During the first six months of 2012, the General Assembly’s on-going debate over teacher pensions and efforts to preserve the long-term stability of TRS took much of everyone’s attention. While I believe that change is necessary and will happen, it is impossible to know what will happen, or when, over the course of the next six months...
In March the TRS
Board of Trustees approved a landmark resolution. It calls for action now to
maintain the long term viability of TRS. It acknowledges that due to the
state’s overall poor financial condition, TRS cannot count on the General
Assembly meeting the statutory funding requirements for your pensions.
According to projections, the state’s backlog of unpaid bills is expected to
grow from $9.2 billion this year to $34.8 billion by fiscal year 2017. Pension
costs are expected to grow by 35 percent during this period of time to $7.8
billion. The new revenues required to close the gap just for TRS over the next
three decades number in the tens of billions of dollars.
This harsh
reality is putting real pressure on legislators to make substantial cuts in the
state’s budget, now and in the future. One of the single largest line items in
the budget is the state appropriation for TRS and the other public pension
systems. If the state cuts or freezes its contribution to TRS next year and in
subsequent years, our calculations show that under the worst scenarios TRS
could become insolvent between 2030 and 2049.
Many of you have
heard me speak about the simple equation that we have to keep in balance,
C+I=B. Contributions (C) plus investment earnings (I) have to equal benefits
(B) over time. That equation is too far out of balance to ignore any longer. In
order to keep TRS solvent over the long-term, meaningful changes in the Pension
Code must be enacted to better balance expected revenues and anticipated
benefit costs. With an understanding that changes to the Pension Code are a
highly volatile subject, the trustees identified five key elements that must
serve as the foundation for pension change:
1.
Use only
actuarially-based math to determine contributions and liabilities. Illinois
pension math dictated by law artificially lowers the state’s cost of funding
pensions (by about $1 billion for fiscal year 2013, for example) and makes it
difficult to reduce the System’s unfunded liability every year.
2. Illinois must enact funding guarantees for the
pension systems into law. A statutory funding guarantee like those in other
states would ensure that all future state government contributions are made in
full, so that we never repeat the circumstances we are in now.
3. Fix the financial inequities of the Tier II
funding and benefit structure. Tier II members pay the 9.4 percent payroll
contribution like Tier I members, but the value of their benefits is only worth
roughly six percent of their pay. This is fundamentally unfair and will create
a multi-billion problem within 30 years.
4. Any solution enacted by the General Assembly
must be uncomplicated and easy to understand and administer.
5.
Any solution must
adhere to the Illinois Constitution’s Pension Protection Clause.
To their credit,
state officials have recognized the Board’s five key elements as a basis for
legislation. But as you can imagine, the debate over solutions that fit within
these elements has been wide-ranging and intense. Other than a consensus that
changes must be made, an agreement on exactly what should be done has been
elusive. State officials and legislators are being pushed and pulled in several
directions at the same time.
This is where
your activism has been important in shaping the discussion. Legislators
recognize that the 362,000 TRS members are scattered throughout Illinois and
that educators are politically active and fully understand the issue. Your
telephone calls, emails, personal visits and letters will continue to influence
the debate.
But legislators
also recognize that it will be impossible to produce a solution that secures
the long term finances of TRS and keeps the current Pension Code intact. The
numbers that define the problem are just too big. Right now, the $44 billion
TRS unfunded liability is larger than the state’s entire general fund budget of
$33 billion. The TRS portion of the state budget, about 7 percent, totaled
approximately $2.4 billion in fiscal year 2012. To simply keep TRS funding level
at 7 percent of the budget over the next 30 years would add $64 billion to the
unfunded liability. If TRS funding in the budget were to grow by 3 percent
annually, the unfunded liability would still grow by $40 billion.
This is why the
legislators are centering debate over a solution on changing benefits for
active and retired TRS members, specifically the annual cost of living
adjustment (COLA). The simple fact is that the COLA is the single largest
component – about 21 percent – of the annual cost of TRS benefits. This year
the COLA alone increased the cost of TRS retirement benefits by $900 million.
That is why pension changes in other states have typically focused on changes
to the COLA.
The Constitutional
protections for pension benefits have been well reported. It is a certainty
that if the General Assembly approves a change in the COLA, their actions will
be challenged in court by organized labor and member groups. The outcome of any
court case is uncertain. While changes to the COLA have received most of the
attention, other changes have been discussed as well. While subject to change
and clarification, here is the menu of major proposals:
A Benefit Choice
for the Future: COLA and Health Insurance
This proposal
calls on all active, inactive and retired TRS members to choose between two
options in the make-up of their retirement benefits after July 1, 2013. As
currently drafted, this irrevocable, one-time election would have to be made
between January 1, 2013 and May 31, 2013. Whether these dates would hold in any
final legislation remains to be seen. This proposal would save state government
an estimated $33.4 billion to $37 billion over 30 years.
• Option 1: Accept a change in the annual COLA – from 3
percent compounded to a COLA that is capped at 3 percent or one-half of the
consumer price index, whichever is less. This COLA would not be compounded. The
TRS member retains “access” to state supported health insurance through the
Teachers’ Retirement Insurance Program. For active members, all future salary
increases will be used to calculate the member’s future pension.
• Option 2: Reject the change in the COLA and it remains
at 3 percent compounded annually. The TRS member loses “access” to retiree
health insurance through TRIP. For active members, no future salary increases
would count when the member’s future pension is calculated.
