Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today’s edition
Next Post: How the Will County State’s Attorney, the General Assembly and Rod Blagojevich almost botched the Drew Peterson case
Posted in:
* Yesterday I asked…
Do you believe that the House and Senate Republican leaders are “committed to passing real, comprehensive pension reform in a bi-partisan way”?
Almost 80 percent of you said “No.”
* The Question: Do you believe that the House and Senate Democratic leaders are committed to passing real, comprehensive pension reform in a bi-partisan way? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 9:15 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today’s edition
Next Post: How the Will County State’s Attorney, the General Assembly and Rod Blagojevich almost botched the Drew Peterson case
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Let’s just try to be a little honest and objective.
AFSCME and SEIU are the owners of the state Democratic Party. They are not just the single largest funding sources, but they provide the foot soldiers and are embedded in the party structure.
Any pension bill will protect the fundamental demands of government unions just like the phony workers comp “reform” protected the second biggest money source for Dems…the trial lawyers.
Comment by Adam Smith Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 9:19 am
I think they will pass something in veto session or in January before new members are sworn in because it is the last chance. It won’t be pretty, it may not solve the whole problem, but they will do something substantial. Even politicians sometimes know when the game is just about over.
Comment by Cassiopeia Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 9:24 am
===They are not just the single largest funding sources===
AFSCME boycotted Madigan’s campaign fund two years ago. Just sayin…
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 9:25 am
My answer is the same as yesterday. As long as the issue at hand advances the partisan cause of one of the caucus’, then they are interested in passing real legislation. There is no room for bipartisanship in this state where one caucus can’t bash the other on any given issue.
Comment by tubbfan Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 9:26 am
Yes, I think they are. It’s in the Dems’ own interest to finish real reform, especially if they do it with R votes.
Contrast with the Republicans who selfishly assume anything good for the state and its residents will be bad for the gop’s political prospects.
Pretty clear who voters will reward come November. The adults in the room. The gop in IL is beyond stupid.
Comment by just sayin' Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 9:29 am
Yes, but only because they realize that they don’t have any choice. The numbers, if real serious action is not taken, are apocalyptic. That’s why Quinn is pushing so hard.
Comment by Jim Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 9:37 am
===Let’s just try to be a little honest and objective.===
Still waiting for your honesty and objectivity.
Comment by Deep South Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 9:37 am
Nope, they need Rome to actually catch on fire to do anything.
Comment by OneMan Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 9:40 am
The GOP blew it. Madigan will not now let them be part of the solution and he will hang their fiscal irresponsibility on their necks for a long time. He will pass “something” in January without the GOP. Then he will turn to the business community to fatten his campaign fund. And, the unions will still have no where else to go.
Comment by Air-Is-Total Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 9:43 am
Yes, because they want Republicans to share the heat.
Comment by SIUPROF Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 9:43 am
I echo Jim. They will fix it because there is no fiscal alternative. As to bi-partisan…. well the Dems WANT to share the pain here, the question is will they act to appease the bond houses without GOP votes if forced to. i believe the answer is yes, but the GOP doesn’t want the problem to be solved without them begin able to claim credit for it either, so come January, the GOP will have to play chicken with the GOP.
Comment by in the know Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 9:45 am
Paraphrasing Elaine Nekritz….I don’t think that the Speaker and President of the Senate would personally sit through numerous meetings for hours at a time if they weren’t serious about passing comprehensive pension reform.
Not to mention that the Senate already passed a bill that reforms several of the systems.
Comment by unspun Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 9:48 am
There’s is too much influence from the Commercial Club for Quinn and Chicago legislators to not act. The issue for me is that it is clearly evident that this is a situation created by legislators and governors. It is totally inappropriate to force the state employees to pay for the misappropriation committed. Clearly, we need Legislative Reform.
