Good luck with that
Posted on 11/21/2014 4:07:11 PM PST by mdittmar
An Illinois judge has ruled unconstitutional a controversial plan to reduce state employees’ retirement benefits.
Labor groups sued the State of Illinois for passing a bill reducing their members’ pension benefits. The unions representing downstate and suburban teachers, university employees and most other state workers argued the state constitution says, specifically, that retirement benefits can’t be diminished. On Friday, Sangamon County Circuit Court Judge John Belz agreed.
Belz quoted directly from the state constitution in his six-page decision, citing the passage that states retirement benefits “shall not be diminished or repaired.” He singled out components of the bill that narrowly passed the state legislature last year to explain why he was ruling against the state. For instance, the law changed cost-of-living increases certain employees receive in retirement, and put a cap on some employees’ pensionable salary.
“The State of Illinois made a constitutionally protected promise to its employees concerning their pension benefits,” Belz wrote in his decision. “Under established and uncontroverted Illinois law, the State of Illinois cannot break this promise.”
Labor unions representing employees who are in those retirement systems celebrated the decision.
“The court granted us everything. The court saw it our way,” said Dan Montgomery, president of the Illinois Federation of Teachers. “This is an unambiguous, unequivocal victory for the constitution and for working people.”
“Retirees who earned their modest security in retirement, they always paid their share. And they should not be punished for the failures of politicians,” said Anders Lindall, a spokesman for the We Are One Coalition, a group of labor unions.
Attorneys who defended the bill acknowledged that it reduced benefits, but argued it is needed to deal with a $105 billion unfunded pension liability. Studies have shown that massive debt tied to Illinois’ retirement payments is the worst of any state in the country.
Gov. Pat Quinn, and those who supported the legislation, argue basic functions of state government are in danger if the pension law is found to be unconstitutional.
“This historic pension reform law eliminates the state’s unfunded liability and fully stabilizes the systems to ensure retirement security for employees who have faithfully contributed to them,” Quinn said in a statement.
The Democratic governor was defeated in this month’s election by Republican Bruce Rauner, who also released a statement asking the state’s Supreme Court to take up the case as soon as possible.
The office of Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan is defending the law in court. Her office said Friday that it will ask the state Supreme Court to expedite an appeal “given the significant impact that a final decision in this case will have on the state’s fiscal condition.”
Meantime, Democratic Senate President John Cullerton is considering a plan, in case the state Supreme Court agrees with Judge Belz and throws out the law. Cullerton had pushed for a separate pension proposal that would ask employees to choose between earning state-funded health care coverage in retirement or receiving pay increases.
“If they throw it out, we’ll be back to square one and then we go back again to the alternative that already passed the Senate and when that passes, save some money that we can then pass on to education funding and whatever else we want to utilize that savings,” Cullerton said Friday.
Legislators would have to re-visit Cullerton’s proposal in a new General Assembly, after January’s inauguration.
If the article is accurate, it sounds like the decision was correct. Bad idea to have that in your state constitution though.
Consider that sorry state file bankruptcy? Then the Trough Feeders can be told to take what ever they get.
Doubtlessly, even then they will get more than they deserve, like Pooblik Skrewl Collective edumacators.
Michigan has been a real thorn in Obama’s side. Rick Snyder has repeatedly outmaneuvered Obama. Snyder got the deal for the new Detroit river bridge after 30 years of fighting over it.
Canada will pay for the bridge but the customs plaza on our side is federal infrastructure costing $250 million. Obama won’t release the funds unless Snyder gives $100 million of it to unrelated Detroit pension funds. Snyder refused the money and ordered the project started. Obama will be out of office before its complete and we’ll worry about who owes what then.
Well played! We need more folks like that.
Snyder is pretty liberal but a shrewd businessman.
The taxpayers shouldn't be punished by the failure of politicians, either.
A third way is to cut other areas of the budget to pay the retirees. Probably not a popular choice, but residents would no doubt prefer that to rising taxes. But there's probably so much in the budget that's mandatory spending, that it can't be cut much.
I said this for months before they passed this useless piece of crap. The Illinois State Constitution is crystal clear on the matter. THAT’S why my home state is so completely screwed.
The only remedy is to modify the Illinois Constitutuon. And that ain’t gonna happen.
L
I wonder how the Federal Bankruptcy judge will rule when they finally go bankrupt.
Since Judge Belz didn’t recuse himself, I presume that he’s NOT a member of one of the Illinois systems and therefore was not conflicted.
But the Illinois Circuit is a state court system, so this makes me wonder whether he was deciding on his own benefits.
Section 5. Pension and Retirement Rights 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.
Sadly, this will be the ONLY part of ANY Constitution that Statists in grubermint actually faithfully abide by.
They can’t cut benefits - not without changing the constitution.
Benefits are an entrenched clause and a law cutting them is unconstitutional.
The judge’s hands were tied. I would have ruled the same way.
Sue the Democrat Party. They were the ones making these promises and they have LOTS of money. Shoot, a Democrat will give the Democrat Party $50,000 for the privilege of watching Obama eat a baked potato.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.