Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar » 2013 » November
SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax      Advertise Here      Mobile Version     Exclusive Subscriber Content     Updated Posts    Contact
CapitolFax.com
To subscribe to Capitol Fax, click here.
A quick analysis of the pension reform proposal

Friday, Nov 29, 2013

* I asked our resident pension expert commenter “RNUG” to take a quick look at the pension reform dot points distributed by the four leaders today. His thoughts are indented…

Funding schedule and method for certifying contributions: Establishes an actuarially sound funding schedule to achieve 100% funding no later than the end of FY 2044. Contributions will be certified using the entry age normal actuarial cost method (EAN), which averages costs evenly over the pensioner’s employment and results in level contributions.

    This is a good move but do we really need to be 100% funded? I understand that 100% sounds good to both the public and the bond rating agencies but I think it is over kill. Somewhere around 80% - 90% would be more than adequate.

Supplemental contributions: The State will contribute (i) $364 million in FY 2019, (ii) $1 billion annually thereafter through 2045 or until the system reaches 100% funding, and (iii) 10% of the annual savings resulting from pension reform beginning in FY 2016 until the system reaches 100% funding. These contributions will be “pure add on,” which means State contributions in any year will not be reduced by these amounts.

    Without seeing more details, I’m going to assume the add-on amounts in (i) & (ii) are the funds freed up by the expiration of the current pension bonds. Since that money is currently being paid out, this is “free” money as far as the GA is concerned. As to (iii), I have a problem with only 10% of the savings going into the pension funds. That tells me there are plans for the other 90% of the savings, either avoiding the need to keep the income tax at the 5% level or to cover expansion of other state program expenses or for new spending. Sorry to be a bit vague on where the 90% might go.

Funding guarantee: If the State fails to make a pension payment or a supplemental contribution, a retirement system may file an action in the Illinois Supreme Court to compel the State to make the required pension payment and/or supplemental contribution set by law each year.

    As I commented in one of the other posts, if this is the same as previous proposals, and it sounds like it is without being able to read the actual bill language, all this does is provide the retirement system with the right to sue and, maybe, giving retirees the right to sue the retirement system (not the State) if the retirement system fails to act. I don’t see it as consideration; at a stretch it might be considered a group right. It is not an individual right any retiree can exercise against the State itself, so I don’t think it meets the contract law definition of individual consideration. Brighter minds than myself may well disagree. And then there is the whole issue of it being a one sided and non-voluntary (coerced) choice.

Employee contribution: Employees will contribute 1% less of their salary toward their pension.

    That could be a valid consideration for changing the AAI for current employees, especially when you look at the GARS, TRS and SURS systems where they pay either 0.5% or 1% for their AAI (COLA).

Annual annuity adjustment (COLAs): Future COLAs will be based on a retiree’s years of service and the full CPI. The annual increase will be equal to 3% of years of service multiplied by $1,000 ($800 for those coordinated with social security). The $1000/$800 will be adjusted each year by the CPI for everyone (retirees and current employees). Those with an annuity that is less than their years of service multiplied by $1000/$800, or whatever the amount is at the time of retirement, will receive a COLA equal to 3% compounded each year until their annuity reaches that amount.

    This is where almost all the “savings” come from. For GARS, JRS, TRS, some SURS & some SERS, the $1,000 per year figure will apply. For most SERS and some SURS, the $800 figure will apply. Those figures are quite interesting. Assuming any average of 30 years for a teacher, their AAI will be based on $30,000. Assuming 35 years for an average state employee (SERS), their AAI will be based on a pension of $28,000. In other words, those numbers were picked by using some of the retirement system averages.

    While every situation will be different and there are lots of variations, we can calculate a couple of examples. Assuming a average 1.5 CPI to adjust the $800 amount, a SERS retiree with 35 years of service currently receiving $30,000 as an annual pension will receive about $47,000 less in total over the next 20 years when compared to the 3% AAI.

    If you double the current pension to $60,000, the diminishment really kicks in; that retiree would receive about $330,000 less over 20 years.

    As I noted, this is intended to kind of keep the average retiree somewhat whole while playing on the public envy of the well off state retiree. A very carefully crafted piece of work. Don’t think it is constitutional based on previously rulings, but I have to admire the thought that went into it.

