Another know-it-all
Thursday, Aug 28, 2025 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Sun-Times…
Sounding like he’s testing the waters for a 2027 mayoral campaign, U.S. Rep. Mike Quigley said Wednesday it’s time for Chicago to make the “drastic changes” needed to solve its myriad financial crises without “socking it” to taxpayers. […]
Quigley said the next mayor of Chicago will have no choice but to try again to reason with organized labor because the “talk of a constitutional convention is still a couple years off.”
“You’ve got to take another swing at it one way, legally or not,” Quigley said. “The most effective approach is to show the public the reality of the situation and, hopefully, they can help convince our labor partners that, ‘We’re behind you, but this can’t work the way it is. What’s Plan B for them?’” […]
Quigley said he’ll decide whether to enter the mayor’s race after he sees how the public responds to his tough-love message about what’s needed to solve the intransigent problems of a city that he views as “12 years past” the crossroads. He compared the city’s government to an antique car that can no longer be rebuilt and needs to be replaced.
“Legally or not”? That ain’t gonna work.
* Rahm Emanuel cut a deal with organized labor on pensions, but the Illinois Supreme Court completely knocked it down. Analysis from the Civic Federation…
The high court rejected the City’s first argument that the reforms are a net benefit, citing its previous rulings in the Kanerva case dealing with retired state employee healthcare benefits as well as other court rulings. Because members of the funds are already guaranteed their full benefits under the pension protection clause and because legislative pension funding choices are outside the protections of the constitutional pension guarantee, the court rejected the “notion that the promise of solvency can be ‘netted’ against the unconstitutional diminishment of benefits.” The court went on to say that the “fundamental principle here is that determination must be made, if at all, according to contract principles by mutual assent of the members, and not by legislative dictates.”
On the City’s second argument that the reforms were the result of negotiations agreed to between representatives of the City and its labor partners, the high court also rejected that argument and agreed with the circuit court’s ruling, stating in its opinion that “the members of the Funds did not bargain away their constitutional rights in the process.” This is because “the unions were not acting as authorized agents within a collective bargaining process.”
Finally, the City has also argued that it is not legally required to fund the benefits of retirees if the funds become insolvent and thus the funding provisions of the pension reform laws are another benefit conveyed to members. However, the high court provided clarity on that matter by stating that members of the Funds are entitled to receive the benefits they were promised and “not merely to receive whatever happens to remain in the Funds.” How the courts could enforce funding if any of the pension funds were to go insolvent is unclear.
Pension benefits are constitutionally protected individual rights. They can’t be collectively negotiated away. Also, the city had to cough up refunds after that “not legal” ruling came down.
* However, the Supremes also said this…
As we explained in Heaton, the pension protection clause was not intended to prohibit the legislature from providing “additional benefits” and requiring additional employee contributions or other consideration in exchange.
Likewise, nothing prohibits an employee from knowingly and voluntarily agreeing to modify pension benefits from an employer in exchange for valid consideration from the employer.
In other words, if the city and the unions can come up with a scheme which allows workers to agree to individually opt-in to some sort of plan to reduce the pension debt, then that’s allowed.
This will only net you incremental change, however.
* The state has a pension buy-out program (click here for more) that has knocked a small chunk off its unfunded liability and reduced annual costs since it was approved by the legislature in 2018. From GOMB earlier this year…
Illinois is benefiting from reductions in its pension liabilities from the pension buyout program – so far reducing liability by an estimated $2.5 billion.
• FY25 contribution to SERS is estimated to be $41 million lower and to TRS $130 million lower than it would have been without the program.
OK, what about the borrowing to pay for it? Well, there is a cost, for sure. But the borrowing costs are lower than the 7 percent it costs the state every year for the unrealized gains due to the unfunded liability.
Again, this is a small win, but it’s still a win. Maybe some Chicago geniuses can come up with an even better idea.
* Also, the last time Illinoisans voted on a constitutional convention (which I supported), it lost 67-32. If you’re pushing a convention to cut pension benefits, I’m guessing you ain’t gonna win.
- Dan Johnson - Thursday, Aug 28, 25 @ 9:14 am:
We should probably put all pension funds in passive index funds to save on costs. And we should probably tax pension income and distribute those resources back to state and local pension funds. I think it’s $2B or so in annual revenue lost from not taxing pension income. Just takes a statutory change and if all the money went back to pension funds to help with solvency, maybe some of organized labor would support it.
