* From the governor’s office…
“The Supreme Court’s decision confirms that benefits earned cannot be reduced. That’s fair and right, and why the governor long maintained that SB 1 is unconstitutional. What is now clear is that a Constitutional Amendment clarifying the distinction between currently earned benefits and future benefits not yet earned, which would allow the state to move forward on common-sense pension reforms, should be part of any solution.”
Thoughts?
*** UPDATE *** Perhaps some wishful thinking from Mayor Rahm Emanuel?…
“Since taking office, our goal has been to find a solution to Chicago’s pension crisis that protects taxpayers while ensuring the retirements of our workers are preserved — something we achieved with Chicago’s pension reform for the Municipal and Laborers funds. That reform is not affected by today’s ruling, as we believe our plan fully complies with the State constitution because it fundamentally preserves and protects worker pensions rather than diminishing or impairing them. While the State plan only reduced benefits, the City’s plan substantially increases City funding which will save both funds from certain insolvency within the next ten to fifteen years and ensure they are secured over the long-term. Further, unlike the State plan, the City’s plan was the result of negotiation and partnership with 28 impacted unions to protect the retirements of the 61,000 city workers and retirees in these funds and ensure they will receive the pensions promised to them.”
*** UPDATE 2 *** Eric Madiar, the former legal eagle for Senate President John Cullerton who predicted years ago that this law would fail, reacts…
I feel fully vindicated by today’s Illinois Supreme Court decision and gratified by it. The decision clears the way for using a modified version of Senate President Cullerton’s contractual approach to achieve savings.
*** UPDATE 3 *** From Moody’s…
“Moody’s is currently reviewing the Illinois Supreme Court pension reform decision and analyzing its potential impact on the credit condition of the State of Illinois, the City of Chicago, public universities, and other Illinois municipalities and school districts. For the state, Moody’s current rating and outlook did not factor in the proposed pension reforms, but the ruling provides additional evidence that pension benefit reductions will not be permitted.”
- JS Mill - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:10 pm:
=which would allow the state to move forward on common-sense pension reforms=
“which would allow the state to move forward on pension theft”
Fixed it for him.
- econ prof - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:11 pm:
I think his comments make perfect sense and have been consistent with what he’s been saying all along.
- Casual Observer - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:12 pm:
Put it on the ballot as a referendum that can be ignored like the 3 percent tax on millionaires.
- Fly on the Wall - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:13 pm:
Does that mean he will no longer assume $2.2 billion in pension savings for FY2016?
- Oswego Willy - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:13 pm:
===What is now clear is that a Constitutional Amendment clarifying the distinction between currently earned benefits and future benefits not yet earned, which would allow the state to move forward on common-sense pension reforms, should be part of any solution.”===
Welp, from a man confused about how 30 and 60 are needed to pass things, Rauner is going to shepherd a CA?
That’ll be fun…
- Pot calling kettle - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:13 pm:
=which would allow the state to move forward on common-sense pension reforms=
In 2017, if the amendment makes it on the ballot AND passes. So, what do we do for the next two years?
- Team Sleep - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:14 pm:
Since the Governor claims to love country music…
“I’ve got some ocean front property in Arizona. From my front porch you can see the sea. I’ve got some ocean front property. Now if you’ll buy that I’ll throw the golden gate in free.”
- readingisfundamental - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:14 pm:
He didn’t say it directly, but isn’t this an acknowledgement that his proposal isn’t going to work either? Moving people from tier 1 to tier 2 isn’t constitutional according to the Supremes.
- Seriously - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:15 pm:
I thought he said SB1 didn’t go far enough. Wouldn’t that imply that he wanted something even more UNCONSTITUTIONAL? His budget fix pension proposal is DOA and now the only thing he has left is to change the Constitution. Slow learner!!
- the Other Anonymous - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:15 pm:
“That’s fair and right, and why the governor long maintained that SB 1 is unconstitutional. ”
Really? I don’t remember the Governor ever saying that benefits earned in the future should not be reduced. As a matter of fact, his budget kind of directly says the opposite.
Have we just entered some magic world where truth doesn’t matter?
