* As of June 30, 2018, the General Assembly Retirement System had an unfunded liability of 85.16 percent. It had 132 “Active Contributing Members” and 302 retirement annuitants and another 115 survivors drawing benefits. Add in stuff like this and you can easily see why GARS is in such trouble. From the Center Square…
[Retiring Senate President John Cullerton’s] starting annual pension will be nearly $83,000, which is 85% of his final salary of roughly $97,600 a year. For most state retirees, the next year of retirement would come with a 3% automatic pension increase, bringing Cullerton’s pension to $85,500 a year.
But in July 2021, Cullerton will see his pension checks explode to nearly $128,000 a year, a 54% increase.
How? For each year he served at the Statehouse since 2003, when he turned 55 years old, Cullerton received an extra 3% increase to his eventual pension payment. After retirement, all of those increases are then applied to Cullerton’s pension as part of his first cost-of-living adjustment.
Should Cullerton retire in mid-January, he will have collected 3% increases for 17 years, good for a 51% pension boost. That will stack on top of his automatic first-year adjustment of 3%, coming to a total pension hike of 54%, according to his pension fund’s response to Freedom of Information Act requests. After that, he will continue to see a 3% bump each year.
This little-known benefit comes from a 1989 bill sponsored by former state Sen. Emil Jones Jr., which allows lawmakers who were elected prior to 2003 to hoard pension “spikes.” Cullerton, who was House Speaker Mike Madigan’s floor leader in the House at the time, was a member of the committee that finalized the bill. It passed both chambers with bipartisan support.
“(F)or those members of the General Assembly right now who … have maxed out … they are still contributing to that retirement system,” Jones told his colleagues at the time, according to the Chicago Tribune. “So all this does is give them a little 3% on their own money.” He was referring to lawmakers who had already maxed out their pension at 85% of their salary.
The same bill established a 3% automatic cost of living adjustment for all retired state workers and Chicago city workers. This benefit alone doubles a retiree’s pension in just 25 years. Even without the special sweetener provision, the 3% automatic benefit increases would bump Cullerton’s annual pension to more than $120,000 by the time he turns 85.
Discuss.
- Ducky LaMoore - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 9:12 am:
I wonder what Big Jim got in exchange for this….
- thoughts matter - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 9:13 am:
I’m not on board with the 3% times the years of service over the age of 55, being added to your base pension. That just seems like a money grab.
However, the last paragraph of the post is meant to Inflame when it shouldn’t. A 3% adjustment is meant to deal with inflation for elderly people.
- Perrid - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 9:13 am:
All cynicism aside, I’m not sure I understand Jones’ (stated) reasoning for this. The spikes kind of pretend that the legislators retired as soon as they earned the 85% pension, right? If their pay had been maxed the entire time I could maybe see that, but if they got pay bumps while they were still working it seems like they were getting rewarded twice, once with the raise and once with the 3% COLA
- Tony - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 9:15 am:
Tier 2 has drastically reduced benefits for any members who entered the GA since 2011. That and the political pop candidates get for promising not to take a pension has led to the almost 4 to 1 annuitants to active member ratio, which is unsustainable. Time to merge GARS with SERS.
- Thomas Paine - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 9:16 am:
In two years John Cullerton will receive a $128K Pension.
Next year Toi Hutchinson will make $220K doing a job that had to be fabricated just to skirt ethics laws and will be utterly redundant.
Her pension, assuming she serves four years making $220K, will be around $70K more than Cullerton’s.
The Cullerton story is sexier, the Hutchinson story has bigger fiscal impact.
- Lucky Pierre - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 9:18 am:
Non term limited, career legislators will never touch the golden goose of $128,000 annual pensions with 3% annual raises for their part time service.
The legacy of Mike Madigan and John Cullerton is the 85% unfunded liability for GARS while insisting the budgets they passed for the past 40 years were balanced.
Working families in future generations will be paying for this largesse for decades.
- Senator Blutarsky - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 9:21 am:
=Her pension, assuming she serves four years making $220K, will be around $70K more than Cullerton’s.=
Hutchinson’s pensionable salary as it relates to her future GARS pension is capped by the salary earned as a legislator. Said different, that higher salary as Cannabis Czar will not impact her GARS pension. Had she been a GARS member prior to 1994, her Cannabis Czar salary would increase her GARS benefit as you’ve descibred.
- Reality Check - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 9:22 am:
Another crashingly dumb “story” (actually just an attack on any and all pensions) from this IPI propaganda front.
By my count there are only 12 legislators left in office who could even be eligible for this benefit. Not all are yet qualified because it only kicks in after 20 years in office. So the pool of people affected is exceedingly small.
