Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
Next Post: Barickman’s path forward
Posted in:
* Joe Cahill at Crain’s Chicago Business…
Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s inaugural address was most noteworthy for what he left out.
He went on for 2,600-plus words without mentioning the most urgent and potentially destructive crisis facing Illinois. The new governor had nothing to say about $130 billion in unfunded pension obligations to state employees, a yawning black hole of debt that threatens to swallow the state budget and suffocate Illinois’ economy.
I realize inaugural addresses are usually substance-lite recitations of uplifting themes and gauzy visions of the future. I wasn’t expecting Pritzker to deliver a localized version of President Donald Trump’s “American carnage.” Still, an inaugural address outlines an incoming governor’s agenda. Pritzker’s failure to talk about pensions indicates the state’s most pressing problem isn’t high on his priority list.
That’s discouraging. After all, a governor’s job is to solve the state’s problems. Pritzker’s predecessors couldn’t defuse the pension crisis. If he can do it, he’ll have accomplished more than any recent governor.
He needs to start working on it now. The pension problem is getting worse, not better. Legally required state contributions to the underfunded plans soaked up a quarter of state spending this year and will devour an ever-larger share in the future, leaving less for basic government functions, let alone the new initiatives Pritzker wants to pursue. Most troubling, even the larger contributions aren’t enough to keep the pension funding gap from widening. […]
Early in his speech, Pritzker emphasized the need for a “collective commitment to embracing hard choices.” Then he ducked the hardest—and most important—choice he’ll face.
* Since he apparently didn’t call to check, I asked the Pritzker administration for a response…
Governor Pritzker’s inaugural speech focused on possibility and promise while also addressing the fact that Illinois faces challenges. Like he said yesterday, the governor is committed to passing a balanced budget and pension obligations are included in that challenge, but Governor Pritzker is committed to bringing fiscal stability back to Illinois.
Your own thoughts on this?
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 9:08 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
Next Post: Barickman’s path forward
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
He doesn’t have to mention everything. Pensions are part of the budget? That’s like asking why he didn’t mention a thousand other specific bills that haven’t been paid in the state. Instead of a 2,600 word address, let’s have a 26000 word address. He could have read a novel and people won’t be happy. Let this man do his job. It’s his second day.
Comment by Brendan Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 9:13 am
I see part of it as a difference in worldview. Folks at Crain’s see pensions as the problem that needs to be fixed. Pritzker and others see pensions as an obligation that needs to be funded.
Comment by Montrose Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 9:14 am
We heard enough about the pensions in the last 4 years. We are aware.
Comment by Lawrence Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 9:15 am
Maybe Gov. Pritzker actually has read the ILSC rulings and that darned IL Constitution and understands that the pension benefits cannot be diminished. Unlike Gov Junk. Fixing the pension situation will take some serious discussions from qualified people. I am pretty sure he will get to it very soon, like when his focus is on the budget.
Comment by Big Joe Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 9:17 am
He’ll push for debt reamoritization and likely bonding a portion of it. Move on pension haters.
Comment by El Conquistador Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 9:19 am
I don’t see Pritzker fixing all of Illinois’ problems in his first year. And that is reality, not a knock on him.
Comment by Louis G Atsaves Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 9:19 am
Pensions? What pensions?
Here’s an idea for JB that can really put a dent in that unmentioned debt. Not only legalize marijuana, but mandate that everyone 21 and older smoke a few joints a day. Tax it at 50%, and while your at it, add a dollar tax for every bag of doritos. Should keep everyone happy and fix the pension problem.
Let’s get this state fixed.
Comment by SSL Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 9:20 am
I don’t think it’s notable that he didn’t mention them. Until the state constitution is modified, pensions are a revenue problem, not a spending problem, and Pritzker did talk about revenue.
Comment by Chris Widger Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 9:21 am
Ah, yes, the pension “crisis.” Now in it’s second century, this “crisis.”
When was the last time checks didn’t go out? When are those funds scheduled to go broke?
You borrow money, you pay it back. You sign contracts, you honor them. You litigate disputes, and the courts have the final word.
Pretty simple ideas, and foundations of capitalism.
Does the “unfunded liability” on your mortgage keep you up at night? How about the “unfunded liability” of the national debt, which has existed since 1789?
There’s no magic bullet to this decades-old “crisis.” All the schemes to renege on the debt have been dismissed by the courts. Get over it, already.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 9:22 am
He didn’t mention Asian Carp either.
Very disappointed.
Why didn’t he mention Asian Carp.
Does he not care? Does he not think it’s a problem?
