“[This] Pension Clause serves as a bar
against any unilateral legislative or governmental action to reduce or
eliminate the pension benefit rights in place when an employee [becomes] a
member of the pension system” (Eric Madiar, “Is Welching on Public Pension
Promises an Option for Illinois” 21).
Nevertheless, House Speaker Michael Madigan's constitutional amendment (HJRCA 49) will “propose to amend
the General Provisions Article of the Illinois Constitution. [This amendment]
provides that no bill, except a bill for appropriations, that provides a
benefit increase under any pension or retirement system of the State, any unit
of local government or school district, or any agency or instrumentality
thereof, shall become law without the concurrence of three-fifths of the members
elected to each house of the General Assembly…
“[Furthermore, HJRCA 49] provides that no
ordinance, resolution, rule, or other action of the governing body, or an
appointee or employee of the governing body, of any unit of local government or
school district that provides an emolument increase to an official or employee
that has the effect of increasing the amount of the pension or annuity that an
official or employee could receive as a member of a pension or retirement
system shall be valid without the concurrence of three-fifths of the members of
that governing body…
“The term ‘benefit increase’ means a change to
any pension or other law that results in a member of a pension or retirement
system receiving a new benefit or an enhancement to a benefit including, but
not limited to, any changes that (i) increase the amount of the pension or
annuity that a member could receive upon retirement, or (ii) reduce or
eliminate the eligibility requirements or other terms or conditions a member
must meet to receive a pension or annuity upon retirement.
“The term ‘benefit increase’ also means a
change to any pension or other law that expands the class of persons who may
become a member of any pension or retirement system or who may receive a
pension or annuity from a pension or retirement system. An increase in salary
or wage level, by itself, shall not constitute a ‘benefit increase’ unless that
increase exceeds limitations provided by law… This Constitutional Amendment [will]
take effect on January 9, 2013.”
*****
Of course, this amendment to Article XIII,
Section 5 of the Illinois Constitution will be cast on a separate ballot. As stated,
this amendment to the 1970 “Pension Clause” will need three-fifths of those
voting on the amendment or a majority of those voting in the election in order
to pass. However, it is important to
note that Illinois citizens have been duped by the Civic Committee of the
Commercial Club of Chicago, the Civic Federation, the Illinois Policy Institute, the Chicago Tribune, and other nefarious partners; therefore, this
amendment may pass, unless public employees unite to re-educate the public to
“Vote No.”
Most public employees understand the cause of
the $83 billion unfunded liability to the pension systems: “The state’s
decades-long practice of intentionally borrowing revenue from ‘promised’
contributions to the retirement systems in order to subsidize the cost of
delivering public services” (The Center for Tax and Budget Accountability CTBA,
June 2012).
Some public employees and the majority of the
public do not realize, however, that “the top two drivers of underfunding were
insufficient employer contributions and investment losses during the Great
Recession: [that] insufficient employer contributions account for 44 percent of
growth in unfunded liabilities, and investment returns account for 22 percent
of total growth. In contrast, benefit increases account for less than 10
percent of the growth [in unfunded liability]. Given the small role benefit
increases played in creating the problem, it is unfair to target benefits [through
HJRCA 49] in order to reduce the existing unfunded liability” (CTBA).
Most public employees and the populace do not
comprehend that “the funding plan under Public Act 88-0593 [the 'Ramp Up']
heavily back loaded repayment of the aggregate unfunded liability…; [that]
HJRCA 49 does not reduce the state systems’ current $83 billion unfunded
liability by even one cent. HJRCA 49 [also] fails to address the real fiscal
issue caused by the state’s outsized pension debt—how to amortize the $83
billion debt owed to the five state-sponsored retirement systems in a feasible
way.
“Second, implementing a Constitutional amendment
that hinders the ability of legislators to institute benefit increases would
make it nearly impossible to rectify the problems associated with the reduced
benefit tier that lawmakers created in 2010 [by SB 1946] …
“The uncertainty surrounding language used in
HJRCA 49 is of extra concern because once passed, changing any aspect of it
would require yet another Constitutional amendment. Given that there are nearly
7,000 local governments in Illinois, the impact of the supermajority-voting
requirement could be costly in the amount of time legislators will have to
spend on pension benefit analysis” (CTBA).
*****
Most significantly, as stated by the State
Universities Annuitants Association (SUAA), HJRCA 49 “would grant unprecedented
powers to government that will undermine protections contained in the pension
protection clause [Article XIII, Section 5] and eliminate the uniform laws that
now exist for [all] state employee benefits and obligations in the Illinois
Pension Code” (Letter from SUAA, April 25, 2012).
Will the Constitutional amendment (Section
5.1) to the Pension Clause nullify Article I, Section 16 (Ex Post Facto Laws
and Impairing Contracts) of the Illinois Constitution and Article I, Section 10
(Limitations on Power of States) of the U.S. Constitution?
How important is it now for public employees to
educate the public about attacks on rights and benefits of middle-class
citizens? Shouldn’t public employees be proactive
and enraged by the Civic Committee’s et. al. persuasive attempt to divide the middle class
in Illinois through fallacious reasoning and distorted information? Shouldn’t
public employees be provoked by their relentless priority on
radical “pension reform” and their policymakers’ attempt to breach the contract
of public employees while giving tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy, regardless of whether
this inequitable “corporate welfare” produces more budget deficits? The Civic
Committee (et. al.) has shrewdly and deceptively maintained the dialogue and focus on
public pensions instead of needed revenue reform, and not much has been done
about it.
