Back to Square One, which wasn’t a pleasant place for us to be to begin with

I was kind of hoping that the Supreme Court of Illinois would somehow figure out a way to uphold the measure approved by the General Assembly and then-Gov. Pat Quinn back in 2013 to resolve the problems the state faced in funding its pension programs.

As it was, it took the Legislature several years past what was supposed to be the breaking point for the political people to come up with the solution they enacted two years ago.

BUT THE SUPREME Court on Friday went along with the hints it had been giving out – it overturned the previous legislative action on the grounds that it violated provisions of the state constitution that protect the retirement benefits that state workers receive.

No retroactive changes of any kind; not even if you want to try to claim you don’t have the money to afford the retirement rates that had previously been arranged.

So now we can resurrect the $105 billion shortfall in funding needed to balance out the retirement funds for state workers and educators at both public schools and state colleges. As if Illinois didn’t have enough financial problems to deal with, this issue is back!

Let’s be honest; there’s no way our Legislature is about to concoct a solution to this problem by the end of this legislative session – which is barely more than three weeks off.

AND THE LONGER the issue lingers, the greater the size of the problem grows.

If anything, it is made worse by the fact that the little bit of guidance the political people received from the Supreme Court’s ruling was to swipe at the Legislature for not going along with Quinn’s desires to extend the state income tax hike that withered away at the end of 2014.

Of course, current Gov. Bruce Rauner always made it clear he wanted that allegedly temporary tax hike to go away and the General Assembly’s membership never had the political backbone to address the issue.

Which is why there is going to be a serious shortfall, particularly since so much of Rauner’s own political agenda is to cut at programs and services whose existence serves to benefit the agendas of people not sympathetic to his views.

I CAN’T SEE Rauner coming to his senses on this issue and accepting the reality that he’s going to have to put some attention on the idea of raising new revenue sources in order for the state to meet its financial and moral obligations.

Because the longer the pension system remains a mess, the more and more its demands will sap up the entirety of what revenues the state of Illinois has.

But there are also many legislators of both major political persuasions who also don’t want to have to address this issue; it’s really not fair to say that Rauner is all to blame for the way this mess will linger.

I do find it humorous the way some political people are suggesting now that perhaps the solution to this issue is to amend the Illinois Constitution – so as to take out the provisions that require retirement benefits to remain the same.

CHANGING THE STATE Constitution is something that takes many years to do – time the state simply no longer has. This is a problem that was created by the inaction of many governors throughout the decades (you can’t blame it on just one political party).

We need serious, painful solutions to this problem that are going to wind up hurting the political interests of many people.

And we definitely need to quit thinking of this issue as one of a problem caused by those ‘damned retirees’ and the benefits they earned with their labor throughout the years.

  -30-

EXTRA: Quinn can’t win! Did city pensions unite Rauner, teachers union?

In the end, Gov. Pat Quinn did probably the only thing that was practical when, on Monday, he signed into law a deal meant to resolve Chicago city government’s pension funding problems.

QUINN: He can't win

That’s the agreement that will now allow city officials the option of increasing local property taxes to come up with the extra funds necessary.

IT WAS THE deal that Mayor Rahm Emanuel wanted approved; although the mayor wondered if the same governor that snubbed his city-based casino desires would also use the “veto” pen to put an end to this as well.

But just as many political people gave their support to a deal that was meant to resolve state pension funding problems even though they hated it, Quinn wound up giving the city a chance to say its problems were done.

Of course, there’s always the chance a court case will challenge that action, just as there’s a court case that has managed to stall the implementation of the state pension funding solution.

So who’s to say that any pension problems are solved? At least it appears an effort is being made to do something.

THIS WAS ALWAYS particularly harsh for Quinn because it meant he had to give support to something that constitutes potential for a property tax hike.

He could claim it was the mayor and City Council that wanted this. But you just know some people are going to be ever-so-eager to say “It’s Pat’s fault!”

Heck, Republican gubernatorial nominee Bruce Rauner couldn’t wait to issue the statement making that very claim!

“I would have vetoed this law, but Pat Quinn likes to raise taxes, and left homeowners holding the bag again,” Rauner said, in his statement. “This should have been a no-brainer. Veto the bill! Don’t squeeze Chicago families any more.”

TO WHICH I want to give Rauner a particularly nasty raspberry. Cheap trash talk from the venture capitalist who aspires to a political post in his life story, without telling us what needs to be done to resolve the pension funding problem.

 

Just how close are Rahm ...

It’s not something we ought to take that seriously. Although perhaps we should note that Rauner says he would have vetoed the bill, even though it was desired by his friend, Emanuel.

So much for the idea espoused by some people who say Rauner isn’t really that much of an ideologue Republican, and perhaps we’d be better off having a governor who could get along with the mayor.

