Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Today’s number: 19
Next Post: Not so blind and a whole lot of trust
Posted in:
* From yesterday…
Lawyers contesting the Illinois law that overhauls a state pension program that is $111 billion in debt are asking the state Supreme Court for an extra month to file arguments.
Attorneys for state employees, retired teachers and others who contest the constitutionality of the law say they need until March 16, WUIS-FM 91.9 radio in Springfield reported.
The high court agreed in December to fast-track the state’s appeal of a lower court ruling in November that the measure is unconstitutional.
The plaintiffs are challenging a law adopted in late 2013 that reduces pension benefits and raises the retirement age for workers 45 and younger to reduce a monstrous fiscal hole in the state’s pension accounts.
The attorneys wanted time to respond to a myriad of amicus briefs filed in support of the government’s case.
* The Supreme Court took a telling short cut today and simply denied the government’s request to allow the amicus briefs…
In light of the Court’s granting of defendants’ motion to hear this appeal on an expedited basis at the March 2015 term, all motions for leave to file briefs as amici curiae are DENIED.
The plaintiffs’ motion for an extension of time to file their appellees’ brief is DENIED AS MOOT.
The fast track continues.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 11:17 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Today’s number: 19
Next Post: Not so blind and a whole lot of trust
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
WOW !
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 11:19 am
==Fast track==?
Ideally so they can fast track overturning this unconstitutional and thieving bit of law.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 11:20 am
I can almost smell the BURN from here!
LOL
Comment by WhoKnew Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 11:20 am
So given this event, when would a ruling be expected?
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 11:23 am
Nice to read that the ILSC wants to get on with it, and not allow any tricks that can make it difficult to come to a quick decision. Nice try AG Madigan.
Comment by Big Joe Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 11:24 am
Ruh-roh! - Scooby
Keep on peddling scoob, Lisa’s right behind us!
Comment by PublicServant Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 11:24 am
You mean they don’t want to hear what the IL Policy Institute has to say ?? oh no !!!!!
Comment by Anotheretiree Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 11:27 am
You want fast track?
Then lets get this over with.
We don’t need no stinking amici curiae, because we’ve heard enough to make a ruling without it.
Uh - oh!
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 11:27 am
Gee, and IPI worked so hard on their amicus. That’s a box of Crayolas down the tubes.
I think this can be interpreted as “we’ve heard enough.”
Comment by Wordslinger Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 11:28 am
As Stringer Bell said: “GET ON WITH IT!, ..”
Comment by Shark Sandwich Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 11:29 am
And extract from the brief filed by the International Municipal Lawyers Association:
“It should carry considerable weight in this [c]ourt’s analysis that the General Assembly — acting only 40 years after the [c]onstitution was adopted — interpreted the [p]ension [c]lause to allow the [a]ct’s modest changes, which it concluded were ‘consistent with the Illinois Constitution’ and ‘advantageous to both the taxpayers and employees impacted by these changes,’”
—The ‘only 40 years’ made me wonder whether it was a joke. Not clear that the court is missing too much by not considering this sort of thing.
Comment by UIC Guy Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 11:31 am
—”Denied as moot.”—
That’s curious language. Does that mean they’ve already had sufficient ability and time to respond? Or that no new arguments have been presented, so no new responses need be created?
Comment by walker Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 11:32 am
It was the unions that asked for the extra time, not AG Madigan. I loved the quote from the plaintiff’s attorney, “the arguments raised by the amici need to be evaluated and responded to, we do not believe that any of those arguments have any merit.” That was a quick evaluation.
I haven’t heard anyone mention it, but I believe the real reason they asked for the delay is the unions don’t want a decision until after May 31. If the Supremes decide in April that SB1 is unconstitutional, that gives the GA 6 or so weeks to try something else before May 31. But if a decision is issued in June (or even late May), it delays any subsequent legislation by months if not longer.
Comment by Salty Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 11:33 am
Interesting … appears they don’t want to get sidetracked by slightly different themes on the same argument … or they’ve pretty much already decided how this one is going to go.
Have to think this case was in the back of their minds when they wrote Kanerva.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 11:33 am
If the law must be overturned, it’s in the state’s best interest that it’s struck down as soon as possible. The state would need to work on lawful solutions.
Since we were able to make pension payments with the increased revenue from the income tax hike, that’s one of the routes we can take again. People also mention taxing pensions. I support that concept.
