Monday, February 19, 2018

America and Guns



Laws and their restrictions will never apply to deranged criminals. Moreover, the fact that there are an estimated 300 million firearms already in circulation make it impossible for gun control laws to have any effect on reducing violent crimes. Because gun control laws also prohibit people’s self-reliance and self-defense, they can also cost the lives of more innocent victims. 

Nevertheless, I support background checks for anyone purchasing a weapon, especially at gun shows and private sales; I support banning high-capacity magazines and modifications on semi-automatic weapons; I support banning semi-automatic and fully automatic assault rifles; I support banning anyone from owning a weapon on no-fly or watch lists; I support legislation that will mandate prohibitions on concealed weapons and possession of firearms by the mentally-ill and people convicted of violent crimes. However, I do not agree with legislation that will affect responsible law-abiding citizens.

Instead of more gun control laws and worrying about responsible citizens who own self-defense weapons for protection and may conceal and carry those weapons, legislators should focus upon and address the causes of violent crimes: racism, economic injustice, poverty, unemployment, gang activity, drug trafficking, inefficient law enforcement in high-crime areas, and mental illness.

Instead of more gun control laws and worrying about responsible citizens who own self-defense weapons and may conceal and carry them, let’s pursue a policy goal that shifts “the distribution of gun possession as far as possible in the direction of likely aggressors being disarmed [e.g. those people who are on social media espousing hatred and violence], with as few prospective victims as possible being disarmed. To disarm non-criminals [through more gun control laws] in the hope that this might indirectly help reduce access to guns among criminals is a very high-stakes gamble, and the risks will not be reduced by pretending that crime victims rarely use guns for self-defense” (Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control). 

Let’s also pursue a policy goal that eliminates so-called “corporate personhood” (Citizens United): this corrupt, unlimited campaign spending from moneymaking, mendacious powers like the NRA and the Koch Brothers, et. al. that coerce legislators and the media to ingratiate them.


-Glen Brown


Saturday, February 17, 2018

Regarding Rauner's Budget Proposal (from the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability)



ISSUE BRIEF: GOVERNOR RAUNER’S FY2019 GENERAL FUND BUDGET PROPOSAL IS A MAJOR SETBACK FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION


1.   
Summary.
Governor Rauner proposed a $37.6 billion General Fund Budget for FY2019 (the “FY2019 Budget Proposal”). While it will take some time to complete a detailed analysis of the FY2019 Budget Proposal, one problematic element of the Governor’s budget proposal is already clear:
THE GOVERNOR’S FY2019 BUDGET PROPOSAL REPRESENTS A SIGNIFICANT STEP BACKWARDS FOR K-12 EDUCATION FUNDING. INDEED, AFTER ADJUSTING FOR INFLATION AND HIS PENSION COST SHIFT INITIATIVE, SCHOOLS STATEWIDE COULD END UP HAVING OVER ONE-HALF BILLION DOLLARS LESS TO SPEND ON EDUCATING CHILDREN IN FY2019 THAN IN FY2018.
2.    The Governor’s FY2019 Budget Proposal Would Materially Cut Funding for K-12 Education from FY2018 Levels—And Frustrate the Core Purpose of the Historic School Funding Reform Legislation Passed Last Year.
During his budget address, the Governor claimed to be a strong advocate of investing in K-12 education. He also maintained that he supported the historic school funding reform legislation, known as the “Evidence-Based Funding for Student Success Act” (the “EBM”), that passed into law last year.1 The EBM ties the dollar amount taxpayers invest in schools to those educational practices which the research shows enhance student achievement over time. By doing so, the EBM creates a rational, evidenced-based approach to building the capacity of all schools statewide to meet the educational needs of the students they serve.
After running the numbers, the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) noted that currently, K-12 education funding statewide is some $7 billion short of what the evidence indicates is needed for all schools to implement these evidence-based practices that lead to student achievement. Hence, the Governor’s stated desire to invest more in schools is both rational and necessary to build the capacity of the state’s K-12 education system based on what the research indicates works.
Unfortunately, if the Governor’s FY2019 Budget Proposal were to become law, it would actually frustrate the core purpose of the EBM, by decreasing the total state and local resources available to fund education from FY2018 levels. To understand how requires a quick review of the FY2019 Budget Proposal appropriations for K-12 education.


