Illinois pension reform | Pension360

Watchdog Report: Bruce Rauner Adviser Is Triple-Dipping “Prince of Pensions”

Bruce Rauner won the Illinois governorship, in part, by campaigning as a reformer and a political outsider who would “shake up Springfield.”

Rauner targeted the state’s underfunded pension systems as a prime candidate for reform in at least one campaign ad, when he noted that Illinois carries “$8,000 of pension debt for every man, woman and child.”

The governor-elect recently appointed Glenn Poshard to his transition team, which spurred an investigation by the Better Government Association and CBS 2 News.

The investigation found that Poshard “triple dips” – or, pulls in pensions from three separate retirement systems, netting him nearly $200,000 annually in pension benefits. Poshard is breaking no laws, but the situation demonstrates the “loopholes” in the Illinois pension system that can sometimes lead to ballooned benefits.

Andy Shaw, CEO of the Better Government Association, told CBS: “Governor-elect Rauner could probably learn a lot about how to reform the pension system by looking at the ways in which Glenn Poshard used loopholes to enrich his own pension.”

More from the Better Government Association:

Poshard collects $189,979 a year in state pensions from three separate public-sector retirement systems, more than the $177,412 salary currently paid to Gov. Pat Quinn, the BGA found. Among former governors, only Jim Edgar gets more in retirement: $205,425, having recently picked up a second pension from his days teaching at the University of Illinois. Former Gov. Jim Thompson gets $143,181 in state pension benefits, records show.

In addition to his state-government pensions, Poshard collects a $15,000-a-year federal pension for his 10 years in the U.S. Congress representing a southeastern Illinois district, bringing his total retirement package to slightly more than $200,000 annually, according to records and interviews.

To date, he’s collected more than $1.4 million in state pension benefits, and if he lives until he’s 80, that $200,000 he’s now getting could increase to an estimated $280,000 a year.

[…]

The cornerstone of Poshard’s generous state pension is the five years he served as a state senator. Of all state pension systems, the General Assembly Retirement System, or GARS, has the most deluxe features, designed and passed by members of the General Assembly.

Chief among those features is a formula that allowed him to collect a pension starting at 85 percent of his final state-government salaries – which averaged $165,000 as an SIU administrator during his first of two stints at the state government-run college.

Poshard also was allowed to increase his years of state service and thus boost his state pensions by counting unused sick time, un-served state Senate time, and credits purchased for past jobs in the military and while working his way through college, the BGA found. Overall, Poshard’s state pensions are based on 30 years of service and credit.

Poshard commented on his pension benefits to CBS:

“I am very appreciative for the retirement benefits I now receive which were determined by the laws in place at both the state and federal levels. If some of those laws need to be changed in order to more fully fund the pension system, as I myself have advocated before the legislature, then I am more than happy to see a reduction in my own retirement benefits.”

He also gave a phone interview to the Better Government Association:

In a telephone interview, Poshard said he has done nothing unethical and “never tried to game the system.”

“I can tell you, I worked hard my whole life,” said Poshard, 69. “I never shortchanged the state.”

[…]

“I’m grateful for what I got. I’m happy with it. I can’t pass judgment on whether the overall pension was too generous,” said Poshard.

A spokesman for Bruce Rauner said the Poshard’s role on the transition team will not be focused on pension issues.

The entire BGA investigation can be read here.

The corresponding CBS investigation can be read here.

Pension Reform in Illinois Likely to Look Different Under Rauner If Supreme Court Rejects Current Law

Under Gov. Pat Quinn, Illinois passed a sweeping pension overhaul that cut COLAs and raised retirement ages for some workers.

But the state Supreme Court could reject the law. If that happens, it will be Bruce Rauner who will be able to shape reform legislation, which will likely look different than Quinn’s. From the Wall Street Journal:

Confronting the nation’s worst state pension shortfall was the top concern of Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn. The same will likely be true for Bruce Rauner, his newly elected successor.

