Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Sales tax avoiding companies dealt huge loss by IL Supreme Court
Next Post: Off-duty cops hired to patrol exorcism
Posted in:
* AP…
Illinois unions are planning an intensive lobbying push in opposition to a developing plan to deal with the state’s $100 billion pension crisis.
The “We are One Coalition” represents the state’s major employee unions. The group sent an email to members about “emergency call-in days” next week and Dec. 2-3.
* From the coalition’s website…
With the leaders’ behind this scheme, it will take everything we’ve got to stop it. So be prepared to give it your all.
It’s also likely that the leaders will unveil their scheme quickly and try to jam it through the House and the Senate without enough time for open hearings or public review.
Pretty sure there will be hearings, but if they do come up with an agreement it’ll roll pretty fast.
* I always feel bad for legislative secretaries during actions like this, but it can’t be helped…
* Pension Emergency Call-In Days - November 25-26, Dec. 2-3 - We will swamp the switchboards of every legislator on these four days. No matter how many times you’ve called your legislators, call again. Call both your representative and your senator. Be sure to leave a strong, clear message “VOTE NO ON ANY PENSION BILL THAT DOESN’T HAVE THE SUPPORT OF THE WE ARE ONE UNION COALITION.” Our hotline is 888-412-6570 or click here to call on November 25-26 and December 2-3.
* Pension Emergency Legislative District Actions - Monday, December 2 - We’ll be targeting the district offices of key legislators all across the state for a vigorous grassroots lobbying effort with as many union members and retirees as possible in attendance. Check with your local unions and/or retiree subchapters to see if there is an event in your area — our coalition’s unions will be reaching out to involve their members and retirees in this action day. Then clear your schedule NOW so that you can make sure legislators in your area feel the heat.
…Adding… Eden Martin’s Sun-Times column is about the Gettysburg Address…
President Lincoln wanted people to understand the reason for their war sacrifices. He wanted them to resolve that we not go back to monarchy or any other government by the few. He knew better than most how messy democracy was, but he exhorted citizens to do the work of preserving that democracy, even when it meant accepting decisions with which they profoundly disagreed. Even if it meant they and their representatives had to accept compromise.
Yet compromise is unacceptable in pension reform, Eden?
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 2:08 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Sales tax avoiding companies dealt huge loss by IL Supreme Court
Next Post: Off-duty cops hired to patrol exorcism
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
This is all about the union leadership just trying to look like they are doing something to stop the change that is about to occur. This train has already left the stations and the workers have lost.
Comment by Cassiopeia Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 2:22 pm
At least the legislative aides can appreciate this issue. They don’t like what their bosses are doing to them any better than the rest of us.
Comment by Norseman Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 2:27 pm
Cassiopeia - Sometimes you got to do what you got to do. Remember the Alamo.
Comment by Norseman Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 2:28 pm
I agree this is a lost cause as far as the legislative process. The courts will be making the final decision. Wonder just how long that will take and what happens to current retirees in the meantime.
Comment by mythoughtis Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 2:30 pm
I predict it doesn’t pass once the details are revealed.
Comment by Raising Kane Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 2:31 pm
Yeah hell with the 70 year old woman on a fixed income that doesn’t receive Social Security or Medicare, she can eat dog food. I’m sure she can find an employer that will risk her having a heart attack on the job to make a little money to supplement her income.
Comment by Not important Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 2:37 pm
“This train has already left the stations and the workers have lost.”
That’s not necessarily true yet. First of all, reform has yet to pass, and even if it does, there is a chance that it will be found unconstitutional.
I commend the public unions for everything they did to help the marriage equality campaign. One of my own, John Kohlhepp, was thanked yesterday along with many others by Rep. Harris. I honestly hope the unions and their allies can mount a successful campaign to do budget reform that in the long run asks the wealthiest to pay more. The time is right for this movement.
Comment by Grandson of Man Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 2:38 pm
I guess the question I still turn back to is where were these unions when the plans were being underfunded?
I get you want others to pay more taxes to help fix this problem ‘tax the rich more’… I guess I have missed anyone willing to give up much of anything on their own (benefits or willing to pay more taxes personally) but more than willing to say others should pay more or give something up.
Comment by OneMan Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 3:06 pm
So the union leaders will make life miserable for legislative secretaries for a few days. Real effective, guys.
If they were serious about this, they would be in the process of challenging all the House Dems who voted for SB 1 in the upcoming primary. That would really get their attention…and maybe get the mushrooms to pressure Madigan to call SB 2404.
