State Rep-elect Will Guzzardi and Johnny’s Grill which is no longer.
One of the talking points for teacher bashing is how teachers get paid for summers off.
When I try to explain how this isn’t true – that teacher contracts are a per diem – that we are contracted (in my case) for 185 days, the eyes of whomever I was explaining this to glaze over. It’s just easier to wrap your head around the summers off talking point. And don’t even begin to explain teacher pay schedules – about steps and lanes.
Oy.
I feel the pain of many New York teachers who are trying to explain their unhappiness with the proposed new contract and so -called retroactive pay. Some teachers will be dead before they ever see a penny of it.
Oh. And was UFT President Michael Mulgrew quoted correctly in the NY Times?
“It’s the city’s money; we work for the city,” Mr. Mulgrew said. “So, once again, I can’t stress this enough, we work this out through negotiations. Retroactivity is not a God-given right.”
Damn. There’s a guy I wouldn’t want bargaining a contract for me. New York teachers haven’t had a pay increase in five years and Mulgrew is talking about God? God doesn’t negotiate good teacher contracts. Unions do. Or should.
Let me return to my discussion of teacher bashing and summers off.
Legislators in Springfield go home for the summer on Saturday – weeks before teachers do – and nobody complains about that.
And for good reason.
Okay. They passed a marriage equality bill. Not small potatoes, but a little late in the game. Probably minutes before a judge would have ruled the same thing. We now have 19 states that have decided what is obvious to many: The state has no interest in keeping people from getting married.
If they did they would have some explaining to do about Bruce and Diana Rauner.
Okay. Legislators in Springfield voted to legalize medical marijuana. Although that won’t stop Chicago police from arresting seven one hundred and fifty times more minorities than white people for pot possession. Even though the cops could just write a ticket.
On the other hand, Illinois legislators refused to address the revenue issue.
No vote to put a Constitutional change from a flat tax to a graduated income tax on the ballot.
No millionaire’s tax.
And today Madigan admitted he didn’t have the votes to keep the 5% flat income tax. It will now return to 3.75%, causing massive cuts to public schools and social programs.
Not enough votes to raise the minimum wage.
Not enough votes for guaranteed minimum sick days.
We are talking about Democratic Party votes. Democrats have a veto proof majority in both Illinois chambers.
They voted to cut Medicaid.
They voted to cut workmen’s comp.
And, of course, they broke their promise to uphold the Illinois Constitution when they passed SB1 and cut public employee pension benefits.
About State Representative Laura Fine. She represents a district in the north suburbs of Chicago where many of our Skokie Organization of Retired Educators (SORE) live or taught. We are a retiree chapter of the Illinois Education Association.
Twelve hours before the vote on Senate Bill 1 ten members of our group met with Representative Fine to explain why she should vote against pension theft. She told us that she had not read the bill and hadn’t decided how she would vote.
Twelve hours later she voted yes. Her oath of office, her promise to her constituents, to uphold the Constitutional pension protection clause meant nothing to Representative Fine.
There was no confusion that SB1 violated the Constitution. Even Attorney General Lisa Madigan admitted that in her response to the court. Her claim isn’t that SB1 is constitutional. Her claim is that the state has the police powers to ignore the constitution.
You know. Kind of like martial law.
Representative Fine – like many of those in Springfield – engages in selective promise keeping. She defended her refusal to address revenue by claiming legislators had made a promise to roll back the 5% income tax.
This weekend Capital Fax’s Rich Miller wrote a column about whether or not my new State Representative Will Guzzardi will vote next January to return Michael Madigan to his position as Speaker.
Michael Madigan will be the Speaker in the next session. Whether Will votes for him or not is purely symbolic.
My hope is that Will – who is not only my State Rep-elect, but is someone I consider a friend – will vote no.
Sometimes symbolic votes are important. I think it would make those who worked for his election proud of him if he were say no to Madigan as Speaker.
If Will never gets to be inside enough to get a bill passed with his name on it, I don’t care. If he never gets to be a wheeler-dealer in that snake pit we call Springfield, I don’t care.
That he spends the next session being a voice for working families, teachers, public employees and the rest of us who sent him there – that will be good enough.
And then he can take the summer off.
He will get no complaint from me.
Fred Klonsky 
I voted for Guzzardi in the primary. There was no Green Party primary and the union had asked everyone to take a Democratic ballot and vote for Guzzardi. Just Guzzardi.
