* If you were watching yesterday’s live session coverage post, you knew right away that this had happened…
House lawmakers moved [yesterday] to reduce the $800 million annual cost of insurance for retired state workers by making them pay more for health care that some now get for little or nothing.
The action unfolded as House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, and Minority Leader Tom Cross, R-Oswego, implored colleagues to make the legislation part of a major effort to rein in billions of dollars in health-care for the poor, public employee pensions and the state’s budget overall.
“The prescription on the table is huge,” Madigan said. “This is one small part of it. …If we can’t do this, what in the world are we going to be able to do?”
Under the legislation, retired state workers, judges, lawmakers and university employees would have premiums for their group health insurance program set each year by the Quinn administration. The bill went to the Senate on a 74-43 vote.
CMS could still negotiate the premium levels with the unions, but JCAR will have the final say. So, collective bargaining will be severely diminished on this issue, but not totally eliminated.
* CMS plans to use several pension income tiers to set premium levels…
The percentage of health care costs the retiree would pay also would be based on pension level, according to a Quinn administration letter. Pension amounts would be broken into seven tiers. The higher the tier, the more the retiree will pay. The cost increase isn’t expected to be as significant for retirees on Medicare, but no one is expected to pay less than he or she is paying now, the letter said.
* The bill was seen as a test vote on pension reform and budget cuts…
“Not only are these benefits unaffordable given today’s fiscal situation, but they are far more generous than those provided by other governments to their employees and those provided by the private sector,” said House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago), who sponsored the bill along with House Minority Leader Tom Cross (R-Oswego).
“If you take this bill and compare it to other matters we’re being asked to do in this session, I say if we can’t do this bill, what are we going to be able to do?” Madigan asked.
Indeed, the health-care decision represents the first of several painful fiscal votes lawmakers face this month, when they are expected to impose $2.7 billion worth of Medicaid cuts and dramatically trim state and possibly city pension benefits.
* Some very conservative Republicans voted against the bill, mainly because they have lots of public employees in their districts…
Members voting “no” included state Reps. Adam Brown of Decatur, Bill Mitchell of Forsyth, Rich Morthland of Cordova, Brandon Phelps of Harrisburg, David Reis of Willow Hill, Chapin Rose of Mahomet, Keith Sommer of Morton and Pat Verschoore of Milan.
* The Tribune was not amused…
The House passed this by a fairly lopsided vote. But remember, this financial reform may be the easiest of the big three to accomplish. So when we see 43 “no” votes — including 18 Republicans —it makes us suspicious.
State Rep. Chapin Rose, of Mahomet, remember what you told us when you ran in the Republican primary this year? “A solution must be found” for unsustainable health care costs, you wrote in our questionnaire. The solution came to a vote Wednesday. You voted “no.”
Republican state Rep. Rosemary Mulligan, of Des Plaines, who voted against the bill, asked during debate how it would impact her own bottom line. She is retiring this year.
Our bottom line is this: Lawmakers, you created one unholy financial mess in this state. You know exactly what you have to do to fix it. Don’t come home until you do.
* Related…
* Savings From Eliminating Free Retiree Health Insurance Unknown
* House votes to end retiree health insurance benefit
* Illinois House OKs bill to require retired state workers to pay something for health care
* Illinois House votes to end ‘free’ health care for state retirees
* State House votes to end free health insurance for retired workers
* IL House votes to end free health care for state retirees
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 10:51 am:
My Big Fat Question of the Day:
Since there was no cost savings from retirement benefits in Quinn’s budget proposal, does this mean we only need to trim $1.9 billion from Medicaid now?
YDD
- lincolnlover - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 10:52 am:
As a SERS member who is 1 to 2 years out from retirement, I do not like the provision that JCAR will be deciding what I should pay for insurance. It seems that is more appropriate for collective bargaining, or at least for CMS. Also, if the premium is changed every year, that means this is really a way to gradually increase the premium until the retiree is paying all of it.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 10:53 am:
Again, hat tip to the Tribune for reminding everyone that Republicans, too, have both an interest and a responsibility to be good faith partners in solving the state’s budget problems.
