
Civic leaders: State lawmakers still have time to adopt a measured fix for Tier 2 pension problem
Illinois faces a defining fiscal challenge: a staggering $144 billion in unfunded liabilities across its five state pension systems. This immense burden strains state resources; crowds out critical investments in education, public safety and infrastructure; and undermines economic confidence.
Meaningful pension reform isn't just desirable; it's essential for Illinois' future solvency and prosperity. And a 'fix' to one key pension issue — the need to address some evident shortcomings in the state's Tier 2 pensions — could yet happen before the legislature adjourns on May 31.
The Civic Committee, Civic Federation and Better Government Association have consistently advocated for comprehensive solutions to address this major, intractable issue. Today, we urge the legislature to take a careful and fiscally responsible approach to a specific aspect of the system that demands attention: the growing concern that Tier 2 pensions will eventually fall short of federal 'safe harbor' rules that ensure public pension benefits are deemed equivalent to those paid to Social Security recipients.
Tier 2 refers to the benefit structure offered to people who started working for the state on or after Jan. 1, 2011. The cost-saving new tier raised the retirement age, capped pensionable salaries, lengthened the number of years of salary used to calculate benefits and reduced post-retirement benefit increases. These changes significantly improved the trajectory of Illinois' pension systems, but they also put Tier 2 pensions at future risk of violating safe harbor rules.
Gov. JB Pritzker's budget proposal currently under consideration in Springfield includes a plan to address this risk. Specifically, his plan calls for a $78 million set-aside to address potential Tier 2 compliance costs. This measured approach does what responsible fiscal management requires: It acknowledges the Tier 2 risk, sets aside funds and stops short of overcommitting before more is known. That is the right approach.
Similarly, any permanent changes to Tier 2 should only proceed based on clear, actuarially sound analysis. A well-justified fix is appropriate and necessary but only when federal requirements are in jeopardy, and only to the extent required to meet those legal obligations. Once a pension benefit is promised in Illinois, the state constitution prevents it from ever being reduced or revoked.
We strongly caution against any effort to turn this Tier 2 fix into an opportunity to add enhancements — so-called 'sweeteners' — that would deepen Illinois' already-substantial pension challenges. Lawmakers should resist that temptation. A responsible Tier 2 fix is one of 10 principles of pension reform our organizations published last fall to guide fair and sustainable pension policy.
Illinois desperately needs progress on pensions; this measure is an essential building block for the larger solution ahead. What the state does not need, and cannot afford, is any form of pension 'reform' that makes matters worse. A Tier 2 fix should be no more than is needed, when it is needed, as determined by reliable, public-facing estimates of timing and cost.
At present, the analysis showing exactly when a Tier 2 fix is required simply is not available. No state official, agency or consultant has put out a comprehensive estimate of how many employees or retirees might be affected and when. Such data is needed in order for policymakers, and the public, to understand both the scale of the problem and the timeline by which it must be addressed.
Likewise, there is no complete estimate for some of the more ambitious proposals put forward by those arguing to 'undo Tier 2' by essentially replacing those pensions with the higher level of benefits that put Illinois' pension systems into such fiscal trouble in the first place. For example, cost estimates for a bill backed by a coalition of unions do not include cost projections for local plans, which would also be covered by the bill. Implementing pension changes without knowing the true cost is one of the original sins of past pension reforms — a grave mistake state lawmakers must not repeat this time.
The magnitude of potential costs for making changes to Tier 2 benefits underscores the importance of being cautious. According to a report by the Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability, implementing the bill would increase the state's pension liabilities by roughly $60 billion and would increase required contributions to the pensions by $30 billion through 2045.
This is hardly the first time these data deficiencies have been brought to light: The Tribune Editorial Board made a similar argument in February, and other civic leaders have said as much, too. Now is the time for policymakers and the public to focus on gathering the essential data that can help draw the map toward responsible pension reform.
Only then will we know if Pritzker's proposed $78 million set-aside is the appropriate target number, one that will address Tier 2's shortcomings and set the stage for tackling even greater pension challenges still ahead.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
We're worrying about the wrong thing. Low birth rate isn't the crisis: Child care is.
