CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in Question of the day

Re: Question of the day

Angry Chicagoan — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 09:28:49 -0000

I'd reluctantly have to go for K-12 funding, and only because the peculiarities of school funding in this state create a massive collective action problem that drives school boards to give huge pay raises to employees near retirement because they know the state will pick up the benefits on a final salary basis. If it is ultimately to survive as a defined benefit program, the teacher's pension system has to be be reformed to take into account average pay over a much longer slice of a person's career in order in part to prevent this kind of one-upmanship that costs the state so much.

But presumably that change would involve labor troubles.

Ideally state education funding would involve actual classroom instruction, rather than causing collective action problems through a one-sided coverage of pensions.

Re: Question of the day

Clarity — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 09:05:56 -0000

**** Um, that would probably increase payroll costs.***** Wrong Wrong Wrong.... That is what high paid management at SS wants people to think ******* It's is a waste of money... Have someone prove that Shared Services saved a dime... It has cost millions.

Re: Question of the day

Slasher — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 08:01:32 -0000

State Payroll
A total reformatting of state workforce is called for. Brainstorming for starters:

Reduce state hours to 4 day work weeks and cut hours from 7.5 hrs. to 5 hrs daily for all but essential positions. Rotate workforce to cover essential days/hours.

Offer job sharing - many state employees would be more than willing to take a cut in pay to work half time. This was tried in the 80s and very popular.

Reality...Many employees are working part-time in full time positions. This is done by taking vacation and personal time weekly or just filling the excess time looking busy. Assess which jobs could be made part-time and offer it up. Same as above, many would be willing to work a three-day vs. five-day week.

Automate services like entitlement programs casework.

Like the fed. gov does for at least one day(if not more) a week... allow work from home to cut overhead costs.

Get rid of excessive layers of management.

Put a $100,000 cap on merit salaries like Obama just did. Attempt to do same with Union positions.

Get rid of non union mid-management positions. Have staff report directly to top management to cut excess.

Consolidate office locations. State is paying rent at too many locations with excess space in key building .. ex. Harris Bldg...

Get rid of blackberry brigades for mid management. It's obnoxious seeing all these mid managers carrying cells many having their personal and state phones sit side by side in meeting ... just in case the boss needs to reach them. What are landlines for. We don't need both in these tough times.

Reduce benefit time for new employees. Where else does one get 10 vacation, 12 sick days and 3 personal days at the start of employment? Vacation jumps to 25 days a year at max. Nice but come on.

This is fun and I could go on and on. It's time State government structure is brought into the 21st century.

Re: Question of the day

Bookworm — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 04:31:40 -0000

The $9 billion deficit and the fact that I am a state employee partly explain why I'm up at this hour :)

Okay, if I only get to pick one, it's got to be either payroll or pensions. Yes, pensions have been neglected for too long, but they are not the most immediate need. Since not all state employees retire at exactly the same time, 100 percent funding is not an absolute necessity. Getting back on a long-term plan for boosting the funding percentage a couple of years down the road (maybe after the economy has recovered a bit) and sticking to it might be a good idea. Also, now is the time to consider things like raising the retirement age or changing the formula. Most workers my age and younger (mid-40s) assume they will have to work past 65 anyway and are not counting on either Social Security or pensions to be around when they do retire.

As for payroll... yikes, we would be talking about one out of every four state employees getting canned, or else cutting everyone's pay by one-fourth, if we really wanted to get rid of a billion just there. I will admit that some cuts have to be made there if the public is going to accept enough of a tax increase to decently fund anything. If it should turn out to be my job (which doesn't pay a whole heck of a lot) that gets cut, well, c'est la vie.

Re: Question of the day

Hey Guys — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 23:40:46 -0000

One more thing, if you are one of those state employees are crying about the service they are receiving from CMS, put yourself in someone elses shoes for a minute. Think of your self as a citizen of the state who needs medicaid, or any other social service the state provides. They are not getting good serice either and i think there situation is more life threatening. Stick to the question.

