surprised it has 0 recs. :/

This is an example of Third Way policy at its finest.

I'm sure Rahm will soon be extending these benefits to Chicago City employees.

there really is a huge problem with chicago`s pension system. yes it`s even worse than the states problems.

Maybe responsibility is more descriptive.

revealing yourself.

Why should non-govt Illinoisans suffer because of over promises made by a corrupt patronage system?

Only other option is to raise taxes, which the state is not in a position to do since people and businesses have shown they have no problem leaving IL.

This is just the beginning of an ugly fight as the system tries to protect is its patrons from the average citizen. You know the pension system is out of control when even IL democrats won't support it.

Glad I left so I won't be under the rubble.

It is kind of shocking that this has to be explained on a democratic discussion board.

doesn't mean he'll pay up. Illinois is like that drunken bum who spent all his money on booze and crank. Anyone who expects anything from him is naïve at best and very special at worst.

If that doesn't work here's a better analogy. You go to work for Bernie Madoff who promises you a hefty salary for life.

As the years go by you hear rumors of how he's really running a ponzi scheme, but of course you don't believe them because how could those rumors be true if Bernie is still paying you?

So you live like rich uncle Bernie is going to pay you forever just like he promised and you aren't worried about your debts because "uncle Bernie promised".

One day you show up to work only to see Bernie being carted away by the Feds. And the rumors finally sink in when you realize rich uncle Bernie was really giving you the run around, too, and that any earned benefits from working with him are as worthless as the toilet paper they are written on.

IL is Bernie Madoff right now, and anyone who really believes Bernie Madoff is a sucker. The unions can claim "earned benefits, earned benefits" all they want but the fact is the vault is empty and IL people have cut them off.

IL could raise taxes, but that will just mean FL, IN, and TX will have more residents and companies leaving the poor stuck in the hood that IL is becoming.

-Teamster and recent IL resident CFLDem

No one in the right mind could have foreseen the day when the Federal government would pull the rug out from under them. How on earth is that "spending like drunken bums" as you put it? It' isn't. It is blaming the victims, who are forced to deal with whatever financial consequences befell them. It's all part of the union-busing, all part of the scapegoating. It's all part of the decades-long war on workers.

what a shock

Patronage positions go to friends of elected officials, and when someone else is elected replaced. Most such positions offer to pension, for it is clear no one will stay in the position more then four maybe eight years. Patronage positions survive for those are positions where people can direct where the Government is going and thus are replaced when the Government shifts direction.

No, these pensions are for the people who do the actual work of the Government. They make sure taxes are collected, streets are paved, Welfare is provided to the Needed, law are enforced (including Fire protection laws). These are the people who stayed with their Government job, at lower pay then they could get in private enterprise, on the promise of a pension when they retired.

Given that this is a Change in the term of a Contract, and a taking of people's property right (the US Supreme Court has long ruled a Government Civil Service Job and a Government pension based in that job is a property right and can NOT be taken without compensation).

Now, the Court has said that Civil Service Jobs can be terminated, and with that termination goes any property right the job holder had, provided it is a real job elimination move, not firing one worker to replace that worker with someone else. Now job elimination can be replacing a Civil Service Position with a contract job (The Federal Government and the States have done this extensively since the 1970s), but the courts have had express concerns if the purpose is NOT efficiency but to cut pay (Governments can cut costs, they can NOT cut pay).

Please note by "Cut pay" I mean jobs as oppose to a cut in actual pay. The Courts have ruled if a general cut in pay in done, that is within the power of a Governmental body that is NOT a taking of someone's property right.

Yes, Civil Service is a messy section of the law, you have to be up to date on it to fully understand it, but the basic concepts remain, if a person is given a position by the Government, that is a grant from the Government and that is the test for a property right (Remember you own you home as a grant of ownership from the State, the Grant may have been centuries ago and subsequently resold, but your right to own real property is based on a grant from the State).

Now, the Courts have ruled Civil Service Jobs can NOT be sold (unlike grants in real estate which can be sold over and over again), but it is still a Property Rights that the Courts will uphold.

Just a comment that these are NOT patronage positions and as such the Courts may order these Pension cuts undone. At that point Illinois's will have to look at increasing taxes, for I do not see Illinois eliminating these positions for it Illinois did eliminate these positions, nothing would get done at the State level.

No government leader in IL creates govt jobs for the good of the people. There's always a payoff.

IL has been bloated with voter appreciation jobs for years and everyone knew this would be the result of it.

It's finally gotten so bad that the Democrat Party wants to cut benefits. I'm with the IL Democrat Party on this one.

