Jim Dey: Court ruling puts Illinois at dilemma's door

Jim Dey: Court ruling puts Illinois at dilemma's door

Nearly 40 years ago, then-President Gerald Ford made headlines when he announced the federal government would not bail New York City out of its desperate financial woes.

But one particular front-page headline was credited with costing Ford New York state's electoral votes in his extremely close 1976 race against Democrat Jimmy Carter.

"Ford to City: Drop Dead," wrote the Daily News, one of New York City's tabloids.

Members of the Illinois Supreme Court would certainly disagree, maybe even take umbrage. But a headline summary of its recent decision in a controversial public employee pension case could evoke an equally cadaverous conclusion: "Supreme Court to Illinois: Drop Dead."

Judges, of course, contend they decide cases based on their interpretation of the facts and the law, and let the chips fall where they may. But the bottom line of the high court's 6-1 decision — which held that health insurance for state retirees is a constitutionally protected pension benefit — is that those falling chips really are boulders that could squash everything in their path.

University of Illinois finance professor Jeffrey Brown calls the decision "terrific news" for public employees, but warns that "it may be an irrecoverable fiscal blow to the state."

He sees two unpalatable options available to our elected officials: raising taxes through the roof to meet skyrocketing revenue needs generated by this decision or slashing non-pension expenditures (education, transportation, law enforcement) and using the proceeds to fund pensions.

"Neither of those options are good for the long-term economy (of Illinois)," he said. "That's when you have to worry about getting into a death spiral."

Owing to many years of poor spending decisions, including the Legislature's failure to properly fund the public pensions, Illinois has been in dire financial straits for years. It's taken a whack at raising taxes — a 66 percent state income tax increase in 2011 — and trying to slow the anticipated growth in public pension costs.

In addition to requiring retirees to pay some of their health insurance costs, legislators approved a series of changes in pension rules that included raising the retirement age and modifying the 3 percent annual cost-of-living increases.

But the Supreme Court's decision knocked the health insurance law out cold and foreshadows a similar decision on public pension benefits when the courts rule on the pending challenge to that law.

The court action has prompted legislators to talk, vaguely, about going "back to the drawing board." But if efforts to slow the increases in pension costs to cut the estimated $100 billion pension under-funding problem is off the board, what's the alternative? There's only one — more revenue.

Neither Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn nor Republican gubernatorial candidate Bruce Rauner wants to address that possibility. Both have insisted that the lawsuit involving the pension system presents a different issue than the court's health insurance ruling. But few are buying that claim, asserting that if the court rules that health insurance can be interpreted as a pension benefit that can never be diminished, then certainly actual pension benefits will be given the same interpretation.

The legal issue turns on the interpretation of the so-called "pension clause" in the Illinois Constitution. It reads that membership in a state pension plan is "an enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired."

But does that mean that while benefits already earned cannot be impaired, future benefits can be modified? The high court appeared to say that benefits can never be modified — even if they won't be earned for another 20 years.

In other words, it's unconstitutional to do anything other than increase benefit arrangement in place on the day an employee is hired. "Find me a system anywhere in the world that doesn't allow you to change the benefits prospectively," said Brown.

Right here in Illinois, would be the Supreme Court's response.

So how will Illinois come up with the cash?

A spokesman for a public employees union suggested raising taxes on millionaires. But there aren't enough millionaires and billionaires to generate sufficient revenue. There are lots of ordinary people who can be hit up, though. Here are some options:

— Illinois doesn't tax retirement income. That would generate $2 billion-plus a year.

— House Speaker Michael Madigan wants to shift the cost of teacher pensions from the state to local property taxpayers. He has promoted that option in the past and can be expected to do so again.

— Illinois doesn't tax services. It can start to do so and place a sales tax on food as well.

— Illinois' state income tax is scheduled to fall from 5 percent to 3.75 percent on Jan. 1. The Legislature can make the temporary 5 percent tax permanent, then extend it from there to generate more revenue.

None of those is an attractive option, but that doesn't appear to matter.

"... we have concluded that the (non-diminishment) provision was aimed at protecting the right to receive the promised retirement benefits, not the adequacy of the funding to pay for them," Justice Charles Freeman wrote for the court.