New Start Date
for a COLA
Under this
proposal, TRS members agreeing to Option 1 would first see the new COLA on the
January 1 in the year after turning age 67 or in the year after the fifth
anniversary of the member’s retirement, whichever is earlier.
Cash Balance Plan
This proposal
creates a new “Tier III” that is commonly referred to as a “cash balance plan.”
All new TRS members hired after July 1, 2013 would automatically be in Tier
III. Existing Tier II members could elect to join Tier III.
• TRS members
would pay a 9 percent annual contribution, and school districts would pay a 3.4
percent contribution. TRS would annually credit investment earnings to each
member’s account.
• Upon
retirement, TRS would calculate a guaranteed life-time annuity based solely on
the nominal balance in the account that reflects contributions credited to each
member and adjusted for estimated future investment earnings and the member’s
anticipated lifespan.
Requiring State
to Pay TRS Annual Contribution
Under this
proposal, if the state fails to pay any monthly share of its legally-required
contribution to TRS within 90 days, the TRS Board would have the right to seek
a court order commanding the comptroller to pay TRS. Similar to other states,
the goal of this provision is to guard against future underfunding that
threatens the System’s ability to meet its obligations to members.
Shifting the
Annual Cost of Pensions to Local School District
While not
addressing pension costs, this proposal would make school districts responsible
for paying an increased share of the annual costs of TRS pensions, and the
state would pay less toward these costs. Eventually, school districts would be
responsible for paying the entire annual cost of benefits being earned every
year.
Under one plan,
between 2014 and 2019 the share of the annual pension cost paid by local school
districts would increase by 1 percent of payroll each year and then by 0.5
percent in each year after 2019 until the total annual pension cost is paid by
the districts.
Under a second
plan, school districts immediately would have to pay the added pension costs of
any and all raises granted by school boards to TRS members. Current state law
requires all school districts to pay an additional contribution to TRS to cover
the increased pension cost for any raise used in a final average salary
calculation that exceeds 6 percent in any one year. This proposal would lower
the 6 percent threshold to zero percent.
I continue to
believe that the central question surrounding changes in the Pension Code is “when,”
not “if.” Discussions over potential legislation will continue. Governor Pat
Quinn has discussed the possibility of a special legislative session this
summer or fall to address the pension issue. If legislators are not called back
to Springfield during the summer, the next opportunity for any action on
pensions will be in November – after the election. The TRS Web site will
continue to be a good source of information that can help you better understand
what’s going on. TRS will remain closely involved in all discussions. I urge
you to remain aware, informed and active as the future unfolds. Your voices do
make a difference. (This article is from http://trs.illinois.gov/subsections/pubs/topics/summer12.pdf)
For perspectives on some of the
aforementioned proposals,
PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING POSTS AND BECOME "INFORMED" THEN "ACTIVE":
PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING POSTS AND BECOME "INFORMED" THEN "ACTIVE":
“Illinois Pension
Reform, Senate Bill 1673, Is Without Legal and Moral Justification”: http://teacherpoetmusicianglenbrown.blogspot.com/2012/05/sb-1673-is-without-legal-and-moral.html
“Dear Illinois
Policymaker: It's a State Revenue Problem, Indeed, Plain and Simple. So Raise
the Money and Pay the Debts”: http://teacherpoetmusicianglenbrown.blogspot.com/2012/02/plain-and-simple.html
“Why Are We Still Focusing on
the Wrong Issues”: http://teacherpoetmusicianglenbrown.blogspot.com/2012/03/why-are-we-focusing-on-wrong-issue.html
“Assumptions, Concerns and Questions
Regarding TRS Insolvency…”: http://teacherpoetmusicianglenbrown.blogspot.com/2012/04/assumptions-concerns-and-questions.html
“A Foreshadowing of Illinois Pension
Reform: An Analysis”: http://teacherpoetmusicianglenbrown.blogspot.com/2012/04/foreshadowing-of-illinois-pension.html
“TRS Executive Director Dick Ingram’s
Address…”: http://teacherpoetmusicianglenbrown.blogspot.com/2012/03/trs-executive-director-richard-ingrams.html
“Understanding Illinois’ Budget
Deficit and Solutions”: http://teacherpoetmusicianglenbrown.blogspot.com/2012/03/solutions-for-illinois-budget-deficit.html
“A View of the Illinois
Public Pension Dilemma, Pt. I”: http://teacherpoetmusicianglenbrown.blogspot.com/2012/04/view-of-illinois-pension-dilemma-pt-i.html
“A View of the Illinois
Public Pension Dilemma, Pt. II”: http://teacherpoetmusicianglenbrown.blogspot.com/2012/04/view-of-illinois-public-pension-dilemma.html
“A View of the Illinois
Public Pension Dilemma, Pt. III”: http://teacherpoetmusicianglenbrown.blogspot.com/2012/04/view-of-illinois-public-pension-dilemma_16.html
“COLA (Cost-of-Living
Adjustment): Is It Guaranteed in Illinois”: http://teacherpoetmusicianglenbrown.blogspot.com/2012/03/cola-cost-of-living-adjustment-is-it.html
Pension Vocabulary, June 10, 2012,
“Cash Balance Plan”: https://sites.google.com/site/pensioneducationsite/pension-powerpoint/pension-word-of-the-week
Transferring the State’s “Normal Costs” to the Pension
Systems to Illinois School Districts Will Have Consequences: https://sites.google.com/site/pensioneducationsite/updates-in-pension-education-1/normalcostsorthestatesfiscaltarbabybyjohndillon
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.