Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Daley would keep hope alive for those who want pension benefit cuts

Posted in:

Illinois

Chicago’s pension crisis — its four funds’ average funding ratio is only 26 percent — is one reason this editorial board endorses former U.S. Commerce Secretary Bill Daley for mayor. He is the only leading candidate who supports loosening the Illinois Constitution’s overly rigorous pension clause. Amending that clause would allow the legislature to protect benefits already earned but modify benefits going forward. The next mayor, Gov. J.B. Pritzker and future legislatures need to take drastic steps to stabilize state and local pension systems, and protect rank-and-file taxpayers.

* Crain’s Chicago Business also endorsed Daley today…

(U)nlike other candidates in the race, Daley is willing to push for the toughest path toward a cure for what ails Chicago: Taking a hard look not only at the need to boost revenue but the need to attack the cost side of the equation, and the greatest drivers of those costs are the employee pensions that are enriched each year with a built-in cost-of-living increase, even in an era when inflation has been tame. Cracking the pension cost problem would, of course, require a constitutional amendment, something Daley advocates and would likely press on if and when Gov. J.B. Pritzker makes a similar move for his progressive income tax proposal in Springfield.

As mayor, Daley would give the Tribune, Crain’s the Illinois Policy Institute and others the ammunition to claim a constitutional amendment is possible - even though it ignores the harsh political reality that Illinois isn’t Arizona. The unions aren’t coming to the table here the way they did there. Not to mention that Arizona’s judicial system hasn’t yet reviewed the state’s pension benefit reductions.

* Related…

* How Bill Daley became rich at the crossroads of government and business

posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 9:37 am

Comments

He just keeps making me happy I didn’t vote for him.

Comment by Cheryl44 Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 9:39 am
IF i still lived in the city I would give him a first round vote…He is at least talking the talk.

Comment by NorthsideNoMore Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 9:45 am
Gotta love when a millionaire is eager to cut the pension benefits paid to police widows.

Not to mention any constitutional amendment could apply only prospectively, so it would apply solely to new hires. But for new hires they can just change the Pension Code.

Comment by Anonymous Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 9:46 am
==rank-and-file taxpayers==

I don’t even know what that means. Unless we are once again saying that those who work in the public sector are somehow a separate group of taxpayers, which is a nonsense argument.

And here we are still attempting to twist ourselves into a pretzel trying our hardest to take away pensions from current employees. Never mind the Supreme Court has said clear as day that you can’t do that. I’d bet my house that amending the Constitution still wouldn’t affect employees and retirees currently in the system but we’ll waste more time instead of spending our efforts doing the only thing that we can - figure out how to pay for it.

We already did Tier II. And we’ve now done a Tier III. We could do a straight 401K anytime we wanted. But it’s for new employees and that isn’t good enough for those that want to steal people’s pensions.

Comment by Demoralized Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 9:47 am
- Anonymous -

We wouldn’t know the exact wording of the constitutional provision. We also don’t know how courts will react. Let’s say they wanted to cut pensions for those making over 85K: a court might go along with it if they justified to say the financial solvency of the fund.

Comment by steve Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 9:49 am
That false hope is part of why the state hasn’t put more effort into resolving the pension deficit up to now.

Cutting taxes for the super rich at all costs has done great harm.

Comment by Anonymous Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 9:52 am
===a court might go along with it if they justified to say the financial solvency of the fund.===

Probably “not”, considering the court rules on constitutionality not on accounting.

Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 9:52 am
Doubtful that Chicago can make the case that it is insolvent when it can raise taxes. For example, many downstate communities are paying annual property taxes approaching 2.5% of the assessed value of the property. What funding would be available at those rates?

Comment by Anonymous Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 9:54 am
I wonder why they just don’t eliminate pensions on all new hires in Chicago? Doesn’t take a laborious constitutional amendment, just city council ordinance. Not advocating that, but it certainly puts the amendment arguement in perspective. A place to start for the pension envy crowd.

