Stories that make me want to shout: What were they thinking?
July 22nd, 2009 at 08:58am Linda Grist Cunningham
Everyone talks about how tough times are these days, but for too many in the public sector that’s all it is. Just talk. If I hear the phrase “shared sacrifice” one more time I’ll consider jumping off the News Tower.
There’ve been a handful of stories on my radar screen that make me wonder if we’re all doomed to generations of what I’d call “dumb disconnect.”
For instance, some leaders of downtown Rockford cultural venues think the only thing that will save them will be a tax increase. A tax increase? Have they lost their minds? Even if I agree that we need to spend more, now is not the time to even whisper tax increase. Cut expenses? Yes.
Then there are the government employee unions who are doing what they get paid to do: protect their members. But, doing so in an environment where that hardline positioning will guarantee one day not too far in the future, every tax dollar will have to go to funding their pensions. Every dolllar. As it is, Rockford’s facing a $10 million deficit — and the county and other towns are in the same boat. A pay increase? No. Nada. Not a chance.
Add in the health care mess in Washington and the mess(es) in Springfield and you’ll see why I want to shout “what were they thinking?” I’m pretty sure they aren’t thinkingl. Most are running around like Henny Penny, praying they can hang on long enough for someone else to figure out what to do.
So, what’s a body to do if one doesn’t want to slit one’s throat? Here’s what I remind myself: God never gives us more than we can handle. (Though as Mother Teresa once is reported to have said: I just wish He didn’t think so highly of me….) Smile. We’ll get through it just fine.
Entry Filed under: Uncategorized
8 Comments Add your own
1. Angelika Streck | July 22nd, 2009 at 10:05 am
In light of facing bankruptcy - which I can’t do until I’m in default in everything I have - I thank you for reminding me that “if God brings you to it - He will see you through it”. When things look so bleak it’s easy to forget our one major support.
I am angry that what little I have to sell won’t be enough to keep me from loosing everything. Then where will I be? On government support. How is it my husband & I combined have taken a 20% cut in pay and there is no mention of any government official taking a cut? How is it that I stand to loose a house that at one time was valued in the 150’s and is now barely marketable in the 140’s. And yet, so many government officials live in homes that are valued in the 500’s or better. Credit cards are cutting credit limits or closing accounts altogether. Yet, officials have credit limits that one would shudder at the thought. I’m suppose to survive on less than 30K income - no one in government bats an eye - their income is 3 - 4 times and more than that. No one sees the irony? I’m wearing clothes until they wear out (nothing over $25 in value). Shopping at a boutique? Unheard of! How is it that government officials sit back in cushy chairs and the warmth of a fireplace in their 1/2 mill or more homes with their huge paychecks and dictate what their constituents should be earning or how they should be content to live? I’m forced to shop at the resale shops and their wives shop at Nieman Marcus! I always thought I would be middle class - never dreamed I’d be part of the homeless! Yep, I’m feeling pretty proud to live in America.
2. readingmike94 | July 27th, 2009 at 7:59 am
So what is the paper’s/editor’s position on tif districts should the city have a ban on them until the economy turns around?
what is your and the paper’s position on any new subsidies to business ie the solar panel plant until the economy turns around?
what is your and the paper’s position on any new city or state spending any new programs until the economy turns around?
so no gps for police cars because we are in a poor economy?
will the paper increase rates or not because we are in a poor econmy?
what about any monopolies gas electric etc should we say no increase in rates?
3. readingmike94 | August 12th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
I would ask the editor who huffs and puffs alot but what is the solution to the pension system? What would you do in your tower downtown to solve the problem? Or is it easier to rant?
4. Linda Grist Cunningham | August 13th, 2009 at 10:13 am
@Readingmike94: I appreciate the questions. If you’re a regular reader of our editorials, you’ll know those questions have been answered many times. Ditto on the pension solution. We have been proponents for a multi-tiered system for at least a decade. I may rant, as you put it, but I rant under my own name and the editorial board on which I serve has a long and strong track record of proposing solutions when we take a stand.
You might want to follow the board’s blog (Seat at the Table) and the posted editorials.
5. readingmike 94 | August 13th, 2009 at 11:39 am
I do read the paper and when my blood pressure calmed down I decided to do some research from the state of illinois web site when we had budget crisis this summer Gov. Quinn asked the taxpayer action board (TAB) for suggestions mind you this is a taxpayer group wanting no new taxes etc when it came to pensions here is what the report said…
p.49 The TAB is aware that there has been much discussion of moving governmental plans away from a defined benefit model towards the model that is dominant in the private sector however such a move loses much of its attactiveness upon examination of several key points
p.50 the majority of state employees do not have social secuirty coverage unlike the private secoter where employees really have two retirement programs social security and plans such as a 401(k) if you move to a model the absense of social security benefits would render over 75% of state employees without a minimum life annuity upon retirement this is a significant diference from private sector employees
does not reduce costs p.50 in the short and mid term a transition to such a 401(k) model does not reduce costs and in fact would increase costs by 4% of pay
it states the employees pay most of the pension costs p.50 employees contribute a substantial component of the costs of the state plan
in the long run only save 3% p.50 in aggregate the normal cost to the state for the current pension plans represents appox. 9% of the payroll in light of the fact that social security alone would represent 6.4% of payroll the net incremental cost to the state is less than 3% of the covered payroll
it states the move as been tried and states move back to the illinois model p.50
Do they have legit suggestions ?yes over and over it states the huge problem of pensions is due to the fact we did not fully fund them almost all of page 57 it did not say increase taxes but cap spending it also said increase retirement age to 67 from 60, use the final average salary and compensation from 7 years to 10 and do not put highway workers in with firefighters and policemen.
I am looking forward to a response but I am not betting on it. By the way the GAO (governement accounting office) just issued a report that looked at state and local govenment pensions and the unfunded mandate scare is just that a scare and has no basis in fact but that is another debate
6. readingmike 94 | August 13th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
In terms of the local and stare pension unfunded mandate issue all of it being a scare Barbara Bovbjerg director of edcuation worksforce and income security issues for the government accounting office (GAO) discussed a new Gao report showing that state and local govennmental plans have more than enough resources to pay the pensions they have promosed to the 20 million workers covered by their public sector plans
you hear the claim of all the millions etc the report on p.21 put it all to rest
By themselves lower funded ratios and unfunded liablities do not necesary indicate that benefits for current plan members are at risk according to experts we intererviewed unfunded liablitities are generally not paid off in a single year so it can be misleading to review total unfunded liablitities without knowing the length of the perod over which the governement plans to pay them off . All unfunded liablities shift the responsiblity for paying for benefits accured in past years to the future.
will we have enough money? is there a crisis p.21 says no
we found that unfunded liablities do not necessarily imply that pension benefits are at risk .in the near term current funds and new contributions may be sufficient to pay benefits for several years even when funded rations are relatively low.
7. readingmike94 | August 13th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
This is like the health care debate (which I am still undecided how I feel) but someone makes a claim no matter how untrue you research the true facts and they don’t respond completely ignoring your facts. You have made the claim on your blog twice, you said the editorial board has made the call for two tiered pension system when a taxpayer group says it doesnt work do we hear whoops we were wrong no? no silence no wonder people resort to shouting down we can’t get a real debate.
8. readingmike94 | August 17th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Well so much for the inteactive part of this blog it is all one sided. This is why I take your opinion and the editiorial board\’s position with a grain of salt. You have been wanting pension reform for the last decade and you can\’t come up with any evidence to support it? Heck I found research from a taxpayer\’s group in less than a hour.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed