Illinois Tea Party’s Position to Amendment 49 on ballot:
Constitution Amendment 49 will be on the 11/6/12 ballot after near unanimous approval by the General Assembly. You will be asked to vote on a proposed constitutional amendment to the Illinois Constitution that would require a 3/5 super majority vote by the General Assembly on any bill increasing pension or retirement system benefits for government employees and officials.

This amendment is made to look like Illinois legislators, and Mike Madigan, are doing something about pensions, but very little, if anything, will change if it passes.

It is our opinion that a NO vote is warranted. We don’t support any cost shift until adequate reforms are realized – to the taxpayers satisfaction. Nothing in the amendment will improve the unfunded pension debt currently burying the citizens in Illinois.
(Hardly a left leaning group - and not receiving any government handouts)

In my personal opinion, the legislator just admitted that we can change the IL constitution. I have recommended an amendment that limits taxpayers liability, and permits public pensions to be diminished providing they do not go below a floor (based on Social security payouts). Our politicians have already violated the IL constitution because it says they must balance the budget every year Something they have not done for a long time.

J.J. writes, "But how would any of you feel if you paid your money into something expecting what they say you will get at some future time and then say NO, you are not going to get that and you aren't going to get your money refunded either." Do you not realize that this has happened to MOST of us PRIVATE sector workers over the last 10 years???? Few employers even offer pensions any longer. At best you get a 401K that has some level of "matching", but often there is NO matching involved. Many retirees collecting pensions are told that they will no longer get the money that they had been getting because the pension fund is gone. Public sector employees should NOT be immune from the same hardships that the rest of us feel. What about all of this shared sacrifice that I hear about from union-types making their living off of taxpayer money?? When the economy is in the tank, and everyone else is losing their pensions and jobs, these people don't want to give their fair share. The state of Illinois can't afford all of these pensions that lawmakers promise to unions to get themselves elected. The taxpayers are now left holding the bag. We need pension reform.

To notbuyingit,
You missed the point. While we paid into social security which you will get, those who qualify for a pension will not receive social security even though we paid into it. Also, those who have paid into local pensions (10% for police and fire, 13% for state police) did their part. The elected officials were not responsible and did not contribute what they agreed to. A lot of us worked for less than a living wage when we first entered public service. Now due to incompetence, we should be forced to pay an even greater sacrifice?

If you want to be educated read Robert Mierops post. In a nutshell he has it right.

Ok Jim R. I hope I can be around when you are a victim of a crime and a bunch of 66 year old cops come to help you. See how that works out. Or maybe you would prefer to see your house burn down while the old geezer fireman try to lift that heavy gear off the truck. I"m sure the old guys will do a great job in the middle of the night fixing that broken water pipe going to your house. No one will be able to retire and thats what you will be left with under your idea. Plus no new younger people will be hired. There is a reason for the retirement age where it is.

There are many support jobs that could be picked up in later years, so your argument does not hold. I do have a problem with someone being able to retire as early as 50 or 55 and collect 80% of their salaries. There are office jobs that can be filled or many other support jobs. In the case of fireman and policeman there may be more latitude but again before they receive this early retirement they should be given other obligations before they retire. By the way what other jobs offer 80% of salary for retirement at such a young age. Now tell me how many of these people take retirement and go get another job while receiving a large pension. I am sure other jobs in a city could be filled by some of the older workers who would not be equipped to handle their former duties.

I agree with Jim R as we are currently victoms of crime by having collusive agreements with unions/politician on wages,benefits and pensions so that they will reelect them to do more of the same.
As to the old 50s being to old to walk and chew gum ;70 is now the new 50. These people need to earn their salaries like the rest of us tax payers!

Jim offers a rather sensible solution. Obviously emergency workers would be managed so the older, less physically able would work in the office rather than face danger or more physically demanding jobs, this is obvious.
The point is, vote no on this amendment!

Joliet Police pay into their own fund which is in an OK state. Why would they want to be dumped into the failing cook county fund? This will also allow the monies to be used else where. Vote NO!!

I.J. So new hires would be advised that they will get their pension around the same time that others do. So, will there be a few years that they need to get a different job? Probably. You can't expect to have your perfect life while the rest of us Private sector folks have to deal with reality. It's NOT fair. Public sector folks need to start paying THEIR fair share. It's a different world now. We can't afford it.

Nicely said Jim R and we HAVE to get public sector pensions more in line with private sector pensions. It's only fair.

Tell me about the so called support jobs Jim R. There are none. Have you ever even spoken to a policeman or fireman about their jobs. Educate yourself before making statements that are untrue.

I.J. My comment included the statement "other jobs in a city" but even closer to their job some would include traffic duty, resource officer as for schools, taking emergency calls on the phone, public information officer, jailer, court bailifs, handling paper work for another officer to free up more of their time, probation officers, parole officers, investigative work behind a desk. Some of these would be to stop hiring others who had these jobs and replace them with older police officers. All I have presented is just a starting point, since I am sure there are many others.

All those jobs are positions you mentioned are full time positions within other departments and unions. You can't just quit one company and take an easier job with another. What does that person who holds that position do? Quit and give their job away. Please think about doing a little research. School resource officers are full time Policemen, as is traffic and investigations which you bid on and test for as with any other promotion. The other positions are County positions and like I said, I don't know anyone that would voluntarily quit just to help out an older person. Not every career is like this. I'm sure doctors, lawyers, teachers, office workers, etc could work much later in life.

Jim R
Do you realize that the vast majority of public sector employees who can retire at age 50 as you say with 80% of pay, would have needed to start their careers at 18 years of age. Care to tell us how many Govt workers you know that are retiring at age 50 with 80% of their pay?

There are a select group of abusers like the Lockport fire chief. These need to be dealt with. the policeman life is on the line daily causing extreme stress to their systems. Therefore a short life time expectance - let the boys in blue retire at an age in which there deserve. There are alot of comments well intended here although if you are not familiar with their duties you need to educate yourself before demanding changes to their benefit plan.

There are lots of isolated cases of abuse, but what about all the widespread cases of abuse? Look at any teachers contract, there are automatic 6% raises in the 4 years before retire to boot pension payouts. What about banking and using sick time to retire years early? What about accepting extra payouts in the final years to boost pension payouts? Those aren't isolated cases of abuse, those are widespread and costing taxpayers milions (billions?).

THANK YOU!!! Enough said!!!

While Madigan and all the cronies remain untouched, unaffected and keep all their retirement money! All he does is con the people of Illinois with the oldest game in the book. The Shell game!

They work in teams. Have one young guy matched up with an older guy who supposedly has more wisdom. There would be less abuse cases and or accidental deaths due to imprudent actions by both groups!