Comment by wonder Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 9:54 am
== Let’s say they wanted to cut pensions for those making over 85K: a court might go along with it if they justified to say the financial solvency of the fund. ==

-Steve-, You obviously have not read the SB-1 pension decision. That financial solvency argument didn’t fly with the current IL SC.

Comment by RNUG Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 9:55 am
==if they justified to say the financial solvency of the fund.==

That argument has been made. The Supreme Court rejected it.

Comment by Demoralized Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 9:56 am
Sorry RNUG. Guess my comment was made at the same time.

Comment by Demoralized Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 9:57 am
Daley is clever enough to know that the troncs and Crain’s love to hit that pension pipe.

They both got stoned immaculate when Quinn and the Dems served up that obviously unconstitutional law to get them off their backs before the 2014 election.

None of it, however, pays back a dime of money borrowed by shorting contributions, which is the greatest burden.

Comment by wordslinger Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 10:00 am
=But for new hires they can just change the Pension Code.=

That’s already been done:

https://www.ctpf.org/tier-1-vs-tier-2-pensions

Comment by TinyDancer(FKASue) Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 10:00 am
Now that Local 150 is airing negative ads against Daley, he seems more appealing.

Comment by City Zen Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 10:03 am
Now that he’s joined the anti-public employee pension zealots he seems less appealing

Comment by Demoralized Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 10:05 am
I’m guessing thos is why Local 150 is spending $700K airing ads against him.

Comment by Fax Machine Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 10:06 am
==I wonder why they just don’t eliminate pensions on all new hires in Chicago? ==

wonder, 2020 “I wonder why no one wants to work for the city of Chicago.”

Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 10:08 am
I wonder when it is going to dawn on the “bankrupt fund” people that the conditions of the funds are irrelevant. They only exist to ease the burden on the tax payers, not as a lone source of pension payment money. Either bank the money and get interest or pay out of general revenue. Doesn’t really matter and the Court has basically said so. Bankrupt state? Hardly, not advocating but….shut down all state universities, cease all aid to lower educationn, close all parks, eliminate police protection for property crimes, make all roads tollroads, all elected officials to serve on a voluntary basis without compensation…..we are not even approaching drastic. Should have invested the money in the funds and life would be so much better.

Comment by wondering Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 10:11 am
In for a penny, in for a pound.

Your move FOP, Firefighters, Laborers.

Comment by Juvenal Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 10:14 am
==I’m guessing thos is why Local 150 is spending $700K airing ads against him.==

The trade unions are all-in on Mendoza. SEIU/CTU are all-in on Preckwinkle. Obviously, they’d both like to be invited to the run-off party, but it’s looking more and more like one will be left at home watching reruns of The Love Boat.

Comment by City Zen Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 10:14 am
Da Big Bad Wolf: I was being sarcastic….but you help me make my point. It is much easier to bait and switch, promise the pension then pull out the rug. Mr. Daley doesn’t have the courage to be forthright.

Comment by wondering Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 10:16 am
I don’t understand people who try to compare Illinois law and courts to Arizona. They are two entirely different states with different Constitutions, legislative histories, and case laws. Just because something happened (or didn’t happen) in Arizona it means nothing for Illinois. Or am I missing something?

Comment by Just Me 2 Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 10:19 am
Wondering: no one would live here if everything you just said happened. The state is already a hog tax, low service dump that people are fleeing from. Even rich miller said that the pensions could become impossible to pay. Math and reality always win. The next recession will be the end for the pensions, and the it will become a federal issue including pension cuts. The state cannot run paying pensions out of the general fund; that is not mathematically possible to do and also have a state anyone would live in. Enjoy math winning guys.

Comment by Larry Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 10:19 am
==the harsh political reality that Illinois isn’t Arizona==

But Illinois is Illinois, right? Democrat supermajorities passed reforms that this type of amendment (opening up changes to future benefits, protects already-earned benefits) would allow back in 2013.

