Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: This just in… Jackson ethics investigation resumes after feds lift hold
Next Post: Are there enough votes to override?
Posted in:
*** UPDATE *** From a Teachers Retirement System press release…
The video’s script does not accurately describe the finances of Teachers’ Retirement System. TRS is not going broke and will have enough money to pay pensions for decades.
· The video’s script says: “This is how much money we have in the fund,” and a graphic showing “$31 billion” pops up.
o That number reflects the assets held by TRS last year. The current assets, thanks to a 24 percent return on investment for fiscal year 2011, total $37.5 billion.
· The script says: “This is how much we need to pay our current retirees.” A graphic of “$49 billion” pops up.
o This is an incomplete statement. What’s not said is that the $49 billion is the estimate of what’s needed to pay “current retirees” every year for the next 30 years. The actual cost of teacher pensions this year is $4.5 billion.
· The script then says: “This is how much we need to pay people like you.” A graphic of “$27 billion” pops up.
o Again, what’s not said is that this number reflects a 30-year estimate for teachers who are not even eligible for a benefit.
· The script barely mentions current revenues collected by TRS. Over the last two years, TRS revenue totaled $17.3 billion, from teachers, school districts, state government and investments. TRS benefit checks in the last two years totaled $8 billion.
· TRS currently carries an unfunded liability of $44 billion, but this is a number that never comes due at one point in time because only current retirees are eligible to be paid. TRS has carried an unfunded liability since at least 1953 and has never missed a pension check.
* IllinoisIsBroke.com has a new TV ad. It started last night on Chicago network and is also running on cable. It’ll play through the start of veto session. Rate it…
* The Tribune editorial board is all in with this theme, of course.
* By the way, the FiveThirtyEight blog had a pretty good two-part series on understanding how campaign ads work. The above spot is not a campaign ad, but let’s have a look at the piece anyway. This is from Part 1…
2. Campaign ads matter more when a candidate can outspend the opponent.
This simple fact sometimes gets lost because people fixate on the content of ads. But the volume of ads may matter more. Consider the 2000 presidential election. In the final two weeks of the campaign, residents in battleground state were twice as likely to see a Bush ad as a Gore ad. This cost Gore 4 points among uncommitted voters.
The same thing happened in 2008, when Mr. Obama vastly outspent his Republican opponent, Senator John McCain. According to some research, in counties where Mr. Obama broadcast 2,000 more ads than Mr. McCain, he received about 1 percentage point more of the vote than John Kerry did in those same counties in 2004. (That a difference of 2,000 ads only appeared to earn Mr. Obama a single point is a testament to the limits of campaign advertising when most voters already have opinions about the candidates.)
Of course, disparities like those between Mr. Gore and Mr. Bush, or Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain, do not come along in every presidential race. If Mr. Obama and the Republican nominee decline public financing in 2012, expect fewer disparities. But the ultimate point is this: if the 2012 race is close, do not pay attention to every subtle or even subliminal message in the ads. Just look to see who is spending more. Spending more does not guarantee a victory, but it is more revealing than endless speculation about whose message is more effective.
Part 2 is here. Highly recommended.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 5:28 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: This just in… Jackson ethics investigation resumes after feds lift hold
Next Post: Are there enough votes to override?
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Total flop.
A key is how effective your ad is with the sound off. This one registers zero on the visual message it puts across.
Worse, even if viewers manage to figure out what in the world the ad is talking about–and for those who care; this side of this issue does not poll well–there is no call to action.
Plus the hidden person around the corner and the slo-mo closeup on the baby are just a little creepy and weird.
Over all, it’s shocking how an interest with such deep pockets can be so dumb. As an unwise man once said, What are they thinking?
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 7:06 am
Leave my pension alone. I can’t believe the millionaires who aired this commercial have the right to criticize my public pension that I HAVE FAITHFULLY PAID into every pay check now for 20 years. This commercial is paid for by GREEDY BUSINESS PEOPLE that are threatened by the fact they someday might have to give up their luxury homes and vehicles.
Comment by Zal Curbelo Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 7:10 am
Seeing as how the rich, corporate guy paid for this the commercial it makes sense that the hand puppet at the door sounds like someone from the Tribune speaking. Ask who shorted the funds for 40 years, elect them out and punish them for the crime they committed. It wasn’t the public employee. When your done boycott the companies that want the middle class to fail.
Comment by Eric Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 7:32 am
Well-written, though the acting isn’t working well, particularly the voice actor. Should have sounded more like a south-west side collection agency enforcer.
Comment by Newsclown Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 7:32 am
That ending is powerful and I feel voters will be motivated and have an appetite for reform if this ad has enough exposure.
Comment by Allen Skillicorn Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 7:33 am
Abbott Labs CEO made around $26 million last year but he wants your $32k a year state average pension to go away. WHY?
Comment by Eric Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 7:35 am
Wow, and the Tea Party always screams about Obama promoting class warfare, and then they attempt to promote generational warfare here. Their figures are bogus and with the markets making big strides upward from the market lows, the pension investments are making big gains too.
Can’t wait for the next ad “Grandma, some man told me you were trying to steal from me. (laughter from the older woman as she takes the little girl’s piggy bank, and pushes her off the front porch).
Comment by PublicServant Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 7:52 am
The unions better shift into high gear and start running ads of their own to counter the crap from the plutocrats on the Civic Committee.
Comment by PublicServant Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 7:54 am
PublicServant,
I agree. They are losing the PR battle. Facts don’t matter; only whatever spin can be put in front of the public.
Last night there was a “news” story on the 10 PM news about teachers not paying for their pensions and saying they should pay. The commentator didn’t have a clue about the fact it was negotiated in place of a raise. Nor did they understand that if the teachers did get a raise instead and then paid into the pension with “their” money, that it would actually cost more in the long run because of a higher salary base.
I’ve been saying here for over a year the unions need to go on the offensive and stay there …
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 8:14 am
Well now’s the time, because the more I don’t hear about the civic committee pension killer bill making another run at it during the upcoming veto session, the more I think it’ll be a Madigan quickie. Out of committee at 9, out of the house and senate by 11, and on the way to the governor’s desk by noon.