- Norseman - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:15 pm:
A constitutional amendment is only needed if you want to continue to decrease benefits for current employees. Whether a CA would be successful in that effort would be the focus of additional litigation. The bottom line is that we’re not talking about any relief from the crowding problem until at least after the Gov’s current term.
Restructuring the pensions of future employees is and always has been an option acceptable under the constitution.
- Michelle Flaherty - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:16 pm:
Whenever I have problems counting to 60 I often find it easier to skip ahead to 71.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:16 pm:
“Dear Governor,
That’s swell.
What about your FY2016 and that $2.2 Billion… you know, just for starters? The CA ain’t helpin’ by May 31st.
Your Pal,
OW”
- cyked - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:17 pm:
Here’s a constitutional idea - pass a constitutional amendment that gives the legislature the power to pass a graduated tax on retirement income. Go easy on the $20k pensioners. Take a huge bite out of the $100k pensioners. Taxing the benefits is virtually the same thing as a reduction in benefits, but it treats all retirees fairly, and it would be legal if the Constitution allowed graduated income taxes. Presto. Problem solved.
- MrJM - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:17 pm:
A Constitutional Amendment would be an impressive addition to Gov. Rauner’s remarkable record of achievement in Springfield.
– MrJM
- Anonymous - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:17 pm:
Continued nonsense. Already earned pensions can’t be touched. Future benefits that are already promised can’t be touched, and a constitutional amendment won’t affect current employees. Future benefits for new employees can already be changed.
There’s no legal point to this amendment. It’s political nonsense.
- Skeptic - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:17 pm:
And that would not resolve the question about the legality of altering a contract (i.e., the pension) post facto.
- Todd - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:18 pm:
And here you go. While pension rates and earnings would be locked in, there goes the COLA.
The real question is which democratic reps will buck labor to pass it. Becuase if it hits the ballot, its gonna pass with 70% or more.
Labor is now gonna face battles on all fronts. and While right to work isn’t going anywhere, somehting is gonna have to give. They will not prevail on every front.
The Court gave labor a win today, and it sets up a larger fight. I see no way in which a tax increase passes without some sort of reform on pensions, either teir 3 401K or an amendment.
I made reservations for june, looks like I’ll book July now
- facts are stubborn things - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:18 pm:
Rauner needs to set down with Eric Madiar and Ralph Martire and LISTEN! I know, MJM and Cullerton need to hold hearings on pensions and invite two guests…..Martire and Madiar.
- Frenchie Mendoza - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:18 pm:
The contractual relationship supersedes the idea of “benefits”.
Isn’t that one of the main points of today’s ruling? There are no benefits without a prior contractual relationship. I’ve signed a contract spelling out the benefits, then what else is there to say about benefits past or future?
The benefits are part of the contract. The contract is not part of the benefits. What roofer (for example) is going to debate “past” versus “future” benefits when the contract has already been signed?
- Snucka - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:19 pm:
If an amendment makes it on to the ballot, I would expect it to pass. A well-funded campaign would be very likely to succeed in making the amendment a referendum on public unions, which I don’t think would turn out too well for AFSCME.
That said, Rauner has shown no ability to get people to vote for anything other than “not Pat Quinn”.
- Wordslinger - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:21 pm:
Econ prof, phd, your comment makes as much sense as the $2.2 billion in pension savings the guv has banked for FY16.
- Jocko - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:21 pm:
==”currently earned benefits and future benefits not yet earned.”==
translation: My superstars are looking for ways to weaken “enforceable contractual relationship” with an eye toward diminishment and/or impairment.
- Snucka - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:22 pm:
To clarify, Rauner has failed to even get the term limits and redistricting amendments on the ballot. The GA is not going to help, so maybe he can hire a “superstar” petition consultant this time around.
- Sangamo Sam - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:22 pm:
===What is now clear is that a Constitutional Amendment clarifying the distinction between currently earned benefits and future benefits not yet earned, which would allow the state to move forward on common-sense pension reforms, should be part of any solution.===
I’m not so sure about that. In paragraph 46 the decision says:
“The protections afforded to such benefits by article XIII, section 5 attach ONCE AN INDIVIDUAL FIRST EMBARKS UPON EMPLOYMENT IN A POSITION COVERED BY A PUBLIC RETIREMENT SYSTEM, not when the employee ultimately retires.” (Emphasis added.)
