Representative Elaine Nekritz.
Nerkitz is the House Democrats’ point person on pensions, and a leader of the so-called “conference committee” charged with finding a compromise. The bipartisan, bicameral panel was formed after a disagreement between the House and Senate this spring over the best way to reduce the state’s pension costs ended in a stalemate. Illinois has yet to find a way to pay for nearly $100 billion in future pension liabilities. There’s repeatedly been word the committee is close to completing its mission — but that’s been going on for weeks. Members, including Nekritz, continue to sound both optimistic, and cautious.
“I believe that the conference committee continues to take steps forward and we are very, very close to having an agreement,” she says. “That being said there are still some open issues that could throw up a real roadblock. So far we’ve been able to work our way thorough those as they’ve come up, but one never knows.”
Nekritz says the committee is focusing on the most expensive benefit paid out to Illinois’ retired state workers – the automatic, three percent, compounded payment increase retirees receive, every year.The main idea would reduce those increases to one-half the consumer price index, with details yet to be worked out. The loose plan also calls for delaying when current state workers would begin recieving those pension bumps. In exchange, workers — and public school teachers and university employees — would have less of their paychecks deducted to pay for retirement.
The fact that the committee’s been fixed on this version of a pension overhaul for at least a month indicates it could be the real deal. But the lag time also hints at serious problems with it.
Hear the entire report here.
Fred Klonsky 
This appears to be a blatant attempt to split retirees from actives in order to defeat both groups at once and change pensions forever.
Why do I think that? Active teachers will see in this proposal an opportunity for them to pay less for their (reduced) retirement benefit. Retirees will see nothing positive in this proposal; in fact, by cutting their COLA to 1/2 the CPI, they will probably be seeing LESS, depending upon the rate of inflation. I believe the consequence of this proposal may be that actives will object less to it than current retirees will. That means less pushback from many voters and that is all the General Assembly cares about.
Personally, I would like to keep the terms of my COLA exactly as they are, but I don’t object too much to having the COLA tied to the CPI. However, I don’t see why it has to be less than 100% of the CPI. After all, the point of a COLA is to keep up with the cost-of-living. That’s how Social Security operates.
Divide and conquer.
I suspect, once again, the politics of — SQUIRREL ❣❣❣
Retirees are not exempt from inflation. Why not keep the CPI at the rate of inflation? 3% was the chosen rate years ago to try to keep pensions at the same growth rate as social security. Going back in time to 1939, pensions have suffered under the 3% rate and social security receipients have received more on average.
As soon as you have a direct tie in to CPI you’ll find the CPI being re-defined in favor of anyone but the retirees. Just look how they have messed with CPI for soc. Sec.