Comment by PublicServant Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 8:19 am
…and then out of office for a whole lot of incumbents in November.
Comment by Bill Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 8:40 am
So is their an e-mail that goes out every time one of these appears telling state workers.
“You worked hard for your pension, remind people of that, also be sure to point out how much CEOs make”
Dude, I don’t have a problem with what is very likely your completely rational pension… Seriously.
What I have a problem with is these dudes who get absolutely huge pensions because of how they game the system.
What I have a problem with is how we have skipped payments to the funds and allowed them to become woefully underfunded.
What I have problem with is how it seems the program has expanded and been modified with and eye 20 minutes into the future, or an eye to the next election, not with an eye to 20 years in the future.
What I don’t get for the life of me how it seems the public employee unions have not been screaming bloody murder about this for the past 10 years. Yes I know that these benefits are protected by the state constitution so why should they worry. Because it is their future members who are going to take it in the shorts (or not even exist) because it is going to be the easiest place to cut in the future.
If the unions go on the offensive (which I would suggest they do) might I suggest instead of whining about the CEOs why don’t they target the people who really created this mess, it wasn’t the CEO of Big Evil Inc. it was those folks down in Springfield. The same ones AFSCME and the rest give huge money to.
You want a rational solution to the issue to at least start. Tell EVERY incumbent, they will not see a dime of money or a minute of help unless they do something serious to start fixing this and any fix includes putting more money into the funds.
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 8:43 am
As for the ad it’s self, the voice of the man at the door was a bad choice.
Good message, terrible delivery.
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 8:44 am
I give it an F. Not only are all the numbers lies, it is poorly produced and acted. Cute little kid, though. Did she get scale?
Comment by Bill Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 8:53 am
Pure manipulation. The close up of the baby at the end? It’s almost comical.
It shows how far these millionaires will go toward attacking public sector employees.
Comment by Groundhog Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 8:53 am
Maybe they should have had a nuclear bomb go off at the end.
Comment by Bill Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 8:55 am
This ad is total copy of an ad done in August 2011. The original is here:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/08/peoples-choice-7-doorbell.php
The Il ad has a slightly better ‘actress’ but it’s delivery is totally lacking, and the punch at the end is weak.
I rate it a 3/10, and considering it’s essentially a blatent copy it should probably be a 2/10.
Comment by How Ironic Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 8:58 am
I’ve had it with these guys. They were all born on third base and think they hit a triple — and they’re unhappy!
In the past, in this great, brawling, wild west of a state, the big money guys, the robber barons even, did things like create the Art Institute, Museum of Science and Industry, and preserve the lakefront.
Today, we have mediocrities like Ty Fahner and the Tribbies who honor their good fortune by dedicating themselves to stealing the pensions of janitors and lunch room ladies.
Hey Ty, why don’t you go back to chasing down the Tylenol Killer? Maybe you can explain to the people of Illinois and the country how your arrogance, ignorance and incompetence booted a slam-dunk case against a maniac who practically confessed on “60 Minutes.”
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 9:01 am
Actually, thought the commercial was pretty effective-certainly brought the state’s $$$ problems up close and personal. Very effective.
THEN, I read the comments from more observant readers and realized that I had missed the header “Reform Pensions Now!” And that changes the whole commercial.
I believe that the advertisers are counting on people missing what the ad is actually about; the public response is going to be “Do something about this debt!”, NOT “reform pensions!”
But the legislators (and staffers) will understand the message (from the public) to be “reform pensions!”
If I’m right, then this is a VERY effective ad.
Comment by Downstate Commissioner Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 9:06 am
So in some seriousness, for all of you invoking the ‘rich guy’ argument.
Do you think there isn’t a problem? If so why?
If there is a problem, who is to blame and how do we fix it?
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 9:19 am
Finally - someone with an unbiased comment, OneMan. I dont think this is an attack on the unions or public employees. the fact of the matter is we are in debt and if there is no money in these funds then there is no money to give employees the benefits they earned. I think that is the bottom line.
Comment by Sunny Day Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 9:33 am
Regardless of opinion on the topic, the ad itself is a good ad. Creative with some good impact lines and a great close. Well done.
Comment by Amuzing Myself Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 9:53 am
Anon 9:01 is me. Get it on, bang a drum down on LaSalle Street.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 9:53 am
OK, one last time. Yes, there is money in the funds, about $57 billion and counting. The unfunded liability is about $85 billion. That is, if all pensioners and their survivors had to be paid the value their entire annuity today the funds would be short. The 140 billion in the ad is just some number they made up.
The fault lies with governors and legislators over 3 decades who used pension money to pander to the voters.
The long term solution is for the state to re-finance its debt with bonds and pay up. That would reduce their liability greatly over time. Sure, the little girl will have to pay taxes when she grows up. She’ll probably have to pay more because her parents and grandparents got state services without paying the cost of it. The real culprits are the fat cats who now are retired themselves and still don’t want to pay their fair share. Its all greed on their part, except for Fahner, who is just a prostitute who will say anything for a price.
Comment by Bill Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 9:54 am
Sunny Day - Then there is no money to give to Sears, or all of the other companies that got hefty handouts because they threatened to leave even though they would pay higher total costs if they go to Indiana.
Everybody seems to get so upset when a company threatens to leave because a couple of hundred jobs might be lost but everyone cheers when a couple hundred state employees get laid off. The line gets longer at the unemployment agency either way and less money is going into the economy of those employee’s communities.
People want to know what the Occupy movement is about? This is it. Big money trying to get more for themselves so they can preserve the lifestyle of their high level administrators and boards. In fact most of the blog today is what they are about, large companies controlling legislators through donations, large corporations getting that they want on the backs of the working man, large corporations and financial institutions controlling the “message”, and our governmental leaders preserving their power and catering to the people who are funding their campaigns. The common man has no voice anymore so they have taken to the streets. And the apathetic voters don’t want to be bothered to think and find out what it is all about. I disagree totally with Kirk, the occupiers are not the unintellectuals, the large percentage of people who don’t know who the occupiers or the tea partyiers are, are the unintellectuals. Sadly they are the ones who will be swayed by this drivel.