PS the council didn't approve the new police chief in open session as is required by our codes and law.

Gerard, you have to set aside your emotion and think. There would be no younger police officers hired or working because the older police officers wouldnt be retiring. There would be no vacant postions for the younger guys to fill because no one would be retiring.

Human nature being what it is they (police and firemen) would retire at the same rate as the rest of the population 62 to 67. They should be treated exactly the same as all other tax payers.

Gerald don't hold your breath too long, as you will never see the retirement age for Police and Fire raised to 62-67! You can breath now as the age has been raised and will stay at 55 !

Gerard, thats my point. Police would not retire so you wouldnt have to replace them with younger cops, so there would be no younger cops hired. So you would end up with a department with the average age of a police officer being 50 to 65 years old with 40 plus years of service. Better learn to protect yourself. Im sure they will try their best but I wouldnt bring a 60 year old along to help me in a fight

Hey Pro Life Crusader +,

Given your logic, why can't all of us just sign up for the public pension plan and retire at 55. If it's good for fire and police, why wouldn't it be good for the rest of us?

All government pension plans are ultimately paid for by the tax payer be it Federal, state or local. I am aware of the chronic abuses like last year stuffing or sell back of vacation and holiday pay, overtime, extra compensations for nebulous extra types of work all of which drive up pension eligibility for these groups.

Employee contribution when compared to average tax payers and what they get is insignificant. It is long past time these abuses get corrected by clawbacks.

Gerald sell back for holidays, overtime , vacation or sick days has no bearing on a pension salary! The salary of a pension is based on the the final day of work and the base salary , nothing more , nothing less! So as the pension plan stands now , if a Police or Fireman retires from let's say Bolingbrook with their base salary of 85,000, 30 years if service , here's their pension! 30 years x 2.5 % for each year of service =75%, then take 75% x 85,000 = 63,750.00. They earned their pension w/o any doubt! Plus they don't collect social security.

Let's see, the maximum social security benefit, if a non-government worker works until age 67 or more (let's just use 40 years of work for this example) would be approximately $30,000 per year. SS is taken from a non-government worker's check without any opt out program. Let's just use the example of doubling that amount with another, approximately $6,200 (max social security contribution of a non-government worker's check), one could argue that the retiree, after 40 years could get to approximately $60,000 per year. So, for 40 years of work with greater than 12% salary paid into a 401K and social security it still doesn't add up to the government worker's pension after just 30 years of work. I would take the government pension any day. Reform is needed!!

So why do you people keep voting these thieves and bums back into office. I agree with you the little guy always gets the ax while the fat cat union leaders and politicians steal your income wealth and earnings. Vote these bums out of office or suffer the consequences (bankrupcy and maybe no pension at all).

Exactly right, Heidi. State employees have no choice. They must contribute to the State retirement system instead of Social Security.

Let's compare. The average private sector worker retires with a guaranteed pension of 0% (not 50-80%, like the public sector) of their final salary. After paying 12% total of their salaries (Not 6-9%)for 40-50 years (not 20-30 years) into social security, at a full retirement age of 67 (not 55 or 60 or 62) they will (if social security survives) receive payments averaging about $14,000 (not $40,000) and an absolute maximum of about $25,000 (not $100,000 plus). They can put their own money into 401ks but public employees can do the same thing with IRAs. Public sector pensions are so much more generous than private sector retirement options that public employees literally can't conceive of the difference -- or why they get no sympathy for their constant whining....

Juvenal, and you did not even mention the free medical insurance some receive. Those on medicare still pay a monthly fee and if you want better coverage you may purchase supplemental and RX which is a bit more then the 0 many pensioners pay. I pay 164 a month for supplemental, 38 for RX, and 99 for medicare.

Well said Heidi. Hope people like Jim R take the time to educate themselves reading your post.

Kerry,

I never said $43,000 wasn't great. And please don't misunderstand; I'm not asking for my pension to be increased. I don't know any state worker who is. We are just asking for what was promised.

Unfortunately many pension reform news articles focus on some exorbitant pension (someone who worked two weeks as an advisor to some state senator and gets a $200,000 pension). This is always the exception not the rule. But the those articles are always intended to cast every frontline state worker as a greedy S.O.B. laughing all the way to the bank while the tax payer stands there with his pockets turned inside out. It's time to look at who really turned those pockets inside out. Hint: it wasn't the state workers.

Heidi , i was promised many things during my career and it never happened. I worked for a company who went bankrupt 20 years and we all lost our pension.

Kerry, Thanks for putting the reality into this conversation. Public sector unions memebers just don't get what we have been through. They don't want to participate in the shared sacrifice we have been hearing about. They want others to pay their fair share, but not them.

And we have not even brought up medical care which many have it covered also with no payment unlike what we have with Medicare and supplemental and prescription plans if you want to make sure you have decent coverage which medicare does not supply, and Obama is trying to steal some of that.

Heidi,
"Q: But didn’t I read that the average teacher pension in Illinois is about $45,000 a year?

A: Yes. And though that’s more than three times the average annual Social Security benefit, it’s a misleading figure. It includes those who retired long ago and those who didn’t work full careers of at least 35 years, the period of service required to collect a full pension."

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2012/04/pension.html

Cities go bankrupt too. Goggle it and see how many there are and will be if this situation is not addressed fast.

The public sector unions are brainwashed with the bs that the private sector gets larger pensions than they do. . Its not true at all! Your friends pension is extremely rare. Those in the private sector DO NOT get large pensions if at all. Most today do not get pensions. By the way, i know a teacher who gets 95 grand a year RETIRED! My goal is to be a retired teacher.

Right-on Kerry!!! Public sector folks just DON'T understand what we have been through, and God forbid that someone would consider making any changes to THEIR pensions. There is zero equity here. The taxpayer loses their pensions, and are forced to continue funding the public pensions that were put in place during different economic times.

I agree with you so get involved by talking to your relatives, neighbors and friends. Join and participate in groups who are addressing these abuses. Run for office. It is no longer acceptable for people who care about their country, state and city to sit back and do nothing while Rome burns. There are many examples of one person changing the world. Be one of them and get involved. As a example I am walking for Joe Walsh today and he isn't even in my district.

I don’t complain but subscribe to the theory that all of us are created equal and should be treated the same.

One’s life choices are theirs and I feel no obligation to treat them better or worse than the tax paying citizen who has to foot the bill.

If SS is the standard for all non-government jobs then so also should it be for government employees including the military. If 67 is the retirement age with deducts for early retirement then ditto government employees. If anyone wants to buy 401ks with a slight boost from government (1 to 2% up to say 5k) no problem.

This current system of creating special classes of entitlements will bankrupt all of us and cannot stand.

