I disagree with your opinion regarding pension change. 

I disagree with your opinion regarding pension change.  

State Treasurer Dan Rutherford has it all wrong.  “Litigate it” is not the answer.  

The fact is, the General Assembly is a deadbeat. Under Mike Madigan’s leadership, they have kicked the pension can down the road for well over a decade. What does a deadbeat do when they get too far behind? Find a way out of paying.  

To say employee pension benefits have led to the financial problems of our state is just not true. Wasting time and money in the courts in order to weasel out of obligations is not the answer.

Curt Sapp

Elected officials should lead
I like to read politicians’ quotes because I then search for the real meanings behind their statements.

Last Wednesday’s State Journal-Register quoted state Treasurer Dan Rutherford as saying: “I am a strong supporter of changing the pension system such that in the future we would have participants having a choice.”

Seemed to me like he actually said: “I’m a strong supporter of changing the Illinois Constitution in order to break the present agreement this government has with its front-line workers so that those who are now employed as government workers can be double-crossed and find their agreements worth less and costing them more.”  

I’d really like to hear an elected official state that he or she is a “strong supporter to change the rules in order to devalue elected officials’ pensions and benefits in order to set an example for the rest of the workers. I was elected to lead so I will lead with this action.”

Most of these officeholders seem to be out in public for photo ops and sound bites while their chiefs of staff and workers actually do the work of those offices. The elected officials get paid very well for part-time work and have great benefits and many of their lucrative pensions are locked in right away (while the front-line state workers have to work for many years to qualify for comparatively meager pensions). Our elected officials certainly have a “do as I say, not as I do” mentality. Why do we elect and re-elect these people? How I wish we had term limits in Illinois.

Jeff Donohue

Don’t alter teacher benefits
Attempts to change current public educator retirement benefits fail to acknowledge their impact on Illinois’ economy. Annual benefits and pensions paid retired educators create more than $4 billion in economic activity. This includes 30,000 full-time jobs; that means $23 billion in non-teacher wages.

Plans such as HB 149 attempt to avoid the Illinois constitutional protection of public pensions by providing retirement options. Teachers could stay in their current pension plan but pay significantly more. The Chicago Commercial Club is demanding this amount be 28 percent of their salary. Requiring teachers to pay three times what they are currently contributing just to stay in the own retirement system is both unconstitutional and unreasonable. It is particularly unfair and financially difficult for teachers nearing retirement with less than 10 years remaining.

In addition, public educators have paid thousands of dollars to participate in an Early Retirement Option  allowing them to retire with current benefits after 35 years without penalty. The state cannot simply ignore this and renege on their contract.

Possible pension funding solutions include generating money by reforming Medicaid laws, suggested by Rep. Rich Brauer, and gradually shifting the pension costs to local school districts, which is advocated by Senate President John Cullerton.

Retirement benefits for current public school teachers should not be changed. Doing so will cause a lengthy court battle, costing our state money it can ill afford to spend.  I urge all educators to call their legislators. We made our pension payments.

Mike Bell
Retired public educator

Look at lawmakers’ pensions
There has been a lot of discussion lately regarding pension reform. Ironically, you don’t hear much about the legislature’s pension system.  

If you think the state employees’ pension system is lucrative, take a look at the General Assembly Retirement System website and see the pension system the politicians have built for themselves. With just 13 years of service, they draw 50 percent of their salary at age 55; and if they make it 20 years, they get 85 percent at age 55.

Where else can you find a pension system that rewarding?
You would hope our elected leaders would look in the mirror when they start drafting legislation to reform the public pension system.  Why wouldn’t our legislators have the same retirement plan as state employees?

What’s the phrase, something about leading by example?
Jack Elston