Illinois Pension Reform

[Steel Rain]

Just read this;

lllinois moves toward state of insolvency - BostonHerald.com

It reads as a pretty complete summary of the train wreck that is Illinois.

Steel Rain

 

[ripper1]

Just read this;

lllinois moves toward state of insolvency - BostonHerald.com

It reads as a pretty complete summary of the train wreck that is Illinois.

Steel Rain

All because of those damn public employees.....RIGHT?

 

[ripper1]

For those of you still interested in this topic Gov Quinn will be on Chicago Tonight 7PM (WTTW)

 

[youbet]

But the Bulls game starts at 7:00 PM.........

 

[MichaelB]

Just read this;

lllinois moves toward state of insolvency - BostonHerald.com

It reads as a pretty complete summary of the train wreck that is Illinois.

Steel Rain

This link is to an article by George Will, political commentator who writes for the Washington Post and has a clear political viewpoint.

 

[youbet]

This link is to an article by George Will, political commentator who writes for the Washington Post and has a clear political viewpoint.

His view regarding the Illinois financial situation doesn't seem out of line with most of what I'm reading/hearing/viewing these days. Perhaps by "political viewpoint" in this case, it's a matter that he's going out his way to point out the facts as opposed to exaggerating or overstating them.

It really is a mess. A close friend who does contract work for the Dept of Children and Family Services hasn't been paid in many months. I hear about it all the time........

Michael, I'm not speaking up for the author. Don't know a thing about him. I'm just saying that when I read this particular article, it was hard to argue that the case the author was making regarding the horrible financial status of Illinois isn't more or less true.

Perhaps I'm just too much of a worrier and therefore find it easy to believe this kind of talk? Everything will be OK? Services will remain functional while corporate and personal income taxes, sales taxes and property taxes won't need to be elevated to the moon? I hope so.

 

[MichaelB]

Youbet, I share many of your concerns regarding Illinois finances and politics. The problems are self inflicted, the core is rotten and the leadership has little credibility. When it comes to data and analysis, however, my preference is for more neutral presentation and less judgement. I'm not commenting on Will's analysis but do not view him as objective.

 

[youbet]

The problems are self inflicted, the core is rotten and the leadership has little credibility.

Ding Ding Ding! Congratulations! You're the winner of the youbet understatement of the day award (which hasn't been passed out in a long, long time.) I couldn't agree with you more. And this is spoken by someone who grew up with a picture of Hisssss Honor, The Honorable Richard J Daley hanging proudly on the living room wall.

When it comes to data and analysis, however, my preference is for more neutral presentation and less judgement.

I agree with you here too Michael. Whether commentary is coming from a lefty or a righty, lack of objectivity and judgemental bias annoy me. And looking back over the article, you're right, there is a judgmental "tone" even if the facts generally seem correct.

 

[MichaelB]

Ding Ding Ding! Congratulations! You're the winner of the youbet understatement of the day award (which hasn't been passed out in a long, long time.) I couldn't agree with you more. And this is spoken by someone who grew up with a picture of Hisssss Honor, The Honorable Richard J Daley hanging proudly on the living room wall.

I'm honored.

 

[ripper1]

But the Bulls game starts at 7:00 PM.........

You won't miss much they will be gone almost as soon as the Blackhawks.

 

[Chuckanut]

All because of those damn public employees.....RIGHT?

No doubt about it. Ignore the information in the recent Frontline episode mentioned here: Money, Power and Wall Street | FRONTLINE | PBS

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." - Wizard of Oz.

That said, even if their were no financial crisis, some states would still be heading towards a train wreck. It would just take a bit longer.

 

[ripper1]

His view regarding the Illinois financial situation doesn't seem out of line with most of what I'm reading/hearing/viewing these days. Perhaps by "political viewpoint" in this case, it's a matter that he's going out his way to point out the facts as opposed to exaggerating or overstating them.

It really is a mess. A close friend who does contract work for the Dept of Children and Family Services hasn't been paid in many months. I hear about it all the time........

Michael, I'm not speaking up for the author. Don't know a thing about him. I'm just saying that when I read this particular article, it was hard to argue that the case the author was making regarding the horrible financial status of Illinois isn't more or less true.

Perhaps I'm just too much of a worrier and therefore find it easy to believe this kind of talk? Everything will be OK? Services will remain functional while corporate and personal income taxes, sales taxes and property taxes won't need to be elevated to the moon? I hope so.

Maybe he is looking for another Pulitzer. I think he should write articles about his beloved Chicago Cubs and then maybe he will get more attention.

 

[Steel Rain]

All because of those damn public employees.....RIGHT?

