Q: Did you have a harder time getting members to come on board as Senate President John Cullerton was working on a separate plan with union leaders?
A: “That wasn’t our experience as we worked through the roll call. It was a difficult roll call to work but not because of action in the Senate. The difficulty would relate to opposition from unions and from teachers unions and from citizens who have already retired and are drawing their pension. But none of it related to the Senate.”
Q: You vowed to do whatever you can to get the bill to Gov. Pat Quinn’s desk. What does that mean now that it’s in the Senate?
A: “Well, I’m committed to the bill. I’m committed to solving the issue. I’ve spoken to this publicly that the state’s fiscal problems are so bad that they require radical surgery, and this is the first step. We’ve taken that first step in the House. My expectation is that the Senate will approve this bill.”
Q: Have you been briefed at all on Cullerton’s negotiations with the unions?
A: “I could clearly see the fine work of Mr. Henry Bayer, who is an expert at delay. I think this is a continuation of what we experienced a year ago from Henry Bayer and the We Are One coalition where day to day they simply want delay. Delay. Delay. Because maybe the problem will go away. It’s precisely what they did on the collective bargaining. And they only came to a conclusion on the collective bargaining because they knew there would be action in the Legislature.”
Q: Will this action in the House spur unions to greater heights with the Senate?
A: “I really don’t know what they’ll do, but I don’t expect that they’ll be able to come to an agreement such that people would be prepared to back away from this bill. There’s two chambers here, and both chambers have to pass the same bill. The House has passed a bill and so whatever the Senate does, I don’t think it will achieve the cost savings that the House bill will achieve.” […]
Q: What was the tipping point in passing today’s pension reform bill?
A: “I think it was the vote that we took about two weeks ago simply on the COLA adjustment where it got 66 votes. I think that told the tale, and then we put the bill together. Today, we were four votes short of that, but it was a good roll call.” […]
Q: What are the bill’s chances in Senate?
A: “My expectation is the bill will pass the Senate.”
Q: Have you spoken to Cullerton about it?
A: “I have. On several occasions.”
Q: Cullerton hasn’t committed to working a roll call though. So what makes you so confident?
A: “Maybe it’s that 43 years around this building.”
Twenty-two House Republicans sided with Madigan’s push, with Democrats accounting for the rest of the “yes” votes. Among the Republicans backing the plan was House Minority Leader Tom Cross (R-Oswego), who signed on to Madigan’s legislation as a co-sponsor.
* Public Pensions’ Fate Rests Largely With Divided Democratic Leaders: CULLERTON: “The fact that the president of the Senate and the unions are putting their full weight behind something means something too. So if we’re able to get our caucus to support a position the unions are for, that would be significant as well.”
* Madigan’s Pension Bill Passes A Full House Vote: The We Are One Coalition has released the following statement in response to the House’s passage of the bill: Senate Bill 1 is unfair to the active and retired teachers, nurses, police, and other employees who paid out of every paycheck to fund their pensions, even as the state shorted its share. On top of that, it is blatantly unconstitutional and thus saves nothing. It simply exacerbates Illinois’ fiscal problems. In contrast, our coalition had a productive meeting today with President John Cullerton, and we hope to be able to continue the dialogue.
* House passes comprehensive pension changes: Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno said she expects Republicans to support SB 1 if it is called for a vote in the Senate.
With all the stories in the press and the speakers talk with the press I appear to have missed one piece of information about the bill, a dollar amount. Has anyone run the numbers on the effect of the bill? Of the $100B in current unfunded pension liabilities how much will the workers cover by way of more contributions and lower benefits over the next 30 years? Is there still some unfunded pension liability of the $100B remaining even if this bill is approved by the Senate and then signed into law?
Madigan needs to be voted out. Time for him to retire and have his health insurance removed and he can join Obama care with the rest of us. Mr. Madigan has been part of pension holidays for a lot of years. See you in court Mr. Madigan. And weather you like it or not you all know why the language was put into the States Constitution, to stop the very stuff that the Politian’s are trying to pull now with the pensions. A fix is needed but if it isn’t constitutional then no matter what you think, find another type of fix. We are supposed to be a nation of laws not of men.
