Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Rauner reboots cost shifts, pension consideration, capital plan

Posted in:

Illinois
Updated Posts

* Subscribers have lots of details, but there’s the Trib’s strong coverage…

Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner’s budget on Wednesday will propose having Chicago Public Schools, downstate and suburban school districts and state universities pay more of their teachers’ pension costs, in an attempt to save state government millions of dollars a year. […]

In all, Rauner will propose spending about $37.6 billion of the roughly $38 billion the state is estimated to bring in from taxes and fees, leaving a surplus of $351 million. Roughly $1.3 billion in proposed savings will come from shifting pension costs onto schools, as well as a proposal to slash health insurance benefits for retired teachers and state employees. The plans were outlined in budget documents Rauner’s office provided to legislative staff on Tuesday night, which were obtained by the Tribune. […]

Even so, Rauner will lay out some lofty goals. That includes $7.8 billion in new spending on a statewide construction program. Of that, $50 million would be used to upgrade facilities at the veterans home in downstate Quincy, where 13 residents died in an outbreak of Legionnaire’s disease that began in 2015. It’s unclear from the brief budget documents how the construction program would be paid for.

Though he vetoed the tax hike that went into effect last summer and has been a vocal critic of it on the campaign trail, Rauner’s budget relies on the money the increase takes in. The governor does, however, offer “a path” to dropping the 4.95 percent income tax rate. That proposal relies on putting in place a new pension plan first floated by Senate President John Cullerton. It suggests state worker and teacher retirement benefits can be scaled back, but only if they agree to the changes and are given something in return.

Rauner estimates that plan could lead to $900 million in savings and would allow for a 0.25 percentage point cut in the income tax rate.

Go read the rest.

…Adding… Related…

* Rauner Budget Counts On Tax Hike: Rauner wants more money to go to education and less to be spent on things like prisons and the judiciary. And according to a preview document obtained by public radio, the governor will not call for an immediate rollback of the tax increase. The day before, Democratic Senate President John Cullerton predicted that would be difficult: “If he wants to cut the income tax by 1 percentage point, that equates to $3.7 billion in lost revenue.”

* Cullerton dubious about Gov. Rauner’s budget promises: “My advice to him is why don’t you do the best budget you’ve ever done — a balanced one. And then run on that,” Cullerton said. “Be honest with people and maybe you won’t be so unpopular.”

posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 9:32 am

Comments

Maybe a 0.25 cut in the income tax rate may be a big deal to a rich dude making 50 million a year who can buy another mansion out of state with the tax savings but to my middle class family planning to live in this state 40-50 more years and raise a child here I’d really rather that 0.25 % go to paying down the state’s bills and getting the state in better shape for the future. I highly doubt a 0.25 percent income tax decrease will make a lick of difference for economic development.

Comment by hisgirlfriday Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 9:41 am
Smoke and mirrors, Rauner wants to play reverse Robin Hood. He wants to take money away from retirees, those who have worked for promised benefits, and money from schools he has underfunded. This guy is a real piece of work.

Comment by Retired Educator Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 9:42 am
===…as well as a proposal to slash health insurance benefits for retired teachers and state employees.===

===It suggests state worker and teacher retirement benefits can be scaled back, but only if they agree to the change.===

Rauner wants to allegedly balance the budget off the backs of state workers, retirees… even teachers…

Rauner despises state workers, and thinks little of teachers, especially CPS teachers…

… and yet the budget still doesn’t balance, there are still past due bills, and Rauner, with all that reality, and in reality actually needing that tax increase to keep his unbalanced budget, phony, Rauner wants a tax cut.

It’s a good thing Rauner isn’t in charge and hopefully in the end, actual bipartisan adults will save Illinois from Bruce Rauner.

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 9:42 am
Cost shift to the hated property tax. Doa Gov 26 percent.

Comment by Not a Billionaire Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 9:44 am
900 million savings when the budget is several billion out of balance will not work. Rauner needs to go back to school and pass third grade math.

Comment by DuPage Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 9:45 am
==Rauner will propose spending about $37.6 billion of the roughly $38 billion==

Any plans on paying down the 8.4 billion of debt he racked up?

Comment by Jocko Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 9:48 am
Depends on how much you can bond out the $300 million to pay off the backlog

Comment by Politically incorrect Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 9:52 am
Open question as to what level retiree health care can be reduced. If I put on a Judges robe I would say it has to be kept at the same metal level Gold/silver/bronze/tin/Lead as when you retired. I think that the Kanerva case gave a clue. If they couldn’t add a premium, then they can’t reduce the ACA level of the plan. This seems unconstitutional.

