From Fred Klonsky:
What they just did to the Illinois Teacher Pension System
On Friday
evening those of us who are members of the Illinois Teachers Retirement System
received an email blast informing us that "significant changes" had
taken place to the pension system as a result of the budget resolution, SB9.
The TRS
notice explained that the legislature had created a new Tier III which would
allow for younger teachers and future teachers (in Illinois but not Chicago) to
opt to invest their retirement savings in a private annuity, like a 401k.
The
conversion of our Defined Benefit system (DB) to a Defined Contribution (DC)
has been a part of the Rauner Turnaround Agenda since he was elected.
Let's
take a step back.
In order
for there to be a "Tier III" there had to have been a "Tier
II".
In 2010
the Illinois Democratic legislature, in a nearly secret vote pushed through in
less than 24 hours with no hearings or input from anybody, a law that created
Tier II for any teacher hired after January 1, 2011.
It was a
disaster.
Pension
blogger Glen Brown posted in 2015:
According
to Bob Lyons, TRS Trustee, “the financial inequities of the Tier II funding and
benefit structure must be fixed. Current law requires Tier II
members to pay 9.4 percent of their salary and that subsidizes both Tier I and
Tier II benefits. The Tier II contribution is 50 percent higher than the
benefit’s value, which is 6 percent of their pay.
“In 20 years, when Tier II
members are a significant majority in TRS, the subsidy they pay will cause a
reduction in the state’s annual contribution. Eventually, the state will not
owe any annual contribution to TRS because the members will be paying the
entire cost. This is fundamentally unfair to Tier II members.
“These
new positions will cost the state more money with an increase of the FY 13
contribution and a reduction of contributions from Tier II teachers. We believe
that a funding requirement can be written that will make the payment guarantee
a benefit that can be protected by the constitution, and that too will cost the
state money” (Insolvency by Bob Lyons, TRS Board, March 2012).
An
actuarial analysis of Senate Bill 1 shows the bill would create Social Security
chaos, eventually leading to massive local property tax hikes and making the
proposal an unfunded mandate of historic proportions.
It is
widely assumed that when the first Tier II teacher reaches retirement age, law
suits will fly and the "Social Security chaos" will ensue.
Meanwhile
the current $130 billion state pension liability will grow.
Is the
new Tier III some feeble attempt to address the Tier II fiasco?
I
contacted my State Representative Will Guzzardi. He explained:
• Tier
III is strictly optional, both for current Tier II members and future
enrollees. Any new hire will have the option to choose Tier II if he / she so
prefers.
• As I
thought, the anticipated cost savings to the state come primarily from the fact
that the employer contribution of the DC portion of Tier III will be picked up
by local districts instead of the state.
• For
some employees, depending on anticipated length of service and other factors,
Tier II may be preferable to Tier III. For those who don't want any stock
market risk in their retirement, they can keep a strictly defined-benefit plan
under Tier II. For those who prefer the portability of a DC plan or see the
combined package as preferable, they can opt in to Tier III.
I
apologize for not contacting you sooner about this. As I began to say
yesterday, some of these ideas have been kicking around the capitol for a
while, but in the final few days of the special session they were included in
the budget deal in an (ultimately successful) effort to get the mutinous
Republicans on board. They felt they needed to do something on pensions; we
were firm that we weren't going to diminish anyone's benefits.
It was
clear what had happened. The Republicans wanted to introduce a DC plan into the
public pension system and in order to get the state's first budget in two years
the Democrats needed Republican votes. Once again, pensions became a bargaining
chip.
It is
voluntary now. But who believes it will end there.
The
thought is that perhaps offering Tier II teachers the Tier III investment
option it will solve the problem Tier II teachers' pension will not meet the
safe harbor requirement of the federal government - benefits equal to Social
Security.
I talked
to my colleague John Dillon yesterday. John blogs at Pension
Vocabulary.
"If
this is an option for the Tier II teachers who have been getting hoodwinked
into paying down the unfunded liability to now jump to something that might
promise a better retirement, we know all the research shows it will not
be."
Speaker
Madigan has been pushing for a pension cost shift to local district for years.
Representative Guzzardi confirms that the cost of funding Tier III will be
shifted away from the state to local school districts. That is where the
so-called savings to the state are coming from.
As John
Dillon pointed out to me, "Those poorer districts like Markham or
Hillcrest or Ford Heights? Sorry. We have to pay those defined contributions to
TRS and now no more track. Or Art. Or Music."
And the
next time the teachers union sit down at the bargaining table, where will money
come from in those already cash-strapped districts come from to pay for teacher
salaries?
Now our
younger active teachers and incoming teachers can play Wall Street casino. Even
a guaranteed simple compound throws a bone to a starving retiree once in a
while. But for Governor Rauner, even that is not enough. He took this
opportunity to bring a major population into his field of play.
John
Dillon:
"Fred.
The General Assembly has taken every opportunity to avoid the costs of earlier
theft by mostly Republican governors from the pension systems, as well as Blago
and others. Instead of the hard work of real innovative and sensible fiscal
changes - a progressive income tax, full funding payments, service taxes, etc -
you drop the pathetic band-aids for devious and murky designs to avoid the
moral path back to re-establish a retirement benefit promised in the Illinois
Constitution."
Whether
or not Representative Guzzardi is correct and that Tier III does not represent
a diminishment or impairment of pension benefits may or may not be decided by
judges in a court.
But when
I asked retiring member of the TRS board of trustees Bob Lyons that question,
he responded, "Considering we think that if the state would ask the IRS
about Tier II - that it would not pass the safe harbor standard and that the
only way Tier III goes into being (makes) it considered safe for retirees, can
anyone argue (whether) it is a diminishment? You can oppose simply because it
is not safe and it will take some amount of money away from TRS. And even
if the state will eventually have to replace those dollars, they certainly
qualify as a 'slow pay.'"
Tier II
made a mess of things.
Tier III
took that mess and made it worse.
Governor
Rauner is smiling.
No comments:
Post a Comment