Comment by framing Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 10:25 am
–Now that he’s joined the anti-public employee pension zealots he seems less appealing–

Meh, the troncs bought the line that he’s Daley “The Reformer,” too, running against City Hall.

Some of the people, all of the time…

Comment by wordslinger Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 10:29 am
===even in an era when inflation has been tame===

I have no opinion on the pension issue but the above stuck in my craw. I am not an economics expert by any stretch but to say that inflation is tame is why economics terms do not always apply to what is being experienced by the average person.

Inflation is tame may be technically correct but ask the average person living in the US especially in the major cities if inflation is tame.

High healthcare costs, high housing costs, high car costs, high college tuition, little affordable housing, etc. On top of that In Chicago all of Mayor 1%’s fees, taxes, and rent seeking add ons, on the working class.

Oligarchs: Inflation is Tame. In other words the “number” is low.

Masses: Thank you masters. The struggles we are having to make ends meet must be our imagination.

Comment by Big Jer Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 10:35 am
Full Disclosure: I don’t live in Chicago, but I am an annuitant in a government pension fund in Illinois, and I will be working against Daley.

Future State and Local annuitants were long ago protected from deceitful mercurial politicians (who abrogated their fiduciary responsibility to future generations and violated their Constitutional Oaths). Forward thinking Convention delegates (40+ YEARS AGO!) foretold this ongoing, deceiving behavior, so Delegates proposed, and THE PUBLIC agreed with the need for those protections.
This protection was designed to hold THE FUTURE PUBLIC accountable for the ultimate fiscal success or failure of those promises being made then, to be enforceable in the future.
Daley comes from that generation and fully knows all the reasons for today’s problems. If he won’t educate the public about his knowledge and understanding of this history, he only continues the bad behavior that the Constitution’s authors saw coming.

Now, he is asking today’s voters to empower him to work to actively modify (really means REDUCE/ELIMINATE) those protections?? Wow! Apparently his hipocracy knows no limits (and apparently he’s comfortable that way).

I believe naive and under-informed voters in the past continued to elect officials who traded votes for dollars. Now Daley wants to be part of a ’solution’ that’s looking for a problem. The problem was, and is, disingenuous politicians, not the financing model or design of the pensions and the benefits provided.

It’s no wonder why TODAY’S taxpayers howl so loudly about the money owed to annuitants. The States moral, ethical and fiduciary guiding document was written to protect annuitants from the ever shifting political winds of manipulative politicians, and to hold THE PUBLIC responsible for the monies owed in the future.

Well folks, that future has arrived.

Today, the PUBLIC must be held accountable for those promises made in the past, or I sincerely and honestly fear how future Americans can so easily and without remorse, actively try to ‘modify’ (break) those moral, ethical and fiduciary promises enshrined in the document the they themselves agreed to.
So sad.

Comment by northernwatersports Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 10:40 am
can’t wait to stop viewing all the weird Chicago Mayoral commercials.

Comment by Amalia Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 10:43 am
===The state cannot run paying pensions out of the general fund; that is not mathematically possible to do and also have a state anyone would live in. Enjoy math winning guys.===

Actually, pay-as-you-go would be cheaper for the state in the short run. According to Ballotpedia, state and local pension funding was $13.9 billion, payouts were $18.6 billion, and reserves were $155.8 billion. If the funding and payouts remained steady, and reserves drawn down, it would be 33 years before the well went dry. Simplified of course, and not taking into consideration pension inflation.

https://ballotpedia.org/Public_pensions_in_Illinois

Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 10:45 am
It’s funny, the delusion of those who think a constitutional amendment to take away the pension protection clause is possible in today’s state government, and that Bill Daley will somehow help that along.

If anything, we’re going to try to go in another direction, the graduated income tax. There is a chance a fair tax CA will pass in the House by the skin of its teeth, as opposed to removing the pension protection clause.

