The Illogical Argument of Kristen McQueary on Pensions, etc.

Correlative Fallacy and the Illogical Argument of Tribune Editorial Board member Kristen McQueary

Correlative Fallacy: An argument that tries to redefine a possible correlation (from a multiple of options) so that one possibility encompasses the others, making only one alternative possible. 

Example: Many men who lift weights and work out are bald.  Therefore, lifting weights and/or working out will cause hair loss.

In the Tribune today, Kristen McQueary’s opinion piece ends with an exaggerated font and bold recap stating: “There’s nothing ‘fair’ about politicians spending recklessly for decades, failing to pay what the government owed into pension funds, raising the flat tax rate with no reform, refusing to advocate for changing the pension clause of the Illinois Constitution – and then blaming the rich folks for not pulling their weight.”

There’s lot to unpack here. 

I think McQueary would find most public sector workers in Illinois agreeing with her first two clauses. But they would likely link them both. 

“Spending recklessly,” meant diverting money from pension payments to public sector workers for services without asking taxpayers to make the kind of concessions other people in other states were paying for, like improved roads, health services, public education, etc.  Over the decades as a result, the debt (also known as the unfunded liability) has now reached a whopping $131 billion.  

That’s a lot of unpaid bills over a very, very long period of time.

But Illinois seemed little concerned about that, and even though the state (Edgar) put together an emergency plan in 1995 to pay it all off by 2045, they were only buying more time.  And by skipping or skimping in pension payments, the then fault-filled design did little to help.  In fact, the Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability, the fiscal research arm of the General Assembly, concluded in 2013 that the largest cause of the unfunded liabilities was inadequate contributions from the state. Underpayments between 1985 and 2012 totaled $41.2 billion...” 

McQueary’s right.  That’s not fair to the thousands of public sector workers who made their nearly 10% payments to expect a pension when they retired. 

As for McQueary’s complaint in the opening comments of her opine that Indiana pays all their bills within their required deadline, but Illinois must put off bill paying for inordinate lengths of time?  And pay interest? 

But trying to link Indiana’s payment of bills within the timeline set by their legislature and Illinois’ rate of delinquency cannot be connected (as she would have us believe) with the unfunded pension liability.   That’s due to much history but more recently to Rauner as it might be to balding men in his administration.  

Rauner’s hardline impasses created all sorts of havoc, devastating nonprofit social services, state-run universities, contractors of all types and vocations. “Meanwhile the backlog of unpaid bills shot up again.  Illinois was spending about the same amount it had spent when the income tax had been higher, but the state was n jo longer collecting enough money to sustain the spending.  By last November, Illinois was $16.7 billion behind in its payments.”  

After her love for Indiana, McQueary argues that Illinois voters should reject a graduated income tax rate because, well, because it was done in 30 other states “and Illinois could have – should have – done so a long time ago.”  But now, Illinois is doing this to make the systemic revenue shortage work to pay the bills while other states (Iowa and Wisconsin) did so for fairness to taxpayers and to stabilize budgets. And unlike other states “(they) have not jacked up the rates irresponsibly as a way to claw out of abysmal financial management.”

So….  Even though Illinois faces a budget deficit after decades of a flat tax, a graduated income tax which would offer more fairness and budgetary assistance is not allowed because you asked too late.  As my dear old mother used to say when we were trying to explain what had happened to her best and now destroyed outdoor plant, “Well, you cannot argue with logic like that.  Now, go face the corner and figure out how silly you sound.”  

McQueary throws some tea party history at the reader in the end, resurrecting the Stamp Act of 1765 and complaining that “Taxpayers deserve respect.”  And in one of her continuous tropes, she equates the inefficiencies of government taxes with pensions to begin with. McQueary wants “relief" on the constitution’s pension clause.  

She somehow correlates the protections reinforced by the Illinois Supreme Court in May of 2015 with the history of skipped payments we both agreed on in the beginning of her essay. Quite the jump.  Especially in that even if she did get her way to strike the pension clause, Illinois would legally still owe every bit of the part it never paid.  That $131 billion that is still owed.  Governors like Big Jim Thompson loved to tell we people that he gave them all these services without increasing taxes.  But it was pensioners who gave their money, not the State of Illinois.  And now we all (emphasis on all) have to pay.

An amendment to provide for a more fair and better balanced state budget through a graduated income tax, or one to strike a pension protection clause which will still be owed? I am pretty sure on where I’d place my energy.