There were no other candidates worth voting for, so I didn’t.
I’m under no illusions. Guzzardi will vote for Madigan. If he were not in sympathy with the Democrats on core issues he would not be running under their banner.
Walter,
What are “Democratic core issues”? Certainly, the only “core issue” Madigan has is power for Madigan. It sounds as if you don’t believe there is any further discussion with Will about anything because it is all settled. I can’t agree with you.
The Democrats simply wish things to continue as they have been. The Republicans would like to return to a previous era. Excepting some minor regional-sectional differences, each shares essentially the same political philosophy: Neoliberalism. I have no sympathy with either group.
The problem is that the world changes from time to time. Just now the world is being forced to adjust to resource and environmental constraints. The approaching end of the fossil fuel era and the emergence of global warming are examples. Neoliberalism does not offer any good options for dealing with this kind of change. I think they’re heading for war.
In the meantime there is less to go around, so we’re going to have learn to get by with less. Senior citizens have been nominated to make sacrifices so others won’t need to. We’ll join other minorities in the bread line. Eventually, of course, the entire 99% will find themselves also sacrificing. At that point political unrest will likely emerge.
I would prefer to keep my pension until better political options emerge. Guzzardi has promised to protect my pension and I think that is a good thing.
Guzzardi is running on the Democratic ballot line. That means he will caucus with them. He can’t differ too much from them, or he will be forced out.
Walter,
Whether or not I agree with your apocalyptical vision or not is not the point here. You voted for Will Guzzardi because he promised to protect your pension – and for no other reason? Guzzardi’s position on pensions emerged because those of us who worked in his campaign helped formulate it and pressed for him to speak to it. Democrats – like Republicans – are not of one mind on every issue. There are divisions among them, particularly at the state legislative level. Not enough differences to my liking – but differences. Following your analysis, there is no point to press Guzzardi on any issue now. He is fully formed because a Democrat is a Democrat. And the notion of creating an electoral arm of the progressive movement in the City, both in and out of the Democratic Party, is pointless. Only Green. No Progressive Caucus in the City Council. No run against Rahm for Mayor. Only Green.
I don’t agree.
How wonderful to be represented by Will G. So many of us can only dream of having someone of unquestioned integrity in Springfield.
I hope Will votes “No” as well. Symbolic votes do matter. Courage matters. Building progressive allies matters. I also know that Will will not be taking any summers off… he’ll be registering voters, fighting for progressive candidates and fighting for an elected representative school board (and, no doubt, raising money for his next campaign as our system requires.)
If just our teachers unions, the biggest political contributors,said enough. You get primaried for voting for this guy …but geeze they would be taken as tough political players instead of doormats….Some Senator said today maybe this county pension bill could be a template when the courts toss SB1. Ah life as a doormat.
It really is martial law. why not speech, religion, habeus corpus and so on with that argument. It is quite an argument when they are going to pass a budget that makes pension payments and some cuts along with a big tax cut ….and delays bill payments. Well better them than us I guess. But some crisis. What a joke Mike Madigan’s profile is.
So you have a problem with “no vote to put a Constitutional change from a flat tax to a graduated income tax on the ballot” or a millionaire’s tax (a different form of graduated income tax), yet get upset when “they broke their promise to uphold the Illinois Constitution when they passed SB1 and cut public employee pension benefits.”
I’m curious as to why you have no issue changing the state constitution to raise taxes on the citizens of IL yet when someone attempts to reign in out-of-control pension benefits, you get all up in arms? Is it the runaround method they did this or the basic fact of changing the outdated and no longer feasible pension rules? I find it interesting that unions seem rather flippant about one law (graduated taxes) yet defend their legal right in the other (pensions) when BOTH are guaranteed under the constitution.
If we are going to change the state constitution, what is your stance on removing BOTH provisions?
I’m afraid that it is your logic that is flawed. On so many levels.
The Illinois legislature didn’t change the constitution. They shredded it. They passed SB1 with the full knowledge that it wasunconstitutional. And Lisa Madigan, in her initial argument to Judge Belz admitted it was unconstitutional. She claimed that state has police powers that can supersede the constitution, as if she was declaring martial law.
A change to the constitution requires a vote of both houses of the legislature and a supermajority vote of the citizens of Illinois. That is the legal way to change the constitution. That is what I and supporters of a fair tax advocate. Democracy. Not rule by Michael Madigan.