Oh, and what’s with urging members to call “both” of their Representatives? Did someone reinstate cumulative voting when we weren’t looking?
Comment by Robert Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 3:07 pm
I just got an e-mail back from my state Rep. He said that everything he has seen looks unconstitutional. Why would there even be an attempt to pass something like this, knowing it will get tied up in court, at taxpayer expense for months? This is not reform.
Comment by Rusty618 Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 3:10 pm
Phone banking the secretaries is always a profound mistake.
There has been plenty of compromise. What has been overlooked is one side willing to do zip zero nada and pretend like they should have no role in the future.
Sorta like the national/state GOPies pretending health care in America was A-O.K. before ACA
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 3:12 pm
OneMan, there was an attempt on the part of one of the unions to use the courts to force the GA/Gov to fund the pension properly. I am not clear on the details - others here may remember.
The effort failed.
What do you suggest they should have done?
Comment by dupage dan Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 3:12 pm
It is an interesting juxtaposition, the whole mortgage scam and the pension. I am a pensioner but I feel we need to compromise because if we don’t, the money won’t be there. But who is leading the charge to decrease our benefits or if you followed the lead of wannnabe-Gov. Raunuel, abolish the entire system, is many of the same people who participated in the MBS catastrophe; the hedge funds and bankers. Lets face it, if the newer employees switch to 401K, who will be around to fund the pensions for retirees. What a mess.
Comment by James the Intolerant Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 3:17 pm
One Man:
The unions did take the issue to court. The courts ruled that they could not force the legislature to appropriate the pension payment.
Comment by AFSCME Steward Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 3:17 pm
“I guess I have missed anyone willing to give up much of anything on their own (benefits or willing to pay more taxes personally) but more than willing to say others should pay more or give something up. ”
Do you think union members don’t pay taxes?
Comment by anon Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 3:18 pm
dupage dan –
Wow, where do I start…
Held back campaign help and cash until things were fully funded…
Said, hey how about part of this raise go instead into the state pension system?
Gone on strike…
My dad was in a union that had a union pension system no way would they have let it go unfunded or underfunded.
Comment by OneMan Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 3:19 pm
@OneMan:
This is state government not the private sector. How would you suggest that they force the GA to fund the pension system. We are all ears if you have the magic bullet for that.
Also, as for your comment about people giving things up, these benefits were EARNED by workers. I know it’s easy to dump on public employees but they shouldn’t have any less rights to their EARNED benefits than anybody else.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 3:25 pm
“I guess I have missed anyone willing to give up much of anything on their own”
You are right in seeing that unions and their super-wealthy opponents, as two of the major players in the budget battle, are not willing to give up much of anything on their own. That’s human nature and an example of freedom. Individuals and groups of people try to get as much power as possible and want to give as little as possible.
Whether or not it was coerced, AFSCME is still saving the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in the new contract. The unions agreed to cuts in SB 2404. What have the IPI/Rauner people agreed to give? What legislation exists with their backing that requires the wealthy to pay even a little more in taxes?
Comment by Grandson of Man Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 3:29 pm
Demoralized…
Well two things…
I know people who EARNED their pensions in the private sector, then had the employers fail and they started receiving smaller pensions when that happened. I would suggest my grandfather EARNED his pension…
Knew some folks who had GM pensions that were cut significantly after they went into bankrupcy, I would never suggest they didn’t EARN their pensions either, but if the money isn’t there, it isn’t there, simple as that.
As for what they could have done to force, no I suspose there is nothing they could have done to force anything. But I don’t think I have ever heard a public employee union leader argue as loud and as hard for a pension to be properly funded as they have for a pay increase or to prevent someone from having to pay more for healthcare.
Again, I go back to my whole strike argument. That is a tool they have that I don’t recall a state level union using in my adult life.
So instead the answer is to ‘tax the rich’ more, if anyone thinks that over time we are not going to include more and more people in that definition…
I am not suggesting we even cut the vast majority of pensions, but to say the public employee unions have no culpability in this mess is quite frankly wrong.
Comment by OneMan Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 3:34 pm
Are we at a point where compromise is still possible? Between whom? The GA and the governor? The state and the unions? The taxpayers and all of the above?
Learned folks have been predicting this impasse for quite some time. There have been efforts to address, if not resolve, the issue - Edgars ramp and the unions forgoing a raise to add to the revenue. So many folks fell into a lassitude since the state had historically grown out of earlier short term crises. The sky is falling types were dismissed as handwringers and worry warts. There is even some debate as to just how serious this issue really is. At least that’s what Cullerton says.