Gerard, Very nicely put!! And these Senators and Congressmen with their special healthcare packages too!!!

Look up how much a military pension is in comparison to teacher, fire, police in Illinois... It is a LOT less.

I don't think they artificially bump up a military person's salary right at the end of their career either, just so they'd qualify for a bigger pension.

My point exactly. They should and be covered by the same provisions and not have a special pension as should the military, state and city employees including the school systems.

A big difference is the amount received on social security and the amount taxes. A public worker shows a disproportionate advantage here. I might be more sympathetic except the demands of many asking for more and more. Personally I think they should have fired all of the teachers who went on strike and cancel their pensions. You have those in the public sector still demanding more while the rest of us have our taxes raised.

I sure hope so - I hope your pension doesn't continue to increase and I would immediately vote to remove your right to strike. Retire at 55? - Not on my dime.

That's how you've been mislead. I'm in my 27th year and will still not be eligible to retire when I'm 55. The stories you've been fed are the minority.

That is right Terri - you need 30 years of service. Dont try and play smart with me - the fact that you took longer to get there isn't issue here but my comments still stand.

Again you are wrong, Jeff, it's 35 years. And full benefits (whatever they end up being) not reached until 43 years.

Oh yes, thankfully they recently changed that in your live, which isn't the govt norm. So you can retire at 60 with full pension benefits. I am sorry for you, I hope you and your family can recover. You can only get partial guaranteed payments if you settle early and if you retire at full retirement age you get full benefit, unlike everyone else in the privatized workforce.

Once again wrong, not a recent change, Jeff. It's what was in place 27 years ago, when I signed up. You need to get your facts straight and stop perpetuating the fallacies.

I noticed you left out details, because my facts are right. All you do is say that isnt true, but it is. I provide numbers, you provide that isnt true. Since you are in the program enlighten us.

So you can retire at 60? 27 years ago they made the age of claiming full pension at 60? This is news to me - guess I am dealing with a bunch of extortionists on different levels of the game. Can you demonstrate any factual evidence supporting that in a union 27 years ago the retirement age was set at 60?

You've already admitted to being wrong when you first stated it was 30 years, then oh yeah, now it's 35. So where's your credibility? It's based on years of service, not full pension at 60, as you are now twisting it to.

Thank you Terri - for having the guts to indirectly admit I was right.

"Lawmakers wanted to avoid legal battles or fights with unions, whose members can be influential voters. So they are allowing most public workers across the country to keep building up their pensions at the same rate as ever. The tens of thousands of workers now on Illinois’s payrolls, for instance, will still get to retire at 60 — and some will as young as 55. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/business/20pension.html?pagewanted=all

You can read more in the article if you want to become more upset. Retirement ages differ by different groups, but most do not have that option and pensions are typically much smaller if any in the private sector and many are fixed incomes with no future increases.

Somebody better realize this is a house of cards ready to fall apart.

They already have a section in the constitution saying you cannot decrease benefits. That item should be removed. Financial matters like this belong in contracts not the state constitution.

Taxes went up to pay for your job - without it you wouldn't have one so of course you support it.

Of course I hold politicians as part of the problem. Politicians have been pandering to unions forever to garner votes. It is their acquiescence to union demands that have us where we are. This is interesting, according to Chicago Tribune 6/13: "Organized labor is stronger in the public sector, with unions representing 37 percent of the government workforce.
And then there is Illinois. Try to find a state worker who isn't in a union. It's almost impossible. Nearly 96 percent of the state government workforce is unionized. Yes, almost everybody. Bosses, middle managers, front-line workers." Heidi, you are one of the few State workers that is NOT in a union.

I am not willing to shift blame onto to horrible government of Illiinois until you accept your extortion that you place on the taxpayers as illegal. From your comment you claim to provide services more valuable than I provide to my customers? I am paying for you - my taxes are mostly teacher pensions - on the order of $8K after taxes that I already pay a year. I pay 1/5th of my salary so that public employees can retire at 55 with guaranteed pension while I haven't had a raise in 4 years. Remember, I am paying for you, not the other way around. Your salaries sure do continue to go up largely because you exert legal extortion via striking and what I am proposing is to keep govt salaries in line with the private workforce that pays for those salaries. The reality is you nor your cronies would ever approve of that because you know deep down you are wrong.

Heidi, We probably are more on the same page than you may think. I believe that politicians are the root cause of our problems. Public sector employees work hard and deserve fair wages and pensions. My frustration is with the inequity between what has happened in the private sector and the what the public sector is given. The economy took a dive. Private sector employees had benefits and pensions and salaries "modified". I'm just saying that Public sector employees should be willing to accept what we private sector folks have already had to accept in order to keep our jobs. maybe peg pensions to an average of Fortune 500 companies, or use some other equitable formula.

Notbuying it...
Try being forced to do contract work because employers are no longer hiring permanent employees as execs found out that by hiring contract workers, they can eliminate benefits all together so they can pay themselves more. When I started my career 15 years ago, I used to have great benefits. About 10 years into it, they stopped hiring permanent employees and outsourced. First I had to compete with people living in third world nations for jobs as they could hire them on contract for a lot less than they would pay me. After a few years of that, they realized they had to hire me anyway to fix the mess created by foreign workers, but kept the outsourcing model so they didn't have to pay me benefits. I can't remember the last time I had a 401k or insurance plan. It's not just politicians but it is also corporate greed that saw your benefit decrease. While they pay you less, the executive rake in million dollar bonuses. The oligarchs are pitting us agaisnt each other by creating a state of fear and feeding people lies and mistruths to distract us from the real problems.Look at Jeff's comments here. He is fully immersed in it. He is lashing out at teachers, police, firefighters, and other public workers who are taxpayers just like the rest of us and is driven by fear and jealousy. We need to stop fighting each other and attack the problem where is resides. It with the politicians that are beholden to the rich and corporations. Lets focus on the oligarchy.

Unfortunately the fault lies with the politicians and workers who kept asking for more. We may as well call ourselves bankrupt since I do not know where they are going to get the money to pay for these debts. My focus is more on the high end and the low end. All because a person is a public worker does not mean they receive large pensions. But those that receive excessive pensions with medical coverage included need to have their pensions cut which is something our state congress and governor will not do, but we are passed the point where we can pay our way out of this.If thet do not rectify this matter, expect more people to leave this state and move to one with a bit more sanity. Illinois is seen as one of the worst stated in the country.

"CHICAGO, Aug 29 (Reuters) - Standard & Poor's Ratings Services on Wednesday downgraded Illinois' credit rating by one notch to A from A-plus, citing the state's large budget imbalance and an $83 billion unfunded pension liability.

