Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Quinn quietly signs fracking bill
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* At one time, the Senate’s union-negotiated pension reform bill had 23 House co-sponsors. Three have dropped off since House Speaker Michael Madigan attached a hostile amendment which would strip the bill and replace it with Madigan’s pension reform bill.
The We Are One Illinois coalition has been circulating a letter demanding that Madigan call the Cullerton pension bill without an amendment. The co-signers…
llinois Comptroller Judy Baar Topinka (R)
Senator Melinda Bush (D-31)
Senator Jaqueline Collins (D-16)
Senator Bill Cunningham (D-18)
Senator Michael Frerichs (D-52)
Senator David Koehler (D-46)
Senator Toi Hutchinson (D-40)
Senator Mike Jacobs (D-36)
Senator Andy Manar (D-48)
Senator Sam McCann (R-50)
Senator Julie Morrison (D-29)
Senator Michael Noland (D-22)
Senator Steve Stadelman (D-34)
Senator Donne Trotter (D-17)
Rep. Kelly Cassidy (D-14)
Rep. Jack Franks (D-63)
Rep. Robyn Gabel (D-18)
Rep. Jay Hoffman (D-113)
Rep. Robert Martwick (D-19)
Rep. Rita Mayfield (D-60)
Rep. Elgie Sims (D-34)
Rep. Mike Smiddy (D-71)
Rep. Michael Tryon (R-66)
Rep. Larry Walsh (D-86)
Rep. Chris Welch (D-7)
Rep. Ann Williams (D-11)
Rep. Sam Yingling (D-62)
Interesting that JBT heads the list. Big get for the unions.
But just 13 House members? Really? That’s just over half the original co-sponsor numbers. What the heck?
* There is one interesting angle here. Of those 13 House members, three (Franks, Gabel and Yingling) voted for Madigan’s bill. And since Madigan’s bill received just 62 votes, it might not have passed without them. Maybe they should’ve told their Speaker “No” the first time around.
Then again, Madigan would’ve probably just pulled a few more folks out of his back pocket to pass the thing.
…Adding… Rep. Raymond Poe (R-Springfield) just asked to be added to the list.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 2:05 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Quinn quietly signs fracking bill
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
- circulating a letter -
At Father’s Day dinner yesterday, I asked my sister, who’s an AFSCME member, if her union leaders had been asking members to call their Reps in support of calling Cullerton’s bill. She said she hadn’t heard anything about it.
I don’t really understand why they wouldn’t do this, seems lazy to me.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 2:15 pm
One of the more troubling aspects of this to me, is I feel I am being denied represeantional Government. I realise this is a bit niave, but to me the cullerton bill should be called as is. Let madigan or the people who voted for the reps make the case for or againt the bill. But madigan denying the elcted represenatives the opportunity to even vote is troubling on the constitutional level. it reminds me a bit of Nixonian power grabs that we should fear.
The spirit of our system is that our elected represenatives will have a chance to vote up or donw on potential laws, and we can elect those represenatives based on, in part, if we think they will represent us the voters. By denying the original bill a vote madigan is denying us representational government in its most basic sense.
That the Civic Federation and Bill Daley are not troubled by this abuse of power becuase it gets them what they want tells you a lot about theri character. They can agree with the content of the madigan bill, but they should be demanding the cullerton bill also be voted upon.
Comment by Ghost Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 2:17 pm
When SB1 was voted in the House, their was not yet any agreement on a bill that became SB2404. Isn’t that correct? I think some people voted for the only game in town at the time; however, the agreed bill gave a much more viable alternative to support. I think that is why the switcheroo happened. I think that’s also why the essence of the Madigan bill’s support in the Senate declined from 23 to 16.
Comment by Bobbysox Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 2:30 pm
STL - AFSCME has to have your phone number or email provided by you for them to contact you. I can tell you they are NOT lazy, the emails are constant, with links to legislators and phone numbers for members to call. And this has been going on for weeks.
Comment by Ready To Get Out Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 2:36 pm
–That the Civic Federation and Bill Daley are not troubled by this abuse of power becuase it gets them what they want tells you a lot about theri character.–
I think they’re cool with that, lol.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 2:43 pm
word - Have to agree, doubt they are losing sleep over it!
Comment by Ready To Get Out Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 2:45 pm
Judging from some of the blogs and facebook pages I’ve seen, We are One is cheerleading hard but a lot of members are asking why We Are One was so quick to sell out its members when the Constitution says no cuts.
Comment by anon Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 2:55 pm
–
We are One is cheerleading hard but a lot of members are asking why We Are One was so quick to sell out its members when the Constitution says no cuts.
–
Because they’re damned if they do, damned if they don’t.
Besides, We Are One isn’t exactly “selling out”. They’re lending support to something that (to most folks at least) is clearly unconstitutional. Union support certainly won’t sway the ISC when they determine constitutionality — so why not support it at this point?
That way, they can at least avoid the bizarre: “AFSCME stood by while the pension declined” hyperbole (as if AFSCME had any juice whatsoever to prevent Madigan & co. from skipping payments.)
Comment by Frenchie Mendoza Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 3:11 pm
MJM’s react: “I have a sentimental weakness for my children and I spoil them, as you can see. They talk when they should listen. Anyway, Signor Cullerton, my ‘No’ to you is final. I want to congratulate you on your new business relationship with the unions and I’m sure you’ll do very well and good luck to you.”
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 3:22 pm
hmmmm. Ann Williams…..