Comment by Socrates Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 9:52 am
The question is about pension reform in a bipartisan way and I say the answer is no. I believe the Democrats were serious about about bipartisan pension reform, or at least Madigan and Cullerton were, but now I think they are content to go it alone. Everyone whines about unions being embedded with the Democratic Party, but nothing stops state and local unions from following the lead of some national unions and running a parallel campaign operation separate from the Democratic establishment.
Comment by Aaron Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 9:53 am
We still have a few bond rating downgrades available for use, why bother?
Comment by Cincinnatus Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 9:54 am
Cincinnatus makes a powerful point.
Comment by Jim Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 10:13 am
–We still have a few bond rating downgrades available for use, why bother?–
The official position of the heavy lifters in Illinois GOP leadership.
Yes, the Dems have shown they’re willing to make tough votes and honk off the unions. It would be nice if reasonable Republicans would get on board, but most of those guys are scared of their shadows and are content to collect their paychecks in well-deserved anonymity.
Radgono is already walking back the Senate vote some GOPers took. They’re not going to do any heavy lifting. They’re all too busy running for governor and making out their “why I’m a victim” lists.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 10:19 am
This is about mathematics. If the democrats lose seats, MM will change his ways. If not, no changes. The enablers here are the iL GOP. Crummy candidates (Brady-Plummer) coupled with blue state demographics give madigan a truly advantageous hand. Everybody is waiting to see what happens 11/6.
Comment by Madison Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 10:21 am
Yes, but only because they desperately need to have Republicans share the blame. So that they can subsequently shift said blame to the Republicans, e.g. “Yes, pension reform was painful. But it had to be done and we needed Republican votes to get it done. And the Republicans demanded that it be painful.” (On the flip side, the Republicans really do demand that pension reform be painful enough to damage their Democratic rivals.)
But this isn’t a completely partisan issue. Illinois House and Senate Democratic leaders also seem perfectly willing to dump the blame for pension reform’s ills onto their Democratic Governor.
Is it too early for a drink?
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 10:21 am
No. There is no political benefit in helping a political party that only comes knocking after the bonfire they wrecklessly fed threatens to burn down the State. A decade of Blagojevich and Quinn after paying a steep political price for a single term for Ryan is karma. It is time for the Democrats to pay the political piper too.
Madigan and his lemmings know this and will cut their losses by handling this themselves.
The GOP know that they don’t win playing Madigan’s games using Madigan’s rule.
No. Bipartisanship is dead in Illinois as long as the calls for bipartisanship only insists that the majority party continues it’s ruthless dominance.
The Democrats made this bed, it is a single, not a double bed.
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 10:30 am
Wordslinger,
Also the position of the Democrats who have been in complete control in Springfield for any number of years, led by a Democratic Speaker who has been in his office for all but a couple of 40 years. Yep, a Republican problem… The Democrats own this issue, deal with it.
Comment by Cincinnatus Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 10:33 am
Yes. Bi-partisan usually means you do something in your interests and something you don’t want to do but the other guys want, and vice versa. Here, the Democrats are already willing to do something the other guy wants — honk off the unions and state workers — but the Republicans refuse to do anything they don’t want. It is all take and no give with them. They aren’t being serious about being bi-partisan until they agree to the cost-shift.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 10:38 am
I voted “yes”, but with this caveat: Madigan and Cullerton WILL pass a Democrats’ only solution if Republicans continue to be obstructionists.
To Adam Smith’s misguided and completely fabricated post: as Rich points out, AFSCME is no fan of Madigan. As has been pointed out elsewhere, SEIU represents very few public employees and their primary legislative spending concern is Medicaid (they represent hospital and nursing home employees).
As for AFSCME and SEIU providing “the foot soldiers,” that’s pretty laughable to anyone who has ever actually run a legislative race for a Democrat. Most of the volunteers in contested legislative races come from the candidates family and personal friends, and their families and personal friends, as well as locally elected Democrats (mayors, county officials) and the local Democratic Party.