    One possible problem with the $1000 / $800 per year of service formula. Since we haven’t seen the actual language, it really needs to be based on the same number of years of service the pension is based on regardless of the actual years worked. In other words, any purchased service time should be included as part of the COLA calculation.

Additionally, current employees will miss annual adjustments depending on age: employees 50 or over miss 1 adjustment (year 2); 49-47 miss 3 adjustments (years 2, 4, and 6); 46-44 miss 4 adjustments (years 2, 4, 6, and 8); 43 and under miss 5 adjustments (years 2, 4, 6, 8, 10).

    I see the logic of gradually applying it to the younger employees in order to create the illusion of fairness, but it is a apparently unconstitutional change to existing employees.

Pensionable salary cap: Applies the Tier II salary cap ($109,971 for 2013), which is annually adjusted by the lesser of 3% or ½ of the annual CPI-U. Salaries that currently exceed the cap or that will exceed the cap based on raises in a collective bargaining agreement would be grandfathered in.

    I’m going to assume the bill language will be similar to what we have seen earlier this year. They are applying the SS salary cap. But then they limit the pensionable salary growth with a 1/2 CPI or 3% cap, so it will gradually fall below the SS cap. The grandfathering of salaries exceeding the cap is probably not as clear as the bullet point states. In the previous proposals, that exemption only applied until the end of the current contract.

Retirement age: For those 45 years of age or under, the retirement age will be increased on a graduated scale. For each year a member is under 46, the retirement age will be increased by 4 months (up to 5 years).

    It’s a reasonable approach to changing the retirement age but it rules counter to previous ISC rulings for existing employees.

Effective rate of interest (ERI): For all purposes, the ERI for SURS and the rate of regular interest for TRS will be the interest rate paid by 30-year U.S. Treasury bonds plus 75 basis points.

    Insufficient knowledge of that specific program to give an informed opinion. I do know someone who might be able to answer it, but I probably can’t get an answer quickly.

GARS Tier 2 fix: Brings GARS Tier 2 salary cap and annual adjustment in line with other Tier 2 benefits.

    Insufficient knowledge of that specific program to give an informed opinion quickly.

Pension abuses: Prohibits future members of non-governmental organizations from participating in IMRF, SURS, and TRS. Prohibits new hires from using sick or vacation time toward pensionable salary or years of service (applies to SERS, SURS, TRS, IMRF, Cook County, and Chicago Teachers).

    Good move closing a loophole that has been abused in the past. Changing it for new hires also passes the constitutionality test. It will result in the new hires, if career employees, receiving about 1/2 year less in service time than under the current rules.

Defined contribution plan: Beginning July 1, 2015, up to 5% of Tier 1 active members have the option of joining a defined contribution plan. The plan must be revenue neutral and employee contributions will be equal to those for the defined benefit plan. If a member chooses to opt into the defined contribution plan, benefits previously accrued in the defined benefit plan will be frozen.

    Basically offering a 401K style plan (assume it will actually be a 403b variation) to existing employees. It’s been discussed at length on this blog, but such a plan is probably a bad choice for most employees, and especially so for those near retirement. The only people it would benefit are non-career employees who only work at the state for a few years. In other words, this could be a sweet deal for political appointees that won’t be around long enough to earn a Defined Benefit pension.

Collective bargaining: All pension matters, except pension pickups, are removed from collective bargaining.

    Can look at this two different ways. On the one hand, it pretty much acknowledges that the union can not negotiate for the retirees. On the other hand, it prevents the unions from throwing the retirees under the bus in exchange for additional employee considerations.

Healthcare payments: Prohibits the State pension systems from using pension funds to pay healthcare costs.

    Not really anything new; just explicitly states it. Health insurance has always been paid out of either the State’s General Revenue Fund as an annual expense (SERS, GARS, JRS, some SURS) or partially subsidized by the separate TRIPS program (TRS, some SURS). but I think this is intended to slam the door on health insurance being considered a pension benefit ala Judge Nardulli’s ruling in the consolidated ‘Maag’ case. Mostly closing the barn door in case the ISC rules in favor of the retirees.

