UPDATE 2-Illinois House passes cap on pension payment increases

Thu Mar 21, 2013 7:43pm EDT

Related Topics

By Joanne von Alroth

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. March 21 (Reuters) - The Illinois House on Thursday voted to drastically limit automatic inflation increases for public pensions, a measure that supporters said could bring $100 billion in savings to the nation's worst funded pension system over 30 years.

Passage of the proposal is the biggest step Illinois has taken toward reining in huge and growing payments to retired teachers and state workers. It was passed by a vote of 66 to 50 and now goes to the Senate for consideration. It would then need the signature of Governor Pat Quinn to become law.

Under the bill, retired workers would get a 3 percent annual automatic increase only on the first $25,000 of a pension. Any amount above $25,000 would not be adjusted for inflation.

Supporters said the measure deals with the biggest driver of rising pension costs -- the automatic 3 percent increase, compounded annually, that is pushing up the state's unfunded pension liability now at $96.8 billion.

But foes said the measure breaks the state's commitment to retired workers, many of whom cannot supplement pensions with federal Social Security.

Rudy Kink, executive director of Illinois State Employees Association Retirees, which represents just over 6,000 state retired workers, said if enacted, the bill will likely be challenged in state court.

The Illinois Constitution prohibits impairing or diminishing retirement benefits.

"We think it's a diminishment pure and simple of benefits under the constitution," he said.

The chances of approval in the Senate are uncertain. Democrats control large majorities in both chambers and are wary of cutting benefits to members of unions, which are strong supporters of the Democratic party.

Senate President John Cullerton said the automatic increases need to be limited to reduce pension costs, his spokeswoman Rikeesha Phelon said.

"The Senate has demonstrated that we simply don't have the votes for legislation designed to impose unilateral changes to pensions benefits," she added.


Senate Republican Leader Christine Radogno was more optimistic about the proposal, although her party is in the minority.

"I think we could have significant support if and when we have the opportunity (to vote)," she said in a statement.

Illinois' credit ratings have been downgraded to the lowest levels among U.S. states as solutions to the pension problem have remained elusive. The worst-funded state pension system is also devouring an increasing amount of revenue, leading to funding cuts for core state services such as education, health care and public safety.

Last week, the House passed two smaller measures, increasing retirement ages for certain workers and salaries on which pensions are based that would only save the state $1 billion over 30 years.

On Wednesday, the Democrat-controlled Senate rejected a bill containing sweeping pension changes and approved a smaller measure dealing solely with the largest state fund, the Teachers' Retirement System. It requires local school employees to choose between the current annual 3 percent compounded COLA for pensions when they retire or a reduced COLA and continued access to state-sponsored health care in retirement.

Governor Quinn, a Democrat, said he was encouraged by the legislature's recent actions but "there's much more work to do."

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 (2)
ejhickey wrote:
this bill does nothing to address the pension deficit. it is amazing that everyone is working so hard to avoid the elephant in the room: Illinois needs more tax dollars to become solvent. time to tax retirement income. i won’t even comment on whether this bill is constitutional. i think everyone knows the answer to that question

Mar 21, 2013 5:03pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Jasmine1524 wrote:
I agree that this bill does nothing to address the deficit. Over these decades elected officials from both the Illinois Democratic and Republican parties have diverted funds that were legally mandated for the state pensions as a means for funding education and social programs as well as for pork barrel programs Instead of changing the tax structure to allow for the funding of these programs, they used the pensions as a credit card. If the pensions had been funded as required by law, these pensions would be fiscally sound today, this in spite of the recession recreated by Wall Street.

To get out of this mess, the Illinois Legislature needs to re-amortize the pensions debt service. It needs to change the tax structure to one that is more progressive. Loopholes for corporations need to be scrutinized for benefits being received. Also, all programs need to be analyzed for actual need and effectiveness. By doing this, the State will find itself with a more fiscally sound budget and in the process will meet its constitutional requirement of not diminishing state retiree pensions and benefits. The pending bills in the Illinois General Assembly and Senate if passed will most surely be found unconstitutional.

A final note: It is interesting that leaders from both the State Democratic and Republican parties think that the law they pass will be challenged on constitutional grounds. For this reason, even though their “pension reform” bills are supposedly to include all state employees, they intentionally decided not to include the judge’s pensions. I guess they figure that if judges were included, then the judges most definitely would rule the law unconstitutional. So the question is, are the legislative leaders by excluding judges from their pension “reform” bills, actually bribing judges for a ruling in their (the politicians) favor

Mar 22, 2013 9:05am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.