I mean, the entire speech should have been about Asian Carp, right?
And I could have called and asked why he didn’t mention Asian Carp, but instead I’ll just write about what I think.
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 9:24 am
Pritzker acknowledges that the rich are going to have to pay more. Pension reform he proposed, pension debt reamortization, should be tied in with more revenue that would come with a progressive income tax.
Austerity has to end. New hires were already cut in 2011, through Tier II pension reform. Many of these workers have been ripped off on step pay increases, to boot. At the very least, before any future pension cuts are considered, there needs to be a progressive income tax or millionaire surcharge.
Comment by Grandson of Man Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 9:26 am
I nominate wordslinger to replace Joe Cahill at
Crain’s. Cahill wields a hammer, and everything is a pension nail.
Comment by Not a Superstar Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 9:28 am
===I don’t see Pritzker fixing all of Illinois’ problems in his first year. And that is reality, not a knock on him.===
This is good stuff, well said, and I’ll go a bit more forceful than your measured take;
“I don’t see Pritzker fixing all of Illinois’ problems in his first year. And that is reality, not a knock on him. However, as governor, it will be up to him and his administration to look at the problem and find avenues that will be seen as ways forward, and he will own those choices too.”
It’s the second day, but it’s the beginning of the first term.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 9:30 am
So, according to Joe Cahill, anything that Pritzker doesn’t inform him of personally is just being neglected and ignored?
Comment by Moby Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 9:30 am
JB didn’t mention pensions because the right answer on pensions- pay them- is too anodyne to energize the folks who support pensions while doing nothing at all to satisfy the people don’t. In that situation, the only way to win is to not play.
Comment by Arsenal Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 9:34 am
It isn’t pretty, but the pension ramp does eventually solve that problem. And any improvement to it will likely require more my now instead of later.
Whatever is done with it will take more revenue. The best way to get more revenue is to grow the economy … and a lot of what JB is doing is aimed at growing the economy in the State. Grow it enough and the portion of State revenue going to pensions stays stable or goes down … problem solved.
Or you can take the cynical view and say he’ll just include paying more to the pensions as part of the coming tax hike when the State changes to a graduated income tax.
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 9:35 am
He talked about fiscal challenges, and how he thinks a “fair” tax structure will help with that. Just because he didn’t say the word pensions doesn’t mean he wasn’t talking about them.
Comment by Perrid Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 9:36 am
Wordslinger @ 9:22 is exactly right. It’s only a crisis if everyone retires tomorrow, which will never happen. By design, all pension systems are never funded to cover everyone in the pool; only those that have quit swimming.
Comment by Southern_Dawg Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 9:37 am
“Your own thoughts on this?”
Shades of yesterday’s “under God” crisis, i.e. another strawman concern about something unsaid that withers into nothingness when asked about aloud.
– MrJM
Comment by @misterjayem Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 9:42 am
When you’re partying at McDonald’s PlayPlace, the kiddies don’t want to hear the Hamburglar’s pension is 40% funded and Grimace’s retiree health benefits aren’t funded at all.
Best to keep the Shamrock shakes flowing and leave the indigestion for later.
Comment by City Zen Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 9:43 am
JB didn’t mention pensions along with the long list of things he is going to do. Why? Tough decisions, deep thought, roll up the sleeves type work to solve them.
Can’t just write checks to solve many of the issues.
Comment by Pick a Name Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 9:47 am
JB is the first governor in a long time I see actually trying to get Illinois government working. If we don’t help him, all of us, we deserve what comes our way.
Comment by Truthteller Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 9:54 am
I’ll give the Governor the benefit of the doubt on this issue until I see his proposed budget. While I take no issue with increasing revenues, I completely agree with Cahill that all new revenue generated through whatever may eventually be enacted (including legalized weed) needs to be lock boxed for pensions and the bill backlog. Given how things typically transpire in Springfield, taking steps toward restoring the state’s fiscal house will almost certainly take a back seat to political gimmicks. It’s hard to believe that a mere decade ago Illinois actually had a respectable AA S&P credit rating with as dysfunctional as this state has been for so long now.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 10:02 am
Once again, Michelle for the win.
A lot of good comments that reflect how I feel. Word, RNUG, and Louis even chimed in with a quality comment.
Comment by Norseman Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 10:03 am
Truthteller.
My thoughts exactly. The Pennyante partisan strawman nitpicking is going to sink the whole state. Next week it will be “why did JB wear a blue shirt today, he promised bipartisanship.”
Get out of here with that mess.
