Honest-to-goodness pension fix

Re-amortize state’s debt to pension funds

There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth when the recent lame-duck session in Springfield ended. Why? No action was taken to address the $95 billion in debt owed to the state’s five pension systems.

This leaves the systems with just 40 percent of funding they should have currently, well below the 80 percent generally deemed healthy for public systems.

Good government groups and editorial boards lamented the Legislature’s failure to pass yet another proposal to reduce that ginormous obligation – this time cutting almost $30 billion in benefits earned by current workers and retirees. 

Story Archived

Only the most recent 7 days of articles are available for free. For articles older than 7 days there is a small fee for retrieval from our archive. If you are a registered member of the site, the content is free just by signing in below.

Please sign in with your Comment Member ID and password.

Did you purchase access?

Member ID:
Password:
Forgot Your Password?
Register to comment.

Purchase Access
To allow for flexibility, we offer a variety of options for purchasing articles:
Purchase options


Having trouble?

If you have any technical difficulties, either with your username and password or with the payment options, please contact us by e-mail at archivedesk@shawmedia.com

Blogs

» Out Here
Out Here

Wise saw collapse in support

Last week, Sterling Alderwoman Amy Viering attended her last meeting as a city official. She gave the usual praise one hears at such departures. But one compliment stuck out. At the end of her speech, she turned to City Administrator Scott Shumard and said, "You're awesome."
» Out Here
Out Here

On pensions, Bivins and GOP far apart

Sen. Tim Bivins, R-Dixon, joined with many of his fellow Senate Republicans this week to reject a pension bill sponsored by Democratic Senate President John Cullerton of Chicago. The measure passed 40-16. Bivins had a different reason for his no vote.

Reader Poll

How concerned are you that the IRS targeted conservative political groups for additional and often burdensome scrutiny?

Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not very concerned
Not concerned at all