Before I began blogging on March 11, 2011, I wrote two pension letters to former Illinois Senator Kirk W. Dillard in 2010

 

October 10, 2010:

Dear Senator Kirk W. Dillard,     

Do your parents or grandparents live with the assurance of a pension? I believe that you would not steal that promise from them if they did. I also believe that you understand the importance of trust among individuals and the pension systems into which they have elected to participate. However, there are some ugly facts I do not understand.

I do not understand why the state of Illinois has underfunded its contributions to The Teachers’ Retirement System for decades and has used this money as if it were its own private savings account. I do not understand why our elected officials have not competently and responsibly managed the retirement systems to which they were entrusted but fund other special-interest and on-going programs and services with public employees' pension money instead. I do not understand how our past-and-present state officials have failed to generate enough revenue to meet the state’s fiscal obligations; nor do I understand how “pension borrowing” and “pension holidays” are fair to retiring teachers who believed they would have a promised and sound financial future. 

Is it not true that “the level of [teacher] benefits is modest, comparable to national averages of public employee retirement systems…? The cost of benefits is not only in line with other states, it’s less than the private sector” (Anders Lindall, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 31). 

Furthermore, I do not understand how public officials running for Illinois office can make promises that they will not keep once they are elected. I do not understand how many of our public officials in both the Illinois House and Senate, and who have never taught in a school, can pass a bill for a Two-Tier Pension System without the input of Illinois educational leaders and the discussion of the inevitable and adverse effects it will have on Illinois students and teachers alike. “The $80 billion of debt the state owes for pension benefits already earned remains unchanged by this bill” (Steve Preckwinkle, The State Journal-Register, April 4, 2010). Moreover, I do not understand why the teachers’ pensions are being blamed for the state’s fiscal irresponsibility, incompetence, and corruption. 

I taught in Illinois public schools for 35 years. Like all other teachers, I never missed a contribution to my state retirement plan. I never received any bonuses, and my school district never matched any contributions to my 403 (b) account. Because I also worked outside of education and earned the required 40 quarters, I will receive minimal Social Security payments. Nevertheless, teacher retirees will not receive their full Social Security earnings because of the Windfall Elimination Provision and the Government Pension Offset. (Incidentally, “Illinois taxpayers save more than $700 million per year by not paying Social Security payroll taxes for 78 percent of all active employees in the five state-managed plans, including all public school teachers” (Preckwinkle)).

I want to believe in a just system, in promises to keep, and in the integrity of our lawmakers. I want to believe that teacher retirees and the State of Illinois have “an enforceable contractual relationship” (Article XIII, Section 5, The Constitution of the State of Illinois); I want to believe that there will be no attempt to pass a “law impairing the obligations of contracts” (Article I, Section 16); I want to believe that Illinois cannot pass any law “impairing the obligations of contracts” (Article I, Section 10, The Constitution of the United States of America). I want to believe that the state of Illinois will make an ethical decision to create the needed revenue and meet its obligations without jeopardizing retirees and the futures of thousands of current teachers. I want to believe that the elected officials of Illinois will be competent, responsible, honorable, intrepid, and just.

Sincerely,

Glen Brown

November 12, 2010:

Dear Senator Kirk W. Dillard, 

First, thank you for your recent reply. The fact that your “father is a retired public school teacher” and that you “have voted ‘no’ to the Democrat's two raids on [the] pensions” is the right thing to do. Nonetheless, the Teachers Retirement System is owed $2,358 million for this fiscal year. Please see that this obligation is paid. If it is not paid by June, than it will be added to the $2,406 million that will be due next year for a total of $4,764 million. I was told by a TRS trustee that “the State has saved $14,842,226,632 by not paying what the actuaries calculated TRS should have received.” TRS has been the State’s credit card for decades! If by the end of the fiscal year on June 31 the State has not paid TRS, TRS will have to sell over $3 billion in assets in order to pay for pension benefits. Please vote yes to pay TRS what is owed. 