Comment by Brendan Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 10:03 am
Greg Hinz curiously seemed to imply in a pre-inaugural Crain’s column that after listening to (or conducting?) a phone interview with Pritzker “there is doubt” that pensions can be solved “without worker concessions.” Has Pritzker alluded to this possibility with anyone before? (Or maybe Hinz’s passive verb construction suggests the doubt is his own?)
Comment by Math(Usually)Doesn’tLie Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 10:04 am
First thing he needs to do is get the bills caught up. The interest alone is costing billions.
Comment by 44th Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 10:08 am
He didn’t talk about “pensions” because “pensions” were not why he was elected, atleast not the kind of pension “reform” that extremists within the GOP advocate.
Wordslinger is correct that extremists are trying desperately to gin up anxiety over a “crisis” that, frankly, is not a government crisis in the way that the Quincy Legionnaire outbreak was.
Comment by Thomas Paine Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 10:09 am
==Does the “unfunded liability” on your mortgage keep you up at night?==
Your pension/mortgage analogy is about as tired as a SeaDog Cruise worker on a hot Saturday in July.
No one’s asking me to pay my parent’s mortgage on a house they no longer live in. But as for my mortgage, once the “unfunded liability” on *my* home is paid off, I actually own *my* house. Some might call this an asset. I can exchange it for what is know as currency.
As for does whether or not a mortgage keeps one up at night, I’d wager for many working families, it probably causes a few nightmares. But once it’s paid, Freddy Krueger transforms from Wells Fargo to the county assessor.
Comment by City Zen Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 10:10 am
I thought he said all he needed to say when he said “Our obligations as a state outmatch our resources. Our fiscal situation right now is challenging.”
Comment by LakeCo Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 10:17 am
I am pretty sure his speech mentioned the state keeping its promises which was clearly a nod to the pension crisis.
Comment by Pekin Pete Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 10:19 am
I can’t think of a constructive reason why J.B. should lead off with anything about pensions. It would consume all the oxygen in the air. After Rauner, his first step is to put points on the board with achievable wins, to show he can get things done. Then, do a lot of listening on the pension issue to see there’s a bi-partisan solution possible. The listening and learning part is so much more important than taking a stand out of the gates.
Comment by DarkHorse Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 10:19 am
Ralph Martire is totally on it. Why give drama queen republicans something to hoot about?
Comment by Honeybear Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 10:32 am
Q: Why didn’t Pritzker specifically mention pensions Monday?
A: Because JB won the election and Rauner lost the election.
Comment by Hamlet's Ghost Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 10:38 am
I think Cahill was looking for some indication of how JB intends to fund pensions. I.e., raise taxes, wait for a graduated income tax to solve the problem, do nothing.
Several have mentioned that it is not a crisis. The yearly pension costs are so high that there is little or nothing left for maintaining state government- let alone needed initiatives. Hope his budget address gives some direction.
Comment by Justacitizen Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 10:42 am
While I don’t hold Gov. Pritzker at fault for not mentioning pension problems in his speech, it MUST be viewed as the most pressing long-term problem the state is facing. The thought that anyone can tax their way out of this problem is foolhardy. The top 50% of wage earners already pay 97% of the taxes collected. Raising taxes enough to cover pension shortfalls would turn the out-of-state exodus of those with big bucks into a stampede.
Comment by Violet Seepage Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 10:43 am
P.S.
=== the most urgent and potentially destructive crisis facing Illinois. ===
If Illinois’ pension obligations 20 years from now are your most urgent worry, you should fall to sleep counting your blessings. You lead a priveleged life. Pritzker spent day one focused on people worrying about their next paycheck.
Comment by Thomas Paine Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 11:06 am
–The yearly pension costs are so high that there is little or nothing left for maintaining state government–
Please go on. How do you define “little or nothing.”
Put a real number on it. Not hard to do, if you’re capable of going beyond empty talking points.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 11:10 am
Because they are nothing an issue. There is no hole. The unfunded liability is all future payments let’s just focus on this year’s payments. Why is everyone so insistent to put $120 plus billion in taxpayer funds into the stock market.
It’s not a benefit problem
Comment by Publius Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 11:11 am
The state budget obligation for the next 30 years is 3 trillion dollars.
Sounds like a lot.
One reason our numbers are higher than other states is Illinois is a bigger state with more people than its neighbors.
Comment by lost in the weeds Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 11:32 am
The state budget obligation for the next 30 years is 3000 billion dollars.
My mistake for not making that number bigger.
Comment by lost in the weeds Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 11:52 am
3000 billion dollars.
My mistake for not making that number bigger.
