Comments on: Can a State Constitutional Convention Save the Illinois Pension System?

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 20:34:14 +0000

This proposal strikes me as unworkable. Let’s take the State University Retirement System. Universities are funded, at least in part, by the state of Illinois. Placing the burden of paying the state’s portion of the pension on the universities would require the state to raise the funding level appropriated to the universities. Thus nothing is accomplished. If the state does not raise the universities level of funding then the burden falls on the student in the form of increased tuition and fees. This will make college even more expensive and prevent many from attending. The state needs to get its act together and fund the pension systems as it has been mandated to do.

By: Ken

Ken — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:09:36 +0000

I worked and have put into a pension fund from day one, now these filthy politicians want to steal my money because they can’t manage their own funds. What happens when they mismanage these funds who will they go after next? they have created this problem. When these crooks retire I bet they get full pension. If you want to change the past mistake go after these crooks who run the state. Mr John Bambenek when you retire from the University I’ll bet you’ll get all of your pension. VOTE NO save the little man or we will have to live off welfare because the above moron want a bigger raise from the University.

By: Paul Settecase

Paul Settecase — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 07:04:12 +0000

You are correct. The state has no business running a pension fund. The Illinois Police and Firefighter Pension funds are run locally and work well. There is a big push by local municipalities to turn these funds over to the stewardship of the state. The state wants these funds to continue business as usual. Ask the teachers unions how it’s working for them. They got screwed years ago. No Con-con for me thanks. These idiots couldn’t run a gas station properly….

By: John

John — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 18:08:56 +0000

A constitutional convention is a terrible idea, even if (and don’t believe if for a minute) there were NO threat to pensions. First, it is a big financial boondoggle - estimates are that it would cost at least $78 million, and have you ever seen anything involving government not cost more than the estimates? We can’t afford it. Second, it can amend anything and everything in the constitution - a complete loose cannon! Third, there are procedures for amending the constitution without a constitutional convention, so if there are specific changes that need to be made, propose them and campaign for them. As to the argument that the legislature can block amendments, the same would likely end up being true with a constitutional convention, given who would likely end up running it. Do you seriously think the people elected to a “con-con” wouldn’t for the most part be the same old politicians that get elected now? We don’t need a $78 million loose cannon. Vote NO!