Re: Question of the day

Peter from Bloomington — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 23:35:14 -0000

State employee payroll - it's not just the money we're spending on salaries, it's the pension obligations associated with employees.

Re: Question of the day

Hey Guys — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 23:31:51 -0000

I know that everyone hates CMS. That has always been the case. This is nothing new. What you all have to realize is that CMS is the lead Administrative agency of the GOV. Yes, the GOV. It always has been. So don't blame CMS or it employees. Put the blame in the right place. CMS never asked for any consolidations! Nor has CMS enjoyed any of the consolidations.

Re: Question of the day

Lynn S — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 22:35:13 -0000

Sell Vermillion County to Indiana? Puh-LEEZ!! I live next to Vermillion County and have lived in Indiana, and I would be willing to bet $5 we would have to pay Indiana to take Vermillion County...

Seriously, we're going to have to look harder at schools (the idea about forcing k-8 and high school districts in the same town to consolidate is good, provided you don't have multiple k-8s feeding into the high school. Then it will get ugly.).

Treating potheads, rather than sending them to prison, is a better fiscal and human capitol policy. However, it will deprive certain politicians (I'm thinking of the former state's attorney in my county) of cheap points at election time, so it won't fly, and more's the loss to everyone else. >:-[

Taking a fine scapel to the tops of all state agencies is an excellent idea, and probably will fail for that reason. (we all know what happens when you mess with patronage...)

Moving almost all governmental functions back to Springpatch is a good idea, and might almost be doable, thanks to Blago. I would be willing to bet we can get a good price, even in this downer economy, for the Thompson Center and several other state bldgs. Those who gripe about how boring Springpatch is should be required to do something to liven it up (open stores, restaurants, performing arts, etc.).

Eliminate townships? Works great in Cook County and places like Champaign (co-terminous township City of Champaign township), but I grew up in rural Southeastern Illinois, and there are places in this state where townships perform essential government functions and are worthwhile to their residents. Can the legislature make that distinction when they approach this issue?

Sorry, Rich, probably not doing my best tonight...

Re: Question of the day

Bookworm — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 22:16:44 -0000

Was CMS a creation of the Former Non-Occupant or is it older than that? Whose idea was it to have the state buying, renting and leasing stuff from itself? How was this allegedly supposed to save money?

Re: Question of the day

State worker w/ an MBA — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 21:59:47 -0000

Shared services = higher cost.

Under Rod CMS has grown by leaps and bounds.

We now lease all computers and office funiture from CMS. Most all this was paid for before Rod came into power but now CMS owns it all and we make monthly payments on our own property.

Go figure.

Re: Question of the day

Arthur Andersen — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 21:30:10 -0000

Rod 6:55, you make two good and important points about SURS members not getting Social Security (but most pay for, and receive, Medicare) and their substantial required contributions to the system. Your points are equally applicable to members of TRS.

I would like to clarify a couple of your other observations. SURS (and TRS) members don't "pay half" of the cost of their pensions; over the long run, the split is more like 20% each for the member and the State, with most of the revenue, or about 60% coming from earnings on investments. This is where TRS' and SURS' strong investment performance over the years reduces the burden on the other two sources.
Secondly, although it's a good deal for the member, the "investment" in service purchases in most cases is a loser for the pension fund for reasons only an actuary would care about.

Re: Question of the day

TaxMeMore — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 21:00:03 -0000

RealityCheck, not all drug "offenders" are drug addicts. Not all drinkers are alcoholics. You may be assuming everyone we catch with drugs needs to be forced into drug treatment and thus costs would increase. I am not. That is why you misunderstood perhaps. Marijuana is not a chemically or physically addictive drug, unlike alcohol and nicotine and many "legal" drugs. There are no withdrawal symptoms to treat medically. Marijuana arrests of small amounts make up almost half of our drug arrests. So if we approached this from a medical science perspective instead of a punishment and moral authoritative control perspective, costs to treat the people truly addicted to meth and coke and heroin etc, would be more than made up by the savings in not arresting small time marijuana possession. People caught with marijuana don't need treatment or jail.