Then consider the perceived problem that the provision is designed to solve: For lawmakers on Tier 1 who’ve been in office more than 20 years, they’re capped on the retirement benefit they can earn—85 percent of their salary—yet they’re still paying into the pension fund. Without a provision like this, they’d be subsidizing the GARS but getting nothing for it. Why would you do that?
I would like to see an actuarial analysis of the net cost of this benefit to the state. I bet it is almost nonexistent or nil.
But it’s easier and fits the IPI political agenda to ignore facts and just attack pensions and Democratic elected officials instead.
- rollercoast - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 9:23 am:
== - Ducky LaMoore - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 9:12 am:
I wonder what Big Jim got in exchange for this…. ==
Other way around. Memory is the bill started as the 3% increase for state employees and legislators were added.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 9:31 am:
Ok, let’s unpack this a bit, shall we?
=== This little-known benefit comes from a 1989 bill sponsored by former state Sen. Emil Jones Jr., which allows lawmakers who were elected prior to 2003 to hoard pension “spikes.” Cullerton, who was House Speaker Mike Madigan’s floor leader in the House at the time, was a member of the committee that finalized the bill. It passed both chambers with bipartisan support.===
“This little-known benefit comes from a 1989 bill”
There are not a mere handful of legislators around today that coulda voted on this… in 1989. Start there. Looking forward is always been a troubling thing to pensions, thinking in its moment.
“…which allows lawmakers who were elected prior to 2003“
I’m gonna stop here for a second. Anyone with less than 16 years in, this provision won’t apply.
I know… there’s a chart out there by a very studious and meticulous person showing seniority by chamber and then by caucus. So how many we talking about with 16+ years in?
“Cullerton, who was House Speaker Mike Madigan’s floor leader in the House at the time”
I get that is the absolute truth, that’s what it is, but what makes the sizzle is Cullerton leaving now. Ties it all together.
“…(Cullerton) was a member of the committee that finalized the bill. It passed both chambers with bipartisan support.”
… and there it is.
Bipartisan support. It’s critical to this story that the partisan hand wringing should be more focused towards policy angst and moving forward in a bipartisan way to find a solution that is doing the doable, not the angry person at the end of bar yelling at the Tee-Vee.
“Discuss?”
The projections moving forward towards GARS and how the GA can look at funding and stabilizing the ramp and budgets, ok, let’s discuss, but we need to remember it ain’t about Cullerton in the overall, it is about the bipartisan before, and the bipartisan needed going forward.
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 9:33 am:
== insisting the budgets they passed for the past 40 years==
Many of those 40 years included Republican Governor’s who signed those budgets. But don’t let facts stand in the way of your tired old talking points. What was it Rich said about you the other day? He was spot on.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 9:33 am:
=== The legacy of Mike Madigan and John Cullerton===
Who was governor in 1989?
- Huh? - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 9:33 am:
“Hutchinson’s pensionable salary as it relates to her future GARS pension is capped by the salary earned as a legislator”
GARS is a reciprocal pension system. If administration officials are paying into SERS, she has to work for 1 year to be vested in SERS. Then different rules apply.
- Thoughts matter - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 9:35 am:
Reality check -
The rest of the state employees who work longer than the time required to max their pensions are also subsidizing their retirement systems. They aren’t getting this extra bump into their base pension.
Also remember the state legislators and the other long serving state employees increase their base pension when they get salary increases.
However, I get your point that the issue has been corrected going forward and that only 12 people can still benefit from it.
- A Jack - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 9:38 am:
So if I manage to live 7 years past the average life expectancy, my pension will be double….. I am surprised they didn’t publish figures on what a pension will increase to when a person reaches the age of 150.
- Senator Blutarsky - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 9:48 am:
=GARS is a reciprocal pension system. If administration officials are paying into SERS, she has to work for 1 year to be vested in SERS. Then different rules apply.=
Her SERS Pension will reflect the Cannabis Czar salary, but her GARS pension will not. 40 ILCS 5/2-108.1(b)
- Back to the Future - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 9:48 am:
Perhaps not fair, but this will show up as just one more reason to vote against the “fair tax” that would send more money to Springfield.
With all the corruption issues, Pritzker approval poll numbers and Cullerton news, it seems the whole idea of sending more money to Springfield is going to have problems.
- Chicagonk - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 9:53 am:
Instead of arguing over who should shoulder the blame for this, why don’t legislators just propose a fix going forward.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 10:02 am:
===why don’t legislators just propose a fix going forward===
They did years ago. Tier 2.
- justacitizen - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 10:09 am:
Fix going forward: Get rid of GARS completely. The general assembly gig is a part time job for most legislators anyway. Let them contribute to a 401K or similar defined contribution plan and phase out GARS defined benefit plan.
- T - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 10:09 am:
“…The same bill established a 3% automatic cost of living adjustment for all retired state workers and Chicago city workers. This benefit alone doubles a retiree’s pension in just 25 years.”