This government
by the rich and powerful, by groups that duplicitously state it is a
“not-for-profit organization whose mission is to stimulate and encourage the
growth of the area's economy and its ability to provide for its people,” is
based upon the impoverishment of middle-class citizens. The Civic Committee’s
and Civic Federation’s power is purchased. Their “current mission” is the
wholesale destruction of the entire middle class and the pension systems in
Illinois, especially the Teachers’ Retirement System.
Who is behind the vague and ambiguous laws by which Illinois government operates besides House Speaker Madigan? The Civic Committee and its legislative power brokers. Who will profit from pension reform and a diminishment of contracts and, thus, free up the state’s cash flow and increase its profit margin in Illinois? The Civic Committee and their ilk. Who could eventually lose their “only” retirement pension? Teachers and other public employees of Illinois.
Who is behind the vague and ambiguous laws by which Illinois government operates besides House Speaker Madigan? The Civic Committee and its legislative power brokers. Who will profit from pension reform and a diminishment of contracts and, thus, free up the state’s cash flow and increase its profit margin in Illinois? The Civic Committee and their ilk. Who could eventually lose their “only” retirement pension? Teachers and other public employees of Illinois.
*****
There are no
equal rights when there is inequity of wealth and when promises are made to
underpin and to sustain the fortunes of a few at the expense and victimization
of the many. Public employees know they have become
victims of deregulation and tax reductions for the wealthy minority, resultant of organized political action by and in support of the wealthy
sector.
Public employees know they will become victims
of insidious financial “reforms” that do not resolve the state’s deficit
problems but will continue to accommodate and reinforce the enormous inequality
of organizational resources of these thriving egotistic profiteers among us,
unless public employees choose to unite and fight against this injustice.
Public employees know they are victims
of a tyranny by the few who lack accountability for destroying a representative
democracy and a just economy in Illinois; public employees know they are
victims of the corporate “We Mean Business” PAC and vast resources of money and
influence committed to reforming the rules and policies that have and will
continue to adversely affect the lives of middle-class citizens and the disenfranchised;
moreover, most public employees know about the schemes to reallocate the
state’s future liabilities to teachers and school districts and universities by
way of purchasing policymakers who are attempting to amend and circumvent Article XIII,
Section 5 of the Illinois Constitution through House Joint Resolution
Constitutional Amendment 49.
There is a simple synergetic balance
to understand here. If the state’s policymakers impair the Pension Clause, they will not only destroy the public employees’ financial
security and their constitutional rights, but they will also damage the communities that
these people support, serve and protect.
A Synopsis of the Proposed Amendment 5.1 to Article XIII of
the Illinois Constitution
On the November Ballot,
Illinois voters will be asked if they believe the Illinois Constitution should
be amended to require a three-fifths majority vote in order to increase a
benefit under any public pension or retirement system. Please vote NO on the proposed
Constitutional Amendment (HJRCA 49). This Constitutional Amendment would also require that any local
collectively bargained agreement be approved by a three-fifths majority if
those agreements had incentives or additional compensation increases beyond
salary.
Reasons to VOTE NO:
It is
mostly the legislators’ fault that the pension systems were poorly funded
throughout the decades. That diverted pension money was used for other state
services and legislators’ “pet” projects instead.
The
constitutional amendment will make public
employees’ ability to fight for fair contracts much harder (Illinois Education
Association, IEA);
This
constitutional amendment will limit the
bargaining power of employers and employees (IEA);
There is the
possibility of disagreement on what constitutes a benefit increase” (Jesse White, Secretary of State). The COLA and other “earned” benefits will most likely be reinterpreted
in this regard;
This
constitutional amendment would make it nearly impossible to remedy the Social Security issues with the passage of
Senate Bill 1946 in April, 2010 (IEA).
This is unfair to any new teachers hired after January 1, 2011;
This
constitutional amendment will make it harder
to attract the best possible college candidates for the teaching profession (IEA);
This
constitutional amendment “does not
reduce the state’s pension systems’ current $83 billion unfunded liability” (caused
primarily by the state’s legislators); “it fails to address the real fiscal
issue caused by the state’s outsized pension debt—how to amortize the $83
billion debt owed to the pension systems” (Center for Tax and Budget
Accountability);
Most significantly, as stated by the State Universities
Annuitants Association (SUAA), this constitutional amendment “would grant unprecedented powers to
government that will undermine protections contained in the pension protection
clause [Article XIII, Section 5] and eliminate
the uniform laws that now exist for [all] state employee benefits and obligations in the Illinois Pension
Code” (Letter from SUAA, April 25, 2012);
Note: if you do not vote at all,
your absent vote will make it easier for a majority “Yes” vote.
The question on the
November ballot will ask, “…If you believe the Illinois Constitution should
not be amended to require a three-fifths majority vote in order to increase
a benefit under any public pension or retirement system, you should vote NO… on
the question. Three-fifths of those voting on the question or a majority of
those voting in the election must vote “Yes” in order for the amendment to
become effective on January 9, 2013.” Please join us in voting NO against
the proposed constitutional amendment on the November ballot.
-Glen Brown
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.