It’s
Thursday and SB2404 will come up today in the Illinois Senate for a vote. It will very likely pass. Then, Madigan’s House supported SB1 will head
full speed toward the Senate. SB2404, once passed in the Senate, will steam
full throttle toward the House. Each may
be held hostage in committee, may be voted up or down, or may collide into a
fusion of many parts to be sent to both chamber of the General Assembly. Think chimera or, better, Frankenstein.
Madigan
is supporting his bill as the best fiscal solution for Illinois, and he “knows”
the court will back his plan. Cullerton
says the Justices won’t, and he supports a union-supported bill plan that will
pass through the courts even if it puts less pressure on the state’s workers to
pay for the pension debts.
Now
suddenly, Speaker Madigan is trotting out last year’s creation: shifting the cost of pension costs to the
local school districts. Maybe the
Speaker is being nostalgic? Maybe he’s
thinking of the time when he and Senate Leader John Cullerton were thick as,
well, you know – really tight. Maybe
he’s trying to remind Republicans in the Senate that this cost-shift is a worse
alternative to the SB1 he has sent them from the House? Maybe the two of them will never have
Paris. But it would behoove all of us to
recall the dangers of the shift of costs to local districts and how it worked
when the two legislators were thick as…
"What
we’ve suggested is that local districts have a little skin in the game when they hire teachers and administrators and set their
salaries. They should be required to set
aside money into the pension system for their future retirees.” Senate Leader John Cullerton (McQueary,
Kristen. Illinois schools may chip
in… NY Times. 19 February 2012).
“Unlike
elected officials in Wisconsin and Indiana, we work with unions in Illinois.” –
John Cullerton to Phil Kadner 16 February 2012).
“Some
Skin in the Game” (…or...Making local school districts pay for pension costs).
Idiom: While many credit sagacious investor Warren
Buffet with the phrase “to have some skin in the game,” Mr. Buffet has strongly
denied such attributions. In essence,
the idiomatic phrase means being personally, emotionally, or financially
vulnerable to a possible venture and, therefore, connected to it at all levels
of possible aftermaths. According to
William Safire, the Oxford English Dictionary explains the “skin game” was a
card game in which each player has one card which he bets will not be the first
to be matched by a card drawn from the deck; so dealer or player, all have
equal chances of winning or losing
Sadly, in the case of the public pension system, it
appears to be losers all around. The
concept of shifting responsibility for the teacher’s pension from the state of Illinois
to local school districts has become increasingly popular in the last few
months.
The president of the senate, Mr. Cullerton, sees
this transfer as an opportunity to force local districts to keep increasing
costs of retirees and salary increases in check. Costs for pensions per district would become
an essential part of union contract negotiations (McQueary, Kristen).
For Governor Quinn, the “rendezvous with reality”
will also call for everyone’s sacrifice, including the local districts.
Regarding teacher retirement benefits, the state
could save nearly $1.5 billion; according to the Associated Press, Governor
Quinn has given the nod to those who would seek such a shift in responsibilities
(http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/illinois/quinn-looks-to-shift-teacher-pension-funding-to-local-school/article_bed030a4-1a1d-56f9-bcd0-c2fedce38fa3.html).
Such savings would allow the state of Illinois to continue making payments to
reduce the unfunded liability, a result of years of pension holidays, to continue
to provide and improve human services,
and to force local districts to enact new procedures for dealing with public
unions.
On the other hand, many Republicans and others - including the Illinois Association of
School Boards – figure the costs would be injurious to local taxpayers as well
as the districts themselves. Such
requirements might bring “an additional
$800 million in contributions toward teacher pensions,” which
coincidentally is the projected amount the state of Illinois will owe to the
pension system this year - without their required payment to the unfunded
liability (McQueary, Kristen). In short, it may be more than coincidental that
this proposal will allow the debtor (the state) to pay simply the interest on
past non-payments and not the current bill that is due for 2012.
