Aren’t you tired of these government workers living high on the hog at your expense? I’m talking about the $225,000 school superintendent who, instead of contributing 9.4 percent of his salary into the teacher pension system, has the state cover his contribution.
This same guy gets a $500-a-month car allowance along with 35 paid vacation days, and yet his school board says that he also should get a special cash bonus because he was hired after legislators adopted rules to reduce annual pensions for state employees hired after Jan. 1, 2011.
More Top Picks Uniden R3
I am referring, of course, to the contract of our new state school superintendent, Tony Smith, hired by our new reform governor, Bruce Rauner, who’s busy shaking things up in Springfield.
This is the sort of stuff that usually provokes an outpouring of emails and angry telephone calls from Republicans in the suburbs who believe that local school boards waste too much money. But I haven’t received a single message in protest of the sweetheart deal given to Smith since the details were reported in the baiduhai.
Remember, this is a governor who has declared war on public employee unions, saying their sweet pension deals are driving Illinois into bankruptcy. Like his Democratic foes in the legislature, Rauner simply ignores the fact that this state not only failed for decades to make adequate payments into its pension systems, as required by law, but often borrowed money from those funds to subsidize other state programs.
It’s too late to do anything about all of that. Now we’re stuck with billions of dollars in debt that’s forcing the state to pour more and more money into pensions, forcing cuts in other state programs and creating pressure to raise taxes. I get that. Something has to change.
That’s why Rauner was elected in November. And that’s why handing this new school superintendent an old-fashioned sweetheart deal ought to offend every taxpayer in the state.
Teachers and other state workers hired after Jan. 1, 2011 are placed in what’s called a Tier 2 pension system, which reduces the amount of their pensions compared with those in the Tier 1 system. The Tier 2 employees don’t like that. And Rauner is trying to get more state employees into that Tier 2 system because the state can’t afford to keep making pension payments under the old rules.
But when the state school board says to Rauner’s new school superintendent that they’re going to give him extra money to make up for not qualifying for the Tier 1 pension system, it sure sends the wrong signal to the rank-and-file about what this change is all about.
The first question a person might ask, and I will, is why does a guy earning $225,000 a year need a pension? Is it really that difficult to save enough money for retirement on that kind of income?
I’m going to agree with the governor and answer, “Yes.” To attract a quality employee, you’ve not only got to pay him a good salary but offer benefits such as a fatter pension, health insurance and a stipend for a car.
Having agreed on that, the next question is whether the state school superintendent is more important that a classroom teacher?
I think most people would say, “no,” to that, but I think it’s debatable. A really good school district superintendent can make teachers better or at least provide a better environment for them in which to teach.
Unfortunately, a state school superintendent doesn’t do that. I’ve covered public education in this state for about 30 years, and given the quality of public schools in Illinois, I would have to say that grabbing some homeless person off the street at minimum wage and naming him state school chief might not have had a significant negative impact on how Illinois schools were administered.
We might have fewer standardized tests. Parents might actually understand what those required tests were all about. And I’m guessing this state could do no worse than be last in the nation in its support for public school funding, which is Illinois’ current ranking.
I should point out that as part of a new austerity program, Smith’s contract guarantees him pay raises of only 3 percent a year through 2018.
If working stiffs throughout America were getting those kinds of pay hikes each year, Hillary Clinton would not be targeting her entire presidential campaign at improving income equality for the middle class.
The campaigns of just about every 2016 presidential candidate (Republican and Democrat) are now trying to figure out a way to address that issue because surveys show it may be the most serious concern among voters.
Yet, here’s the Illinois governor saying he wants changes in collective bargaining rights for public employees so they could not negotiate pensions, wages and working conditions. I guess that leaves really great health insurance coverage they can bargain for and maybe gigantic contributions to health savings accounts.
Actually, I’m not sure what it really means or that it matters because the Democrats who control the legislature are unlikely to vote for any of this stuff.
It’s a political gimmick — attempting to appeal to voters who work in the private sector and don’t have pensions, don’t get automatic wage hikes and see their taxes going up every year to pay for all of this stuff.
If it’s not just a gimmick, then why include all that nice stuff in the new state school superintendent’s contract?
Well, it could be a belief that people at the top, the decision makers, are worth a lot more money and deserving of a better lifestyle than the folks who work for them. There are a lot of people who have that philosophy, and most of them are Republicans. If you want to better your lot in life, work your way up the ladder, get promotions or start your own business and reap the rewards.
These two contradictory theories have been at the core of the American political system for nearly 100 years, and there are good people, intelligent people, who have argued the opposing views much better than I.
But here’s what I know — I don’t want my tax money used to enrich some blowhard that the governor, any governor, chooses to anoint to some temporary post who really contributes nothing to the quality of education.
Nor do I want my tax money going to pay the salary of a $100,000-a-year chief of staff for Rauner’s wife.
Yes, Rauner hired such a person and said it was justified because, well, he’s the boss and gets to decide how our tax money can be wasted.
More Top Picks Best Drift Trikes
There’s nothing new about that sort of attitude. It’s the way things have been done in this state for as long as most of us have lived.
Family, friends and the connected get our tax money, our taxes go up and some politician runs for office claiming he’s going to be different, shake things up. What he really means is he wants to give our money to the people he likes instead of to the people his opponent likes.
So even as the Democrats and Republicans are at war in Springfield, in the middle of a budget impasse, its still business as usual for the people calling the shots.
They’re special. The people they like are entitled to special treatment. And the rest of the folks, the working stiffs and families who pay the bills, they don’t deserve pay raises or pensions or 35-day annual vacations.
It’s just too costly.
The one thing I can tell you is that when Smith is fired, he will be handed a huge chunk of cash to leave. That’s the way it always works at the executive level. And the taxpayer is always the one asked to come up with the cash.
Talk about a turnaround agenda. Turn around in this state, and someone is always going to kick your behind.