The action affecting the state's general obligation bonds comes less than two weeks after a special Illinois legislative session on pension reform ended without a solution to rein in costs for the state's five pension funds."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/29/sp-cuts-illinois-bond-ra_n_1840052.html

There it is - the dont hate the player hate the game position. Dont divert from the core of my discussion (scope shifting). I am focused on the disparities between public sector workers and the private sector workers that pay for their living. Why dont you tell the CEO's to give up more money instead of extorting us to your bidding - why are you asking me? If you want us to help you retire early go ask the companies themselves since you think we should all just go do it. I want to see you respond to this directly, dont hide and shift. You hurt us when you strike and take money from us, not from corporations. If they are your enemy then lets line up, otherwise wise up and quit blowing smoke.

WOW! - you have no control over the government - you partake in black mailing - make no mistake. Look it up in a dictionary. You are guilty of it if you support it - no different than the mayor walking around taking people's money for the government. All I ask is that you accept wages that private people can afford, but you dont, you strike, then get more because people dont want their children standing on a street corner.

Jeff,
Before you accuse people of crimes, perhaps you should understand what you're talking about. Simply because you FEEL taken advantage of, does not mean that a criminal act occurred. Nor does it mean that you were actually taken advantage of.

Your sour grapes are showing.

The problem is the pensions they were promised are not affordable. There is no lock box with $200 Billion in it. For every dollar a state worker contributes to the pension fund, the state has to kick in $2. Find me a 401K play that matches 200%. Shame on the unions for asking for it, shame on the politicians for agreeing to it.

I agree that public employees should not have the right to strike. You need to realize that private sector employees can be fired if they strike.

Heidi, my comment from the beginning was not to remove pensions but bring them back to a more reasonable level and yes that would include some people retired already. For those receiving reasonable pensions nothing should be need be done. Where pensions go beyond a certain level they should be reviewed, and medical care should also be partially paid by the current and future retirees. The clowns in the state like Quinn and Madigan should be taken for task in not truely trying to resolve this issue. Just like Obama cannot buy our way out of the financial crisis we have, 2 more Democrats should realize we cannot do it in this state either. People should realize some of these people need to be voted out of office.

Jim R. You have hit the nail on the head. There should be a litmus test in place for current retirees. Heidi, you may find this unfair, but what do you say to those folks like Eric Roberts who have lost their pensions entirely?? Is that fair?? Double-dipping Police, Firemen, Pols all need to be "litmus tested".

But, the politicians promised more than they had to spend.
Take a look at openthebooks.com Illinois has retirees becoming millionaires in retirement while the state goes broke. Highest pension is over $400,000 per year as a retired professor. That is more than the president of the USA gets for a pension.

I was promised that if I sent a postcard to a fat guy with a beard, I would get all the toys I wanted delivered to my house on Christmas day. There is a basic appeal to the "I only want what I was promised" argument, but what state workers were promised was about as realistic as the promises made about Santa Claus. There is no serious proposal out there to eliminate benefits, so stop attacking a straw man you have constructed. What is not fair is that private sector workers who have already adapted to the brutal realities of the marketplace and learned to get by with much less will now need to pay yet again so a politically protected class of state workers can enjoy a retirement that the taxpayers can only dream of: kinda like how those high party officials in the USSR had special stores and luxury Dachas while the proles waited in lines and lived in tiny apartments so the political class could prosper....

Juvenal, these are not "promises," they are contractual obligations, a portion of these employee's compensation packages. Those private workers you refer are protected by Social Security, and so have a meaningful defined contribution floor to their retirement income. Illinois state employees are not a part of the Social Security system. They have no floor other than what their earned State of Illinois pensions provide.

Eric, I did understand what your point was, but you are a perfect example of how you were promised a pension, and then didn't get it. Okay, so State employees may have been promised their pensions, but guess what?? Illinois is broke, just like your company was. Your company couldn't pay your pension. Illinois can't pay it's pensions. I understand that Public sector folks WANT their pensions exactly as promised. Eric, you wanted your pension exactly as promised. I wanted my pension exactly as promised. But it didn't happen for you and it didnt happen for me. The Public sector folks don't care about what happened to us, they want theirs and by God, the taxpayers HAVE to pay for it. After all it was promised to them. The crazy thing is, most of the public sector folks and union types are democrats and they espouse the "fair share" mantra when it comes to taxes, but DON'T touch THEIR pensions!!!!

Yes there are other jobs, other than the ones they did. The issue is very simple, the state is broke so do not believe the nonsense some are saying or thinking an ammendment placing some limits on increasing benefits does anything since we cannot afford what we have already, so something has to give. My original statement was to go after the abusive pensioners and also to increase the age of retirement. Police and fireman are somewhat different but even there the retirement age needs to be increased and have them take on positions that someone else might have had before. I mentioned a few earlier. As far as some keeping there current duties, that would be changed and if they refuse a reduction in benefits may be a needed option. Unlike the federal government a state does not print money. You are placing the problem in the wrong area, since the problem is do not want to but rather we cannot afford to.Reducing high end pensions, anything over 6 figures is the first but then we will need to go now lower and review those with lesser pensions. About the only pensions I think should remain safe are those at $40,000 and less. Across the board, all pensioners will need to pick up part of the medical care premiums. Without some of these measures the rickety house of Madigan and Quinn will fall and no public worker will receive anything. Now the latter is something I consider unfair.

I voted NO on this amendment. It's politicians trying to worm their way out after using the pension boards as their own personal credit cards for years. Now the bill has come due and they don't want to pay.

A problem with this ammendment is that it does not belong in a state constitution, nor does the following?
"SECTION 5. PENSION AND RETIREMENT RIGHTS
Membership in any pension or retirement system of the
State, any unit of local government or school district, or
any agency or instrumentality thereof, shall be an
enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which
shall not be diminished or impaired.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)"
http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/conent.htm
As contracts are renewed it seems they should be able to reduce these contractual obligations, and a question remains as to whether a new contract is a starting point as to what is owed. Also have those who have stiked negated this obligation, and though I am not a lawyer a strike should be seen as an abandonment of responsibilities so nothing is in force and opens up for all changes.

What the heck does Obama have to do with this?

Who said anything about not paying an employee?
What I have been saying, as well as others, is that the contracts that stipulate out-of-control pensions that are not sustainable, need to be changed going forward. That means all pensions up to and including the day the reform goes into effect, will get their promised benefits. Any hires after that, will have to live under the new contract agreements(which would have SEVERELY reduced pension benefits paid for by the state, and more paid by the individual).

The longer this goes on, the worse the rift will be between those employees on each side. The newer employees will see the older employees as out for themselves, at the expense of those that come after them. The longer this goes unresolved, the worse that rift will finally be. In a worst case scenario, even current pension beneficiaries will see a reduction in their benefits. All done because the union has resisted any and all pension reform that would solve the problem once and for all. In the end, they are hurting themselves as well.