As shown in Figure 1, under the Governor’s FY2019 Budget Proposal, in nominal, non-inflation adjusted dollars, the state would invest $98.1 million more in K-12 than it did in FY2018.2 That is not likely to provide resources sufficient for schools to move the needle forward on implementing evidence-based practices, given that it represents only 1.4% of the state’s shortfall in funding an adequate education identified by ISBE.
FIGURE 1
Impact of Governor’s FY2019 K-12 Funding―Nominal Dollars ($ in Millions)
TOTAL K-12       FY2018 ENACTED       FY2019 PROPOSED      NET CHANGE
FUNDING


$7,760.3
$7,858.4
$98.1
Source: CTBA analysis of Illinois State Budget, Fiscal Year 2019 (Proposed)
Indeed, that year-to-year nominal dollar increase is so small that it does not even keep pace with inflation, using the Consumer Price Index (CPI).3 As shown in Figure 2, after adjusting for inflation using CPI, K-12 funding in FY2019 would have to be increased by $155.2 million, just to stay even with the FY2018 funding levels in real terms. Of course this means in real, inflation-adjusted terms, the Governor is proposing that funding from the state for K-12 should actually be cut by $57.1 million from FY2018 levels. Note this likely understates the real, year-to-year cut in funding for education, because the inflation metric used is the CPI. Since most educational costs are tied to salaries, the Employment Cost Index, or ECI, would provide a more accurate measurement of real change, and the ECI generally increases at a greater rate annually than does the CPI.
FIGURE 2
Impact of Governor’s FY2019 K-12 Funding―Inflation Adjusted Dollars ($ in Millions)

Total K-12                     FY 2018               FY 2019
FY 2018 Nominal         ADJ for Inflation    Proposed               Net Change
$7,760.3
$7,915.5
$7,858.4
(-$57.1)

(Source: CTBA analysis of Illinois State Budget, Fiscal Year 2019 (Proposed); Inflation adjustment using CPI from BLS)
In any event, regardless of the inflation metric used, it is hard to justify a real cut in K-12 funding when ISBE’s analysis of the EBM shows that current funding levels are billions short of what the research indicates is needed.
And while adjusting for inflation reveals that the Governor’s proposed K-12 funding level for FY2019 actually represents a step backward for education—it does not reveal how significantly his FY2019 Budget Proposal could decrease total state and local funding available for educating students from FY2018 levels. That is because under his FY2019 Budget Proposal, the Governor would like to shift the obligation for paying 25% of the normal costs associated with pensions for teachers under the Teachers Retirement System that the state currently pays to local school districts. The Governor estimates this will result in $262 million of pension costs being paid by local school districts. 
He also proposes to shift 100% of the normal pension costs associated with the Chicago Teachers Pension Fund the state paid in FY2018—estimated to be some $228 million in FY2019—to the Chicago Public Schools (CPS). Obviously, if these pension cost-shifts were to become law, school districts would be forced to divert local property taxes that they were using to educate students, to instead cover these new pension cost obligations.
Figure 3 shows that after accounting for the Governor’s proposal to shift education-related pension costs from the state to local schools, statewide schools would have $547.1 million less to spend on educating children in FY2019 than in FY2018. Obviously, that would be a tremendous step backward in the fiscal commitment to students—and would frustrate the core purpose of the EBM which is to build the capacity of Illinois’ K-12 education system to implement the research-based practices needed to promote student achievement.

FIGURE 3
Impact of Pension Cost Shift from State to Local Schools on K-12 Funding ($ in Millions)

Net K-12 state level funding change from FY2018 Enacted to FY2019 Proposed, after inflation
(-$57.1)
Statewide charge to local school districts of 25% TRS pension cost shiftto be covered by local property taxes that were used to fund the classroom in FY2018
(-$262.0)
Cost to CPS in local property taxes formerly used for the classroom of 100% pension cost shift
(-$228.0)
Total reduction in year-to-year state and local funding for K12 education services from FY2018 Enacted to FY2019 Proposed
(-$547.1)
Source: CTBA analysis of Illinois State Budget, Fiscal Year 2019 (Proposed) Executive Summary; Inflation adjustment using CPI from BLS
Interestingly, the primary way local school districts could reduce the education spending cuts that would otherwise be forced upon them by the Governor’s FY2019 Budget Proposal would be to increase local property taxes. Which is ironic for a couple of reasons. First, there’s the Governor’s frequently stated desire to freeze or reduce property tax burden in Illinois. Sifting $490 million in pension costs from the state to local property taxes is an odd way to accomplish that goal. Second, Illinois is already the most reliant state in America on local property taxes to fund education.4



Indeed that over reliance on property taxes is the primary reason Illinois’ former school funding system consistently ranked as one of the most inequitable nationally—and provided much of the impetus for the bipartisan support of replacing Illinois' former school funding formula with the EBM. 

