh excess will help to pay off the State’s unfunded liability. - Anonymous - Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 8:37 am: ==The benefits are reduced so much and the increase in employee contributions more than covers the Normal Cost - so there is no employer normal cost== Kind of shoots down Madigan’s argument of police state financial emergency - which is his whole premise of why his bill will pass Constitutional muster. - anon - Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 3:05 pm: The Unions have worked to help solve the problem created by elected officials. It is my understanding that not only have lawmakers failed to appropriate funds, but have also taken money from the fund they never intend to pay back. In the private sector, this would be criminal. Legislators should oppose SB1. - Horsin' Around - Thursday, May 30, 13 @ 12:25 am: Madigan’s bill is going to be held up in the courts forever and we see no savings and no solution for possibly years. Since labor is on board with the Cullerton bill, they are not going to turn around and litigate it if it passes. The savings and solution starts when the bill is signed into law. Dump SB1 and pass SB 2404 and get it over with. - AFSAP - Thursday, May 30, 13 @ 6:12 am: If SB1 passes, we will spend more in court costs than we are saving! - alan brockett - Thursday, May 30, 13 @ 9:25 am: No. - Teachcons - Thursday, May 30, 13 @ 7:21 pm: Most people don’t realize most state workers already pay 8 1/2% towards their retirement. Madigans bill will increase that to 10 1/2% with lower caps on what can be counted for retirement salary and a cola reduction of almost 80% PER year. Maybe you people paying only 6 1/2% into social security with a higher salary cap and no COLA limits should consider that. The average pension (per SERS #s) is less than $30000. Social security’s is considerably more. Take away the earned pension and the state will still be paying because many retirees will be eligible for government assistance Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.