I think I read somewhere this morning the COLA cuts and additional contributions in the House passed SB-1 is estimated to make about $30B of the unfunded liability go away … which still leaves $70B that has to be paid.
Hopefully the roll call on Madigan’s pension bill will finally wake up and shame the lazy (or biased, in the case of the Tribune,) Chicago media types who have covered the pension issue the last few years and peppered every report with a reference to the Democrats being slaves to the public employee unions.
Anyone who has even a minimum understanding of Springfield has known throughout this debate that there are as many Republican union-backed reform opponents as there are Democrats. A majority of Dems supported pension reform in the House, the majority of Republicans did not.
Get off your butts press corps and do some actual reporting instead of just regurgitating political cliches!
A majority of the House Republicans voted to not fix the biggest budget issue in our state. Why do the Republicans complain so much about the budget and do so little about it?
- Robert the Bruce - Friday, May 3, 13 @ 12:29 pm:
I know some republicans opposed it (whether they admitted it or not) because they represent areas with a lot of public employees. But that explains what, a handful of the 24 No votes from republican reps?
===
A majority of the House Republicans voted to not fix the biggest budget issue in our state. Why do the Republicans complain so much about the budget and do so little about it?
===
Oddly enough, I do think it’s a bit of a mixed bag. My guess is that some of the more conservative members want a more agressive defined contribution 401(k) type plan so voted ‘no.’ Similarly, there are some GOP state reps that are pretty union friendly. For example Sandy Pihos was ‘No’ vote, but hihgly doubt it was because the bill didn’t go far enough. My guess is she was a no b/c she’s had a lot of backing from the teacher’s unions in the past.
So really, of the 24 that were ‘No’ votes, the reasons are likely to be very mixed.
Both Ives and Morrison (main sponsors of the IPI backed 401(k) type plan) boted “yes” I believe. Acknowledging that fixing 1/3rd of the problem is better than nothing, but making it clear they prefer additional reforms towards the defined contribution plans in the future to address the remaining 2/3rds of the problem.
I think that the legislators that made the calculation that this wouldn’t hurt them because they had low numbers of public employees /retirees in their districts may have overlooked an important fact—-the local and municipal employees that are not effected by the current outcome of SB1 may well become anxious that they could be targeted next by local governments.
Anxiety could turn large numbers of these public employee families out to punish these mis-calculating legislators.
Remember also Robert most of the folks drawing a pension check now are Republicans. Most were hired under Thompson, Edgar,and Ryan. I went to work under Thompsons last few months. At the time Rutan had not been ruled on and almost all jobs filled were Republicans. Not to say a few Democrats didn’t get hired with help from their state rep or by other means. I if MJM would look at these cuts the same way if the majority of those retired were Democrats.
Property owner, Madigan will then push the 100 Billion, that pension reform does not cover, onto property owners, through the cost shift. Never trust, or believe that man! More tax hikes to come!
Cassiopeia: Legislative leaders have been telling mayors for two years now that reforms of the downstate police and fire and the Chicago systems will have to wait until the State systems are reformed. If you think, the current exercise has been a battle, wait for that one. The police and fire unions are much more politically active than the State employee unions.
Did we hear that correctly? MJM acknowledges he reads that “publication” called Capitol Fax? If so, he has a computer or mobile device? His office claims he has neither. Hmm…
=== If so, he has a computer or mobile device? His office claims he has neither. Hmm…===
Calm down. He has a fax machine.
- public servant not your slave - Friday, May 3, 13 @ 1:32 pm:
Every local government employee in Illinois knows that the local politicians will glom on to this whether or not there is any risk to the fund in question. Public sector work slowdown to retaliate for stealing pensions? Other backlash?
Interesting… assuming a bill passes and is signed, and the Illinois Supremes accept it or return it for tinkering which is done in the near future…
Then Speaker Madigan can proceed with the Revenue Systems Modernizations that everyone knows are overdue. Why now? Because the beneficiaries of the new revenues from sales tax expansion onto many more services, taxing of seniors on pensions and annuities (say, over $50,000 annnually), and making the state income tax a graduated income tax through constitutional amendment can all be done “For the Benefit of Health and Human Services and for Elementary/Secondary and Higher Education”!