Comment by Grandson of Man Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 11:34 am
“Moot” b/c part of the argument for extension was the obligation to answer all the arguments in all the amici briefs. By denying the amici, that obligation was eliminate, therefore request for extension was moot.
Comment by D.P.Gumby Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 11:36 am
Silly question, does this leave an opening for the AG to bump an unfavorable decision to the U.S. Supreme Court? Or is the ISC decision final?
Comment by Casual Observer Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 11:36 am
RNUG, I think this case was in the front of their minds when they wrote Kanerva.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 11:36 am
=== That’s curious language. Does that mean they’ve already had sufficient ability and time to respond? Or that no new arguments have been presented, so no new responses need be created? ===
It means that they do not need additional time to respond to all of the amicus briefs because the amicus briefs are not going to be allowed to be filed. Thats all.
Comment by Hacksaw Jim Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 11:37 am
@RNUG: Exactly what I was thinking (and hoping.)
Comment by LincolnLounger Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 11:37 am
D P Gumby got it right. My comment was stupid. Sometimes I read too fast.
Comment by walker Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 11:41 am
==Gee, and IPI worked so hard on their amicus.==
Or imagine being one of those ==respectable== law profs whose names are on some of those briefs? These groups have the worst of both worlds now.
First your name becomes publicly associated with the mangled, twisted claim that ==constitutional rights are not absolute, even when they are couched in absolute language== in this case. Then you are told ==Sorry, your work does not count, but a good number of your peers teaching at public universities and the public in general may still despise you==.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 11:41 am
Just asking … Does this mean that the Supreme Court wants to focus solely on the issue / question of the state’s police powers and does not want to deal with the specifics of the old SB1 that was passed and signed by Quinn last year? Not to be confused with new SB1.
Comment by forwhatitsworth Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 11:41 am
No question that this case was on their minds when ruling on Kanerva.
This case is actually even clearer than Kanerva since it deals with pensions only. if this is anything but a slam dunk for state employees I will be shocked beyond belief.
Comment by Federalist Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 11:46 am
Aside from wanting to proceed post haste, it’s hard to know for sure exactly what this means. I know what it looks like, but that might be different than what ultimately happens. Illinois; it’s not boring.
Comment by A guy Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 11:52 am
==People also mention taxing pensions==
I assume this commenter is implying taxing state pensions. Um……no. I’m sure that’s as unlawful as making state employees (only) pay back all that the legislature gave away to others. I doubt that you can select a specific class of Illinois citizens to tax and leave other pensioners and retirees exempt. All retirement income taxed would actually produce some revenue……….why the pittance from state pensions when you could get so much more. Given that thought, are you still in favor?
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 11:52 am
Perhaps all of you hoping the pension reform is DOA missed today’s front page Tribune article detailing how we are lagging virtually all metro areas in terms of job growth. Just who do all of you assume will pay the taxes to fund your pensions if no one is getting hired because we lag in the only thing that matters-JOB GROWTH
Comment by Sue Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 11:55 am
The case in chief is not necessarily before the ISC right now.
First, they must decide whether the State has the right to even argue that it can change contracts through use of its Police Powers in an emergency when considering the Pension Clause. If the State prevails in this appeal, then the case goes back to Circuit Court for a trial on whether there is a sufficient emergency to warrant exercise of those powers at this time. If the State does not prevail, they lose the most meaningful of those changes on the spot.
The second of the issues is whether Judge Belz correctly threw out the entire Act despite the fact that some of the provisions were legally severable. It is possible that the ISC could rule that most of the Act was Unconstitutional but that those severed provisions may remain intact because they do not all violate the Constitution.
Some seem to think the case will be decided one way or another at this time, but that is not necessarily so.
Comment by Bobbysox Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 11:58 am
The court doesn’t hear arguments in April, so if this were granted, the argument would have been booted from March to May (assuming they did not convene specially to hear it). So it looks like the unions were trying to actually delay things at least two months.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 12:01 pm
The unions weren’t trying to delay anything. The lawyers fighting this bogus law were requesting time to respond to the lame amici curiae. Since the court disallowed their inclusion, the extension request was moot. Those lawyers represent both union and non union retirees and current employees.