ENDNOTES:
1 P.A. 100-0465
2 CTBA analysis of Illinois State Budget, Fiscal Year 2019 (Proposed), Operating Budget Detail (excel file). https://www2.illinois.gov/sites/budget/Pages/default.aspx
3 CTBA analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index, Historical CPI-U. https://www.bls.gov/cpi/tables/supplemental-files/home.htm
4 CTBA analysis of U.S. Department of Education, National Center on Education Statistics, 2016. “Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Education: School Year 2013-2014 (Fiscal Year 2014)”

FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Ralph M. Martire, Executive Director (312) 332-1049 rmartire@ctbaonline.org
Bobby Otter, Budget Director (312) 332-2151 botter@ctbaonline.org
Daniel Hertz,
Research Director
(312) 332-1481 dhertz@ctbaonline.org
Gaby Roman
Research Associate
(312) 332-1348 groman@ctbaonline.org

Thursday, February 15, 2018

Call Your Representative and Senators. Tell them to support The Stop School Violence Act, HR 4909



January 30, 2018

Sandy Hook Promise (SHP) is supporting the STOP School Violence Act, HR 4909, to create new federal funding that will bring efforts like our Know the Signs programs to schools across the country, so students and adults know how to spot and report warning signs of gun violence before a tragedy occurs. Help us pass this important bill by taking action today!

What is the STOP School Violence Act?

The STOP School Violence Act will give our states the funding they need to bring life-saving violence prevention programs to schools. It will help train millions more students, teachers, and adults to prevent violence and suicide in our schools BEFORE it happens. The STOP School Violence Act invests $50 million in federal funding each year to:

-Train school personnel, local law enforcement, and students to identify warning signs and intervene to stop interpersonal violence and suicide

-Develop and implement anonymous reporting systems for threats of school violence in coordination with local law enforcement

-Train and operate school threat assessment and intervention teams to preemptively triage threats before tragedy hits

-Enable better coordination between schools and local law enforcement

How Can I Help?

We need to build support for this important legislation! You can help SHP pass the STOP School Violence Act by calling your representatives now and asking them to cosponsor the STOP School Violence Act to protect more children from gun violence.

House:
Dial 202-224-3121, press 2 for the House and type in your ZIP code to get connected to your member's office.

Senate:
Dial 202-224-3121, press 1 for the Senate and type in your ZIP code to get connected to your senators' offices. Remember, we have two senators. Be sure to call them both!

Here's a script you can follow:

First say your name and that you're a constituent. Then tell your representative's staff person that you urge the congress person to pass HR 4909, the STOP School Violence Act, because too few of our schools and law enforcement have access to evidence-based strategies to prevent youth violence. Mention that school violence can be prevented when schools and law enforcement have the tools to identify, intervene, and help individuals who display at-risk behaviors. That's it!


The STOP School Violence Act Our Challenge:

Each year there are hundreds of thousands of acts of youth violence, including assault, bullying, suicide and homicide, in our schools. In a majority of these acts, youth display warning signs or signals before taking any action.

Unfortunately, the youth and adults who observe these signs or signals do not always recognize what they are seeing or do not report what they observed. Eighty percent of school shooters tell someone of their plans (69% tell more than one person)* and 70% of those who complete suicide tell someone of their plans or give another warning sign.**

Through training about these warning signs and better coordination with law enforcement, we have a real opportunity to STOP school violence before it happens.

Federal Response:

Following tragedies like Columbine, Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook, the federal government has funded short-term school safety initiatives focused on crisis response, active shooters, and physical infrastructure.

While these are important investments, we have not yet seen sustained strategies to curb youth violence or STOP suicides and violence in our schools before they happen. Our students, educators, and local law enforcement need the tools and support to take proactive and continuous steps towards improving school safety.

STOP School Violence Act:

The “Student, Teachers, and Officers Preventing” School Violence Act, known as the STOP School Violence Act, is a fully offset bill that reauthorizes and amends the 2001-2009 bipartisan Secure Our Schools Act to offer Department of Justice grants to states to help our schools implement proven, evidence-based programs that STOP violence before it happens.

