Pension Newsroom | Pension360

Are Affluent Households As Worried About Retirement As Everyone Else?

Are affluent households worrying about having enough money to last through retirement? According to a survey from Bank of America, the short answer is “yes” – in fact, it’s one of their biggest concerns.

Bank of America polled 1,000 “affluent” people with investable assets of between $50,000 and $250,000. The results were published in the October issue of Pension Benefits:

“More than half (55%) of the mass affluent (defined as individuals with $50,000 to $250,000 in total household investable assets) fear going broke during retirement-far more common than other stress-inducing pressures such as losing their job (37%).

More women than men (59% versus 51%) are frightened about the possibility of not having enough money throughout retirement, and the fear of an uncertain retirement is also most common among 61% of Gen Xers (aged 35 to 50) and 61% of Boomers (aged 51 to 64). Only 41% of Millennials (aged 18 to 34) feel this way.

Despite their fears about future finances, many mass affluent won’t consider cutting back on indulgences today to save for retirement-from entertainment (33%) to eating out (30%) to vacations (28%).

Even if they were faced with a hypothetical milliondollar windfall, fewer than one in five (19%) would make it a priority to set aside the ‘found money’ for their retirement years.

More Boomers (27%) than Gen Xers (16%) and Millennials (6%) would first consider allocating a million-dollar lottery prize to their retirement funds.

Additionally, the most common factors competing with respondents’ regular retirement savings are unexpected costs (33%) and paying off big debts (31%). Paying off large debts (such as student loans) has competed with the retirement savings of more Millennials (38%) than any other generation.

On average, retired respondents stopped working at age 68; however, those who have not retired plan to at age 65. Single mass affluents, on average, plan to retire or have retired at age 62. More than two in five (41%) mass affluents who have not retired yet imagine that they’ll need an annual income somewhere in the $50,000 to $99,999 range when they retire.

About a quarter of Millennials (24%) and Gen Xers (25%) believe they’ll need at least $150,000 annually when they retire-far more than Boomers, with just 11% believing they’ll need that much income in retirement.

As for when people began saving for retirement:

Most (90%) of the mass affluent have retirement savings and began saving at 33 years old, but Millennials are planning for the future at a much younger age, with more than half (54%) starting between the ages of 18 to 24- Eighty percent of Millennials currently have retirement savings.

The most common trigger for those with retirement savings to begin investing for retirement was an account being offered at work (48%). Far fewer were spurred to invest due to major life events like getting married (18%) or having their first child (12%).

More millennials (36%) and Gen Xers (32%) than Boomers (15%) and Seniors (12%) were motivated to save for retirement when they started their first jobs. Almost three in ten (28%) Millennials first started saving for retirement after a raise or promotion at work, versus 10% of older generations.

The article can be read in the journal Pension Benefits. The report can also be viewed here.

Photo by 401kcalculator.org

New Jersey Lawmaker Proposes Tweak in Pension Funding Formula To Reduce Burden

New Jersey Senator Stephen Sweeney (D) has proposed a plan to tweak the state’s pension funding formula, which would lower the state’s annual contributions to the pension system.

More details from NJ Spotlight:

Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D-Gloucester) wants to overhaul the state’s pension funding formula to make annual state pension contributions lower and more “manageable” over the next decade while preserving benefits for retirees.

“Governor (Chris) Christie says the state can’t afford to get to 100 percent funding of the public employee pension system, and he used that argument to justify cutting pension contributions by $2.4 billion and to call for public employees to pay more,” Sweeney said in an interview with NJ Spotlight. “But he’s using the 100 percent funding target to inflate the size of the problem and make it look worse than it is for his own political purposes.”

“In the private sector, 85 percent funding is considered the ‘gold standard’ under ERISA,” Sweeney said, referring to the 1974 federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act that sets the guidelines for private pension systems. “That’s manageable. We can get to 85 percent funding, and at that level, we can restore the COLAs (cost-of-living adjustments) for retirees too.”

Sweeney’s plan to change the pension funding formula would save billions of dollars in pension payments in state budgets over the next decade, while still cutting the state’s unfunded pension liability for teachers and state government workers and retirees sufficiently to guarantee the solvency of the pension system. That unfunded liability is now expected to top $60 billion by FY18, up from $54 billion before Christie’s pension cuts.