It went on to say:
“Retirement annuity benefits are unquestionably a ‘benefit of contractually-enforceable relationship resulting from membership’ in the four State-funded retirement systems.”
That seems to me to preclude the changing of future benefits for existing employees.
- Precinct Captain - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:25 pm:
Hi, ck–
When will this be in bill form?
Thanks!
pc
- Rich Miller - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:25 pm:
===That seems to me to preclude the changing of future benefits for existing employees. ===
It absolutely precludes legislative changes. I’m not so sure that it totally precludes a constitutonal amendment, however.
- JS Mill - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:25 pm:
This is the difference between politics and math.
Rauner’s plan will not reduce the cost of the debt. It still has to be paid. The cost of the debt is $4-$5 BILLION annually.
The annual cost of the pension is $1.8 Billion.
Take $4 billion off the expense side of the budget and you can see what the cost of non payment really is.
401K saves the state 0.00. The match and SSI take care of that.
- a real prof - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:26 pm:
The Guv, much less ck and the gang, are in a state of denial. The court was perfectly clear. It was always the law, it was always clear. Again, it remains perfectly, crystal clear, settled law: No, nadda, no way, no how, you cannot, may not, indeed, will not impair or diminish the pensions of those with membership in the State’s pension systems (e.g., SURS, TRS, SERS). At the date of employment it became an enforceable contract. You cannot ‘undo it’, you cannot re-interpret it, you can’t even re-write the Constitution and get out of it. It is a Done Deal. The ruling could not be more clear. Please read it.
- Sangamo Sam - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:28 pm:
===I’m not so sure that it totally precludes a constitutonal amendment, however.===
Maybe, but it may be why they included the “contractually-enforceable relationship” language.
- JS Mill - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:28 pm:
=which would allow the state to move forward on common-sense pension reforms=
Right after the millionaires tax passes, have at it.
- Last Call - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:29 pm:
It seems that any constitutional amendment would still only affect employees hired after the amendment is adopted.
“The protections afforded to such benefits by article XIII, section 5 attach once an individual first embarks upon employment in a position covered by a public retirement system, not when the employee ultimately retires.”
Sounds pretty clear the protection attached when the employee was hired, I don’t see how a constitutional amendment changes that for current employees.
The clarification would be helpful for future GA’s but it doesn’t do anything for current employees benefits.
- Jack Stephens - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:29 pm:
And Bruce is going to “goad” the unions into,calling a strike this summer.
- Joe M - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:30 pm:
It would seem that the U.S. and Illinois’ Constitutions contract protection clauses prohibiting post facto laws that diminish contracts would come into play - at least enouogh to cause serious court challenges to Rauner’s plan to change the public pension protection clause in the IL Constitution.
And the courts have ruled several times that the Illinois pension system one enters on the day of hire is the pension system one stays with throughout their working years and retirement.
The decision today alluded to that too when it stated,
“If allowed to take effect, Public Act 98-599, would clearly result in a diminishment of the retirement annuities to which Tier 1 members of GRS, SRS, SURS and TRS became entitled WHEN THEY JOINED THOSE SYSTEMS.”
- jack - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:32 pm:
OK….THEN..Is Chicago separate from State or not. So I take it there is some home rule here or what.
- Last Call - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:34 pm:
===It absolutely precludes legislative changes. I’m not so sure that it totally precludes a constitutonal amendment, however===
Can a constitutional protection be removed retroactively? I’m not a lawyer, but that doesn’t sound possible.
- Rich Miller - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:36 pm:
===Can a constitutional protection be removed retroactively? ===
We’re about to find out. But slave owners had constitutional protections.
- Downstate AgMan - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:36 pm:
The reality is that the GA needs to bring something forward. Most of these cronies have been in office for the entire pension debacle and have never voted to fix anything. The Gov can bring forward a 100 different proposals but the GA has to support or deny them. It’s about time for them to actually govern and bring something constructive to the table. Most of them created or at least prolonged the mess. Time to get off their butts and get proposals out there to fix it. Rubber has met the road.