- Steve - Thursday, Aug 28, 25 @ 9:23 am:
Mike Quigley wants financial changes.That’s fine but the votes aren’t there for changes. If pension funds can’t pay benefits promised then the options are:
1)Higher taxes
2)Bailout from the state
3)Bailout from the federal government
4)Cuts in other programs to pay for promised benefits
5)Check is in the mail: like when Walgreens didn’t get paid on time a few years back on Medicaid.
- Steve - Thursday, Aug 28, 25 @ 9:26 am:
-And we should probably tax pension income-
This would pass constitutional muster. Nothing in the Illinois state constitution prevents it. Many other states do tax pension income.
- SWSider - Thursday, Aug 28, 25 @ 9:30 am:
==“The most effective approach is to show the public the reality of the situation and, hopefully, they can help convince our labor partners that, ‘We’re behind you, but this can’t work the way it is.==
There are BVRs everywhere for those with eyes to see.
- Chicagonk - Thursday, Aug 28, 25 @ 9:34 am:
The way out of the pension crisis is to either cut services or raise taxes. Illinois and Chicago have the ability to do either.
- Three Dimensional Checkers - Thursday, Aug 28, 25 @ 9:34 am:
I’d suggest a “hold it in” strategy for Congressman Quigley. Even a con-con is going to get what he wants because of the U.S. constitution’s contracts clause.
- JS Mill - Thursday, Aug 28, 25 @ 9:36 am:
=We should probably put all pension funds in passive index funds to save on costs.=
Are you in the state pension system?
=we should probably tax pension income=
I used to agree with that, but I am only a few years from my pension so now I disagree. Kidding. I am only a few years away, but we should tax pension income like regular income. Same with Social Security.
But Quigley isn’t going to get much response except for the “reform ” the pension crowd who really just want to eliminate pensions.
This is another recycled issue that has actually been resolved except bringing Tier 2 into compliance with safe harbor (which is really a fairly easy fix). Every year Tier 2 save more and more money for the state. The legacy debt is the real cost and that one isn’t going anywhere.
- Homebody - Thursday, Aug 28, 25 @ 9:37 am:
Even if you make a deal with specific unions, all it takes is one employee to sue.
- RNUG - Thursday, Aug 28, 25 @ 9:40 am:
== probably tax pension income … ==
One of the few benefits for retirees living in Illinois is that retirement income is not taxed. The other benefit, for most of the state, is relatively low housing costs … although property taxes are relatively high.
Retirees already moved out of state for better climate. Start taxing it and watch the retirees move out, taking that potential revenue (and their other spending) with them.
While you can never know for sure, I seriously doubt taxing some or all retirement income will be a big revenue generator.
- RNUG - Thursday, Aug 28, 25 @ 9:42 am:
== Many other states do tax pension income. ==
Yes, and those states have better climates and social / cultural attractions.
- Been There - Thursday, Aug 28, 25 @ 9:51 am:
Bill Daley would have probably become mayor instead of Lori if he would have kept his mouth shut about pensions before the election. As soon as he started talking like Quigley is now he was doomed. A lot of those voters ended up with Jerry Joyce because of his stance.
- TheInvisibleMan - Thursday, Aug 28, 25 @ 9:55 am:
“Start taxing it and watch the retirees move out”
I always hear this retort, but have never seen any data that supports it would actually happen.
Lets say you are retired and getting a pension. Lets be generous and assume that you are getting a 100k/yr pension.
Taxing that at the current flat rate, would be $4950 in taxes paid per year.
I certainly wouldn’t uproot myself and move to another state for less than 5k supposed benefit per year.
Moving isn’t a fun process. Moving when you are elderly is even less fun.
I’m sure some people would move, but I have yet to see any data that shows it would be a statistically significant amount which would impact state revenue negatively. I wouldn’t be surprised if the data shows a far more significant factor in where people move in retirement is the availability of health care. Nobody in retirement making rational decisions is going to move from DuPage county to rural Tennessee to save on state taxes while leaving behind the access to medical facilities in DuPage.