Jim Dey, a member of The News-Gazette staff, can be reached by email at jdey@news-gazette.com or at 217-351-5369.

Sections (2):Columns, Opinion


News-Gazette.com embraces discussion of both community and world issues. We welcome you to contribute your ideas, opinions and comments, but we ask that you avoid personal attacks, vulgarity and hate speech. We reserve the right to remove any comment at our discretion, and we will block repeat offenders' accounts. To post comments, you must first be a registered user, and your username will appear with any comment you post. Happy posting.

Login or register to post comments

yates wrote on July 15, 2014 at 9:07 am

So the only way out of this mess is eventual bankruptcy, it would seem. Better hope there is a democrat president at that time to bail us out.

Citizen1 wrote on July 15, 2014 at 1:07 pm

Not mentioned is that to raise taxes on working people to pay those who don't work, retired at age 52 and who made and will make more results in one of the greatest transfers of wealth in the history of the state.  Additionally to raise property taxes, especially on farmland own by those who either will move or have moved out of state results in taxation without representation.  Sell farmland.  Move out of state.  Only solutions left.  Let those on public pensions figure out to pay themselves since they and the non-working poor will be the only people left in the state.

Sid Saltfork wrote on July 15, 2014 at 2:07 pm

The one-and-only newspaper in the area which is neo-conservative in it's "opinions" again advocates theft of others earned retirement money.  The Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the theft is unconstitutional.  Even the republican candidate for governor, Bruce Rauner, has stated that the proposed theft was unconstitutional; and violated contractual law. 

The News Gazette again stirs up the howling mob of those who did not earn the pensions, but howls for pension theft.  The likes of Yates, and the pompously titled Citizen1 did not earn a pension.  Even though the public employees served them over the years, the two of them with others want the theft to happen. 

A city may go bankrupt; but a state cannot.  The money owed to the pension funds can be found; but it will require that the non-essential spending stop.  The hiking trails, swimming pools, volleyball in-door courts, and other whims are non-essential spending.  They represent pork barrel politics with "campaign donations" from the vendors.  Illinois can pay it's debts if it follows a tight budget for only essential needs, not wants.  An overhaul of the tax breaks is needed also.  Why give a tax break for "ink, and paper" to a political newspaper?

yates wrote on July 15, 2014 at 9:07 pm

But Sid I do get a pension, albeit one from a private corporation. And while my pension hasn't been cut, I get a letter every year explaining why the company is eliminating or reducing this benefit or that. The unessentials you want to cut don't amount to a hill of beans. The only way to right the ship would be massive cuts in unemployment comp, workmans comp, welfare, food stamps, education and massive tax increases all across the board. Good luck.

Sid Saltfork wrote on July 16, 2014 at 2:07 pm

yates; I am sorry about your benefits being reduced.  You do still have your pension from your former corporate employer.  However calling for state, university, and teachers pensions to be reduced is just theft while pork barrel spending continues.  The unessentials do amount to a huge amount of money.  Remember when Illinois passed a Build Illinois bill amounting to 31 billion dollars.  That money went to ballpark lights, dolphin pool liner, church roofs, and a multitude of other wants versus needs.  The "temporary income tax" will become permanent regardless of who is elected governor.  Illinois spending is like a family with holes in their roof going out, and buying new furniture.  The corruption, and need to be re-elected has brought on the debt.  The two previous governors of both parties before Quinn went to prison for corruption.  Now, the feds are investigating Quinn.  No doubt that he will end up doing time also.  Aim your hate toward the politicians instead of the public employees who did their jobs serving the people.  Don't let some paid lackey of a right wing media source influence you.

dw wrote on July 16, 2014 at 8:07 pm

merely find a new revenue stream to tax:

The problem is all inside your head she said to me.
The answer is easy if you take it logically.
I'd like to help you in your struggle to be free
There must be, $50B in a mary jane tax.

And that's a tax folks who toke would be happy to pay: a mary jane production and purchasing tax.

Tourists vist "The Higher State" just to get a mile high, and the state coffers are rolling in the dough from the dopes...


Instead, what do we do in Illinois? We SPEND untold sums of $$$ busting and processing folks through the system for it.

I don't smoke pot, but I'm all for legalizing it. The risk is much less than the reward(s). The restaurant industry will benefit as well...