Not salable before politically if the public saw the dollars to state employee and even underfunded teacher pensions.But now, for all the right reasons.
Any more tax increases, especially on the retired, will result in a mass exodus from the state. The state has become too expensive for retirees to live in.
Speaker Madigan passes SB1. Speaker Madigan has been involved in every non-payment to the retirement system along with authorizing spending for monies that do not exist. Don’t you think it is time for the Speaker to be held accountable for his participation into the debacle called unfunded retirement and the State of Illinois? Under his leadership we have seen Illinois become a laughing stock. He has been there for over thirty years and has been involved in every piece of legislation and decisions made for Illinois. If I siphon money off from a business, that a crime. If I constantly don’t pay my bills, that’s a crime. If I ran my house the way the Speaker has, I would be homeless. The legislature likes to pass laws to “protect me” (i.e. gun laws, seat belts , tanning) how do I get protection from them?
Yes and you Mr Madigan if you retired today would get a pension of 151 % of your final salary. What a hypocrite.Maybe Pam Zekman and Jim Tobin should do a story about the GAR salaries.
Rich, I think I felt the same as you about senior’s breaks when I was 50. Now that I am a senior myself I care about taking the breaks away from those who never had much when they were working and not about those who are well off retired. The well off retired are going to take a hit but they won’t starve.
Means testing is imperative when we begin taxing and reducing people’s breaks.
- Cook County Commoner - Friday, May 3, 13 @ 2:50 pm:
Fairness, deference, consideration, etc. have nothing to do with senior benfits in Illinois. They get what they get from gov because they vote in high numbers and, as a demographic, control substantial wealth. With 8,000 or so folks turning 65 in our nation evey day, showering seniors with goodies is a useful step in each pol’s plan for re-election.
The senior consideration of public retirees doesn’t seem to be much cause for concern in these pols reelection plans but then again, they are not wealthy retirees. They are about to get much less wealthy and much more angry in the voting booth.
Everything on your list of senior benefits is true for every senior in Illinois, regardless of employer, with the one exception being the 20 years = free insurance premiums.
I am very much ok with granting extra benefits, exemptions and discounts to seniors (I am 54 in terms of disclosure), because they they are in the latter 3rd of life and can only go downhill in terms of health, savings, etc. However, I also think that seniors should pay income taxes on their retirement benefits. Give them some time of extra exemptions similar to the earned income credit, but the ones that are better off should pay something. And, yes, I am hoping to be in that better off category when I retire. I will have IRAs rolled over from former employers in addition to social security and a small pension at that time (maybe).
And, for the guy that says he will move out of state if retirement benefits get taxed: that’s ok because once you move, you won’t be getting benefits allowed to Illinois seniors, and you won’t be using Illinois services.
There are thousands of retired public employees who are anxious about the changes that may be underway. Many of them will be devastated by these changes and they are feeling betrayed. Far too many of them are living on the edge right now.
Yes the state has financial problems and they need to be addressed, but across the board to all vendors, suppliers and recipients of state funding as well.
- RNUG - Friday, May 3, 13 @ 10:55 am:
MJM had a bill that passed the Senate but he gutted it and replaced it with his own language … so the dance continues.
- wordslinger - Friday, May 3, 13 @ 10:59 am:
Boy, he’s awfully confident about the Senate.
- Property Owner - Friday, May 3, 13 @ 11:10 am:
With all the stories in the press and the speakers talk with the press I appear to have missed one piece of information about the bill, a dollar amount. Has anyone run the numbers on the effect of the bill? Of the $100B in current unfunded pension liabilities how much will the workers cover by way of more contributions and lower benefits over the next 30 years? Is there still some unfunded pension liability of the $100B remaining even if this bill is approved by the Senate and then signed into law?