Um, no. Certainly part of the problem to be sure, but overall out of control spending is the real issue. Corruption and shameless vote pandering has a high cost as well.

Steel

 

[Steel Rain]

Youbet, I share many of your concerns regarding Illinois finances and politics. The problems are self inflicted, the core is rotten and the leadership has little credibility. When it comes to data and analysis, however, my preference is for more neutral presentation and less judgment. I'm not commenting on Will's analysis but do not view him as objective.

Unfortunately, most do not have the time or capacity to grind out independent results for issues like this. Objective assessment is never going to be happen anyway. Personally, I use a preponderance of the evidence approach and the numbers and conclusions seem consistent with what I have read and heard over the last few years.

Steel

 

[MichaelB]

Unfortunately, most do not have the time or capacity to grind out independent results for issues like this. Objective assessment is never going to be happen anyway. Personally, I use a preponderance of the evidence approach and the numbers and conclusions seem consistent with what I have read and heard over the last few years.

Steel

Between think tanks and Universities there is an abundance of research on just about any topic. I find The Pew Trust to be very helpful regarding States finances, for example.

 

[obgyn65]

+1. Another reason why debating private vs public pensions here may be futile. I don't think anyone here will change his/her mind.

Unfortunately, most do not have the time or capacity to grind out independent results for issues like this. Objective assessment is never going to be happen anyway.

 

[ziggy29]

+1. Another reason why debating private vs public pensions here may be futile. I don't think anyone here will change his/her mind.

It feels like more and more people (all over the place, not specifically here) are choosing to get their news and analysis from biased sources that only regurgitate their own preconceived ideas, so they are rarely forced to think critically outside their own comfort zone. I find it sad. I think that's a major factor -- if not *the* primary factor -- in the polarization and lack of civil discourse we have today.

There are tough questions and I think good points on this issue from all sides but it just seems impossible to trust each other enough to talk about it, let alone hope someone will loosen their intransigence a bit and consider other points of view with an open mind. The goal here is (or should be, IMO) easing the current budgetary problems with pension plans, ensuring that what remains is sustainable in the long run, minimizing pain to those currently covered by these plans and not expecting those who have no such plans to pay a lot more in taxes and reduced services in order to prop up benefits for others. These are in some ways contradictory goals but all are, again IMO, legitimate and socially just goals. Yelling at each other and shutting out other ideas will solve nothing. We have a bad habit of debating issues and approaching "problem solving" by focusing first on where disagree most, instead of building outward from where we have common ground. Not good if we are sincere in wanting to fix what's broken.

 

[Steel Rain]

It feels like more and more people (all over the place, not specifically here) are choosing to get their news and analysis from biased sources that only regurgitate their own preconceived ideas, so they are rarely forced to think critically outside their own comfort zone. I find it sad. I think that's a major factor -- if not *the* primary factor -- in the polarization and lack of civil discourse we have today.

There are tough questions and I think good points on this issue from all sides but it just seems impossible to trust each other enough to talk about it, let alone hope someone will loosen their intransigence a bit and consider other points of view with an open mind. The goal here is (or should be, IMO) easing the current budgetary problems with pension plans, ensuring that what remains is sustainable in the long run, minimizing pain to those currently covered by these plans and not expecting those who have no such plans to pay a lot more in taxes and reduced services in order to prop up benefits for others. These are in some ways contradictory goals but all are, again IMO, legitimate and socially just goals. Yelling at each other and shutting out other ideas will solve nothing. We have a bad habit of debating issues and approaching "problem solving" by focusing first on where disagree most, instead of building outward from where we have common ground. Not good if we are sincere in wanting to fix what's broken.

Unfortunately, there is no fount of truth. I would posit that there is no such thing as objective analysis and one persons read of data may be different than another's. I personally feel that forums such as this are an ideal place to discuss the different takes. A lot of folks will never change their minds, no matter what the data says. Mainly due to a particular outlook on life, upbringing or if they have a vested interest in the outcome. I am always looking for dissenting opinions, I use a preponderance of the evidence approach to form and maintain my opinions. Just my two cents worth.

Steel

 

[ziggy29]

Unfortunately, there is no fount of truth. I would posit that there is no such thing as objective analysis and one persons read of data may be different than another's.

I would agree that there is no one source that is consistenly 100% objective. Having said that, some are closer to others. I've always liked the Christian Science Monitor (not a religious publication, by the way) as one of the more credible and balanced sources from a journalistic point of view.

But really it's not so much about getting news and analysis from one "relatively objective" source -- it's more about being willing to get it from multiple sources with multiple, sometimes opposing, takes on the issue. And in being open-minded enough to not automatically reject it because you think the source is generally biased. Just because a source is biased doesn't mean they don't have *some* good arguments to defend their opinions.

