It seems I misunderstand the chart I got from Illinois House Republicans
CPA Michael Laird looked at how I described the numbers and figured out that what I put up was teachers’ salaries, not the amount required to pay for their pensions.
So look at his revised numbers, which amount to $69 a year for school districts covering McHenry County.
That’s right, every year.
Click to enlarge these projected additional annual payments that property taxpayers will have to pick up if Democrats get their wish to push pension payments down to the local level.
“That is the expected annual employer contribution assuming the full burden is transferred to local districts,” Laird writes.
“It is a best guess based on the state’s purported contribution,” he continued.
“Logically speaking, the state claims to put in about 25%. Keep in mind this is for all certified employees including administrators. This total represent thousands of employees. For most districts, it will amount to 10-15% of their annual budgets.
“On a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being the most correct way to design and maintain a government pension, the state’s score for how it established and maintained TRS should be a negative 22.
“It is my understanding the the original expectation was that the state would contribute around 10%, effectively a match to the combined employee/district contribution.
“Underfunding/nonfunding of the state’s share, mismanagement, reasonable market wide investments losses, increased life expectancies, and (to a lesser degree as I understand it) abuses like salary spiking have increased the proportion required over the decades.”
I aksed the TRS spokesman Dave Urbanek if his agency had numbers and got this response:
“TRS is not doing any calculations at this time regarding the shift in employer normal cost or the effects of no state contribution for TRIP. We have not seen either proposal in bill form. There are a number of different ways that these ‘shifts’ could be implemented and we will wait until the language is more firm before estimates are calculated.”
Finally, a voice of logic and reason chimes in with reality instead of a “sky is falling” posting.
Thanks Mr Laird for decrypting how such a move would impact local budgets.
I doubt that the elected folks in Springfield even know how drastic an impact this would have on schools.
I’m not a supporter of politicians (party is irrelevant) offloading things from their plates in this manner and then calling that a solution.
It just goes to show that very few politicians fall in the category of “best and brightest” leaders.
Sadly politics is where mudslinging and negativity overshadows quality and qualifications.
I take issue with the fact the public is often led to believe that the employees are truly all paying in 9.4% of their own money into TRS. If they negotiate their contracts and the district board agrees to cover it (pay the employee’s “required” portion) – the public is way past being taken advantage of. That’s a polite way of saying it.
Here’s an idea – do away with employer pensions in govt. just as so many private companies have done for many years now. Let the educators save us their own money and invest it in a 401K….and no that doesn’t mean giving them an extra raise each year to cover it.
Most in Springfield know the impact on local budgets.
Legislators have called out suburban school boards for providing such large salary increases, and the school boards instead of acknowledging this fact just place the blame on the State of IL for not making its pension payment.
The pension plans say they are simply following the law.
It’s all legal…legal corruption.
The sky is falling and it’s because the public sector unions are simply too powerful, there is no political force that can match their campaign contribution and votes.
The sky is falling because people pay more attention to sports stars and celebrities than politics.
Now we have three Democrats (Quinn, Cullerton, Madigan) living in Chicago city limits and controlling the top 3 elected offices in the state (Governor, Senate, House) with the ever present public sector unions breathing down their necks with lots of campaign contributions and votes to preserve their pensions and benefits.
So retired private sector taxpayers get to skimp by with social security and 401K’s while funding the much richer and sometimes lavish pensions and benefits of public sector employees.
The employees are not the problem it’s the unions.
What employee is going to turn down an offer for a salary or benefit increase?
TRS is in cahoots with the IEA and IFT.
If TRS was objective they could have done much more for decades to clearly explain what Mike Laird has done above, and what others have been trying to point out for decades, instead of the lame answer that Dave Urbanek gives above.
Well in Dave’s defense if he was to clearly expose the truth he would be fired, his title should really be IEA/IFT/TRS Salesman.
Teacher pensions will be scaled back, but taxpayers and students are going to feel the pain much more than the teachers.
The union will do whatever it takes to keep their dues revenue coming in.
The younger you are, the more you will feel the pain.
And we haven’t even begun discussing the tax increases that are coming due to the kick the can (refinance to extend debt repayment thereby keeping current payment the same) and stair step (the bond/interest payments increases for most public sector bonds in IL increase each year, unlike a mortgage) and type (negotiated not bid) fashion in which public sector bonds are repaid and issued.
School public sector finance is thus another looming disaster.
And how about the state subsidy for TRIP insurance so teachers can retire early with healthcare, now Quinn is trying to scale that back and the unions are of course protesting.
Does the private sector get state subsidies for early retirement healthcare insurance?
And yes there is a component of TRIP that is not early retirement…surely some teacher or union employee will point that out.
Does it ever end?
These public sector unions scheme 220 days a year on how to extract revenue from taxpayers, while making it as difficult as possible for taxpayers to identify and understand those benefits.