The Illinois Policy Institute has a useful site. "WirePoints" and Mike Glennon use them a lot. Here's more detail on Brandon Johnson. He is right now a 'double dipper' as he is a Cook County Board Commissioner and also draws a $100k salary from the Chicago Teacher's Union!!
Thanks for the link -- I did have some thoughts in reading the various items, but I want to wait to see who the final winner/loser is before I make further comments. Because I have a feeling certain things may not come out in the ways various players "plan".
Thank you, Mary Pat. I'm an advocate against full funding. Fair funding feels better - but I don't have a number for that. Like IMRF, political discretion should be taken out of the pension payment process - but not if the legislative demand is for full funding. Full funding is an attack on street level public services (even if we acknowledge that the cost of a pension is part of public services). IMRF (my pension) stands in contrast to your examples. IMRF loves to brag about its near perfect funding. IMRF is bloated. If we look at all pension funds in Illinois and add promises related to retiree healthcare, it puts a crisis-level strain on govt operating budgets. In Illinois, pension benefits are/were achieved through a political process that never stops and is beyond costly. Now we have rational people trying to help the govt pay for politically achieved benefits. The FOP is behind Vallas and CTU is behind Johnson. Some say the police support Vallas because he's a law-and-order person. Not so. We are seeing a war between pension funds and pensioners. Vallas v Johnson is a pension benefit and payment war. Public employees in each pension fund are ramping up the funding war against employees in other funds. There isn't enough money to go around; the losers are becoming evident. Hence, lowering crime and increasing student test scores are less important.
- Full funding just means those who made the promises are paying for the promises they made. If you've underfunded, that means you're expecting somebody in the future to step in to pay for benefits accrued in the past... and those somebodies may not appear.
Look to the future: that said, I went to look at the most recent IMRF actuarial report I could find, and my, there's some interesting stuff in there. I believe I will do a post on that. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.... I see how this could be a strain. Some of the programs in there look quite reasonable.... but SLEP, yeah, I see how that's a strain.
Anyway, given what you say I may do a couple different pieces to show there is no good way out here.
I support defunding pensions. As I see it, elected officials are defunding pensions (i.e., not fully funding) because they can't afford the costs. Fully funding pensions often means cutting back important services. State elected officials caved to special interests and thereby created unsustainable financial mandates on itself and local govs. The benefits are too rich (same with retiree healthcare, workers comp, etc.). Should the state and local govs simply throw in the towel or continue to make rational public arguments for under/de-funding? "We just can't afford these payments" is a great starting point argument. My argument, however whimsical or naive, is to turn defunding/underfunding into a strategy. Experts should continue to focus on pension payment gaps but not as an end. Employers, COGs, taxpayer groups, media and knowledgeable people like yourself should show the price the public is paying - 1) actual cash out the door as a % of payroll, 2) the level of benefits the state forced on employers, and 3) all opportunity costs (there are other ways to illustrate the problem to the public). Non-funding and de-funding may force everyone to the table to fix/trim the problem. In Illinois, with all of the protections the employees/unions have in place (constitutional, redirecting state shared funds, past rulings, legislation, etc.) this may seem like spitting in the wind. Regardless, this has to be on the Reform Illinois agenda.
If you want to defund pensions, then change the laws and don't make the promises in the first place.
As it is, they did make these promises.
They can stop the bleeding by saying "well, we're not promising anymore", but promising benefits and not paying for them is simply lying.... though we should be used to people in government lying at this point.
But yes, this is why I have been using multiple methods of showing the cash going out the door. To many people it's all number games. Why can't they just make promises and make up how much money should be put in the funds? The benefits will always be paid!
Thank you for engaging with me. I'm honored to be part of this exchange. The person who orchestrated the promises, former Illinois Speaker Mickael Madigan, is under indictment on federal racketeering charges. He has used formal (legislative process) and informal (bribes, promises, quid pro quos) systems to retain his power and political parties' dominion. He opposed ethics reform and used every means possible to promote a pay-to-play system of governance. He didn't care about funding pensions and his other promises - he only cared about votes. In other words, he lied to the special interests he made promises to so they would promise to vote for him. For decades his scheme worked. Part of his answer to the funding question was to make funding a state mandate on local govs. Also, we are now seeing, in terms of state funding, he didn't have the money in-hand to back up his promises. I feel for all of the elected officials in Illinois who now have to pay for Madigan's lies - not his promises. They have no choice but to incrementally move through this quagmire while trying to fund day-to-day services. By imposing outrageous costs, Madigan and his gang destroyed self-government by robbing local officials of free and informed choice. I admire elected officials who won't just roll over and fund Madigan's lies. This is the defunding/underfunding movement. As a side note, another force behind full-funding are the money handlers - investment bankers, investment advisors, brokers, et al who profit enormously from Madigan's so-called promises. BTW, I support fair and reasonable pensions for public employees. But in Illinois, the system for arriving at pension mandates was corrupt and immoral. The burden, now falling on all taxpayers, is an egregious act of anti-public service by some current and many former political leaders.