Meanwhile, Republicans in the General Assembly
realize what kind of pressure is being put on the local districts and the
citizens who live within those school boundaries. They foresee
an increased burden on the local taxpayers and the school boards. “ ‘It could
either be a property tax increase or depending on how they structure the deal
they’re going to have to cut whatever those costs are within [the] school
district,’ Rep. Ed Sullivan, R – Mundelein, said. ‘So you’re either going to
lose teachers or have a massive property tax.’”
( http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/illinois/illinois-republicans-against-shifting-pension-costs-to-school-districts/article_aa4db910-5cfe-11e1-b880-001a4bcf6878.html) Such a deal might also be phased in through
several years; thus, easing the immediate pain and immediate financial impact
upon taxpayers. Regardless, financial
resources on the local district levels will become strained. Perhaps there will be cuts to staff,
increased class sizes, or loss of auxiliary programs - Theater Arts, Music, Creative
Writing, to name a few.
Some truths are still evident. School income – also wealth – is created by a
combination of three elements:
1.
Property Wealth – This is the combined value of all
the real estate in a school district, which in turn determines just how much
money the local schools can generate from their property taxes. According to Dick Ingram, head of TRS,
Illinois is a state of financial extremes.
2.
Tax Effort – The total assessed value of real
property must be multiplied by the school district tax rate to determine the
amount of property taxes the district can receive. Tax rates are subject to local referendums;
therefore, taxpayers themselves decide whether or not to support their local
schools and by how much.
3.
State Equalization Aid – The State of Illinois is supposed
to provide equalization funds to compensate for the differences in local
property wealth, but the dollars can never meet the vast gaps in
differences. District relying on state
aid have far less than districts that can rely on wealthy property taxes
(Illinois Association of School Boards. Playing fair with the children of
Illinois. www.iasb.com) .
Need an example?
In south suburban Ford Heights, where the median
annual household income is about $16,000 and the average home is worth $42,000,
the local taxpayers give up property tax rates of 21.7 percent. On the other hand, in Winnetka, where the
average home is worth $1 million, and the annual household income is $207,955,
the property tax rate is about 6%, according to statistics compiled by the Cook
County clerk (Kadner, Phil. Pols pull bait and switch on teacher pensions,
taxes. Chicago Sun-Times. 12 February 2012).
Here’s a real rendezvous with reality.
Shifting the costs of the state’s pension problems to
local taxpayers would break the poor but only slightly distress the wealthy. (Personally, while I can live with the latter,
I find it unconscionable to do the former.)
Augmenting that most unacceptable fact, Illinois (in
2006!) had the most inequitable education funding system in the country, with
per pupil spending ranging from a high of almost $23,700 to a low of less than
$4,500 (Center for Tax and Budget Accountability. The current status of public education
funding in Illinois. 2006). And, today,
while taxpayers in Schaumburg pay a composite tax of nearly 7.7%, those who
struggle in poverty-ridden Robbins will pay property taxes ranging from 9 to
10.3%, with an income average at least one third that of Schaumburg.
In the case of House Speaker Madigan, “skin in the
game” means, basically, if you are a public employee, it’s your skin. “The question is how to do that (solve the
pension problem) within the confines of the state constitution, which says
public employee pension benefits cannot be reduced once they are given. Madigan outlined a potential trade-off. ‘The question is for a person on a public job
today, can we say to them “Everything you’ve earned up to today you keep, no
change?” But…can we say to that person, “Starting tomorrow, it’s going to be a
different deal. It won’t be as rich. The benefit level will not be as high, but we
will save the stability and integrity of your pension system.’” (http://www.pennlive.com/newsflash/index.ssf/story/quinn-asks-lawmakers-to-put-some-skin/80c6ffd8eea873ac52a4b9427d90ce9e)
So, either the public employees sacrifice or the
local taxpayers sacrifice (of which the public employees are included again). Meanwhile,
companies in Illinois carry on calmly claiming their rights to tax loopholes
and rebates. While the governor nods to
the idea of locals paying more, remember that big-box Illinois retailers
receive back 1.75% of the sales tax revenue they collect from consumers on
behalf of the state (Sachdev, Ameet & Cancino, Alejandra. Tax giveaways under a microscope. Chicago
Tribune. 4 March 2012). And that’s just one small sampling.
No comments:
Post a Comment