- archimedes - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:36 pm:
It would be interesting to see what Rauner’s actual proposed language would be for any constitutional amendment.
The current constitution says an employee is vested with a protected right - not only for earned benefits, but for future work to earn that same level of benefit until retirement or termination from employment.
IF the constitution is changed to protect the former and not the latter - I would bet all current employees would be protected by contract (as stated in the current pension clause). Then the only thing to force them to Tier 2 (which he wants to do) would be to exercise the State’s police power to unilaterally do so. But the Supreme Court said that is not going to fly.
I just don’t see how there is any way for the State - even with an amendment to the constitution - to avoid the contractual obligation given by the current constitution to current members of the pension systems.
- facts are stubborn things - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:37 pm:
any modification of Pres. Cullertons bill would have to include the option of keeping what you have.
- Jorge - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:37 pm:
The ratings agencies are finally catching on. A little tardy to the party like always.
- a real prof - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:38 pm:
===Can a constitutional protection be removed retroactively? I’m not a lawyer, but that doesn’t sound possible. ===
Of course it’s not possible. As the ruling states, what would be the point?
Certainly the Constitution can be amended, but it can only affect new employees from that day forward…which of course doesn’t help anything (Tier 2 already addresses new employees).
- Wordslinger - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:38 pm:
JS, why would the unions go on strike?
Rauner has spent the first few months in office on an ideological bender. Very soon, he’s going to have to sober up and do the job, and a strike would be a disaster for him.
- Poster - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:38 pm:
Rauner’s logic seems to be - if banging my head against the wall doesn’t work, why don’t I try banging my head against the wall.
- facts are stubborn things - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:39 pm:
not sure taxing pensions would be found legal, because it is a diminishment of the benefit. Why not tax pensions 100%. snark
- Norseman - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:40 pm:
=== I feel fully vindicated by today’s Illinois Supreme Court decision and gratified by it. The decision clears the way for using a modified version of Senate President Cullerton’s contractual approach to achieve savings. ===
Eric, you should feel vindicated. You are a good lawyer and did an excellent job laying out the basis for your opinion.
As to a modified version of Cullerton’s contractual approach, I doubt that’s an option any more. Clearly, his health benefits for health care extortion will not work anymore due to Kanerva and this ruling. I think these rulings now puts retirees out of a contractual solution. The lack of salary increases as the quid pro quo doesn’t seen to cut it either.
Thanks for your wisdom and honest analysis of the issue. Hopefully, your former boss will focus system changes to future employees and measures to reduce the debt.
- Glass half full - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:41 pm:
Rahms smoking something….he cut my cola this year from 3% to .46%. I’m not a member of any Union so he didn’t negotiate with me or countless others. Hoping there’s interest involved when case gets settled, that’ll determine where I head to for a long vacation courtesy of the Mayor
- Politix - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:41 pm:
=What is now clear is that a Constitutional Amendment clarifying the distinction between currently earned benefits and future benefits not yet earned, which would allow the state to move forward on common-sense pension reforms, should be part of any solution.”=
Another swing at the unions. “Don’t worry, I’ll get you somehow…”
- Jack Stephens - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:42 pm:
@word:
I agree….ideological bender is really well worded. He needs to govern. He is NOT CEO of Illinois.
The strike would be a disaster for the unions and benefit Bruce. However, Bruce locking out employees is another story.
- AnonymousOne - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:42 pm:
Since labor is under continued attack, who’s going to pay taxes with less money in their pockets? Maybe the millionaires? Anyone? Any public servant who feels any relief in today’s ruling is a fool. The new attempts at (more) theft are already in the planning. Forget about whether or not they can legally happen. Going to work to serve the public isn’t worth this constant bombardment and worry…not to mention disrespect. Get………out…..now.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:42 pm:
There won’t be a strike, if the Unions are paying attention today;
Why negotiate away what is protected with a newly minted 7-0 decision.
Sonny may try and lock them out, he implodes, he can’t help himself. It’s Rauner’s “Sonny Style” - double down on ignorance.