But John Bury, an actuary that blogs at Bury Pensions, says the plan achieves savings through “manipulating numbers” and doesn’t address any of the real issues facing the state’s pension system. From Bury Pensions:

Most private sector funds (excluding multiemployer plans which are a mess but including ‘one-participant’ DB plans which are thriving) ARE funded at 100 percent and, if not, have to be funded at 100% within seven years under PPA funding rules and the actuarial assumptions that define 100% are legislated (though MAP-21 and HAFTA have watered those down). Apply those private sector PPA factors to public plans and New Jersey’s 54% funded ratio drops to 30%.

A pension system with 30 percent of the funding it needs to cover all accrued pension obligations is clearly regarded as dead to anyone in the business of understanding, and not manipulating, numbers.

Siedle: For Pension Funds, Private Equity Deals Can Come With Baked-In Conflicts of Interest

Over at Forbes, the “pension detective” Ted Siedle has penned an extensive column delving into the contractually-permitted conflicts of interest that can accompany private equity deals.

He hones in on Bruce Rauner and his firm, GTCR, which handled assets for numerous pension funds. Rauner and GTCR encapsulate the secrecy and potential conflicts of interest that pension funds can sign off on when they hand assets over to private equity firms.

Siedle writes of Rauner:

According to a report by Council 31 AFSCME Illinois, a few years ago Rauner’s firm received millions in Pennsylvania state pension assets to invest after a $300,000 campaign contribution to that state’s Democratic governor. In Illinois, a company owned by Rauner paid a member of the Illinois Teachers’ Retirement System Board more than $25,000 a month. His firm was selected to handle TRS pension dollars. The TRS member, Stuart Levine, is now in federal prison for public malfeasance.

It seems Rauner mastered the art of accessing public pension assets to manage, including (according to his firm’s SEC filings) reliance upon placement agents which have proven to be so controversial at public pensions across the country.

In my opinion, before Rauner can be deemed fit to serve as governor of Illinois, an in-depth review of his secret dealings with state pensions is called for– especially since the state’s pensions are in a crisis (which merits investigation) and 4 out of the state’s 7 last governors ended up in prison. The last thing Illinois needs is to compound its pension problems.

If Rauner wins, expect questions about his past and ongoing private equity business dealings to continue to swirl. In my forensic experience, greater scrutiny of opaque investments always reveals weaker investment performance.

Siedle dug through GTCR’s SEC filings. He found that when pension funds signed deals with the firm, they were often also permitting GTCR to engage in a multitude of scenarios that could lead to conflicts of interest for the firm. Siedle writes:

The litany of permissible conflict of interest scenarios (many of which are commonplace throughout private equity) detailed in Bruce Rauner’s firm SEC filings, should be disturbing to any so-called sophisticated investor. Unfortunately, public pensions routinely consent to such potentially harmful conflicts either because they don’t read, don’t fully comprehend the oblique disclosures, or simply don’t care that politically-connected insiders may be profiting at the expense of stakeholders. For example:

“The Adviser and certain employees and affiliates of the Adviser may invest in and alongside the Funds, either through the General Partners, as direct investors in the Funds or otherwise (emphasis added)…

The Adviser and its related entities may engage in a broad range of activities, including investment activities for their own account (emphasis added)…

The Adviser may, from time to time, establish certain investment vehicles through which employees of the Adviser and their family members, certain business associates, other “friends of the firm” (emphasis added) or other persons may invest alongside one or more of the Funds.

In certain cases, the Adviser may cause a Fund to purchase investments from another Fund, or it may cause a Fund to sell investments to another Fund.”

Translation from legal-speak: Rauner and his associates could invest directly, or create a special “family and friends” fund which could invest, at lower cost in shares of the same companies his firm purchased for funds in which public pensions invest. The associates, or “family and friends” fund, could profit by holding onto those shares, or immediately flip them, selling to the funds in which public pensions invest at a guaranteed, riskless mark-up.

Alternatively, GTCR could sell start-up companies it founded (or the family and friends fund could sell companies it purchased from GTCR) to funds the firm managed for public pensions at inflated prices.

“In addition, the Adviser may, from time to time, fund start-up expenses for a portfolio company and may subsequently sell such portfolio company to a Fund. Such transactions may create conflicts of interest because, by not exposing such buy and sell transactions to market forces, a Fund may not receive the best price otherwise possible, or the Adviser might have an incentive to improve the performance of one Fund by selling underperforming assets to another Fund in order, for example, to earn fees.”