- Irish - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 10:56 am:
So $800 million is a pretty big deal to the Speaker and Mr. Cross and the other members of the GA. But $444,500.00 owed by one their cohorts to another government agency not so much. Why is this not surprising?
- Leave a Light on George - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 10:58 am:
@lincolnlover
How can CMS annually setting the premiums be better than JCAR or spinning the Price is Right big wheel for that matter?
- langhorne - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 11:02 am:
it scares the daylights out of me that such a broad grant of authority is being given to cms. no caps as to percentage of pension that can be gobbled up, no upper limits, no goals as to cost saving, no limits on growth rate.
i would like someone to flesh out the combined effects of all these proposals on the average pension: reduced cola, insurance premium (30% 40% 50% of the $800 million?), etc.
- Former Merit Comp Slave - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 11:02 am:
Lincoln Lover - what one earth department do you work in? You would rather have CMS determine the rates? CMS who spends money like a drunken sailer? I think not! I’m happy JCAR is involved and the unions to some extent.
On another note, Rep. Pritchard had a copy of the letter from CMS in his hand yesterday during debate that he said outlined how CMS is going to charge - I assume more info than the 7 tiers mentioned above. Rich is there anyway to obtain a copy of that letter?
- wordslinger - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 11:04 am:
–Some very conservative Republicans voted against the bill, mainly because they have lots of public employees in their districts…–
Shocking.
I trust many of those “conservatives” like Rep. Rose would support mandatory drug testing for state retirees before they get any health insurance benefits (a la his proposal for public aid recipients). Or at least require them to carry a photo ID medical card (a la his LINK card proposal) to combat “fraud.”
It’s the principle of the thing. Like taking a tough vote every once in a while.
- Only in Illinois - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 11:06 am:
How about ending the most lavish retirement system for part time employees. The GARS system. lets see, regular employee works 20 years and has a pension of 33.4%, alternate formula emlployee 50%, but no, part time employee in the GARS 85%. Not only that, they start accumaliting COLA’s prior to retirement. Mr. Speaker is set to have a 45%+ increase one year after he retires. Let’s eliminate the entire system for part time employees. Lets not forget they pay themselves per diem just for showing up for their part time job.
- Secret Square - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 11:07 am:
Again, I suspect the ultimate and overriding goal of this legislation is to discourage state employees from retiring until they are old enough for Medicare.
- Cindy Lou - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 11:17 am:
Just too tired to get all worked up this morning. I gotta go with saving my stress levels, nothing I have to say and/or think is going to change whatever they decide to do anyway. What happens, happens.
- Choice? - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 11:28 am:
Like I said before, what to fund a shiny new program like “free rides for seniors”? Simply increase retirees premiums and BAM!…you have an instant funding source. Brilliant!!
- AC - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 11:41 am:
Maybe the Republicans who opposed the bill understood that breaking promises made by the state in their employment contracts was illegal. I want to know when vendors for the state will make similar sacrifices modifying their already agreed to contracts.
- Team Sleep - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 11:53 am:
What are the “No!” GOP members worried about this late in the game? The primaries are over; they are all running in very “R” districts; and it would be tough for the Dems or a third party to slate or collect enough valid signatures for a challenge. And even in 2014, how easy would it be to find legitimate, battle-tested challengers who could take on seasoned pros like Chapin Rose or Keith Sommers? Either the “No!” members are pandering in the worst way or were lying through their teeth when they “promised” to work towards solutions. In reality, it wouldn’t be that tough to explain why retirees should at least pay something. It may not be a fun meeting to host or forum to hold, but the alternative could easily be explained as no more benefits if the state falls further into economic chaos. Their choice. I would pick a bit more pain now than a lot more later.
- Colossus - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 11:55 am:
AC - I agree with your analysis, but highly doubt that was the rationale for the vote.
- PublicServant - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 11:58 am:
What will the rates be? How can you vote for a bill when there are no specifics? Does it pertain to current retirees, or just future retires? Will the premium be what current state employees are charged, or more than that? How will it rise over time?
