|
"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 and budget relief for the budget address Feb. 16," said Brady,
a member of the commission. "It will only exacerbate our pension
problem and frustrate the whole budget process."
At its Feb. 4 meeting, the commission
recommended on an 8-3 vote that any savings from any pension reforms
enacted by the General Assembly should be allocated proportionately
from 2006 to 2045.
"I vehemently oppose any plan to
‘recognize' future savings that may, or may not, occur under
long-term reforms," Brady said. "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."
The 44th District senator says the
responsible thing to do is to recognize savings only in the years in
which those savings actually occur.
"To build a proposed budget -- or to
enact a budget -- that underfunds our pensions today, in hopes of
receiving savings sometime in the future, is the height of
irresponsibility," he said. "It's especially irresponsible to
underfund pensions using ‘savings' that rely on reforms that have
not passed and are probably not going to pass the General Assembly.
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."
The commission acted Feb. 4 over the
objections of Brady; Rep. Mark Beaubien, R-Wauconda; and a
representative of the United Food and Commercial Workers union.
[to top
of second column in this article] |
Brady
says the commission has made no specific recommendations for changes
in the pension system and that items included on the list of
suggestions to be "examined and considered" for cost savings likely
will not have the support of the General Assembly, such as:
- 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 existing employees'
contributions.
- Changing the money purchase
option for new university system hires.
At Brady's insistence, the Pension
Funding Commission has already voted unanimously to reject any plans
the governor may have had to reduce benefits for existing employees,
which Brady and others believe would be unconstitutional.
"The pension benefits of our current
teachers and employees are protected under the Illinois
Constitution," he said. "Any move to reduce those benefits would end
up costing the state in litigation expenses and be unfair to those
who are depending on them. The bottom line is: The state needs to
live up to the commitments we have made to our teachers and other
employees."
A recommended moratorium against new
pension enhancements does not apply to an extension of the early
retirement option in the Teachers' Retirement System, which was
unanimously approved by the Illinois Senate during the 93rd General
Assembly, or local government pensions.
[Illinois
Senate Republican Caucus news release]
|