Improve the performance of the friends and family fund by selling the laggards to other GTCR funds in which public pensions invest? Seems possible, based upon the firm’s SEC filings.

Read Siedle’s full column, which contains more analysis and insights, here.

Surveys: Institutional Investors Disillusioned With Hedge Funds, But Warming To Real Estate And Infrastructure

Two separate surveys released in recent days suggest institutional investors might be growing weary of hedge funds and the associated fees and lack of transparency.

But the survey results also show that the same investors are becoming more enthused with infrastructure and real estate investments.

The dissatisfaction with hedge funds — and their fee structures — is much more pronounced in the U.S. than anywhere else. From the Boston Globe:

Hedge funds and private equity funds took a hit among US institutions and pension managers in a survey by Fidelity Investments released Monday.

The survey found that only 19 percent of American managers of pensions and other large funds believe the benefits of hedge funds and private equity funds are worth the fees they charge. That contrasted with Europe and Asia, where the vast majority — 72 percent and 91 percent, respectively — said the fees were fair.

The US responses appear to reflect growing dissatisfaction with the fees charged by hedge funds, in particular. Both hedge funds and private equity funds typically charge 2 percent upfront and keep 20 percent of the profits they generate for clients.

Derek Young, vice chairman of Pyramis Global Advisors , the institutional arm of Fidelity that conducted the survey, chalked up the US skepticism to a longer period of having worked with alternative investments.

“There’s an experience level in the US that’s significantly beyond the other regions of the world,’’ Young said.

A separate survey came to a similar conclusion. But it also indicated that, for institutional investors looking to invest in hedge funds, priorities are changing: returns are taking a back seat to lower fees, more transparency and the promise of diversification. From Chief Investment Officer:

Institutional investors are growing unsatisfied with hedge fund performance and are increasingly skeptical of the quality of future returns, according to a survey by UBS Fund Services and PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC).

The survey of investors overseeing a collective $1.9 trillion found that only 39% were satisfied with the performance of their hedge fund managers, and only a quarter of respondents said they expected a “satisfying level of performance” in the next 12-24 months.

[…]

The report claimed this showed a change in expectations of what hedge funds are chosen to achieve. Investors no longer expect double-digit returns, but instead are content to settle for lower fees, better transparency, and low correlations with other asset classes.

Mark Porter, head of UBS Fund Services, said: “With institutional money now accounting for 80% of the hedge fund industry, they will continue seeking greater transparency over how performance is achieved and how risks are managed, leading to increased due diligence requirements for alternative managers.”

Meanwhile, the USB survey also indicated investors are looking to increase their allocations to infrastructure and real estate investments. From Chief Investment Officer:

“Despite the challenges of devising investment structures that can effectively navigate the dynamic arena of alternative markets, asset managers should remain committed to infrastructure and real assets which could drive up total assets under management in these two asset classes,” the report said.

“This new generation of alternative investments is expected to address the increasing asset and liability constraints of institutional investors and satisfy their preeminent objective of a de-correlation to more traditional asset classes.”

The report noted that despite waning enthusiasm for hedge funds, allocations aren’t likely to change for the next few years.

But alternative investments on the whole, according to the report, are expected to double by 2020.

Would Phoenix’s Proposition 487 Hurt Public Safety Workers?

In exactly one week, Phoenix voters will determine the fate of Proposition 487 – the controversial ballot measure that would, among other things, end the city’s defined-benefit plan for all new hires and shift them into a 401(k)-style plan.

The measure excludes public safety workers, so nothing would change for police and firefighters. Or would it?

In recent weeks, a fiery debate has emerged over whether Prop 487 would actually harm the retirement security of the city’s public safety workers.

Dustin Gardiner at the Arizona Republic writes:

Hundreds of firefighters and police officers chant “No on 487!” outside an upscale Biltmore office tower, rallying against a ballot initiative they contend will gut their most critical benefits.

They say the measure…would jeopardize their retirement security and death and disability benefits.

That dire situation they portrayed at the protest earlier this month — suggesting Prop. 487 will eviscerate the pensions of officers and firefighters and leave families of fallen first responders without benefits — is improbable given that state law prohibits it.

