“This report evaluates both the
general state of the national debate over pensions and the specific effects of the
partnership between the Pew Charitable Trusts’ Public Sector Retirement Systems
Project and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. This report evaluates both
the general state of the national debate over pensions and the specific effects
of the partnership between the Pew Charitable Trusts’ Public Sector Retirement
Systems Project and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation.
“Here is a summary of the
report’s findings:
“Finding: Conservative activists are manufacturing the
perception of a public pension crisis in order to both slash modest retiree
benefits and preserve expensive corporate subsidies and tax breaks.
“States and cities have for
years been failing to fully fund their annual pension obligations. They have
used funds that were supposed to go to pensions to instead finance expensive
tax cuts and corporate subsidies. That has helped create a real but manageable
pension shortfall. Yet, instead of citing such a shortfall as reason to end
expensive tax cuts and subsidies, conservative activists and lawmakers are
citing it as a reason to slash retiree benefits.
“Finding: The amount states and cities spend on corporate
subsidies and so-called tax expenditures is far more than the pension
shortfalls they face. Yet, conservative activists and lawmakers are citing the
pension shortfalls and not the subsidies as the cause of budget squeezes. They
are then claiming that cutting retiree benefits is the solution rather than
simply rolling back the more expensive tax breaks and subsidies. [In Illinois,
policymakers also refuse to re-amortize the pension debt they had created and
address the state’s revenue problems].
“According to Pew, public
pensions face a 30-year shortfall of $1.38 trillion, or $46 billion on an
annual basis. This is dwarfed by the $80 billion a year states and cities spend
on corporate subsidies. Yet, conservatives cite the pension shortfall not as
reason to reduce the corporate subsidies and raise public revenue, but instead
as proof that retiree benefits need to be cut.
“Finding: The pension ‘reforms’ being pushed by
conservative activists would slash retirement income for many pensioners who
are not part of the Social Security system. Additionally, the specific reforms
they are pushing are often more expensive and risky for taxpayers than existing
pension plans.
“Whether ‘cash balance’ schemes
or 401(k) style defined contribution plans, many of the pension ‘reforms’ being
championed by conservative activists risk incurring more costs and increasing
risks for taxpayers.
“Finding: The Pew Charitable Trusts and the Laura and
John Arnold Foundation are working together in states across the country to
focus the debate over pensions primarily on slashing retiree benefits rather
than on raising public revenues.
“Pew’s Public Sector Retirement
Systems Project and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation are working in tandem
on public pension policy to manufacture the perception of crisis and press for
cuts to guaranteed retirement income. This campaign has played an integral role
in states passing legislation that cuts guaranteed retirement income – all
while those states preserve more expensive corporate subsidies.
“Finding: The Laura and John Arnold Foundation is run by
conservative political operatives and funded by an Enron billionaire.
“John Arnold is an Enron
billionaire whose only major experience with pension management was his role in
a company that decimated public pension funds. Well-known conservative
political operatives and consultants run his foundation.
“Finding: The techniques used by conservative activists to gain public support to privatize the public pensions that public workers have instead of Social Security are, if successful, likely to be used in efforts to privatize Social Security in the future.
“The current campaign to slash
public pension benefits has relied on many of the same PR strategies as
President Bush’s earlier campaign to privatize Social Security. In that sense,
the campaign against public pensions is an exercise in perfecting methods that manufacture
the perception of a crisis – and then result in cuts to guaranteed retirement
income. If the state-based crusade against public pensions is successful, it
will probably fuel a renewed effort to privatize Social Security.
“About the Report:
This report was commissioned by
the Institute for America’s Future (IAF), a nonpartisan 501(c)(3) research and
education institution devoted to new thinking and progressive economic ideas.
This report benefited from resources, information, data and research from
(among others) the National Public Pension Coalition, the Center for Economic
and Policy Research, the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy, the Center
for American Progress, the Economic Policy Institute and Good Jobs First.
“The author, David Sirota is a
journalist, nationally syndicated newspaper columnist and the bestselling
author of Hostile Takeover (2006), The Uprising (2008) and Back to Our Future
(2011). Sirota’s research assistant on this project was journalist Zaid Jilani.”
For the Complete 32-page Report (with footnotes),
Click Here.
I have read it. Please read it too.
I have read it. Please read it too.
