“…During his campaign for governor,
Republican Bruce Rauner said he favored switching current state employees,
including suburban and downstate teachers, from a traditional pension system to
a 401(k) retirement account…
“Dave Urbanek, a spokesman for the
Illinois Teachers Retirement System, said any such change would not be nearly
as simple as it sounds. He said there’s roughly a $104 billion deficit in the state’s
five pension funds, and ‘that’s money the state owes.
There are currently
395,000 people in the (TRS) system, including 159,838 active teachers.’
“‘If you close (TRS), freeze it so
there are no new members coming in and current members can no longer contribute
to the pension system because they would be making contributions to their
401(k) plans, the state would still have to find a way to pay the $928 million
a year contribution (to TRS) for active members who are eligible to retire in
the future. ‘They (active members) would no longer be contributing to the
pension system but would still be eligible to collect a pension for their years
of service prior to the switch.’
“‘In addition, the state would have
less time to make up the $104 billion debt to its pension systems. When you
have an open system, you can project costs far into the future. But when you
have a closed system, you have a defined end date. So you have to make larger
payments in a shorter time frame to fulfill the state’s commitment. Also, the
amount generated by investment would decrease because of the shorter time frame
of a closed system.’
“Urbanek pointed out that the state
would have to make some form of contribution to the 401(k) plans of active
teachers, while also making payments into TRS. ‘Someone would have to figure
out, in the end, if the state would actually be saving money or if it would
cost more to make the switch,’ he said...’” (Kadner: Plan B in Springfield needs to be a miracle, Chicago Tribune).
Commentary:
According to the former Chief Legal Counsel to Illinois
Senate President John Cullerton and Parliamentarian of the Illinois Senate Eric
Madiar: “The Clause was ‘intended to force the funding of pensions indirectly,
by putting the state and municipal governments on notice that they are
responsible for those benefits…’ The Clause makes participation in a public
pension plan an enforceable contractual relationship and also demands that the
‘benefits of that relationship’ not be diminished or impaired. And, the
contractual relationship is governed by the actual terms of the Pension Code at
the time the employee becomes a member of the pension system. It is for this
reason that both the [Illinois] Supreme Court and Appellate Court have
invalidated changes to the Pension Code that would diminish or impair a current
participant’s pension benefit rights.
“[B]y joining a pension system, public employees obtain
absolute ‘vested’ rights in the pension plan, including later benefit increases
added during their service. These rights cannot be unilaterally changed by the
legislature under any circumstances, but the rights may be modified via
legitimate contract principles…” (Eric M. Madiar (2012). Public Pension
Benefits under Siege: Does State Law Facilitate or Block Recent Efforts to Cut
the Pension Benefits of Public Servants? ABA Journal of Labor &
Employment Law, V. 27, no. 2, 179-194).
Court Cases:
1979 Kraus v. Board of Trustees… Police
Pension Fund, Niles
Law existing at the time of “vesting”
is incorporated into employee’s agreement… Pension benefits commence at the time employee
contributions begin… General Assembly cannot modify benefits. “The Clause
protects pension benefit rights as an enforceable contractual relationship that
is subject to modification [only] through contract principles.”
1982 Village of Sherman v. Village of
Williamsville
Record of proceeding of Constitutional
Convention (21 July 1970)… Rights
are fixed when an employee embarks upon employment.
1987 Carr v. Board of Trustees… Police
(Peoria)
Vested Case Issue: an employee
acquires a “vested” right when he or she enters the pension system.
1988 DiFalco v. Board of Trustees… Firemen’s
Pension of Wood Dale
Vested Case Issue: an employee
acquires a “vested” right when he or she enters the pension system.
1991 Schroeder v. Morton Grove… Police
Vested Case Issue: an employee
acquires a “vested” right when he or she enters the pension system.
1992 Hannigan v. Huffmeister
Vested Case Issue: an employee
acquires a “vested” right when he or she enters the pension system.
1993 Barber v. Board of Trustees of Village of
Barrington
Vested Case Issue: an employee
acquires a “vested” right when he or she enters the pension system.
