15 Questions about Pension Reform for the Illinois General Assembly

Shouldn’t the state government sanction vested rights guaranteed in a contract? Can the state government pass an amendment to impair a constitutional agreement? In other words, is it ethical and legal to limit public employees’ contractual benefits and rights both prospectively and retroactively without attempting other recourse? 

Is so-called pension reform bill, HJRCA 49, an abrogation of contractual rights (and a violation of Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution) for public employees who have worked, expected and planned for statutorily-promised government pension benefits? Is it not crucial for legislators to protect “legitimate expectations,” especially for people (like public employees) who must be defended against those with extreme economic clout and inequitable schemes that pass prejudicial state legislation?

Is it fair for a state government that has been morally bankrupt for several decades to ignore the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?  Are we to believe Due Process and Equal Protection of the laws guarantee contractual privileges?  Are we to believe legal and moral sense dictate that any bill proposed by the State of Illinois should align with the U.S. Constitution?

What credibility do current Illinois legislators have when they can breach a contractual obligation through a constitutional amendment when it was the legislators’ failure to fund the public pension systems for decades that caused the unfunded liability? Isn’t breaking a contract a denial of due process of law under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution? How can any legislator believe so-called pension reform bills, such as SB 1673 and HJRCA 49, are not a diminishment or an impairment of current and retired teachers' earned and promised benefits as stated in Article XIII, Section 5 of the Illinois Constitution?

How can a state government that has created a severe unfunded liability for the public employees’ retirement systems continue to isolate and offer up one particular group of people for sacrifice and dispossession because of bond agencies, an unethical political process, and the likes of the Civic Committee of the Commercial Club of Chicago and other influential and wealthy organizations?

Is it fair that there are special exceptions and rules for the wealthy among us, but there are intentionally-limiting laws for middle-class public employees and other workers?  Would the majority of people in Illinois allow today’s General Assembly to change the rules of a constitutionally-guaranteed contract to benefit themselves and their wealthy benefactors? Furthermore, will it mean that any legislature can and will change the rules at whim, and that any contract of the State of Illinois is worthless as the policymakers themselves? 

-Glen Brown