Comment by Amalia Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 3:23 pm
- AFSCME has to have your phone number or email -
They’ve asked her to make calls before, maybe it’s just her leadership that isn’t asking. Just curious.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 3:27 pm
Seeing Sam McCann’s name in the list will be troubling to some of his conservative supporters.
Comment by Downstater Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 3:34 pm
It is laughable that the unions are calling for the Cullerton plan to be voted upon while attacking Madigan’s plan as unconstitutional. When using the “no diminishment unconstitutionality argument” (which is dubious at best) Cullertons’ bill is just at risk of being unconstitutional as Madigan’s. The unions are just wanting Cullerton passed in hopes that all this pension reform stuff will go away and the risk of a “draconian” plan such as Madigan’s being passed will be obviated.
The “unconstitutional” argument is just another union tactic to not allow Madigan’s bill passage. This is not about legal issues, it’s just about unions trying to protect their pension benefits using any political tactic possible.
Comment by biased observer Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 4:17 pm
Small Town Liberal,
I get AFSCME Council 31/We Are One action messages and news all the time, through social media. I got the same info on SB 2404 sponsors that was posted here today. These organizations do a good job of outreach, if members are connected.
Local leaders also have to do their jobs and inspire participation among their members, and members of course have to take the initiative to act. I know that with the back-pay issue, contract, step increases, and the rest, members are paying more attention. It’s a great idea to get members to sign up to these organizations and get their text messages, posts, etc.
Comment by Grandson of Man Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 4:35 pm
What in the world is “dubious” about the very plain, clear language in the state constitution? The only thing that is dubious is the “police powers” argument that some legislators are using to try and get around the constitution they swore to uphold.
Giving “police powers” to the very people that looted the pension systems in the first place? That would truly be laughable, even in this state.
Comment by Decaf Coffee Party Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 4:40 pm
@Small Town Liberal…your sister must live under a rock. We get emails, flyers constantly. She is evidently Fair Share…not a member and does not look at the union bulletin board and walks around with her under the sand. We get monlthly newsletters from our Locals and from Council 31.
Comment by KickHere Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 4:53 pm
Rich,
I don’t think the women on this board, soccermom excepted, caught the reference, but very nicely played Senor Sollozzo.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 4:56 pm
Adding to Decaf. As for “police powers” justification. If we are in such a fiscal emergency then why did we add almost $2billion in additional pork to this years budget over last year’s? Some emergency. Bogus. Pay off some overdue bills at least!
Comment by Old and In The Way Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 5:00 pm
KickHere - She’s not fair share, does not live under a rock, and attends her union meetings. In the past she’s received calls from her local leadership asking her to call her legislators, she hasn’t about this current session.
Thanks for being classy about your fellow members though, I’m sure you’re a hit around the water cooler.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 5:02 pm
Ghost @ 2:17
To the Civic Federation and Bill Daley this is not about solving the economic problems of Illinois, it is about taking away pensions from state workers to protect corporate welfare and CEO compensation. They did this to the pensions of private company workers and are working to do the same with Social Security benefits.
Comment by Ruby Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 5:07 pm
biased observer,
Our “tactic” fell short in the House, since SB 2404 was not called, while the Senate at least voted on SB 1. So we are left holding the bag with everybody else, if pension reform fails.
I got an email from Sen. Cullerton today, thanking me for supporting a failed bill that would have closed a few corporate tax loopholes. He then said that the corporate tax is a tiny part of the GRF and provided a pie chart. So is Cullerton saying that since corporate taxes are a small part of the fund anyway, they’re too small to raise? So they’re off limits? Don’t even think about it?
Nope, no corporate tactics here.
Cullerton could have been talking about SB 1159, that AFSCME said would have brought nearly $450 million a year in tax revenue. That bill was not called. AFSCME also said that the We Are One plan would have brought $2 billion in corporate tax revenue. Now this is not earth-shaking amounts of money, but it can be used to pay bills and take pressure off of other funding needs.
This, along with savings from SB 2404, has to be better than another year of letting the problem get worse.
Comment by Grandson of Man Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 5:08 pm
Old and in the way, nearly half that increase is the increase in the pension payment.
Grandson, last year the Senate voted to close a select few loopholes to come up with money for schools. Guess what? The House never called them for a vote.
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 5:58 pm
Now we know which House Dems have testicular fortitude and which mushrooms have been emasculated.
Comment by reformer Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 6:07 pm
I notice a certain federal prosecutor not on this list…
Comment by Ben S. Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 7:07 pm
It’s ironic that Dems claim to be the friend of labor, but it was the majority of House Republicans who voted against the Madigan bill. Human being can rationalize anything, even stabbing their friends in the back because “the Speaker made me.”
Comment by reformer Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 7:17 pm
Old,
ARe you actually expecting the GA to start acting in a fiscally prudent manner? Are you really suggesting that because GA is not acting in a fiscally prudent manner that “we must be okay financially and there is no problems.”
GA not acting in a prudent manner is what caused this mess over decades, I can’t believe you are expecting them to change.
Comment by biased observer Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 7:36 pm
Why isn’t the We Are One crew threatening to primary House members who voted for SB1 unless 2404 is called? They’re not applying any real pressure. Why? Afraid to go nuclear on the Speaker? Not really committed to SB2404?
Like Rich said in the headline…a letter is not enough. Extremely half-a–ed.
Comment by Robert Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 10:21 pm
Robert, that what everyone is asking.
- Robert - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 10:21 pm:
“Why isn’t the We Are One crew threatening to primary House members who voted for SB1 unless 2404 is called? They’re not applying any real pressure. Why? “
Comment by IL U employee Tuesday, Jun 18, 13 @ 8:31 am