Comment by lost in the weeds Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 11:52 am
We really do need to eliminate the Constitutional pension prektectiin so this can never happen again. Obviously, the ILSC ruling means we have to pay what is owed, but not eliminating the protection for future generations of Illinoisans is criminal.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 11:57 am
–No one’s asking me to pay my parent’s mortgage on a house they no longer live in. –
I wonder what that means, in this context?
The state, like the federal government, is a going concern. They both take on long-term obligations in the normal course of business.
Do you think you can walk away from military pensions and national debt that were incurred by “your parents?”
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 11:57 am
Can the state just do pay as you go on Tier 1 until they are all gone? How much would that cost?
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 12:00 pm
Anonymous @11:57
Are you from the IPI?
Comment by A 400lb. Guy on a bed Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 12:13 pm
What? Of course not. Just not sure why Illinois public employees receive extra protection that are coincidentally ruining the state that virtually no one else gets.
We pay a lot of taxes in Illinois, we in the private sector (the vast majority of us that is) should have better protection from our government.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 12:23 pm
“We pay a lot of taxes in Illinois, we in the private sector (the vast majority of us that is) should have better protection from our government.”
So, is your concern that public employees are getting something you feel you should get? Then lets have a conversation about how poorly workers are treated in the private sector rather than trying to tear down public employees.
Comment by Montrose Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 12:32 pm
I am wondering when the Governor will sell the bonds for the pension buy out that was passed last year?
Comment by retired worker Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 12:37 pm
==Do you think you can walk away from military pensions and national debt that were incurred by “your parents?”==
But I can walk away from my house. It’s called bankruptcy. Or foreclosure. In either case, my responsibility to what was my house ends there.
I get what your’re saying, but the mortgage/pension comparison is not a valid one.
Funny you should mention military pensions as they just shifted to a blended (DB/DC) retirement system.
Comment by City Zen Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 12:40 pm
Montrose, not at all. No one should get these “protections”. Things change, companies, states, people’s lives change all the time. You can’t promise something like retirement dates and set dollars when people live longer, companies are doing poorly, countries or states are losing people. Too many variables that are out of our control. Social Security has changed full retirement age many times because people are living longer. Cost of living increases change with market conditions. Simply way too many variables to never be allowed to change the calculation.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 12:51 pm
The ISC has ruled on this. Bankruptcy does not apply to states. Tier 2 was the “pension reform” that was legally possible.
Comment by illdoc Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 1:13 pm
We can also amend the Constitution to remove the benefits protection and protect future generations.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 1:19 pm
===We can also amend the Constitution===
Even Rauner didn’t think that would work.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 1:19 pm
Rich, have you heard when they will sell the bonds for he pension buyout? some of us will do our part.
Comment by retired worker Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 1:23 pm
As has been discuss many, many times here changing the Illinois Constitution would not effect current employees.
Contract clause Constitution
The formal Contract Clause is Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, of the United States Constitution. The Contract Clause holds that states are not allowed to enact a law that retroactively impairs an individual or legal entity from forming a legally valid contract
Comment by illdoc Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 1:25 pm
Illdoc, I never said it would affect current workers, but why wouldn’t we went to prevent this in the future?
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 1:33 pm
Don’t think we can go lower then tier 2.
Comment by illdoc Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 1:50 pm
Yes, it is an obligation that needs to be paid. And we should be worried about how to pay it. Good news about Illinois, as he said, is needed.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 1:54 pm
–The ISC has ruled on this. Bankruptcy does not apply to states. Tier 2 was the “pension reform” that was legally possible.–
Yes, but some can’t quit hitting that pipe. Or perhaps Ty-stick is more accurate.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 1:57 pm
It seems Rauner didn’t mention pension in his inaugural address either https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/zorn/chi-full-text-of-gov-bruce-rauners-inaugural-address-as-delivered-20150113-story.html
Comment by Eric Zorn Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 2:07 pm
illdoc, but can’t our pandering GA increase benefits in the future and we’re back to the same problems we have today that are crushing Illinoisans with onerous taxes?
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 2:09 pm
I believe that 3/5 of the legislators in both houses have to agree before it can be sent to the voters. I don’t see that happening
Comment by illdoc Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 2:23 pm
These comments capsulize the problems that no one really knows how to deal with given the politics of the time:
- illdoc - Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 1:25 pm:
As has been discuss many, many times here changing the Illinois Constitution would not effect current employees.
Contract clause Constitution
The formal Contract Clause is Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, of the United States Constitution. The Contract Clause holds that states are not allowed to enact a law that retroactively impairs an individual or legal entity from forming a legally valid contract
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 1:33 pm:
Illdoc, I never said it would affect current workers, but why wouldn’t we went to prevent this in the future?