* And here’s his summary…

It is apparent a LOT of thought went into this proposal. Not only is it crafted to solve the pension “funding” problem but it is also crafted to provide the illusion of fairness to employees near retirement age and the retirees. As such, it is a fairly masterful piece of public relations. Not enough so to prevent employee / retiree outrage, but enough to delude the uninformed public (dare I say low information voter?) into believing the GA proposal is more than reasonable and fair.

Some of the items proposed, especially those affecting only new hires or offering a voluntary choice, will easily pass contract and constitutional muster.

A lot of what is proposed does not seem to meet contract law or constitutional muster based on the clear language of the pension clause and the various rulings by the ISC, both before and after the 1970 constitution. I’m having a problem reconciling any changes to either retirees or current employees with the previous rulings that, in effect, state the rules in place at hiring plus enhancements granted by the General Assembly at what is protected by the pension clause.

So the real question is what is Madigan’s real end game? Is it to railroad this through and twist the arms of the ISC to buy a “police powers” arguments? Is it to try to get the ISC the change their “rules are time of hiring …” logic to “only benefits already earned are protected” like in a number of other states? Or is it an intentionally unconstitutional bill in an attempt to get ISC coverage for a tax increase? Only time will tell.

- Posted by Rich Miller   Comments Off      


*** UPDATED x1 *** Rauner team puts on full-court press against pension bill

Friday, Nov 29, 2013

[Before reading this, you might want to take a look at the new pension reform outline post.]

* You’ll recall that Republican gubernatorial candidate Bruce Rauner had this to say the other day about the pension reform agreement reached by all four legislative leaders

Unfortunately, the Springfield insiders have kept Illinoisans in the dark about the details of this bill. We’ve seen politicians do this before and it is rarely a good sign for taxpayers.

Any deal that would rank pension payouts to government union bosses ahead of priorities like education and public safety should cause grave concern and will lead to higher taxes.

* Rauner’s good friend Ken Griffin, who is the richest man in Illinois and has contributed more than $250,000 to Rauner’s campaign, followed up with an op-ed in the Tribune which expounds on Rauner’s talking points

Now our political leaders say they have made a breakthrough. In closed door meetings, hidden from public view, they have drafted legislation that’s intended to show they can get something done. But in this case, getting nothing done would be preferable to the passage of legislation that all but ensures the economic demise of our great state.

The proposed legislation provides for modest reforms of our broken pension system coupled with guarantees that payments to government employee pensions will come before paying for schools, hospitals, parks, police or fire protection. This isn’t a reform, but rather a fiscal death sentence: The state would be stuck with pension funding requirements that squeeze out all other priorities and tie the hands of future leaders.

The bitter truth is that our politicians have sold government employees a fraudulent bill of goods. Absent extraordinary economic growth, our state is going to collapse under the weight of generous pension promises made by union leaders and politicians. And with each passing day, the $100 billion gap between what has been promised and what is provided for grows by roughly $5 million.

Here is where this story will inevitably end: Our state is going to be forced to break its promises to our government employees and retirees. They will receive less than they bargained for. Our state’s taxpayers will see the 67 percent “temporary” tax increase converted into a permanent tax increase. And soon we will hear that even further tax increases are needed to meet our obligations. This is the price we are all going to pay for sending the wrong leaders to Springfield for too many years.

That op-ed does a good job of explaining what Rauner was really talking about. He opposes the proposal because he hates the funding guarantee, believing it would “rank pension payouts to government union bosses ahead of priorities like education and public safety.”

* And the Illinois Policy Institute, which received a $500,000 contribution from Rauner, piled on for good measure

The bill adds a pension-funding guarantee, prioritizing government worker pensions over all core spending. If pensions weren’t already squeezing out core spending enough already, Madigan’s bill adds a pension-funding guarantee to appease the unions. With Madigan’s minimal reforms, this funding guarantee will lock in further tax increases and increase the burden on taxpayers. A vote for this bill is a vote for tax hikes.

Notice how they refer to this as “Madigan’s” bill, when, in fact, the proposal has been agreed to by all four legislative leaders, including the two Republicans.