Comment by Irish Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 10:01 am
As has been pointed out by Rich and others, the pensions have been have been underfunded for decades. I believe the fact pointed to by Rich was that TRS was less than 50% fully funded since the 50s, yet no pensioner has ever missed a pension check, and TRS has approximately the same level of underfunding today. So, in answer to your question OneMan, while there is, and has been a longstanding problem with the state making its actuarily required payments, the sky, as the Civic Committee would have you believe, is not falling. In addition, given the improvement in the market since its lows of 2009, the pension funds are better off than they were when the Civic Committee started its assault.
How we fix it is to put the state on an affordable repayment plan. The pension ramp they’re currently on was put in place prior to the wall-street caused Great Recession that we are currently afflicted with. It is that law’s state repayment structure that is unsustainable in the current environment, not the average annual pension of 32K that keeps parents from becoming a burden to their children in their retirement years. The solution is to adjust the ramp, not kill the pensions.
Comment by PublicServant Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 10:01 am
Bill,
Fair enough. Now my second question, should the public employee unions have done more to hold the legislators and the governors over the last 30 year’s feet to the fire?
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 10:02 am
Isnt that the same lady who played the teacher in the previous ad?
Comment by Obamas Puppy Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 10:04 am
I can’t believe they made such a rip-off ad… actually, I think the amateur version linked above is better. I give it a 2/10.
Comment by JMOR Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 10:12 am
OneMan,
The unions don’t get to vote in the legislature. For 20 years they have advocated reforming the tax structure of this state to better fund essential services and address the state’s structural deficit, but nooooooooo. Just keep borrowing from the pension funds until you are safely out of office. The Thompson and Edgar years were the worst with a particlarly bad stretch in 95-96 under the Pate Phillip reign of terror. It will take decades for Il.to recover. Blame the unions if you want but that won’t solve the problem. Get ready to pony up Illinois.
Comment by Bill Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 10:19 am
Irish - our legislators priorities are skewed. I think they are giving handouts to big companies because those executives are the ones that contribute campaign dollars.
I agree with OneMan - we as constituents need to hold our legislators accountable. We are the ones voting them in to office. Let’s make them listen.
Comment by Sunny Day Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 10:20 am
Public Servant, So you wouldn’t put any limits on pension amounts or otherwise modify the system? So labor leaders getting 150K out of a public pension system is ok?
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 10:33 am
I’m going to step out of my “political insider” costume and play a private person with no connection to government or politics. If I am oh, I don’t know, my dad, I see this ad and want to scream. Why? Because private pensions and retirement benefits have been on the chopping block for years. Yes, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation does hold some private pension plans, but I’m again getting ahead of myself. Retirees and soon to be retirees of private firms have a very negative view of public and political employees. This ad will only do more to fuel the fire. And spare me the “rich people buying ads” crap. Unions and other special interest groups can run as many ads as they so please. AFSCME can run counter ads to this ad if they have the money and approval from the council. Let’s not act like rich people and business front groups are the only entities who can buy ads in our major media markets.
Full disclosure: my wife is a state employee. But I support pension reform - and now. Why? We are young and I would rather have time to adjust to this than have a bombshell dropped on us when we are in our late 40s and have two kids in college. I would rather be able to gameplan than have the SERS on autopilot only to crash.
And I really do get tired of hearing the word “promised”. We are all adults here. Promises don’t mean much when you are full-grown and have a life and family of your own. People who act like a promise is worth its weight in gold need to realize that a promise can be broken - just like a handshake agreement. If a constitutional amendment is passed to alter the pension systems, that promise evaporates very quickly. I know people have “paid” into the system. But if you are contributing 4% - which is what my wife and in-laws pay - and you get back a pension at half of what you earned, that’s as good of a deal (if not better) than Social Security.
Debt is real. Unless we are going to declare bankruptcy and wash our hands clean of our current and future pension obligations, someone has to pay for these “promises”.
Comment by Team Sleep Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 10:36 am
OneMan,
Labor leaders are the only participants in those plans whose employer portion has been fully funded by their actual employer. The normal cost to the state is 0.
You seem to have it in for unions today. What have you got against the people who do the real work and the people elected to represent them?
Comment by Bill Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 10:39 am
Bill @ 9:54 am and PublicServant @ 10:01 am are exactly right. It seems to me that the billionaires at the Civic Committee will only be happy when they are the only people left in America to get a pension. They take it away from their workers, then say that because their workers don’t get a pension, public workers shouldn’t too. How many millions do these top execs get in pensions that could be distributed among the workers? It is time for the working class to back the public workers. Not only do the public employees deserve their hard earned pensions, but so do all the other hard working workers across this land. RIght now, as it is, 99% are working to support the top 1%. That 1% get their pensions. It’s time for corporations to start taking care of their employees again. If they would start compensating the bottom 99% more and the top 1% less, more people would have money to spend to keep our economy runnning. The top 1% isn’t happy enough with what they get, they want more and don’t want anyone else to get any. These ads want to brain wash people into thinking that no one deserves a pension. I know this is rambling, but shouldn’t all that work hard all their lives deserve to get the pension they earned, not just the rich and influential?
Comment by Working hard in Southern IL Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 10:40 am
Team sleep….
The problem is unlike one of my dad’s pensions (or now that I think of it any of his pensions), there is no iron-clad full payment requirement specified in law nor constitution. This is not the case for Illinois public employee pensions.
So with the constitutional guarantee, no one on the recipient side has any real motivation to really do anything about it. Hey it is guaranteed by law, it’s up to others to figure out how to fulfill that requirement.
If the pension payout was based on what the financial status of the funds was/is then I suspect you would have greater union pressure for the state to do something sooner rather than later.
There is no incentive for the recipients or potential recipients to do anything. There is really no incentive for the legislature to do anything besides pass the buck.
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 10:45 am
That’s the problem OneMan, they have been passing the buck for years. A lot of people are right, pension are not a new issue. but its also not a “sexy” one and has not been addressed until recently. That is a mistake.