What is the concerned citizen to make of all this. I like to think of myself as an informed voter (not low or high information). And yet, the competing narratives can be very difficult to sift thru. As a state employee I don’t know, frankly, who to trust. Certainly not the pols who have shortchanged the pensions all these years. I am wary of the intransigent Union officials as well. I am a person not afraid of compromise but, like Mongo, am only pawn in game of life.
Comment by dupage dan Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 3:38 pm
===That is a tool they have that I don’t recall a state level union using in my adult life.===
State law forbade the unions from bargaining over pension benefits. I doubt they could’ve used pension funding as a legal reason to strike.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 3:42 pm
OneMan, your posts reveal a lack of knowledge on the subject. Of perhaps an unwillingness to accept reality. My union contract doesn’t allow for strikes. To do so would be illegal. Do you suggest I break the law? You mention bankruptcy - the state can not declare bankruptcy. I know you lurk here - I have seen your name before. What you are posting has been discussed ad nauseum - did you miss those 300 previous discussions?
Comment by dupage dan Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 3:42 pm
One Man — workers in the private sector at least have a few protections that public sector does not. Federal law demands that private employers fund their pension plans, if they have them and make the 401k matches that they have committed to. Madigan and co. have stolen from our annual required contributions and there is not much that can be done about it. And state workers can’t strike. And I keep hearing how the power of public unions needs to be curbed. Really? They can’t do much now — not when the Fahnner and his buddies can buy both teams. And I really wish everyone would stop adopting the language of the Trib. The term “pension reform” should not apply to the outright theft of benefits already earned. It can be applied to future benefits — at least current employees can decide if they want to accept the new terms of employment or find greener pastures.
Comment by kimocat Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 3:44 pm
=== State law forbade the unions from bargaining over pension benefits ===
This is why I read this post. Rich, thank you for providing that info. I know you have posted it before, my mind doesn’t necessarily retain it, tho.
Comment by dupage dan Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 3:45 pm
OneMan @ 3:06 pm:
The unions were leading on this until the ISC shut them down. It was the unions, and IFT specifically as lead, who filed the landmark pension funding case where the ISC said the fudnign method was up to the GA as long as the pensions were paid when due. See IFT v Lindberg 1975
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 4:04 pm
OneMan @ 3:19 pm:
If your dad’s pension fund was good, he was lucky. My dad’s pension fund was so robbed that his pension was just enough so he could keep paying his union dues to keep getting his pension … and he helped FOUND that local.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 4:08 pm
==but to say the public employee unions have no culpability in this mess is quite frankly wrong==
Last I checked the unions didn’t have control over the appropriation process. You might recall the little case going on right now where the GA is refusing to appropriate money for back pay for union members who were denied raises under the previous contract. The union is screaming pretty loud about that, but it hasn’t been done yet.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 4:13 pm
No matter what happens, key stakeholders will claim that there should have been “more hearings,” and this was “put together in 24 hours” and “jammed thru.”
I’ve seen this faux outrage about the process on every controversial big bill. Just because you don’t get what you want, doesn’t mean you weren’t listened to.
After two years of arguing every possible idea, every possible combination of ideas, multiple hearings, multiple committees, test votes, trial balloons, never-ending analyses, editorials, “actions” and politicking:
Enough talk on all sides! Do something! Finally!
Comment by walkinfool Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 4:20 pm
As Rich states, the secretaries will get the brunt of it, but regardless of their loyalty to their legislator, you can be sure their bosses will hear about the public’s displeasure!
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 4:22 pm
Well, then I guess my question is, what levers do public employee unions have in this state? Not trying to be snarky, really and I understand they are helpful if the state tries jerking around your employment.
But, if they don’t pay you your raises and you say you can’t do anything about them under funding your pension system what can they do when it comes to comp and benefits besides negotiate them knowing full well at least when it comes to comp they don’t have to meet the obligation?
Comment by OneMan Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 4:25 pm
I do want to say thanks for the state pension education today…
I would suggest you try and get that word out a bit more because I am likely not the only person with these questions.
Comment by OneMan Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 4:27 pm
I stand by my prediction last week of just enough votes to pass but not enough to be effective immediately.
Next July 1 gets the GA past the primary and into the general election cycle with not enough time for any final court ruling. It also lets Quinn prepare a FY15 budget where the temp income tax expires.