The Illinois Supreme Court in coming months could dump the $100 billion problem in the lap of Mr. Rauner, who defeated Mr. Quinn on Tuesday to become the state’s first Republican governor in more than a decade.

A year ago, Mr. Quinn, a Democrat, won passage of a bill that lowered future pension costs by shrinking cost-of-living increases for retirees and raising retirement ages for younger employees, among other steps. State workers and retirees challenged the law, and a recent ruling by Illinois’s top court signaled the justices may end up overturning the law.

Mr. Rauner, who was a longtime private-equity executive before deciding to run for governor, has said he favors moving to a 401(k)-style system over pensions, but the shape that would take at the state capitol remains to be seen. Mr. Rauner was quiet the day after his big victory and his campaign declined an interview request.

Part of the challenge for any plan for Mr. Rauner will be getting it through the Democratic-controlled legislature. Many there agree the state has a big problem, but Mr. Quinn had a bruising fight with his own party to broker a deal.

To be sure, Illinois will continue to be a focus of the national debate that’s raging over how to fix ailing public pension systems. But on Tuesday, the Land of Lincoln wasn’t alone in having the issue play a role in the elections.

Bruce Rauner gives some hints about what his plans for pension reform would look like on his website:

I believe we must choose to address this problem head-on. No tinkering around the edges.

We must boldly reform our pension system. To do that, we can:

– Ensure pay and benefits do not rise faster than the rate of inflation.

– Eliminate the ability of government employees to receive massive pay raises before they retire just to increase their pension.

– Cap the current system and move towards a defined contribution system.

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.

Moody’s: Illinois Pension Debt Is Worst In Country

Moody’s released a report last weekend measuring the pension liabilities of all states relative to state revenue. By that measure, Illinois has the worst pension debt in the country, according to the report. From the Sun-Times:

Illinois’ pension liability as a percentage of state revenue is far and away the nation’s highest, according to a new report from a major credit-rating agency.

The state’s three-year average liability over revenue is 258 percent, Moody’s Investors Service says.

The next closest? Connecticut, at about 200 percent.

The Moody’s report averaged the Illinois percentage from 2010 through 2012. In 2012 alone, the state’s rate was 318 percent.

The state has a $100 billion deficit in the amount of money that should be invested in the portfolios of five state-employee pension accounts.

[…]

In the latest report, Moody’s sets [the median] level at 51 percent.

Several larger states, similar to Illinois, are well below the median and rank in the 10 lowest percentages of adjusted net pension liability, including Ohio, Florida and New York. The group also includes Illinois neighbors Iowa and Wisconsin — the latter having the lowest level next to Nebraska.

Only three others states — New Jersey, Hawaii and Louisiana — have rates higher than 120 percent.

The report acknowledged the state’s pending pension reform, which currently sits in court. From the Sun-Times:

Lawmakers adopted an overhaul plan last fall that cuts benefits and increases worker contributions to significantly cut that debt.

But the law has been challenged in court. A Sangamon County judge indicated last week he wants the case moved swiftly to appellate courts, suggesting the Illinois Supreme Court’s rejection in July of a law affecting retiree health insurance could prove a model for the pension challenge.

Moody’s points out that even if the pension overhaul gets constitutional approval from the state’s high court, it still will take decades for Illinois government to dig out of its financial hole.

Photo by Chris Eaves via Flickr CC License

Pension Limbo Leaves Illinois Schools, Creditors Uncertain

The Illinois Supreme Court will soon rule on the constitutionality of the state’s sweeping pension reforms. But no one knows what the decision will ultimately look like—or when it will happen.

That uncertainty is weighing heavily on institutions that won’t know exactly what their fiscal future looks like until a court ruling comes down. From WUIS:

Tucked into the flurry of reports issued by credit rating agencies, one phrase has been appearing again and again, undercutting the financial outlook for many public schools and community colleges across Illinois. Under headings such as “Challenges” or “What could make the rating go down,” there’s often a warning along the lines of “increased budgetary pressures due to a shift in pension costs from the state.”

Tom Aaron, with Moody’s Public Finance Group in Chicago, says that’s because of “the likelihood that the state may have to search for additional pension answers.”