Comment by Sunny Day Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 10:58 am
I keep reading “Fat Cats”, “CEOs”, “Unions” - why don’t we put the blame on those who really deserve it: LEGISLATORS. They need to fix it and they need to fix it NOW!
Comment by ChicagoGal Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 10:59 am
Details aside, I still can’t wrap my head around why, when legislators crafted budget after budget that either underpaid or deferred payment to retirement systems, it is the recipients of the pension that are being forced to take less than what our state Constitution guarantees them.
Wanna know why people are in the streets? Because they didn’t do anything wrong and are not getting what they are entitled to by law while the people who made the decisions that affected the pensions face no repercussions for their actions.
Comment by Colossus Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 11:02 am
The ad will have impact on the public.
That’s why it made me so angry with its outright lies and a ridiculously false number. I was upset for two hours after first seeing it.
I seem to have a personal problem with still expecting something at least close to the factual truth, in political ads.
Comment by walkinfool Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 11:17 am
I do agree the voice at the door could be better. They need a solution to make this effective.
Comment by View from the Cheap Seats Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 11:18 am
Good find How Ironic. But did you also notice that the voice of the unseen man on both ads was the same. Perhaps they partnered together on this ad because both understood the weight of the issue. Just a thought. With that being said, I like the newer ad better. It’s better executed with a clear message: we’re in debt and we need to do something about it.
Comment by street smart Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 11:21 am
Colossus, I agree. The common person hasn’t done anything wrong. The legislators need to get up and get working for the people they represent and make decisions that are good for the general public. It’s time we hold our reps accountable and affect change where it’s really needed before it’s too late.
Comment by Chicago Lad Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 11:29 am
“Public Servant, So you wouldn’t put any limits on pension amounts or otherwise modify the system? So labor leaders getting 150K out of a public pension system is ok?”
Show me a bill that deals with labor leader pension abuse, and I’ll support it. The Civic Committee’s bill doesn’t do that.
Comment by PublicServant Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 11:37 am
Bill,
I don’t have it in for unions today, really.
But I do not understand why the unions have not complained louder and longer about this? Do they think that the situation that as you put it ‘has been going on for 30 years’ was going to be sustainable forever?
I am completely serious, it doesn’t seem to me they have ever tried to hold anyone really accountable. When they skipped the payments under Rod because they decided to realize a 30 year savings in cost in a single year, I don’t recall any union saying boo about that.
Why? IMHO the negotiated their contracts and got what their members wanted today. I get that, that is what unions do, nothing wrong with that. But I don’t get why pension funding seems to be a non-issue.
Considering the way that Quinn (I know you are not a fan) has treated AFSCME and their resulting ho-hum response blows me away (hey lets march). Why didn’t they call a general strike, yeah the courts would have ordered them back, but come on, stand up for yourselves. You don’t think every elected official is taking notes on this?
I seriously don’t get that.
Also ‘The normal cost to the state is 0′ then why not have them participate in their own non-guaranteed 100% by the taxpayer of Illinois pension plan?
Like I have said I do not have an issue about the overwhelming majority of pensions this state hands out, less than .1 of 1% worry me.
What I have a problem with is that the legislature nor the unions don’t really seem to care.
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 11:39 am
Irish
Ummm, take a look at this
http://ilcampaign.org/top20/2009-2010
Look at the list..
But yeah it’s all those big companies,
like SEIU IL Council PAC and IL Laborers Legislative Committee…
You go with that.
Nothing wrong with unions being politically active, for the public employee unions I would be worried if they were not.
But lets not pretend it’s corporate donations that are the big players here in Illinois.
You can also look here
http://ilcampaign.org/pat-quinn-career-patrons
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 11:53 am
There is a lot of good dialogue going on here. Kudos, Rich for posting. This is what we need to push reforms forward and get the attention of our Legislators. I have enjoyed reading the responses, especially yours OneMan and Team Sleep. Debt is real. We’re in it. And now, we’re going to pay for it. All of us. I know I for one will be writing our legislators today.
Comment by Sunny Day Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 11:56 am
First I think the ad is horrible. They could have done a better job if they wanted to get that particular point across. They need a better PR person. Second, my problem is not that people are talking about the pension issue, it is who these ads are coming from - rich fat cat corporate bosses. Maybe they should be worried about their multi-million dollar salaries instead of my $40,000 pension. Third, and as somebody suggested, they don’t propose a viable solution. Do they just want to cut me off at the knees mid-career after I have been counting on a pension to be there when I retire? I don’t get raises. A pension promise is all I have to look forward to anymore. But, apparently when you work for the government you are expected to live in poverty and not make any sort of money for yourself.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 11:59 am
Illinois?
How about Chicago is Broke?
Did anyone happen to notice the attampted assist from the Speaker:
HB 3851-
SYNOPSIS
Amends the Illinois Vehicle Code. Provides that a governmental agency in cities of over 1,000,000 inhabitants may establish automated speed enforcement (ASE) systems in designated safety zones. Defines terms.
Provides that the municipality may impose liability on a registered owner of a vehicle that violates the applicable law, with exceptions.
Provides that notwithstanding any other applicable consequences under the Illinois Vehicle Code, the penalty for and consequence of a traffic violation recorded by an ASE system is a civil fine not to exceed $100 for each violation.
Contains provisions governing the expenditure of funds generated by the use of ASE systems.
Provides that unless the driver of the motor vehicle received a Uniform Traffic Citation from a police officer within 5 minutes of a violation recorded by an ASE system, the owner of the vehicle will be liable for the civil penalty.
Provides that a violation for which a civil penalty is imposed is not a violation of a traffic regulation governing the movement of vehicles and may not be recorded on the driving record of the owner of the vehicle.
Contains provisions concerning notice and administrative hearing procedures related to implementation of the amendatory Act.
Provides that recorded images are confidential, with specified exceptions.
Provides defenses to ASE system violations.
Provides equipment and signage requirements.
Provides that a municipality operating an ASE system shall conduct a statistical analysis to assess the safety impact of the system and provides procedures for conducting the statistical analysis.