The Illinois Policy Institute has a useful site. "WirePoints" and Mike Glennon use them a lot. Here's more detail on Brandon Johnson. He is right now a 'double dipper' as he is a Cook County Board Commissioner and also draws a $100k salary from the Chicago Teacher's Union!!
https://www.illinoispolicy.org/chicago-teachers-union-affiliates-put-over-2-3m-in-brandon-johnson-campaign/
Thanks for the link -- I did have some thoughts in reading the various items, but I want to wait to see who the final winner/loser is before I make further comments. Because I have a feeling certain things may not come out in the ways various players "plan".
Thank you, Mary Pat. I'm an advocate against full funding. Fair funding feels better - but I don't have a number for that. Like IMRF, political discretion should be taken out of the pension payment process - but not if the legislative demand is for full funding. Full funding is an attack on street level public services (even if we acknowledge that the cost of a pension is part of public services). IMRF (my pension) stands in contrast to your examples. IMRF loves to brag about its near perfect funding. IMRF is bloated. If we look at all pension funds in Illinois and add promises related to retiree healthcare, it puts a crisis-level strain on govt operating budgets. In Illinois, pension benefits are/were achieved through a political process that never stops and is beyond costly. Now we have rational people trying to help the govt pay for politically achieved benefits. The FOP is behind Vallas and CTU is behind Johnson. Some say the police support Vallas because he's a law-and-order person. Not so. We are seeing a war between pension funds and pensioners. Vallas v Johnson is a pension benefit and payment war. Public employees in each pension fund are ramping up the funding war against employees in other funds. There isn't enough money to go around; the losers are becoming evident. Hence, lowering crime and increasing student test scores are less important.
One short response, and one look to the future:
- Full funding just means those who made the promises are paying for the promises they made. If you've underfunded, that means you're expecting somebody in the future to step in to pay for benefits accrued in the past... and those somebodies may not appear.
Relevant post:
https://marypatcampbell.substack.com/p/classic-stump-public-pensions-primer-273
Look to the future: that said, I went to look at the most recent IMRF actuarial report I could find, and my, there's some interesting stuff in there. I believe I will do a post on that. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.... I see how this could be a strain. Some of the programs in there look quite reasonable.... but SLEP, yeah, I see how that's a strain.
Anyway, given what you say I may do a couple different pieces to show there is no good way out here.
I support defunding pensions. As I see it, elected officials are defunding pensions (i.e., not fully funding) because they can't afford the costs. Fully funding pensions often means cutting back important services. State elected officials caved to special interests and thereby created unsustainable financial mandates on itself and local govs. The benefits are too rich (same with retiree healthcare, workers comp, etc.). Should the state and local govs simply throw in the towel or continue to make rational public arguments for under/de-funding? "We just can't afford these payments" is a great starting point argument. My argument, however whimsical or naive, is to turn defunding/underfunding into a strategy. Experts should continue to focus on pension payment gaps but not as an end. Employers, COGs, taxpayer groups, media and knowledgeable people like yourself should show the price the public is paying - 1) actual cash out the door as a % of payroll, 2) the level of benefits the state forced on employers, and 3) all opportunity costs (there are other ways to illustrate the problem to the public). Non-funding and de-funding may force everyone to the table to fix/trim the problem. In Illinois, with all of the protections the employees/unions have in place (constitutional, redirecting state shared funds, past rulings, legislation, etc.) this may seem like spitting in the wind. Regardless, this has to be on the Reform Illinois agenda.
If you want to defund pensions, then change the laws and don't make the promises in the first place.
As it is, they did make these promises.
They can stop the bleeding by saying "well, we're not promising anymore", but promising benefits and not paying for them is simply lying.... though we should be used to people in government lying at this point.
But yes, this is why I have been using multiple methods of showing the cash going out the door. To many people it's all number games. Why can't they just make promises and make up how much money should be put in the funds? The benefits will always be paid!
..;.. (until they won't be)
Thank you for engaging with me. I'm honored to be part of this exchange. The person who orchestrated the promises, former Illinois Speaker Mickael Madigan, is under indictment on federal racketeering charges. He has used formal (legislative process) and informal (bribes, promises, quid pro quos) systems to retain his power and political parties' dominion. He opposed ethics reform and used every means possible to promote a pay-to-play system of governance. He didn't care about funding pensions and his other promises - he only cared about votes. In other words, he lied to the special interests he made promises to so they would promise to vote for him. For decades his scheme worked. Part of his answer to the funding question was to make funding a state mandate on local govs. Also, we are now seeing, in terms of state funding, he didn't have the money in-hand to back up his promises. I feel for all of the elected officials in Illinois who now have to pay for Madigan's lies - not his promises. They have no choice but to incrementally move through this quagmire while trying to fund day-to-day services. By imposing outrageous costs, Madigan and his gang destroyed self-government by robbing local officials of free and informed choice. I admire elected officials who won't just roll over and fund Madigan's lies. This is the defunding/underfunding movement. As a side note, another force behind full-funding are the money handlers - investment bankers, investment advisors, brokers, et al who profit enormously from Madigan's so-called promises. BTW, I support fair and reasonable pensions for public employees. But in Illinois, the system for arriving at pension mandates was corrupt and immoral. The burden, now falling on all taxpayers, is an egregious act of anti-public service by some current and many former political leaders.
It's easy for me to talk -- I'm in New York.
It's ultimately up to those in Chicago and Illinois... if anybody is left. ;)