Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Help Illinois Colleges And Universities Go Green. Support Renewable Energy Credits.
Next Post: Another state passes assault weapons ban, while yet another federal judge refuses to block Illinois’ law
Posted in:
* Frankly, I’m surprised that 26 percent were unsure after the way this poll, conducted for the Illinois Policy Institute, posed the questions…
Poll of 800 Illinois voters from March 27-29 when asked which statement they agree with more, even if one isn’t exactly right.
Raise taxes or reduce state spending on higher education, public safety, and social services to fully fund the state’s pension obligations to government workers. (18.0%)
Amend the state constitution to preserve retirement benefits already earned by public employees and retirees, but also allow a reduction in the benefits earned in the future by employees and allow for slower growth in retirees’ future benefits. (56.0%)
Pensions make up about 20 percent of state spending, and have for a number of years, and the same level is projected for the future. That’s high, no doubt about it, but it’s manageable, even with fiscal bumps along the road.
Also, it takes 60 percent or a majority of those voting in an election to pass a constitutional amendment. And even with this highly biased question, they could only get to 56? Not great. And even if three fifths of both chambers of the General Assembly somehow decided to vote to put this the ballot (zero chance), the unions would spend big bucks to tear IPI’s arguments apart.
* Not to mention that a poll taken for IPI last year used a much more neutral question and yet their issue still managed to score higher than this year’s totally lopsided poll…
Some have proposed a constitutional amendment that would preserve public retirement benefits already earned, but would allow for changes to future pension benefits. Do you support or oppose this constitutional amendment?
Support: 61%
Oppose: 28%
Don’t know/Refused: 11%
The trend ain’t their friend.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Apr 26, 23 @ 10:17 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Help Illinois Colleges And Universities Go Green. Support Renewable Energy Credits.
Next Post: Another state passes assault weapons ban, while yet another federal judge refuses to block Illinois’ law
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I discourage any future State employees from working in Illinois. Tier II, working to 67 and low pay for mostly unrewarding work should lead to great problems in the not-too-distant future. Teachers are the ones I most discourage.
Comment by Lurker Wednesday, Apr 26, 23 @ 10:31 am
the memo says “voters,” is there a url for the methodology?
Comment by bored now Wednesday, Apr 26, 23 @ 10:36 am
Garbage aptly describes IPI in general.
Comment by Norseman Wednesday, Apr 26, 23 @ 10:42 am
Lurked, you don’t have to work toll 67 , you just cant collect. There’s investments and s s to live on if you want to bail early. The pay is still competitive and them Bennie’s are still the same great ones, additionally no lay offs..notbad in today’s,world
Comment by Still Wednesday, Apr 26, 23 @ 10:46 am
Norseman hit the nail on the head. IPI= big gov’mint nanny state socialism. Worse than “woke”.
Comment by Jerry Wednesday, Apr 26, 23 @ 10:46 am
Voters already overwhelmingly decided in favor of Democrats and public employees. It’s not their fault right wing multimillionaires and billionaires, and orgs like the IPI, are obsessed out of their minds about hurting public employees. They just can’t and won’t let it go.
Comment by Grandson of Man Wednesday, Apr 26, 23 @ 10:53 am
This reminds me of the “Fair Tax Flop” but in reverse, that the numbers as constituted would not lend anyone thoughtful to the politics or actual politicking to this idea from being anything… realistic.
What I do read here? Easy.
What I read here is an appeal to deep pocket donors still easy marks to fund IPI because of false flag “realities” that don’t exist politically.
If Vallas can be a mark for $700K on one guy’s word, think about a phony look at stats that could persuade deep pockets.
This is also designed for vertical integration for grifters like Wirepoints and “others” to find the marks too.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Apr 26, 23 @ 10:58 am
That dog won’t hunt.
Comment by PublicServant Wednesday, Apr 26, 23 @ 11:04 am
Got that in my email today.
First reaction was: are they ever going to give up beating that dead horse?
Second reaction was that was a very carefully worded push poll; unless you are versed in the state pensions, you would not have picked up that what they want to do is cut the 3% AAI.
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Apr 26, 23 @ 11:05 am
Tier 1 and Tier 2 are not the only options available to state employees, unless something dramatic has changed.
When I became a state employee in 2005 (after 30 years in the private sector), I had the choice of what is now Tier 1, or, investing the same money (something like 8% of my income) into private sector retirement options (I think there were three of these other options).
As I understand Tier 2, it provides less guaranteed income at retirement.
Are the private sector investments still available, or has that changed?
Comment by H-W Wednesday, Apr 26, 23 @ 11:06 am
Still - Many state employees are not part of SS and cannot collect benefits.
Comment by Grimlock Wednesday, Apr 26, 23 @ 11:07 am
As long as a wealthy Wisconsinite is their friend, they don’t need the trend.
Comment by Socially DIstant watcher Wednesday, Apr 26, 23 @ 11:29 am
== Tier 1 and Tier 2 are not the only options available to state employees ==
The different plans have different options.
Actually, if you are SERS (most traditional State employees), the offered state pension plan (Tier 1 or Tier 2 depending on employment date) with SS is your only choice.