Some of the rest of the Policy Institute’s analysis is off base. The bill does impose a means test on cost of living allowance adjustments, for instance.

All that’s missing so far is a full-on attack by Reboot Illinois, which is funded by Ken Griffin’s independently wealthy spouse.

…Adding… From Reboot’s executive editor…

Rich: Sorry to disappoint. No attack here:

http://www.rebootillinois.com/?opinion=9129

* Meanwhile, the Sun-Times editorial board warned Rauner to back off

Madigan on Wednesday said Republican gubernatorial candidate Bruce Rauner has been lobbying Republicans to reject the deal because the “funding guarantee,” the clause that obliges the state to make its annual pension payment, is too strong and could hamstring the state.

Hogwash.

Under the funding guarantee, as we understand it and as it has been drafted in other pension bills, the state retains some flexibility, particularly in the event of a financial crisis. And more importantly, the state has a fiscal and moral responsibility to make these payments — its failure to do so helped create this pension mess. The guarantee also could help the state’s credit rating and could help the bill survive a court challenge.

Given the thinness of the argument against the funding guarantee, we fear this is straight politics. Solving the state’s fiscal mess could undercut Rauner’s chances to win either in March or November by giving his opponents a key victory. We reached out to Rauner on this but didn’t get a return call.

* So far, there’s nothing new from the Tribune editorial board on the substance of the proposal, although it did warn the other day - in an apparent preview of one of Rauner’s two main talking points - that leaders should give legislators and the public an opportunity to see the bill before it’s voted on. The Tribune has editorialized in the past against a funding guarantee, however.

*** UPDATE *** From the Illinois Policy Institute…

“We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

Remember when former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi said this about ObamaCare?

Well, the Illinois General Assembly is repeating that horrible mistake, and we need your help today to stop them.

Illinois’ legislative leaders announced a pension “fix” right before Thanksgiving. And lawmakers have been called back to Springfield on Tuesday to vote on the measure.

The only problem? No one has seen the bill.

Legislative leaders released an outline of the plan earlier today. We quickly provided a breakdown of the proposal – based on what we know, it delays reform and keeps Illinois in a constant state of crisis.

It’s likely that a bill will not appear until late Monday. That means legislators will only have a few hours to digest a complicated piece of legislation dealing with the most critical fiscal issue in Illinois before voting on it.

We’ve been down this road before. We know where it leads. We need your help right now to mount a full-scale campaign to make sure that this bill – negotiated in secret, agreed on in secret and being drafted in secret – gets to see some daylight before legislators vote on it.

Please help us today – let’s demand to see the bill!

In liberty,

Jonathan Greenberg
Vice President of External Relations

P.S. Illinois taxpayers and government workers can’t afford pension “glitches.” Lawmakers should refuse to pass a pension bill to find out what is in it. We need your help right now to block a backdoor pension deal.

All of the links lead to a fundraising page which asks people to “Donate today and help us block Madigan’s backdoor pension deal!”

Perhaps not coincidentally, I received a blast e-mail earlier today from an e-mail address which made it appear as though it were sent by Gov. Pat Quinn. The e-mail provided a link to a clever little YouTube video that “thanks” Illinois Republicans for cooperating with Democrats on the pension bill

- Posted by Rich Miller   Comments Off      


*** UPDATED x1 *** *** BREAKING *** LEADERS ISSUE PENSION REFORM OVERVIEW

Friday, Nov 29, 2013

[12:30 pm: The four legislative leaders have now sent this same outline to the news media, so I’m taking off the subscriber protection.]

* 11:20 am - The Senate Democrats just sent this memo about the leadership agreement on a pension reform bill to members…

*** UPDATE *** The House Democrats just called to say that the “final” version is a bit different than the Senate Democrats’ version, so I’ve replaced the SDem version with the one labeled “final.” It follows below.

[ *** End Of Update *** ]

Funding schedule and method for certifying contributions: Establishes an actuarially sound funding schedule to achieve 100% funding no later than the end of FY 2044. Contributions will be certified using the entry age normal actuarial cost method (EAN), which averages costs evenly over the pensioner’s employment and results in level contributions.