The rule of 72 states that if the interest rate is divided into 72 the result is the number of years it takes to double the principle. Thus, a 3% compound interest rate doubles the principle in 18 NOT 25 years.
So, this is even more unfair than it seems and it seems typical of the type of corruption that provides a pension for a part time job.
T/
- Back to the Future - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 10:12 am:
Yep
Tier 2 long term helped the systems, but if you look at the Pritzker consolidation bill you see an additional fix was needed.
It appears no real actuarial work was done to come up with a number in the “fix” and estimates are it will cost a nice big tidy sum.
Looking at the process the General Assembly followed you see an idea that was poorly planned followed up by a rushed process done with poor research.
- Telly - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 10:18 am:
Set the Cullerton hit and all the tired IPI pension talking points aside, a solution is needed for GARS. It has long had an imbalance of contributing members vs. retired annuitants — and as @Tony points out above, that situation has grown worse.
The fund will soon run out of money to pay retirees and the state will have to start cutting checks directly from GRF. Some sort of merger with SERS or the Judges pension fund should be explored. Or members who have service time in other pension funds could be allowed to export their GARS service time and contributions to those funds and retire from there.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 10:19 am:
=== Get rid of GARS completely===
Great. Show me your steps to get this done.
Thanks.
- City Zen - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 10:20 am:
==(F)or those members of the General Assembly right now who … have maxed out … they are still contributing to that retirement system==
Then leave. No one’s forcing you to run for public office again and again.
==I would like to see an actuarial analysis of the net cost of this benefit to the state. I bet it is almost nonexistent or nil.==
Death by a thousand cuts. If the cost is so negligible, then those beneficiaries won’t mind rejecting the money or paying it back.
- RNUG - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 10:25 am:
I was surprised by the hoarding rule when I read about it yesterday.
Wonder what other little Easter Eggs are hidden in the GARS retirement rules?
- Whatever - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 10:26 am:
==It passed both chambers with bipartisan support.==
I’m shocked — shocked — to learn this.
- RNUG - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 10:35 am:
== The rest of the state employees who work longer than the time required to max their pensions are also subsidizing their retirement systems. They aren’t getting this extra bump into their base pension. ==
I want to note that a typical coordinated Tier 1 SERS participant does not max out their pension until they have 44 years and 10 months of service; that is what it takes to reach the 75% maximum allowed under SERS. So if you started with SERS straight out of college, you Mac out under SERS at age 67.
- RNUG - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 10:40 am:
Not defending this little Easter Egg Cullerton will receive, but we should remember that GARS participants are non-coordinsted; they do not pay into Social Security. And if they did pay into SS from other jobs, it is likely one or more of the Federal offset rules will prevent them from collecting SS.
- illinifan - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 10:40 am:
knew there were differences between the pension systems but this difference is offensive.
- Sue - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 10:43 am:
Not a 100 percent certain but I believe Thompson signed this taxpayer theft along with the 3 percent annual bump for all pensions. Thompson certainly benefitted himself at the time if my recollection is correct. And folks wonder why taxpayers are leaving Illinois more then residents of any other State. Our pols only care about their own pockets
- PublicServant - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 10:49 am:
RNUG, good to see your comment. I hadn’t seen anything from you lately, and was getting worried.
- SSL - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 10:54 am:
It is what it is. A bipartisan pocket lining scam. Sure it’s distasteful, but not the biggest problem the state faces by any means due to the limited scope. It is entirely consistent with the actions of the Illinois legislature over time. The fact that Rich posts a corruption update regularly tells you everything you need to know.
- CapnCrunch - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 11:11 am:
“…I believe Thompson signed this taxpayer theft along with the 3 percent annual bump for all pensions……”
He did and years later he said “ If anybody had thought that [the cost might exceed $1 billion] back then, they wouldn’t have passed it, or I wouldn’t have signed it”
- City Zen - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 11:15 am:
==GARS participants are non-coordinsted; they do not pay into Social Security. And if they did pay into SS from other jobs, it is likely one or more of the Federal offset rules will prevent them from collecting SS.==
No one’s forcing them to run for public office, let alone stick around for decades.
==a typical coordinated Tier 1 SERS participant does not max out their pension until they have 44 years and 10 months of service==
This is typical for “covered” employees participating in state pensions across the country.
- ajjacksson - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 11:26 am:
“If the cost is so negligible, then those beneficiaires won’t mind rejecting the money or paying it back.”
This is not numerically logical. We are talking about a cost to millions of people, as opposed to paying it back by few. It’s not even apples and oranges. It’s like apples and orangutans.
