Contretemps (…stuck in the middle, again)
Noun:
(French) an awkward or difficult place or situation, a mishap or
predicament.
Hopefully, the to-be-convened summit planned by We Are One for Feb. 11th will yield fruit, if legislators will
attend - as some of the "pension reform leadership" have yet to
acknowledge interest or even awareness. In
fact, Representative Elaine Nekritz of Northbrook, a sponsor of the pension
reform bill HB6258 recently responded that she had not heard of the summit (http://www.sj-r.com/breaking/x1578914071/State-unions-propose-pension-summit
).
Between last week and the next month’s scheduled summit, retiree
Glen Brown reiterated a long-espoused position that Illinois faces a revenue
problem, complicated by its pension debt in a petition on Signon.Org. To date, Glen has received nearly 4000
signatures and another thousand calls to hold firm against the General
Assembly’s maneuverings to place the weight of the revenue correction on the
public sector workers – past and present.
Various members of the public sector leadership(s) in Illinois have
signed on, and one (IRTA) has placed the petition on its website (http://signon.org/sign/illinois-revenue-and?source=c.em.cp&r_by=1130041
).
Others have decided that while they support the undertakings of
activists and thinkers like Glen, they cannot concur specifically to the call
as expressed in the petition’s wording.
Note: Those same leaders have
also, in some cases, signed that very petition. On the other hand, if not exactly on
message, others warn that such examples of rolling the dice or obstinacy is
ultimately a self-defeating extremism.
Such contretemps fails to recognize the like enemy we all face beginning
January 30th. In fine, we all
need be mindful that identifying our separate positions as extremist will not
help, and that Glen's response to the perceived issues surrounding his petition
are quite revealing and reverberating.
The actual extremism is found in the latest bills - Nekritz's HB 6258 and
Cullerton's secondary option in case the first is found unconstitutional.
Whether or not the coalition of public sector unions can endorse a
petition or not, to ask We Are One to hold firm is to remind our leadership
that contractual guarantees were made and broken by the same people who would
come to the summit; to remind them that thus far the move to correct the
unfunded liability is being placed on the very people from whom promised
payments were stolen over nearly half a century. They would deny our COLA’s, increase our
contributions beyond any other state, cap our benefits, increase our retirement
ages, offer the falsity of cash balance plans in the place of defined benefits,
choose to lose our health benefits, punish us for having worked in the public
sector, and (if possible) push the cost for pensions to the local
districts. Extremism in this case is an
understatement.
Indeed, IEA leadership’s warning that to do nothing and simply await
a court decision is also unthinkable.
Recall that the statement “Let the courts decide” was the cynical
prediction made by Speaker Madigan – who has been eerily silent – nearly two
years ago. That is not the message of
the petition; case in point, Glen's petition to correct the revenue problem
must be the primary focus if anything permanent and lasting is to be
accomplished. The Center for Tax and
Budget Accountability reminds us all that even given the benefit cuts in their entirety,
the cuts will never keep pace with the 1995 ramp-up to pay back the unfunded
liability of years of non-payment by the state.
Nothing in HB 6258 does anything to address the systemic, structural
revenue failure in Illinois. Nothing in
any proposed legislation put forward have yet to address the ridiculous pension
ramp, which "squeezes" the budget annually at ever-increasing rates. In fact, the General Assembly would return
again to find more ways to cut more benefits, as that seems their extremist
nature.
What We Are One and what
the petition desires are not so very different: to call attention to serious
long-term answers to the revenue crisis in Illinois, and to demand that the
General Assembly address the problem without breaking the contractual
agreements made to all in the public sector who have given what was asked - in
work and in payment. In the last week,
proposals by Representative Naomi Jakobsson and Representative Linda Chapa La Via for a graduated income tax
(HJRCA0002) may perhaps demonstrate a first legislative recognition that
revenue is both the problem and the answer.
Last spring, I listened to the Representative Bill Cunningham,
Representative Kelly Burke, and Representative Mary Flowers endorse their own
beliefs that a graduated income tax was necessary in the near future to help
Illinois move forward financially.
Lately I see that Representative Kelly Cassidy has also signed on the
need for a graduated income tax.
Perhaps there are other voices and minds besides the extremists – in
the General Assembly. Let’s keep talking
to them.
No comments:
Post a Comment