Comment by PublicServant Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 12:07 pm
Except they opposed the expedited schedule before there were any proposed amicus brief. They tout their argument as simple — the plain language of the pension clause — and the State’s rejoinder that police powers can trump that isn’t that difficult to respond to. These are pure issues of law that were already fully researched and briefed in the circuit court. So their purported need for huge amounts of time to respond seems like delay IMHO.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 12:12 pm
All retirement income over some minimum (say ~30K) should be taxed.
Comment by Name/Nickname/Anon Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 12:12 pm
==People also mention taxing pensions==
The State can be fairly broad in its’ tax policy as long as it is also reasonably equitable. Taxing only government pensions would probably not pass muster; taxing all pensions (or a portion of all pensions) would.
Could they tax all pensions but not other retirement income? Probably; some states have managed to do so. However (and I don’t know if this has ever been argued), it would make for an interesting equal treatment test case if you were to argue that SS is nothing more than a government administered defined benefits pension and should be treated the same as other pensions.
Same equal treatment issue could arise with other retirement income sources, like 401K’s, 457’s, etc.
Note: a lot of State’s don’t tax Social Security; here’s a Kiplinger map (which can also be used to compare other taxes)
http://www.kiplinger.com/tool/retirement/T055-S001-state-by-state-guide-to-taxes-on-retirees/index.php?map=6#anchor
Personally, I could go either way on taxing retirement income. If it is taxed, I think there should be a high exemption.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 12:17 pm
===Except they opposed the expedited schedule before there were any proposed amicus brief.===
Yes, because not opposing expedition would seem to support the state’s position that a crisis exists, justifying the use of police powers… The same crisis that allowed the state to drop the rate of income tax from 5% to 3.75%. Just sayin.
Comment by PublicServant Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 12:19 pm
Except they opposed the expedited schedule before there were any proposed amicus brief
False. Appellees said an expedited schedule was unnecessary but that the third of the three proposed schedules was acceptable. That is the schedule the court set. Beyond that, PublicServant at 12:07 is correct.
Comment by Reality Check Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 12:22 pm
=== Except they opposed the expedited schedule before there were any proposed amicus brief. ===
Wrong. At least three Amicus briefs were given to plaintiffs attorneys when AG filed their response. Amanda Vanicky provided a link to these. As mentioned by others they parroted the AG brief throwing in their own spin. Chicago discussed ramifications to them yada yada.
Comment by Norseman Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 12:25 pm
I guess I don’t read a lot into this decision. Allowing the amicus briefs would have likely extended the time for oral argument. Just the ILSC being consistent in wanting to get this done.
Comment by archimedes Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 12:32 pm
I think this means the ISC will remand the issue back to the Circuit Court, for a fuller hearing, instead of the quick ruling from Judge Belz. Thus the amicus briefs will be heard and decided on there, before it is again appealed back to the ISC. A long time from now…
Comment by DaveW Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 12:38 pm
===Amanda Vanicky provided a link to these===
As did I. https://capitolfax.com/2015/01/14/ag-madigan-files-pension-appeal-brief/
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 12:38 pm
@Sue Lagging job growth in the metro area and the legality of SB1 are unrelated issues. As the court has stated before, this matter will be decided on the merits of the law, not the health of Illinois financial condition. Lets say the court did buy into the merits of the police powers argument and permitted the state to only pay their creditors 70 cents on every dollar owed. The next thing to consider is if the court would allow the state to pay all their creditors in full, 100% of what is owed and allow the state to single out just one creditor to receive 70% of what they are actually owed. That in itself is probably illegal. The state is singling out one group of people to bear the brunt of the sacrifice.
If you want to go back to the Jorgensen v Blagojevich case in 2004, the court wouldn’t even allow the Blagojevich administration to freeze the judges COLA for one year.
Contract law is what we think it is, Pandora’s box would be opened if the state would say that just this one time, because the state is in a dire fiscal situation, we’re going to violate basic contract law and the constitution and bail the state out of this situation that they created themselves through years and years of irresponsible fiscal decisions.
Even if SB1 became law it doesn’t fix the root of the problem and the state would still have a crisis. The root problem is the structural deficit that has existed for a long time. Illinois was a low revenue state for many years but they spent money like neighboring states that had much higher tax rates and the pension fund was one of the sources used to make up the gap that existed between revenue and expenditures. In a few months the court is going to rule once and for all that the contractually owed money owed to pensioners will have to be paid in full.
