This proposed IL state constitutional amendment I just got official notice about.

[Old Union Guy]

Somebody please explain it to me.

Thank you.

[MerryBlooms]

1. Illinois Public Pension Amendment, HJRCA 49 (2012)?

The Illinois Public Pension Amendment will appear on the November 6, 2012 ballot in Illinois as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment. If passed, the measure would require a three-fifths approval by the General Assembly, city councils, and school districts that wish to increase the pension benefits of their employees. The measure is sponsored by Representative Michael Madigan.[1]
Text of measure

The official ballot text reads as follows:[2]

Proposed Amendment to the 1970 Illinois Constitution Explanation of Amendment

Upon approval by the voters, the proposed amendment, which takes effect on January 9, 2013, adds a new section to the General Provisions Article of the Illinois Constitution. The new section would require a three-fifths majority vote of each chamber of the General Assembly or the governing body of a unit of local government, school district, or pension or retirement system, in order to increase a benefit under any public pension or retirement system. At the general election to be held on November 6, 2012, you will be called upon to decide whether the proposed amendment should become part of the Illinois Constitution.
If you believe the Illinois Constitution should be amended to require a three-fifths majority vote in order to increase a benefit under any public pension or retirement system, you should vote YES on the question. If you believe the Illinois Constitution should not be amended to require a three-fifths majority vote in order to increase a benefit under any public pension or retirement system, you should vote NO on the question. Three-fifths of those voting on the question or a majority of those voting in the election must vote "YES" in order for the amendment to become effective on January 9, 2013.

For the proposed addition of Section 5.1 to Article XIII of the Illinois Constitution.
YES
NO


http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Illinois_Public_Pension_Amendment,_HJRCA_49_%282012%29

[frazzled]

2. I've been trying to study it ...

and I'm coming close to feeling that my first inclination (to vote NO) is the right one.

Amending the Constitution is a big f**ing deal. This is essentially putting in a filibuster rule for any legislation or proposal to increase pension benefits to public employees. It means a minority could constantly block any proposed changes. Also the definition of a pension benefit is ill-defined.

I realize that it's too easy for politicians to promise benefits into the far future (as a political favor), without having to account now for how these will be paid for. (And indeed, that is how Illinois got into the mess it's in right now.) But turning the tables and making collective bargaining and pension increases harder (if not impossible) is not the answer.

Politicians have to take the responsibility to make the hard decisions themselves, not to kick the can down the road or to make a rule that makes it too easy to wiggle out of any decision.

I'm pretty decided I will vote NO on this amendment. Though I have a feeling it will pass (especially after it passed both houses of the legislature almost unanimously).

[MerryBlooms]

3. You've broken it down very well. "Amending the Constitution is a big f**ing deal."

I'm voting NO.

[murielm99]

4. I am voting NO.

I feel this amendment is a way for the legislature to take power away from unions. And it helps them pass the buck on making any positive changes to pensions or benefits by saying their hands are tied, it is against the law. This is not pension "reform." And we would not need pension reform if people were not so brainwashed about paying taxes. If public employee pensions are supposed to be funded by taxpayers, then raise taxes if necessary, and fund them! Taxes are the price we pay for having teachers, cops, firemen, etc. If you want to live in a civilized society, then you have to pay for it!

[BadgerKid]

5. I'm leaning towards NO.

Already this year there was a wave of employees taking retirement in the face of alleged upcoming reductions in retiree benefits. Effectively, if they didn't take retirement now, some calculated they would have needed to work several more years just to make up for the setback. This amendment seems to me it would end up penalizing new workers when they had nothing to do with the excesses that the administrations/gov't PREVIOUS to them had been responsible for. A form of austerity, if you will.

Also don't forget that Illinois has already raised income tax from 3% to 5%

[madrchsod]

6. afscme is going after the flat tax in illinois in the next three yrs

it will take a constructional amendment and we are figuring three years of information and political maneuvering to get the job done.