We need a “wealth tax” here, for example, the highest rate going to those making $10 million or more annually. That revenue should be going to pay pension debt, and people paying would be those who could most easily afford it. Elizabeth Warren proposed a wealth tax, and it polled real well, even among Republicans.

Comment by Grandson of Man Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 10:50 am
==The next recession will be the end for the pensions===

Larry, just because you say so doesn’t make it true. People have given ample evidence of ability to tax, sales of assets, lowering of assistance, and other things that can be done to pay the pensions.

The entire pension cost today including ramp is about 2% of the 4.95% income tax. The sky does not fall over such amounts. It might make us slightly less attractive for the next 20 years, but Illinois will not be emptied out. And eventually this problem will be solved by Tier 2.

Comment by Anonymous Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 10:51 am
== Just because something happened (or didn’t happen) in Arizona it means nothing for Illinois. Or am I missing something? ==

Three states - NY, IL & AZ - have a government pension protection clause in their Constitutions. NY was first; IL second, AZ third. It is always relevant to look at the (non-binding) legal precedents set by other courts. The trick is to place the rulings in proper context.

For AZ specifically, their clause is somewhat weaker than the NY and IL versions. The same ideas as IL are there, but the separation into individual sentences and different ordering indicate a different intent and priority. I’ve covered this previously, so I’m not going to repeat all the details here.

The bottom line is the exact language and legislative (or citizen intent in the case of the 1970 IL Constitution) matter.

Comment by RNUG Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 10:52 am
Larry, If TRS did not carry an unfunded liability of $75.8 billion, the FY 2020 contribution to the System would be $1.2 billion, not $4.8 billion. That is and was the problem. The state can well afford to payout of general revenue, the total benefits ran 5.6 billion. Using interest earnings on fund on hand would reduce that general revenue payment to around 2 billion a year.

Comment by Anonymous Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 10:57 am
Larry, your “but we would be uncomfortable” arguement is not math….it is whining.

Comment by wondering Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 11:02 am
He can start with his brother”s artificially inflated pension

Comment by Jim Sather Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 11:13 am
==The next recession will be the end for the pensions==

Please show your math on that one.

==low service dump==

So leave. I always love this whining about poor services or in your hyperbole “low” services. Exactly what do you mean by that. Don’t just give us whining. Provide some examples.

==Enjoy math winning guys.==

We can do math can you? Because it doesn’t sound like your very good at it given that little whiney diatribe you went on.

Comment by Demoralized Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 11:55 am
= Illinois Constitution’s overly rigorous pension clause. =

I love this line, it is my favorite bit of “dumb words” yet fro the tronc’s.

I am kind feeling the same way about the US Constitution’s 1st Amendment. Do you think they feel the same way?

@Larry- I can only speak to TRS but their percentage of assets to obligations have held relatively steady un the 40%-41% range since 1970 when the current constitution was written. We have had more than one recession during that time, a few of them were pretty severe. Years of high inflation, energy crisis and other calamities.

So when you write “Enjoy math winning guys.” within the aforementioned context well, the nice way of saying is…bless your heart because the other term that applies was banned by Rich sometime ago.

Comment by JS Mill Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 12:00 pm
So those talking about removing the pension protection clause say they want to protect benefits already earned, but then say they want to cut the 3% AAI for those already retired. Given that the retirees paid for the AAI they are receiving via a specific, dedicated portion of their contributions while working, these statements are contradictory and display a shocking lack of understanding of how the retirement systems are structured. More broadly, it underscores the difficulty of differentiating between earned and unearned benefits, and whether such distinctions would even be workable in practice.

Comment by Andy S. Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 12:21 pm
Why stop there? Bill could have public sector employees wear armbands so “taxpayers” know where to direct their scorn. /s

Comment by Jocko Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 12:26 pm
=Why stop there? Bill could have public sector employees wear armbands so “taxpayers” know where to direct their scorn. /s=

Had to wipe of my computer screen after reading that. Restaurant quality.