Comment by The Dude Abides Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 12:41 pm
I can get making a new pension system (tier) for new hires…but breaking the contract and constitution with current state employees should be illegal…if this goes through…maybe I can use my ‘emergency police powers’ and renegotiate on my mortgage and loans and cite this case as means of doing so. But before I do, just like Illinois politicians, I will take out an equity loans and max out my credit cards before doing so.
In other words, this new pension law is illegal (for current employees) and should be.
Comment by shanks Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 12:43 pm
Walker, you don’t have anything on me. Obviously I didn’t read all of Rich’s posting. (Can’t say I didn’t see it since I was the first commenter.)
My apologies Rich. Now I can download the other briefs for nighttime comedy reading.
Comment by Norseman Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 12:46 pm
http://chicagotonight.wttw.com/2015/01/19/spring-legislative-session
Regarding the above comments concerning taxing pensions, the attached link from Chicago Tonight at approximately the 5:20 mark.
Comment by Tsavo Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 12:47 pm
When I read the extension motion, I thought the strategy for filing it was to have a back door way of asking the Court to strike all the amicus briefs. Mission accomplished. Also, no one had commented on the big law firm attorneys listed as counsel for the government agency amicus. How much did the City of Chicago pay in legal fees for the futile gesture of that amicus? Someone should file a few FOIA requests to find out.
Comment by Cold Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 12:50 pm
=== All retirement income over some minimum (say ~30K) should be taxed. ===
Can some of our legal eagles explain how a minimum income level would not run afoul of the graduated income tax prohibition?
Comment by Norseman Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 12:52 pm
===How much did the City of Chicago pay in legal fees for the futile gesture of that amicus?===
Chicago has a worse pension problem than the State does. They’re pretty much in the same boat, looking for an exit strategy (or a bailout) that will let them avoid paying their debt … so it’s understandable why they would want to side with the State.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 12:55 pm
Bobbysox’ analysis is right on per my understanding of the legal issues. I just doubt the SC will care that much about the remaining provisions. It will be the expected win based on the telegraphed Kanerva ruling or a mega-surprise decision in favor or police powers.
Comment by Norseman Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 12:56 pm
After the Kanerva decision, the fast-tracking of the state’s appeal, and now the denial of the plaintiffs’ motion for an extension of time, can I assume that it is almost certain that it is ‘three strikes and you are out’ for the plaintiffs case?
Comment by Hit or Miss Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 1:04 pm
==Can some of our legal eagles explain how a minimum income level would not run afoul of the graduated income tax prohibition?==
For one thing, Article IX, Section 2, of the Constitution provides, “Exemptions, deductions, credits, refunds and other allowances shall be reasonable.”
So exemptions are allowed. In fact, the income tax already has exemptions for taxpayers and their dependents, plus additional exemptions for taxpayers who are blind or over 64.
Comment by Anon. Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 1:04 pm
Illinois already has a lower amount of retirees living in the state compared, to other states. Taxing pensions will just force more of those who can to leave! See how that will hurt the state!
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 1:07 pm
@Norseman and Bobbysox: yes, that’s my understanding too. But I don’t see how there could be an argument for implementing some parts of SB1 and not others, as Bobbysox suggests. The arguments on each side are very broad (’The Constitution says you can’t do that!’ Vs ‘But we’re really broke and we really need to that’) and don’t seem to discriminate one part of the bill from another. All the severable parts diminish or impair. What would be the grounds for discriminating among them, and finding some to be constitutional and others not?
Comment by UIC Guy Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 1:09 pm
I’m not sure how many retirees would leave the state if their pensions were taxed (although for us, it sure would give us a good reason to look around elsewhere—-we wouldn’t be bound to this state) but one thing that people don’t realize is the re-circulation of that pension income in our state. Most retirees don’t get so much money that they’re stashing it or investing it. They are using it to pay for their existence in this state, which translates into keeping businesses alive. Slash their incomes, you slash their spending. The hysterical cries of golden pensions is just that……hysterical. Most spend every penny on day to day expenses. Hurt the buying power of a group of people, you hurt businesses.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 1:14 pm
=== … how a minimum income level would not run afoul of the graduated income tax prohibition? ===
The current tax law does allow for credits for special classes of citizens. The standard deduction is $2,125, you get another $1,000 deduction if you are over 65, and another $1,000 deduction if you are blind. Yes, minor distortions of the flat tax, but it is a distortion.