The STOP School Violence Act would

• Through DOJ: Authorizes the Bureau of Justice Assistance to make grants to states for training and technical assistance to stop school violence, aimed at the entire youth ecosystem: local law enforcement, school resource officers, school personnel, parents/legal guardians, and students

• State-based Grants: Permits grants to fund evidence-based strategies and programs for:

1. Train everyone in the school ecosystem - school personnel, SROs, and students - to identify and intervene to stop dangerous, violent or unlawful activities

2. Coordination with local law enforcement to implement anonymous reporting systems for threats of school violence

3. Development and operation of school threat assessment and intervention teams

4. Coordination with local law enforcement.

• Using Existing Funding: Authorizes $50 million dollars for grants, fully offset by directing existing funding from the NIJ Comprehensive School Safety Initiative (CSSI) research and pilot program into this legislation, shifting the CSSI program from pilot projects into the next phase of full school implementation.


*Vossekuil, B., Fein, R.,Reddy, M., Borum, R., & Modzelski, W. , The Final Report and Findings of the Safe School Initiative: Implications for the Prevention of School Attacks in the United States. US Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Safe and Drug-Free Schools Programs and U.S. Secret Services, National Threat Assessment Center, Washington, D.C., 2002.


**Robins E, Murphy GE, Wilkinson RHJr, Gassner S, Kayes J. (1959). Some clinical considerations in the prevention of suicide based on a study of 134 successful suicides. American Journal of Public Health, 49: 888-899.


Wednesday, February 14, 2018

Rauner's budget plans to zero out health insurance for retirees and change public pensions



From the Illinois Retired Teachers’ Association:


“…[T]oday marks the Illinois Governor’s final budget address of his first term, and already he is again proposing balancing the budget on the backs of retirees, teachers and state employees.

“He has zeroed out any funding for the Teachers Retirement Insurance Program. In addition, he is proposing lowering the states cost to TRS by shifting cost to local school districts.

“Roughly $1.3 billion in proposed savings will come from shifting $490 million in pension costs onto schools, as well as a proposal to slash health insurance benefits for retired teachers and state employees. 

“The cost shift would be phased in at 25 percent per year over the next four years. Provided that the General Assembly enacts these cost shifts to school districts and universities, the state will save $363 million in fiscal year 2019 in pension contribution costs.

“The proposal also relies on putting in place a new pension plan. It suggests state worker and teacher retirement benefits can be scaled back, but only if they agree to the changes and are given something in return.

“Rauner estimates that plan could lead to $900 million in savings and would allow for a 0.25 percentage point cut in the income tax rate.

“Whether the governor’s pension proposal would pass constitutional muster is an open question, as a previous sweeping law to cut benefits was struck down by the Illinois Supreme Court [See Commentary at the Bottom of Page]. 

“Any pension change would almost certainly face a legal challenge, delaying any cost savings. The governor does not count that money toward his proposed budget for next year, unlike in 2015, when he factored the savings into his spending plans.

“The governor’s budget calls for boosting funding for education by $556 million, with about $350 million of that going toward the new funding formula that was enacted last year.

“The governor claims that this $556 million is a ‘record’ funding increase for K-12. After the pension cost shift, however, K-12 would receive an extra $76 million or so in net additional funding next fiscal year under this plan. 

“Universities would be expected to pay about $101 million more in pension costs, but that money would be replaced by an increase in discretionary funds, according to the budget documents.

“The proposal also calls for eliminating current programs for k-12: After School Programs, Advance Placement, After School Matters, District Intervention Funding, Parent Mentoring, National Board Certified Teachers, School Support Services (Lowest Performing Schools), and Teach for America. The total savings this would achieve is $28.9 million from the general revenue budget.

“Major savings come from the government spending side. The governor wants to remove health insurance from the list of items that are negotiated through collective bargaining with government employee unions. He estimates that change would result in savings of $470 million next year.

“Rauner also wants to cut the General Assembly and judicial budgets.”

Governor's Pension Plan vs Actual Certification by TRS of how much the state owes:

 FY19                          Cert. Gov FY19           Underfunded
 $4,466,178,109          $4,209,584,000          $256,594,109


Mary Shaw
Illinois Retired Teachers Association
Government Affairs Director
217.523.8488
800.728.4782


Commentary:

from John Fitzgerald of Tabet, DiVito & Rothstein LLC:

Kanerva v. Weems: Health Insurance Benefits Are Protected!

