Ted Dabrowski joins Scott Slocum on WJOL’s morning show. The federal stimulus money changes the agenda in Springfield. Politicians no longer have to consider tax hikes or reforms for at least a couple of years.
Chicago Teachers Union contract demands are totally divorced from reality – Wirepoints
May 8, 2024
36 Comments
Details emerging about Chicago Teachers Union’s upcoming contract show just how divorced its demands, both extreme and expensive, are from the reality at Chicago schools. It’s not just about massive salary increases, but also about money for migrant students, climate initiatives, abortions and gender-affirming care. About blocking parental notification. Count on CTU’s demands to veer further from reality until the public finally says no.
Weekly crime statistics from the Chicago Police Department: Report through 5/4/2024.
Gov. JB Pritzker calls it “ethics” reform.
It’s rare to see city leaders in Chicago take an open, unabashed stance on the collapse of literacy. To complain is deemed as too political, too racist or too anti-public schools. So it’s refreshing to see Willie Wilson, a successful businessman and leader of the black community, call for a literacy initiative “with the goal of getting 100% of Black students reading at grade level.”
I want to comment on the Trib editorial regarding pension changes. ERISA permits changes to future benefits but not accrued benefits unless there is a bankruptcy or takeover by the PBGC. Whether we think it was appropriate to offer such extraordinarily generous benefits or not, the plan members who paid into the fund and performed work for the governmental entity, did so with the expectation that the pension benefit, specified in law at the time they paid and performed services would determine their benefit. Retro changes deny these realities and are not reasonable. Change newly earned benefits as of a… Read more »
Taxpayers who work in the private sector also worked and saved with the expectation that their savings would fund their retirement. Should their retirement savings be “impaired” through ever-higher taxes to pay public pensions? We all wish that everyone could get what they expected, but that is impossible given the fiscal situation. Why should only the private sector workers be required to sacrifice to fix the problem? We are also trying to plan our retirement, which in many cases will be far less comfortable than those on public pensions. The public pension problem is not our fault either, any more… Read more »
Some thoughts–private sector employees pay into Social Security, public employees do not. Public employees pay more than the Social Security contribution rate into these pension plans. At the same time, they lack PBGC protection in the event of a bankruptcy so without a SS annuity (or the protection of the SS COLA amount) or a guaranteed/minimum annuity from a PBGC takeover, what is their source of retirement income to become? Many of the current pensioners are widow annuitants who receive benefits as low as $1,000 per month with no SS. The villains here are the legislators, not the people who… Read more »
I am aware of nobody who supports cutting small or reasonably sized pensions for, say, your widow example. Our detailed proposal protects smaller pensions. There are many alternative ways of doing that.
MsT, the problem is that the crisis is entirely about earned benefits. The unfunded liabilities you always read about $300B just at the state level, properly calculated — is entirely for work already performed. That number is insurmountable unless it is reduced, and nothing could be clearer. Adjusting future benefits does nothing.
There are different issues for current annuitants and future annuitants; and, it is highly unlikely that there would be legislative support to create an undefined right to reduce benefits at the will/whim of the legislature. To legislate a change it would have to be specific, targeted and deal with appropriate sub-classes of pension participants. Any legislative solution must enumerate specific protections for earned benefits and minimum annuities. No one would work for an organization that retained the right to retroactively declare that it changed its mind about your retirement benefits.
The amendment language as written would not authorize the legislature to change pensions at their whim because the federal Contract Clause restricts changes to what is fair and reasonable under the circumstances. The legislature would have to be specific and targeted, as you say, when it acts pursuant to the amendment.
That’s a complete lie Mark. Your proposed language states nothing in the constitution or any law prevents the legislature from reducing pensions now or in the future. If you truly wanted what you stated above you would simply change the language in the amendment to say that pensions are a contract and just remove the language that says they can’t be diminished or impaired. Instead you want language to steal private property from the elderly. You have been talking about this for years so don’t act the wording wasn’t deliberate. Your goal is to make it so pensions can be… Read more »
PPF, I am not sure whether you are dishonest or just stupid. No change to the IL constitution can override the US Constitution. Any legislative changes to pensions pursuant to the amendment would still have to comply with the federal Contract Clause rule that they be fair and reasonable under the circumstances.
Sure Mark blame me for your poorly written 50 word change to the constitution. You are the one being dishonest. You have worded the amendment in that manner because you want it to override the contract clause of The Illinois Constitution. At least be honest. You don’t want The Illinois courts to weigh in. If you are serious about getting an amendment added it will need to stand up to scrutiny. If you think the language you have presented will stand up to the public and garner the necessary votes, then you are truly living in a fantasy world. Also,… Read more »
PPF, I’m not honest about the amendment overriding the state contract clause and other state law issues? That’s the whole point of it! And as far as throwing granny off the cliff and all that stuff, I haven’t seen any of that in other states, almost all of which have been adjusting pension promises over the years.
You keep stating that “of course it’s a contract” and “it would need to withstand the contracts clause of the US constitution” but yet your language is designed to over ride the contracts clause in the Illinios constitution. You want the state to eliminate its contract clause for pensioners only and no other stake holders and you see no problem with that. It’s not like you’re taking a principled stance against all debt just pensioners. What if we just passed a real estate surcharge tax on people on the north shore. Would you think that’s fair? You are asking for… Read more »
Your thoughts are well reasoned and logical MsT. This site doesn’t usually go for that. The idea that a legislature could pass a law to take away someones earned assets should scare anyone, especially conservatives. Maybe that’s why even republicans know that it won’t happen and is only a fantasy.
PPF, one reason why it won’t happen, for now at least, is because public unions have succeeded in maintaining the myth you’ve repeated here that there is no legal way around the pension protection clause.
The Illinois Supreme Court succeeded in maintaining that belief. You continue to lie and act as if the unions are the one spreading this belief when it is actual prior legal decisions. The ILSC protected pensions in their 2015 ruling based on the pension clause but ALSO based on the contract clause. As long as other options are available (raising taxes) then the contracts clause will not allow it. You know this but you continue to willfully ignore it. You love to talk about RI or AZ but refuse to referenced the most important decision that pertains to Illinois. The… Read more »
Um, PPF, sorry to break it to you, but the amendment would override the ISC decisions as well the state pension protection clause, contract clause and all other state law issues.
Hate to break it to your Mark but your fantasy amendment language will never make it to the ballot for the very reasons you mentioned. At least now you are starting to be honest. Your goal is to remove all protections including the contracts clause but you then talk out of the other side of your mouth and then say (a post you made less than an hour ago) it will still be up against the contracts clause. You can’t legislate away someones private property. It’s quite comical that you think you can make this happen. It reminds me of… Read more »
We need to stop calling this monstrosity a stimulus. It’s nothing more than the Democrats raping the Treasury to enrich themselves and their greedy special interests