Even when the rule in Washington was the spoil system, the positions were positions that needed to be filled. The State has work that has to get done, and someone has to do it. Some of the hardest working people in Government are patronage people, for they want they candidate to get re-elected and thus do they job well so people are happy with them and thus re-elected the person who appointed them.

92% of all jobs are obtains through Friends and Relatives. Yet over 90% of employers say they hire only on merit. How can these two facts both be true? The answer is simple, people tell their friends and relatives of jobs that are open that such Friends and relatives can fill. Thus 92% of all employees find jobs they are qualified to fill by being told by Friends or Relatives of people who are looking for people like them. The employer then use merit hiring to hire the best qualified, and more times then not it is the person some friend or relative had told to apply.

Government works the same way. People here of a position open, and tell people they know that the position is open and how to apply. If a new set of jobs are opened by a Government expansion, the people who know of the expansion tells their friends and relatives, who apply. This is how most government jobs are filled, very similar to how private Enterprise fills jobs (in fact the same way).

I give you a example I know. A supervisor had a position he had to fill, he knew his daughter was qualified for the position and told her to apply. At that point he asked his supervision (hereafter referred to as "Boss&quot to select who the Supervisor should hire do to the fact the Supervisor's daughter was one of the applicants. The Boss agreed to do so, looked over the list of Applicants, interviewed the applicants and decided that the best candidate was the Daughter of the Supervisor (and in that case I agreed with the Boss, the Daughter was the best candidate for the Job, ignoring the fact her supervisor would be her father).

Now during the hiring process, favoritism and nepotism was alleged, but the process followed was an effort to minimize those concerns. In my opinion, if the Supervisor had NOT told his daughter to apply she would NOT have, and someone else would have been selected, but he did and she was hired.

The Daughter was NOT hired for do to her being the supervisor's daughter, but the fact she was in the hiring pool was because she was the Supervisor's Daughter. Similar situating occur all the time in both business and government (they tell people in collage in "Network" i.e. to go to parties, so that you make friends and those friends can then tell you who is hiring). The same with Government, Government is more often then not a network of friends that work together. As such they know each other and will tell each other (even of the opposition party) of a job that person or a friend or relative can do. Thus you get a lot of people related to politicians in Civil Service Position NOT because of favoritism in hiring, but because they know when to apply so that they are the top candidate when it comes to merit selection of jobs.

I am just pointing out everyone makes this accusation, but I have NOT seen any truth to those stories, for most people do NOT want these Civil Service Position EXCEPT people who want to do that type of work (i.e. Political patronage people do not want not get these jobs). These accusations are made by people who dislike government for some reason, and think any government position is one of theft and ignore the good things government provides, such as roads, schools, police protection and the court System.

Last edited Thu Dec 5, 2013, 10:26 PM - Edit history (1)

how about accounting for that missing Pentagon trillion? Now THAT would be "responsibility".

Illinois public workers don't paid ANY Social Security; these pensions are THEIR RETIREMENT FUNDS!

Let me give you an analogy.

A kid puts away a portion of every cash gift over the years (birthdays, graduations. etc.) along with a good portion of their teen job earnings into an account for a college fund with a contract that their parents will also contribute and manage the money. It turns out that the parents barrow from the money, mismanage it, and fail to make their agreed to contribution over the years. When the kid is ready for college they say, "Were not paying for college, it's too expensive." "It would hurt our credit rating." Is that fair?

These bastards DID STEAL FROM THE WORKERS! If they are so God Dam worried about the state's economic crisis, why don't they cut their own government pensions?

Get the facts right....my wife is a state employee and she pays into the pension as well as social security....teachers don't pay into as...and they are covered under state pension plan....local school districts don't pay their teachers pensions...the state taxpayers do except for Chicago.
Facts are important

the name given to the European social-democracies. Aspects of the system included worker/business councils that cooperated to maintain a good balance between the needs of business and the rights of workers. It worked very well, has produced HUGE benefit for the societies and is only now being screwed up because of the influence of neoliberalism in European politics. The Third Way is responsible for the high standard of living that is enjoyed by most Europeans. To see it used by a stealth right-wing org. is a shame , but it is also proof that the right is just a bunch of snake oil salesmen who tell lies left and right, misname their projects and are intent on destroying the post WW2 social contracts. I say we defend the true Third way and torpedo the new "Third Way".

When a wholesale THEFT of the benefits of 100's of 1000's of hard-working (many of them UNION) folk takes place, the 'Media' describes it as a 'Reform' and an 'Overhaul' ... such NICE words, they always 'poll' very well. Who doesn't LIKE 'reform' and 'overhauls', eh?