Despite prognostications by Quinn and others, Aaron says it’s not certain whether last year’s pension overhauls will be upheld by the Supreme Court.

“So in the event they are not, there is a risk that the state is going to have to go back to the drawing board in terms of trying to solve its pension issues,” he said.

And that could include a shift in pension costs from the state onto individual school districts, colleges and universities.

If the court overturns the state’s reform law, lawmakers will be sent back to the drawing board to draft a different set of solutions for cutting pension costs.

One proposal that gas gained steam in the past—and likely would be among the first policies proposed—is to shift pension costs from the state onto schools, colleges and universities. WUIS reports:

The cost-shift was once a key component of pension proposals. House Speaker Michael Madigan decried the “free lunch,” in which school boards set employee pay without worrying about future pension costs, since those would be borne by the state.

Even as recently as March 2014, Senate President John Cullerton mentioned it in a speech at the Union League Club of Chicago:

“We’ve suggested to the suburban and downstate areas, ‘You’ve got to start paying a little bit of your employers’ portion of the pensions.’ It’s called a cost-shift. … It’s important. This makes good public policy,” Cullerton said.

Moody’s doesn’t think schools can afford to wait. Moody’s Public Finance Vice President Rachel Cortez says the agency asks whether districts are bracing themselves for the possibility of a cost-shift:

“The stronger credits, the stronger management teams tend to be aware that that could be coming, and are preparing for it, making contingency plans,” she added.

The cost-shift would be particularly heavy fiscal burden on schools because state funding to schools has been chipped away in recent years.

Union Coalition Wants Illinois Court To Act Faster In Case Against Reform Law

A coalition of some of the largest labor groups in Illinois filed a motion today calling on the court to speed up its ruling regarding the constitutionality of Illinois’ pension reform law.

The coalition, We Are One Illinois, says the Supreme Court’s July decision—where the court ruled retirees’ health benefits are protected under the state’s constitution—confirms that Illinois’ pension reform law is illegal.

From CapitolFax:

Yesterday, the We Are One Illinois coalition, along with other plaintiffs, filed a motion in Sangamon County urging the Circuit Court to enter judgment in the plaintiffs’ favor on the State’s affirmative defense in light of the recent Supreme Court decision in the case of Kanerva v. Weems. The We Are One Illinois coalition and other plaintiffs assert that the Kanerva decision confirms that the Pension Protection Clause in the Illinois Constitution is absolute and without exception, even with respect to the fiscal circumstances alleged by the State in its defense.

Illinois says its dire fiscal situation gives it the authority to cut to pension benefits, even if they are constitutionally protected. From Reuters:

The state has contended that its sovereign powers allow it to act in a fiscal emergency. Illinois has a $100 billion unfunded pension liability and the country’s worst funded state retirement system. Illinois’s credit ratings are also the lowest among U.S. states.

But the court’s July decision doesn’t bode well for the state’s case. At the time, the court wrote:

“[I]t is clear that if something qualifies as a benefit of the enforceable contractual relationship resulting from membership in one of the State’s pension or retirement systems, it cannot be diminished or impaired … Giving the language of article XIII, section 5, its plain and ordinary meaning, all of these benefits, including subsidized health care, must be considered to be benefits of membership in a pension or retirement system of the State and, therefore, within that provision’s protections.”

We Are One Illinois issued the following statement after filing the motion:

“The Kanerva decision confirms what we have always argued, that the state’s constitutional language guards against any diminishment or impairment of pension benefits that Senate Bill 1 imposes. We believe, then, that the State’s defense is without merit and so have asked the Court in this motion to rule in our favor on the State’s defense that seeks to justify Senate Bill 1. We maintain that the constitution protects the hard-earned and promised retirement savings of our members and remain ready to work with any legislator willing to develop a fair and legal solution to our state’s challenges.”