Not borrowing the money this year will cost the state more in the long run. Borrowing $4.1 billion for the pension system is estimated to cost $1 billion over eight years, or $125 million per year. Not borrowing the money this year will increase the unfunded liability for TRS alone some $13 billion by 2035, or $541 million per year. That annual cost will be higher when the costs to the other state pension systems are added in. Moreover, rating agencies will take a dimmer view of those larger costs to the state over a longer period of time. 

The State of Illinois does have a plan to pay off its debt. Each year, Republicans and Democrats have an opportunity to create a long-term financial plan for the state to close the budget deficit. Everyone concedes that such a plan has to include difficult choices. History has taught us that the hard part of developing a long-term plan is sticking to it in the face of economic and political pressure. The Illinois General Assembly approved a long-term, 49-year funding solution for the state’s pension systems in 1996 but has since failed to pay fully into the plan. Though recent pre-election polls show that Illinois citizens strongly oppose raising taxes and cutting state services to balance the budget, if you follow the polls, then legislators are doing exactly what the people want them to do – nothing. This isn’t an acceptable solution as you can see. It contributes to the state’s growing unfunded liability and revenue problems. 

Sincerely,

Glen Brown

[There are currently 623 pension posts on my blog since March 11, 2011].

Baby Elephant Killers

Representative Elijah Cummings: "We Have Got To Get Back To Normal" | MSNBC

Report offers evidence-based recommendations aimed at reducing Illinois gun violence

Johns Hopkins report identifies weaknesses or gaps in current Illinois law and offers recommendations to reduce gun violence

JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH

Illinois could reduce the number of people killed each year by gun violence by implementing ten policies supported by available research, according to a new report authored by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. The center is based at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

The recommended policies include strengthening the state's gun purchaser licensing system by requiring an in-person application to law enforcement, fingerprinting and safety training. New data in this report suggest that purchaser licensing is more effective in reducing firearm homicides when these systems require in-person applications with law enforcement agencies.

The report also recommends expanding current firearm prohibitions for domestic abusers and individuals convicted of multiple alcohol-related offenses, and providing more funding for local initiatives proven to reduce gun violence.

The report, Policies to Reduce Gun Violence in Illinois: Research, Policy Analysis, and Recommendations, was commissioned by the Joyce Foundation. It is available for download from the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research here.

"Compared to many other states, Illinois has relatively strong firearm laws overall, yet many opportunities exist for the state to strengthen their approach to reducing the diversion of guns for criminal use and gun violence," says the report's lead author, Cassandra Crifasi, PhD, MPH, deputy director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. "Importantly, the policies and strategies outlined in this report are applicable to other states considering evidence-based approaches to reduce firearm homicide and suicide and don't infringe upon the rights of law-abiding gun owners."

Currently, Illinois is one of nine states that requires individuals to obtain a license or permit from law enforcement--called a Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) in Illinois--to acquire a handgun. Previous research from the report authors found that handgun purchaser licensing is effective at reducing gun homicides, suicides and shootings of law enforcement officers.

Illinois is one of two states with permitting requirements that allows individuals to apply for their license online or by mail. Illinois also does not require applicants to undergo any training prior to application. The state also does not mandate, as some states do, that individuals seeking to buy a firearm from a private seller who is not a licensed gun dealer pass a background check; private sellers are only required to check if the prospective purchaser's FOID is valid. Illinois FOIDs are valid for 10 years, but if private sellers fail to verify that a prospective purchaser's FOID is valid, current law provides no criminal penalties.

The individual who shot and killed five people last Friday in Aurora, Illinois was reportedly prohibited from owning a firearm. According to media accounts, he was approved for a FOID card after passing a background check and was able to purchase a firearm despite having a felony conviction; Illinois' FOID application does not require fingerprinting. When he later applied for a concealed carry permit, which requires fingerprinting, state officials discovered the prohibiting condition.

"Illinois arguably has the weakest of all handgun purchaser licensing laws," says report co-author Daniel Webster, ScD, MPH, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. "Strengthening this existing law to require an in-person application with fingerprinting, requiring the police to conduct a background check while verifying the FOID card and requiring more frequent renewal of licensing would be a wise investment in public safety."

