Here is an explanation from State Senator Dan Duffy of his vote against the recently passed and signed pension bill:
Some of you have asked me why I did not support the pension reform bill so I thought I would send out this email.
The media is oversimplifying the reasons why some Republicans voted against the pension reform bill and they are not reporting on any of the critical details.
Local papers, especially the Daily Herald, seem to be only printing the high level talking points from Speaker Mike Madigan’s office.
I thoroughly explained my reasons for voting against the bill on the senate floor during debate. I have voted for every pension reform bill in the past and have fought for substantial pension reforms since the day I took office. As a small business owner for the past 20 years, I evaluate every bill as a business owner and look for common sense logic. This pension bill, SB01, does not add up. Here are some of the reasons why I voted against the bill.
- This bill was not transparent. It was designed and drafted by legislative leaders behind closed doors. Legislators received the 325 page bill on Monday afternoon (12/2/13) and were forced to vote on it on Tuesday afternoon (12/3/13). We never had a chance to analyze the bill. It reminded me of Obamacare. We were supposed to, “Pass the bill to see what was in it.”
- Of the roughly $160 billion plan, only $92 billion are projected to be actual savings. Of that actual savings, 60-70% will not be realized until 2040-2045 IF we keep a balanced budget and “live within our means” until then. The State has NOT balanced a budget in years and we have not come even close to living within our means. It will never happen; therefore the savings will never occur. Speaker Mike Madigan’s outside source came up with the total savings figures and it has NEVER been confirmed by COGFA (Commission on Government Forecasting & Accountability) or any other government agency that would be held accountable for the figure.
- This bill guarantees pensions will take top priority and be paid first – before other essential state services. Since we do not have the money to make these payments, and due to the fact that the legislative leaders REFUSE to cut any wasteful spending, that means they will INCREASE TAXES to adhere to this new law. The bill gives the majority party a reason, dictated by statute, to raise our taxes – again.
- Only 10% of the projected savings are allocated to paying down future pension debt and 90% of savings are available to spend on other items. If the whole point of this bill is to solve our “unfunded pension liability,” shouldn’t those numbers be reversed? Shouldn’t 90% of savings be allocated towards paying down future pension payments and 10% available for other items?
- About $1.2 billion dollars will be available for Governor Quinn to spend. Why would we give our current governor over $1 billion dollars to spend at election time? He will be using this money as his own personal campaign fund. While we are broke, the governor will be giving away money and cutting ribbons on a weekly basis.
- Governor Quinn will submit his new budget in February. He will now use these unsubstantiated numbers to increase his spending even though we have not received the money yet. This legislation will be tied up in the courts for the unforeseen future. This will put us even further in debt.
- Legislative leaders and editorial boards have said the bill is “very similar” to Speaker Madigan’s previous pension reform bill. Many of these comments were based on Speaker Madigan’s own press releases. If that is the case, why was the bill re-drafted, what took so long to make all the changes, and why are there at least 100 new pages in the bill?
These are just some of the questions I have about the bill.
Dan Duffy
I have a whole list of problems I found with the bill while analyzing it for the brief 24 hours I had before the vote.
It is full of bad language, loopholes and problems that set us up for future tax increases.
This is a bad bill for the State of Illinois and is not how we should reform pensions.
Madigan orchestrated the whole deal and it was passed in typical Madigan fashion.
Madigan has done this to us before – and he is doing it again.
My job is not to make Speaker Mike Madigan’s life easy and follow his direct orders.
My role is to fight for the people of Illinois, ask the tough questions, and not get pressured into supporting critical bills like this until they are fully vetted.
I appreciate your input. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions.
duffy’s email address is Dan@SenatorDuffy.com.
Thank you Senator Duffy for using clear-headed logic and reason to justify your vote. I stand with you in your opposition to this joke called “legislation”.
Well if there was ever a good article to repost this has to be it.
Teachers and Administrators retiring now are recouping their lifetime pension contributions in 1 – 3 years, thanks to legislative benefit hikes, teacher union collective bargaining perks and salary hikes, and administrator contract perks and salary hikes.
No private employer offers anything close to the employee contribution:pension payout ROI of a TRS teacher/administrator pension.
TRS is in shambles.
The salaries and benefits have skyrocketed when comparing the beginning of at teacher/administrator career to the end of their career.
Like comparing a Yugo to a Hummer.
Have teacher unions been telling the public about the legislative benefit hikes and collective bargaining perks over the last 40 years?
Have State Reps, State Senators, and Governors been telling the public about the legislative benefit hikes over the last 40
Years?
Has the press been telling the public about the legislative benefit hikes the last 40 years?
Have school administrators (Superintendents, Asst Superintendents, Principals, etc. been telling the public about the perks in their contracts over the last 40 years?
Has the press been reporting any of this?
No. No. No. No. No.
Taxpayers, Bill Zettler is your best friend.
Read all 300 pages in Illinois Pension Scam.
Teachers and Administrators should read it too, because apparently they don’t know all the facts, as we keep hearing the same old story, the State didn’t make it’s contribution.
Well the Legislature, thru pension legislation, and local school boards, thru collective bargaining agreements and administrator contracts, caused the State pension payment to Soar.
Jim Edgar signed a law in the mid 90’s that listed the state payment each year for the next 50 years or so.
It’s commonly known as the Edgar ramp.
The State has exceed payments according to the Edgar ramp.
Why is the State then so short on its contributions to the TRS pension fund?
A few reasons.
