Pensions ignored in review of state budget

This letter is in response to a recent guest essay by Mr. Ralph Martire titled "Spending cuts have been made; state must keep focus on revenue."

In it, Martire equates spending declines "in real terms" as "cuts" even though the dollars budgeted have actually increased year after year. But my aim is not to argue over his definition of "in real terms" where he adjusts state spending figures by some unspecified rate of inflation, but rather to highlight that he completely ignores the largest cost driver for state spending: public pensions.

According to Mr. Martire, head of the Center for Budget and Tax Accountability, "General Fund spending on higher education this year will be 48.75 percent less in real terms than in 2000. That cut is so significant ..." He continues with further of his so-called "cuts": services by 22.6 percent, health care by 13.9 percent and public safety by 16.8 percent. Where is there any mention of spending on public pensions you ask? There isn't any.

According to the state of Illinois, on page 33 of its "Fiscal Year 2019 Operating Budget Book," they have a chart titled "Growth Rate in General Funds Spending FISCAL 2000 to Estimated FY 2018". It shows: Pensions - Up 663 percent, Employee Health Insurance - Up 215 percent, Pre K to 12 Education - Up 65 percent, Total Spending - Up 63 percent, All Other Spending - Up 16 percent.

Stated directly below this chart: "Two programs for public employees - pensions and health insurance benefits - have hit taxpayers especially hard. Combined, these two programs had an astounding price tag of $10.4 billion - more than 25 percent of the estimated fiscal year 2018 general funds budget."

A more appropriate essay title might have been: "Pension cuts have not been made; state must focus on changing Constitution's pension clause."

Mark Evenson

Palatine