... Rauner on the issues?

Personally, I do think Rauner and Emanuel have much in common, which is why I found it particularly ironic that Chicago Teachers Union President Karen Lewis issued a statement also lambasting Quinn.

SHE SAYS THE measure desired by the mayor steals money from city employees; claiming that a worker retiring now will have some $10,000 less in buying power from their pension 20 years from now.

She also tags the measure with the label “Emanuel’s Law,” which makes it seem as though she’d be most happy with Rauner’s outcome – even though the teacher’s union has made it clear they’re backing Quinn over Rauner come the Nov. 4 elections.

I’m fairly certain Quinn is anxious for Monday to end. It was a day where he woke up knowing he was going to get dumped on by somebody, no matter what he did.

How could Quinn get it right?

So if “the Mighty Quinn” were to ever find himself in the scenarios put forth by the Bill Murray film “Groundhog Day,” will this be the day that Pat is condemned to have to re-live – over and over and over again – until he somehow finally gets it right?

  -30-

Has “shall” ever been such an issue? Pension reform wends way into courts

The lawsuits that were long expected against Illinois state government are now arriving.

Pension funding "reform" is going to wind up here, regardless of what route it travels in coming years

 

For the Illinois Retired Teachers Association managed to get their arguments against the pension funding reform measure the General Assembly managed to approve this year – and the teachers couldn’t even wait until the new year.

THEIR LAWSUIT IN Cook County Circuit Court got slipped into the legal process before Janet Davies could do her annual “sayonara” to 2013. Of course, there will be other groups representing various political interests who also will file lawsuits to make sure they’re represented in this political fight.

All of the groups that hate what the state Legislature did concerning pensions are going to want to claim it is their lawsuit that took down the law that is desperately needed.

All the people who are desperate to believe that the state is trying to resolve its financial problems at the expense of its retired employees aren’t going to care if their success in court winds up tossing Illinois government into an even bigger financial jam!

And all of those who just want to cause mischief for state government? They will be the big winners.

THIS IS ALL caused because of the fact that for many years going back to the 1940s, state government short-changed the amount of money it should have been putting into funds to cover the costs of providing pensions in the future to its retired employees.

Short-changing an expense works if you only do it briefly, then immediately come back and put a surplus of cash into the accounts to make up for the brief loss.

But as many people find out when they try doing the same thing to pay their own bills, the short-changed expense often does not get replenished in a timely manner. As time passes, it becomes more and more difficult to cover the cost.

In the case of state government, the debt had grown so large that it was eating up state funds that government officials would prefer to spend on other areas – such as education, health care, public safety or other programs.

THE COST-OF-living adjustments meant to account for inflation were causing the debt to grow so large. Something had to be done; something desperate and drastic.

Such as the limits on the adjustments in future years. The increases written into law won’t be as big. EXCEPT, …

The lawsuits are all going to find various ways of claiming that such a cut violates the clause in the state constitution that says public pensions are a “contractual relationship” whose benefits “shall not be diminished or impaired.”

They are taking such a literal, hard-lined interpretation that I suspect the masses of Illinois will become incredibly disgusted if they actually prevail in court.

THIS MAY BE one of those times when the fact that the courts have their own moments of being politicized may wind up giving us a benefit.



This year's issues will carry over into future

Because the perception by some political observers is that Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan’s influence over the courts is such that there isn’t a judge alive who would be willing to have his (or her) name on a court order that struck down the pension funding reform measure.

I’m not about to guess how this issue will eventually be resolved – other than to say that if “pension reform” does wind up getting struck down, any future attempt at reform by the Legislature will likely be even more punitive.

And we may someday see the organized labor interests that are desperately fighting against this version of pension reform wishing they had accepted it while they had the chance!

  -30-

So much for pension funding reform this fall, gay marriage likely the miracle

There are those people who argued that the Illinois Legislature had no business contemplating measures to make marriage between gay couples legal – how dare they do anything other than try to resolve the problems confronting the state from pension funding problems!

Legislature soon to return for pension reform?

Of course, that’s a nonsense argument. Any public official worth a salt ought to be capable of addressing multiple issues at once. If they can’t, we ought to dump them in next year’s election cycle.

BUT I AM aware that our legislators – while capable of acting – often are not the most inspired of individuals. They don’t like to be bothered with more than one thing at a time.

Which means the passage of gay marriage on Tuesday probably means we’re not getting pension funding reform any time this week – the General Assembly’s fall veto session ends Thursday. No, I'm not overly impressed by the Illinois House action Wednesday that approved a measure altering the pension program for the Chicago Park District retired employees. It's so far from the overall solution.

