Where are think tank's ideas on cost cutting?

In Ralph Martire's recent guest essay "Yes, there is a fact-based argument regarding graduated income tax," he highlights the impact to state services from the $8 billion General Fund deficit budget.

What he leaves out of his "facts," however, is the primary cost driver for that deficit, that being payments to the pension funds which make up 25 percent of the General Fund budget, as well even a mention of the over $130 billion shortfall in its future pension obligations. Even with these massive pension payments, the cumulative pension obligation shortfall continues to swell year after year.

Bear in mind that Mr. Martire is the executive director of the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability, which bills itself as a so-called "bipartisan fiscal policy think tank." While he addresses the "tax" portion, making the case of the need for more tax revenue through a graduated income tax, his exposé is completely devoid of any expense-side arguments.

By definition a "budget" is focused on the expense side, so how do you completely ignore the largest category, namely the payments to the pension fund? It seems that his "think tank" must have a "mental block" when it comes to addressing the expense side of the equation.

It is a mathematical fact that Illinois' unfunded pension obligations of over $130 billion is Illinois' largest fiscal problem, its primary cause pointing to the pension clause added to the Illinois constitution in 1970. For nearly 50 years this clause has prohibited any "diminishment" of pension benefits while at the same time locking in forever all the pension benefits increases ever made, at their ever increasing level.

Perhaps these facts should be what the so-called "bipartisan fiscal policy think tank" should focus on instead of merely looking for new tax revenue as the only solution.

Mark Evenson

Palatine