Government Malpractice

There’s an editorial in the Chicago Tribune that neatly encapsulates my frustration with Illinois politics. The editorial reviews a report from the conservative Illinois Policy Institute on Illinois’s disastrous fiscal situation, focusing on the state’s huge overhang in retiree pension and healthcare benefits.

That’s the basic reason for my dislike of impeached, convicted, and imprisoned Illinois former Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Ignore his corruption in office (I may talk about my view of political corruption in another post). His simultaneously extending retiree benefits, failing to make payment into state employee pension funds, and doing nothing about the state’s rapidly deteriorating imbalance between income and outlays amounted to government malpractice.

Here’s the solution proposed in the report:

The IPI says that only 8 percent of private-sector retirees are offered health insurance benefits, and those retirees pay an average of 54 percent of the cost. Similarly requiring Illinois retirees to pay an average of 54 percent of insurance costs would save Illinois $500 million a year. Over the next 30 years, that change by itself would shrink the anticipated $54 billion shortfall by $21 billion. IPI suggests leaving benefits essentially intact for retired state and university employees with household incomes below $70,000 a year. Those with incomes between $70,000 and $200,000 a year would receive monthly subsidies of $302 and pay $369 themselves. And “retired union heads or university executives collecting pensions nearing $200,000 would be required to cover their own health insurance costs.”

That’s one option; lawmakers surely can consider others. But think of this issue as the Legislature’s test case for meaningful pension reform: If Springfield won’t ask six-figure pension beneficiaries to pick up a portion of their health premiums, what are the odds that legislators will confront their pension monster?

The editorial ends with two questions:

How could Illinois pols do this to taxpayers?

That question is easily answered. Let me use Chicago as an example. Chicago politicians aren’t worried about being re-elected. Indeed, they’re quite certain they will be re-elected. The Republican Party is something between supine and non-existent in Chicago. Most incumbents ran unopposed in the primaries and those who were opposed won their primaries handily. Reasons for that include name recognition, support from the party organization, and support from public employees’ unions. Whatever they do in Springfield, these politicians will be re-elected as long as they care to run.

Here’s the second question:

And come November, will voters finally exact some consequences?

That one answers itself: we can already be assured there will be no “consequences”. The perpetrators are assured of re-election.