HJRCA 49 - Illinois Pension Reform Amendment

[bmags]

Wondering where people stand.

 

I'm on the fence. I think it's not a bad move for now. Pensions for years were the go-to to kick the can and make the current fiscal situation look better. Instead of increasing salaries for public workers they'd increase pensions. This would be a step in the right direction in making that kicking the can more of a poison pill.

 

However, I think California is a good example of how increasing vote thresholds can lead to disaster. Majority rules often works, is it worth making a constitutional amendment on something that's an experiment? What if it's a disaster? Removing an amendment takes a lot of work, and the language of this is so simple, that if it turns out to be poor policy, any opposition to it will come with the political hammer of "so and so wants to change the constitution to make it easier for government bUREAUCRATS to take more of your money for their pensions"

 

Just my thoughts. Wanna hear yours.

[bmags]

Here's a pretty basic article on it written by a college student:

http://dailynorthwestern.com/2012/10/26/ci...onal-amendment/

[mr_genius]

i read the question wrong. thought it was 3/5 to reform pensions. i support a 3/5 vote to increase them. but that's because i think they are already way too high.

[bmags]

That may be because my poll question had more to's than it needed.

[StrangeSox]

I don't think we should to go the super majority route.

[NorthSideSox72]

Pass or not, this move would at best make only the tiniest of dents in the problem.

 

[EvilMonkey]

Should make it so that all new employees are on ss like the rest of the country and just stop pensions for all new hires. Phase them out, get rid of them. ESPECIALLY elected officials. And end the double, triple and so on dipping they get when they hold more than one elected office. Damn Emil f-ing Jones probably has 7 or 8 different pensions coming whenever that crook retires. THAT is not right.

[NorthSideSox72]

Should make it so that all new employees are on ss like the rest of the country and just stop pensions for all new hires. Phase them out, get rid of them. ESPECIALLY elected officials. And end the double, triple and so on dipping they get when they hold more than one elected office. Damn Emil f-ing Jones probably has 7 or 8 different pensions coming whenever that crook retires. THAT is not right.

ending the double-dipping and pay-rush at end of career nonsense is a good idea, but only fixes a tiny part of the problem. The first part of your post is the meat. Need to go to some sort of 401k-type plan, and get away from pensions, but... if you do that in one fell swoop, you will take money away from those already on pensions. The solution is going to be painful no matter what at this point, unfortunately.

 

A gradual move to 401k-type plans, no new pensions for new entrants, will have to have another cash flow from somewhere. Where?

 

[EvilMonkey]

ending the double-dipping and pay-rush at end of career nonsense is a good idea, but only fixes a tiny part of the problem. The first part of your post is the meat. Need to go to some sort of 401k-type plan, and get away from pensions, but... if you do that in one fell swoop, you will take money away from those already on pensions. The solution is going to be painful no matter what at this point, unfortunately.

 

A gradual move to 401k-type plans, no new pensions for new entrants, will have to have another cash flow from somewhere. Where?

I think local and smaller governments can find a way out, a painful way out, but still a way. You can perhaps figure a cash value of the current pension obligations and pay that into a 401k for current members. Big hit now, but much smaller hits going forward. Then end them for all. I am sure there would be legal challenges to that, but you never know.

 

The double-dipping stuff is a drop by comparison, but drops add up. And drops that are PR friendly add up more in some people's minds.

[Texsox]

I would like to see solutions that allow for good people to take their experience to multiple government positions without seeing non proportional increase to their pension. Thirty years with one government agency should equal thirty years with four or five agencies. For example in Texas no matter how many different school districts I work in my pension remains the same.

 

Now I must confess I am a double dipper of sorts. Besides an independent retirement account, I will have Texas Teachers pension and Social Security. Plus, by working summer jobs that contribute to SS, I continue to accrue quarters.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

BTW this didn't pass.