Comment by Anotheretiree Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 9:53 am
Trump is trying to pay for his taxbreak to the rich by turning federal social programs over to the states, and Mini Me, Governor Rauner, is continuing that downhill roll by attempting to slough off state responsibilities on governmental entities further downstream.

We reject your abdication of responsibility, Brucie.

Comment by PuiblicServant Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 9:53 am
Another year, another proposal from the Gov, another round of Dems clamoring on about how terrible it is, moaning about cuts — do you want an 8% income tax? Because you either make cuts or raise taxes. And if your argument is “the problem is where he’s cutting”, please, indicate where exactly you would make enough cuts to balance this budget.

Fed up with the armchair budgeteers. The State’s budget problems are longstanding and a structural imbalance exists. The choices required to get us out of this hole aren’t easy ones to make - and without offering alternatives, media and the majority party do nothing to push this important discussion forward.

Comment by BlackHawk Boone Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 9:53 am
=proposal to slash health insurance benefits for retired teachers and state employees.=

I cannot speak to other retirees, but teachers paid into TRIP and THIS so reducing teacher health care benefits could be an issue since we essentially prepay a significant amount of the premium in advance. TRIP if I remember correctly is a deduction to help pay for those already retired and THIS is the advance payment (or it is the other way around) and teachers health insurance does not cost the state much if anything at all because they still pay a premium upon retirement.

Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 9:59 am
Rauner thinks property taxes are too high, and also wants to shift costs to property taxes.

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/f_scott_fitzgerald_100572

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 10:01 am
===Another year, another proposal from the Gov, another round of Dems clamoring on about how terrible it is, moaning about cuts — do you want an 8% income tax?===

I can hear the mouth breathing from here, lol

Rauner himself raised the state debt by the billions, you already knew that, but…

If there’s an immediate reason to raise taxes it’s on Rauner for accruing debt.

===And if your argument is “the problem is where he’s cutting”, please, indicate where exactly you would make enough cuts to balance this budget.===

Rauner has significant constitutional questions for his cuts, making them virtually impossible, and Rauner still needs 60 and 30, and your blind ignorance, you keep forgetting that a budget was implimented this last fiscal year, putting votes on fiscal decisions, even overriding vetoes. Keep up.

===Fed up with the armchair budgeteers. The State’s budget problems are longstanding and a structural imbalance exists. The choices required to get us out of this hole aren’t easy ones to make - and without offering alternatives, media and the majority party do nothing to push this important discussion forward.===

LOL.

Next time, save the typing…

“If it wasn’t for that pesky constitution…”

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 10:08 am
@Blackhawk Boone - What realistic cuts is Rauner offering?

A DOA cost-shift that will just raise my property taxes so he can take credit for a puny state income tax decrease is not a cut.

And funny you attack “armchair budgeteers” at the same time your post carries water for Bruce “not in charge” Rauner, the biggest armchair budgeteer of them all.

Comment by hisgirlfriday Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 10:13 am
Still waiting on your brilliant idea to close the deficit, Willy.

Comment by BlackHawk Boone Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 10:13 am
=Rauner thinks property taxes are too high, and also wants to shift costs to property taxes.=

That is the rub, schools cannot levy for teacher pension costs. If they have space available in their tax rate (actually in their individual Fund caps) they could increase their Ed Fund rate or bond out for Working Cash. That is unless their is a revenue stream from the state (unlikely) or they allow schools to levy for teacher pensions (a definite no at this point) like we do for IMRF and Social Security.

Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 10:16 am
=== - BlackHawk Boone - Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 10:13 am

Still waiting on your brilliant idea to close the deficit, Willy.===

Am I more in charge than the Governor of the state of Illinois.

I’m constantly amazed how I’m elevated to being a not in charge Governor, lol

So you admit Rauner’s ways are unconstitutional, is that why you’re asking me?

I explained my tax plan many times, thanks, use the Google…

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 10:16 am
“without offering alternatives, media and the majority party do nothing to push this important discussion forward”

A progressive income tax and marijuana legalization are two ideas that are out there, but Republicans won’t vote for them in any meaningful way. Republicans are hung up on protecting the super-wealthy, even if it means tax cuts for many others—dropping the state income tax from 4.95% to lower amounts for lower earners.

No way does the proverbial cat have to be skinned in only the Rauner way, getting savings only or mostly on the backs of government employees.

