Vote out lawmakers who overspent

Those familiar with Illinois’ dire circumstances relative to its five public employee pension funds conclude that these systems are structurally sound and effectively managed. Further analysis also shows that, comparatively, the benefits provided through these systems are not unduly generous. Instead, the problem is the mountain of state debt stemming from long-term overspending. This spending has, in effect, been funded by the retirees.

For decades, extant state law (most recently Public Act 86-273) has required it to make contributions to pension funds in the amounts sufficient to meet actuarially determined levels. From about 1970, during the Ogilvie administration, the state began to underfund its contributions — choosing to redirect those funds to other programs that curried more favor with the electorate than would making good on its promise to retirees. The pattern of underfunding continued up to the present when funds have only about 44 percent of the money they should have in them to be actuarially sound.

This situation prompted me to wonder why, if it is a matter of state law that these contributions to pension funds be made, and if they are not made, then why haven’t governors and state legislators responsible for such malfeasance been thrown out of office or sent to jail? Well, apparently, the malefactors that have brought our state to the brink of ruin have immunized themselves in some way.

In an effort to correct the chronic underfunding practices of the state, Robert Sklodowski et. al. sued. The case (No. 82549, March 1998) found its way to the Illinois Supreme Court. The court ruled in favor of the state and found that pension system stakeholders had no right to challenge the state on this point.

Thus, current and future retiree’s only remaining option is to elect fiscally responsible leaders in the future.

Charles F. Falk

Schaumburg