From by bro’s Small Talk blog
Tweet from Randi Weingarten @rweingartenThe Illinois Senate pension proposal is a good and fair agreement: http://bit.ly/10FkSub #1u Reply from Mike Klonsky @mikeklonsky It’s that much harder to fight cuts to our pensions and health care when @rweingarten is calling them “good” & “fair”.. But we will.
Tweet from SmallSchoolsWorkshop@Smallschools
@rweingarten How can you call SB 2404 which calls for major cuts in retired teachers’ pensions and health care, a “fair solution”?Tweet from Randi Weingarten@rweingarten
@Smallschools- have you seen the other proposals? This is the agreed upon bill-and I believe retirees were not impactedTweet from fklonsky
@fklonsky@rweingarten Retirees face a loss of cost of living increases and access to state health care. How do you not know this?Tweet from Randi Weingarten@rweingarten
@fklonsky @smallschools -the bill that was negotiated is huge improvement over what others had planned- future retirees have some choicesTweet from Mike Klonsky@mikeklonsky
@rweingarten @fklonsky “Choices”? You mean between giving up COLA or health benefits? Are those the choices AFT supports? Both bills worseTweet from Randi Weingarten@rweingarten
@fklonsky @smallschools – I understand – there’s been real support in Ill for the Senate bill- don’t let them do what happened in RI..
Tweet from Randi Weingarten @rweingarten @fklonsky -fred as u know,Ill pension system in bad shape-everyone doing something to save it-inc 2 year staggered cola holiday
I have commented the past two days about American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten’s endorsement of the SB2404 deal.
Fred Klonsky 
Fred,
I just thanked Randi for the AFT support of SB 2404. You make mostly good arguments but how do you figure that pension members are footing the entire bill for anything. Taxpayers are, as usual, footing most of the bill. I have no problem with that. It is their debt after all but why result to misleading, if not completely untrue, rhetoric to make your point. SB 2404 requires members to make only a 10 % contribution to help solve the problem. The taxpayers are still on the hook for the other 90%.
Thanks Bill. Given your outlook, it does not surprise me you would applaud Weingarten. Like Randi,you either know what you are saying is wrong, or you are painfully ignorant of the subject you are commenting on. The truth is that the state has a $100 billion pension liability. That liability will continue to grow because the General Assembly and the Governor will not address the revenue problem, either by closing corporate loopholes or working to change the flat income tax rate to a progressive tax rate. As a result, both SB1 and SB2404 find savings only, only, by cutting benefits to current and future retirees. Thereby having us, as I correctly said, foot the entire bill of new savings to the current and future liability. Taxpayers (including members of the pension system itself) are not on the hook, as you describe it. It is a debt that is owed and that must be paid. Would you call taxpayers on the hook for policemen’s salaries? Or fire protection? State pensions are compensation to public service employees. The major falsehood in your comment is the claim that increasing our contribution helps solve the problem. It does no such thing. The liability will continue to increase until the state addresses the revenue problem.
Fred,
The liability will not continue to grow if the state continues to make its required payments under the current ramp as 2404 mandates. Furthermore, saving $46 billion from participants shaves less than 15% of the projected pension cost of $336 billion over the next 40 years. SB 1, by contrast, takes at least $150 billion from participants. 2404 also commits an extra $1 billion per year starting in 2020 after pension bonds are paid. In addition, due to tier two, the normal coast approaches less than zero over the next decade. Without over optimistic projections the funds should be 90% funded by 2045 without considering the cost shift. SB 1 would decimate retirees standard of living over time. SB 2404 would not. Randi knows this, Montgomery knows this and your friends in IEA leadership know this.
Revenue enhancement in the form of tax reform may someday take place but it won’t be in the near future. In fact it doesn’t stand any chance at all without some form of pension modification first. Every special interest group wants the revenue from those corporate loopholes. Why should teachers alone get it if they ever even happen?
It is time to cut your losses and support a deal. The administrators who run the IRTA don’t have the money to fight this and if they did they wouldn’t spend it defending teachers. These are the same administrators you fought with your entire career. For them to say that 100% of their members support their position is just as ludicrous as you saying that 100% of IEA members support yours.
Everyone knows teachers pay taxes. Everyone knows that teachers paid their share. Everyone knows that teachers are getting a raw deal. That really isn’t the point. It is time to cut our losses and get out of this mess with the least pain possible. That’s what your leaders are trying to do. I hope they succeed.
Randi was bought off by the corporate powers a long time ago. So her ignorance (she doesn’t want to know!) is no surprise.
Some obvious crooked thinking taking place here. You assume members are not tax payers?
The bottom portion of your post mirrors my thoughts (& comments on your original Weingarten post). Not only was Randi not really an educator, but she’s not a very spot-on lawyer, either. It bears repeating: people who don’t practice due diligence (especially those on the outside) have no business in our business. Let Dan Montgomery do his work and voice his opinion, but Randi–no. And, Fred, I’m surprised that both you and Gary Elmen haven’t received any feedback from Dennis yet. However, I’m sure it’s coming soon.
I am constantly surprised at the number of people that are happily bringing the Vaseline to the f*#k the public servants party.