- Rob Roy - Friday, May 3, 13 @ 11:13 am:
Madigan needs to be voted out. Time for him to retire and have his health insurance removed and he can join Obama care with the rest of us. Mr. Madigan has been part of pension holidays for a lot of years. See you in court Mr. Madigan. And weather you like it or not you all know why the language was put into the States Constitution, to stop the very stuff that the Politian’s are trying to pull now with the pensions. A fix is needed but if it isn’t constitutional then no matter what you think, find another type of fix. We are supposed to be a nation of laws not of men.
- hisgirlfriday - Friday, May 3, 13 @ 11:14 am:
Madigans confidence is interesting. Do he and Cullerton have some sort of good cop bad cop arrangement on the unions?
Or is it just a matter of madigan being able to hold stuff like ssm and fracking hostage until cullerton puts his pension bill up?
- RNUG - Friday, May 3, 13 @ 11:46 am:
Property Owner @ 11:10 am:
I think I read somewhere this morning the COLA cuts and additional contributions in the House passed SB-1 is estimated to make about $30B of the unfunded liability go away … which still leaves $70B that has to be paid.
- State employee - Friday, May 3, 13 @ 11:50 am:
So what happens to state pensions of state employees waiting to draw their pensions when it’s our time to do so?
- Frank - Friday, May 3, 13 @ 11:52 am:
Hopefully the roll call on Madigan’s pension bill will finally wake up and shame the lazy (or biased, in the case of the Tribune,) Chicago media types who have covered the pension issue the last few years and peppered every report with a reference to the Democrats being slaves to the public employee unions.
Anyone who has even a minimum understanding of Springfield has known throughout this debate that there are as many Republican union-backed reform opponents as there are Democrats. A majority of Dems supported pension reform in the House, the majority of Republicans did not.
Get off your butts press corps and do some actual reporting instead of just regurgitating political cliches!
- Ahoy! - Friday, May 3, 13 @ 12:07 pm:
A majority of the House Republicans voted to not fix the biggest budget issue in our state. Why do the Republicans complain so much about the budget and do so little about it?
- Robert the Bruce - Friday, May 3, 13 @ 12:29 pm:
I know some republicans opposed it (whether they admitted it or not) because they represent areas with a lot of public employees. But that explains what, a handful of the 24 No votes from republican reps?
- Rich Miller - Friday, May 3, 13 @ 12:38 pm:
RtB, that explains most.
- John Galt - Friday, May 3, 13 @ 12:39 pm:
===
A majority of the House Republicans voted to not fix the biggest budget issue in our state. Why do the Republicans complain so much about the budget and do so little about it?
===
Oddly enough, I do think it’s a bit of a mixed bag. My guess is that some of the more conservative members want a more agressive defined contribution 401(k) type plan so voted ‘no.’ Similarly, there are some GOP state reps that are pretty union friendly. For example Sandy Pihos was ‘No’ vote, but hihgly doubt it was because the bill didn’t go far enough. My guess is she was a no b/c she’s had a lot of backing from the teacher’s unions in the past.
So really, of the 24 that were ‘No’ votes, the reasons are likely to be very mixed.
Both Ives and Morrison (main sponsors of the IPI backed 401(k) type plan) boted “yes” I believe. Acknowledging that fixing 1/3rd of the problem is better than nothing, but making it clear they prefer additional reforms towards the defined contribution plans in the future to address the remaining 2/3rds of the problem.
- Cassiopeia - Friday, May 3, 13 @ 12:45 pm:
I think that the legislators that made the calculation that this wouldn’t hurt them because they had low numbers of public employees /retirees in their districts may have overlooked an important fact—-the local and municipal employees that are not effected by the current outcome of SB1 may well become anxious that they could be targeted next by local governments.
Anxiety could turn large numbers of these public employee families out to punish these mis-calculating legislators.
- nieva - Friday, May 3, 13 @ 12:51 pm:
Remember also Robert most of the folks drawing a pension check now are Republicans. Most were hired under Thompson, Edgar,and Ryan. I went to work under Thompsons last few months. At the time Rutan had not been ruled on and almost all jobs filled were Republicans. Not to say a few Democrats didn’t get hired with help from their state rep or by other means. I if MJM would look at these cuts the same way if the majority of those retired were Democrats.