Illinois law does not require law enforcement to remove firearms when gun owners are identified as prohibited after a FOID card has been issued. The report recommends that if individuals are later identified as prohibited and fail to surrender their FOID and/or firearms upon notice of revocation, law enforcement should dispossess these prohibited individuals of their firearms.

In addition to strengthening the state's purchaser licensing law and identifying promising new legislation, the authors underscored the importance of robust enforcement of new state laws that regulate retail gun sellers and create a process for removing firearms from people planning to harm themselves or others through court-ordered extreme risk protection orders.

Other evidence-based recommendations include modifying existing domestic violence-related firearm prohibitions to last the length of the order or two years; extending firearm prohibition to individuals convicted of multiple alcohol-related offenses; providing law enforcement discretion to deny concealed carry licenses to those identified as legal but dangerous; banning the sale and possession of new assault weapons and requiring current assault weapon owners to register them; banning the possession of large-capacity magazines (more than 10 rounds); and providing funding to support community programs such as focused deterrence, outreach and conflict mediation involving high-risk individuals.

"Addressing gun violence requires a comprehensive evidence-based approach encompassing enforcement of existing laws, strengthening of current laws identified as weak, adoption of new evidence-based laws and funding for violence prevention programs," says Crifasi. "By considering the policy recommendations put forth in this report, Illinois has an opportunity to decrease their rates of firearm homicide and suicide, and serve as a model for other states seeking to reduce the toll of gun violence in their communities."­­

###

"Policies to Reduce Gun Violence in Illinois: Research, Policy Analysis, and Recommendations" was written by Cassandra K. Crifasi, Alexander McCourt and Daniel W. Webster. All researchers are with the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. The report was published by the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research.

This research was supported by the Joyce Foundation.

Eureka Alert

“Consequences of Irresponsible Pritzker Budget Proposal Will Cost Illinois and Future Generations $150B More” (Illinois Retired Teachers Association)

RETIREES IMPLORE PRITZKER TO STOP RAID OF $500M FOR 2019 PENSION FUND.

(February 20, 2019 - Springfield, Ill.) - Members of the Illinois Retired Teachers Association (IRTA) are imploring Governor J.B. Pritzker to cease the decades-long practice of not fully funding the pension systems. IRTA members appreciate the difficult fiscal condition that the Governor inherited but taking pension holidays is not the solution.

“The Illinois Retired Teachers Association has serious concerns about the Governor’s proposed pension holiday,” IRTA President Roger Hampton said. “We are supportive of the proposals to infuse additional revenues into the pension funds for solvency, but not to underfund systems by hundreds of millions of dollars or by raiding one fund to give more to another. Delaying pension payments just kicks the can down the road again and costs future generations of Illinois taxpayers (if any left) billions of dollars.”

During his budget address Wednesday, Governor Pritzker proposed allocating $4.237 billion into the Illinois Teachers’ Retirement System (TRS), a figure $576,000,000 too short of what is legally and ethically required to pay for the pension benefits of retired teachers and current teachers. It will result in reduced pension payments to TRS for years to come but will generate a nearly $150 billion in increased costs to Illinois taxpayers, including the 417,292 members of TRS.

“TRS is currently very poorly funded by actuarial standards at 40% of the assets needed for current benefits,” IRTA Executive Director Jim Bachman said. “If Illinois had not taken pension holidays, like the ones being proposed, the cost of TRS would be $1.2 billion. The State is paying 400% more because of statutory underfunding and a history of pension holidays. The Illinois Retired Teachers do not believe that the solution to the poorly funded pension systems is to make them more poorly funded and to continue the tradition that got Illinois in this problem in the first place.”

“The State of Illinois must keep its promises to the people, like retired teachers that have always kept up their end of the bargain,” Hampton concluded. “The State of Illinois must fund its pensions and retiree healthcare promises at levels that are both legally and ethically justified.”

It should be noted that this pension holiday is focused only on teachers outside of the City of Chicago. Pritzker did propose increasing the payments to the Chicago Teachers’ Pension Fund.