Comment by Grandson of Man Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 10:17 am
@BlackHawk Boone: It’s not OWs responsibility to propose a balanced budget. It’s the governor’s. And not only has the governor abdicated that responsibility every year, but he claims he’s not even in charge of the state.

Comment by Steve Rogers Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 10:19 am
1. The pension plan is based on President Cullerton’s proposal

2. If you really believe the Gov is more “in charge” of Illinois than Speaker Madigan… I’m amazed you can still get oxygen under all that sand

Comment by BlackHawk Boone Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 10:23 am
Here is an armchair…progressive income tax….it is coming and Rauner can thank himself.

Comment by Wondering Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 10:26 am
===1. The pension plan is based on President Cullerton’s proposal===

Which, at “best”, will lead to few giving up a constitutionally guaranteed pension… and at “worst” a waste of time as it has more of a possibility to be unconstitutional, than fiscally possible.

===2. If you really believe the Gov is more “in charge” of Illinois than Speaker Madigan… I’m amazed you can still get oxygen under all that sand===

Being a victim to the opposite what the constitution says isn’t a budgetary tool.

Rauner ran up billions in debt without Madigan, that’s pretty powerful, lol

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 10:27 am
I thought the budget had to be balanced based upon current law. Quinn submitted two budgets his last year to meet the requirements. One was a barebones budget with the tax hike expiring mid year. The other spent more money but extended the 5% tax rate. The GA then used the generous spending but no tax hike in their budget.

Comment by Last Bull Moose Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 10:28 am
“2. If you really believe the Gov is more “in charge” of Illinois than Speaker Madigan… I’m amazed you can still get oxygen under all that sand”

It wasn’t Madigan who said he wanted compromise then derailed the senate’s grand bargain by pulling support at the last minute. It wasn’t Madigan who called Democratic reforms phony and flat-out refused them. It wasn’t Madigan who wasted time pushing a TA that wouldn’t pass, and who insisted on anti-union legislation to go along with a property tax freeze.

I’m amazed you can get oxygen with your head so far up your posterior.

Comment by Grandson of Man Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 10:36 am
===1. The pension plan is based on President Cullerton’s proposal===

And that plan only works if it’s deemed constitutional. Now it’s possible that it could be as it does introduce consideration into the mix. But it’s success would be dependent on retirees being unable to do math. I wouldn’t bet on retirees taking “something less in return” than what they’re actually owed.

Comment by Pundent Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 10:38 am
Boone, if your (and Governor Victim’s) assertation that Madigan is in charge is true, and Rauner has said time and again he cannot do anything because of that, why would voters want to give him a second term?

He has shown a distinct lack of leadership and has consistently abdicated any responsibility for anything. He has an inability to be honest, and an unwillingness to learn the job he was elected to. This budget situation is more magic beans on his part (constitutionality of pension and retiree healthcare changes), so 4 Times now with budget addresses he hasn’t show a balanced budget. That’s on him, nobody else.

Comment by Fixer Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 10:40 am
If Rauner signs a budget that requires and uses the tax increase to budget and fund his state agencies… he can’t ru against the tax increase, as his signature indicates the increase is a needed element.

I can’t see this ending, right now, “today, with a Rauner signed budget.

A bipartisan GA budget will passed, then will become law over Rauner’s vetoes with overrides….

…

… again.

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 10:45 am
1. Legalize pot.

2. Tax the churches.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 10:45 am
==If you really believe the Gov is more “in charge” of Illinois than Speaker Madigan==

Wonderful. Another victim heard from.

Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 10:53 am
Great…..just great
Another year of Public Servants
being blamed for
pension costs
Healthcare costs
So I and other state, county, and municipal workers
Should do with less
To atone for the sins of others.
Public Servants
Sin eaters
Loyal to the state
Working every day to help
Our citizens cope with the damage.
So few now
Down 35% last I checked
2015 smallest state workforce per capita
But the collapse is
Desired and by design
Convenient for both sides of the chamber.
It’s not long now before the engine
Won’t start again
Growth can’t be automated
You can’t do anything
Without the people to do it
Rauner and BTIA is proof
Superstars and Austrian economics
Get nothing done
Loyal public servants
Make the engine run
And propel the vehicle of state.
I dare anyone to FOIA CMS
To find the real number of state employees
I guarantee you’ll be horrified.
Way to go Bruce
Blame the workers.

Comment by Honeybear Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 10:53 am
@BlackHawk Boone- Maybe in your free time give the Illinois Constitution a quick read. The Governor of Illinois is one of the most powerful in the nation. He has far more authority than the speaker.