- jimbo - Thursday, Aug 28, 25 @ 10:01 am:
==Start taxing it and watch the retirees move out, taking that potential revenue (and their other spending) with them==
I think I’d be willing to make that trade. I don’t have the data, but at least around me it’s all snowbirds. I’d be fine with them moving to FL and opening up the housing stock to a family that is here and spending year round.
- Huh? - Thursday, Aug 28, 25 @ 10:01 am:
-And we should probably tax pension income-
So you are in favor of reducing the fixed income of senior citizens who are already having a difficult time with the economy.
Got it.
No.
- City Zen - Thursday, Aug 28, 25 @ 10:02 am:
According to the latest TRS CAFR, the normal cost (which doesn’t include debt) of a Tier 1 TRS pension is 15.5% of payroll. That’s nearly double what it was right before Tier 2 was implemented.
We have a system where the the actual cost of retirement benefits keeps increasing but remains totally dtached from the compensation of today, the only place it’s legal to do anything about it. This won’t change until the local districts have more pension skin in the game.
- Leatherneck - Thursday, Aug 28, 25 @ 10:14 am:
=Sounding like he’s testing the waters for a 2027 mayoral campaign, U.S. Rep. Mike Quigley=
If he’s “testing the waters” for Mayor, maybe Rep. Quigley should decide soon whether or not to run for another congressional term.
- May soon be required - Thursday, Aug 28, 25 @ 10:21 am:
==the normal cost of a Tier 1 TRS pension is 15.5% of payroll==
I think this is a Tier 1 population issue. The remaining Tier 1 employees have more service and are older and closer to retirement, therefore the normal cost of their year of service is a lot higher.
- City Zen - Thursday, Aug 28, 25 @ 10:36 am:
==we should tax pension income like regular income. Same with Social Security.==
Unlike my 401k (and your pension), I already paid taxes on my social security wages. Why should I pay twice?
I find it comical that the pension crowd gets upset with the thought of social security being tax exempt. You already won by not having to participate.
- JS Mill - Thursday, Aug 28, 25 @ 10:45 am:
=I think this is a Tier 1 population issue.=
Precisely.
= This won’t change until the local districts have more pension skin in the game.=
The “local districts” you so blithely refer to are not just superintendents, they are all kinds of people working very hard with an enormous amou nt of skin in the game. All kinds of skin, more than just financial. The state has almost no skin in Tier 2. Most districts pay the full pension payment for the teacher (on behalf) and the district portion. Lots of skin.
All of these decisions are made for us, in terms of what we must pay and minimum salaries. Teacher and admin salaries still lag behind industries that require similar education, training, and responsibility.
The benefits were what made the jobs attractive. And, for Tier 1 they are great.
And, as I have stated many many times, you could eliminate the annual pension payment costs and you would still have a massive debt payment to deal with. That cost over shadows the annual cost and it has to be paid. “Local Districts” were making their required payment for the 100 years or so that the legislatures and governors was not making their payments.
Plenty of skin in the game.
- Shytown - Thursday, Aug 28, 25 @ 10:57 am:
Can he go away please?
- Steve - Thursday, Aug 28, 25 @ 10:59 am:
-Taxing that at the current flat rate, would be $4950 in taxes paid per year.-
That’s a lot of money. That’s over $400 a month. That’s a lot for retired folks.
- Amalia - Thursday, Aug 28, 25 @ 11:00 am:
blabbing comments can come back to haunt, but he’s exploring now. Quigley is in the cut spending, raise fees lane and I like that.
- City Zen - Thursday, Aug 28, 25 @ 11:08 am:
==Moving isn’t a fun process. Moving when you are elderly is even less fun.==
You’re old and trapped isn’t exactly a winning message.
This always seems to be the argument in any tax discussion. The “I’m gonna keep raising your taxes” because you’re locked into a low rate, kids in school, family nearby, tied to job, physically unable, etc. Just a sinister vibe.
“Where else you gonna go?” is a morally vacant argument. And I say this as someone who thinks we should tax retirement income. Maybe we can think of a better framing.
- TheInvisibleMan - Thursday, Aug 28, 25 @ 11:10 am:
“That’s a lot of money. That’s over $400 a month. That’s a lot for retired folks.”