I’d venture a guess that fewer than 15% of campaign volunteers come from organized labor.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 10:39 am
Voted No.
If the question was just “some bi-partisan reform,” then yes, both Democratic leaders need Republican votes, not just to share any blame, but because they honestly do need the votes; there are some democrats who simply won’t vote for pension reform.
“real, comprehensive” - no. Yes for Cullerton, but I just don’t believe Madigan really wants real, comprehensive reform. He has been in a leadership for awhile; has he ever pushed for it? Has his chamber come close to passing anything? Has he said he is committed to real comprehensive reform as Gov. Quinn has said? I could be wrong; perhaps he has said this.
Comment by Robert the Bruce Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 10:40 am
Cincy, I think you missed a couple of the pre-approved talking points. Try harder next time.
Last I checked, the words “Democrat” and “Republican” aren’t in the state constitution.
They’re all elected to do a job. Some just see their jobs as collecting checks and running from responsibility.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 10:40 am
Something will be passed. I think the issue will be not so much whether or not it’s bi-partisan, as whether or not it’s real.
Comment by Ann Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 10:41 am
Wordslinger,
A nonsensical comment from you which is highly unexpected normally your arguments are much better than that. It seems that suddenly you are using the Constitution to mask the reality of the situation, Democrats own this issue.
This is just like Obama’s comment to Eric Cantor, when in the first meeting with the Republican leadership where Cantor presented good faith proposals consistent with Obama’s previously stated positions, Obama told Cantor that, “I was elected, Eric.” Well, the Democrats were the ones elected, and selected by the people of Illinois, as you are quick to point out when it is convenient for you argument. Now the shoe is on the other foot. Good Luck!
Comment by Cincinnatus Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 10:48 am
Cincy, you’re the self-appointed spokesman for “The He-Man Democrat-Haters Club.” I get it.
But at some point you have to climb down from the treehouse and govern. It’s not a Republican or Democratic party thing.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 10:55 am
Cinci - Maybe you’ve heard of some guys named Thompson, Edgar, and Ryan. I seem to recall they wielded some power in Springfield for a while. I’m also pretty sure they weren’t Democrats.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 10:56 am
No. They will try to cut benefits only. Reform would mean changing the practice- not funding at the actuarial required level- which got us into this mess.
When they passed the pension changes for new hires, they gave the Chicago Public Schools a three year pension holiday at a cost of over $1 billion to future Chicago taxpayers and passed it off as “reform”.
Comment by Truthteller Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 10:56 am
First comes the parsing of words of comments like Cincinnatus. Then comes mention of Governors who sat in the mansion 20+ years ago (I don’t include Ryan, his stint was overshadowed by his own criminality). Going back in time to prove whose fault something is doesn’t work in disagreements between reasonable people - certainly not useful in family arguments, just ask a therapist.
Maybe we can agree that the democrats have been in charge since the whole pension thing came to a head. If we use that as a starting point we can begin to review how well that has been working. The GOP has little to gain here since they have no power to assert their agenda. Do we really think Madigan will allow them to have lasting input? I don’t know the answer to that question. It’s a tough situation. A massive problem and not much leadership to address it. Stunning.
Many hands have been involved on both sides of the aisle for many years. Figuring out who started it or who’s more to blame is a cop out. A waste of time. Think of it - if we can find out the name of the person who did it, can we collect from him/her? Maybe we could bill the Illinois GOP if it turns out they are to blame. Sheesh.
Comment by dupage dan Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 11:12 am
– It is not in the best short-term interest of either party to fix this mess. –
Who cares about the interests of any “party?”
Seriously, does anyone think there’s a coherent or monolithic Democratic or Republican party in this state? They’re the easiest paths to the ballot for ambitious people, nothing more.
Does party well-being have anything to do with anyone’s lives?
