Illinois' House speaker offers tough pension proposals

SPRINGFIELD Wed Feb 27, 2013 6:15pm EST

SPRINGFIELD Ill. Feb 27 (Reuters) - Illinois' House Speaker Michael Madigan lit a fire under the state's tepid public pension reform efforts on Wednesday, introducing measures that would mean harsh changes for public sector workers.

After weeks of silence from Madigan on the state's fiscal crisis, he offered measures that would demand bigger pension contributions from workers and raise the retirement age. He also proposed completely eliminating cost-of-living increases for retirees or tying them to the funding level of the state's pension system.

Illinois' pension system is the worst-funded among U.S. states at just 39 percent. One of Madigan's proposals would halt annual cost-of-living adjustments until the funding level is at 80 percent, which is considered healthy for retirement funds.

"These bills are the next step in a job that has gone on for five years now," said Madigan spokesman Steve Brown. "We've tried to stabilize the pension systems and that's all we're trying to do. These (bills) are a series of changes and they're another step in the right direction."

But the biggest union representing state workers immediately criticized the proposals.

Anders Lindall, a spokesman for American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 31, said Madigan's proposals were "unconstitutional and unfair to workers and retirees."

A provision of the Illinois Constitution says that pensions cannot be diminished or impaired, which is a major obstacle to any pension changes that reduce benefits to retirees.

The speaker's move prompted speculation that he is testing support for various proposals in an effort to reach a comprehensive agreement.

"I think the speaker is really trying to figure out a path to solutions on this issue," said Elaine Nekritz, a Democratic lawmaker who has been a leader in pushing for pension reform.

She and Republican House Leader Tom Cross on Wednesday unveiled a revised version of their pension reform proposals that they said include ideas backed by business, labor, politicians and others.

Unions have said they are prepared to fight pension changes using the Illinois Constitution's strong protection for benefits.

The Illinois House of Representatives will debate pension reform before the full chamber on Thursday for the first time since a new legislature was sworn in last month. To date, the state's fiscal crisis has only been considered on the margins of the legislature or in committee sessions.

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (9)
Hopefullone wrote:
I suspect Illinois (especially Chicago) is going to go the way of Detroit. Progressives have a special way of gutting an economy.

Feb 27, 2013 7:20pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Darthwatton wrote:
When you take a job, you make a contract with your employer. The terms are part of what guide your choice as to whether you take the job. Then the employer decides to change the terms, because someone raided the fund that was going to pay you according to that contract. Is that right? Seriously, who in their right mind wouldn’t want to fight to maintain the contract they signed up for? If it were your cable company, and they suddenly decided that they’re going to pull half of your channels because they can’t afford to maintain the original contract, wouldn’t you fight it?

Feb 27, 2013 7:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Darthwatton wrote:
When you take a job, you make a contract with your employer. The terms are part of what guide your choice as to whether you take the job. Then the employer decides to change the terms, because someone raided the fund that was going to pay you according to that contract. Is that right? Seriously, who in their right mind wouldn’t want to fight to maintain the contract they signed up for? If it were your cable company, and they suddenly decided that they’re going to pull half of your channels because they can’t afford to maintain the original contract, wouldn’t you fight it?

Feb 27, 2013 7:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.