Photo credit: “Gfp-illinois-springfield-capitol-and-sky” by Yinan Chen, Via Wikimedia Commons

Challengers to Illinois Reform Law Seek Expedited Supreme Court Ruling

Illinois’ pension reform law, passed and signed in December, remains in a legal limbo that has parties on every side of the issue uncomfortable. As a result, the attorneys behind several of the lawsuits challenging the reform law plan to submit motions that they hope will land the case in front of the Supreme Court sooner than later. From the State Journal-Register:

Lawyers challenging last year’s pension reform law said they will make another attempt to get an expedited ruling in the case in the wake of the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision in the retiree health insurance case.

[Attorney Don] Craven said this new motion could enable the pension reform case to get to the Supreme Court earlier than is now considered likely. Before the health insurance ruling, [Judge] Belz set out a lengthy schedule for lawyers on both sides to conduct preliminary work on the cases. Lawyers for the state indicated they want to use six expert witnesses to buttress their case. Aaron Maduff, another attorney challenging the law, said it involved “tremendous, tremendous” preliminary work.

“It’s a huge amount of material,” he said.

At this point, however, the schedule is still in place and a ruling at the circuit court level isn’t expected until next year.

The next hearing in the pension reform lawsuit is scheduled for Sept. 4.

The Illinois Supreme Court ruled earlier this month that it was unconstitutional to charge seniors a premium for their state-subsidized health insurance. The ruling was of particular relevance to the state’s pension reform law because the legal reasoning behind the judgment was that the state is not permitted to diminish retirement benefits protected by the state Constitution.

Some parties believe last month’s ruling was the nail in the coffin for this iteration of state pension reform. But others say the eventual ruling on the reform law won’t be influenced by the previous judgment. From the State Journal-Register:

“The Supreme Court could hardly have been clearer in destroying the police powers argument in the Kanerva case,” said attorney John Myers, who brought another of the pension reform lawsuits. “What the Supreme Court is saying is you have to fund this, now figure it out. That destroys the whole sovereign powers defense, which is, ‘We don’t have to figure it out, we can impair pensions.’ ”

Attorney General Lisa Madigan has said the ruling in the health insurance case does not affect the pension reform case because they involve different legal issues.

Pension benefits are protected in Illinois by the state Constitution. The reform law seeks to end cost-of-living-adjustment increases and raise the retirement age.

S&P Threatens Illinois With Another Credit Downgrade In Wake of Pension Reform Uncertainty

In what has become an annual tradition, ratings agency S&P has threatened to further downgrade Illinois’ credit rating, whose bonds already carry among the lowest ratings in the country.

The main factor, according to S&P, was the status of the state’s pension reform law, which sits in legal limbo until a court decides its constitutionality.

From Reuters:

Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services on Wednesday warned that Illinois’ already low credit rating could sink further if the state is unable to implement reforms to curb its big unfunded pension liability and balance its budget.

The credit rating agency revised the outlook on Illinois’ A-minus credit rating to negative from developing, citing a recent state supreme court ruling that could derail a new pension reform law and the state’s structurally imbalanced state budget.

“If the pension reform is declared unconstitutional or invalid, or implementation is delayed and there is a continued lack of consensus and action among policymakers on the structural budget gaps and payables outstanding, we believe there could be a profound and negative effect on Illinois’ budgetary performance and liquidity over the next two years and that this could lead to a downgrade,” S&P said in a statement.

It added that Illinois could achieve a stable outlook if the pension reform law Illinois enacted in December withstands constitutional challenges and the state takes “credible action” to balance its budget.

When a state’s credit rating is under review, ratings agencies assign it to one of three categories: positive, negative or developing. Positive indicates that the rating agency holds a positive outlook for the state’s credit rating and will likely upgrade it in due time.

Illinois’ outlook was previously developing. Now, it is negative, meaning S&P will likely downgrade the rating sooner than later.

S&P added, however, that Illinois could avoid a downgrade if the state’s pension reform law passed legal muster.

Is Amending the Constitution a Viable Option for Pension Reform in Illinois?