Then it all blows up after the 2014 election and a new income tax increase gets enacted, probably in the lame duck session.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 4:27 pm
RNUG, thank you for the history of the union attempt to compel the state to properly fund the pensions. Again, this is why I read this post.
Comment by dupage dan Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 4:27 pm
It appears that the hay is in the barn. Doesn’t seem that there is power to do much else other than hoard what little money we have(screw our economy and small businesses)so we can pay our soon to be skyrocketing health costs. Public employees/retirees are such easy targets. Such saps. They took our money (again) because they could. That’s all there is to it.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 4:29 pm
RNUG, they know what’s coming. This isn’t the first phone-a-thon. It isn’t how this looks to legislators, it’s how it looks to the people around the state paying for all of this. As I recall, the screamers at the last stand-in, phone-a-thon lost the vote. And they weren’t handled with kid gloves on this site either.
Comment by A guy... Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 4:30 pm
OneMan, this issue has been gone over here very thoroughly several times. Stick around and pay attention. I learn more here than I do from any other source. There is no fairer blog.
Comment by dupage dan Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 4:35 pm
RNUG calls it - I bet you’re right
Comment by dupage dan Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 4:37 pm
OneMan @ 4:25 pm:
The unions really don’t have that much leverage in state government. If you dig back into history, the unions did not organize and gain / earn government union status. IL government was not unionized to any extent until Big Jim Thompson “granted” it in the 80’s.
And there is a sub-set, the so-called Merit Compensaiton people who , for the most part, have no representation at all. I spent most my career in MC titles so I know the abuse that could be heaped on the MC staff.
About the only thing a state employee has guarenteed is their pension … which is why you see so many of us outraged about the attempts to diminishment it.
Finally, you said you got an education today … maybe you should expand it and read the Eric Madiar pension analysis titled Is Welching on Public Pension Promises and Option for Illinos?
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 4:37 pm
OneMan, the court ruling referenced by The People ex rel. Illinois Federation of Teachers, AFT, AFL-CIO vs. Lindberg, 60 Ill.2d 266 (1975). The Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability analysis of that ruling states: “Furthermore, the court recognized that the sponsors of section 5 of article XIII of the 1970 Constitution only intended to guarantee that pensioners would receive the full amount of their pensions, and that the framers never intended to place a constitutional restriction on the Governor’s ability to reduce annual appropriations to the pension systems.” Page 4 Thus a ruling only a few years after the adoption of the 1970 Illinois Constitution bound the hands of the workers to force compliance with a financially responsible funding of the pension systems. Eric Madiar, in his paper on why pension benefits cannot be reduced, did an excellent job describing the historical underfunding of the system. You can read it by going to: http://www.senatedem.ilga.gov/index.php/component/content/article/108-public-information-brochures/1517-pension-debate
An attempt to address this issue during the Edgar administration only served to backfire when the “ramp” it further exacerbated the problems we currently face.
I have great respect for you, but for you to argue that I should get screwed because others in the private sector - including my own father - have been screwed is not on target. I would be happy to support efforts to provide equity for those folks. (Try reading “Retirement Heist: How Companies Plunder and Profit from the Nest Eggs of American Workers” by Ellen E. Schultz. It is a nice book on this travesty.)
However, there is a different set of facts here. The historical underfunding by the State resulted in the addition of a constitutional protection for public employee benefits.
I also would like to point out that this isn’t simply a union issue. There are thousands of merit comp employees and retirees who are affected but not represented in this process. We must depend upon the protection the constitution provides.
Comment by Norseman Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 4:43 pm
A guy… @ 4:30 pm:
If you’ve been reading my posts the past several years, I’ve been highly critical of the unions’ handling of the whole issue. They were years late and millions short on their reaction.
I also have a pretty good insight into some of the secretaries … my first wife was one.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 4:43 pm
Kimocat, federal law is constantly being changed to make it easier for businesses to come up with the required pension payments. The last change allowed businesses to look back to sky high inflation years ago in setting assumed interest rates because the current low rates mean they can’t rely on investments and have to pony up more real cash. Businesses didn’t want to do that so the Fed Transportation Bill included a provision that let them look at historical inflation trends in setting that amount.
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 4:44 pm
==what can they do when it comes to comp and benefits besides negotiate them knowing full well at least when it comes to comp they don’t have to meet the obligation==
Go to court, but even that isn’t a guarantee.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 4:46 pm
I receive a state pension (SURS). I oppose any so-called reform that banks the so-called savings at the front end and ramps up contributions at the back end. State funding should be level, just like a typical mortgage. Take the so-called annual savings from the reform and pay down the pension debt. I don’t want so-called reform that just necessitates reform 5 or 10 years in the future.