You've got to really wonder why billionaires have nothing else to do with their time but destroy the lives of everyone else around them. For a number of years, Pew Research was looked upon with respect. Now we know they've gone back to their far-right extremists beliefs, so take anything they put out in terms of research with a grain of salt--and remember, that all of these ideologues are hooked with up with the Koch Brothers and Koch Foundations and are planning to destroy every public program in every state, including putting the legislatures themselves of ALEC puppets.
ReplyDeleteGlen,
ReplyDeleteWe can analyze this crisis to death. We can find fault with the 'billionaires'. We can blame the out-of-touch legislators and legislature. We can point fingers at the unknowing and irresponsible media outlets. We can ridicule an apathetic public that has a declining percentage of voting families with children enrolled in public schools. We can cite research.
We know how to place blame elsewhere.
And we can hold out hope that our constitutional rights will be upheld in court just because of the words in the Illinois constitution.
But the sad fact is that the blame (and the future of union viability) lies with (and within) the unions themselves. Our 'unions' are currently perceived as weak, ineffective, out-of-touch with public sentiment and unable to withstand any assault.
No entity wishes to give up power willingly because of history or the law or even logic.
It's about power and strength and unity.
The Illinois legislature knows this better than most. And they are TAKING THIS FIRST STEP, at denuding the power and influence of our unions.
I know this to be true. I live in Wisconsin and currently work with several locals. These locals are STILL unwilling and unable to act on the assault for their dignity and rights for fear of losing their jobs.
This is where some of us came in around the early 70's.
As you know the unions in Illinois don't exist by right. They exist by law. And those who make the laws can write unions out of existence.
In Wisconsin, Governor Walker led the charge to eliminate unions under the guise of portraying collective bargaining as evil, despite the fact that he and his management peers agreed to all contract provisions.
And he could have simply banned collective bargaining.
But he banned unions.
Because he could.
And so can Quinn, Madigan, Dillard, et.al.
Then watch the accusations fly everywhere but at ourselves and our unions.
With apologies, I neglected to include my name. The previous comment was written by Scott Eshelman.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Scott.
ReplyDeleteMy question for Scott is - what should the unions have done years ago and what should they do now?
ReplyDeleteI forgot to state my actual name - Shelley Gordon. Sorry about that.
ReplyDeleteShelley, read the post: "It Is a Sad State of Affairs When the Illinois Education Association Can Endorse Any of the Current Candidates for Governor."
ReplyDeleteIn Illinois:
ReplyDeleteState legislators have not fully funded the state’s public pension systems for years so they can gain favor from their constituency and from their wealthy supporters. It has been said that approximately 30 billion dollars have been "diverted" from the five public pension systems; 15 billion dollars of that amount was stolen from the Teachers' Retirement System. (Total Employer Contributions to the Illinois Teachers' Retirement System Since 1970).
“For decades, states have treated pension systems as a credit card to pay for government services and to avoid tax increases or service cuts…” (Eric M. Madiar, Chief Legal Counsel to Illinois Senate President John J. Cullerton and Parliamentarian of the Illinois Senate (2012), Public Pension Benefits under Siege: Does State Law Facilitate or Block Recent Efforts to Cut the Pension Benefits of Public Servants?).
In 1995, policymakers created a flawed re-funding schedule, and they have refused to correctly amortize the pension systems’ unfunded liabilities since then.
Instead, policymakers have favored corporate interests (by providing them with unwarranted tax breaks) rather than the interests of their citizenry and; thus, they have seriously sabotaged the public employees’ retirement plans and the State of Illinois’ future economic solvency through mismanagement and fiscal irresponsibility.
Instead of protecting public pension rights and benefits, which have a legal basis under Illinois State and U.S. Laws; instead of restructuring the state’s revenue base to pay for the state’s growth in expenditures and its recklessly-accumulated debts and obligations, some current policymakers want to diminish the public employees’ constitutional rights and their benefits, even though revenue restructuring and pension debt re-amortization are the best legal and moral solutions.
How can it be deemed fair that so-called “pension reform” is a legitimate remediation of the state’s incurred pension debt and its revenue problems, especially when pension reform will inevitably create a severe economic disadvantage for most public employees and their families in retirement while creating an economic advantage for the wealthy among us and corporations that subsidize unethical policymakers? This is not protection of the vital interests of the citizens of the State of Illinois. It is, however, a violation of public employees’ guaranteed constitutional rights and benefits.