•       This was a constitutional challenge to an amendment to the State Employees Group Insurance Act which reduced State contributions toward health insurance costs for retired public pension system members and their survivors.

•       The Court held that this amendment was unconstitutional.

•       The Pension Protection Clause protects more than the pension annuity.  It protects all “benefits” of membership in a pension system, including health insurance benefits.

•       If there is any doubt about the scope of a constitutional protection for pension rights, those doubts are resolved in favor of the pensioner.
                 
Kanerva and your health insurance benefits:

•       In Kanerva, the Supreme Court ruled that the Pension Protection Clause protects not only pension annuities but also “health insurance subsidies.”  (Kanerva, par. 49.)

•       In Kanerva, the Supreme Court invalidated amendments to the State Employees Group Insurance Act that “altered the State’s obligation to contribute toward the cost” of coverage by increasing retirees’ premiums and reducing the State’s contributions.  (Kanerva, par. 12-13.)  Importantly, the amendments challenged in Kanerva didn’t abolish a health insurance program.  They just made the benefits more expensive and pushed more costs onto retirees.


“The cost of funding pensions is dwarfed by subsidies and tax giveaways to profitable corporations”



“Since the Great Recession in 2008, warnings of an impending pension crisis have been splashed across the business pages of newspapers across the country. Despite these boisterous decrees, America’s public pension funds are stable. We explore the roots behind the false pension crisis narrative and examine the facts.
“As we’ve recounted throughout this series, anti-pension ideologues like to peddle a lot of misinformation regarding public pensions and their true costs. One falsehood that gets repeated often is that paying for public pensions ‘crowds out’ spending on other priorities for municipal and state governments. The reality is that this argument presents a false choice. Public pensions are cost-effective and represent a small portion of most governments’ budgets.
“According to the National Association of State Retirement Administrators (NASRA), public pensions, on average, represent 4.5 percent of direct government spending for state and local governments. This is significantly less than their spending in other areas, such as education and health care. Also, employer contributions, which, in the case of public pensions, ultimately come from the taxpayer, make up about 20-25 percent of revenues for public pension funds.

“The majority of money going into public pensions comes from the employee’s own contributions and investment earnings. Since so much money in pension funds is generated through investment earnings, public pensions actually represent a huge return on investment for cities and states. The National Institute on Retirement Security (NIRS) calculates that the national average is that for every dollar invested in a pension fund, $2.21 is generated. This money goes directly into local economies through the spending of retirees. Cities and states are actually getting back more money than they spend on public pensions.

“The misleading ‘crowding out’ argument also relies on the false assumption that city and state governments have a fixed pot of money to spend. The truth is that many cities and states lose millions of dollars every year though corporate subsidies, tax loopholes, and other giveaways. Just witness the mad scramble to land Amazon’s HQ2. Hundreds of cities and states across the nation rushed to give lavish tax breaks and other incentives for Amazon to choose them as the site of their second headquarters.

“Even states like Illinois, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, which are supposedly so burdened by public pensions that they can’t make their full contributions each year, offered Amazon billions of dollars in tax breaks. It seems that these states suddenly do have the money when major corporations come calling.

“Sadly, Amazon’s HQ2 is not an isolated incident. As a recent series of reports from Good Jobs First revealed, many states give away more each year in corporate subsidies and tax breaks than the cost of fully funding public pensions. Take, for example, Kentucky, home to a major fight over the future of public pensions. Good Jobs First found that the annual cost of funding public pensions is only two-thirds of the cost of corporate giveaways in the state. What is even more revealing, however, is a report from the Office of the State Budget Director that found Kentucky actually gives away more in tax breaks each year than it collects in tax revenue.

“Let that sink in for a moment. Kentucky’s tax code is so full of loopholes that the state actually loses more money than it collects. If Kentucky needs more money to fund its public services, then fixing its porous tax code seems like a pretty obvious place to start.

“Again, Kentucky is not an outlier. Kansas offers another cautionary example. Several years ago, the state began what the governor called a ‘live experiment’ in tax policy. The experiment was a complete disaster. By embracing Gov. Brownback’s extreme right-wing tax policy, the state lost much-needed revenue and the state’s budget has been decimated as a result. Guess what got cut when the money dried up? Funding for public schools. The budget for road repairs. Funding for libraries and local health services. When those areas couldn’t be cut any more, the state skipped payments for public pensions.