- Captain Illini - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 11:59 am:
Sauce for the goose, and pre-trial positioning my friends…Cindi Lou probably has it right to just reserve angst for later, since all will be litigated anyway. How in the world can anybody believe that those who’ve played by the rules and satisfied the requirements of THEIR system can now be told…”sorry, we’ve changed the rules.” and think that is legal??? Contracts in america still mean something, but it will take the courts to sort this mess out. In the meantime, how about a brand new system for the thousands of positions the state is about to have opennings for that makes the rules anything they want to have starting tomorrow…the actuaries will dramatically change, and the problem will be solved as long as the Legislature PAYS THEIR PORTION!!! If not, nothing, nada, zilch, zero will fix this situation moving forward.
- Only in Illinois - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 12:05 pm:
I was told $200-$500 per month.
- PublicServant - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 12:14 pm:
Vote it down Senators. People who are already retired should not be blindsided this way. And where are the details, so you know what you’re voting for? Also, at the very least tie it to the employee premium, if you’re going to do it. Many retirees can’t afford this. You’re also making it harder for retirees to get rehired by the state at the same time this is going on? It’s not easy for anyone to get a job in this environment, much less retirees. They have nowhere to go.
- Leave a Light on George - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 12:18 pm:
=In reality, it wouldn’t be that tough to explain why retirees should at least pay something.=
Very reasonable. Except the something is an unknown figure to be set by an agency that has never let an opportunity to inflate financial numbers pass.
- Jeffersonian - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 12:18 pm:
Teachers, public employees and poor people must be relieved that they helped elect Democrats to state offices so the party in power wouldn’t slash benefits for the needy and middle class while giving tax breaks to big corporations like Sears and kowtow to bond houses that bestowed AAA ratings on junk mortgage-backed securities and CDOs, causing the worst recession since the Great Depression.
Oh, wait …
- illilnifan - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 12:25 pm:
Has anyone heard of the frog experiment where a frog is put in a pot of water and then the heat is turned on, the frog won’t know it is being boiled to death put the frog in boiling water it will jump out.
Our legislators should pay attention. If the premiums charged are too high-too fast, we retirees will definitely jump —all we have is time so elections in the future could be “fun”. It would make sense to start this gradually and charge retirees the same premium rate employees are charged, basing the amount paid on what the pension is (just like the employees with higher salaries pay more). Start it gradual and over time we will adjust. No matter what we know we will have to pay, even though we don’t like it. All we want is some guarantee of affordability and not be left to the whims of CMS et al.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 12:27 pm:
===Has anyone heard of the frog experiment where a frog is put in a pot of water and then the heat is turned on, the frog won’t know it is being boiled to death put the frog in boiling water it will jump out.===
It’s a myth.
- mokenavince - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 12:29 pm:
The Republicans just run for cover instead of doing the right thing.Rep Mulligan is a perfect
example where’s mine, screw the tax payers. The pols got us in this mess with their greed and lack of know how, now pull together and get us out of this mess. We ain’t Greece.
- Only in Illinois - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 12:29 pm:
Rich “myth buster” Miller. LOL
- mokenavince - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 12:31 pm:
Lets hope the gang in Springfield are as smart as the frog.
- PublicServant - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 12:32 pm:
===Has anyone heard of the frog experiment where a frog is put in a pot of water and then the heat is turned on, the frog won’t know it is being boiled to death put the frog in boiling water it will jump out.===
—It’s a myth. —
Thank God its a myth, Rich. Frogs might be the only thing a retiree can afford to eat after this is all said and done.
- illilnifan - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 1:06 pm:
I am getting a great laugh with all your comments about the frog….too bad we can’t kiss a few legislators and get a prince
- Bob - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 1:10 pm:
Rep. Jim Sacia, R-Pecatonica, said he is concerned about whether retirees will be able to pay the new premiums.