Let's just get this out of the way: The birth rate is a red herring. It's been a common refrain that if the Trump administration and congressional leadership truly wanted to make it easier for families in America to grow and thrive, they would turn to policies like national paid leave, affordable child care, maternal health care and home and community-based services for our aging and disabled loved ones. They would be investing in early education and the caregiving workforce. They would be supporting commonsense accommodations like remote work. They would be growing social safety nets. But they've done none of that. Their response to child care is to send in grandma. They've said next to nothing about paid leave. What they apparently have suggested instead is both hilarious and dystopian. A medal for women with six or more children? Classes on your own menstrual cycle? Coupons for minivans? And instead of investing and building for the future, they're slashing and burning. From fertility and maternal health programs, to food and farm assistance, to Medicaid and Social Security, they're going after all the powerful things our country has built to sustain life. Elon Musk says the birth rate crisis is about the disappearance of civilization. I'd say he's already destroying its foundations. The real crisis is one of care. As baby boomers age, more and more of us are taking care of our parents and children all at the same time, with little help, and drowning financially and emotionally. No federal paid leave, in many counties without access to child care. The answer to the real crisis is not what we can gut and burn and take away from people, but what we can give them, the world we can create. My organization, Paid Leave for All, is asking people to envision their lives if they had the guarantee of paid family and medical leave ‒ if they knew no matter where they worked and the joy or loss they faced, they could maintain their life and their livelihood. Imagine the businesses and ventures that might be started, the families that could be sustained, the moments we wouldn't miss. Imagine the peace of mind, the paychecks kept, the lives saved. Opinion: Trump's $5,000 'baby bonus' isn't what new moms like me need What Musk, President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and beyond are suggesting isn't about any of that ‒ it's not about affording working families the security and dignity of being able to take care of themselves and each other. It's simply code for hatred and bigotry, driven less by concern for families than by a desire to preserve a demographic majority. But the good news? They're still at odds with supermajorities of Americans. They're overplaying their hand, ignoring the desperate real needs of working families and missing a political opportunity. In April, House Speaker Mike Johnson went to great lengths to try to kill a bipartisan measure to simply allow new parents in Congress to vote by proxy ‒ a pro-family protocol that would cost nothing. A lot of people had never heard of it, but message testing found that when you told people even a little bit about it and Johnson's unprecedented moves to kill it, their support for the measure jumped up to 23 points. This was true across every demographic group tested, across gender, race, age and ideology. What's more, their support for broader federal policies like paid family and medical leave shot up as well. Your Turn: Are you planning to have children? Why or why not? Here's what USA TODAY readers told us. | Opinion Forum In polling done in battleground states just before the 2024 election, there was record-high support for paid leave across party lines and walks of life, however you sliced it. That included 90% of independents, 96% of suburban women and 97% of low turnout Democrats. Commentary and post-election analyses have pointed to the family policies like paid leave and affordable care that would have offered tangible improvements in people's daily lives and stress, and could have changed the political landscape and outcomes. 'We didn't deliver what people wanted ‒ help with child care, help with elder care, more security in their lives,' said Ron Klain, a former chief of staff for Joe Biden. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. And that's the task ahead ‒ not just to respond to dangerous and very real threats to our families and communities, but to also counter with a vision of how much better our lives could be, and a plan to achieve it. To outline the damage they're doing to people's wallets and freedoms, and opportunities, and then to contrast with the policies that enable us to hold onto jobs and care for our own families. The desire to succeed in life, to be able to afford one, to be able to support your loved ones, is universal. It's not a liberal fantasy, it's an idea of strength and dignity. Making more babies by threat, faux incentives or even force is not a goal or a solution. But the idea of supporting families and allowing all of us to live healthier and richer lives is one we should be restoring front and center, and a conversation we should be having. This is the project facing all of us who actually care about the survival of civilization. Dawn Huckelbridge is the founding director of Paid Leave for All. You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Musk is wrong: Birth rate isn't the crisis. Child care is | Opinion


Forbes
25 minutes ago
- Forbes
Money Market Interest Rates Today: June 6, 2025 - Rates At 4.89%
