Public-sector opposition is the biggest impediment to the legislation’s passage, said Sen. Matt Murphy, R-Palatine, also a member of the conference committee.
“Whether they are going to be able to keep it from passing is certainly an open question,” he said.
But Murphy and Nekritz voiced optimism.
“I’m getting reports that everyone is out working it and rounding up the votes,” Nekritz said. “This is the first time that all four leaders have agreed on a proposal. . . . At the end of the day, with the leaders pushing this and I think with sort of the recognition by legislators that we have to do something . . . I think we’ll get it passed.”
Republican gubernatorial candidate Bruce Rauner has criticized the bill.
“Any deal that would rank pension payouts to government union bosses ahead of priorities like education and public safety should cause grave concern,” he said last week when the tentative deal was announced.
Nekritz said that’s not the case and noted the bill’s so-called pension payment guarantee has wiggle room. If the state fails to make a pension payment, a retirement system could file action in the Illinois Supreme Court to compel the state to make the required payment. But if the state faces a crisis, it could simply vote to change what the required payment would be, she noted, effectively working around that guarantee.
Nekritz noted that flexibility does cause her some concern, despite her support of the deal.
“I can argue both sides of it because what we end up doing . . . is sort of digging ourselves back into the hole we’re in now by failing to make an actuarily adequate payment,” she said. “On the other hand, what you end up doing [otherwise] is having to say, ‘Well I’m going to have to cut $2 billion . . . pick your favorite program,’ and that’s not a good policy outcome either. There’s really no perfect way to do this that provides flexibility for funding other current services and make sure that the pension payment is fully funded. There’s just no way to do that.”
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Fred Klonsky 
What about the revenue side? She doesn’t mention that. Nor does Rauner mention that he would put corporate welfare above that of public employees.
So, she is basically explaining (wink, wink) how the Legislature can continue to avoid their pension obligations by just changing the rules if anyone “complains” to the courts. They are going to take care of those annoying union diehards. How can she say this stuff with a straight face?
I love the comment re: “wiggle room”. If the state fails to pay, we can take them to court to force payment. But then the legislators could then vote to change the payment! I know this won’t matter Fred, but it is amusing that Nekritz is admitting to this being a crappy idea.
Nekritz is wrong. It appears that one of her “options” if the state fails to make a payment that they could simply vote to change what the required payment should be. Isn’t that what got us into this problem in the first place? She obviously does not understand the situation. “Pick your favorite program” to cut???? The legislators should have been doing that all along. They funded their pet projects with OUR pension monies and now they expect us to take the hit because of their inaptitude and stupidity. Her comments are insulting.
“Nekritz said that’s not the case and noted the bill’s so-called pension payment guarantee has wiggle room. If the state fails to make a pension payment, a retirement system could file action in the Illinois Supreme Court to compel the state to make the required payment. But if the state faces a crisis, it could simply vote to change what the required payment would be, she noted, effectively working around that guarantee.”
Contracts and guarantees mean nothing to our legislators. That’s why we are in this situation.
According to Rauner: “Any deal that would rank pension payouts to government union bosses ahead of priorities like education and public safety should cause grave concern,” he said last week when the tentative deal was announced.
Government union bosses? How about all of us peons scraping to get through retirement?
Well this was an unexpected moment of honesty. On the other hand, Representative Nekritz would warn us all that the General Assembly can enact one law and change (or alter) it in the next hour. This is historically how she has looked at legislation, as she has explained to me. And, honestly, her comments are not political schizophrenia, because she sees clearly that by 2015 Illinois will have $3.5 to $4 billion less in revenue than it does now – for service programs. Those numbers come from Martire, not the sky, and she knows they’re close to actual. She also knows because she has been looking at this mess they created for years now.
So, you see, passing a promise to fund comes with the necessary political fingers crossed. In the General Assembly’s myopic state, they cannot envision anything but the way it is: a crazy pension ramp and fixed flat revenue system. Representative Nekritz knows that too. Even a Rube Goldberg of unconstitutional attachments like this latest version is easier than convincing leadership to do anything but take it out on those who paid in in the first place. The amortization of the unfunded liability would pretty much create the same pain they will feel with the “pension ramp,” but it is the pain they think they know. And that pain would let them “dig the hole” again, when the time comes. According to charts by the CTBA, the payment would fall quickly after a couple of years of amortized debt, but they will have none of that.
Let’s keep the comments simple…It’s the assholes leading the assholes in Springfield. My apologies for the crude language, but I could not think of a better word for our elected jackals!
I hope she fits into the hole.
she will be looking for a new job after the next election