Comment by Dan Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 4:56 pm
Has anyone else been wondering why we still get negative pension numbers? Wall Street has been killing it over the past few years recently passing 16000, our pension system is heavily linked to Wall Street and the investment funding machine, so then why has the pension funds liability continued to spiral into a deeper debt? We’ve gone from $80 to over $100 billion in the red over the past couple of years. Do you think that maybe this narrative is being pushed by Springfield and Illinois business leaders to artificially inflate the crisis? The pension funds might be underfunded but I do not believe for a second that they are still bleeding money, in fact I suspect it’s quite the opposite, the markets have turned around and the funds have in all likelihood been making money.
Comment by bulldog58 Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 5:20 pm
If the pension bill passes the Illinois Senate and House, the legislators will not only be reducing their legislative aides pension benefits, but also reducing their own pension benefits. So it is very likely that the legislators will once again think of something to stop this from happening. I’m just going by past performance.
Comment by Ruby Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 5:27 pm
== With the leaders’ behind this scheme, it will take everything we’ve got to stop it. So be prepared to give it your all.
What’s this about our leaders’ backsides?
Comment by Stuff happens Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 5:29 pm
May not even call members in on Dec 3. If they do it may not pass. If it passes it will probably be a simple majority and will not take effect untill July 1,2014. A law suite will be filed by the union shortly after any pension reform bill that is not negotiated with the union.
The IL Const. is clear and the only chance the state has to appeal to the IL SC that the state is in crisis and the state must use its “police powers”. That is one tough sell, but of course at the end of the day what is legal is what a majority of the IL SC say it is. My bet is at the end of the day the GA will be forced to pay the constitutionaly protected benifits.
Comment by facts are stubborn things Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 5:29 pm
The pension fund is currently funded at 43%. 2 years ago it was at 32%. It is trending upward and that is why they are trying to get this done now. The state deficit is now 6 billion as opposed to 15 billion 2 years ago. Things are looking up and they want to enact this before everyone gets wise.
Comment by redraider Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 5:31 pm
Michelle Flaherty — I’m not surprised to hear that. There seems to be no limit on what the rich are willing to do to keep from adequately funding their commitments to middle class workers, be they public or private. And we are just the small potatoes. I wonder how many of the “angry taxpayers of Illinois” realize that their Social Security and Medicare benefits are also in the crosshairs.
Comment by kimocat Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 5:32 pm
bulldog58 @ 5:20 pm:
As has been covered here multiple times, IL has taken almost the same actions as other states like California in terms of pension reform. All those states saw their bond ratings go up, not down like IL.
What was the difference? One thing - those state’s tax increase was permanent. The bond houses are looking at the expiration of the temp income tax increase and seeing a estimated $5.4B (and up) hole in the IL budget halfway through FY15 (1/1/15).
The financial math says the state needs the money. The political math says whoever votes for a tax increase will lose campaign contributions from the rich and the voters won’t re-elect them. The GA NEEDS a scapegoat - and right now the ‘greedy retirees’ are it.
As I laid out the other day in my guess, pension “reform” passes, Quinn claims the “savings” (plus some accounting slight of hand & optimistic revenue projections) in his FY15 budget, the income tax lapses, people get re-elected, the courts throw reform out, and the GA passes new new income tax blaming both the IL Supreme Court and the “greedy” retirees.
Nowhere in that scenario will you find politicans speaking the truth to the public. The simple truth is the GA “borrowed” the money to provide various other state services and they can’t pay it back without a tax increase.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 5:34 pm
What happened to the Supreme Court decision - the Maag case - has the Judges ever posted their decision?
Comment by Mama Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 5:59 pm
As one who has skin in the game, I want to say thanks to Rich for this Blog on this subject and also all those of knowledge, posting helpful information.
I do deeply resent being considered ‘greedy’ for receiving my 30 year pension, which I honestly earned.
Comment by anonymouse Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 6:14 pm
I am one of the employees with almost 30 years in and about to make the Rule of 85. That’s the only reason I stayed at this no-raise job. If they try to change the age for older employees (all prior proposed legislation made some changes for under-45), please advise which law firm will be representing the employees and I will be happy to contact the firm and be a named plaintiff. Like a 1% reduction in contributions constitutes “consideration” for us older employees…….Get real.