Oooh, and you see how it also settled the 'years of delay and inaction', which are BAD words, i.e. 'things we don't like'.

Ergo, why, this thing MUST BE GOOD then, right?

These bloody Fascists.

How about you REFORM things by Taxing the Rich & Corporations More and finding a way to PAY PEOPLE THEIR DAMN MONEY YOU OWE THEM!!!

The fact that it's been mostly 'our own party' that's allowed this happen makes me friggin' sick.

my wife is a sec-treasure of a private afscme union. they have`t gotten their wage increase from the state. her unions shares the same building with two state afscme union chapters...it`s not a happy time .

it`s a constitutional question the supreme court has to answer.

hell even my super republican state senator voted against it because of this question of legality.




the next question is when will the flat 4% tax in illinois be repealed?

Does the state or federal constitution for that matter have a clause that protects retirement funds?

Last edited Fri Dec 6, 2013, 02:38 AM - Edit history (1)

First let me address the issue of Contract Law.

Under Article 1, Section 10, First paragraph of the US Constitution:

No State shall ... pass any ..... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts,....

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

A pension is a Contract, and often the result of a Union Contract, Thus under Article1, Section 10, First paragraph it is unconstitutional for Illinois to impair contracts, and given the Pensions were the result of Contracts (including the Contract to work for the State) Illinois can NOT reduce these pensions, The Courts will have the final say on this but it is complex for the actual case law is minimal for most States have avoided impairing Contracts ever since 1787.

Now to the second Argument, the taking of property:

Amendment V

No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

Now Technically, the Fifth Amendment does NOT apply to the States, it is in the Federal Bill of Rights and as such Rights from the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Now, after the Civil War the Federal Government passed the 14th amendment:


AMENDMENT XIV

SECTION 1.

..... No state ... shall.... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.;

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

It is through the 14th Amendment that the Bill of Rights is applied to the States, but in this case we can ignore the Fifth, for the 14th by its own language applies the same rule to the states directly.

Thus a question for the Courts will be is this reduction in Pensions a Taking of a Property Right without Compensation? Now the 14th does NOT mention Compensation, but the Courts have always recognize the right of the State to take property with compensating. The Courts have also order States to undo things it has done, that the Court found to be a "taking" of property and thus depraving a person of the right to use that property.

You have to understand the Courts have long ruled that a property right is any right based on a grant from the State. The deed to your home, is from a prior owner who received a deed from another prior owner and this goes back and back till we come to the first sale of that property from the State (or the Federal Government if the State was still a Territory) to someone. That sale was a Grant of a Right to property as set forth in that first deed. Every other seller after that sale, was only selling his right to that grant of property.

When it comes to Civil Service Jobs the Courts (both Federal and State) have viewed them as a Grant of Property from the State. The Job and pay was authorized by the State and as such is a grant of a property right to that job. The courts have long ruled that such grants of property did NOT include the right to sell the position (This the job can NOT be resold), but the courts have also long called it an legally enforceable property right. There are restrictions to that property right, for example the State can eliminate it and the job holder would be out of a job (but it has to be a real elimination, not one where the job is eliminated and another created that does the same thing).

Now, in higher position the positions tend to be Patronage positions and it is understood no permanent right to hold those position came with appointment to those position (i.e. elected official can pick the staff around them and Cabinet positions that direct where the Government is to go, but to the people who do the actual work, they can only be fired for Good Cause, i.e. they did something illegal).

Just a comment that if the Courts rule this reduction in the Pension is a taking of a property right, it will have to be either undone or otherwise paid for the lost of the Pension. That is if the State gets over the issue of impairment of Contracts. The Federal Government can impair contracts but the States can not under the US Constitution.

i have known this guy for 45 some years and he`s really an honest guy.

The ban on impairing Contracts pops its ugly head at strange times, and then we all look at each other and say, "Oh that why we never did this in the past." The idea that State Government can NOT impair a contract has become so integrated into our legal concepts that Lawyers all know it, Lawyers can cite it when it comes up Lawyers remember that it does exists, but in practice, till we are reminded of it, we tend to forget about it.

It is up there with Quartering troops (ban by the Third amendment), we know it, we can cite it, but the concept is so foreign to us that we can fall into violating it until someone reminds us of the ban.

The benefits ARE NOT.... Cola...as well as healthcare coverage are benefits and aren't afforded constitutional protection..
Property rights and contract law does not apply...ask the millions who have seen their pensions gone

And thus the FEDERAL CONSTITUTION comes into play, as to Contracts and Property Rights. It is the FEDERAL CONSTITUTION that forbids the states from impairing Contract (States may have similar provisions, but they are NOT needed given the Supremacy of the US Constitution).

