A Compromise For Illinois

Last updated on: July 5, 2018 at 7:59 am by Jane the Actuary

A Compromise For Illinois 2018-07-05T07:59:15-06:00 Jane the Actuary

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Here’s an item in the Illinois state constitution that fiscal conservatives don’t like: Article XIII, Section 5, which states that “Membership in any pension or retirement system of the State, any unit of local government or school district, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired.the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired.” This means that whatever terms are in existence when an employee is first hired into the state, are promised to that employee for the entire duration of their employment. And if benefits are enhanced, they will permanently get those enhanced benefits.

Here’s an item in the Illinois state constitution that Democrats don’t like: Article IX, Section 3, that requires that “A tax on or measured by income shall be at a non-graduated rate.” I say “Democrats” specifically because each of their primary candidates included in their platform the elimination of this clause and the imposition of higher marginal taxes on the so-called “millionaires and billionaires” — though in practice proposals impose higher taxes on virtually everyone.

In my world, neither of these clauses belong in the constitution. At the state level, the constitution should be a document which sets forth the structure of the governing bodies, how those in power are elected, which activities are the responsibilities of the state vs. local governments, and other basic elements of the government.

So let’s create a compromise: a constitutional amendment that eliminates both these clauses, offered up to voters at the next available opportunity. Mind you, there would be no accompanying legislation that either cuts pension benefits nor raises taxes. It would merely be a “clean-up” of the constitution. And, as a reminder, the Illinois constitutional amendment process provides for either amendment-by-petition, that is, with amendments which gain enough signatures going on the ballot (which is virtually guaranteed to fail because its opponents can bankroll a court fight, e.g., in the attempt to get an anti-gerrymandering amendment passed failed because at every turn Madigan and his allies fought it), or enables the legislature themselves to choose items to put on the ballot. I don’t anticipate that there’d be a lot of energy for a group to put such an amendment on the ballot, but it seems to me that this is something about which there’s at least the slimmest of possibilities (which, in Illinois, is about as good as you’re going to get) that Madigan might see as promising because he could get support from Republicans for a supermajority).

So how ’bout it? Let’s restore to the legislature, as our elected* representatives, the ability both to make changes to public employees’ future pension accruals and to modify the income tax rates on marginal incomes.

Is it a huge risk? Is there a chance that the ultimate outcome would be higher taxes, while leaving pension formulas untouched, because of the degree of the Democrats’ stranglehold on Illinois government, and especially because of Pritzker’s promise to do exactly this? Recall that he not only has no plan other than “refinancing,” that is, reamortizing the debt to a new payment schedule further out into the future, but he excoriated his primary opponent for having made an effort to solve the problem.

But we should take that risk nonetheless, because our choices are so few in our current situation, and because that at least gives us hope for future reform.

*Yes, you might quibble that “elected” isn’t really the right term here, given the extreme gerrymandering in Illinois that’s the cause of the quip that legislators are selecting their districts rather than districts selecting their legislators, as well as the tight hold Madigan has due to the campaign cash he controls. But we are where we are.

Image: Illinois state capitol; https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Illinoiscapitol2.jpg

Previous Post

July 4, 2018

Are Roe & Obergefell a new generation's Marbury v. Madison?

Next Post

July 8, 2018 Is camping for white people?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Actuarial/Retirement Issues Politics Uncategorized

Select a Month September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 December 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 August 2021 June 2021 April 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which book in the New Testament is the shortest?

Select your answer to see how you score.

3 John 2 John Jude Philemon