The purpose of a union was originally to distribute the wealth of a company to all involved more fairly, not just the owners. This is fine for the private sector, and needed. However, in the public sector, the 'owners of the company' are the rest of the public, including the employees. The purpose can not be to 'spread the profits' to all, because there are no 'profits', only expenses. And that's a problem.

Tim,
Out of control pensions are the exception, not the rule. Using the example of corrupt politicians as representative of all front-line public workers is ridiculous. In the 1990's municipalities got legislation passed that allowed them to greatly delay pension obligations. Now those bills are due. The crisis is a perfect storm of corrupt politicians allowing people into systems illegitimately, delayed payments because of legislation that municipalities got passed, raided pension fund payments diverted to other uses by the State, and a bad economy.

The system as intended and created was not unsustainable. It has been perverted.

Yes Tamarack, of course we think this to be unfair, and we feel robbed, and we think they are rat-finks. But you know what?? It happens anyway. When they are going broke, we are a casualty. Same for public employees I'm afraid. They CANT be held to a separate and special standard that leave them immune to the ups and downs of the economy. We can't have two classes of workers as was pointed out by Jim R. The Public sector workers can't be special. It's un-American.

Well, social security is just a law, and it can be rescinded at any time. Companies underfund their pensions and go bankrupt all the time, leaving the pension benefit guaranty fund to (sometimes) pay a portion of the benefits promised. IRAs and 401ks are subject to the whims of the market and often go down in the short to mid term. Those of us who live and work in the real world realized that long ago -- as Franklin once said the only things that are certain in this world is death and taxes. You state workers with your quaint notions of fairness, and your belief that somehow the fact that you work for government somehow immunizes you from the cold realities of the marketplace (and basic mathematics), amuse me greatly....

If we were stupid enough to request pensions as high as 80% and free medical care, while retiring as early as 50, my guess is plans should be made for the gravy train to stop. The workers were complicit in these demands through all of their strikes,

I agree. Great answer.

Unless you are employed as a police chief of Chicago Ridge. That police pension fund was at 44% and we all know what happened there.

Now this is what gets me angry. The point that you say about private sector pensions. It is simply not true that people in the private sector get bonuses and huge pensions. That is a union talking point as an attempt to mask the high pensions of govt employees,

You mean like the $400,000 pensions that public workers receive. Oh do you mean to say that is the exception similar to huge bonuses you mentioned.

Now let us return to a real discussion.

I worked for a company 25 years ago who had a pension for all employees. The company went bankrupt and all our pensions were gone. Welcome to the real world.

Tammarack, What you describe has been occuring in the "real world " for the last 30 yrs Thats the real world you have missed out on.

Yes, Tamarack, welcome to the real world. What you describe has been going on in the work place for at least 30 years! By your comments its obvious you have just experienced the real world for the last 5 years. No sympathy from me.

From your post here its evident you still dont work in the real world.

We are not the employers as we were never called to the negotiating tables to accept the demands of the unions made to the stupid and corrupt politicians. Let the politicians take from their own pay and pensions that they and the unions made.

Would have more sympathy other than the rediculous pensions negotiated. Many receive 80% of their salaries which are not low as many teachers have lied in their strikes. Medical coverage is something people on medicare would like to have.

Sorry we cannot support these negotiated agreements so either negotiate down or plan on the whole corrupt system collapsing and receive nothing. We are bankrupt, and when I look at my increased real estate tax on a devalues home and see pension funds as an item increased in my real estate tax, my blood boils. These workers and politicians took us as fools, well this is one fool ready to wash my hands of it and let the fund collapse since there is no more money in the piggy bank.

Madigan and Quinn treat us like idiots, so I guess we will need to find a new home for them outside of the public sector and cancel their benefits for not doing their job.

Jim R, Right-ON DUDE!! Tamarack must feel that since these buffoons and charlatans were elected by the voters, that we in fact have also voted for their ineptitude, their mis-management, their double-dealings, their give-aways... I mean seriously, just because they were voted into office, make BAD deals, that we should be made to sit back and accept them? It's NOT an agreement that most of us would make, but we need to be stuck with them even though they may be excessive just because the politicians (NOT THE VOTERS) promised this to them??? I wouldn't have a problem going to the polls every couple of years to vote on union contracts if that is what is required.

Since you put it that way, you're fired! Not my fault you need someone to manage your retirement for you because you can't do it yourself. Why would you count on the most corrupt state in the nation to manage your retirement? Want a piece of my mind? You knew what you where getting into when you took the job. You went to work every day counting the days until you could start collecting your fat retirement check, now you want everyone else to bail you out because the crooks you work for spent your pension? Boo frickin hoo. I manage my own retirement, nobody else pays for it but me, if i screw up, that's my problem, not yours. But somehow its my problem that your pension is gone, and you expect everyone in Illinois to pay for it? I don't think so.

It is a BAILOUT.

You left out that the two that are getting over $400,000/year are physicians and that most of those getting over $100,000 from TRS are administrators, not teachers.

Well said.

Yup!!

Interesting. Collective bargaining is coercion and bribery? Rhetoric appears to be overtaking reason.

Before insulting public workers and accusing them of crimes, perhaps you should have some RATIONAL basis for it..

No one ever spoke of pensions until the gov't underfunded them and now are having to increase disbursements to bring them back to proper levels. Cities and States that have properly funded their pensions are not in this situation. Why does no one ever question the amount of tax dollars spent on welfare and disability to the countless hoards that choose not to work and contribute to society? I would rather pay into a workers pension then pad someone's LINK card any day.

I.J. Even "properly" funded pension funds are probably paying the same out-of-touch from reality pensions to Public employees. Are you saying that just because there is money in the fund to pay them, that they are "justly" deserved and rightfully owed?? I'm sure there is the same level of overly-generous pensions being paid from that pool.

518: Go get a college degree. Then go get a masters degree. Then continue to take another 40 credits of masters level coursework. Then continue to attend conferences, conventions, and seminars in order to be seen as pursuing "professional development" so as to appease the public who see you as a free-loader despite you playing a vital role in keeping this barbaric society from eating itself.

Do all those things. Then come talk to me about how your low wages are not fair. Maybe you should have payed better attention in school rather than just coasting and figuring you'll just work with your uncle as a carpenter.

Tamarack - what is your proposal to fix the system? Sure, Illinois could double the tax rate to 10% and put half of all taxes collected towards funding the pension of the 5% of Illinois residents who are public workers.

Are you saying that is the "right" thing to do just because they were "promised" those pensions?