Nevertheless, the hotly disputed claim has become the dominant argument in the final stretches of the campaign over the measure, which would close Phoenix’s employee-pension system for new hires and replace it with a 401(k)-type plan. The initiative is on the Nov. 4 ballot for city voters.

[…]

“Given that police officers and firefighters don’t receive Social Security and judges are apt to make unpredictable rulings, we refuse to take such risks with the public safety of our community,” leaders of the city’s police and fire unions wrote in a joint letter this week.

The Arizona Republic editorial board published a piece on Monday calling the arguments of public safety unions “thin”:

Prop. 487, which applies only to the Phoenix-run retirement system for non-public-safety employees, expressly excludes police and fire pensions. State law requires cities to contribute to the statewide public-safety pension system. The Arizona Constitution explicitly protects personnel already enrolled. Legal precedent clearly is on the side of public safety.

Even attorneys opposing Prop. 487 acknowledge that their arguments are thin. So why the fierce opposition?

Part of the explanation must be set at the feet of the Phoenix City Council, a majority of which opposes the proposition. The council created ballot language that disingenuously depicts the proposition taking action that is constitutionally forbidden.

The council majority and staff have made it clear which side they favor. It isn’t the side of the city’s taxpayers, who must bear the rapidly increasing expense of the city’s grossly underfunded pension plans.

But, largely, the anti-Prop. 487 campaign appears to be a statement by the city’s public-safety unions, which will adamantly oppose any effort to change any public-employee retirement system that promises to lessen the financial burden on the city’s taxpayers.

Even to the point of rising up against a ballot measure that will in no way affect their benefits.

But union leaders call the measure “poorly written” and maintain that the ambiguity of the measure doesn’t bode well for public safety workers. From a column in the Arizona Republic authored by the presidents of three Arizona public safety unions:

Prop. 487 will impact Phoenix police officers and firefighters. The only question is: Exactly how much?

Because of this measure’s contradictory language and because, according to the city’s analyses, Prop. 487 has the potential to make it illegal for the city to contribute to the public-safety retirement system, our groups oppose this ballot measure. Simply put: It is the wrong kind of reform.

Inevitably, Prop. 487 will end up in court for a years-long legal fight. Our opponents and The Arizona Republic editorial board have discounted that risk — and the looming massive legal bills.

However, given that police officers and firefighters don’t receive Social Security and judges are apt to make unpredictable rulings, we refuse to take such risks with the public safety of our community. We hope Phoenix residents will refuse, as well.

Read the entire column from the union leaders here.

You can read the Arizona Republic’s editorial board piece here.

Video: CalPERS CIO Talks Hedge Fund Exit, Market Risk of Climate Change and Corporate Tax Avoidance

http://youtu.be/jRDuJt_jJqQ?list=UUWHcVDsYvL_xcRjarkRlqoQ

The above video features an interview with CalPERS chief investment officer Ted Eliopoulos. Topics include CalPERS’ hedge fund exit, the fund’s stance on corporate tax avoidance, and how climate change has impacted the fund’s portfolio.

Ai-CIO.com summarizes a few key points from the interview. On hedge funds:

“One of our prime considerations in reviewing the program is whether we believe we could scale the program to a much more significant part of the overall portfolio,” he said. “Our analysis, after very careful review, was that mainly because of the complexity of the hedge fund portfolio and the cost we weren’t comfortable scaling the program to a much greater size than it currently held.”

On corporate tax inversion:

Eliopoulos emphasised that, in general, tax was something to be addressed by relevant governments as a policy issue, but expressed concern about corporate inversions.
“We think the best approach is for the US government to address this type of a loophole in the context of overall corporate tax reform, and we’ve urged the government to get at it,” he said.

The Role of Diversity in Investment Committee Effectiveness

A recent Vanguard survey looked at the diversity of investment committees of pension funds and endowments – diversity in gender, race, education, age and professional background.

The survey also gauged the opinions of committee members on a variety of topics: How much do they value diversity? Are they satisfied with the level of diversity on their board? How does diversity impact committee effectiveness?

The results were published in a Vanguard report and in the September issue of Pension Benefits.