As of today, the highest money market rate is 4.89%, compared to a national average rate of 0.53%, according to Curinos. Here are today's money market account rates: Money market account are interest-bearing deposit accounts that work similarly to savings accounts. You deposit money whenever you have some to spare and it grows more interest the longer you leave it alone. These accounts are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) for banks and the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) for credit unions up to $250,000 per depositor. Money market accounts offer convenient fund accessibility, often including checks and debit cards, though you might be limited to six monthly transactions. Compared to regular savings accounts, money market accounts usually offer higher interest rates. However, they tend to require higher minimum deposits and balances to earn these. Before opening a money market account, check out different options at various banks or credit unions. In addition to shopping around for the highest rates, you'll want to compare minimum balance and deposit requirements, monthly fees and withdrawal limits. Look for an account that offers competitive rates you can easily qualify for. You can typically submit an application for a money market account online or in person at a branch. The application will ask you to provide basic information, including your name, address, Social Security number, employment status and income. You will probably need to present a government-issued ID as well. After being approved, you can make your first deposit. Money market accounts work like savings accounts in some ways and like checking accounts in others. Both MMAs and savings accounts: Similar to checking accounts and unlike most savings, money market accounts: Money market rates are variable and can change when economic conditions change, such as when the Federal Reserve alters interest rates or due to circumstances at a specific bank. There is no set schedule for when or by how much MMA rates change, so be on the lookout for notifications from your financial institution. Banks set money market account rates. The specific rate offered by an institution reflects the general interest rate environment and the bank's economics. For instance, a new online-only financial institution may offer a high rate to gain customers, whereas an established bank could count on generations of depositors. You can use a money market account calculator to see how much interest you'll earn. The amount of interest you earn is determined by the principal amount you deposit, the interest rate offered by your bank and the amount of time you save.
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Suze Orman Has Invested $700 in This One Thing Every Month for 40 Years — Should You Do the Same?
Suze Orman puts her money where her mouth is. The personal finance expert has been taking her own advice to save money every month for 40 years. Specifically, Orman has been putting $700 aside in an American Express annuity since the 1980s. In a recent episode of her 'Women and Money' podcast she said the annuity came with a 5% guaranteed minimum interest payment. Fast-forward 40 years, and Orman said her annuity is now worth more than $1 million. She's made $336,000 in payments, meaning her money has earned $705,000 in interest. Trending Now: Explore More: She further broke this down by explaining that she pays $8,400 per year into the annuity, but earns $50,000 per year in interest — highlighting the power of compound interest. Despite reaching an impressive savings level, she said she's going to continue paying into the annuity. 'That is how truth wealth is built,' she said. 'Little by little, month by month, you don't hit it big overnight.' Orman said she's done the same with many of her investments. Here's a look at how she did it. An insurance product, an annuity serves as a way to receive future income. They're purchased in two ways — by paying a single premium or making payments over a certain time period. The annuity grows on a tax-deferred basis until you start using the money. At this time, you're able to take the balance out as a lump sum or withdraw it in the form of regular, fixed payments. Try This: An annuity can be a wise financial move for some people, but it isn't the right choice for everyone. People commonly purchase an annuity if they need to save a large amount of money, are looking for an investment that can lower their taxes or want to ensure they'll have a steady source of income in the future. While these reasons might sound appealing, it's important to make sure an annuity is the right fit for you. If you're in poor health, have a pension — or other solid sources of retirement income, in addition to Social Security — or wouldn't have enough savings left to cover emergency savings after purchasing the annuity, this probably isn't the best move. Carefully weigh your unique financial situation when making your decision. Clearly, purchasing an annuity was a very lucrative choice for Orman, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's right for you. If you decide to go ahead with it, choose a company with solid financial strength. Ratings offered by independent agencies like A.M. Best Company can help you find a trustworthy company, according to Northwestern Mutual. More From GOBankingRates 8 Common Mistakes Retirees Make With Their Social Security Checks These Cars May Seem Expensive, but They Rarely Need Repairs This article originally appeared on Suze Orman Has Invested $700 in This One Thing Every Month for 40 Years — Should You Do the Same? Sign in to access your portfolio