Spoken like one of the 5% getting the public pension, not the 95% paying for the public pension.

Yes, David, I am saying it is the right thing to do. And I pay the same taxes you do. Maybe more. Who knows? The state used the pension money for other things years ago so they wouldn't have to raise taxes. So guess what, they need to raise taxes now?

Never said that, you did.

Tamarack - of course you are willing to pay more taxes. Its easy for you to agree to 10% tax because you know that continues your guaranteed payday. Pay in now an extra couple percent and you will be getting it out on the back end - better that than nothing eh? The rest of us meanwhile are just paying extra taxes and will have to work till 70 instead of 67 so that you can retire early with guaranteed income. The reality is you rely on the private, working class for the majority of your benefit and they wont stand for it so now what are you going to do? There would be an immediate and significant mass exodus from Illinois of largely private tax paying citizens if the plan was to raise taxes digging your hole deeper. I would leave no questions asked, then who are you going to get to pay for your early, guaranteed retirement? The only people left will be government employees and government dependents - who will feed both of you? Greed will bankrupt Illinois just like it did GM - from union extortion to compensation/benefits packages that are not at all tied to market conditions. You are working for the same government that you claim mismanaged your money - so deal with it internally, dont make it my issue. Being a government employee I would think you would be in a better position to do something about it but perhaps you are all part of the same problem. I didn't mismanage your money and didn't promise you anything nor do I owe you jack. Good luck - you are going to need it.

There was nothing "fraudulent" about the pension system as it was conceived and written.

It has been perverted over time by corrupt politicians. The system has been sustainable for decades. The original system was not the problem. Nor were the innocent line-level employees you are so willing to falsely accuse.

'just following orders' has not been a valid excuse for quite some time, Ernie.

Each of those 'low-level' employees gets to vote for their union rep. Their union rep went to the table with a list of demands that were not sustainable. You can not increase salaries faster than the median salary of the area, and give end of career bumps which explode the actuarial tables into meaninglessness for decades, and then claim it is 'sustainable'.

This has been a problem that has been warned about for over 20 years. It is not suddenly a 'new' problem, simply based on when you started paying attention to it.

The boat to fix the problem with the minimum amount of pain has set sail decades ago. All that remains now, is to see how bad the damage is going to be for everyone(not just the employees). The longer they wait and try to avoid any and all pain to themselves, the worse it will be. For them, and everyone.

At some point, they have to be responsible for their own actions... 'But look what they did, its their fault' is also not a valid argument. All it does is show that you are unable to resolve it, regardless of who is to blame. Nothing about that is professional, and nothing about that deserves 'respect'. Teachers, courthouse workers, township, county boards, ALL of them are to blame, yet the only thing they can do is point fingers. Contrary to their self-inflated claims, these are not the 'best and the brightest' that we were told these benefits would bring.

Tamarack - I think there are options. The middle ground is pension reform. Lower or eliminate the COLA, raise the retire age, have public workers contribute more, roll public workers into 401K style plans, set limits on retirement benefits, eliminate abuse, prevent further pension sweetening, ...

The problem is that all of these reduce the payouts to pension getters, and the public unions oppose them. Sooner or later, the public unions will come to the conclusion that reduced benefits beats no benefits (basically, the state will claim bankruptcy and default on ALL pensions).

Don't think that state bankrupcy is that far fetched. The unfunded pension liabiltiy will continue to grow. It is already so high ($200 Billion) that there is 0% chance that Illinois will find or raise that kind of money. If there is no money to pay pensions, what will happen? Some projections have that happening as early as 2018. TRS is in the worst shape and will go broke first.

"Honor your obligations" - good in principle. What happens if that is not possible? Like if you work for minimum wage and have $300,000 in credit card debt and can't make the minimum payments. You want to pay them, but it is not possible? That is the situation the state is in.

I am not in a union. I pay a boatload of taxes. If the state had funded the pension the fund would have more than enough money because it has done remarkably well with its investments. Let me say that again. If the state had paid their share, the pension would have all the money it needs. I AM THE ONE WHO HAS BEEN MUGGED.

The TRS union sets the 'expected' rate of return on its investments, when it doesn't meet those goals, the state is on the hook to make up the difference. The TRS currently sets its 'expected' rate of return at ~8%. Would you like to take a guess what the actual rate of return was?
0.7%
That mean YOU get to make up the difference for their bad investment choices. all 7.3% of them.
And no, they have not done 'remarkably well' with their investments. The 5yr avg is 4.1%, and the 10yr avg is 6%.
Even in its BEST years, the union on average, has NEVER paid its fair share.
http://illinoispolicy.org/blog/blog.asp?ArticleSource=5186
For comparison, the S&P500 had a return of 7.4%

While the state didn't pay ALL of its obligations, the reasons are actually a little more nuanced than that. You see, the teachers union(the ones griping right now) have been lobbying the state to divert money from the pension fund, and instead pay it out each year in the form of increased funding to individual districts that they can do whatever they want with. So while the state didn't pay into the fund, they did exactly what the union(who are the majority of the members on the TRS board) asked them to do. Now, they are complaining about it? The teachers union honestly thinks you haven't been paying attention over the past few decades, and thinks they can get away with it. Guess what... from the comments here, they are right.

Actually ,I am the one who got mugged. My taxes will be raised to cover the high life that a govt pension brings. My bet is that when Madigan raises taxes to cover the employee pensions, the checks will be sent out of state as the retirees will not want to pay the higher taxes.

Tamarack it wouldn't be a theft , but a civil matter as it is part of a contractual agreement.

Defined benefit plans aren't investments. People like Tamarack will demand the full amount "promised" even when it is two or three times what the contributions and investment earnings are worth...

By the way, in your comparison its not theft. The bank will simply repo the car. The taxpayers should repo the pensions and give whats left back to the taxpayers.

Bad example. It's actually not theft.

Car loans are always secured with the title of the car. You don't really own the title to the car until the loan is paid off in full. If you don't pay the car dealer just takes back the car (because it still, actually, belongs to the title holder). The dealer reports the repo to the credit reporting agencies and your credit score takes a hit.

But, it is never treated as theft.

No. SURS is actually the worst of all of them.
Barclays capital(an independent auditor) has shown that this fund will be the first to become bankrupt, in barely 10 years.
"we estimate that the Illinois SURS would be the first Illinois pension plan to go insolvent, in the mid-2020s"
http://www.nasra.org/resources/barclays1105.pdf

The report is 51 pages. Please read it. You are not going to even begin to get a handle on what is going on if you restrict your exposure to these issues to 1-sheet pamphlets.