Supplemental contributions: The State will contribute (i) $364 million in FY 2019, (ii) $1 billion annually thereafter through 2045 or until the system reaches 100% funding, and (iii) 10% of the annual savings resulting from pension reform beginning in FY 2016 until the system reaches 100% funding. These contributions will be “pure add on,” which means State contributions in any year will not be reduced by these amounts.

Funding guarantee: If the State fails to make a pension payment or a supplemental contribution, a retirement system may file an action in the Illinois Supreme Court to compel the State to make the required pension payment and/or supplemental contribution set by law each year.

Employee contribution: Employees will contribute 1% less of their salary toward their pension.

Annual annuity adjustment (COLAs): Future COLAs will be based on a retiree’s years of service and the full CPI. The annual increase will be equal to 3% of years of service multiplied by $1,000 ($800 for those coordinated with social security). The $1000/$800 will be adjusted each year by the CPI for everyone (retirees and current employees). Those with an annuity that is less than their years of service multiplied by $1000/$800, or whatever the amount is at the time of retirement, will receive a COLA equal to 3% compounded each year until their annuity reaches that amount.

Additionally, current employees will miss annual adjustments depending on age: employees 50 or over miss 1 adjustment (year 2); 49-47 miss 3 adjustments (years 2, 4, and 6); 46-44 miss 4 adjustments (years 2, 4, 6, and 8); 43 and under miss 5 adjustments (years 2, 4, 6, 8, 10).

Pensionable salary cap: Applies the Tier II salary cap ($109,971 for 2013), which is annually adjusted by the lesser of 3% or ½ of the annual CPI-U. Salaries that currently exceed the cap or that will exceed the cap based on raises in a collective bargaining agreement would be grandfathered in.

Retirement age: For those 45 years of age or under, the retirement age will be increased on a graduated scale. For each year a member is under 46, the retirement age will be increased by 4 months (up to 5 years).

Effective rate of interest (ERI): For all purposes, the ERI for SURS and the rate of regular interest for TRS will be the interest rate paid by 30-year U.S. Treasury bonds plus 75 basis points.

GARS Tier 2 fix: Brings GARS Tier 2 salary cap and annual adjustment in line with other Tier 2 benefits.

Pension abuses: Prohibits future members of non-governmental organizations from participating in IMRF, SURS, and TRS. Prohibits new hires from using sick or vacation time toward pensionable salary or years of service (applies to SERS, SURS, TRS, IMRF, Cook County, and Chicago Teachers).

Defined contribution plan: Beginning July 1, 2015, up to 5% of Tier 1 active members have the option of joining a defined contribution plan. The plan must be revenue neutral and employee contributions will be equal to those for the defined benefit plan. If a member chooses to opt into the defined contribution plan, benefits previously accrued in the defined benefit plan will be frozen.

Collective bargaining: All pension matters, except pension pickups, are removed from collective bargaining.

Healthcare payments: Prohibits the State pension systems from using pension funds to pay healthcare costs.

- Posted by Rich Miller   Comments Off      


« NEWER POSTS PREVIOUS POSTS »
* Two Burke-related scoops by the Sun-Times
* Today's must-read
* More details emerge about cannabis legalization
* Did Pritzker defeat an incumbent Illinois governor by the biggest margin ever?
* Question of the day: Golden Horseshoe Awards
* Caption contest!
* Sun-Times begins to hold candidates' feet to the fire
* CTBA responds to Fitch Ratings
* Unclear on the concept
* So far, so good for Illinois auto jobs
* *** UPDATED x1 *** Tax credit could help small biz deal with minimum wage hike
* *** LIVE COVERAGE ***
* Yesterday's stories

Support CapitolFax.com
Visit our advertisers...

...............

...............

...............

...............
<


Loading


Main Menu
Home
Illinois
YouTube
Pundit rankings
Obama
Subscriber Content
Durbin
Burris
Blagojevich Trial
Advertising
Updated Posts
Polls

Archives
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004

Blog*Spot Archives
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005

Syndication

RSS Feed 2.0
Comments RSS 2.0
WordPress




Hosted by MCS SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax Advertise Here Mobile Version Contact Rich Miller