From the report:

Four in ten respondents to our survey said that committee diversity was either ‘not’ or ‘not very’ important, and another 37% remained noncommittal in terms of diversity’s role in driving committee effectiveness. Few respondents placed a high level of importance on diversity of any kind-65% were ‘extremely satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’ with their committee’s level of diversity.

Respondents considered their investment committees to be most diverse in terms of members’ professional experience-more than 60% of members indicated their committee was ‘very/extremely diverse’ in this respect. Nonprofit committees reported a higher level of diversity than retirement committees in terms of professional experience and investment committee experience. Overall, committee members reported the least diversity in terms of race/ethnicity.

When survey respondents were asked to rank the top three diversity elements that positively contributed to the effectiveness of a committee, diversity in professional experience and diversity in committee experience ranked highest. Based on these findings, committee members tended to point to job-related diversity as the main driver of committee effectiveness, whereas biodemographic diversity again played a more secondary role.

Fewer than one in ten investment committee member respondents said that they have a formal, written policy in place to develop and foster diversity within their committee. The importance placed on developing such a policy moving forward is relatively low, as just 6% of committee member respondents said this was ‘very/extremely important.’

Just one-quarter of our survey respondents said their committee had become more diverse than five years previous-with the majority (70%) indicating that their committee had not changed one way or the other.

One-third of our survey respondents ranked being ‘fully engaged in the committee process’ as the most valuable trait among effective committee members.

The entire report can be read here.

Canada Pension Invests Nearly $400 Million In Brazilian Real Estate

The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB), the entity that manages investments for the Canada Pension Plan, plans to invest $396 million in commercial real estate in Brazil.

From Reuters:

In a statement released late on Monday, CPPIB said the investments include the purchase of warehouses, land and stakes in development projects in the logistics and retailing industries, adding to the fund’s portfolio of more than 100 properties in Latin America’s largest economy.

The move brings CPPIB’s real estate commitments in Brazil to over $1.8 billion. Since 2009, CPPIB has bought real estate in Brazil to profit from rising demand for corporate and distribution facilities.

[…]

CPPIB will pay 507 million reais for 30 percent in a joint venture with Singapore’s Global Logistic Properties Ltd. , the world’s No. 2 owner of industrial properties, to run 32 logistics properties in São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, the statement added.

Another 231 million reais were committed to GLP Brazil Development Partners I, a real estate investment vehicle in which Global Logistic Properties has a 40 percent stake and CPPIB a 39.6 percent stake.

CPPIB also pledged to spend 159 million reais to buy a 25 percent stake in a São Paulo logistics project alongside Cyrela Commercial Properties SA.

The fund also paid 100 million reais for a 33.3 percent stake in the Santana Parque Shopping mall, which is jointly run by partner Aliansce Shopping Centers SA, the statement added. CPPIB has a 27.6 percent in Aliansce, a shopping mall operator.

From a CPPIB statement released Monday:

“Since making our first real estate investment in Brazil in 2009, CPPIB has become one of the largest investors in the sector with ownership interests in logistics, retail, office and residential assets or developments,” said Peter Ballon, Managing Director & Head of Real Estate Investments – Americas. “Over the past 10 months, we deepened relationships with our key partners to commit additional equity in high-quality real estate assets that are important additions to our diversified Brazilian portfolio. Our team of real estate professionals based in our recently opened Sao Paulo office continues to pursue attractive investment opportunities in the region.”

The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board manages $226 billion in assets.

Fitch Slaps Jacksonville With Credit Downgrade Over Pension Obligations

Fitch warned Jacksonville earlier this year that a credit downgrade was waiting in the wings if the city didn’t move to control its rising pension costs.

Fitch has now followed through on the threat, downgrading several city bonds from AA+ to AA, and others from AA to AA-.

In doing so, Fitch becomes the second agency to downgrade Jacksonville’s credit in the last four months. Moody’s did so in June.

From the Jacksonville Daily Record:

Fitch Ratings has downgraded several of Jacksonville’s bonds, citing pension risk and lack of reform as key drivers to its negative changes.

In all, about $1 billion in bonds and commercial paper notes were downgraded. Three bonds went from AA+ to AA, while one bond and the city’s commercial paper went from AA to AA-.

Regarding the city’s unlimited tax general obligation, its pension and liability profile is more consistent with an AA rating as opposed to an AA+ rating, the agency explains in its notes. Ratings affect the city’s interest rates on borrowing.