You’re elected to the General Assembly of Illinois. You have a job to do. Hiding behind party interests to avoid responsibility is absurd.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 11:13 am
Fiscal responsibility is not a partisan issue, so let’s just say shame on any and all legislators Governors for not funding the pension system as was their responsibility.
To the question: Madigan gave the GOP their chance to share the blame/accolades for a pension fix before session adjourned in May. I knew the fix was in to back out of any and all support for the plan when “Leader” Radogno decided to pull her support for the bill in special session, because all of a sudden there was perceived political advantage to do so. Screw the union employees, goodie for us at the ballot box.
We’ll soon see if this was good strategy.
There of course will be hell to pay via Madigan after a reform bill passes with no GOP votes. Get ready for the you know what storm.
Comment by Loop Lady Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 11:19 am
BTW, I voted no. If I were the ILGOP I would be leery of working with the dems at this point. They may fear being saddled with all the blame.If I were the dems I would be looking to spread the blame, as it were.
Just read words’ points above. As long as it pertains to both parties I would agree.
Comment by dupage dan Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 11:26 am
Okay, Word, I’ll bite. Just what, specifically and in detail, you you expect the Republicans to propose that would be accepted by the Democrats? And isn’t it really going to be “my way or the highway” from Madigan/Quinn/Cullerton, just like the 67% income tax increase? Why would any Republican try to fight the tide with a teaspoon?
I will say this, I think the Republicans HAVE presented ideas. How about Fortner? Hasn’t Schnorf tossed out a couple of ideas? Now you will say it’s nothing unless Republicans draft legislation, which will never get called by Madigan and the Democrats. All the Republicans can do is be made the target of Democrats in ads and press releases. And saying this, I still think the Republicans should “flood the zone” and put forth a thousand different ideas to show how devoid of any solutions (other than tax increases) the Democrats truly are.
Comment by Cincinnatus Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 11:42 am
Please remove the “for DDan” above. That was unfair of me. I misread your comments.
Comment by walkinfool Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 11:51 am
This really isn’t very complicated.”The Problem” as Madigan sees it, is how he manages to maintain as many of the abusive excesses in the pension system as he can, the “too early retirements”, the heavily sudsidized healthcare and 3% increases in pensions, the “end of career spiking” and double dipping his public employee patrons enjoy. He also wants to maintain as much of the pork capital work that can be directed to connected contractors and unions as he can, in addition to giving expansive Medicaid eligibility and those milions of dollars in boondoggle grants to his supporters.
His midnite, job-killing 67% income tax increase wasn’t enough to maintain this largesse, so he wants to shift a large proportion of the pension liability and cost to suburban taxpayers by cost shifting.
If he does this, his union patrons will understand and keep the cash flow and campaign support coming, knowing they’re MUCH better off with him than Cross.
He wants the GOP support to hurt the suburban and downstate schools and real estate taxpayers because they largely vote Republican anyway, and suburban taxpayers will be far less forgiving of GOP GA members for doing it than Madigan’s city and union supporters.
Here’s what will happen.
Madigan WILL stick it to suburban and downstate taxpayers by cost shifting of pension obligations to taxpayers. He will NOT make any significant reductions in public employee pension benefits,pension system abuse, the 3% raises or pre-Medicare, “too early” retiree health insurance contributions.
If the GOP cooperates, an act of political suicide, they may be able to lessen the severity of the cost shifting damage to their constituents.
If the GOP doesn’t cooperate, he’ll pull a lame duck midnite “shaft the suburbs” legislative session as he did with the tax increase.
From what I understand, burdening the suburban taxpayers by shifting pension costs is non-negotiable to Madigan, as is any serious reduction in pension abuse or cost reduction.
The GOP loses either way. They might as well deny Madigan any political benefit from the GOP voters and taxpayers by refusing to fall on their own sword. What other position makes any sense?