“The easiest thing in the world is to go after retirees,” Sacia said, before voting in favor of the bill.
http://www.sj-r.com/thedome/x43414769/House-votes-to-end-retiree-health-insurance-benefit?zc_p=1
Pick on the weak, the poor fix income elderly, that can’t protect them self’s. Let’s balance the state budget on the back of the retirees. I guess if the insurance bill is past, the employees who took leveling will have a chance to change too.
- illilnifan - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 1:14 pm:
@Bob I already asked SERS about leveling and there is no changing regardless of what the legislature does……we took it and we are stuck with it
- Ready To Get Out - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 1:18 pm:
What’s up with Mautino? He was sponsor when the first amendment was posted. Then suddenly Madigan took sponsorship. To top it all off, Mautino voted NO! Guilty conscious? Worried about going home?
- Ryan - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 1:33 pm:
Wouldn’t the GA just appropriate $x to CMS for retiree group insurance? CMS would then be responsible for coming up with a schedule to bill the shortfall to the retirees, correct? Not to say that there wouldn’t be some administrative overhead built into the amount charged. However, I would have to believe that the real impact to retirees will be based on the GA appropriation and not necessarily the “whims” of CMS.
- illilnifan - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 1:41 pm:
@ryan
What is the plan if the GA appropriates $0 to retiree health, then the full cost gets divided our way. I don’t see anything in the bill saying the GA has to appropriate any percentage of the costs. So maybe now we are really at the whim of the GA…..
- Choice? - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 1:52 pm:
This is the final form of this bill. No more amendments.
It’s either an up or down vote by the Senate.
It’s on the Senate calendar for today I believe.
Things are moving!
- Ryan - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 2:01 pm:
@illilnifan
My point exactly. CMS will be doing the governor’s bidding (seven tiers, years of service, etc.) based on how much (or little) the GA appropriates. The real pain is not brought on by this bill, but by future appropriations. This is the opening act.
- Former Merit Comp Slave - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 2:13 pm:
Oh Ryan…..CMS normally charges a 10% overhead on ANYTHING an agency purchases through a revolving fund: tires, telephone bills, car repairs. Who do you think will be paying that extra 10% for retiree health? CMS determines that “administrative fee”. Hope someone watches over this little factoid
- private sector contractor - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 2:23 pm:
Ask any private sector business with a state contract and they will tell you it isn’t worth much. The state asks, and gets, contract concessions from vendors all the time. Most big law firms spend their time helping people enforce or get out of contracts. This idea that a contract means something is weak at best.
- Inactive - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 2:30 pm:
I don’t think anyone would have a problem with changing the game for new employees (who know exactly what they’re getting into when they accept the job) and phasing in retirement health care payments for those already working, who are able to pay for it. But to change the game for people living on a fixed income? Changes were made to retirement age and contributions to TRS for those teachers hired after Jan. 2011. If they chose to accept those terms, no complaints! They have a lifetime of earning ahead of them—don’t like it, choose another profession! But to retirees?
- Ryan - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 2:34 pm:
@fmcs
I don’t disagree nor downplay the impact. However, I’m more inclined to worry about the other 90%. Even if the surcharge was limited via legislation (not a bad idea), I don’t think there would be any less gnashing of teeth.
- lincolnlover - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 2:52 pm:
Ok - To those who think JCAR would be better than CMS as the determining factor in annual costs: We all laugh at CMS (often with good reason) for their way of doing business. However, they are the contract agency for the state and have been dealing with health insurance issues for many years. Presumably, they know something about it, at least more than JCAR does.
- Retired Non-Union Guy - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 3:03 pm:
Actually, I would prefer a totally independent, impartial orgnaization with zero ties to the state or any health organization to review the rates.
- Ready To Get Out - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 3:05 pm:
Anyone who has worked for, or has had to deal with CMS at their agency, would rather have anyone else be responsible for that decision.
- wizard - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 3:24 pm:
time to remove some legislators
- PPHS - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 3:33 pm:
I’ve got a question. If both spouses are retired from the state, have they both been paying zero for their health coverage, up until now?
- capncrunch - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 3:43 pm:
=PPHS=
Both pay $11 per month for dental insurance.