"Let’s call it the teacher pension death watch” by Fred Klonsky

“I’ve been writing about retired teacher Jeri Shanahan for years. She is part of a shrinking group of retired Illinois teachers who got caught in the cracks years ago when the law changed regarding Medicare.

“When I first met Jeri, the number of teachers who were forced to pay exorbitant fees for health coverage was about 600. Half are now dead. You can go to the above link and read more about the issue if you want.

“Shanahan is still around, and she gives me a call every couple of months. I listen and Jeri talks about the lack of fairness in the system. What gets unsaid by both of us is that Illinois’ politicians do have an unspoken plan for her and the rest of the 300 or so that are still around.

“They will wait for the rest of those caught in Jeri Shanahan’s situation to die. Problem solved.

“I put Jeri in touch with my State Representative Will Guzzardi last year. When I talked to him afterward, he said he couldn’t get to it until after the veto session. I thought there might be a certain urgency but I haven’t heard anything since. Neither has Jeri.

“But Guzzardi is not alone. Both state teacher unions won’t touch it. Neither will the Illinois Retired Teachers Association. As one IEA lobbyist told me, they have bigger fish to fry.

“It’s just 300 old people, most over 80 years old.  How long will this be an issue? Let’s call it the teacher pension death watch.

“The reality is that the retiree death watch is also the plan for the larger pension debt. The current Illinois public pension liability is now somewhere over 130 billion.

“Chicago Tribune’s columnist, Kristen McQueary, writes today again calling for Governor Pritzker to back a constitutional amendment that would take out the pension protection clause from the state’s constitution.

“The current language prohibits any reduction in current benefits for public employees. The Illinois Supreme Court has already ruled that this language is clear and unmistakable and was intended to do exactly what is says when it was written 50 years ago by the constitution’s creators.

“The Court blocked any legislative cuts to benefits. Which is why Kristen McQueary has no clue. Even if the pension protection clause was erased, it would not unprotect current public employees (not only current retirees) from receiving contractual benefits. The liability will only grow up to a point.

“But at a certain point, public employees covered under Tier 1 will begin to decline. Could they change the contract for a public employee hired today? Sure. But the legislature can and already has done that without a constitutional change. They created Tier 2 and Tier 3. They reduced the benefits of employees hired after January 1, 2011.

“However, they can’t undo the constitutional and contractual arrangement retroactively. So, while McQueary accuses the Governor of proposing pension solutions that are smoke, it is McQueary bogarting the joint.

“There is nobody in Springfield that is proposing a plan that will pay the 130 billion dollar pension liability. I predict nobody ever will.

“At a certain point over the next 30 years, nearly all of those of us in Tier 1 will be dead. And as with Jeri Shanahan and her 300 or less fellow retirees, that problem will be solved” (The Trib’s Kristen McCreary and the Retired Teacher Death Watch by Fred Klonsky). 

I also posted about Jeri Shanahan in the following articles:

Why are approximately 600 TRS retirees paying more for health insurance than anyone else? (June 18, 2013)

Amid all the Medicare Advantage confusion, have we forgotten there are more than 600 TRS retirees who pay more for health insurance than anyone else? (Oct. 30, 2013)

Why are 602 teacher retirees who live in Illinois still paying more for their health insurance? (July 11, 2014)

“President Trump’s attempt to spend money for building a wall without congressional appropriation of funds for this purpose directly violates the Constitution”-Erwin Chemerinsky

Express and Inherent Presidential Powers: There are four approaches based upon the court case Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 634 (1952):

1) There is no inherent presidential power; the president may act only if there is express constitutional or statutory authority.

2) The president has inherent authority unless the president interferes with the functioning of another branch of government or usurps the powers of another branch.

3) The president may exercise powers not mentioned in the Constitution so long as the president does not violate a statute or the Constitution.

4) The president has inherent powers that may not be restricted by Congress and may act unless the Constitution is violated (Chemerinsky 331).

