Once again, Pritzker talked about pensions in an interview.  Once again, he doesn’t get it.

7 thoughts on “Forbes post, “Is Gov. Pritzker Clueless Or Reckless On Pensions?”

  1. I live in Illinois, and now that Pritzker has become Governor of this state my wife and I are on the great migration of leaving. Illinois has lost a great deal of tax revenue from people moving. He has raised the gas tax to one of the highest in the nation and hear is the kicker its going to increase every year with a vote. Pritzker has done everything with taxes he promised that he would not do. I don’t like his ideas and he dose not have a clue of what he is doing. Pritzker is a yes man to a former Governor who is in prison for now but I’m sure will be released before Pritzker is out of office. I wrote to Pritzker to tell him why we are leaving and he don’t care. His idea of saving this state is to raise the taxes, coast of living (only state to jump on the $15.00 hr min. wage) Illinois will be as high or worst than California with out the industry to support it. He will refuse to redo the pension system or place a fair tax reform for Illinois. The belief is keep doing businesses as we always have and the tax payers will pay.


  2. Jane is great! You state “In fact, pension spending (including contributions to pension funds and repayment of pension obligation bonds) consumes 25.5% of all general revenues.” Do you know what this percent is compared to – say ten years ago?


  3. Jane,
    Any chance you could do some digging on his comment “buying out people’s pensions to save money”? I have the feeling this is going to cost us money. The amount of the payout is so small relative to what a retiree leaves on the table it makes me very suspicious of how we ended up with this new “cost savings” law. As I see it, for the most part the only person that would take this deal is one that knew they were going to die in the near future. Otherwise why take such a huge haircut? So in this new scenario it seems likely will have money going to a pensioner that exceeds what the state would have paid under the old system that did not offer a lump sum. Very few politicians are focused enough on saving us money to come up with this one. However, there are plenty of union leaders that would try to get additional money in the event of member’s unfortunate premature death. After all being able to retire at full benefits at 55 within the prior system and dying prematurely forfeits a lot of payments versus dying at the projected actuarial lifespan of 84. The origin of how this became the new law would give us insight as to the chances of this saving or costing us money. I would be interested also in knowing the actuarial assumptions that allowed Pritzker to talk up his “cost savings”.

    The man has actually made the pension system worse by adding back the outrageous 24% spikes. My guess is this new “cost savings” may be a cost penalty.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s