- Give Me A Break - Friday, May 3, 13 @ 12:57 pm:
So far the GOP seems to be missing action fixing the budget they love to scream about.
1. Close state facilities: Nope, can’t help with this sorry.
2. Pension reform: Nope, can’t help with this sorry.
I suppose they are just busy calling their next presser to talk abou the need to put pictures on LINK cards.
- Billy - Friday, May 3, 13 @ 1:10 pm:
Property owner, Madigan will then push the 100 Billion, that pension reform does not cover, onto property owners, through the cost shift. Never trust, or believe that man! More tax hikes to come!
- GA Watcher - Friday, May 3, 13 @ 1:13 pm:
Cassiopeia: Legislative leaders have been telling mayors for two years now that reforms of the downstate police and fire and the Chicago systems will have to wait until the State systems are reformed. If you think, the current exercise has been a battle, wait for that one. The police and fire unions are much more politically active than the State employee unions.
- 47th Ward - Friday, May 3, 13 @ 1:14 pm:
The best solution to the pension problem, from an HGOP point of view, is to have Democrats raise taxes again to fully fund the systems.
Madigan just closed the door on that option.
- OpenlineBlog - Friday, May 3, 13 @ 1:26 pm:
Did we hear that correctly? MJM acknowledges he reads that “publication” called Capitol Fax? If so, he has a computer or mobile device? His office claims he has neither. Hmm…
- Rich Miller - Friday, May 3, 13 @ 1:28 pm:
=== If so, he has a computer or mobile device? His office claims he has neither. Hmm…===
Calm down. He has a fax machine.
- public servant not your slave - Friday, May 3, 13 @ 1:32 pm:
Every local government employee in Illinois knows that the local politicians will glom on to this whether or not there is any risk to the fund in question. Public sector work slowdown to retaliate for stealing pensions? Other backlash?
- iThink - Friday, May 3, 13 @ 1:43 pm:
–The police and fire unions are much more politically active than the State employee unions. –
More so than the teachers unions?
- Capitol View - Friday, May 3, 13 @ 1:49 pm:
Interesting… assuming a bill passes and is signed, and the Illinois Supremes accept it or return it for tinkering which is done in the near future…
Then Speaker Madigan can proceed with the Revenue Systems Modernizations that everyone knows are overdue. Why now? Because the beneficiaries of the new revenues from sales tax expansion onto many more services, taxing of seniors on pensions and annuities (say, over $50,000 annnually), and making the state income tax a graduated income tax through constitutional amendment can all be done “For the Benefit of Health and Human Services and for Elementary/Secondary and Higher Education”!
Not salable before politically if the public saw the dollars to state employee and even underfunded teacher pensions.But now, for all the right reasons.
Maybe Lisa will be running in two years…
- RNUG - Friday, May 3, 13 @ 1:57 pm:
Capitol View @ 1:49 pm:
Very plausible scenario …
- Billy - Friday, May 3, 13 @ 2:00 pm:
Any more tax increases, especially on the retired, will result in a mass exodus from the state. The state has become too expensive for retirees to live in.
- Rich Miller - Friday, May 3, 13 @ 2:06 pm:
===Any more tax increases, especially on the retired===
Quinn just signed another property tax break for retirees into law, which will raises everybody else’s taxes.
Seniors have not paid state taxes on retirement income in decades, which means everybody else has to pick up the slack.
A huge percentage of Medicaid dollars is spent on nursing homes, and Medicaid is an even bigger budget problem than pensions.
Seniors have their own cabinet-level state agency.
Until just recently, state employee retirees with at least 20 years of service paid NO health insurance premiums.
What the heck more do you want?
- Bill - Friday, May 3, 13 @ 2:20 pm:
More wealth is concentrated in the demographic referred to as “seniors” than any other age group in this country.
- Chris - Friday, May 3, 13 @ 2:20 pm:
“What the heck more do you want? ”
Pound of flesh, Rich. Pound of flesh. ‘cuz we all owe it to ‘em.