Comment by Palos Park Bob Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 11:55 am
I believe the dems do want a bi-partisan solution to the problem, but the problem is not the pensions. The pensions didn’t demand to be borrowed from for over four decades to fund programs that our elected representatives in both parties wanted, but didn’t want to raise taxes to pay for.
The result of all those decades of borrowing is the debt owed to the pensions, not the pensions themselves, which are quite reasonable, and their normal cost quite payable.
So, whether the parties are sincere about wanting a bipartisan solution to “the pension problem” is irrelevant, since the pensions aren’t the problem, the debt owed to them is.
The taxpayers (all of us), through our elected representatives, benefitted from lower taxes over those 4-plus decades due to the run up of that debt, and we’re the ones who have to pay it back.
Hey pension funds, we borrowed too much from you over the years. Thanks for being there so we could fund programs that we didn’t want to pay for. If we had borrowed from a bank, and tried to stiff them like we’re trying to stiff you now through the current crop of illegal bills, the banks would be first in line for repayment, and the courts, if it went that far, would rule in their favor. But you, you convenient, non-bank pensions funds are not banks, and we think we can get away with stiffing you by demonizing your very existance.
Dear pols from both parties, whether you vote in a bipartisan manner or not to pass illegal bills doesn’t matter. That will solve nothing.
The pensions are the victim, not the problem. Quit blaming the victim. Solve the debt problem by taxing the people who benefitted from your debt run-up in the first place.
Kthxbye
Comment by PublicServant Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 11:59 am
Cincy, please don’t speak for Fortner or Schnorf or anyone else in the delusion that you’re all in the same treehouse.
As far as what would be “accepted,” often when it comes to lousy jobs, there’s a give-and-take that miraculously results in legislation that passes with the bare minimum. It’s called a structured rollcall.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 12:02 pm
We should define bipartisanship as an honest attempt to find someone to share responsibility with for another government disaster.
I voted yes, because I perceive that the Democratic leadership, which has been in charge in Springfield for the last 10 years (and even longer in the House) wants anything but to be solely responsible for fixing the government pension mess that they have had a large (if not the biggest) part in creating, and have not addressed in the last 10 years that they have been running the one-party state in Illinois.
I recognize and applaud their attempt at blame shifting bipartisanship!
Comment by Disinterested Taxbillpayer Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 12:03 pm
Public Servant
You cannot repeat this often enough. Folks just don’t want to acknowledge that they’ve been the beneficiaries of artifically low taxes all these years. Pension funds were paying for all the goods and services we all received without having to increase the tax rate to pay for them. But it’s easier to deflect. As I read recently, “If someone steals your wallet, should it be called wallet reform”?
Comment by geronimo Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 12:08 pm
You must need a reading lesson today, Word, since I did not claim to speak for anyone but myself. ALL I did was show two Republicans who HAVE floated ideas. I’m still waiting for ONE Democrat to say anything other than raise taxes. And as usual, you deflect the issue to others. Where are your solutions?
Comment by Cincinnatus Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 12:22 pm
“It’s not a Republican or Democratic party thing”
That also applies to the decades of labor sweeteners benefiting the patrons of the Democrat party?
Comment by Plutocrat03 Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 12:28 pm
No. There is nothing in it for both parties to find common ground.
Let the Democrats find ways to fix their marriage to the Union.
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 12:35 pm
Pluto, I really can’t help guys like you and Cincy. You have a world-view that is as unrealistic as it is unshakeable.
Seriously, is it your belief that GOP office-holders were not partners with labor unions over the years?
Is it your contention that patronage — government employment and/or contracts as a result of political partisanship — was solely a Democratic Party building block? That would be news to many payrollers.
Just curious — what’s the “Democrat” party thing? Is it some kind of insult or something? What’s the dealio?
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 12:39 pm
Funding appropriately both parties can dicker over the blame. But the sweeteners and deals that also contributed to the problem lie primarily to one side. Now that one party has total control, they’ve taken responsibility to fix it or kick the can down the road. I think they’ll kick the can on “comprehensive” due to their labor constituency, but they may pass something of a start to reform that will be labeled as comprehensive reform, thus kicking the can down the road.
