|
"To some extent, the governor's State
of the State assessment suggests he is living in never-never land.
To say ‘the state of Illinois is strong,' is not dealing with the
real world. To suggest that he has cut $3 billion in state spending
is hypocrisy," Brady said. "This is the only governor in the last
two years, throughout the nation, who has increased state spending
in deficit proportions. Somehow we're going to have to give him a
reality check." Blagojevich
also reported in his State of the State speech that Illinois has
created 50,000 jobs over the last year. Yet statistics from the U.S.
Department of Labor show that since Blagojevich took office in
January 2003, the state of Illinois has lost 13,900 jobs.
To put this in perspective, 43 other
states and the District of Columbia have increased total non-farm
employment during this same time period (January 2003-November
2004). Only six other states have seen a decrease in employment
since January 2003: Michigan, minus 88,700 jobs; Ohio, minus 62,800;
Massachusetts, minus 33,200; Connecticut, minus 8,900; Oklahoma,
minus 6,600; and Louisiana, minus 500. However, states bordering
Illinois did well: Wisconsin, plus 69,200 jobs, Missouri, plus
34,900; Kentucky, plus 13,900; Iowa, plus 13,600; and Indiana, plus
7,100.
"The reality is that this
administration has spent itself into yet another budget deficit,
estimated at $2 billion; state job growth still lags behind the
significant employment growth of other Midwestern states; and
businesses continue to flee to more business-friendly states, taking
jobs with them," Brady said. "I would like to know the source of the
governor's numbers that show that our state is turning around,
because they appear to be wrong. We can only hope the Feb. 16 budget
address will present a more accurate picture of the challenges
Illinois is facing."
One of Brady's main concerns is that
the governor will rely heavily on yet another pension shell game to
prop up his budget address.
At its meeting Feb. 4, the
governor's pension commission voted to recommend a plan to free up
money now by overhauling the state's pension systems. The
controversial proposal would scale back pension benefits for new
state hires but use the savings immediately to give the governor
some relief for the fiscal 2006 budget.
"Instead of using this panel of
experts to develop long-term solutions to a very real pension
funding crisis, the governor's allies are using it to give him
political cover." Brady said. "I'm disappointed that all those hours
of meetings and lengthy review of information became nothing but
political cover for the governor and an absolute farce."
[to top
of second column in this article]
 |
On an 8-3 vote, the Pension Funding
Commission recommended that any savings from any pension reforms
enacted by the General Assembly should be allocated proportionately
from 2006 to 2045. Brady voted "no," as did Rep. Mark Beaubien,
R-Wauconda, and a representative of the United Food and Commercial
Workers union.
"As a commission member, I
vehemently oppose any plan to ‘recognize' future savings that may,
or may not, occur under long-term reforms. That's just another
attempt to spend more today to shore up the governor's sagging
budget and push the cost onto the future. No matter how you spin it,
we would simply be spending money now that we don't have -- and may
never have," Brady said. "I believe this plan amounts to borrowing
now from questionable savings at the expense of our children and
grandchildren."
On Feb. 9, the 44th District senator
filed a letter with the pension commission explaining his opposition
to the pension restructuring plan and asking that the letter be
included with the commission's report.
Brady
says the commission has made no specific recommendations for changes
in the pension system, and items included on the list of suggestions
to be considered for cost savings likely will not have the support
of the General Assembly. Examples:
- Limiting "end-of-career" pay
increases to bump up an employee's pension, with pension benefits
paid by the state, not local school districts.
- Increasing the early retirement
penalty for future employees who retire before age 65.
- Limiting cost-of-living
adjustments for pension benefits for newly hired employees.
- Changing the alternative
retirement formula for new hires only.
- Increasing current employees'
contributions.
- Changing the money purchase
option for current university system employees and eliminating it
for new hires.
At Brady's insistence, the pension
commission has already voted unanimously to reject any plans the
governor may have had to reduce benefits for current employees,
which Brady and others believe would be unconstitutional.
[Illinois
Senate Republican Caucus news release]
|