Furthermore, even if there were a democratic constitutional change to the pension protection clause it could not be retroactive, taking away pension benefits to those of us who are already retired. It could only change things going forward. The legislature broke a contractual obligation and agreement by reducing benefits to those already retired.
I have no doubt that the court will find this unconstitutional.
There is nothing flippant about advocating for the rule of law.
I agree the end-around Madigan is attempting is flawed, just like his attempt to balance the state budget and putting off the tax hike vote until AFTER the election.
How do you define a fair tax? I defined a fair tax as where all citizens have skin in the game. Retirement benefits are currently not taxed (for anyone). You are basically stating you are for raising everyone else’s taxes but your own. Doesn’t sound like you have skin in the game at all. What was your opinion on the “fair tax” while you were working? If you felt you were under-taxed, you could have paid extra or denied the state tax refund. Did you? You can still write a large check to the state if you truly believe in this. Will you?
Have you ever done the basic financial analysis of a pension? Try plugging the #’s into a spreadsheet sometime. It’s enlightening…and frightening. Take your contribution + the state + investment gains over the course of your career. Then start the withdrawals. You will find it takes about 12 years to burn through your investment portfolio (even sooner if you were got one of those law-dodging pension bumps at the end of your career). But do the withdrawals stop when the money is gone? Nope. It’s like you invested $100, I contributed $100 on your behalf, the total investment made $100, but you withdraw $600. How is that possible? Any retiree with an IRA would never manage their retirement as such or they’d go hungry. And you are one of tens of thousands doing this. THIS is the main reason for the current situation. Did the deferral of state payments help? Of course not! It just got us to the inevitable current situation sooner rather than later.
BTW-I respect all the contributions of teachers. I do feel they have been singled out wrongly in this argument. But I do feel this public union entitlement mentality has to change. Withdrawals consistently outpace contributions. That is a fact. Being entitled to a negative mathematical equation does you no, or anyone else, any good. But something has to change to help balance the equation above, but I feel the pensioners have a lot to work to do in this regard, not the taxpayer.
How do I define a fair tax?
The same way it is defined at the federal level. Those who earn more should pay more. Those like Ken Griffin, Illinois’ current leader in earned income should pay more in state income tax than an Associate at Walmart. Currently everyone who pays an income tax pays the same rate.
I was in favor of a progressive income tax when I was working just as I support it now. “Skin in the game” is just an expression and doesn’t define anything. Taxing everyone’s retirement income should be considered as part of a fair taxation plan, but not the first item on the agenda. The state’s financial problems won’t be solved by taxing the income of the poor, the retired and the lowest paid. The first item on the agenda is raising revenue by taxing those who have the most. Not those that have the least.
The rest of your comments are just silly.
On what planet do you live where you consider that payment for services is somehow a gift?
We are public employees who provide a service. We teach your children. Put out your fires. Patrol your streets. Pick up you garbage. Nurse members of your family. The compensation we receive is not a gift or a contribution. Any more than your salary. You may be a private sector worker. I am a public sector worker. But workers must be paid for their work.
There is a financial exchange. We provide these services for compensation. As a teacher I worked for wages and deferred compensation. You may not like the deal, but that doesn’t matter. It wasn’t a verbal agreement or an understanding. It wasn’t a suggestion or even a promise. It was a constitutionally protected contractual arrangement. Both sides bargained it and signed at the bottom of the contract.
While I was working, you may have thought I was paid too little or too much. But that doesn’t matter. We have a contract. The state has a contractual obligation.
You may not like the mortgage payment you are paying to the bank for the house you bought. But you can’t go back now and say it isn’t fair or that it costs too much. The bank will shed no tears. If you don’t pay, they will take your house.
If a private employer had failed to meet their obligations to pay into Social Security in the same way the state has failed to pay its pension obligations, the employer would have gone to jail.
You did not contribute anything to my pension on my behalf. The state hired me at a negotiated package of salary and benefits, including a pension benefit. And that is not the cause of the current problem. The cause of the current problem is that the state did not pay their obligation for over 50 years. So not only aren’t you making a charitable contribution – as in a gift – you haven’t paid much of anything at all. That is why the pension systems have a $100 billion liability. I mean, what did you think was happening all these years? Did you actually think you were funding my pension plan. No. You weren’t! As public employees, you were supposed to. But you didn’t. THAT is the cause of the current problem.
