Noun: The origin of the word “quisling” is derived from a
Norwegian politician named Vidkun Quisling, who collaborated with the invading
Nazi forces during World War II in order to secure himself a leadership
position in the occupier’s government in Norway. While Quisling’s actions may have been the
result of both conscientious and delusional beliefs that he could assist in a
difficult situation, his name has become synonymous with traitor, apostate,
collaborator, and other unseemly characteristics.
Once again, titular head of TRS Dick Ingram has taken center
stage to remind the audiences that there are solutions to the crisis faced by
State of Illinois and its pension problems.
Remember please that we have been here before; in fact, just last
October Mr. Ingram created a tempest by suggesting that the COLA’s were likely
the most expensive and most deservedly scrutinized issue in Illinois politicians’
looking for significant areas to “diminish or impair.”
When Ingram was later taken to task (again) by the TRS Board
for making statements which might undermine the confidence or faith in the TRS
to manage retirement funds – the principle job of the service – Ingram was
described as having agreed no longer to offer his own personalized compromises
or concessions. His job specifically was
the management of TRS funds and investments, not a vocal or public seeker of
solutions to the problems caused by decades of underfunding by the State.
Of course, all of this was after an even earlier foray into
the world of public negotiations in April of 2012, when Ingram reported to
everyone that the pension funds were headed toward insolvency – a statement repeated
by members of the General Assembly and often quoted by Ty Fahner, the head of
the Civic Committee of the Commercial Club of Chicago. Ingram tried to qualify his suggestion later
by explaining that such a scenario would be certain if funding from the State
were to dry up.
And now, once again, Ingram in this week's Chicago Tribune has
decided to explain anew the need for everyone to partake in a “shared
sacrifice,” just as the younger members of the House have generated HB6258, a
proposed bill that would raise the age of retirement, increase contributions,
negate the cost-of-living allowances, and force a shift in pension costs to the
local districts.
Is this the sacrifice to which Ingram alludes? Is this just one more case of his thinking
aloud? In any case, his allusions have
become more urgent: describing important kernels of truth in Squeezy the
pension python’s message, reminding us once again of the potential insolvency
of TRS, of not being able to keep our members’ retirement promises, that fixing
the problem for the young teacher fixes it for everyone, etc.
Ingram is a problem.
Simply stated, it means that WE will be asked to choose between two things, and some people will naively answer incorrectly. (When offered to choose between two destructive evils, the correct answer is NO.)
ReplyDelete"Will WE keep COLA and surrender healthcare, or will WE keep healthcare and surrender COLA?"
"NO!"
Also, the TRS needs to stop acting like weenies and fire Ingram. Then everyone will know that he is not one of WE.