Where's the balance on pension debate?
Section 1, Page 7 of my Dec. 3 Daily Herald, states, "Asian nations dominate test." On Page 8, the Herald argues support of SB1 with cuts to both working and retired teachers.
Why would anyone in this state want to teach children, teenagers or college students when the only surety teachers can expect is worse treatment in the future?
You claim, "the bonding agencies ... set interest rates with brutal detachment."
Yet, nowhere have you mentioned Ty Fahner (Civic Committee of the Commercial Club) claiming to speak with the people at those ratings agencies -- and for whose benefit? Not the people of this state.
You claim the new pension bill "places a firm requirement on the state of Illinois to make its proposed annual payments."
Yet, the state is already under constitutional requirement to do so -- and has chosen not to make those payments for most of the past 40 years since the last constitution.
You claim, "the bill does ... take meaningful action on the biggest drivers of the current crisis."
Yet the state has no problem giving away corporate welfare to companies such as ADM -- to the tune of nearly $100 million.
You claim that the new pension system will be fully funded by 2045.
Yet no one (not even those brutal bonding agencies) suggests those systems need to be funded more than 85-90 percent. And do you really expect the state weasels to find the moral backbone to refrain from dipping into those pension monies again?
You claim that teachers unions have fought these changes. Yes, but they have suggested other avenues of revenue.
Yet not once have I seen an article in your paper about raising revenues -- a graduated tax system in the state instead of our unfair flat tax, for example.
Where is your balance?