For a while, it looked like Illinois was set to ease some of the burden of the pension obligations that had been weighing it down like a boulder. The state’s reform law, though not perfect—various parties disagreed on the effectiveness and fairness of the measure—had at least ended years of inaction on the part of lawmakers.

But a state Supreme Court ruling earlier this month left the fate of the reform law up in the air and called its constitutionality into question. Now, Illinois’ government is weighing its options, deciding what steps should be taken if and when the reform law is struck down by the courts.

If the law is eventually found unconstitutional, the solution may be to simply amend the constitution to make it legal. Of course, that’s easier said than done. Crain’s explains:

Amending the constitution would not be easy, to say the least, given recent history and the state’s current political climate. It would need approval by a three-fifths vote in both the Illinois House and Senate. That’s just to put a proposed amendment on the ballot, where it would need 60 percent of those voting on the issue to be approved.

Chances for a constitutional amendment are “a lot better than it was last time,” says Mr. Sosnowski, after the Kanerva decision signaled how strictly the court viewed the pension protection clause. “A lot of people looked at that and said we’ve got possibilities.”

But it can’t be done quickly. The Illinois Constitution requires a six-month waiting period before a proposed amendment can be placed on the ballot, so November 2016 is the soonest it could be put up for a vote. Meanwhile, the statewide pension law changes have been stayed, keeping benefits and contributions and inflation adjustments all in place.

So the state needs two things to make this work: political compromise and time. Unfortunately, it doesn’t have a great deal of either.

History is not on Illinois’ side, either. Lawmakers actually attempted to pass a pension-related constitutional amendment two years ago. But as they learned, you can’t sneak these things past voters–especially ones who are willing to mobilize. From Crain’s:

Two years ago, a relatively innocuous constitutional amendment that would have required supermajority approval by the state Legislature and municipalities to increase pension benefits was pushed through the Legislature by House Speaker Michael Madigan.

Widely panned as a meaningless measure that would not reduce the state’s pension debt, it passed the House unanimously, with only two dissenting votes in the Senate. But only 56 percent of voters approved, falling short of the supermajority needed.

“It was more of a PR issue,” said Rep. Tom Morrison, R-Palatine, who co-sponsored Mr. Sosnowski’s bill to repeal the pension protection clause in the last session of the Legislature. “What elected board is going to increase pension benefits in this environment?”

But a union coalition quickly mobilized to defeat it at the ballot box.

“They’re going to be ready; this time it wouldn’t get a majority of votes,” said John Kindt, professor emeritus of business and legal policy at the University of Illinois in Urbana, who chairs the U of I’s faculty and staff benefits committee. “A constitutional amendment could get through the General Assembly, but voters have already rejected it and they will be well-organized if the Legislature does it again.”

Short of amending the constitution, some lawmakers want to start from scratch on reform and start writing a brand new bill. One such lawmakers is state Senator Mike Frerichs, who is also running for the state’s treasurer position. From the Chicago Tribune:

Mike Frerichs says he thinks lawmakers should “go back to the drawing board” and start over on changes to public employee pension benefits following a recent Illinois Supreme Court ruling.

“I think in their opinion on health care, they made it fairly clear what their opinion on the state constitution is and how they’re going to rule on it,” Frerichs said Sunday about the public employee pension law on the “Sunday Spin” radio program on WGN 720-AM.

“We’ll wait and see what the Supreme Court rules, but I think it’s good to have a backup in place and to start working (on a backup plan) because I think it’s pretty clear we’re going to have to do that,” Frerichs said. “I think it’s probably time to go back to the drawing board.”

Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn is among several high-level officials in the state who remain optimistic the law’s constitutionality will be upheld. Of course, no one will know the truth until the Supreme Court rules on the issue, even if many consider the court’s most recent ruling to be the writing on the wall.

Illinois Supreme Court Ruling Casts Bad Omen on State’s Pension Reform

While the rest of the country celebrated Fourth of July weekend, members of the Illinois pension sphere got to watch some fireworks of their own. A key Illinois Supreme Court case was decided over the weekend, and the decision does not bode well for the state’s landmark pension reform. (The full court opinion can be read at the bottom of this page.)