How much does it cost to not have accessible health care nearby? I don’t know if you’ve noticed the ambulance fees lately, even for non-emergency transport. But $400 wouldn’t cover a single trip. Adding a larger distance to access good healthcare could easily erase any supposed tax savings with just a single trip per year. Because that’s what happens when you get older, no matter where you live.
Not everyone is laser focused on dollars above all else. Some people are certainly stuck in that mindset, and that’s fine for them.
But not a single retiree I know would move *farther* away from the easy health care access they have now to ’save’ $400/mo. That $400 isn’t just money - it’s used to buy things. Like convenience and piece of mind when the inevitable realities of aging arrive.
- Give us Barabbas - Thursday, Aug 28, 25 @ 11:15 am:
I’m deeply concerned about the recent fifth circuit attack on an already crippled national labor relations board. I think Illinois has to sprint to duplicating NLRB protections at the state level to ensure unionization votes can’t be suppressed.
- Blazzzer - Thursday, Aug 28, 25 @ 11:19 am:
I thought Rich’s recent article about the City of Chicago’s historical strategy of getting “someone else to pay for it” applies at the state level too, especially when it comes to pensions. Tier 2 costs are very manageable. It’s the legacy Tier 1 debt from kicking the can for so long that is the issue. So, really, pensions are a debt repayment problem requiring cuts, revenues, or a combination of the two. Finding a way to pay the bill. That’s the hard part. There are no magic beans.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Aug 28, 25 @ 11:27 am:
===Finding a way to pay the bill. That’s the hard part. There are no magic beans. ===
Yep. And the payments into the system have been made for quite a while.
- Pumpsss - Thursday, Aug 28, 25 @ 11:29 am:
@JS Mill
The school districts pay the employee’s contributions, which is what? 9%? That’s not much. The state pays the employer contribution which, combined for TRS Tier 1 and 2 is 10.34%. But, unlike the employers, the state is also on the hook for the $84 billion in unfunded liability plus any future unfunded liability. The state’s got a heck of a lot more skin in the game than the employers, IMHO.
- TheInvisibleMan - Thursday, Aug 28, 25 @ 11:40 am:
“You’re old and trapped isn’t exactly a winning message.”
If you want to put words in peoples mouth, there are plenty of low quality message boards on the internet where you can do that.
I said moving is not a fun process, and that it would likely also come with a decrease in quality of life. Not that people are trapped and it’s somehow being used against them to raise taxes. Moving isn’t free either.
If you bothered to read the rest of my comment, which you either didn’t do or just ignored to be able to put words in my mouth without it looking obvious you cherry-picked what you are responding to with words or concepts I never used, it was clear that I did not say it is a matter of being a captive audience. It is a matter of getting tangible benefits for that cost, that would likely go away if one decided to move on the short-sighted belief that saving money on taxes alone doesn’t also come with consequences that are often far more costly than the supposed savings.
Being trapped, is not being able to afford the now 1-hr medical transport or ambulance ride to the specialist you need to see for your healthcare, because you think avoiding paying taxes on your retirement income was worth the move to another state without the same availability of medical care you now require.
I’ve lived in many different states. Without fail people who make boisterous threats about moving based on some change in tax code have never lived in another state. It seems they always believe they are moving to the exact same infrastructure and quality of life as Illinois, but without paying Illinois taxes. I had friends like this who moved to Texas 15 years ago because of their gripes over property taxes in Illinois - now their property taxes in their specific part of Texas are higher than the current taxes on their old house in Illinois.
If people want to pay fewer taxes and have a lower quality of life, they are certainly not trapped here. But very rarely if ever is the second part of that entering into their thought making process.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Aug 28, 25 @ 11:48 am:
===If you want to put words in peoples mouth, there are plenty of low quality message boards===
While you’re right about that, you also have to remember that this is considered a third rail issue. Step on that and all heck breaks loose, whether it’s in comments here or in a political campaign or in a legislative forum.
And that’s why it’s a third rail topic. Maybe move along.
- BigLou - Thursday, Aug 28, 25 @ 11:50 am:
Is Quigley running for congress again? Is anyone passing petitions to run against him?
- Big Dipper - Thursday, Aug 28, 25 @ 11:56 am:
==I already paid taxes on my social security wages. Why should I pay twice?==
The feds have taxed SS income for a long time. There is that exemption now, but it’s only temporary and is not available to everyone who gets SS.