This governor is weak because 1) He is dishonest with everyone. 2) Does not know how to accept victory. 3) Does not know how to make a deal or really want to make a deal 4)And this one is a biggie, Rauner says he is weak.

Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 10:53 am
Not only do teachers pay into Teachers Retirement Health Program with every paycheck while working but the premiums they pay each month as they use it are not cheap.

How this could not be seen as a diminishment is beond me.

If it were to be diminished, I want my money back that I paid for this for 37 years.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 10:59 am
Another year, another banking on immediate “savings” from likely unconstitutional pension legislation that hasn’t even passed.

How many suburban and Downstate Republicans does Rauner believe he can put on that pension shift to their property tax bases?

This is a pointless exercise, just like they do it on the federales level.

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 11:03 am
Rauner certainly has proposed to spend every dime of that income tax hike, plus billions more from phantom “savings.”

Makes sense that he didn’t fight a lick on that override of his veto.

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 11:10 am
—Makes sense that he didn’t fight a lick on that override of his veto—

What’s sad is, the number of voters who don’t get this and will buy into the coming ads.

Comment by sonny chiss Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 11:16 am
“suggests state worker and teacher retirement benefits can be scaled back, but only if they agree to the changes and are given something in return.”

When crafting the “something in return” part, I hope the elected officials will remember that retired teachers already have an overabundance of magic beans.

Comment by morningstar Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 11:18 am
“Public Servants
Sin eaters
Loyal to the state
Working every day to help”

The governor profited massively from the public sector for decades and paid a low state income tax. Remember, this is someone who got rich off of the system and the “corrupt insiders” he allegedly despises. Decades of underpaying Illinois revenue. Decades of public employee pension business.

Rauner is a North Shore “uber coastal liberal” not only on abortion but also when it comes to his personal enrichment off of the public sector.

Comment by Grandson of Man Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 11:21 am
I would imagine the health insurance changes are the same ones the governor has been trying to ram thru all along. The ones that the court told him he couldn’t impose because AFSCME’s prior contract was still in effect even after the expiration date. None of this is new.

Comment by thoughts matter Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 11:35 am
Since he uses the “Madigan Tax Hike” for HIS budget, is it now the “Rauner Tax Hike”?

Comment by Person 8 Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 11:37 am
Shift teacher pension burden to school districts? Even with the new school funding formula (still not in place almost 8 months into the FY) there is still a huge discrepancy in available resources. AND the pension is underfunded already because the state failed to do its part as the districts and teachers were doing theirs.

Comment by equila Mockingbird Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 11:51 am
This is the “made for TV budget”. Not only has Rauner proposed 3 balanced budgets he’s now proposed a 4th with a surplus. I’m sure we’ll be hearing a lot about this from him over the coming months. The question is will he be called out on it?

Comment by Pundent Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 11:53 am
I can’t wait to hear the republican legislators like Bourne, Butler, Davidsmeyer et al give their support to Rauner’s balanced budget proposal.

Comment by don the legend Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 11:55 am
So, what are the specific details around the cost shift to the school districts?
A few years ago they were looking at maybe adding 2% to the employer TRS contribution rate. Are we looking at something comparable? Anyone know?

Comment by Occam Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 12:03 pm
Is the % that employees pay into the pension tied to their union contracts or to the constitution

Comment by Nick Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 12:09 pm
What might fly and would correct a wrong is shifting that part of pension payment 60% above the state mean to local.

Comment by Wondering Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 12:18 pm
Did not do a good job. Locals pick up pension costs on the amount of salaries 10% or more over state mean.

Comment by Wondering Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 12:23 pm
Boone, Rauner’s agency heads were asked to identify potential cuts last year and they couldn’t. Can you?

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 12:37 pm
== Is the % that employees pay into the pension tied to their union contracts or to the constitution ==

It’s actually in the State statutes and protected by the Constitution.

Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 12:52 pm
== Is the % that employees pay into the pension tied to their union contracts or to the constitution ==

== It’s actually in the State statutes and protected by the Constitution. ==

The legislature sets the contribution rates for TRS theoretically based upon the actuarial recommendations from TRS itself. I believe the employee current rate is 9.0%. However, each individual district’s union contract is bargained to determine how much of that 9% is actually deducted from the teacher and how much is contributed by the district. I believe a previous study indicated the vast majority of teacher contracts in the state showed the districts paid 50% to 100% of the 9% rate.

