| State Rep. Lou Lang, D-Skokie, announced his retirement days 
before he was slated to start his 17th term in Springfield last week.[to top of second column]
 But he won’t be leaving the Statehouse. His new title is lobbyist.
 
 That’s an unsavory pivot in the minds of many Illinoisans. But it’s nothing new. 
And it’s certainly not unique to Illinois. Here’s one thing that might be, 
though: an obscure, lawmakers-only sweetener means Lang is set to receive a 
six-figure pension for life after just one year of retirement.
 
 It’s another unfortunate example of rules carved in stone that have been the 
undoing of the state’s balance sheets and core services. The Illinois 
Constitution says pension benefits may not be “diminished or impaired,” even 
when it’s politicians who are profiting handsomely on the public dime.
 
 The story of this strange perk stretches back 30 years.
 
 In 1989, Illinois lawmakers in the final days of legislative session passed a 
set of changes to the state’s pension systems. Under the old law, public 
retirees received a bump in their pension every year. But the bump was based on 
simple interest – 3 percent of the first year’s pension payment.
 
 Under the new law, the state swapped simple interest for compounding interest. 
That meant the 3 percent bump would be based on last year’s payment, not the 
original amount. This simple change has cost the state billions of dollars over 
the years. And the Illinois Supreme Court has interpreted the state constitution 
to mean these automatic raises throughout retirement can’t be touched for any 
worker hired while they were on the books.
 
 But that wasn’t the only change in 1989. Lawmakers gave themselves an extra 
special benefit allowing them to hoard pension “spikes.” After serving 20 years 
in office or turning age 55, whichever came later, they could bank an additional 
3 percent boost to their eventual pensions each year.
 
 Enter Lang.
 
 His final salary was $87,600. And his first-year pension will be 85 percent of 
that, or around $74,500. But then the spikes kick in.
 
 Under the pension formula, Lang banked 3 percent boosts in his eventual pension 
for 11 years in office. So when year two of retirement comes around, he won’t 
just get a 3 percent raise like other retirees, he’ll also get a 33 percent bump 
on top of that.
 
 
 | 
 Lang’s year-two pension? More than $101,000. Not 
			bad for a lobbyist who will be collecting a private salary as well.
 Of course, Lang contributed to the system throughout his career. But 
			he will get back more than his entire contribution within three 
			years.
 
 This special perk ended in 2003, but lawmakers elected before then 
			are still able to reap their reward. Lang isn’t alone. His is just 
			the latest case representing a larger problem. He’ll join 58 other 
			former Illinois state lawmakers from both sides of the aisle taking 
			home six-figure pensions, many of whom took full advantage of this 
			perk.
 
 It’s true that payments to former lawmakers are a drop in the ocean 
			of Illinois’ pension liability. They’re a rounding error. But future 
			recipients of legislative pensions are also the ones responsible for 
			fixing the bigger problem.
 
 There’s a lot of talk about renewed bipartisanship and a new day in 
			Springfield. Dozens of state lawmakers have already opted out of the 
			pension system. The General Assembly should take the lead and phase 
			out their own defined-benefit system and get to work on a 
			constitutional fix for the rest of Illinois’ pension mess.
 
 Here’s a place to look: Michigan found a middle road to pension 
			reform – making a distinction between already-earned benefits and 
			yet-to-be-earned future benefits. A constitutional amendment making 
			the same distinction in Illinois would be transformative.
 
 It would finally allow reforms to those automatic 3 percent benefit 
			increases, for example. But it would not allow for cutting a dime 
			out of checks to current retirees or benefits already accrued by 
			current workers.
 
 In other words, it would finally allow for compromise in the face of 
			a crisis.
 
 This is the only realistic path toward pulling the state’s head 
			above water. The alternative is an entire generation of severe tax 
			hikes and mounting debt.
 
 The choices are clear. And the correct one becomes easier to make 
			when the people voting on changes don’t have six-figure checks 
			riding on the status quo.
 
			
            
			Click here to respond to the editor about this article |