- OneMan - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 11:50 am:
== they’d be subsidizing the GARS but getting nothing for it. Why would you do that? ==
I would be curious how many other pension systems have the logic of ‘well you could have retired at X so you get the COLAs retroactive from X’
- Davos - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 12:05 pm:
=I would be curious how many other pension systems have the logic of ‘well you could have retired at X so you get the COLAs retroactive from X’=
SURS has a provision that once you max out, employee contributions are placed into a interest bearing account.
- Howard - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 12:07 pm:
President Cullerton was more than a member of the committee. He was Madigan’s point person on pensions.
- RNUG - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 12:11 pm:
== … good to see your comment. I hadn’t seen anything from you lately, and was getting worried. ==
I’ve been busy, got lots of stuff going on. Been dropping in to read but not commenting much because it is usually late at night.
- don the legend - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 12:14 pm:
The rule of 72 states that if the interest rate is divided into 72 the result is the number of years it takes to double the principle. Thus, a 3% compound interest rate doubles the principle in 18 NOT 25 years.
T needs to try again. Rule of 72 says: 72 divided by 3 = 24. 24 years to double.
- OpentoDiscusssion - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 12:15 pm:
State pensions should have their inflation adjustments computed on the CPI-W as is SS.
Fair to all concerned.
Obviously for those already in the system this could not be implemented unless there was a voluntary program where each individual had the right to choose.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 12:19 pm:
=== there was a voluntary program where each individual had the right to choose.===
Who is going to voluntarily choose to waive any of the pension guarantees they may be under in Illinois?
It’s guaranteed.
- Simple Simon - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 12:30 pm:
==they didn’t publish figures on what a pension will increase to when a person reaches the age of 150.===
When I retired, I projected my payout to age 110. It was eye popping, but I won’t hold my breath. Also a little underwhelming if you also calculate future prices based on inflation.
City Zen, my spouse and I both paid into SS for years and will receive none or nearly none. Please keep that gift in mind when you protest my state pension.
- City Zen - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 12:56 pm:
==my spouse and I both paid into SS for years and will receive none or nearly none==
Just curious, how much were your lifetime SS wages compared to your pensionable wages?
- JS Mill - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 1:05 pm:
=Just curious, how much were your lifetime SS wages compared to your pensionable wages?=
Not sure how that matters, but your could just say thank you to those of us who paid in to SSI and will get nothing back. Our federal taxes will continue to bailout that failed bankrupt system.
You are welcome.
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 1:07 pm:
==Just curious, how much were your lifetime SS wages compared to your pensionable wages?==
And that matters why?
- OpentoDiscusssion - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 1:28 pm:
Seems like everybody resents everybody.
I have a very good pension from SURS. Paid into for 31 years and .5% was taken out for AI. (inflation adjustment). No early retirement, no last years big increases- just the steady amount of a regular faculty member.
However, I also paid into SS for 7 years and will get nothing as it takes 10 years to qualify.
And that’s the way it goes.
- Illinifan - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 1:55 pm:
City Zen take a look at Social Security website and look at WEP and GPO rules. You will then know how much a person who receives a pension from a government system that does not pay into SS has to earn to qualify for full Social Security benefits. The time frame is longer (29 plus years) and the wages are higher. If you pay in for fewer years or earn a lower wage the SS benefit is reduced. It is best to be informed on this topic if you or a family member are subject to this. Congress has a bill pending to address this unfairness, but I doubt it will move on this issue.
- City Zen - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 2:47 pm:
==Not sure how that matters==
It matters because the benefit is weighted toward lower-paid workers, which is how most pensioners would look to the social security system. That pesky 90/32/15 rule.
Should WEP be less severe? I think so. Should it be outright eliminated? No.
==You are welcome.==
My thank you letter sits in an envelope, ready to be mailed in a couple decades. That is, assuming I have something to thank you for by then.
Would you like to sign my Tier 2 thank you? Or should I sign yours?
- And another thing - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 3:48 pm:
And for those who DO qualify for both SS and a state pension, there is a formula to reduce the SS benefit and avoid so much ‘double dipping.’
- justacitizen - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 5:18 pm:
===Great. Show me your steps to get this done.
Thanks.===
Prospectively. Any new legislators would not be enrolled in GARS. It won’t get done for the same reason Emil padded his retirement. It may be difficult to accomplish, but since legislators are unlike SERS, TRS and even JRS, it seems like a good long term solution to eliminate GARS.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 5:22 pm:
=== Any new legislators would not be enrolled in GARS.===
Really? How do you suppose you can do that?
=== seems===
Seems is going a lot of work there, lol
- Tim - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 6:12 pm:
Cant’t wait until this fund runs out of money.
- justacitizen - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 6:40 pm:
===Seems is going a lot of work there, lol===
Someone brilliant like you OW should be able to find a way.
- Simple SImon - Tuesday, Dec 3, 19 @ 7:25 pm:
==Cant’t wait until this fund runs out of money.===
And then what? Think they won’t be paid? You’ll be paying for it either way.