“A similar situation is playing out south of the border in Oklahoma, another state that embraced harmful, but less extreme tax cuts and is now suffering from lost revenue and massive budget cuts. Due to the state legislature’s inability to raise revenue and pass an adequate budget, state agencies in Oklahoma will face deep across-the-board budget cuts in early December. The Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services could see its entire budget eliminated after December 1st.

“The reality is that funding public pensions does not ‘crowd out’ spending in other areas. While the promoters of the pension crisis myth may be fond of this tale, it is simply not backed up by the facts. Public pensions represent a small part of overall government spending. In many states, the cost of funding pensions is dwarfed by subsidies and tax giveaways to profitable corporations. It’s important to keep in mind the full picture of government revenue and spending when discussing paying for critical public needs. The ‘crowding out’ argument is simply another way for anti-pension ideologues to attack public pensions” (Pension Crisis Myth Part Six).

Commentary (from a post on May 10, 2013):

Because we are victims of today’s state (and federal) politics that have created an unethical “winner-take-all” economy for wealthy egomaniacs at the expense of everyone else; because we are victims of Republican and Democratic legislators at the state and federal levels who align their interests with corporations and who pass laws that sustain their concentrated economic privilege and power; 

Because we are victims of deregulation and tax reductions for the wealthy minority that have resulted from organized political action by and in support of the wealthy sector; because we are victims of politicians’ divide-and-conquer strategies, fallacious rationalizations, distorted information and diversionary and radical “pension reform” for public employees and tax cuts for the wealthy, regardless of whether corporate welfare produces more deficits;

Because we are victims of insidious financial reforms that do not resolve the state's (or federal) deficit problems but accommodate and reinforce the enormous inequality of organizational resources of corporate self-seekers; because we are victims of their tyranny and their lack of accountability for destroying a representative democracy and a just economy; because we are victims of their Super PACs and their vast resources of money and influence committed to reforming the rules and policies that have adversely affected the lives of the middle class and disenfranchised;

Because we are victims of politicians' machinations to destroy the public employees’ defined-benefit retirement plans, even though most corporate executives will retire with exorbitant bonuses and other outrageous incentives; 

Because we are victims of partisan polarization and well-financed organizational interest group politics and policies; of compromised corporate-owned media, such as the Chicago Tribune, that have been bought by the wealthy minority to shape what and how readers think about fiscal issues; 

Because we are also victims of many unethical legislators who are clueless about “long-term retirement policy objectives” and are “influenced by projections that include unrelated healthcare liabilities or irrelevant corporate sector metrics,” and who have no desire to pay what is owed to the public pension systems that any public pension reform is a devious ruse.

And because we are victims of today’s disappearing and weakened organized labor unions that were once the guardians of middle-class workers and representative democracy; of their inability to build a more effective protest and to launch a counter-attack against the arrogant, wealthy minority and their politicians who are waging an economic war against the poor and middle class in Illinois (and elsewhere);

And because many of the union membership are indifferent, indecisive and politically unaware,  public employees and retirees will remain scapegoats for the reprehensible problems created by the “wealthy elite” and perpetuated by their bought-and-paid-for politicians.

Until we mobilize our collective efforts against powerful economic interests and marshal essential resources and draw upon experts in the fields of economics and law, the lucrative lobbying of a state’s policymakers to reduce a state's debt will continue by way of challenging constitutional contracts of public employees. 

No matter what pension reform bill is passed, it will never be enough to address the serious underlying problems that exist.  Politicians will continue to use public employees' pensions as a diversionary tactic again and again because they need scapegoats for the state's budget problems.

-Glen Brown

P.S.

Many Illinois citizens are aware that for decades the past state’s governors and legislators have not fully funded the public pension systems; that instead of paying into the pension systems, they have used that money to pay for other services without restructuring revenue sources. Hence, without having to pay for services, state legislators have created an enormous pension debt or unfunded liability for the public pension systems in Illinois. 

Illinois state legislators continue to ignore the essential fact that current revenue growth does not match the state’s need for public services and for payment of debts. In other words, the State of Illinois uses a flat, low-rate income tax that does not adequately capture income growth, and income tax revenues thus routinely lag behind economic growth. The state relies heavily on a state and local sales tax that is almost exclusively applied to goods and excludes almost all services.

Though the State of Illinois has a serious pension debt and revenue problem that must be rectified, legal and moral sense dictates that the Illinois General Assembly must align with the U.S. and State Constitutions and sanction the vested rights of its middle-class public employees and retirees.