To Glen:
Discussing future pension obligations with you is like
discussing proposed restrictions on gun rights with an NRA member: Every answer
invokes the constitution – the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in
their case, the pension clause in the Illinois Constitution in yours – and
avoids the request for a common-sense analysis of compromise reforms.
I asked what’s objectionable, morally or ethically, about the idea of honoring all pension obligations for past service, but renegotiating the future pension benefits that will be based on future service, much as salary and other terms of employment are renegotiated. Your answer: The state constitution forbids it.
I asked whether these pension deals were ever good deals for taxpayers – transparent, market based and actuarially responsible -- and if they remain good deals for taxpayers today. Your answer: Doesn’t matter. The state constitution renders such speculation moot. [I never said this].
We agree that irresponsible legislators turned a potential problem into a looming crisis by skipping pension payments to in effect pay their bills with money from the future. And that now the future is here, so we’re going to have to raise taxes to make good on our obligations.
But at the suggestion of a compromise re-definition of those obligations going forward, in order to minimize the potentially metastatic impact of significant tax increases on citizens and businesses, your answer remains the same. And your allies on the comment threads rage that any other answer amounts to teacher bashing, union bashing and a Wisconsin-esque attempt to divide working people.
If these truly are the battle lines, I’m afraid this policy fight’s going to get ugly.
Eric ZornI asked what’s objectionable, morally or ethically, about the idea of honoring all pension obligations for past service, but renegotiating the future pension benefits that will be based on future service, much as salary and other terms of employment are renegotiated. Your answer: The state constitution forbids it.
I asked whether these pension deals were ever good deals for taxpayers – transparent, market based and actuarially responsible -- and if they remain good deals for taxpayers today. Your answer: Doesn’t matter. The state constitution renders such speculation moot. [I never said this].
We agree that irresponsible legislators turned a potential problem into a looming crisis by skipping pension payments to in effect pay their bills with money from the future. And that now the future is here, so we’re going to have to raise taxes to make good on our obligations.
But at the suggestion of a compromise re-definition of those obligations going forward, in order to minimize the potentially metastatic impact of significant tax increases on citizens and businesses, your answer remains the same. And your allies on the comment threads rage that any other answer amounts to teacher bashing, union bashing and a Wisconsin-esque attempt to divide working people.
If these truly are the battle lines, I’m afraid this policy fight’s going to get ugly.
To Eric:
What we call rights of individuals is bound up with the
theory and precepts of social and political justice we adopt (John Stuart Mill,
On Liberty). When legislators
swear an oath to uphold the state and federal constitutions, then citizens of
Illinois and the United States have also acquired the right to expect that they
will uphold that pledge. This is also a matter of important moral concern for all
citizens of Illinois, for all legal claims will be validated by a moral
framework since the concept of justice is grounded in ethics. If citizens’ legal
rights are abused, then their dignity and humanity will also be violated.
Rights and obligations are logically correlative. In other
words, a citizen’s rights imply or complement the legislators’ obligation to guarantee
them. The keeping of promises is the General Assembly’s legal duty. It is
something the U.S. Constitution requires them to do whether they want to or not.
Unfortunately, many legislators will act without moral principles, even though “claims
of rights [are] prima facie or presumptively valid-standing claims” (Tom
Beauchamp, Philosophical Ethics).
If policymakers do not take individual rights seriously but
prefer to challenge them in a court of law, then we can assume they will not
take any of their other laws seriously either. All citizens of the State of
Illinois have legal justification for their rights and benefits. The foundation
of their rights and benefits is the state and U.S. constitutions that directly
support any claims against them.
“Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice
that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override… It does not allow
that the sacrifices imposed on a few are outweighed by the larger sum of
advantages enjoyed by the many. Therefore, in a just society the liberties of
equal citizenship are taken as settled; the rights secured by justice are not
subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interests” (John
Rawls, A Theory of Justice).
To possess a right to a promised benefit, such as a pension,
is to assert a legitimate claim on all Illinois legislators to protect that
right. There are no rights without obligations. They are mutually dependent. We
both know state contracts are also protected by the federal government as well
(Article 1, Section 10 of the United States Constitution).
The significant issue of today and tomorrow is the
relationship between a teacher’s right to an earned,
constitutionally-guaranteed defined-benefit pension and the legislators’
obligation to safeguard that promise. An unconscionable constitutional challenge
of teachers’ rights and benefits will generate a serious threat to their secure
sense of worth as citizens and create the unfair possibility for an economic
disadvantage for one particular group of people and their families. This cannot
be morally or legally justified.
glen brownFor an in-depth discussion about constitutionality, please read "Illinois Pension Reform... Is Without Legal and Moral Justification"
Kudos, Glenn. And thank you for all of your time and efforts expended on our behalf against the small minded media swill that has as its cause to destroy our profession.
ReplyDeleteTo Zorn -
ReplyDeleteI should like to end Glen's last paragraph with this addition.
To suggest otherwise is not, Eric, teacher-bashing, union bashing or Wisconsin-esque, nor is it pertinent. You call it a policy; you’re in error there. It is not simply a policy or tradition – it is law. As for going forward, the state has already performed that unseemly and inequitable act upon those who did or will consider teaching in Illinois after 2011. Now you decry my attempts to remind you of our legislators’ responsibilities to myself and others with whom they have entered into legal arrangements and contractual agreements. While I demand my own protection against willful and arbitrary changes in law, I also protect you, Eric. You’re welcome.