<<Oh, and the average SURS pension is $29,000. Isn't that more or less commensurate with Social Security?>> Uh, no, its twice the average social security payout of $14,xxxx. SURS also includes part time and adjunct staff. The average current numbers look low because people currently receiving benefits include 80 and 90 year olds who left the workplace decades ago. The more interesting question is what the average new retiree is looking at; I think someone said that was around $45k for teachers.....

As a taxpayer, i feel robbed by the high public salaries and pensions.

Couldn't agree more - and you can tell by the attitudes of government workers posting on here that they will push it that far which is probably the best resolution for everyone. They want what was "owed" by back door deals between unions and the politicians they themselves banded together to elect. The fact is the unions take what they think they are owed regardless of what is going on elsewhere via extortion. Amazing, government workers and unions blaming the government for mismanaging their pensions and to solve the issue are pointing the finger at the taxpayer. If they increase taxes again it will result in a mass exodus of tax paying citizens from Illinois

Just about every industry he bailed out went bankrupt.

The Chief is violating no Downstate pension laws and he will prevail and will be able to collect his pension and his Police Chief salary at the same time! The Chief is an appointed and a contractual position and the Chief is not part of the Naperville Police pension fund, but a plan for Illinois Police Chiefs. Two seperate plans , no problems.

Pro Lifer...you missed the point. No one, not anyone from the Union management or anyone from the membership, no one checked to see that the promised and contracted funds were being paid over as agreed....for years! Where the helll was the leadership years ago? Now we have a lot of crying about monies that aren't there for one reason or another. To your point about my district and others not paying...I think that is papently false. But IF it were true, my same question comes into play...who was looking out for the folks to see that agreements were being met? Apparently nobody! How does that become the taxpayers fault to make good on?

Edward you have no clue about pension plans. It was clearly the responsibility of the Town or Cities to place taxes collected into the plans, but neglected to do so and now they are on the hook to make up the difference . Also they borrowed against the plans and failed to put the money back. Watch your taxes go up now. Plus it's up to the Illinois Dept. of Insurance to enforce that Towns/Cities are placing money into the funds.

Public unions are a scourge and have no place in America. Illinois will go backrupt or reduce benefits because if they decide to implement a tax increase significant enough to actually resolve the issue they will lose many private, working class, tax paying individuals that will choose to take their services to other states. This will do nothing but make the following occur earlier:

"Illinois provides a perfect model of all the things that can go wrong with a state-run pension system; it has a paltry 43.4 percent funding status, the lowest in the country. It's also borrowed some $7.2 billion to make up some of the missing finances, and is using borrowed funds future-financed to 2019 to fund the program, rather than using current contributions."

"Without some type of reform that reduces costs going forward, the systems appear destined for insolvency," the task force's report states. "The culture of budget gimmickry and short-sightedness pushes costs off to the future, but eventually that will be impossible - retirees may lose their pensions as funds dwindle."

Have fun.

As usual the parasites have literally killed the goose that laid the golden eggs and now are willing to take down the cities and state (Bankruptcy) rather than be reasonable, fair and equitable to the rest of the tax payers.

Greed always comes before the fall. Keep dreaming my friend as businesses and home owners leave the state there will only be you and your ilk left to fend for yourselves. Look to Detroit to see what happens.

I would really like you to furnish proof of your statement that the towns and villages are somehow responsible for this mess. I don't think you have any facts to back that up.

Yeah, Gerard except the parasites are the corrupt politicians, not the line level public employees

Municipalities in the '90s lobbied for and got passed legislation that allowed them to greatly DELAY payments into pension funds. That required a ramped up schedule of payment. Now that those payments are due, they are claiming the system is unsustainable.

The system was NOT unsustainable until corrupt politicians abused it.

Fun fact:
That was a single 'sentence'.

Hey Butch, ever take an English class?

PLC, That's just ridiculous... Those are good paying jobs, and people will take them, pension or no pension....

Yes good paying , but not great and you don't get rich from the job. Just anyone wouldn't take a the job, due to the hours and dangers of the job.

Butch, punctuation is the least of our problems in trying to understand the rants.

Lets see - the start of the great recession where employers began large scale layoffs, salary freezes, salary cuts for private workers. The housing market crashed causing many on paper to lose significant portions of equity in the values of their homes (savings for those of us who dont have the tax payer to pay for our retirement). 401Ks diminished because of the turn of the stock market causing many to delay retirement even further or take on an additional job, that is if they could find one. Unemployment spiked to high level since the 80s and many people today still struggle to find employment.

Meanwhile government workers and union members continue to benefit from the taxpayer and insist they be paid what they are owed. Mandatory salary increases, guaranteed retirement earlier than the vast majority of private workers footing the bill. Taxes continue to increase even given the aforementioned turn of the events with a 67% "temporary" income tax increase to fund penions with record high unemployment and some of the highest unemployment in the country. Unions then begin striking demanding 20-30%+ salary increases over the next few years while many in the private sector are making less than they were 5 years ago.

Please repeat, who is selfish?

You are wrong. You just did not pay attention.

Tolerating an income tax hike is certainly more tolerable when you realize it is directly related to your ability to retire early with guaranteed income that is equivalent to what many private sector workers actually make annually. What you put in you get out on the back end not to mention the employment protections many are offered that do not apply to any of us in the private sector. How many private sector jobs were lost vs. union and government? I would bet my home there is a significant disparity here. How many private sector folks needed to come out of retirement because their 401K dropped vs. pensioners? This is the primary source of retirement income for private workers unlike the supplemental income it offers to pensioners - it is also not guaranteed. In the end all this means is putting off retirement even longer, providing less to their families, etc. The income tax increase allows you to keep your pension, what does it allow the average private worker to do? You still fail to recognize that your pension is something the majority of us do not have and you are not entitled to it - you do nothing the rest of us do not do day in and day out and in many cases you do less. The costs of these plans put undue burden on the private, working class individuals. Insulting me is your protection against the lack of a platform to stand on in this debate but if you ever want to compare IQ's I am always available.

THIS THREAD IS FOR CITIZENS UNITED FASCIST THINKERS

Notice I said many and not all - this was by design, nice try though. If you put your life on the line like military, police or fire I believe certain concessions can and should be made for that sacrifice and the risk. I believe that is why Scott Walker did what he did in Wisconsin and I think most private working class individuals would agree with that approach. Military aside as that is a different animal, Fire and Police are a very, very small component of this public pension debacle. An city/state accountant, a park manager, a teacher, etc. do not deserve nor are the entitled to the same treatment. I would also add that depending on your location (South Side of Chicago vs. Oakbrook) I believe more equitable annual compensation would also work instead of a pension package if funds were tight and communities couldn't afford pension arrangements. If you offer me 100K to be a cop in Oakbrook with no pension just show me where to sign. The government spends money like its someone elses and not their own and that is the problem - each dollar should be respected and intelligent compensation packages implemented across the board.

ag in the case of a pension for a Police or Fireman , when they die the wife still collects the full pension unless she remarries.