- Grandson of Man - Thursday, Aug 28, 25 @ 12:34 pm:
The only thing “12 years past” is Quigley’s view on pensions. That ship has sailed a long time ago, in the courts and in governance. The DPI is righting the state’s finances and pension situation.
Federal government workers are being whacked wholesale while billionaires are lavished even more, and this is what a Democrat comes up with? Who’s advising him, Pat Quinn?
- JS Mill - Thursday, Aug 28, 25 @ 12:47 pm:
=The school districts pay the employee’s contributions, which is what? 9%?=
Your number is not correct. Schools pay 11.3901% in total. If the employee is paid using any federal money add another 10% on top of that (why? another way to make up the unfunded amount).
=The state pays the employer contribution which, combined for TRS Tier 1 and 2 is 10.34%=
Mostly for Tier 1
=But, unlike the employers, the state is also on the hook for the $84 billion in unfunded liability plus any future unfunded liability.=
This is not on schools. Not sure if you understand that we always paid our full amount while the legislatures and governors failed to do the same. This unfunded liability is an unforced error that numerous legislatures, that is not “skin in the game” for them, it is the result of their collective failures.
=The state’s got a heck of a lot more skin in the game than the employers, IMHO.=
Disagree completely. My future retirement and that of all of the educators that came before and will come after, the ability to live and eat, is far more than the skin the “state” has in the game. For uys, it can literally be life or death.
- Duck Duck Goose - Thursday, Aug 28, 25 @ 12:56 pm:
==“That’s a lot of money. That’s over $400 a month. That’s a lot for retired folks.”==
That’s based on a six-figure pension, which exceeds the state median household income of $81,702. Why is that tax a lot for a retired person making six figures per year as opposed to anybody else making six figures per year?
- Candy Dogood - Thursday, Aug 28, 25 @ 12:56 pm:
===And that’s why it’s a third rail topic===
There’s a couple of generations of voters in the State of Illinois that fully incorporated the someone else will pay mentality you recently wrote about. There’s also a couple of other generations of Illinois voters that are currently the folks being forced to pay for the services currently used and previously used by those other two generations.
At some point there will be a bit of a shift on this issue where it will stop being as much of a “third rail” issue, but in the meantime we need to keep pushing on the overtone window.
The federally taxed retirement income subtraction is a tax expenditure that costs us billions of dollars a year and it disproportionately benefits wealthy Illinoisans at the literal expense of everyone else.
A lot of folks don’t like the idea of people are rich being able to pay zero state income taxes. I get it, though, a lot of our legislators only hear from people about this who are in the upper middle class and higher or folks that don’t understand their own tax situation well enough to understand that there would be — zero — impact on them because their AGI is already zero.
- City Zen - Thursday, Aug 28, 25 @ 1:35 pm:
==Why is that tax a lot for a retired person making six figures per year as opposed to anybody else making six figures per year?==
It’s worse than that. That same working person is paying into social security and/or their own pension/401k. His “spending money” is thousands less than the retiree. And he’s the one who has to go to work every morning.
A person living off an $80,000 pension vs. an $80,000 salary are two very different tax animals. The pensioner technically has more financial capacity to absorb a state income tax than the working man. We just assume the working man has his whole life to make bank (doesn’t always happen) and save (doesn’t always happen either). And that segment of the population is getting smaller every year.
Illinois will eventually get around to taxing retirement income. I just assume it’ll be the year I retire, because it’s Illinois.
- Pumpsss - Thursday, Aug 28, 25 @ 1:38 pm:
@JS mill…
Please show your work on the on the 11.3901%. Per TRS financials, employers pay employer contributions from federal funds, for the 2.2 formula increase, for salary increases in excess of 6%, excess sick leave, and salary greater than the governors salary. TRS financials say that amount was $132.3 mill out of $13.2 billion last year. That’s less than 1% of what TRS received.
Agree most of the employer normal cost goes to Tier 1.
Schools don’t pay for unfunded liability which is why laws were enacted to prevent pension spiking where the state has to pick up the tab. The state pays the cost of teacher pensions. Not sure where the confusion is here.