Comment by Shemp Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 12:42 pm
What makes you think we need help from the likes of you, Word? The real world says that Democrats are in charge, an undeniable fact. What is lacking is Democratic leadership, or are you guys just leading from behind, as usual?
Comment by Cincinnatus Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 12:59 pm
Cincy, I’m like Groucho, I wouldn’t be a member of any group that would have me.
I’ve voted for Republicans for offices from president on down. Democrats, too.
Zealotry in the service of nothing does not appeal to me.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 1:08 pm
Bi-partisan - No, from either side.
Compromise seems to be a dirty word these days. Hopefully I’ll see it again in my lifetime, would be a nice change of pace.
And I’d like to add there seems to be a lot of partisan bickering on the blog. Maybe our legislators “are” representatives of their constituents!
Comment by Ready To Get Out Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 1:10 pm
== But the sweeteners and deals that also contributed to the problem lie primarily to one side.==
I don’t know what “sweeteners” you are referring to but you should check the roll calls. Most pension legislation passed in the last 30 years has been almost unanimous. So much for “one sided”. You also didn’t say which side.
Comment by Bill Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 1:21 pm
Yes, to see that blame is shared as much as possible. The D’s will probably be willing to limit the magnitude of the cost shifting if R votes support the total package. If D’s have to go it alone, then shifting of normal costs will be full (+/-), the payments over the next 30-40 years will be re-configured (Fortner-ish), something will be included to further “guarantee” annual contributions, and pension reductions will be included but these will be formulated to all but assure rejection by the courts.
The package will be passed soon after the coming election so that the courts can toss out the pension reductions well before 2014, in order to maximize forgiveness time prior to the next election.
Throw in some “coincidental” changes to the gambling package depending upon whether or not there is R support for the pension package.
Is it still “bipartisanship” if it is a deal that cannot be refused?
Comment by east central Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 1:34 pm
Voted no.. Both parties have different constituencies which have different wants needs and desires. YDD I wish our elected leaders considered what is best for the state but they consider what will get me elected or what can be used against me. Or in the case of Madigan consolidating even more power.
Comment by Fed up Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 2:07 pm
why do anything let the next guy worry about it, they have their golden parachute, my tax dollars
Comment by bullet Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 2:10 pm
Rather than parse the words, word, I would like to hear your response to Cincinnatus’ post of 11:42am.
=But at some point you have to climb down from the treehouse and govern. It’s not a Republican or Democratic party thing=
Are you naive or are you just pretending to be a deep thinker with simple solutions at hand. The party in the minority doesn’t govern, certainly not with the draconian rules in existence. Yeah, I know, the GOP had a big hand in creating those rules to maintain their own power years ago. Blah, blah blah. They ain’t in power now and can’t push legislation that the party in power can prevent from even being brought to the floor. They GOP may whine and cry from the sidelines pouting and saying they are being denied a seat at the table. I wish they would stop that.
The reality remains, however, there are 2 parties (even if the Constitution doesn’t mention them - an inane comment BTW). We can even agree the issue is one that can be laid at the table of both parties. The kumbaya stops there, however. The dems hold the power strings and can prevent the GOP from doing anything more than voting yea or nay on the dems legislation. How does that constitute governance?
Comment by dupage dan Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 2:10 pm
dupage dan - There have been several pension proposals from Democrats, it’s been in the papers, anyone saying Fortner is the only legislator that’s submitted a plan isn’t paying attention.
And yes, the Democrats are currently in power and it’s looking like they may pass something on their own. Refusing to participate because they’re not in control doesn’t make the GOP heroes, it makes them cowards.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 2:14 pm
dupage dan’s last paragraph seems to sum it up quite well.