Drug "felons" like Barack Obama and Michael Phelps and George Bush and Bill Clinton and half the Illinois General Assembly and half the US Congress would not be better off if they were caught with a joint and forced into treatments centers instead of prisons. Mostly, anyway.

If we keep calling them drug "offenders" when begging for uneccessary, wasteful marijuana treatment tax dollars but calling them drug "felons" when protecting enforcement and prison dollars, of course the public won't want drug "felons" released. But we are talking about drug felons exactly like Barack Obama and Michael Phelps. Present it to the public that its a huge waste of money and does more harm than good to lock up people like Barack Obama for smoking a little pot and they will believe that.

In fact take a cue from the Netherlands, where fewer of their children and young adults use marijuana than in the US, and decriminalize and tax and regulate the sales of small amounts of it. Big, big, big, huge budget solving money right there in one swoop.

Re: Question of the day

NIEVA — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 20:55:46 -0000

State payroll would also include C M S which is one of the biggest jokes of all time! Allow agencies to do there own purchasing and billing would save hundred of millions per year.

Re: Question of the day

Rod Burton — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 19:55:35 -0000

"I have always been baffled by state and local pensions. No one in the private sector has a constitutionally protected right to a pension. 31 states have various government pension protections embedded in their constitutions. Why should government workers, regardless of how hard working, dedicated, etc....have a pension right none of the rest of us have? "

I don't know about the other 30 states, but in the Illinois university retirement system, workers do not make contributions to social security, and of course do not receive social security. In addition, the workers contribute half of the money into the fund, plus can and do invest their own money into their pension when transfering their pensions from out of state. The idea behind the constitutional protection is to prevent politicians from using the pension contributions of retired workers for other purposes.

Re: Question of the day

Concerned Voter — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 19:27:39 -0000

Not debating about whether pensions are good or bad, but just a little info.

Some state jobs rightfully get a higher pension percentage, state police and some jobs that are dangerous fine. Others maybe don't deserve the alternative formula.

Many state employees retirement is the of avg annual salary of last 4 yrs multiplied by (1.67 percent for every year of service) and have a rule of 85 (yrs of service plus age = 85 can retire w/no penalty) They would have to work 45 years to get the max of 75%

So a worker who started at 21, works to 53, has 32 years of service. If the avg 4 of salary was $45000, they would get pension of just over $24000 a year.

Be prepared, if early retirements come again, state services suffer. Lots of people go, and they don't exactly prepare the people who will take over jobs. In past early out times, some office folks were hired back to help process paperwork because they left before they could train anyone else.

Re: Question of the day

Six Degrees of Separation — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 19:04:07 -0000

AA-

The Alternative Service formula applies mainly to State Police, front-line Bureau of Corrections, and IDOT Highway Maintainers, no? If these occupations are truly dangerous with about the same mortality and injury rates for in-service employees, it's hard to justify changing one to a lesser formula. And once it's changed upward, it's permanent due to IL's constitutional protection of state pensions which voters resoundingly affirmed last year.

Re: Question of the day

tanstaafl — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 18:58:19 -0000

The problem with the early retirement in the past, lowere level employees took the retirement and then the Blogo administration added a bunch of high paid middle and upper management people to shuffle papers.

Re: Question of the day

Arthur Andersen — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 18:54:56 -0000

pot wrote: "The pension system is in trouble for two reasons: underfunding & too-early retirement."

The first one, underfunding, is the big problem. The general demographic issue of folks living longer is manageable if the actuarial assumptions are evaluated frequently and contribution rates tweaked as needed. Setting a normal retirement age at 55 or 60 is not extravagant if the pension fund is fully funded. Oops.