I don’t recall using the word “gift” in my response. “My contribution” is really the state’s portion/match, which comes from my state income tax, which is indeed “my contribution.” In essence, the taxpayer pays the match. I’m not sure why you feel 5% of my salary is a gift to you.
I like my mortgage payment to my bank, otherwise I would not have signed that contract. I entered into that agreement willfully. However, I did not willfully enter into an agreement to pay into an insolvent fund in perpetuity that was bargained for by two sides, both of which were on the same side of the bargaining table. I wouldn’t call representation paid off by union contributions fair, nor would most folks.
The constitutionality of the pension clause is under fire in many states. In Minnesota, the court found that the retirees did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that changes to pension benefits were unconstitutional. In Colorado, the court held that reducing pension benefits to strengthen the overall pension fund was not a violation of any constitutional protections. I find that clause is open to interpretation and biased based on who stands to benefit (ie our opinions). I appreciate your stance, but it can be challenged.
Look…I am no pension expert. Nor do i wish to send every retiree to the poor house. But do you have ANY solutions other than tax everyone else but yourself? You may have been for progressive taxes, but that point is moot now that you are retired and are no longer taxed by the state. How about a cap of $90K/yr on pension benefits? SS is capped, why not pensions? Or how about using the last 15 years of service to calculate pension payouts instead of the last 5 years? (you know, SS determines my payout on my ENTIRE career, including my high school jobs). Or maybe raise the retirement age to mirror SS (and not just for future hires)?
Once again, you will point to what you feel is protected by law. But I would suggest asking mom-n-pop GM bondholder how the laws worked out for them during the GM bailout. You say the state failed to pay its obligation. I challenge the obligation itself. The only thing a plan, based on unrealistic investment returns and withdrawals exceeding contributions, is obliged to do is default. Sadly, the math does not lie.
Okay. One last time and then we’re moving on.
The taxpayer (which includes public employees, by the way) pays into the general fund. The legislature then votes on a budget. What the Illinois legislature didn’t do was pay into the pension funds. See? You didn’t pay. Not for over 50 years. That’s why there is a $100 billion liability.
It’s not about investment returns. The Teacher Retirement Fund has exceeded expectations on investments except for the two recession years. For decades.
The fact that you don’t like the deal doesn’t mean they were “on the same side of the table.” You don’t willfully enter into an agreement as an individual about contracts the state makes. How much is spent to pave roads. Build schools. Put up street lights. How exactly do you think government works?
By the way, what do you call representation bought off by the Koch brothers and the Civic Committee?
It is true. You are no pension expert. The states you mention don’t have the very specific pension protection clause that Illinois has. Written in 1970, the language says that pension benefits may not be diminished or impaired. Period. Those who wrote that clause are still around. They have testified what it meant. It means what it says.
Arizona has the same specific constitutional language and the courts have held in favor of the employees.
Tax everybody but myself?
You just made that up. I said tax the rich. Unless that includes you.
I don’t believe in changing contracts retroactively. Not yours. Not mine.
But apparently you do.
We will see what the Illinois Supreme Court says.
But as I say. Our conversation is done and I’m moving on.
Have you ever heard of cost allocation? At the risk of making eyes glaze over here is an explanation.
At the end of each fiscal year the government agencies I worked for did a final accounting. This was called the “close out package.” All expenses were tallied including wages and benefits. All costs associated with retirement which were attributable to that year were accounted for, allocated, by funding stream. Everything totalled to 100%. At the conclusion of each year the agency certified that we were paid up 100%. Any final billing was done at that time.
At the end of our careers, on the day we retired, every penny had been paid in advance, and we were set. Our governmental unit had certified that this was so at the time they received their final check. I knew this because as a sometimes grant adminisrator I used to be involved in doing closeout packages.
Guess what? Those low paying jobs we held, when the present cost of future pension benefits was factored in, turned out to have been worth just about exactly what their private sector equivalents paid. Furthermore, there were and are no ongoing costs to the taxpayer associated with those already retired.
The taxpayers had paid up the pension funds, but politicians found a way to cheat. They found a way(s) to siphon money out of the pension plans. Now the plans are in trouble. The taxpayer is getting the bill. How do we allocate the cost?
This is the cost of corruption.