Nope, a strike defeats the purpose of getting this ruling.
- a real prof - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:43 pm:
Unfortunately, the Governor’s constitutional amendment idea is a circlical, closed loop. It doesn’t change anything; it is a distraction leading us nowhere. Everyone, I beg you to read the ruling. It intentionally addresses ‘contractually enforceable relationships’ to actively discourage anyone who is looking for semantic daylight. Case closed.
- Norseman - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:44 pm:
To Moody: You knew this was going to happen and noted the prospect in your analyses. Before you make a knee jerk and inappropriate reaction to the inevitable, see if the Gov and GA can put together a reasonable budget that addresses many of the holes you have noted in other areas.
- Arthur Andersen - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:46 pm:
Rich, just wondering aloud here, but wouldn’t a Constiutional Amendment require some kind of enacting legislation? Yes or no, doesn’t the Contracts Clause of the US Constitution protect current retirees and employees?
- D.P.Gumby - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:47 pm:
Moody’s and their ilk are largely responsible for the pension mess by legitimizing the whole “pension holiday” practice that allowed governments to skip payments into the pension systems. Such shoddy advice allowed governments to hide the actual cost of government services and keep taxes artificially low. Of course, they will never be held accountable.
- Last Call - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:47 pm:
===But slave owners had constitutional protections.===
I think we have a slightly different situation here.
Also,
“The financial challenges facing state and local governments in Illinois are well known and significant. In ruling as we have today, we do not mean to minimize the gravity of the State’s problems or the magnitude of the difficulty facing our elected representatives. It is our obligation, however, just as it is theirs, to ensure that the law is followed. That is true at all times. It is especially important in times of crisis when, as this case demonstrates, even clear principles and long-standing precedent are threatened. Crisis is not an excuse to abandon the rule of law. It is a summons to defend it. How we respond is the measure of our commitment to the principles of justice we are sworn to uphold.”
- Bill White - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:48 pm:
= = For the state, Moody’s current rating and outlook did not factor in the proposed pension reform . . . =
Based on this, there is no reason to downgrade IL bonds. Moody’s already knew it wasn’t going to fly.
- SAP - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:49 pm:
I think Bruce and Rahm need to read the opinion.
- readingisfundamental - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:50 pm:
I like Eric Madiar, but his self serving comment is a bit much. His theory was debunked a year ago by the Kanerva decision and further squashed by this opinion.
- RetiredStateEmployee - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:53 pm:
In Judge Judy’s words, “If you eat the steak, you have to pay for it”. Really, it’s as simple as that. You used the labor with a contractual agreement and now what to say it wasn’t really worth what you agreed on. Either pay or don’t eat the steak anymore.
- ArchPundit - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:57 pm:
===Yes or no, doesn’t the Contracts Clause of the US Constitution protect current retirees and employees?
More of a yes and no and it depends. The Contracts clause is weaker than the Illinois Constitution on the issue, but say you threw out the current pension provisions in the IL constitution, then the contracts clause matters. Currently earned benefits cannot be touched period under the contracts clause.
The question is then whether the federal courts would interpret the start of the contract as the first day of work as the state does. If the feds interpreted it as the State Supreme Court does than all current employees are fully protected in their current terms. If the feds do not see the contract as going forward, but is only retrospective, it gets very confusing very fast with the fed court having to determine when the state would be allowed to change terms going forward.
- Anonymous - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:57 pm:
How will this ruling affect the Chicago Park District pension changes from a few years back, since it was essentially a trial balloon for the the State’s plan, and has now been in effect ever since passing?
- Wordslinger - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:57 pm:
Rich, in regards to your slaveholder analogy, and a potential ex post facto diminshment of contractual benefits via state constitutional amendment:
The U.S. Constitution, as originally ratified, explicitly forbade Constitutional amendments banning slave importation or slavery as a whole prior to 1808.
By doing so, it explicitly acknowledged that such amendments could be Constitutional after 1808.
I don’t see a similar ex post facto or contract diminishment out for pensions in the U.S, Constitution.