And now we get to the big one: the deduction for retirement income. That is a huge distortion of the flat tax. Some of us retirees end up with an effective tax rate of about 0.0001% (if we’re honest, we fill in IL 1040 line 23 and pay a few dollars).
Allowing a deduction is, fundamentally, the same as setting a limit on what level of retirement income is taxed or not taxed. Right now, anything over $0 is not taxed. I haven’t read all the IL tax code (and I’m not going to!) but I could see where you could easily change IL 1040 Line 5 from any number you put in there to a fixed number per person.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 1:19 pm
As to Article IX, Section 2 … we’ve apparently already decided exempting all retirement income is “reasonable”, so that leaves a pretty broad territory to play in.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 1:23 pm
I think some parts of the act are constitutional and severable (Changing sick and vacation pension benefits for new hires)
Comment by Name/Nickname/Anon Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 1:26 pm
Maybe lots of us are wrong, but lawyers I trust tell me that Judge Belz knew exactly what he was dealing with and the implications thereof. I’m told he was exhaustive in crafting a very careful decision that will be very difficult to overturn.
Comment by LincolnLounger Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 1:27 pm
I’m surprised there hasn’t been a proposal to raise Tier 1 employee contributions. Give them the choice to pay more or keep what they’ve earned to date and move to Tier 2 going forward. It would have to be negotiated with the unions
Comment by Diego Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 1:27 pm
Seems to me Kanerva sent a message to the AG. Apparently the AG didn’t get the message.
Comment by Soccertease Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 1:28 pm
That’s exactly on point Anonymous 1:14pm, and it’s why I think a progressive income tax is the way to go. CTBA proposed a progressive tax that would actually cut taxes for 94% of Illinoisans. Taxing money that would otherwise be spent, as regressive taxes do, is a negative to the economy, whereas taking a few more cent’s out of that millionth dollar made, a dollar that has been received long after legitimate needs have been met is a net positive for the economy. I’ll keep pushing for a progressive income tax as both a way to lower the tax burden for both lower and middle class wage earners, and as the most equitable way to support the Illinois economy by keeping money in the hands of those most likely to spend every cent of it in this demand-starved malaise we currently call a modest recovery.
Comment by PublicServant Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 1:30 pm
=== I’m surprised there hasn’t been a proposal to raise Tier 1 employee contributions. Give them the choice to pay more or keep what they’ve earned to date and move to Tier 2 going forward. ===
Nope, unconstitutional. The ISC has consistently said the pension contract rules are what was in place the day you were hired plus enhancements granted by the legislature.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 1:31 pm
@N/N/A, 1:26 I’m pretty sure that changes affecting new hires are not part of SB1. Those changes are far more drastic than the ones you mention, but I don’t think anyone doubts that they are constitutional.
Comment by UIC Guy Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 1:34 pm
Tsavo, 12:47 PM. Interesting quote from Representative Nekritz indicating ‘46% of all retirement income goes to people under the age of 65.’ Maybe a little foreshadowing of future tax code change?
Comment by Marty Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 1:37 pm
UIC Guy
====
On page 45 and following of the AG brief it discusses severable issues. They include some provisions that only apply to future employees, which is not prohibited; as well as a restriction on Collective Bargaining, which could be interpreted either way; and a couple of others.
Belz ruled that the legislation was so sweeping and the provisions are inextricably entwined (my words not his) that it did not make sense to burrow down into what is Constitutional among the severable issues. As a result, he threw out the whole Act.
Comment by Bobbysox Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 1:40 pm
I know of no reliable evidence proving that the imposition of an income tax on retirees would lead to their speedy exit from Illinois. Most of us who remain do so for a variety of reasons (proximity to children and grandchildren, continuity in health-care providers, cultural factors, and perhaps just plain inertia. On the other hand, retirees may choose to move to another state with a higher tax liability, again, for reasons other than taxes — Wisconsin and Michigan, where many of us spent summer vacations, come to mind.
Comment by Anon Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 1:40 pm
Thanks, Bobbysox.
Comment by UIC Guy Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 1:49 pm
RNUG .. Then how did Blago raise the contribution from 0% to 4%?
Comment by Diego Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 1:56 pm
Blago didn’t raise the contribution, he rescinded a contractual bargaining chip extended by Edgar that the state would pay the employee contribution in lieu of a pay raise.