The courts have Long adopted the position that any "Grant of right" from any Government is a Right to property. This includes the right to stay in Public Housing (there is NO right to get into Public Housing, but once in, you can only be removed for "Good Cause" for otherwise you are denying that resident of Public Housing Their property right to lived in that Apartment. Now that right to housing once you are in does NOT extend to private Landlord Tenant law, for the right to live in such a private rental property is NOT a grant from the State, but from the owner of the property. Thus the States can pass laws making it much easier for Private landlords to evict a Tenant then any Public Housing Authority can.

I bring up Public housing for people do not think such housing is a "Property Right" but the courts have long adopted that policy, on the simple grounds that the Housing Agency is an Agency of the State and any grant of any right from that agency, including the right to live in a rental unit, is a grant from the State and thus a right to property (In the case of Public Housing the right to live in the unit as long as you want if you do not violate an other term of your lease).

The same thing with Pensions, State Pensions are Grants of Property rights (a pension) to State Employees as part of such employees CONTRACT to work for the state. Notice this applies to STATE pensions only NOT to private pensions, for Private Pensions are NOT grant of a Right to a Pension from the State. Thus property rights do NOT kick in to private pensions EXCEPT under the CONSTITUTIONAL ban for the State to Impair Contracts.

Now, the Federal Government does have the right to Impair Contracts, and thus it has been the Federal Bankruptcy Courts that have ordered the reduction in private Pensions payouts. The problem is there is NO provision in the Federal Bankruptcy Code for a State to File Bankruptcy. Local Government may file Bankruptcy, if permitted by State law to do so (Which was the holding of the Courts in California when some Municipalities filed Bankruptcy recently).

Thus the real issue can the State reduce its pension obligations? Given Pensions are not given freely, but part of the Contract to work, the Contract clause kicks in. Given the Pensions are a right from the state, it is also a property right. Even the Federal Government can NOT take away property without compensation, i.e. can NOT abolish a pension without paying the pension.

Now, the Federal Government CAN IMPAIR a contract, and has done so in Federal Bankruptcy Court and when you read about Pensions being reduced it is being done in Federal Bankruptcy Court (This includes times when it is a municipal Pension that is reduced).

Private pensions can be reduced by the parties (mostly in Federal Bankruptcy Court). I will NOT go into the debate if a State can file Federal Bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy act does permit local government to file bankruptcy, but the US Supreme Court has ruled that can be done ONLY if permitted by State law (in The Detroit Bankruptcy that is an issue, the Governor says he can give such permission, the union for the workers say such permission is NOT permitted under the State Constitution, Bankruptcy Court has rejected the Union's position, but let see what happens on appeal).

But nothing pertaining to the benefits like cola or healthcare coverage.

See my posts above.

AS to COLA (Cost of Living adjustments), that is NOT a major factor right now, we have had the lowest rate of inflation since the 1960s and most economists believe that will continue. Thus Illinois can NOT hope for inflation to get out of this mess.

As to medical care, unless it can be shown that employees relied on the State promise of future medical coverage (something I doubt can be shown), the State can end that coverage at any time. I doubt the State of Illinois will, for that affects its ability to comply with Affordable Car Act (ACA, Obama-care).

they will pass legislation to fund the pension system then they will put riders on the bill to siphon off money for their pet projects.

it`s happened to my wifes private/public union. they are supposed to get a 2% increase in wages each year from the state. for going on 4 yrs the union and the company they work for have received nothing.

the unions are legally owed the money that is due to them by signed contracts with the representatives of the people of illinois.

Your state senator ignores his party's history here. Typical Illinois Republican.

The truth is, yes these people are owed from these legal contracts that the state has failed to fulfill. There is no question of that.

It is also true that the state is flat broke. Broke, broke, broke. The money just isn't there, and will not be there, ever. We have of the hightest taxes in the country. Every department in the state has had severe budget cuts, education bearing the brunt of it. Schools are being closed, roads aren't getting fixed, and we have less cops. Violent crime is on the rise in Chicago and at CAPs meetings, the officers just dither.

This problem is way beyond blame and party affiliation. This is the end game of rank and systemic corruption that's oozed into every corner of Illinois politics. No one is clean of this.

There is no good solution for anyone. We are just screwed. Pay the unions, and the state has to make further cuts to core services or privatize everything. Not pay the unions their rightful due and expect strikes, work slow downs, and other righful protest that's a kin to service cuts.

Right now in Illinois, everybody loses.