- Irish - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 3:46 pm:
Ready To Get Out- 1:18 pm: He has an opponent this election. And his district is heavily union. I don’t know that his opponent is real strong but Frank might have stepped in it.
- steve schnorf - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 3:50 pm:
OK, it’s gonna be somewhat painful, but there’s lots of pain going ’round right now, so I see no reason we should expect to be spared.
A key question is how much of the $800M are we trying to save, because that number is what will have to be apportioned out to retirees to pay. The Speaker and the President can make that clear in their comments on the floor if they choose.
I wouldn’t be shocked to see the final expectation being that retiree pay 33% of the total cost. If that were the case and the formula was amount of pension and years of service based, some would probably pay 50% or more of their cost, and some might pay as little as 10%, maybe less. I would especially hope that the GA would look at those annuitants who retired before the days of regular COLAs: although there are probably only a few thousand of them left, in some cases I suspect their pensions are already down to 40% or less of their original purchasing power.
Some fix has to be figured out for out of state retirees to don’t have access to the managed care programs. Non Medicare eligibles are probably costing the state more than $1000 per month, and I don’t see someone having to pay half or more of that simply because they are logistically unable to join a managed care program.
The GA is going to keep apportioning pain; they have no choice. I’m certainly not going to punish my Rep or Senator just because I have to cough up a couple of hundred bucks a month when working care families are facing the loss of child care subsidies ans sick kids the loss of Medicaid coverage, senior citizens the loss of nursing home and home care services, and so on. We need to get real here.
- PPHS - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 3:51 pm:
Thanks. Those are the people that are going to get hit the hardest, I think. We pay 0 + $200 +200, for 3 people.
- Kasich Walker, Jr. - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 3:59 pm:
Get a pay stub for a full time state employee. See the deductions for the “free” health & dental coverage.
Rahm fears a popular performer & requires a re-routing or cancellation of a march by the National Nurses Union for Single Payer Universal Health Care.
Rahm can’t deal with Morello.
It wasn’t a problem for Mayor Daley on May Day in 2008.
Go to youtube and search for “May Day Chicago Tom Morello 2008.mov”. About 8 minutes into this clip Mayor Daley appears on stage with Morello.
Those dangerous nurses will be marching on 5/18 in Chicago.
- Cindy Lou - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 4:15 pm:
vote was 31-20-1
If I paid attention to what I think was Majority Leader Cross yesterday (?) Quinn wanted 300million from this retiree health care bit. Of course I might have not been listening/reading close to catch exact.
- PublicServant - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 4:28 pm:
@Schnorf These actions are permanent. Tell me you don’t think medicaid cuts won’t creep back when the state is through the recession. No one is arguing that something needs to be done to help the state get through this rough patch now, but it’s not right to make permanent changes using the state’s fiscal condition now as the excuse either. That’s why I suggested considering temporary changes, just like the tax increase. If they where really biting the bullet they’d structurally fix the tax system and go with a graduated income tax. How is what’s happening to the pension now spreading the pain to the members of the chamber or civic committee?
- lincolnlover - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 4:34 pm:
Retired non-union: That does make sense, which is probably why it won’t happen.
Steve - usually I agree with your comments. What you said about shared pain, etc, is true. But, please do not compare people who have worked and retired and now expect to see what they considered a job benefit taken from them to people who did not contribute to the cost of the services they are using. State retirees are NOT sick, children of the working poor or unable to take care of themselves. They are people who worked for an employer who promised more than he could deliver. Adjustments have to be made, but I am tired of being lumped with the tax-takers and not the tax-payers.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 4:45 pm:
Re: Shared Pain
I agree 100%. State employees should be forced to accept the same pain as Sears and CME.
Or how about the other corporate recipients of billions in income tax breaks, property tax breaks, TIF funding, and other government subsidies?
Snarketty-snark-snark.
I love ya Schnorf, but its a tired and baseless argument.
YDD
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 4:49 pm:
This has nothing to do with “fairness” and everything to do with picking the relatively low-hanging political fruit.
Programs that serve the poor and elderly, low-income children, and public employees’ benefits are simply a much easier target than corporate tax breaks.