Comment by Kevin Highland Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 1:59 pm
It seems to me that if the State wants to use the emergency powers argument, it would apply it more broadly by canceling contracts, skipping employee step raises, suspending purchasing, etc. In other words try to demonstrate that there is a real cash emergency.
Instead they are choosing to narrowly apply the emergency powers arguement only to pensions. That seems like a losing strategy.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 2:07 pm
=== Then how did Blago raise the contribution from 0% to 4%? ===
He didn’t raise it, he just stopped paying it. Here’s what happened.
For SERS employees, the employee contribution rate was (more or less, depending on the date we pick) ALWAYS 4%. What happened was a previous administration offered for the State to TAKE OVER the employee 4% contribution in exchange for not granting a raise that year (that whole contract consideration thing; give up A in favor of B). The State continued to pay the employee 4% until (basically) Blago came along. He reneged on the deal, so the employees had to start paying the 4% again. HOWEVER (skipping the blow by blow details), because it had been part of a negoiated union contract, before it was all over with, the union employees got a unscheduled 2% and another unscheduled 2% raise to made up for the missed raise from years ago. The non-union / merit comp people lost their raise way back then AND didn’t get anything when Blago forced them to start paying again. Maybe they should have sued … but they were in a less solid legal position than the unions because it was “granted / extended” to the non-union people instead of being part of a contract.
The front end of the deal, trading a raise for the contribution pickup, was more or less put together by Steven Schnorf (not picking on you today Steve, just reporting). Overall, it was a good deal for the State because it helped lower the pension liabilities going forward through (permanently, they thought) by slowing / reducing Final Average Compensation growth by approximately 4%. (Steve, if I misstated any of the major points, feel free to correct). And one of the more interesting bits of pension trivia … even while the State was shorting their portion of the contribution, they did faithfully pay the employee 4% contribution.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 2:12 pm
@ Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 2:07 pm:
=It seems to me that if the State wants to use the emergency powers argument, it would apply it more broadly by canceling contracts, skipping employee step raises, suspending purchasing, etc. In other words try to demonstrate that there is a real cash emergency.=
Yes, a valid point indeed. This is really all about a moral and legal issue playing out in a political way. The politicians need political cover to do what will ultimately be decided — pay the pensions as promised. Tier II changes never get enough coverage, because the overhaul of the state pension system for new hires was huge and truly amazing. The Tier II system is ultimately a large part of the eventual solution.
Comment by facts are stubborn things Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 2:13 pm
=== It seems to me that if the State wants to use the emergency powers argument, it would apply it more broadly by canceling contracts, skipping employee step raises, suspending purchasing, etc. In other words try to demonstrate that there is a real cash emergency. ===
And that is EXACTLY why the State will eventually lose the case if they do somehow manage to get past the pension clause protection.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 2:17 pm
The ILC could see that the state wanted to fast track this thing and then after the accelerated schedule was agree to, tried to add all these briefs in to muddy the waters. The Supremes basically said we are on a fast track (your request) and your briefs are denied. The union and employees attorneys motion to extend became mute — all the extra stuff is not allowed.
Comment by facts are stubborn things Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 2:18 pm
How about we wait for the ILSC to make their judgement.
Either way it ends, a “turn in the barrel” will be coming for others. The state can’t solve it’s fiscal problems on the backs of workers they (we) lied to. RNUG and a host of others have already presented evidence to that end many times over.
But yet, after at least 4 years, the same tired arguments are presented. And not just on this blog.
Comment by redleg Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 2:19 pm
Reality Check, the third option is what is called an alternative argument. Their primary argument was no expedited schedule. And even with the third option they wanted permission to seek an extension if they saw fit.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 2:21 pm
== I know of no reliable evidence proving that the imposition of an income tax on retirees would lead to their speedy exit from Illinois. ===
Even with the grand-kids here (which we can always come visit), we would be long gone if it was up to MRS RNUG. She’s already after me to spend the winter in a warmer climate. The only thing really holding us now is one elderly grandparent.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 2:22 pm
@RNUG Don’t leave us!