One of Illinois' many pension fiascoes has been the enactment of various early retirement without discount "window periods" that allowed people as young as 50 to retire and draw a full pension in some cases. The explosion of State workers being added to the pricier "alternative formula" (the one that started out for State Police and now has everyone from sign hangers to arson investigators in it-retire at 50 with 27 years-no discount-80% pension) has been another burden on SERS; 1 in 3 SERS members is now in the alternative formula. Couple all these cost pressures with the lousy investment returns, especially at ISBI, and the outlook is bleak.

PS: Taxhound, Senator Burris called. He wants you to stop using his buzzword, zero-based budgeting, that he suggested for the State in 1975.

Re: Question of the day

You Go Boy — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 18:41:55 -0000

Early Retirement Incentives can work if the number reduced are not replaced , and when they are replaced, at lower pay. Blago significantly reduced the number of employees, but obviously not their cost. Waste, Fraud are more than cliche's...they exist and if the proper emphasis and manpower were directed (say Medicaid Fraud), it would certainly help.

Re: Question of the day

Justice — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 18:27:51 -0000

Wordslinger....thought you would appreciate that. Just a zinger in favor of conceal carry. Carry's no weight other than that, though I think it could help a smidgen. We really need to scale back services and the non life threatening benefits.

Re: Question of the day

wordslinger — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 18:11:35 -0000

=...enact conceal carryâ€¦reduces crime rate and need for far fewer law enforcement personnel.==

Justice, I previously advocated retiring the phrase "thinking outside the box," but I think an exception needs to be made in your case. Proposing to arm the citizenry as a means of reducing the state budget deficit is certainly out of the box... or something.

Re: Question of the day

Taxhound — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 17:57:54 -0000

First start with the suspension of pay to all members of the General Assembly. While it will barely scratch the surface, they approved the spending that got us into this mess. And if they are not being paid they will spend less time is springpatch further harming the state. Next implement a zero based budget process. Under this concept every nickle of proposed spending has to be justified. While this is an immense undertaking, it is the only way to truly identify the myraid of programs that don't accomplish anything except create jobs for bureaucrats. Sacred cows must be slaughtered. Eliminating the redundent, archaic and worthless programs will enable the personal cuts as well as the overhead that goes with them.

Re: Question of the day

Capitol View — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 17:48:28 -0000

Sell LaSalle County to developers, and sell Vermillion County to Indiana.

To those of you who want to cut back funding to hospitals and human services providers, don't worry about it. Based on current underfunding and late funding, we will lose over 10% of these providers in the next few years, if they have not alrady closed their doors. Fewer facilities and programs mean more waiting lists for vulnerable individuals and families, and more deaths for poor persons mean fewer state agency clients to serve, right?

Raise taxes and be able to sleep at night.

Reminder: there are no pockets in shrouds. Spend your money now on charities and essential government programs, and earn your way to heaven. Accept your social responsibility.

Re: Question of the day

Concerned Voter — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 17:41:03 -0000

1. Across the board percentage cuts from all agencies. (Many agencies are already hurting so spread the pain around).
2. New pension/benefit rules for any new hirees. Without a union ok, it would be difficult to change pensions/salaries for current employees.
3. The legislators lead the way by freezing salaries for all state elected officials for 5 years and establishing new rules for their pensions also. People complain about the state employees and there pensions, but the legislators get a sweet deal too.
4. As much as I hate to say it. A tax increase. I would prefer to see a sales tax or vat type so all players in the economy pay, again spread the pain around. Or a state income tax increase.

Re: Question of the day

Six Degrees of Separation — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 17:21:05 -0000

the impact can be offset by raising the retirement age to 68 or even 70

Are you talking about state employees? Most are collecting a pension by age 60. I believe a raising of the retirement age for people in the existing system would be looked at by the courts as an unconstitutional diminishing of pension benefits. Future employees, maybe...we'd see the benefits in about 30 years.