Provides that if any part of the Section concerning ASE systems in school zones or around parks is held unconstitutional, the decision shall not affect the remaining parts of the Section.
Makes corresponding changes in other Sections of the Vehicle Code. Effective July 1, 2012.
Comment by Quinn T. Sential Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 12:10 pm
Hmmm; where is all that money going to in Chicago “Safety Zones” you ask?
(d) The net proceeds that a municipality receives from civil penalties imposed under an automated speed enforcement system, after deducting all non-personnel and personnel costs associated with the operation and maintenance of such system, shall be expended or obligated by the municipality for the following purposes:
(i) public safety initiatives to ensure safe passage around schools, and to provide police protection and surveillance around schools and parks, including but not limited to:
(1) personnel costs; and
(2) non-personnel costs such as construction and maintenance of public safety infrastructure and equipment;
(ii) initiatives to improve pedestrian and traffic safety; and
(iii) construction and maintenance of infrastructure within the municipality, including but not limited to roads and bridges.
Comment by Quinn T. Sential Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 12:21 pm
I’m a teacher and a future - I hope - pension recipient. I find the ad repulsive because it makes it look like we, as teaches, are begging for a handout. Groups like IL is Broke don’t care about me. Go after the union leaders if you don’t like their double and triple dipping. But please don’t come after all of us, when 90% of us would be adversely - and dramatically so - effected by this.
My second point is that I believe all teachers and state employees understand that we’re in big debt, and if we want anything, we have to pay more. I’m personally willing to pay more. A jump to 14% is unreasonable, though, especially when that jump can be raised - not lowered - every 3 years. In 30 more years, what will the state determine my contribution to be? And what will the state determine their contribution to be?
If something ironclad is put into the state Constitution, or into law, and FORCES our legislators to stop kicking the can, I will happily chip more in, too. Notice I said more - 10% of my check already goes in. Ads like this imply we don’t pay, or are begging, and therefore are patently dishonest.
Comment by Burnham Wannabe Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 12:25 pm
Also, I wish taxpayers would stop saying “we’re both going to pay.” No, WE’RE not. I am. My colleagues and I are. Not WE as a state. At worst, you’ll pay at most a few thousand dollars in taxes every year. This is my living you’re talking about. My home, my heat, my children’s education. I know that said extra tax/debt burden will hurt many families, but that pales in comparison to the destructive nature of bills like SB 512 and what they’ll do to teachers like me and many other workers.
No, “we” won’t all pay. That’s false empathy, and is just as transparent as our legislators and their “promise” to pay more into the fund each year.
Comment by Burnham Wannabe Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 12:29 pm
==What I have a problem with is that the legislature nor the unions don’t really seem to care==
Yes. The general public has slooowly begun to come to the realization that the majority of legislators pretty much do NOT care about the people or the state–they care about forming financial alliances to protect their own fiefdoms, perks, retirements, and their own re-election campaigns.
Now, if the union rank and file can just also finally come to the realization and accept that their union leadership is in it for the personal perks, the big salaries and multiple pensions– and basically haven’t given a rip about the individual union members they ostensibly “represent” for decades, then maybe we could get somewhere toward being able to fix the state’s problems.
Most Illinois pols and the union bigs have both known, and ignored, for years that the workers’ “promised” pensions were not being funded properly and that actuarially it would hit the fan sooner or later. They did nothing. When will the union rank and file show they are ticked off with their ineffective leadership in addition to blaming and making demands on the individual taxpayers of Illinois? Here’s a thought. How about in 2011-12 the unions return millions of dollars to their members’ accounts, rather than apply all those millions in dues money to federal and state election campaigns to re-elect the exact same people who have been failing them?
Comment by Responsa Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 12:29 pm
Chicago Lad,
Just want to point out that a PR person has nothing to do with the concept/execution of an ad. Even if you don’t like the way the ad was put together, the point is still made there. If we don’t want our kids to pay for the debt we are in now, its time to stop bickering over what it looks like the ad is “implying.” The ad is supporting pension reform. Now whether or not you agree with the terms and conditions of that reform is not goal of the video. The main goal is to get people talking. And judging by the amount of feedback I’ve seen here, it’s doing a damn fine job.
Comment by Chicago Lad Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 12:33 pm
Excuse me, that last post was referencing Demoralized’s post “First I think the ad is horrible. They could have done a better job if they wanted to get that particular point across. They need a better PR person. “
Comment by Chicago Lad Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 12:34 pm
Burnham Wannabe -
I don’t want it to come to that. The more we do now, the more it is going to cost everyone to do something later.
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 12:35 pm
Contrary to some statements, prior to the last couple of years, there were a number of pension reforms enacted during since about 1970 or so. They just weren’t quite as big / sexy / headline grabbing as today’s changes. although they were topics of the day. Various groups, including the unions and state employees, were pushing to make the funds solvent.
Some of those changes that I remember, both minor and major, were (1) changing the insurance benefit from 8 years to 20 years and (2) three (if memory is correct) different catch-up / ramp-up plans to correct the pension funding, including at least one with language requiring the State employees pension fund to be paid first out of GRF before any other bills were paid. None of these bills were earth shaking in terms of major changes; they just make minor tweaks or called for the payments to be made.
The big flaw EVERY one of the catch-up plans had was they were ALL back end loaded; in other words, the payments started out small and grew bigger after 4 - 8 years, generally speaking whenever that Governor expected to leave office. Effectively speaking those bills were like balloon mortgages; small payments for 4 - 8 years, then wham!: big payments.
Skipping over motivations like avoiding the need to raise taxes at the time or dealing with that year’s recession / shortfall, it was expected the State would be in better shape when the balloon payments hit, either (a) because the people passing the bill planned (hoped?) to cut spending and be in better shape by then or (b) natural revenue growth from expanding business would be available to make the payments (if the State didn’t spend it first on other programs) or (c) some combination of a & b.
So what happened? Some years, usually early in that ramp-up plan, payments got made as planned. Later on, they didn’t. Some years things were so bad the State didn’t / couldn’t /wouldn’t make the payments. Other years the stock market returns on invested funds looked so good the State decided that trend would continue and contributed less than the initially planned amount. And there were a few pension sweeteners thrown in at various times, such as early retirement programs designed to “flush out” partisan employees so they could be replaced with partisan employees of the other party.