Comment by UIC Guy Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 2:43 pm
Stay with the grandkids, visit Mrs. RNUG. That’s how Obie does it. lol
Comment by A guy Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 2:59 pm
== UIC Guy ==
Probably not on a permanent basis for another decade or so; grand-kid’s are pretty young right now. But we may start skipping the winter here …
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 3:06 pm
@- redleg - Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 2:19 pm:
=How about we wait for the ILSC to make their judgement.=
what are you saying, no more comments?
=But yet, after at least 4 years, the same tired arguments are presented. And not just on this blog. =
except for your brilliant observation.
Comment by facts are stubborn things Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 3:47 pm
I don’t thank the ISC will have any of this police powers, what if a killer virus has killed 90% of the population, stuff. I think the court will rule what is in front of them….the state would like to renege on a constitutional promise because for 50 years they have underfunded the pension system and the bills are coming due.
Comment by facts are stubborn things Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 3:50 pm
Actually, at it’s root, it’s even simplier than that.
State - we want to change the pension deal and we think we can
Retirees / Tier 1 employees - the constitution says it’s a contract and you can’t change the contract, period.
It really is that simple …
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 4:18 pm
I posted this on another related topic but I will insert it here since the subject of taxing pensions has come up.
Here we go again. Talk about taxing pensions. This is the new PC replacing the let’s reduce or obliterate pensions now that appears to be going down the drain.
In 2012 there were some $8.356 billion in ‘tax expenditures’ of which $1.913 billion were related to pensions, about 23% of the total
Want to go after something go after everything and then reduce the tax rate back to 3%- maybe less.
Funny how the above data never seems to be mentioned and we get a regurgitation of the same old “let’s attack pensions” with other exemptions never being mentioned. Yea, everybody likes their exemption but not necessarily someone elses.
Comment by Federalist Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 4:19 pm
@RNUG
“Personally, I could go either way on taxing retirement income. If it is taxed, I think there should be a high exemption.”
How high of an exemption?
Of course, like most I want it to be above MY pension. And that’s the problem. There is also the issue that ’such and such’ an amount leads to cynicism that as long as it is higher than my pension “it’s not going to affect me and I support it.”
If there were a tax on pensions then all other ‘tax expenditures’ in the state should be eliminated. And then if there were an exemption it should be based upon a % of the pension so that all people would be affected to least some degree and have some skin in the game.
You are thoughtful. any thoughts?
Comment by Federalist Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 4:26 pm
@ facts are stubborn things - Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 3:50 pm:
“what are you saying, no more comments?”
No kid, that’s not what I was saying.
“except for your brilliant observation”.
Thank you. Was thinking the same about you since you brought it up.
Comment by redleg Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 5:33 pm
@- redleg - Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 2:19 pm:
=How about we wait for the ILSC to make their judgement.=
you indicated that your above statement does not mean “no more comments”. What does a statement like that mean. That comment was in direct response to many commentators sharing their views about the meaning of the recent ILS ruling not to allow the stat’s additional briefs and as a result the union attorney’s request for more time was turned down…mute… not longer needed. If we took your view, there would be very little to talk about. Much is of course speculating and sharing with others our thoughts, ideas, hopes, beliefs etc. I guess we could have a short discussion on each top of … lets wait and see how it turns out — done.
Comment by facts are stubborn things Friday, Jan 23, 15 @ 7:21 am
@- redleg - Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 2:19 pm:
=But yet, after at least 4 years, the same tired arguments are presented. And not just on this blog. =
The arguments posted on this topic have been anything but tired or the same - although much is worth repeating. For the last 4 years many incorrect assertions have been made about the pension issue and this forum as given voice to many to counter those claims and educate others. There are also new viewers coming online so its not like you comment once - 4 years ago - and there it is — done. You come on and say arguments are old and we need to just wait and see. Well yes of course in the fullness of time we will know all, but this sight is about what if and why etc. It is an electronic coffee shop where many topics get discussed (same old stuff, the economy, health, government, taxes etc.) and people wonder how things will turn out. I don’t know why anyone is even talking about the super bowl game…lets just wait and find out how it turns out and for gosh sakes it the same old stuff every year… coaches, venue, quarterbacks, injuries etc.
Comment by facts are stubborn things Friday, Jan 23, 15 @ 7:33 am
@- redleg
This blog is for discussion. Of course, some of the same arguments are made more than once. I, for one, enjoy the discussion and have learned a ton about this issue here.
Comment by Peoria Guy Friday, Jan 23, 15 @ 8:34 am