“The federal courts and ultimately the Supreme Court should quickly and emphatically hold that President Trump’s attempt to fund the border wall by declaring a national emergency is illegal and unconstitutional. In 1974, when President Richard Nixon made an unprecedented claim of executive power to resist complying with a subpoena from the Watergate special prosecutor, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected this assertion and enforced constitutional checks and balances. We should hope and expect that even the conservative Roberts Court, with two justices appointed by President Trump, will likewise follow the Constitution and reject Trump’s dangerous claim of emergency powers.

“The Constitution has no clause that gives the president emergency powers. This was a deliberate and wise choice. The framers of the Constitution wanted to make sure that its requirements, including checks and balances, are enforced even in times of crisis. Indeed, when prior presidents have tried to claim inherent power to deal with emergencies, the Supreme Court has rejected such claims.   

“During the Korean War, President Harry Truman seized the steel mills to assure continued steel production in the face of a labor dispute. The Supreme Court, in Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer (1952), decisively ruled against President Truman and rejected his claimed authority to take actions to deal with a national emergency. The Court stressed that Truman’s actions violated the separation of powers and usurped the powers of Congress.

“Likewise, President Trump’s attempt to spend money for building a wall without congressional appropriation of funds for this purpose directly violates the Constitution. The Constitution reads, ‘No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.’ Under the Constitution, Congress has the power of the purse and it is impermissible for the president to spend money without specific statutory authorization. 

“No such authorization exists for building the border wall. Trump repeatedly has urged Congress to provide such funds. Even when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, from 2017 to 2019, Trump could not get this authorization. More recently, the government shut down for a month because Congress would not appropriate the funds Trump wanted to build the wall. For Trump to fund the wall unilaterally without congressional approval, even by claiming a national emergency, is clearly unconstitutional.  

“Trump likely will claim the authority to fund building the wall under the National Emergencies Act of 1976. One provision says that if there is a national emergency, funds in the Defense Department budget that are not ‘obligated’ can be used for construction projects to support the armed forces. It reads: ‘Secretary of Defense, without regard to any other provision of law, may undertake military construction projects, and may authorize Secretaries of the military departments to undertake military construction projects that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces.’ The statute is about construction projects to support the armed forces. Trump’s wall is not about that at all.

“Members of Congress have standing to sue President Trump for violating the separation of powers and nullifying the spending power possessed by Congress. In 2016, U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer held that members of the Republican-controlled Congress had legal standing to sue the president to challenge the spending of federal funds without specific federal authorization. She held that the Obama administration was violating the Constitution by paying, without a congressional appropriation, the promised reimbursements to health insurers who provide coverage at reduced costs to low-income Americans. ‘Paying [those] reimbursements without an appropriation thus violates the Constitution,’ she wrote. ‘Congress is the only source for such an appropriation, and no public money can be spent without one.’

“At the time, Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan called the ruling ‘a historic win for the Constitution and the American people. The court ruled that the administration overreached by spending taxpayer money without approval from the people's representatives.’

“Members of Congress should now sue President Trump—and should prevail in court. No court should accept President Trump’s claim of a ‘national emergency.’ Trump has been calling for the wall for years. The claim of ‘national emergency’ is a pretext to allow the president to do whatever he wants.

“If my prediction is wrong and Trump wins in court, Democratic presidential candidates should prepare their own wish lists of what can be done without congressional approval. A Democratic president could follow the Trump example and declare a national emergency to deal with the problem of climate change—a genuine emergency.

“But whether we have a Democratic or Republican president, and no matter how noble the cause, we should be frightened of presidents acting unilaterally to deal with a national emergency. That would completely undermine the checks and balances and the separation of powers that are at the core of our constitutional system of government. Until and unless Congress authorizes funds for the border wall, it is unconstitutional and illegal for President Trump to use any other funds for this purpose” (Trump’s ‘Emergency’ Action: Unlawful and Unconstitutional).

Works Cited:

Chemerinsky, Erwin. Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies, 2^nd ed. New York: Aspen Publishers, 2002.

Chemerinsky, Erwin. “Trump’s ‘Emergency’ Action: Unlawful and Unconstitutional.” The American Prospect, 15 February 2019 https://prospect.org/article/trumps-emergency-action-unlawful-and-unconstitutional