Yes Governors such as Blago shorted or skipped (pension holiday) the required contribution in some years.
But as we learned above, even with the shorted or skipped payments, the State still contributed more than the Edgar ramp called for.
The biggest reasons the state is short on its contributions is because the contributions were made unaffordable.
Legislative pension benefit hikes escalated starting 1971, the year after one fatal sentence was added to the Illinois
State Constitution, which the unions and administrators and legislators interpreted to mean while there is no limit, no ceiling, to legislative pension benefit hikes, collective bargaining salary hikes and perks, administrator contract salary hikes and perks; once the individual has then put in the work to receive those hikes, the hikes can’t reduced.
Compare that to Social Security.
Social Security benefits can be reduced after “earned.”
There’s 300 more pages of this stuff in the Zettler book.
Let’s comment on each of Duffy’s points.
1. Amount of time legislators and public had to read the bill before a vote was called.
325 pages in 24 hours.
Ludicrous.
There obviously needs to be a State law requiring x number of days for legislators to contemplate x number of pages of
legislation.
For example, what’s reasonable, 25 pages per day?
50 pages per day seems a stretch.
I supposed you would have to put an average number of words per page or someone would put the legislation in 8 point font to beat the system.
It should be ILLEGAL for legislators to be asked to read a 325 page bill and vote on it in 24 hours.
Obviously the public is not being served by such a system.
Because the public also does not have enough time to read, consider, research, and provide feedback to the legislators.
2. Projected savings.
They savings backloaded, a common them in Illinois State pensions “reforms.”
The savings could very well be unrealistic.
We have seen both in the Edgar Ramp, a previous pension reform in the mid 90’s.
3. Funding guarantee – guarantee the State will make its pension contribution.
Social Security does not have a funding guarantee.
Guaranteed funding for legislative benefit hikes over the last 40 years.
Guaranteed funding for local school board salary hikes and perks with teacher unions via collective bargaining agreements over the last 40 years.
Guaranteed funding for local school board salary hikes and perks with administrators.
4. How will the savings resulting from this bill be used?
First of all, if this law survives the inevitable Illinois Supreme Court Challenge by unions and/or administrators and/or retirees, it will be very interesting to analyze the savings.
Who makes the savings calculation and what numbers will be used – Actual, Budgeted, Forecasted, etc.
What is the official savings formula?
5. Money for Quinn to spend in a pension bill?
What’s the purpose of the bill?
6. Numbers in this bill will be used in Quinn’s budget.
That does sound plausible and like another budget gimmick.
7. The 325 page bill is similar to the previous 225 page bill.
That’s pretty funny.
Another one liner for a late night talk show host.
What’s in the extra 100 pages?
Where’s the change document?
Agree with all those comments. Conservatives are absolutely right to be outraged by this bill.
But….
With so few Republicans in the House and Senate, the conservative side basically has no political power.
None.
Zero.
We can jump up and down, and complain, and argue our philosophic positions; and we’d be accurate.
But, the way the power is presently set up in Springfield, we might as well just moan about it at the tavern.
That would be just as effective.
This bill, frankly, was the best we could get.
Puke….but get over it and elect Republicans.
Re: “but get over it and elect Republicans.”
Before you elect those Republicans please ensure he / she will not Bohner or Paul Ryan you!
Talk about not reading the bill!
The House members had less than forty eight hours to devour the Budget bill.
One guy who tried to warn fellow Republicans about the disaster of a budget bill got fired!!!
The answer is not just Republicans – the answer is to elect honest red blooded Americans who have some balls – male and female!!
Bill Zettler of Champion News has a new article today analyzing the SB 1 / Public Act 98-0599 (PA 98-599) Pension Reform that Governor Pat Quinn signed into law December 5, 2013.
“SB1 Pension Reform bill – much ado about nothing.”
December 16, 2013 by Bill Zettler
Highlights:
The bill cuts unfunded liability back to 2011 levels – maybe.
The bill supposedly saves $160 billion, but $68 billion of that “savings” are new taxes.
In Ohio, pension reform resulted in Ohio teachers contributing 4 percent more to their pension plan, whereas in Illinois, SB 1 pension reform would, if upheld by the IL Supreme Court, result in teachers and administrators contributing 1 percent less to their pension plan, a contribution differential of 5 percent.
The math doesn’t work.
SB1 was a 327 page bill that General Assembly members only had 24 hours to read.
All Five State Pension Systems in Summary (chart).
http://www.championnews.net/?p=64999
Definitely read the chart.
The chart contains some statistical highlights of each of the five state pension plans.
There are 11 columns in the chart.
Column 1: System
TRS: Teachers Retirement System
SERS: State Employees Retirement System
SURS: State University Retirement System
JRS: Judicial Retirement System
GARS: General Assembly Retirement System
Column 2: Number of Retirees in each of the 5 state pension funds.
Column 3: Average Pension.
Column 4: Total Annual Payout of Pension Fund.
Column 5: Average Years Worked in State (out of state average is about 1/2 year).
Column 6: Number of Retirees whom would have no COLA cuts under SB 1.
Column 7: Number of Retirees whom would have COLA cuts Under SB 1.
Column 8: Percent of Retirees whom would have COLA Cuts under SB 1.
Column 9: Average Age of pension recipient (Is this average retirement age or average age of everyone receiving a pension?)
Column 10: Number of Pensions Over $100K in each of the 5 state pension plans.
Column 11: Highest Pension in each of the five state pension plans.
http://www.championnews.net/?p=64999