- Sick of Illinois - Friday, May 3, 13 @ 2:22 pm:
Speaker Madigan passes SB1. Speaker Madigan has been involved in every non-payment to the retirement system along with authorizing spending for monies that do not exist. Don’t you think it is time for the Speaker to be held accountable for his participation into the debacle called unfunded retirement and the State of Illinois? Under his leadership we have seen Illinois become a laughing stock. He has been there for over thirty years and has been involved in every piece of legislation and decisions made for Illinois. If I siphon money off from a business, that a crime. If I constantly don’t pay my bills, that’s a crime. If I ran my house the way the Speaker has, I would be homeless. The legislature likes to pass laws to “protect me” (i.e. gun laws, seat belts , tanning) how do I get protection from them?
- Arthur Andersen - Friday, May 3, 13 @ 2:22 pm:
Rich, in a few years you will change your position on “seniors” lol.
- Steve - Friday, May 3, 13 @ 2:24 pm:
Yes and you Mr Madigan if you retired today would get a pension of 151 % of your final salary. What a hypocrite.Maybe Pam Zekman and Jim Tobin should do a story about the GAR salaries.
- Cassiopeia - Friday, May 3, 13 @ 2:28 pm:
Rich, I think I felt the same as you about senior’s breaks when I was 50. Now that I am a senior myself I care about taking the breaks away from those who never had much when they were working and not about those who are well off retired. The well off retired are going to take a hit but they won’t starve.
Means testing is imperative when we begin taxing and reducing people’s breaks.
- Cook County Commoner - Friday, May 3, 13 @ 2:50 pm:
Fairness, deference, consideration, etc. have nothing to do with senior benfits in Illinois. They get what they get from gov because they vote in high numbers and, as a demographic, control substantial wealth. With 8,000 or so folks turning 65 in our nation evey day, showering seniors with goodies is a useful step in each pol’s plan for re-election.
- Anonymous 1 - Friday, May 3, 13 @ 3:03 pm:
The senior consideration of public retirees doesn’t seem to be much cause for concern in these pols reelection plans but then again, they are not wealthy retirees. They are about to get much less wealthy and much more angry in the voting booth.
- mythoughtis - Friday, May 3, 13 @ 3:08 pm:
Rich
Everything on your list of senior benefits is true for every senior in Illinois, regardless of employer, with the one exception being the 20 years = free insurance premiums.
I am very much ok with granting extra benefits, exemptions and discounts to seniors (I am 54 in terms of disclosure), because they they are in the latter 3rd of life and can only go downhill in terms of health, savings, etc. However, I also think that seniors should pay income taxes on their retirement benefits. Give them some time of extra exemptions similar to the earned income credit, but the ones that are better off should pay something. And, yes, I am hoping to be in that better off category when I retire. I will have IRAs rolled over from former employers in addition to social security and a small pension at that time (maybe).
And, for the guy that says he will move out of state if retirement benefits get taxed: that’s ok because once you move, you won’t be getting benefits allowed to Illinois seniors, and you won’t be using Illinois services.
- Rich Miller - Friday, May 3, 13 @ 3:14 pm:
===The senior consideration of public retirees doesn’t seem to be much cause for concern in these pols reelection plans===
Yeah. That’s exactly why it took so many years to get this thing passed in just one chamber.
Sheesh.
- Cassiopeia - Friday, May 3, 13 @ 3:33 pm:
There are thousands of retired public employees who are anxious about the changes that may be underway. Many of them will be devastated by these changes and they are feeling betrayed. Far too many of them are living on the edge right now.
Yes the state has financial problems and they need to be addressed, but across the board to all vendors, suppliers and recipients of state funding as well.
- AFSCME Steward - Friday, May 3, 13 @ 3:55 pm:
Of course MJM knows nothing about delay.
“I could clearly see the fine work of Mr. Henry Bayer, who is an expert at delay”
- kimocat - Friday, May 3, 13 @ 4:10 pm:
What, if anything, have posters’ picked up on this so-called Cullerton - AFSCME thing?
- Rich Miller - Friday, May 3, 13 @ 4:14 pm:
kimocat, time to subscribe.