Who controlled all these decisions? The Legislature and the Governor and, therefore, the people who elected them.
Now a suggestion to the unions, etc. … I’d love to see a set of ads targeting the past Governors and Legislature for the underfunding … you could show payoffs to political cronies or various failed pork barrel projects getting the money instead.
Maybe a year by year listing of where the money was wasted? I’m not saying it has to be / would be objective; the other ads aren’t. But I’m sure lists of pork could be resurrected; heck, maybe even some government “charity” in the form of tax breaks, etc. to big business could make the list! And who cares if the numbers don’t completely add up to the pension underfunding that year; the other side is playing fast & loose with the numbers.
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 12:44 pm
WOW! It looks like this video really got some great discussion going. It’s been interesting reading through these responses. But I agree with ChicagoGal, “why don’t we put the blame on those who really deserve it: LEGISLATORS. They need to fix it and they need to fix it NOW! “
Comment by Innocent bystander Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 12:57 pm
OneMan -
I think I agree. By more, I hope it means true, authentic reform. Make the state pay. Stop the double/triple-dipping. Even capping pensions and increasing our contributions a bit would be acceptable. But if “more” is what SB512 looks like now… sheesh, more is dangerous!
Comment by Burnham Wannabe Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 1:01 pm
The ad was produced after the rights were purchased from the original ad maker. He apparently flew out for CO to help with it.
Still is a terrible ad.
Comment by How Ironic Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 1:07 pm
Innocent bystander, et al,
As much as I do blame the legislature for the problem, they can’t easily fix it “now”. They took a lot of years to dig this hole and it will take a lot of years to fix it. While I think there is still waste in State government that could be cut, I’m pretty sure it doesn’t add up to the amount the pension funds need to be fully funded. Unless you’re willing to destroy the entire budget in this State (note, even there the majority is fed money you can’t touch), you can’t fix it “now” without a massive tax increase dedicated to just paying off the pension funds.
You want to double the current income tax and / or the sales tax? That’s the kind of massive increase that would be required to fix it “now”. Yes, we just had a 40% income tax increase that was supposed to fix it. Read the fine print that got lost in that discussion, it was supposed to fix it FOR THIS YEAR & NEXT YEAR, not permanently. A permanent fix will require a lot more money.
With those kinds of revenue streams dedicated to the problem, you could then float what would probably be the one of the bigger bond offerings in State history and use the sale proceeds to pay off the pension shortfalls. By removing the pension payments from this or next year’s budget, you could also pay off most the structural shortfall (somewhere around $5-8B depending on whose numbers you use).
So what are the chances of that happening now or even next year? About the same chance the Cubs have of winning this year’s World Series …
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 1:21 pm
You could make a big dent by leasing the tollway and using those funds.
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 1:30 pm
{You could make a big dent by leasing the tollway and using those funds.}
Wait until Quinn finds out what Madigan and Rahm are up to with regard to automated speed enforcement (ASE) systems in designated safety zones, and he will designate the entire tollway system as a “Safety Zone”
They won’t even have to use camera’s, just set up a spreadsheet program linked to the I-Pass system which automatically calculates your point- to- point speed between I-Pass collection points and: presto, charge the fine right to your credit card linked to your I-Pass account.
Comment by Quinn T. Sential Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 1:39 pm
Burnham Wannabe - contrary to your post, WE WILL ALL PAY and have. The massive income tax increase was put forth like Senate President Cullerton said to raise money to pay pensions without borrowing. To pay off our debt and the interest on our debt. We have paid and the money generated from the income tax increase is virtually gone and a large debt still looms - so, we will ALL continue to pay.
Comment by Sunny Day Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 1:39 pm
Good message but poor production values.
Comment by Left Out Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 1:41 pm
Sunny Day,
That increase was a 2 year temporary, kick it down the road, fix …. not a permanent one. They told you that at the time, but it quickly got glossed over. It wasn’t even a down payment on fixing it …
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 1:44 pm
I like this video. 30 seconds is not a long time to get across a message, but this is frank and to the point. I’m all for the Civic Committee and its campaign… Reform pensions now!
Comment by SweetHomeChicago Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 1:56 pm
Retired Non-Union Guy - Very typical of the ILGA, isn’t it though? They will continue to do this - should we allow them to do so. We need to address this. As most of us who have a credit card know, putting off payments, collecting interest means you will be paying more. Essentially, what got us in to this mess. And yes, we will all be paying for this one.
Comment by Sunny Day Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 2:02 pm
Is it just me, or does it seem like a couple of the most prolific pro-ccc reform posters here today are unfamiliar names to the comments area of Capitol Fax? Hum…
Comment by Roadiepig Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 2:18 pm
Lot’s of folks who substitute their personal political view for objective review of the ad.
The ad is very good. It gives the litany of financial bad news that the public has already internalized and then gives you the sucker punch. Well done.
For the class warfare liberals whining about CEO’s and fat cats…they are the only reason we have any economic activity left here. They, not a bunch of paper-pushing bureaucrats, are working to create the revenues that pay salaries and taxes that the state workers then gobble up.
No human is without a shortcoming or sin, CEO’s certainly included, but the union stooges and occupy wall street crowd better think long and hard about what their world would look like without the private sector and profit motive.
Comment by Adam Smith Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 2:22 pm
I think the ad very sadly implies Illinois budget crisis is based on public pension plans. Leading people to believe that public workers are greedy and could care less about future generations. That’s was my take on the ad. Money could have been spent more wisely if the ad included other budget problems, such as Corporate Tax Reform, money coming in is just as important as money going out. There needs to be reform in EVERY aspect of the budget, credit or debit. That’s a reality check!!!!
Comment by MyObservation Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 2:38 pm
Yeah, Adam, it’s the CEOs and fat cats (as you put it, not me) mine the materials to make products, assemble the products, do the marketing, handle the sales, deal with the customers, deliver them to customers, build the roads to deliver them and build the trucks to deliver them. If not, then no, they are not “the only reason we have any economic activity left here.”