According to the 6-1 decision, the pension protection clause — which says that retirement benefits are a contractual agreement that “cannot be diminished or impaired” — applies to other retirement benefits, not just pensions. That overrode the state’s argument that its emergency powers, in dealing with its budget crisis, justified an increase in what retirees must pay for their health benefits.

The court rejected the state’s argument that health care benefits are not covered by the pension protection clause, finding that there is nothing in the state constitution to support that. The only question now is whether the reduction in the state’s health care subsidies constituted an impairment or diminishment of those benefits.

Although the ruling doesn’t directly apply to pensions, the writing seems to be on the wall.

“If the justices can read the pension clause of the constitution to protect health benefits, they certainly would use it to protect pension benefits,” former state Budget Director Steve Schnorf said.

“This bodes very, very ill” for the pension cuts the Legislature approved for state workers, and for a similar set of trims Mayor Rahm Emanuel wants for his workforce, he added.

Time after time, without finally resolving the issue, the court seemed to go out of its way to knock down any changes not agreed to by workers unions, and perhaps by each individual worker.

For instance, one argument defenders of the new pension law have offered is that unfunded pension liability now is so large — $100 billion in the state funds, and at least $32 billion in the city funds, for instance — that government has a right to order changes, using its so-called police powers, to set spending priorities. But, said the court, “In light of the constitutional debates, we have concluded that the (pension) provision was aimed at protecting the right to receive the promised retirement benefits, not the adequacy of the funding to pay for them.”

In other words, pony up.

And as far as Cost-of-Living Adjustments:

Another argument offered by reform proponents is that annual cost of living adjustments in pensions are not protected by the state constitution in the same way that a person’s original pension is. In other words, a worker who initially got, say, a $3,000-a-month pension is entitled to get it and no more in the future, regardless of inflation. COLAs are far and away the biggest element in the retirement-funding crisis.
But, ruled the court, “Under settled Illinois law, where there is any question as to legislative intent and the clarity of the language of a pension statute, it must be liberally construed in favor of the rights of the pensioner. ”
So, the current 3 percent guaranteed annual COLA would appear to be here to stay.
Ironically, such an interpretation would apply both to the pension reform bill pushed by Gov. Pat Quinn that’s working its way up to the Supreme Court and to an alternative plan offered by his opponent Bruce Rauner. The GOP gubernatorial candidate proposes moving workers to a defined-contribution system that caps state funding.

Many believe lawmakers should now be scrambling to come up with a Plan B to reform pensions in a way allowed by the courts:

State and local lawmakers had better get working on a Plan B. Illinois needs alternatives to the state pension-reform law passed in December and to the Chicago pension-reform law passed in May. The options are limited — it may come down to a constitutional amendment — but the state’s best minds better get cracking.
It isn’t an exaggeration, even in the slightest, to say Illinois’ future depends on it.

There is now but one key question: Does a viable pension reform alternative exist? A bill pushed by Senate President John Cullerton, considered an alternative by many, is now almost certainly off the table. That bill gave workers a choice between full pension benefits or subsidized health care — choose pension benefits and health care would be cut. Given Thursday’s ruling, that now seems highly dubious.
One possibility would be to amend the constitution to modify the pension protection clause — not eliminating it but weakening it some. However, this is a lengthy process and may still not protect the state legally if it reduces benefits already promised.

Read the court’s entire opinion here:

[iframe src=”<p style=” margin: 12px auto 6px auto; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none; display: block;”> <a title=”View Kanerva vs. Weems on Scribd” href=”http://www.scribd.com/doc/232457165″ style=”text-decoration: underline;” >Kanerva vs. Weems</a></p><iframe class=”scribd_iframe_embed” src=”//www.scribd.com/embeds/232457165/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true” data-auto-height=”false” data-aspect-ratio=”undefined” scrolling=”no” id=”doc_36603″ width=”100%” height=”600″ frameborder=”0″></iframe>”]

Photo by Mr.TinDC via Flickr CC

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