- Chicago Cynic - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:58 pm:
Good thing the Trib doesn’t require logical consistency on its ed board.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-illinois-pension-law-unconstitutional-edit-20150508-story.html
“That as the cost of retirement benefits continues to skyrocket, more of the cost must be placed on the workers who will reap those benefits.”
Pretty sure the Supreme Court JUST issued an opinion that said you can’t do this.
- zonz - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:59 pm:
30 days ago:
========= from http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-rauner-illinois-supreme-court-met-0408-20150407-story.html
“I don’t trust the Supreme Court to be rational in their decisions,” Rauner told the Daily Herald. “I think they’re activist judges who want to be legislators.”
Asked by the newspaper if he believes the state’s high court is part of a “corrupt” system, Rauner said: “Yes, correct. Yes. Yes. We have a system where we elect our judges, and the trial lawyers who argue cases in front of those judges give campaign cash to those judges. It’s a corrupt system.” =========
BRU-CREW, is it REALLY worth rolling the dice again?
Besides due process and equal protection challenges, the proposed Rauner Amendment will be attacked with this:
http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/conent.htm
SECTION 16. EX POST FACTO LAWS AND IMPAIRING CONTRACTS
No ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts or making an irrevocable grant of special privileges or immunities, shall be passed. (Source: Illinois Constitution.)
- Politix - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 3:00 pm:
The last thing AFSCME should do is give Rauner the show he so desperately wants. A big rowdy strike with the picket signs and the chanting and the sea of green. He wants a full blown circus and AFSCME would be gravely mistaken to give it to him.
- Jack Stephens - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 3:03 pm:
@ow:
Agreed!
- Frenchie Mendoza - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 3:06 pm:
The larger issue here — and no one ever says this — is that state employees work for the state. Theirs is labor for everyone in the state. That’s why they’re “state employees”.
Every Illinois citizen benefits. That’s the point. And that’s why the burden for compensating the labor falls on the entire state — not just the workers themselves (as the trib editorial today would have you believe).
There’s a lot of sour grapes here, I think. Maybe that’s justified, maybe it’s not. But bottom line is that many non-state employees really, really want to see the state workers suffer. And in a big, big way.
Rauner for different reasons, but his is just as savage and vengeful.
- KirkCJenkins - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 3:08 pm:
The decision doesn’t preclude a constitutional amendment, but one thing is clear: the proposal floated from the Governor’s office doesn’t “clarify” a distinction, it would be a partial repeal of the Pension Protection Clause.
- Buzzie - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 3:09 pm:
So the senator who “was instrumental in writing the overturned law” is assigned to the Pension Reform committee; so much for the credibility of that working group.
- Ret Prof - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 3:09 pm:
The court clearly ruled:
-Pension clause negates police powers argument
-Police powers argument fails under contracts clause because the state failed to prevent the underfunding.
-state did not use less drastic measures to correct financial problem
- state cannot require retirees and employees alone to bear the financial burden
- Rod - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 3:10 pm:
I am opposed to Governor Rauner’s proposed Constitutional amendment and it should be voted down. But I ask why hasn’t such a Joint Resolution Constitutional Amendment been introduced in either the House or the Senate?
HJRCA 9 proposed by Rep Joe Sosnowski strikes all the language on pension protections and is not the same as the Governor has proposed.
Is it possible there is not a Republican in the Assembly that wants to introduce such an amendment?
- Frenchie Mendoza - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 3:10 pm:
—
Besides due process and equal protection challenges, the proposed Rauner Amendment will be attacked with this:
http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/conent.htm
SECTION 16. EX POST FACTO LAWS AND IMPAIRING CONTRACTS
No ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts or making an irrevocable grant of special privileges or immunities, shall be passed. (Source: Illinois Constitution.)
—
But Bruce’s plan is not to pass a law. It’s to force the employees to sign new contracts.
- RNUG - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 3:23 pm:
== But Bruce’s plan is not to pass a law. It’s to force the employees to sign new contracts. ==
If it is a forced choice such as the original Cullerton SB-1 proposal (before the Madigan bill totally changed it which is what got ruled on today), Bruce’s new contracts wouldn’t be worth the paper they are printed on when it goes to court.