No one is advocating the elimination of the private sector and the profit motive.
Are you paying any attention at all to what’s going on, or just listening to what highly paid talking heads say? That’s not meant as an inciting statement, or as a drive by sloganeering. Seriously, your post is completely divorced from reality. Just like the CCC’s platform.
Comment by Colossus Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 2:40 pm
I really have enjoyed everyone’s comments and viewpoints. But come on people, the blame is on our Legislators. Why are we going in circles, battling back and forth about who got us in this mess. Its the people WE elected.
To me, it seems employees have been made to think their pensions are guaranteed? What happens when the money runs out? If legislators cant make good on promises now, how can we be assured they will make good future promises?
Sure this has been going on for years and we cannot fix this overnight - but by doing nothing, by continuing down this road. The problem will only get worse. Real change, requires tough decisions.
Comment by ChicagoGal Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 2:41 pm
Hey Adam,
The CEOs and fat cats ARE paper pushing bureaucrats. When, if ever, do you think any of them have ever done a full day of honest work. You think Jim Farrell works? Eden Martin? Larry Msall?
Comment by Bill Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 2:43 pm
ChicagoGal,
Federal law governing contracts law is the basis of capitalism and commerce. Without it, business could not occur.
The State Constitution uses Federal contract language to protect the State employees’ pensions:
“Membership in any pension or retirement system of the State, any unit of local government or school district, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired.”
The remedy to a contract violation, in general, is as follows (from Wikipedia):
The remedy at law for breach of contract is usually “damages” or monetary compensation. In equity, the remedy can be specific performance of the contract or an injunction. Both remedies award the damaged party the “benefit of the bargain” or expectation damages …
The pensions are guaranteed. One way or the other, the State will have to pay for all already contracted pensions. That is not really in dispute.
Everyone agrees you can’t change the pension for people who earned it and are already retired. It’s a debt that must be satisfied. The only thing in dispute is how to pay for them.
What the current fight is about is whether or not benefits promised at time of employment (contract) can be unilaterally changed if you have not yet retired. The general opinion, which the Civic Committee and some others disagree with, is you can’t. Whatever the legislature passes in terms of changes, if it affects current employees, there will be a court case.
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 3:13 pm
- Retired Non-Union Guy - Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 1:44 pm:
Sunny Day,
That increase was a 2 year temporary, kick it down the road, fix …. not a permanent one. They told you that at the time, but it quickly got glossed over. It wasn’t even a down payment on fixing it …
++++++++++
Senate President John Cullerton: “The purpose of this bill is to raise enough money so that we can continue to pay our pensions without borrowing the money. To pay off our debt. To have enough money to pay the interest on that debt. And, for the first time ever, establish caps on how much we can appropriate. … We have just come through the worst economic crisis in our lifetimes. And we have not paid our bills.”
House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie: “Remember, the point of this income tax increase is not to expand programs, not to do brand-new things in Illinois state government. It is only intended to pay our old bills and deal with the structural deficit.”
Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 3:13 pm
==TRS has carried an unfunded liability since at least 1953 and has never missed a pension check.–
Lets not let facts get in the way, please. It’s a real buzzkill.
Does anyone really think this Civic Committee campaign is about fiscal responsibility? Ty Fahner couldn’t count to 20 unless he took off his shoes (you don’t want to know how he counts to 21). It’s all about busting the public employee unions, not because they make so much money, but because they contribute money to Democrats.
Isn’t that obvious?
Fortunately, in Illinois, the war against public employee unions is being led by Big Brains Ty Fahner and Bruce Dold from the Tribbie editorial sandbox. From the unions perspective, you couldn’t wish for any better opponents.
For the record, I’m in business for myself in the private sector, hustle every day and have no claim on any public money. But you know what? I can’t begin to make a dime without the public services of my community.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 3:21 pm
==Its the people WE elected==
I know where you are coming from, but that really is an awfully broad statement. In fact, many of us did not “elect” the legislators you cite and seem to blame for the slo mo pension wreck. For example:
1. We may have consistently voted for the competing candidate who did NOT win, instead of for the one who reached the IL legislature.
2. We may have only recently moved to Illinois to take advantage of an educational or business opportunity and had absolutely no input, and have no past responsibility for, the doings and failings of the state’s government over the past 30 or so years.
3. We may have been children or not even born yet when the pension system started to go off the rails. Certainly those in that age group cannot fairly be included in a “we elected” scenario.
Yes, anyone who now is a voting citizen of Illinois and currently benefits from living here knows we must all be part of the solution. But a whole lot of current residents and taxpayers did not get us into this mess– and do truly resent being included in the “gee we’re stupid, we elected these morons” scenario as it is often presented.
Comment by Responsa Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 3:25 pm
Wordslinger
Its obvious that you have no problem berating on those that are in the public eye,
“Does anyone really think this Civic Committee campaign is about fiscal responsibility? Ty Fahner couldn’t count to 20 unless he took off his shoes (you don’t want to know how he counts to 21). It’s all about busting the public employee unions, not because they make so much money, but because they contribute money to Democrats.
Isn’t that obvious?”
Until you get off this bandwagon that all these ‘big wigs’ are conspiring against you and are solely out to destroy the common man, then we will not get past this pointless bickering. Please offer sound reason and judgement instead of berating so that we can move this conversation forward and actually affect some change.
Comment by its raining outside Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 3:34 pm
Responsa:
And point 3 is why the demographics of OWS are so much younger than Tea Party rallies. And why I, for one, refuse to sign on to the “MJM as Genius Chessmaster” myth.
Comment by Colossus Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 3:37 pm
The fat cats are blaming the wrong thing. The fat cats should be kicking themselves, because if it weren’t for them, we’d be working on one very excellent ConCon right about now getting this whole thing straightened out once and for all.
Comment by Cheswick Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 4:13 pm
I don’t see anything TRS was talking about in this ad, am I mising something?