Agreed your retirement benefits cause you to have skin in the game. But if the state is constitutionally required to pay them whether the money is there or not, please explain how you have more skin in the game than the state. Where are the retirees demanding pensions be funded? I’ll wait…
- thisjustinagain - Thursday, Aug 28, 25 @ 1:40 pm:
Chicago is going to reason with organized labor?? That’s hysterical, considering the cops and firefighters were left hanging for years, and the cops still are. But CPS?? Oh boy, here we go…
- City Zen - Thursday, Aug 28, 25 @ 2:43 pm:
==Please show your work on the on the 11.3901%.==
I don’t think you guys are speaking the same pension language.
It looks like JSMill’s school district picks up the entire 9% employee contribution. When a school district does this, they’re required to remit 9.8901% because of how the pension system calculates creditable earnings in such scenarios.
On top of that, every school district pays 0.58% of payroll to TRS as a byproduct of the 2.2 pension enhancement. They also pay 0.67% towards THIS (retiree health). Add them all up and you get very close to his 11.39%.
But neither you nor I were referencing a school district that picks up the employee portion when we were talking about skin in the game.
- Adroit Opiner - Thursday, Aug 28, 25 @ 3:12 pm:
==According to the latest TRS CAFR==
FYI, GASB changed the acronym to “ACFR” in 2021. After talking to a couple South African friends, I became mortified that we were using the previous acronym for over 40 years. Plenty of the public finance world still uses it, but I try to proselytize the new acronym wherever possible.
- Davos - Thursday, Aug 28, 25 @ 3:28 pm:
=On top of that, every school district pays 0.58% of payroll to TRS as a byproduct of the 2.2 pension enhancement. They also pay 0.67% towards THIS (retiree health). Add them all up and you get very close to his 11.39%.=
Even when adding the amount of revenue related to the “employee contributions” that School districts voluntarily pay on behalf of their employees as a result of collective bargaining agreements to the limited situations in which they pay “TRS-employer-related” costs, such amount pales in comparison to the State’s TRS-related financial liabilities.
- Stanley Livingston - Thursday, Aug 28, 25 @ 4:08 pm:
Can we pause the Constitutional arguments to ask:
“Who on Team Quigley thought it was a great idea to roll this message out right before Labor Day weekend?”
Okay.
Look, We already have Paul Vallas in this race, and even he is not calling for a rollback of pension benefits.
You know why?
Most city pension beneficiaries are cops and firefighters.
Cutting pension benefits for cops is, arguably, “Defunding the Police.”
You cannot force the cuts on current police officers legally, not even if you amend the Constitution. Contracts Clause.
You could threaten to screw over future officers by reducing benefits for new hires, but that’s not the leverage you might think it is. Current members trump future members.
In short, Quigley can do whatever he wants, but an anti-union environmentalist is not going to make the run-off. Being anti-union will probably draw him a primary for Congress in 2028, and he will probably retire rather than lose.
- JS Mill - Thursday, Aug 28, 25 @ 4:40 pm:
=Please show your work on the on the 11.3901%.
Agree most of the employer normal cost goes to Tier 1.=
See @CityZen for the explanation. A majority of districts do it this way.
If we use federal grant money like Title 1 then we pay an extra 10% to TRS
=But neither you nor I were referencing a school district that picks up the employee portion when we were talking about skin in the game.=
So? I am. And it is skin in the game no matter how much you wantto parse the conversation.
=Schools don’t pay for unfunded liability which is why laws were enacted to prevent pension spiking where the state has to pick up the tab.=
Pension spiking happened because there was no retirement health benefit and retirees were not eligible for medicare. So money was added to help them pay or they stayed in the schools and became very expensive. It was a way to get less expensive teachers when there was a glut. I was a teacher then so don’t blame me, but that is the “why”.
And EVERYONE pays the unfunded liability. You sound like you think none of us live in Illinois. This issue was not created by educators. It was our state leadership for generations. “Schools” paid their required share every year.
=The state pays the cost of teacher pensions. Not sure where the confusion is here.=
Who do you think the state is? That might be your confusion. Also, TRS has generally paid the annual cost of the pension from investment revenue. Not every year, but most. The Legacy debt (your unfunded liability) is the debt the state has to pay and it is huge because of irresponsible leadership.
=such amount pales in comparison to the State’s TRS-related financial liabilities.=
See above. The legacy debt has to be paid even if pensions are eliminated.