Of course, even if the gay marriage issue had lingered on and on, it was unlikely the Legislature would have gotten around to pension funding – even if those Senate members of the committee trying to negotiate a deal did say on WTTW-TV’s “Chicago Tonight” program they thought action was possible.

I did find it interesting that House Democratic aides were saying a vote on the issue could come before the Legislature begins 2014 – which would mean a special session.

EVERYBODY RETURNING TO the Statehouse for one day of sitting around, waiting for the moment when they will be asked to vote “aye” on a plan to reduce the amount of state money that has to go toward paying for pension obligations.
 

Did gay marriage approval ...

Likely, somebody will have an objection to that plan – no matter what it is – and will file a lawsuit. Which means it will be years before this issue is truly resolved.

And if, by chance, it turns out that the Legislature’s actions are struck down by the courts, then we get to go through all of this again!

We did, of course, have the Legislature try to vote on this issue back in the spring – only to have the state Senate vote in favor of its version of a reform plan, and the Illinois House backing what it considered to be adequate reform.

GIVING TRUTH TO the old cliché about how perhaps Illinois, not just Chicago, “ain’t ready for reform.”

... really squeeze out pension reform?

Now I doubt most people really comprehend what the difference was between the plans, or even what the proposed compromises now being discussed truly are. That’s why it ultimately came down to people viewing this issue as a feud of sorts between House Speaker Michael Madigan and state Senate President John Cullerton, both Chicago Democrats.
 

Ultimately, our politicians are going to be asked to vote for something by placing their trust that this will work. And our state legislators, in particular, are an untrusting bunch.

Which is why I don’t see a sudden, last-minute, effort on Thursday that brings this issue to an end.

GAY MARRIAGE ULTIMATELY got resolved on Tuesday because Madigan put the screws to a few legislators to bring the vote total to just enough for the measure to pass – albeit with a delayed date of enactment (June 1, 2014, instead of immediately upon Gov. Pat Quinn’s signature).

He could never have gotten enough votes for the immediate enactment date. Nor could he swing over enough people to support anything resembling pension funding reform – no version of a reform plan seems to be just on the verge of having enough votes for approval.

Personally, here’s hoping that something breaks in the next few weeks that enables the conference committee to come up with something that can get a vote of approval.

Somehow, a special session some time in December might well be the best Christmas present (or belated Hanukkah present, since that holiday coincides with Thanksgiving this year) our Legislature could give to the people of Illinois.

  -30-

And we seriously wonder why Illinois’ Legislature can’t get anything done?

Would you wear this?

Who’s lazier?

A Puerto Rico resident eating a Whopper at Burger King. Or a member of the Illinois General Assembly when it comes to pension funding reform.

AS RIDICULOUS AS it is that Burger King marked its 50^th anniversary of existence in the Caribbean island commonwealth by handing out 50 special devices that allow someone to eat a Whopper without having to touch it with their own hands or lift it to their own mouths, I’d have to argue that our very own Legislature is more embarrassing!

In fact, a part of me wonders if our legislators ought to have those burger-holders to keep their mouths otherwise occupied. Otherwise, they concoct, and spew forth, with ideas such as the way that the General Assembly contemplated to get out of having to make a decision on the problem of providing adequate pension funding.

Earlier this week, the state Senate did the political equivalent of sticking a shiv in the back of Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago. They rejected a bill that contained his preference for a pension funding bill.

Of course, there’s still the alternative preferred by their leader, Senate President John Cullerton, D-Chicago. That’s the one the unions like because it doesn’t require as much of a sacrifice, but also doesn’t provide as much relief and has some thinking it is totally inadequate.

THAT IS WHAT inspired state Rep. Elaine Nekritz, D-Northbrook, to say that the General Assembly ought to pass Cullerton’s preference, AND resurrect the Madigan measure.

NEKRITZ: Willing to let courts decide

Pass them both. Then create a situation where the courts (the same ones that issued the ruling that put Illinois in a position of having to consider “concealed carry” by June 9) make the final decision.

Talk about being lazy. Even moreso than thinking it an ordeal to lift a hamburger to one’s own mouth. If THAT was the alternative, then we're better off that the General Assembly did nothing before adjourning for the summer.

Because the whole point of having legislators is for them to make the tough decisions about the crucial issues confronting our society. The courts are meant to be the check-and-balance that prevents legislators and the governor from going too far.

THEY’RE NOT MEANT to be the governing body, in and of themselves!

Illinois' high court not the people we want creating our laws

 

It makes me think that Moody’s Investors Service – which on Friday said Illinois’ credit rating WILL drop if nothing was done by the Legislature on pension funding reform – ought to ding our lawmakers just for being generally lazy. Perhaps Gov. Pat Quinn will provide that "ding" when he meets with the Legislature's leaders next week to discuss this very issue?

