Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Madigan proposes another constitutional amendment on pension changes

Posted in:

Illinois

* The Speaker introduced a similar proposal last year, but local governments opposed it, so Madigan revamped the idea…

Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan on Wednesday proposed making it tougher to approve increases in pension benefits for public workers throughout Illinois, an idea immediately opposed by the state’s largest employee union.

The Democratic leader from Chicago introduced a state constitutional amendment that would ask voters this fall to require the Legislature to approve pension benefit increases by a three-fifths vote instead of a simple majority.

The stricter voting requirement also would apply to city halls, school districts and their retirement boards.

The measure would need to pass the House and Senate by early May for it to go before voters in November.

* More…

The latest proposal is aimed at dozens of bills introduced over the years to sweeten government workers’ pensions. The piecemeal changes add up. The rub is that most of those proposals get nearly unanimous support, anyway.

In the Teachers Retirement System alone, legislative changes have added more than $2 billion to the state’s unfunded liability since 1996, or 6 percent of the total growth in the state debt to the system, according to TRS figures.

The largest state-employees’ union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, opposes Madigan’s plan, while the Illinois Municipal League views it “very favorably.”

House Minority Leader Tom Cross, R-Oswego, said he supported the measure but echoed AFSCME’s repeated concerns about the $80 billion debt.

“Our real focus needs to be on how to reduce the unfunded liability,” Cross said.

* Meanwhile, Diana Sroka Rickert, who formerly worked for the Northwest Herald and is now with the Illinois Policy Institute, huffs and puffs and misconstrues the latest Teachers Retirement System report…

The TRS told me and Northwest Herald readers – many of whom are teachers – there was nothing to worry about. TRS denied the crisis before running the numbers themselves, and attacked the credibility of people who suggested that the pension funds could belly up.

But when their actuaries finally looked at the numbers, they found that the retirement fund that so many in Illinois are counting on could run dry in less than 20 years.

Maybe in political terms, 2029 is far away. Maybe it’s another doomsday date that few legislators still will be around to see, so they don’t understand the urgency for reform.

But to a 45-year-old teacher, 2029 is right around the corner. Last week’s news that the TRS could be insolvent means her pension fund might run out of cash precisely at the time she hopes to retire.

* Here are the actual TRS “findings”…

* The TRS FY 2012 contribution grows by 3% each year for 37 years
o TRS is insolvent in 2049 ($2.9 billion deficit)
* The TRS FY 2012 contribution of $2.4 billion is frozen at that level for 37 years
o TRS is insolvent in 2038 ($8.4 billion deficit)
* The FY 2012 contribution is cut to 60% of the original level and stays frozen at $1.4 billion for 37 years
o TRS is insolvent in 2030 ($434 million deficit)

Nobody is talking about doing any of those things. Period. This is a total non-story.

posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Apr 13, 12 @ 9:45 am

Comments

“Nobody is talking about any of those things. Period. This is a total non-story.”

Yet another reason to ignore the IPI crackpots. We know everyone needs free content these days, but isn’t that why the Lord created Kent Canary and Paul Green.

Another reason would be a solid review of the money laundering Bernie reported yesterday on all the PACs, non Pacs that Tilmon, Proft, WhackyJack Roser are using to shuffle cash around.

Comment by CircularFiringSquad Friday, Apr 13, 12 @ 9:50 am
I hope the legislature whacks them all. The unions had a chance to elect a guy who was going to phase out the broken pension system for a 401k plan that would have made teachers millionaires. Instead they chose to go with guys who proven they will lie, then take the pensions anyway.

Ya’ll made the bed, sleep in it.

Comment by the Patriot Friday, Apr 13, 12 @ 10:19 am
This is a hot potato, in business your 1st loss is you best loss. Madigan is right to try to correct it now.We are all living longer, retirements at 50 are nonsence, advancing retirement to 67 is not out of the question.

Comment by mokenavince Friday, Apr 13, 12 @ 10:24 am
- The unions had a chance to elect a guy who was going to phase out the broken pension system for a 401k plan that would have made teachers millionaires. -

Yeah, and they would all probably get a pet unicorn along with it.

Comment by Small Town Liberal Friday, Apr 13, 12 @ 10:31 am
Why don’t we just make the retirement age the Madigan rule. At whatever age the Speaker hangs it up is the official retirement age for the public sector. But as long as he’s working, you’re working.

Comment by Michelle Flaherty Friday, Apr 13, 12 @ 10:31 am
@ Patriot

Don’t know if you’ve followed the markets since, oh, 2007, but no teachers would be millionaires with a 401k plan right now.

Comment by Aaron Friday, Apr 13, 12 @ 10:50 am
I really hope this isn’t the Speaker’s full solution to the pension mess. Please tell me this is simply one move of many to come.

This Constitutional amendment may be a good idea, and it might even be approved by the voters, but I fail to see how it will solve the larger problem that is currently crippling the state’s budget.

Comment by 47th Ward Friday, Apr 13, 12 @ 11:01 am
Nobody was talking about any of these things and it was a non-story until the TRS Director and Board went away for some Kumbaya time and worked each other up into a collective frenzy. Then the “Doomsday 123″ memo gets leaked to the J-R and the stuff hits the fan.

Comment by Anonymous Friday, Apr 13, 12 @ 11:10 am
Let’s not limit it to pensions. How about we require a 3/5’s majority for every new spending proposal, period? That would do more to solve the State’s spending problem than anything else …

Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Friday, Apr 13, 12 @ 11:20 am
I love these “protect us from ourselves” proposals.

You are the Speaker. If you don’t want to enhance pensions, as you’ve done multiple times over the last several decades, then put a brick on the proposals.

Comment by Old Milwaukee Friday, Apr 13, 12 @ 11:25 am
Seriously, when will IPI investors stop giving to these buffoons? Maybe the IRS can put an end to Tillman, Proft and the others who are playing games with valuable donor resources and lining their own pockets pretending to be relevant!

Comment by Seriously? Friday, Apr 13, 12 @ 11:27 am
Much of the press (along with the rest of the population) seems to be seriously innumerate.

Comment by titan Friday, Apr 13, 12 @ 11:44 am
Retired Non-Union Guy …
Similar super-majority requirements certainly have done wonders for California.

Comment by Michelle Flaherty Friday, Apr 13, 12 @ 12:09 pm
If this is a non-story, why is it open to comment and posted on CapitolFax.com?

Comment by Jade_rabbit Friday, Apr 13, 12 @ 12:27 pm
madigan has for decades had the power to kill any of those “sweeteners”, by just giving the order, but didnt. so now we need a constitutional amendment. why? his successor wont be as resolute as he has been?

Comment by langhorne Friday, Apr 13, 12 @ 12:42 pm
Would it pertain to judicial and legislative pensions as well?

Comment by Little Egypt Friday, Apr 13, 12 @ 12:59 pm
Wisconsin Gov.Walker is in Springfield when our Gov’s pension report is due. Coincidence? I think not.

Comment by Nearly Normal Friday, Apr 13, 12 @ 1:29 pm
I wish people would not equate insolvency, which is bad enough, with flat broke and nothing more coming in ever.

Comment by Excessively Rabid Friday, Apr 13, 12 @ 2:18 pm
This is a silly distraction from trying to solve real problems. As long as the pension systems are in the hole, which means the future as far as we can foresee, there will not be even a simple majority for any enhancement of public pensions. The constitutional amendment the Speaker should get behind is the one permitting the legislature to enact a graduated income tax, which would have the potential to raise more revenue while reducing the burden on lower income taxpayers.

Comment by jake Friday, Apr 13, 12 @ 3:41 pm