You can *optionally* also contribute to the Deferred Compensation plan, which is a non-matched 457 plan.
If you are under TRS, they allow opting out of the traditional plan in favor of a self-directed plan.
The other 3 plans also have varying rules.
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Apr 26, 23 @ 11:35 am
==I discourage any future State employees from working in Illinois.==
See, I encourage my elected officials to enact laws that make state employment more attractive, because ultimately we’re always gonna need state employees and teachers, and I’m not into cutting off my nose to spite my face.
Comment by Arsenal Wednesday, Apr 26, 23 @ 11:49 am
==you don’t have to work till 67, you just can’t collect.==
That’s some great spin. You forgot to add, “Given the average lifespan…those last ten years should be awesome (exclamation point)”
Comment by Jocko Wednesday, Apr 26, 23 @ 11:49 am
I thought we already solved that with Tier 2 (now creating new problems with acquiring specialized talent).
Why is the IPI so obsessed with other people’s benefits?
Comment by cermak_rd Wednesday, Apr 26, 23 @ 11:50 am
Well Arsenal, all I can say is that it is not working. I find undesirable and almost impossible to work at a place like DCFS or teaching for over 40 years (to age 67) and many at that age cannot keep-up with the strain and demands set upon them.
And Still, since I cannot say anything nice about your post I’ll just say, you reap what you sew (but of course this is a long-term problem so it’ll be the future reaping).
Comment by Lurker Wednesday, Apr 26, 23 @ 12:11 pm
=Why is the IPI so obsessed with other people’s benefits?=
Because labor unions concern their benefactors almost as much as drag queens. This is nothing more than following the agenda that folks such as Griffin, Uihlein, etc. deem important. They believe that millionaires and billionaires have been somehow disadvantaged. They are in search of a utopian state where workers have no power or say in governance.
Comment by Pundent Wednesday, Apr 26, 23 @ 12:12 pm
-And even with this highly biased question, they could only get to 56? -
I don’t see how a progressive state income tax isn’t coming to help fund pensions.
Comment by Steve Wednesday, Apr 26, 23 @ 12:18 pm
==There’s investments and s s to live on if you want to bail early.==
TRS and SURS members do not qualify for social security.
Comment by G'Kar Wednesday, Apr 26, 23 @ 12:23 pm
If IPI did manage (unlikely) to get the Pension Clause changed in the IL Constitution, that would open the door to not only messing with the AAI for Tier 1, but also any promised Tier 2 benefits … including the percentage future earned benefits would contribute to the pension and potentially even further reducing the Tier 2 AAI.
In effect, removing the Pension Clause would change the State pension plans to read “we’ll pay you something when you retire *if* we feel like it”. I don’t think the IRS will buy that one. And even without the Pension Clause, there is a whole range of contract law issues.
One of the biggest ongoing costs to the State budget is retiree health benefits. I don’t think even changing the IL Constitution will affect the retiree health insurance. Even if you removed the protection, what is in the State statutes still reads like a contract, and would be protected under contract law.
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Apr 26, 23 @ 12:33 pm
- Grimlock - Wednesday, Apr 26, 23 @ 11:07 am:
===Still - Many state employees are not part of SS and cannot collect benefits.===
Also many teachers and other public employees have worked other jobs in the private sector. They have earned social security but lose most or all of it when they retire because of the GPO/WEP law which was put in to punish teachers and other affected public employees.
Comment by DuPage Wednesday, Apr 26, 23 @ 12:37 pm
I don’t like this notion of protecting “already earned” versus “future.” There is not “future.” It’s all been earned. It’s a contractual promise and to suggest you can somehow honor part of the contract and disregard the rest of it is absurd.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Apr 26, 23 @ 12:45 pm
=Some have proposed a constitutional amendment that would preserve public retirement benefits already earned, but would allow for changes to future pension benefits. =
What precisely does this mean? Does it include a “two tier’ pension for employees whereby the benefits they have received up to a certain date are preserved but after a certain date they can be changed for the same employees? Or does it mean something else?
I am not certain and I strongly doubt if the people polled know the answer. But somehow I doubt if the IPI really cares about being clear as long as they can slip through agenda through.
Comment by unafraid Wednesday, Apr 26, 23 @ 12:45 pm
And has everyone noticed that any article put out by the IPI eventually comes around to griping about pensions? Doesn’t matter what the article is about, they always end up with their same tired old whine about pensions. Their entire existence is devoted to griping about state employees.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Apr 26, 23 @ 12:47 pm
I’d love to see all the IPI-types trying to live on State worker wages and pensions instead of their overpaid salaries, stock options, etc. Their dogs won’t hunt with anyone that actually works for a living without being massively overpaid for looking important or just walking in the door. Rich people that inherited or were gifted Daddy’s money are the worst; they didn’t work for anything or get their hands dirty. But it’s fine for IPI-types to demand good roads, emergency services, etc. as long as they don’t actually have to help pay for it.
Comment by thisjustinagain Wednesday, Apr 26, 23 @ 1:11 pm
Still, please check the pay scales. For most State jobs, the pay scale is now below (and in some cases vastly inferior) to the private sector.
Comment by Appears Wednesday, Apr 26, 23 @ 3:54 pm