1996 McNamee v. State
Vested Case Issue: an employee
acquires a “vested” right when he or she enters the pension system. …Asks questions whether “the Pension Clause mandates
that the pension system be funded at a particular funding percentage or
according to a funding schedule.” The Pension Clause “creates an enforceable
contractual relationship that protects only the right to receive benefits… A
cause of action would exist if legislation diminished a person’s right to
receive benefits or placed the pension system on the verge of default or
imminent bankruptcy… The Illinois Supreme Court concluded that the Clause
guarantees that pension recipients will receive pension payments when they come
due” (Madiar).
1998 People ex. Rel. Sklodowski v. State
Vested Case Issue: an employee
acquires a “vested” right when he or she enters the pension system. “Clause
does not create a contractual basis for participants to expect a particular
level of funding… [However,] The Illinois Supreme Court concluded that the
Clause guarantees that pension recipients will receive pension payments when
they come due” (Madiar).
Plan
B in Springfield does not have to be a miracle:
The current “Pension Ramp” does not work for the five public
pension systems. The “Ramp” entails larger payments today
as a result of the 1995 funding law – Public Act 88-0593 – to pay the pensions
systems what the state owes. There needs to be a required annual payment
from the state to the pension systems; the debt needs to be amortized for a
longer frame of time (a flat payment) just like a home loan that is amortized;
though the initial payment will be difficult in the beginning, over the long
term it will become a reduced cost and a smaller percentage of the overall
Illinois budget as it is paid off throughout the years.
“Decades
of mismanagement and failure to match contributions are the predominant reasons
that the state’s pension systems are suffering to the degree that they are
today. Years of pension holidays, continually borrowing against the systems
without a plan for repayment and a severe economic recession, which caused
investments to plummet, further exacerbated the problem” (Senate President John
Cullerton). Thus, there needs to be a required
“actuarially-sound” annual payment from the state to the pension systems and
not a constitutional challenge that breaks a contract with public employees.
“At the core of the budget ‘crisis’ facing [Illinois] is
[its] regressive state tax structure… that is, low-and-middle-income families
pay a greater share of their income in taxes than the wealthy… [A regressive
tax] disproportionately impacts low-income people because, unlike the wealthy,
[low-income people] are forced to spend a majority of their income purchasing
basic needs that are subject to sales taxes” (United for a Fair Economy)…
Increase taxation on the wealthy: Illinois is in the top 10 of regressive state tax systems where the wealthiest taxpayers do not pay as much of their incomes in taxes as the poorest and middle-income wage earners (The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy).
Increase taxation on the wealthy: Illinois is in the top 10 of regressive state tax systems where the wealthiest taxpayers do not pay as much of their incomes in taxes as the poorest and middle-income wage earners (The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy).
The state needs a tax rate that is “efficient with minimal
impact on the economic decisions that taxpayers have to make” (Center for Tax
and Budget Accountability CTBA), one that captures increased revenues in times
of economic growth, one that maintains revenue collections during poor economic
times, one that is simple and not liable to inconspicuous error, one that is
transparent and builds trust with the state’s government officials (CTBA), and
one that helps 99 percent of the state’s population.
Consider a broader-based taxation system that would provide
a decrease in taxes for low-income and many middle-income families. Taxing
services alone “would generate enough revenue to stabilize the General Revenue
Fund and prevent structural deficits that lead to cuts in basic needs and
social service programs” (CTBA).
Establish a financial transaction tax or “Robin Hood Tax”: a .50
cent tax on every $100 of transacting. Eliminate the tax loophole for “Tax
Increment Financing Districts.”
Glen, are any of the law suits suing the state for what it owes us?
ReplyDeleteAre any suing for misrepresenting the "Early Retirement" losses?
You have my email address.
"No" for both questions.
DeleteThat is a telling sign of poor judgement. If I can locate a solid, successful attorney in that field, I will file such suits, asap. If you know one let me know. I will then file a class action suit.
Delete