Comment by Ahoy Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 4:14 pm
so, the richest 1% of Illinois invest in a $500,000 tv ad campaign, but decide skimp on production and create one of the cheapest ads i’ve ever seen.
the message may be good, but when the production quality is so poor, the message doesn’t get through. I can’t believe these fat cats wouldn’t pay for a professional firm.
Comment by McTaggart Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 4:50 pm
Thanks, Retired Non-Union Guy.
Comment by ChicagoGal Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 5:12 pm
Cincinnatus …
Yeah, Cullerton said pay the (implied) CURRENT fiscal year pension payments without taking out a loan. It didn’t address the unfunded liability, other than the small amount included in these two years payments.
People knew it was a stopgap then; from a news story at the time: ‘”It’s a cruel hoax to play on citizens to say this is temporary,” said House Minority Leader Tom Cross, R-Oswego.’ From the same story: “The plan’s supporters warned that rising pension and health care costs probably will eat up all the spending allowed by the caps, forcing cuts in other areas of government.” (The caps being referred to were only allowing 2% growth.) So yes, it was known at the time they were just putting a patch on things.
Once the temporary increase goes away in 2015 (if the 1 3/4% isn’t made permanent), then we’re right back where we started, only the can got kicked a few years down the road.
And Cullerton was also talking out of both sides of this mouth at the same time. There was borrowing intended to be part of the tax increase, through the issuance of bonds that never happened because the follow-on bill didn’t get passed. The borrowing was intended to pay off the CURRENT backlog of bills (that pesky $5-8B overhang into the next fiscal year). Part of the tax increase (1/4%) was “permanent” and dedicated to paying off the borrowing that never occurred, which is why we still have that $5-8B being pushed into the next fiscal year. Here’s a quote from a story at the time: “They also blocked a plan to borrow $8.7 billion to pay off the state’s overdue bills, which means long-suffering businesses and social-service agencies won’t get their money anytime soon.”
It was know to be a stop gap and there was borrowing intended.
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 5:47 pm
Sonny Day and others…
Cain uses nines, but to keep the public pensions issue in perspective use 40’s…
TRS, the largest public system in Illinois, was funded in 1970 at the early 40’s. It was funded at the early 40’s in 2010. In the meantime, TRS paid in the early 40’s (billions) retirement benefits, never missing, never late.
Instead of buying into the Civic ’sky is falling’ crap, ask yourself why the urgency, and why now?
Comment by country boy Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 6:47 pm
Country Boy- nice job of putting real numbers out there, not the made up ones consistently thrown out there by the CCC
Comment by Roadiepig Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 7:52 pm
{Instead of buying into the Civic ’sky is falling’ crap, ask yourself why the urgency, and why now?}
Because the life expectancy of people in the 70’s vs. the realities of today is decades apart. As a consequence, in the 70’s when people used to retire at 65 and die at 72, now they are retiring at 58, and living to 88 and beyond.
In the 70’s there were likely 2 or 3 retirees for every 1 worker contributing to keep the game afloat. Now with the age wave of baby boomers retiring and due to retire over the next few years, that ratio may be 4-5: 1 and could gorw exponentially.
Comment by Quinn T. Sential Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 9:28 pm
Quinn T Sential,
Your numbers don’t add up. They don’t work at either the state or federal level.
From the SERS (state employees) web site: “At the end of FY10, SERS has 64,143 active members, and 45,659 retirees.”
That is 1 retiree per 1.4 workers; not great but should be sustainable.
From the TRS (teachers) web site (buried in a pdf): “As of June 30, 2010, there were 170,275 active members, 104,222 inactive members entitled to but not receiving benefits in TRS, and 97,754 annuitants and beneficiaries receiving benefits.”
For every 1 retiree, there are 1.74 workers. Again, not great but should be sustainable.
If you toss in the “not receiving” (credit earned but don’t currently qualify due to age or other limiting factor), the ratio is 1 retiree to 0.84 workers, which is possibly unsustainable … but that counts people who won’t start collecting for years.
These numbers aren’t great but, in both the cases above, the ratio is nothing like the numbers you cite.
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 10:07 pm
So, we’re not dying fast enough for Quinn T Sential. Support your numbers please. Also, you failed to answer the “why now” part of the question. Explain why the Civic Committee’s push and it huge ad expenditures are occurring when the country is reeling, and states are running huge deficits (including your Republican state paradise of Texas-25 Billion deficit). Explain their BS message portraying pension expenses to be paid out over the next 30+ years as if they well all due today? Explain why if there is a crisis today why TRS is funded at the same percentage that they were 58 years ago, and why they were able to pay EVERY pension from then till the present and still not go broke despite decades of state underfunding? Surely, the average age of people rose over those last 58 years too? Again, answer the question of why now.
If the Civic committee numbers added up, they wouldn’t have to resort to misleading information and outright lies in their ad buys.
Comment by PublicServant Thursday, Oct 20, 11 @ 6:29 am
{Instead of buying into the Civic ’sky is falling’ crap, ask yourself why the urgency, and why now?}
I cant speak for the CCC. But I for one, do not want to continue to see Illinois spiral down the same path. I do not want to continue to see communities changed because of cuts to social services. I do not want to continue to feel the brunt of increased taxes. Let’s face it, something needs to be done.
Comment by Sunny Day Thursday, Oct 20, 11 @ 11:11 am
That’s way to unfocused Sunny. Something needs to be done what? Reform the Illinois flat tax currently based on a manufacturing-based economy that doesn’t exist anymore? Reform Wall Street practices that are resonsible for the sever drop in Illinois tax revenues? Why the pensions, which are a direct attack from the top 1% at the CCC in an attempt to double down on the current Wall Street-caused recession, by making the middle class pay for it.
Yes, something needs to be done, but don’t nail the middle class via their meager, 32K average pensions, to protect the top 1% from tax reform that they know will hit them in their pocketbooks before you and I.
Comment by PublicServant Thursday, Oct 20, 11 @ 6:45 pm
It’s an entirely misleading spot, and a deliberate attempt to divert attention from the real reasons Illinois is broke. It is one highly unethical ad.
Comment by Steven P. Thursday, Oct 20, 11 @ 7:01 pm