Probably no one but those on a state or teachers’ pension know or even care about the details, but House Speaker Mike Madigan finally stepped up to the plate Thursday and hit his ball out of the park.
Of course, those who have watched Madigan over the years know that the pension problem is only a problem because he agreed to pension sweeteners and diversions over the years he has been in the House of Representatives.
In any event, the legislation is billed as the way to put the State of Illinois house in order, so let’s see who voted how.
The House roll call on Mike Madigan’s pension reform bill.
Representatives with a part of McHenry County voting in favor of the bill were
- Jack Franks
- Dave McSweeney
- Tim Schmitz
- Barb Wheeler
The lone vote “No” was cast by
- Mike Tryon
This bill makes the pension problem worse by adding a funding guarantee.
The funding guarantee states the pension funds can legally, through the court system, require the state of
Illinois to make its annual pension contribution.
Unless you know Illinois pension history, you would think of course the State of Illinois should make its annual payment to the pension funds.
But if you know Illinois pension history, you know the addition of the “benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired” clause to the Illinois State Constitution precipitated 40 years of pension hiking legislation that got us into this mess.
In 1970 the following sentence was added to the Illinois State Constitution.
“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.”
That opened the pension hiking floodgates.
Pension benefits can’t be reduced?
No.
But pension benefits can be increased?
Yes.
And once increased, pension benefits can’t be decreased?
You got it, pensions can go up but not down.
Who is eligible for increased pension benefits?
Teachers, university professors, administrators of teachers and university professors, state workers, state lawmakers, and judges.
What do they have to offer state lawmakers in return for bigger pensions?
Lots of campaign contributions and votes from public sector unions, and judges have a say so in any legal challenges.
Say what?
Campaign contributions and votes in exchange for pension hiking legislation.
And that is exactly what happened in 38 of the next 40 years from 1971 – 2011.
Four DECADES of legislation to increase pension benefits.
The benefit increases resulted in ever larger starting pensions which result in ever larger pension
contributions from the State.
Is it any wonder the State of Illinois can’t make its required contribution to the pension fund?
So the cause of the problem was the “benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired” that was added to the State Constitution, followed by 38 years of pension hiking laws.
And now the solution is yet another law to force the State to pay the Pension Funds for 38 years of pension hiking laws.
The funding guarantee will be a bigger disaster than the “benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired” sentence that was added to the State Constitution.