 

[Steel Rain]

I would agree that there is no one source that is consistenly 100% objective. Having said that, some are closer to others. I've always liked the Christian Science Monitor (not a religious publication, by the way) as one of the more credible and balanced sources from a journalistic point of view.

But really it's not so much about getting news and analysis from one "relatively objective" source -- it's more about being willing to get it from multiple sources with multiple, sometimes opposing, takes on the issue. And in being open-minded enough to not automatically reject it because you think the source is generally biased. Just because a source is biased doesn't mean they don't have *some* good arguments to defend their opinions.

I 100% agree. I think we are saying the same thing

Steel

 

[ripper1]

It feels like more and more people (all over the place, not specifically here) are choosing to get their news and analysis from biased sources that only regurgitate their own preconceived ideas, so they are rarely forced to think critically outside their own comfort zone. I find it sad. I think that's a major factor -- if not *the* primary factor -- in the polarization and lack of civil discourse we have today.

There are tough questions and I think good points on this issue from all sides but it just seems impossible to trust each other enough to talk about it, let alone hope someone will loosen their intransigence a bit and consider other points of view with an open mind. The goal here is (or should be, IMO) easing the current budgetary problems with pension plans, ensuring that what remains is sustainable in the long run, minimizing pain to those currently covered by these plans and not expecting those who have no such plans to pay a lot more in taxes and reduced services in order to prop up benefits for others. These are in some ways contradictory goals but all are, again IMO, legitimate and socially just goals. Yelling at each other and shutting out other ideas will solve nothing. We have a bad habit of debating issues and approaching "problem solving" by focusing first on where disagree most, instead of building outward from where we have common ground. Not good if we are sincere in wanting to fix what's broken.

+1....Good Post. Like I said I am part of this system in Illinois although I am from the Municipal part in Chicago. For this thing to be sustainable there has to be shared sacrifice by the participants. Taxpayers in my mind shouldn't really be part of the equation.

 

[eytonxav]

For a parallel on what another city's problem, here is an article about Ft Worth's pension woes. Seems like the city is proposing a reasonable solution, but it is not being well received by the police association:

"The good news is that we believe we can address our pension challenges while maintaining the current defined benefit plan, unlike some other cities," he wrote.

Furthermore, our proposal doesn't take away anything already earned from existing employees, nor does it ask for taxpayers to increase their contribution to the plan."

But Stephen Hall, president of the Fort Worth Police Officers Association, called the proposed reductions excessive."

Fort Worth tells employees about plans to trim pension benefits | Fort Worth | News from...

 

[ziggy29]

But Stephen Hall, president of the Fort Worth Police Officers Association, called the proposed reductions excessive.

From the article:

But Stephen Hall, president of the Fort Worth Police Officers Association, called the proposed reductions excessive.

"I can't support changes to current employees. They were hired under a contract, a promise that these conditions would exist throughout their employment. Now the city is wanting to break that promise," he said.

Is the bold-faced part really true? I certainly understand that these terms would be required to exist for the duration of a particular collective bargaining agreement and that benefits shouldn't be reduced for service already performed, but does the CBA really say anything about guaranteeing that future benefits for service not yet performed could NEVER have its formula changed? I have a hard time believing that. IF that is actually true and there is a "future benefits for work not yet performed can never be changed" clause in existing contracts, then I believe Mr. Hall has a valid point... and the city leaders who agreed to have such a clause in the contract should be fired.

 

[eytonxav]

From the article:
Is the bold-faced part really true? I certainly understand that these terms would be required to exist for the duration of a particular collective bargaining agreement and that benefits shouldn't be reduced for service already performed, but does the CBA really say anything about guaranteeing that future benefits for service not yet performed could NEVER have its formula changed? I have a hard time believing that. IF that is actually true and there is a "future benefits for work not yet performed can never be changed" clause in existing contracts, then I believe Mr. Hall has a valid point... and the city leaders who agreed to have such a clause in the contract should be fired.

Dunno the answer to that, but I certainly feel the morons that blessed these type of plans without understanding the long term sustainability issues or abuse strategies should be tarred and feathered and then fired.

 

[Bimmerbill]

Dunno the answer to that, but I certainly feel the morons that blessed these type of plans without understanding the long term sustainability issues or abuse strategies should be tarred and feathered and then fired.

I think they understood it all just fine. I think they just kicked the can down the road. Trouble is now there is no road (or can) left. Heck, I don't even know if there is much foot left.

I just read that the FERS pension is self financing and in good shape, but participants are now facing many changes to include increased contributions and reduced benefits and maybe even changes to how benefits are calculated.