Comment by capncrunch Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 2:18 pm
dupage dan
Doesn’t matter that Jim Edgar was governor 20 years ago. Pension payment amounts are set by his pension “ramp-up” law that he passed with Pate Philip. And, until that changes, he owns part of this problem, no matter how long ago he was in office.
Comment by Anyone Remember? Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 2:32 pm
The dems are only interested in what they can get out of anything they pass, if nothing is in it for them there is no interest. The D’s and the R’s have had time to fix this but just keep on kicking the can down the road hoping it will go away.
Comment by Zoble21 Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 2:51 pm
stl,
I never said that the dems didn’t float proposals. Please point to where I did. I don’t agree that the GOP has refused to participate, I stated that they have no control over the flow of legislation from the get go. What difference does it make if they have ideas when they can’t get them to the floor for debates/votes? That was the gist of my post and you didn’t address that at all. Just more pablum.
Comment by dupage dan Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 2:54 pm
@Fed up-
Think of it as “enlightened self-interest” from the Democrats’ perspective.
The top four budget priorities of nearly every Democrat are education, health care, human services and job creation, in some order or another.
“Pensions” are not on that list.
Now, as Bill Clinton pointed out, We may not have PHD’s in economics, but Democrats can do arithmetic. As Quinn has pointed out, every dollar spent servicing pension debt is a dollar less for education, human services, health care or job creation.
As Mayor Daley once noted, “good government is good politics,” and that’s certainly true in this case.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 3:00 pm
Cinci, VMan and DD:
You guys are pathetic in your continued towing of the Republican Party line. It is a complete failure on your part and the part of the Republican Party to continue to throw out the excuse that the Democrats don’t need your help for anything. No wonder the Republican Party is in as pathetic shape as it is in. Why would anyone want you in charge when it’s clear you don’t want to play any part in the game? You show your true colors with your ignorant comments here today. Leadership is something indeed which you and “your” party clearly lack. Pathetic!!!
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 3:10 pm
==What makes you think we need help from the likes of you==
Spoken like a true loser. And you wonder why the Republican Party is such a disaster in this state?
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 3:15 pm
If I remember, Dillard mentioned that the responsible thing may be to shift some costs IF there were also shifts of funding from Chicago where they are disproportionate, and mandate relief from Springfield so that Suburban and Downstate school districts and other governing units can establish their own criteria.
Comment by Cincinnatus Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 3:18 pm
We are laying off teachers to pay for retired teachers, while trying to shift the blame to the Republicans. This demonstrates that Democrats care less about working teachers than about unions, and puts children at the bottom of the heap. But hey, let’s spend weeks and money on gay marriage, or wind powered bullet trains or whatever. No point in stopping everything else and working with singleminded purpose on the one issue that will sink Illinois. Hey, maybe we can call another useless Special Session and waste another $80k (Notice it was done during the Fair, perhaps so the elected officials could expense their attendance? Hey, how was Cheap Trick?)
So, to reiterate, we’ve had Fortner, Schnorf and Dillard float ideas. I know nobody on the Democrat side has reached out to Dillard, I’ll ask Fortner if anyone is talking to him or if he is pushing on a rope, and we can hear from Steve right in these here threads.
Comment by Cincinnatus Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 3:25 pm
- Please point to where I did. -
You asked wordslinger to respond to Cinci’s 11:42 post, in which Cinci did just that.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 3:28 pm
- Anonymous - Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 3:10 pm,
I have given three concrete examples of proposals made by prominent Republicans. The Democrats offer nothing other than increased taxes and vacuous excuses. Democrats control this State for one reason alone, Cook County.
- Demoralized - Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 3:15 pm:
==What makes you think we need help from the likes of you==
Spoken like a true loser. And you wonder why the Republican Party is such a disaster in this state?
You mean the State with monopoly Democrat control, right? There are plenty of Republican ideas, and some prominent Republicans with a proven track record of bipartisanship willing to help. Yet here we are, Democrats unable, unwilling, or both to lead. And, as usual, the Democrat posters devolve to ad hominem attacks instead of addressing the issues. That’s a loser, friend.