Comment by Occam Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 1:36 pm
===f it were to be diminished, I want my money back that I paid for this for 37 years==

That’s a deal I would support. Teachers and other public employees get back their contributions, around 10% on the dollar of their expected benefits, and the rest of us get decently funded schools, social services, law enforcement and non-confiscatory tax rates.

Comment by Herald Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 1:40 pm
==That’s a deal I would support.==

That’s mighty big of you. Should all bondholders get stiffed too?

Comment by Jocko Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 1:46 pm
How is it that we have a teacher shortage when they get such extravagant pensions, work 8 months of the year, and only six hours a day? (hint, that’s sarcasm people, there is a reason so many new teachers walk the first few years)

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 1:51 pm
===Should all bondholders get stiffed too?===

Yep.

Comment by Herald Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 1:58 pm
The Supreme Ct decision on the retiree health was really an outlier. There is and was no basis for it. The pension decision is based on the impairment clause- the retiree health decision was a work of fiction. Unfortunately there is no recourse

Comment by Sue Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 2:00 pm
==That’s a deal I would support==

I’m sure you and the rest of the “it’s not fair” crowd would.

Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 2:00 pm
==There is and was no basis for it==

Retiree healthcare is a retirement benefit, thus the nexus.

Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 2:01 pm
The proposed healthcare savings will never materialize. The only way he can implement his healthcare plan is to eliminate the right to collectively bargain over healthcare benefits. That is DOA.

Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 2:04 pm
THere is no reason for a person to go into Education. I would hope that the shortage would become acute.

There. Think about that when your child or grandchild is approaching their first year in school and they’ve hired just anybody to fill that position.

A bit different then, huh?

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 3:13 pm
Sue @ 2 pm ==The Supreme Ct decision on the retiree health was really an outlier. There is and was no basis for it. The pension decision is based on the impairment clause- the retiree health decision was a work of fiction. ==

You might try actually reading the opinion, and the opinions of the courts in Alaska, Hawaii and New York that reached the same conclusion, before reaching your conclusions.

Comment by Whatever Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 5:05 pm
Folks the pension clause is just that- it limits impairment to participation in a pension plan. Retire healthcare is not addressed in the constitution. The Supreme Court was entitled to its opinion but it wasn’t required by the Constitution.

Comment by Sue Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 5:31 pm
The 1970 convention had a funny way of limiting the provision to “pensions.” Maybe only true believers can see it?

Article XIII, Section 5. PENSION AND RETIREMENT RIGHTS
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.

Comment by Whatever Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 5:38 pm
–Folks the pension clause is just that- it limits impairment to participation in a pension plan. Retire healthcare is not addressed in the constitution. –

And here’s what the Constitution actually says:

–SECTION 5. PENSION AND RETIREMENT RIGHTS
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.–

I guess the Supremes, unlike some, actually read the Constitution, and concluded contracted retirement healthcare was part of a retirement system.

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 5:42 pm
==Retire healthcare is not addressed in the constitution==

Retiree healthcare is a retirement benefit. Therefore, it is addressed in the Constitution.

I think I’ll give deference to the guys and gals in the black robes on this one.

Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 5:49 pm
Actually, you don’t need to go to the Pension Clause on the retiree health insurance. Just go back to the offer and the way it is phrased:

IF you work 20 or more years or the State, THEN when you retire the state retiree WILL receive premium free health insurance.

It’s a straight contract: if the employee does A the State will do B. Offer : acceptance : delivery.

State and Federal contract law support the conclusion the IL SC reached.

Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 6:24 pm
RNUG-based on your analysis- the ruling should then be limited to State employees- teachers work for the local districts as- the same is the case at the municipality level

Comment by Sue Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 6:35 pm
Sue — RNUG said you didn’t have to go to the constitution, he didn’t say you could not. And you obviously still haven’t read it, because it expressly applies to local governments and school districts.

Comment by Whatever Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 6:58 pm
Sue:

He was addressing state employees only in his comment.

Go back and re-read the Constitution. It includes local governments and school districts in the pension clause.

Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 7:03 pm
The Kanerva case specifically applied to those offered the 20 year deal, basically SERS and SURS

Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 7:16 pm
RNUG,

Retired teachers do not get premium free health insurance.

Comment by Seymourkid Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 8:47 pm
-seymourkid–

All SERS and some SURS (mostly non-teachers) got the 20 year deal

Comment by RNUG for Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 9:36 pm
Sue, if you read everything I’ve written, I never said TRS got the 20 year deal.

Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Feb 14, 18 @ 9:38 pm