Comment by JS Mill Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 12:30 pm
==say they want to cut the 3% AAI for those already retired. Given that the retirees paid for the AAI they are receiving via a specific, dedicated portion of their contributions while working==

Yeah, they paid 0.5% for 1.5% simple interest, the original deal. Any reduction greater, you’d be entitled to a full refund with interest. Would you like that refund in GARS Tollway credits?

Comment by City Zen Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 12:59 pm
Smart, we need to do this.

Comment by Anonymous Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 1:41 pm
Jim, all the Illinois pensions are inflated. Rich Daley’s certainly is.

Comment by Anonymous Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 1:42 pm
== all the Illinois pensions are inflated. ==

Care to define “inflated”? Or are the pensions for most government retirees just what the rules call for?

Comment by RNUG Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 1:51 pm
City Zen, I became a member of SURS on August 15, 1990. When I joined the deal presented to me was that I pay 0.5 percent of salary while working, and in return I will receive a 3 percent annual AAI on my pension when I retire, should I work long enough at my university to be eligible for a pension in the first place. There has not been any sweetening of the AAI, nor of the money purchase pension formula under which I retired, since the time I joined SURS. Now it is true that the AAI provisions were sweetened in the decade before I moved to Illinois, but I fail to see the relevance of that. I had two other job offers upon graduating with my Ph.D. and I chose the one from Illinois based, in part, on the pension benefits promised and the constitutional guarantees offered. In light of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits states from abrogating contracts and passing ex-post facto legislation, how can you now unilaterally go back in time and rewrite my contract? After all, I cannot go back in time and choose one of the other offers I had coming out of grad school.

Comment by Andy S. Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 1:55 pm
RNUG Andy . These people are just trolling. It’s moot now. The real debate is the ramp and how to best value our assets.. There is no way the Cons Amend passes anyway.But after massive losses all they have is their trolling.

Comment by Not a Billionaire Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 2:19 pm
Tier 2 pensions are already worse than getting SSI and that plan began on 1/1/2011. Changing the Constitution will not change Tier 1 or Tier 2 based on cases from the Ill. S. Ct. Eliminating pensions going forward takes away a revenue stream necessary to keep the pensions afloat.

Comment by Bobby G. Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 2:39 pm
Short version of trib & crain’s editorials:

“We’re too dumb to remember the hundreds often bad things we said about the last two Mayors Daley”

Comment by Lester Holt’s Mustache Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 2:41 pm
City council does not have that authority, they would need legislation changed.

==I wonder why they just don’t eliminate pensions on all new hires in Chicago? Doesn’t take a laborious constitutional amendment, just city council ordinance.==

Comment by The Original Name/Nickname/Anon Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 2:44 pm
So what’s the answer then? To keep increasing the income tax rate in this state every year?

I give him, and Rahm, credit for trying to push the discussion. The rest of the candidates are living in a fantasy land (except for maybe Vallas) because it’s too politically dangerous for them to cross the unions.

Comment by Boone's is Back Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 4:03 pm
–fantasy land–

That’s when Chicago residents expect a certain level of public services but don’t like paying for them. The City employees paid their share into the pension, as specified by the contract - that’s reality land.

Comment by Christopher Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 4:28 pm
The reality is Chicago and Illinois are a recession away from financial ruin.

Comment by Anonymous Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 4:34 pm

Add a comment

Sorry, comments are closed at this time.

Last 10 posts:

Isabel’s morning briefing (05-16)
Open thread (05-16)
Adopt Legislative Fixes For Prior Authorization Denials Impacting Medicaid MCO Patients (05-16)
SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today’s edition (05-16)
SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today's edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password) (05-16)
Live coverage (05-16)
SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Another supplement to today’s edition (05-15)
Isabel’s afternoon briefing (05-15)
SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Issue poll (05-15)
Question of the day (05-15)