Comment by No Raise Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 6:31 pm
It is worth following what is going on in Rhode Island right now. RI does NOT have the pension protection in their consitution. They have dramatically reduced earned pensions in 2011. The reulting law suit is in mediation per judicial instructions. Rumor is that a compromise may be coming in the near future.
The relevance is the process in Illinois could involve mediation, not just a straight up or down legal decision. I could see the GA pushing a bill through to set up a position going into some mediation process, hoping to achieve a better deal than SB2404….
Comment by Archimedes Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 6:34 pm
RNUG, do you think the GA and governor would be able to recognize any “savings” for the FY15 budget if the case is still in court.
I get your logic, but the whole thing seems a little slippery, even by Illinois standards. It would take some real whoppers to claim the state doesn’t need the revenue, even if “reform” was bought hook, line and sinker by the Supremes — which I find hard to believe, as a layman.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 6:59 pm
FWIW, the State Board of Investment reported a 14.6% return for the year ended Sept. 30, so tracking pretty close to the bull stock market.
Good that they’re light on the private equity.
Weren’t the Tribbies the ones who said no investment advisor would predict an 8% annual return (except their own, of course)?
//www.google.com/search?q=credit+default+sways+unregulated&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 7:08 pm
Mama @ 5:59 pm:
That’s still hanging out there. The other day -Old and In The Way- predicted we’d hear about Maag sometime in February. We have a bet of sorts on the actual ruling.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 10:05 pm
Already have calls in to both of my reps, and one called me back personally. He’s voting against anything close to SB1. I earned that pension. I retired when continuing to work full time for the state would only get me 20% more than my pension payment. I relied on the contractual promise of the pension in financial planning for my self, my wife, and my children. I’ve got 3 of them in college now. I’m lucky. I’ve got work to help pay those enormous college costs. No matter what happens, I’ll find a way to help my children start their adult lives without the massive debt that many others in their generation will unfortunately have.
This state needs more revenue. Look at the tax rates of our surrounding states, and then look at ours. Come on. We’ve gutted state programs enough. The state needs the revenue. The heavy lifting is not to take a hard vote on an unconstitutional bill that will gut a portion of the state’s middle class to pay for other state programs going forward. The pension ‘borrowing’ has already paid for them in the past. The real heavy lifting is to vote for a bill providing for a graduated income tax. A tax in which, as is detailed on the CTBA website, would reduce income taxes from current levels for 94% of Illinois taxpayers. Ah, but you say, a graduated income tax is unconstitutional. I say, if you’re going to claim police powers and violate the constitution, better to be behind a tax reform bill that would reduce taxes for 94% of state taxpayers, than a bill which would drive some of your constituents who are barely surviving now into bankruptcy, bread lines, and ultimately onto medicaid and foodstamps increasing state costs and destroying what little assistance the pension provides in leiu of social security and medicare that aren’t there for state pensioners. I’d make R. Eden Martin and his ilk take a hit before I’d drive a 70 year old lady on a state pension into bankruptcy, but that’s just me.
Comment by PublicServant Friday, Nov 22, 13 @ 6:55 am
I, for one, want them to pass whatever they want that is unconstitutional so that it can go to court and be defeated. Lets get this crap over with.
Comment by State Worker Friday, Nov 22, 13 @ 8:59 am
Get it over with? You assume that this is the last time they’ll come back for a bite? If successful here, they’ll be back on the pension reform mantra again and again. I’m sick of it too, but you have to continue to fight every step of the way, and continue to do so in the future.
Comment by PublicServant Friday, Nov 22, 13 @ 9:22 am
Actuarial, moral, and legal issue playing out on a political field. The leadership looks at this through the lense of how do we retain a majority and others are looking at it - how do we get re-elected. Most on this forum look at the pension issue through what is legal, proper, or emotionaly such as those who figure they don’t have a pension so why shouldn’t we loose some of ours. There are a few inbetween that beleive this whole debate is really about our budget etc. It is all about trying to get the retirees to put back the money the GA took to spend on their programs to get elected. Also, as RNUG points out, it is to pretend that we don’t need to keep income tax at 5%.
Comment by facts are stubborn things Friday, Nov 22, 13 @ 9:43 am
@Facts - I agree with that, but I’m just advocating for a different way for them to pretend.
Comment by PublicServant Friday, Nov 22, 13 @ 9:46 am
- PublicServant - Friday, Nov 22, 13 @ 9:46 am:
Totaly understand your thoughts, feelings, motivations on this.
Comment by facts are stubborn things Friday, Nov 22, 13 @ 11:10 am