We’re considering somewhere near $4 billion in cuts and not a single cut in corporate tax breaks. Fairness? LOL.
- Huggybunny - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 4:51 pm:
SB1313 passed both houses, so when will we get to see the 7 tiers? They voted on this without even having the numbers in their hands (apparently). Why does that surprise me..silly me.
- steve schnorf - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 4:55 pm:
PS, they need to be permanent. Surely you don’t believe the tax increase (or some variant of it) is temporary. Free retiree group insurance (and insurance for current employees, with their premiums of 5 or 6%) is part of the problem. Yes, I know, “we were promised”. I can and will live with what is being done. I don’t like what is being done to us any more than I like what is being done to a lot of other people in this budget, but it needs to be done, and it can probably only be done in a time of crisis (which, by the way, isn’t going away any time soon).
ll, poor people and the working poor, and the parents of poor children pay taxes too, as you know. I accept the fact that our social compact binds me to them, and I understand that I am more fortunate than most of them.
Life isn’t fair, s__t happens.
- steve schnorf - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 5:02 pm:
Dog, corporate taxes got increased. As a Republican, though, I truly believe corporations don’t pay taxes, shareholders, employees, and customers and vendors do. Some of the breaks you talk about will likely be whittled away over the next couple of years, though bizarrely, whether or not to do that will be a decision made primarily by Ds, not known as the protectors of big corporations over the common man. Perhaps you need to preach more aggressively to your choir, not mine. Mine can’t seem to come to grips with much cutting of anything right now.
- AC - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 5:13 pm:
With this passed in both houses, I feel a sense of freedom. It’s as if I no longer need to abide by any contract I’ve signed.
- Bigtwich - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 5:15 pm:
Health care, unlike payments from the pension system, was not a guaranteed benefit.
Life isn’t fair, Illinois happens.
- AC - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 5:34 pm:
Bigtwich: not a constitutionally guaranteed benefit, but one included in the contract between the state and most labor unions. The promise is also included in the employee retirement package along with a notice that the rules in place at the time of retirement are what determins retiree benefits.
- kayaker - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 5:34 pm:
The people at CMS are incompetent, doesn’t say much about the GA. A bunch of nitwits.
- kayaker - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 5:34 pm:
The people at CMS are incompetent, doesn’t say much about the GA. A bunch of nitwits.
- Anonymous - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 5:50 pm:
I took a look at the reported monthly health insurance costs for the indicated years for a retiree. You’ll notice that the increase could be as little as 0% and as much as 18.4% from one year to the next with an average of about 9.4%:
2003 $283.28
2004 $335.52
2005 $377.14
2006 $421.00
2007 $459.52
2008 $505.92
2009 $526.86
2010 $562.08
2011 $628.20
2012 $628.20
- Walter Mitty - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 5:52 pm:
The Trib finally held the Republicans feet to the fire. Good for them. Wonders never cease.
Yes, many members of the tea partying, govt hating, unions are horrid Republican Party became policy whimps and were noplace to be found on a tough vote.
Yes, indeed — the Democrats are the one’s who always fix the problems, regardless of the constant rhetorical clap trap from the other side. Very telling indeed.
- kayaker - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 6:20 pm:
I should have included Pat Quinn, to bad the republicans cannot put forward an electable candidate for the office Quinn would have been gone.
- kayaker - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 6:22 pm:
This state is the laughing stock of the country, and Madigan has a lot to do with it.
- Peter Snarker - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 6:52 pm:
CMS has to make the premium hurt enough to keep employees stuck until 67, right?
- bdreedle - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 8:13 pm:
Now that we retirees with 20 plus years of service will have to pay some amount for health insurance, are the legislators and judges who only had to put in 4 or 6 years for full health care coverage still have to put in only 4 or 6 years to be on equal footing with a state employee with 20 years? Who do they think they are to create such a sweet deal for themselves?
- steve schnorf - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 8:28 pm:
I don’t personally have much sympathy for the arguments comparing us to members of the GA. They have to run for election; we didn’t. Or, would we prefer that all jobs were appointments for 2 years at a time, with no guarantee of renewal?