“The rating action focuses on credit risk associated with the city’s pension plans, which have a large collective unfunded actuarial accrued liability and rapidly escalating funding costs,” it states.

The city’s police and fire pension plan’s unfunded liability is more than $1.6 billion. The annual cost of paying into the plan is a projected $154 million for fiscal year 2014-15, up $6 million from the year before.

Chief among Fitch’s concerns is the city’s stalled pension reform efforts. One Fitch analyst said reform has been “very slow to evolve”. From the Florida Times-Union:

Fitch Ratings voiced concerns Monday about whether Jacksonville can actually achieve pension reform that will strengthen the city’s financial outlook.

[…]

After noting that some City Council members have filed amendments seeking to change a pension bill introduced by Mayor Alvin Brown, Fitch’s report questions “when or if” the City Council will vote on that bill.

Fitch also points out that Brown’s bill doesn’t identify a “definitive long-term funding source” to pay for a $400 million piece of Brown’s proposal — a criticism also lodged by several City Council members and the Jacksonville Civic Council, a high-profile business group.

[…]

Fitch put Jacksonville on notice earlier this year it would downgrade the city’s ratings if pension reform isn’t achieved. Brown filed his pension bill in June but it went on the back-burner during the summer budget hearings. The City Council conducted its first session last Wednesday to discuss the bill.

The Mayor’s Office has said the question-filled meeting was productive. But Fitch’s analysts were “concerned that it was not the progress they were after,” said city Chief Financial Officer Ronnie Belton, who talked to the analysts last week.

“I think the message from them is, ‘We’re looking for you to deal with the No. 1 issue you’ve got,’ ” Belton said.

Read the Fitch report here.

Former Illinois Attorney General: Pension Reform “Single Most Important” Issue Facing Illinois

Ty Fahner, president of the Civic Committee of The Commercial Club of Chicago and former Illinois attorney general, has been pushing Illinois lawmakers for months to come up with a “Plan B” for pension reform.

He contends that it’s likely the Illinois Supreme Court will overturn the state’s pension reform law. And if it does, Illinois has no contingency plan in place.

In a column in the Belleville News-Democrat, Fahner says of pension reform: “no issue of greater importance to Illinois’ future”. He writes:

What if?

It’s the single most important question that Illinois residents should be asking, and candidates for office should be answering.

Yet as Election Day approaches, too few are asking about the most critical issue facing the state.

What if the Illinois Supreme Court rejects pension reform?

Illinois needs an open and honest conversation about the potential impact this decision could have on the state and its citizens. Regardless of the outcome, the consequences are far-reaching and voters deserve to know whats at stake.

This is about what is good for the state and its future. Illinois needs to be in a position to grow its economy, create jobs for Illinois residents, invest in education and infrastructure and provide for the most vulnerable among us. The pension law decision will have a sweeping impact that will touch every Illinois resident in one way or another.

Illinois can no longer kick the can down the road. Half measures will not suffice. We need to address these issues now. Even if the law is upheld, we are still lagging virtually every state in the nation. All of the answers to these questions will take time to develop, win approval from the General Assembly and implement. Many of the social services already have been cut to the bone and educational funding reduced by $2.7 billion since 2009 — what is the plan?

[…]

With the future of pension reform hanging in the balance, now is the time to ask the question.

What if?

No issue is of greater importance to Illinois’ future.

And if the Supreme Court does reject the state’s pension reform law, Fahner writes:

If the court rejects the law, $145 billion in state contributions is immediately added to the taxpayer tab over the next 30 years. Whether through even more tax hikes or continued service cuts, that money has to be accounted for. We would pay a lot more for a lot less in return.

Property taxes could rise to the highest in the nation. School districts could face further budget strain. Tens of thousands of seniors, children and mentally ill could face significant reductions, if not loss, of the state assistance on which they rely. The security of the pension systems themselves would be jeopardized.

Illinois needs this conversation. The sad truth is that all of the state”s biggest problems are directly tied to the pension crisis, which has already resulted in paralyzing tax hikes, steep cuts to social services, unreasonable burdens on students and the loss of jobs to neighboring states. Already, Illinois ranks last or near last among the states on every economic indicator from unemployment, to property taxes, to jobs climate and state support for education.

Read the entire column here.

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /home/mhuddelson/public_html/pension360.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 3712