Besides, I suspect if the courts do have to resolve this situation, we’re going to wind up with an outcome that everybody will truly despise. Just like nobody was happy about the “concealed carry” measure about the bill that finally got both state Senate and Illinois House approval on Friday.

There’s also the fact that the parliamentary maneuvering that would have to take place for such a dual-approval to occur would become so complex, and that it would take so long for the courts to resolve the issue that it might extend beyond our current Legislature’s life.

THERE’S JUST TOO much that can go wrong. Our legislators need to take action for themselves. Not rely on someone else to do their work for them.

Of course, what lets legislators think they can even get away with this is the fact that so much of the public attention on Friday was focused on a completely different issue – legal marriage for gay couples.

While I’m writing this very commentary, I’m also watching the Blue Room Stream website that allows people to watch the Legislature (in my case, the Illinois House) live. It also has a running commentary from viewers who want to express their thoughts in real-time.

And the comments I’m reading are overwhelmingly from people who want these legislators to just Shut up, already, and get on (both for, and against) with gay marriage!!!

Offending people, no matter what they do. Our Illinois House in action

 

MAYBE NEKRITZ THOUGHT she and her legislative colleagues could get away with a political punt on the pension funding issue because everybody else would be distracted by gay marriage (which never did happen, but will resurrect itself when the Legislature returns to session come November) and concealed carry and maybe even gambling expansion (another ultimate non-issue) and that moment of silence legislators did for the deceased firefighters in Houston?

And then, political people wonder why the public is less-than-trusting of their professional abilities – thinking of them as a bigger joke than someone from Puerto Rico actually using one of those ridiculous hands-free Whopper holders!

  -30-

What is fair, when it comes to pension reform? Can Lege figure it out?

We have two weeks before the newly-elected Illinois General Assembly gets sworn into office. Although the real question is going to be if the current state Legislature will be capable of coming up with a solution to the problem of inadequate funding of pension programs.

Pension reform rhetoric will fill the air around the Statehouse in coming days. Whether that means a solution will be found remains questionable.

We have been told so many times that the pension problem threatens to take down all of state government because the shortfall has grown way too big. We fixed too many financial problems in the past by underfunding the pension expenses!

PERSONALLY, I THINK many legislators have grown immune to the harsh talk. They think, just like they do on many other issues, that the world can operate at their own snail’s pace. The fact that the General Assembly cut back the number of days it will convene before the transition shows it would prefer to do as little as it has to.

So I won’t be surprised if it turns out that nothing is accomplished on this particular issue prior to Jan. 9 – even though Gov. Pat Quinn has made it clear he wants this issue to be THE priority for the final few days of the old Legislature; which begin a week from Wednesday in the Illinois Senate.

A large part of the problem lies with the pension program that covers the retirement benefits of school teachers who worked for districts in suburban and rural Illinois areas.

Because a logical part of any solution probably is that the school districts should be providing for the pensions offered to the teachers who worked there – instead of having the state do it.

OF COURSE, THAT does not really fix the problem. It just shifts it off onto someone else!

And the school district officials across Illinois have made it clear they hate the idea. They are convinced (rightfully so, probably) that their own tax levies would have to be increased significantly for them to be able to have enough money to cover those expenses.

The Teachers Retirement System program estimates that taxpayers would have to come up with about $800 million more per year if such a shift were suddenly imposed.

That means property tax increases in the mid-2010s for many homeowners who think they’re already being overtaxed. It also means increased outrage from the public, which is the last thing many of our legislators want to incur.

SOME PEOPLE THINK that this can be imposed gradually – over a period of years. Which would create the illusion that property taxes are not increasing so quickly.

Even though the end result would be that $800 million hike by the time it’s all over.

I honestly think this is the factor that will keep legislators from doing anything. It won’t be “courage” to prevent a tax increase on their part. It will be “fear” of infuriating the constituents!

This is one of those instances where sitting back and doing nothing has the potential to cause problems. But political inertia is, all too often, what the Illinois General Assembly is all about.

OF COURSE, I also get amused whenever I hear the state legislators from Chicago proper complain about the REAL problem. That being that the Chicago Teachers Union came up with a separate system for funding pensions for retirees of the Chicago Public Schools.

Local property owners already cover those expenses as Chicago residents. But since they’re also Illinois residents, they also get hit with a tax levy that asks them to cover the suburban/rural teacher retirees as well.

Everybody wants to see themselves as a victim, and everybody else as the bully in this case. Although I’m sure if city teacher retirees were to get “their way” and the state had to cover city retirees too, we’d have all those rural residents claiming this as another example of Chicago “bullying” the rest of Illinois.

Confusing? Of course it is! I’m sure the legislators preparing for a return next week to the Statehouse are equally confounded – and unlikely to reach agreement on a solution to the overarching problem.

  -30-