- illdoc - Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 1:50 pm:
Don’t think we can go lower then tier 2.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 1:54 pm:
Yes, it is an obligation that needs to be paid. And we should be worried about how to pay it. Good news about Illinois, as he said, is needed.
Comment by Nonbeleiver Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 2:27 pm
illdoc, are you saying our state legislators don’t care about Illinois’ future?
I might agree with you on that.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 2:34 pm
The world is appears much nicer when we postpone or ignore major problems. I don’t think he’ll be able to ignore it, but he’s not quite ready to lose the afterglow. So, postponed.
Comment by Liandro Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 3:15 pm
It will be fun to see how the Democrats ask the unions for concessions on pensions or any other issue.
The Chicago Teachers union are already asking for 5% raises paid for by the rich, legal weed and the Chicago Casino.
Never mind none of those have passed yet and that money should be going to pay down existing debt and 300 million in higher pension payments coming next year not more spending.
Comment by Lucky Pierre Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 3:29 pm
“but why wouldn’t we went to prevent this in the future?” Because this discussion is precisely the reason the clause is in the Constitution in the first place.
Comment by Skeptic Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 3:30 pm
I think Pritzker has been pretty consistent in calling the pension a “promise” to the workers of the state. Personally I would have chosen a different word. People often have no problem in breaking “promises” when it’s convenient or it serves some other purpose. But I’ll take his comment as a tacit acknowledgment to this being a legal obligation. And in my mind we shouldn’t have to affirm that we’ll meet our legal obligations. The only question left is how we fund it.
The fact that he’s not talking about “pension reform” as many of his predecessors did is in my mind a step in the right direction. We should all know by now that pension reform is nothing more than a way of creating the illusion of fixing the problem.
Comment by Pundent Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 3:47 pm
JB is a smart man who knows state pensions are a legal obligation that has to be paid. Period!
I have a feeling his peeps are working on finding new money to pay for the state pensions. Not to mention all the bills Rauner left unpaid.
Comment by Mama Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 4:07 pm
Skeptic, it’s worked so well to date, right? Let’s just keep doing the same stupid things.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 4:32 pm
Annoyance, I agree. And it’s not like you need a Master’s in a subject to teach elementary kids math and reading.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 4:36 pm
–Can’t just write checks to solve many of the issues.–
You’re quite the one-trick pony. Going to give LP a run for his rubles.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 6:05 pm
Anonymous to annoyance (sic) knowing how to teach reading to others, especially those with learning problems requires more than simply knowing how to read, and it may indeed require an advanced degree and all the knowledge and skill an advanced degree represents.
Comment by LeadingInDecatur Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 6:17 pm
“It will be fun to see how the Democrats ask the unions for concessions on pensions or any other issue.”
Democrats already passed pension reform: Tier II.
It’s now time for a progressive income tax. Republicans are not change people, so few will support this reform. They like the broken status quo of a decades-long low state income tax for the rich. It’s time to right-size the income tax code.
Comment by Grandson of Man Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 6:38 pm
As of 06/30/18 Iowa pensions were 82% funded. Keep telling yourself Gov. Edgar and the Speaker were good for the State of Illinois.
Comment by Hickory Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 7:07 pm
If we eleminate pension protection I may be able to get on board with progressive income taxes.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 7:30 pm
Hickory, I’m with you nothing were and are terrible.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 7:31 pm
Leading, fine, but most and I mean the vast majority of teachers don’t need that.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 7:32 pm
===Put a real number on it. Not hard to do, if you’re capable of going beyond empty talking points.===
I’m was simply stating what I think is rather obvious. After paying the large pension costs and all expenditures like personal services, contractual, social service, education, public health, etc., IL does not have a lot left over for discretionary spending.
You shouldn’t be so rude superblogger.
Comment by justacitizen Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 7:35 pm
–I’m was simply stating what I think is rather obvious. After paying the large pension costs and all expenditures like personal services, contractual, social service, education, public health, etc., IL does not have a lot left over for discretionary spending. –
That’s not what you wrote, at all. You wrote:
–The yearly pension costs are so high that there is little or nothing left for maintaining state government- let alone needed initiatives.–
If you don’t want to be called out on hysterical nonsense, don’t post it.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 7:50 pm
With the cost of buying the office constantly going up each year, we need a tax on campaign contributions. Ear mark this funds to the pension debt. Ought to be wiped out in a few years.
Comment by Generic drone Wednesday, Jan 30, 19 @ 11:21 am