- Hit or Miss - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 3:31 pm:
It looks to me that Moody’s will downgrade the Illinois bond rating yet again.
- zonz - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 3:34 pm:
===========- Frenchie Mendoza - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 3:10 pm:
. . .
But Bruce’s plan is not to pass a law. It’s to force the employees to sign new contracts. ===========
Rauner’s *plan* per today’s statement is to pass an Amendment to the Constitution (see ### below), but
1) his proposed Amendment isn’t a meaningful and viable element of “Pension Reform”
2) his proposed Amendment would be rejected by the courts *ab initio* due to vagueness and lack of any discernable useable meaning
3) IF his proposed Amendment made the ballot and passed, it would be challenged on grounds of due process and equal protection, and SECTION 16 of Art I of the Illinois Constitution, which I quoted.
###:
*** UPDATED x3 - Moody’s responds - Madiar responds - Emanuel responds *** Rauner responds to Supreme Court pension ruling
Friday, May 8, 2015
* From the governor’s office…
“The Supreme Court’s decision confirms that benefits earned cannot be reduced. That’s fair and right, and why the governor long maintained that SB 1 is unconstitutional. What is now clear is that a Constitutional Amendment clarifying the distinction between currently earned benefits and future benefits not yet earned, which would allow the state to move forward on common-sense pension reforms, should be part of any solution.”
- Dan Egan - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 3:40 pm:
=I like Eric Madiar, but his self serving comment is a bit much. His theory was debunked a year ago by the Kanerva decision and further squashed by this opinion.=
Agreed. One would think he still needs to lobby the other chamber and comments like that might not be well received. I don’t see how this ruling along with Kanerva ruling preserves Cullerton’s approach. I agree in that if a member voluntarily accepts a reduction, it is permissable, but unrealistic or won’t provide much savings. An agreement with labor unions isn’t going to pass muster either.
- Sheila Simon's Banjo - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 3:40 pm:
Am I reading the comments here correctly? Are people actually contending that this decision and the provisions it is based upon are so final and absolute, that not even a new constitutional amendment could revoke it? That is just completely and utterly absurd.
- Juvenal - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 3:43 pm:
Dear Team Rauner:
Apparently you can’t read, so let Senator Raoul read for you:
“the Court has made clear that the constitution’s prohibition on unilateral modifications applies to the lifetime of the contract made at the time of employment, not merely to benefits already accrued.”
- zonz - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 3:44 pm:
SNARK TO RICH AND OTHERS:
To: IL Sup. Ct. Justices
From: Defenders of Gov. Rauner’s Amendment to the Illinois Constitution
Of course the Constitution has had language protecting the benefits flowing from the enforceable contractual relationship created by pension system membership, however, this Amendment is designed to accomplish a one-sided redefinition of what *benefits* means.
That’s cool, right?
- Oswego Willy - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 3:44 pm:
=== Are people actually contending that this decision and the provisions it is based upon are so final and absolute, that not even a new constitutional amendment could revoke it? ===
By May 31, 2016, it won’t happen
It won’t happen by the time Rauner gets a FY2016 budget passed, (even if it’s all summer)
The CA isn’t helping right now.
- John Parnell - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 3:58 pm:
The Cullerton bill won’t pass muster either. If introduced again with the proviso including a forced acceptance of the discredited consideration wording, the plan will also fail.
- Illinois Manufacturer - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 4:00 pm:
The School Dist and State university pension debt is the states not the Schools Moody doesn’t -as usual -know what is talking about…I have a nice bag of CDOs for you Moodys. Why don’t we admit the state has assets too
- Federalist - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 4:02 pm:
- readingisfundamental - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 2:50 pm:
I like Eric Madiar, but his self serving comment is a bit much. His theory was debunked a year ago by the Kanerva decision and further squashed by this opinion.
That says it all!
- Skeptic - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 4:03 pm:
“…that not even a new constitutional amendment could revoke it?” Even a Constitutional amendment can’t do ex post facto. Think about it…let’s say we pass an amendment that limits legislators to 2 terms and one who serves longer is subject to stiff fines. Do you think that means Madigan would be fined for having served longer than that? Of course not.