- Small Town Liberal - Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 3:28 pm:
- Please point to where I did. -
You asked wordslinger to respond to Cinci’s 11:42 post, in which Cinci did just that.
Notice that nobody here offered a response to the question.
Comment by Cincinnatus Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 3:48 pm
C, thanks. No one before you has ever called me a “prominent” Republican. Many of my R cohorts would really prefer that I shut up.
Comment by steve schnorf Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 3:56 pm
Steve,
Ideas are needed. I know you are a supporter of increased revenues and try to strike a balanced approach with lowered costs. We are no longer in a place where we can avoid addressing the systemic, structural problems with the State’s finances. Unfortunately, I don’t think many believe we have a structural problem, and think we can put a couple of mustard plasters on a call it a day.
I have been saying since I first joined the discussions here at CapFax that we need to look at the size and scope of government. If we increase revenues, we also have to cut back on the intrusive nature of State government. If we are going to put costs back to the Suburbs and Downstate, we must also increase their local control and cut back on State requirements and mandates. If we are going to cost-shift to Suburban and Downstate school districts, we must level the funding discrepancies with Chicago.
Unfortunately, what i see here is that one side wants to have only one side of the equation.
Comment by Cincinnatus Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 4:04 pm
Would someone please explain how any possible pension reform can solve what I understand to be an total $83,000,000,000 shortfall? Just do the arithmetic for me. Thanks!
Comment by wishbone Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 4:08 pm
wb, the proposals currently under consideration use various tactics to significantly reduce the $83B number, largest of which is significantly reducing the cost of future COLAs, and also move more than $1B a year in state spending over to local school districts, public universities, and community colleges. That leaves a manageable annual state cost to amortize the remaining unfunded liability by 2045
Comment by steve schnorf Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 4:18 pm
$83,000,000,000 is understated, remember, as it is assuming unrealistic rates of return. Add in a couple tens of billions for good measure then we’re probably talking a realistic measure.
Comment by Shemp Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 4:19 pm
shemp, it doesn’t matter as much as you think because you are then amortizing the (larger) unfunded liability (at a lower rate of interest; e.g. 8m @ 6% = 6m @ 8%
Comment by steve schnorf Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 4:26 pm
- Notice that nobody here offered a response to the question. -
Because there have been multiple proposals from Democrats. They’ve even been brought to a vote. The GOP wouldn’t even vote to reform their own plan.
Endlessly repeating that Democrats “offer nothing other than increased taxes and vacuous excuses” doesn’t make it true, no matter how bad you want it to be.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 4:28 pm
You must have an understanding of how we got where we are and the consequences of the change required to get us on the right track. A rare few do and still a rarer few have what it takes to act.
Above all, you must be able to set aside all the influence of all the special interest groups and make hard choices…knowing that those choices will likely cost your job.
We didn’t come this far by the mismanagement or errors of a few. We came this far because of many wanting something for nothing and passing the burden of that cost on for many years.
A good first step would be strong ethics legislation, but that simply will not happen until many feel the pain.
Neither party is capable of making these hard choices until the bottom completely falls out from under all of us. Even then they will blame the worker who faithfully contributed while they spent the money.
I personally hold our esteemed legislators accountable but I am but one voice. Time for a chorus.
Comment by Sunshine Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 4:32 pm
c, we’ve received the increased revenues that I believed were necessary. I am impatient with anyone who truly believes they can be allowed to go away, and very suspicious of those who are smart enough to know they can’t but still argue that they should.
Beyond that we are now on the managing expenditures side of the equation. The cuts that were done in the ‘13 budget were a good start. Now they need to be added to in the next couple of budgets. Whether reducing the size of government is a proper part of that I don’t yet have an opinion on.
Comment by steve schnorf Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 4:42 pm