- Huggybunny - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 9:23 pm:
In all fairness, I don’t think you can assume the reason some voted “No” was 100% political. There were LOTS of unknown details, I lost count of how many times Madigan, when asked a question, answered “I presume” which told me he had no real knowledge of the answer. What I heard was that they had no “numbers” in their hands to look over, yet they were pressured to push it through not having all the details. I respect Chapin Rose and the others who may have seen a red flag and tried to put the brakes on, to get more “facts” before passing the bill. Chapin Rose has helped my community several times, and I respect him for his hard work on our behalf. An intelligent person will change their mind on a vote if they see that the bill is full of unanswered questions.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 11:00 pm:
=== As a Republican, though, I truly believe corporations don’t pay taxes, shareholders, employees, and customers and vendors do. ===
If you believe that, then let’s give the tax breaks to the employees and not the corporations.
Because the fact of the matter is, many of those shareholders, customers and vendors don’t live in Illinois. Basically, we’re forcing Illinois residents to pay a higher share of the cost of maintaining the state so that we can mail checks elsewhere.
Not, Good. Economics.
And please, Steve, stop passing the buck. Closing corporate tax loopholes shouldn’t be left up to Democratic lawmakers any more than finding places to make cuts in spending should be left up to Republican lawmakers. Which, apparently, they aren’t really up for either.
Case in point: Senate Republicans demanding $1.8 billion more in cuts. Except they can’t say where they want to make $1.8 billion in cuts. That should be bipartisan.
Hey Murphy, Try this one on for size:
“I demand $1.8 billion in new revenue. Now I want Republicans to tell me what tax increases they are for.”
I admire Republicans for having big ideas, even when they are wrong. I can’t wait for the next time a Republican leader has an idea so I can once again experience that rush through my veins. Its been too long.
- Pot calling kettle - Thursday, May 10, 12 @ 11:53 pm:
@Ready to Get Out & @Irish: A better, simpler explanation is that Mautino’s bill got hijacked. It is a not uncommon occurrence.
- Pot calling kettle - Friday, May 11, 12 @ 12:00 am:
If you look at the Bill Status page, Madigan filed an amendment on the 26th and took over the bill on the 27th. Then Cross signed on. After it passed the House, the original Senate sponsors dropped off and two Senate leaders (Schoenberg & Radogno) become the sponsors.
- Sick of It All - Friday, May 11, 12 @ 1:21 am:
Schnorf - ____ happens? Are you kidding? Easy for you to swallow this increase apparently with your huge director’s salary, etc. No regard obviously for the average Schmoe working for the Man. The morale among state workers is already so low and these legislators have completely mismanaged the State - they have totally double-crossed us and we should vote ALL of them out of office. This is an all-out assault on workers. I hope AFSCME can overturn this in court. Maybe the worm will turn!
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Friday, May 11, 12 @ 2:57 am:
Mr. or Ms. Sick of It All: First of all, voting ALL of them out of office in one fell swoop isn’t even feasible. Secondly, I’m sure you can make your point, without having to attack someone personally.
Just sayin.
- Retired Non-Union Guy - Friday, May 11, 12 @ 8:01 am:
Steve,
Some of us were 4 year term appointments …
- Rich Miller - Friday, May 11, 12 @ 9:22 am:
===- they have totally double-crossed us and we should vote ALL of them out of office===
Sorry, but there were almost 4 million votes cast in the last general election. State workers don’t have nearly enough to vote too many out of office. And where you’re most concentrated, those legislators are already with you.
- Former Merit Comp Slave - Friday, May 11, 12 @ 9:32 am:
Finally, we get to see the numbers. SB3919 introduced yesterday that tells retirees what they will have to pay for insurance premiums - based on points (age + yrs of service), not on ability to pay.
- steve schnorf - Friday, May 11, 12 @ 12:18 pm:
RNUG, and some of us, as nearly as I can remember, never had civil service or union protection at all.
Sick, I said those with higher pension should pay more, that’s the best I can do.