Private companies that can make ends meet have every right to offer pensions to their employees if they choose. If they stay profitable more power to them but if they dont, well, they go bankrupt, have to let people go and have to eliminate the plans because they are not financially viable. Much different than the public pensions system we are faced with where they just go out and take more money that doesn't belong to them.

Many cannot retire on 401Ks even at 67 which still is a much later retirement than most all pensioners. My parents were just told they would run out of money at 85 after both having life long careers in the medical field. I guess I would rather not place the burden of having to care for me financially while I am alive on my children than leaving them with something when I am dead. Of course my chidlren will get my assets (home, etc.) and nothing is stopping any public employee from contribution to an IRA last time I checked or any other tax deferred savings plan if they are concerned about how much they will be leaving their children.

Guess what, Social Security, which pays out a small fraction of what a pension pays out, ends when you die as well. They will actually adjust the benefits of Social Security to keep the program from going bankrupt, what do they do if they cannot meet pension payouts? Most of us do not count on Social Security either - there are no guarantees.

Trying to act intelligent and insult others isn't a game your good at.

The more you comment, the worse it gets. Proof positive it isn't necessarily the best and brightest among us collecting pensions but rather the opposite which just adds fuel to the fire.

CONTINUATION- There are desk jobs and community assignments and other government jobs that can be performed at a later age which should be done by older policeman and fireman and not new hires outside of these fields. Pensioners will not like this change, but they must keep in mind that taxpayers are picking up a burden they can no longer afford. Without such changes there will be a bankruptcy and nobody will win. Future workers may be taken from less qualified workers after a bankrupcy at much lower salaries and possibly no pensions.

All need to agree that the first step is to get rid of much of our government that has helped to make this mess. Getting rid of Madigan and Quinn would be a good start by voting them out of office or setting up a recall procedure.

Pro Life Crusader +
There are many more jobs in police work that an older policeman can perform than an older fireman. There are traffice patrol on foot and a car. They can still patrol neighborhoods and do not need to run after a suspect and they can perform investigations and do more of the paper work for other officers. It is easier for a 60 year old policeman to keep a criminal at bay then it is for a firemen to keep a fire at bay with a firehose. But even here I provided a qualifier "...earliest retirement should be 55 and police 60 without a penalty if there is no other work they can be assigned."

Jim R what you fail to see is that the Towns/Cities would then have to create more positions at a cost to the tax payeers and on top of that hire more Police to fill the street patrol left vacant by putting the older officers into other positions. Sorry from my experience your plan would not work.

Yes I did consider that issue which why I said:
"There are desk jobs and community assignments and other government jobs that can be performed at a later age which should be done by older policeman and fireman and not new hires outside of these fields." The idea is these positions would be replaced by current workers and replacing others. Additionally I was referring to those who would have retired and replaced anyway.

Jim R it still wouldn't work and isn't cost effective. Towns/Cities encourage the older Police/Fire to retire early to save money. They want to get rid of the higher salaries and hire new with the lower base salary which takes years to top out. Plus Town/Cities are all trimming desk jobs and inside positions to keep more men on the street.

To make the math simple given your comparison of SS vs. Pension, assuming someone working in the private workforce makes 100K and they pay 5% into Social Security (actually more like 6%+) they would receive in 2012 if they retired approximately 10K annually. Take the same 100K as a teacher and they contribute 10% of their salary into their pension plan - the payout for retirees averages 65K annually (as of 2010 - not sure what it is today - source illinoispolicy.org) subsidized by the tax payer. If private workforce individuals were asked to pay 10% into social security and assuming the benefit went up commensurately they could expect to collect a maximum of 20K annually. Do not compare SS to your pension because they are not even close to being comparable in terms of benefit - SS only pays out what it takes in vs. pension which pays out more than it takes in and if it cannot make that payment they take make more to pay for it.

Lastly, your comment about teachers are not responsible for the actions of the union – seriously? Look at the strikes and all the teachers standing around talking about the children when what they really want is more money, more benefit, less performance measures. Do they not take a vote on striking or does the union rep just decide to do what he/she wants to do? Do teachers not elect union delegates? Teachers are the system and if they were as idealistic as you say they would be more concerned with doing what is right vs. trying to get more.

The actual SS contribution for a private worker is 10.4 % (and is usually 12.4% exept the last two years) because the employer is required to pay another 6.2% of your salary that you never see. Local school districts pay less than 1% into TRS for their employees, so these dumbass school boards can overpay their teachers without feeling the costs of the pensions -- trying to fix this doomed pension reform earlier this year because of course property taxes will go up when schools have to behave like every other employer. No one blames teachers but the teachers unions are so unyielding when it comes to any solution to the pension crisis (other than "raise taxes so we get ours") that they make the tea party look as accomodating as neville Chamberlain. Their solution will never work, you could never raise IL taxes enough to pay all these pensions because as the business climate here worsens and taxes skyrocket all the jobs and people will flee to other states, so the tax base will shrink so fast you could never make it up with higher rates and fees, which only promote more flight, etc....

"4. Teachers also pay local property taxes just like everyone else. [What I think many of you SHOULD be discussing is whether or not teachers make enough money to LIVE in the school districts they work in. "
This is true of many of us and really has no relevance. Teachers in some areas are living at a much higher life style in some areas they teach also, but would you hold that relevant.

"5. There is ONE MAJOR difference between teachers and those who work in the private sector. In business, your boss is NOT your customers. "
I do not see this as relevant as a person's boss may be just as capricious as you suggest, but being out of the public sector there is even fewer options for the employee since going to the public does not have much affect.

Regarding property taxes - yes we all pay property taxes. Assume I pay $8000 in property taxes, you pay $8000 in property taxes and they continue going up like they have been. When I retire I am out $8K annually for the duration I live here (20yrs - $160K), when you retire the net result might be that you paid nothing since such a large portion applies to pensions. You get this money back, its like an investment account for you while it is a hardship for the rest of us.

I don't think it's fair calling this a "conservative attack on teacher pensions". The system has blown up and in Illinois liberals and conservatives are coming to the same conclusions.

You're right that the state did not contribute for several years. They took a "pension holiday". The unions. for some reason, signed off on this. Even if they had not taken that holiday, there would be a problem (albeit a smaller one.) The contributions that both parties paid into the system over the past 40 years were not sufficient to fund payouts. Actuaries typically decide how much needs to be contributed to a pension to keep it going. Instead of letting actuaries decide in Illinois, politicians just dreamed up a percentage to contribute. It was not nearly enough.