Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Trouble in paradise
Next Post: Rate the video
Posted in:
* Speaker Madigan was initially opposed to creating the pension reform conference committee, saying it was “an effort by the governor to distance himself from the process.” After Gov. Quinn assured him that he would stay very involved, Madigan relented.
But the Speaker still believes that this is the governor’s baby, and as subscribers already know, the governor is gonna have to round up the votes to pass any solution that the conference committee comes up with.
(O)n an ominous note, he warned that if the House-Senate conference committee presents a compromise pension reform bill in the next week or so, it will not necessarily mean he’ll lead a rush to Springfield to vote on it.
“I’m prepared to go to Springfield whenever we have 60 votes in the House and 30 votes in the Senate to do pension changes,” Madigan said. “So it doesn’t make much sense to go there and to consider a bill if you don’t have the required number of votes to pass it.”
I wasn’t all that upbeat about the conference committee at first, either, but its members appear to be doing their job. The governor explained in June that while calling legislators at the end of session he’d heard over and over that there needed to be some way to find common ground between the then-deadlocked House Speaker and Senate President.
So, he should get more credit for the conference committee, especially if it succeeds in coming up with an agreement. But when Madigan says “It’s your baby,” it often means he won’t be working on behalf of the bill. He did that last year when Quinn persuaded him to hand sponsorship of the pension bill to House GOP Leader Tom Cross. The proposal crashed and burned as Madigan’s members got the hint and backed away. Quinn isn’t much of a lobbyist, so don’t expect him to find House majorities right away.
* Meanwhile…
The conference committee on pension reform may be close to an agreement, according to State Sen. Bill Brady (R-Bloomington).
“I don’t see any reason that we haven’t received enough scoring to be able to come to a consensus on a reform package that we could present as early as next week to the General Assembly,” Brady said.
The big question now is whether they slow-walk the bill until they get the legislative salary veto issue resolved. Forcing the governor to put votes on the bill alone would be one way of doing that.
* Speaking of the pay veto, the Speaker wasn’t thrilled with the judge’s hearing schedule…
“I would have appreciated a quicker schedule, a more expedited schedule, I would have appreciated that, but it’s the judge’s decision,” Madigan said.
That September 18th hearing date was a clear indication that this judge doesn’t want to get involved. Those who believed the case was a slam dunk because Madigan supposedly “controls” so many Cook County judges were just flat-out wrong. The mid-September hearing date for oral arguments was a big setback for Madigan’s case.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 9:36 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Trouble in paradise
Next Post: Rate the video
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
this all doesnt bode well for a gubernatorial campaign for Senator Raoul.
Comment by anon Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 9:43 am
I don’t see anything wrong with a bipartisan group of reps. and senators trying to find common ground on a complex and contentious issue.
The one’s screaming loudest for immediate action are those who are the first to decry bossism in the GA.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 9:45 am
It would certainly help if the Governor would get involved in the process. His continued lack of a plan that he supports is creating a lot of uncertainty, especially with his comments that it must fully take care of the problem. Whatever “fully” means?
Comment by Cassiopeia Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 9:47 am
If the committee really is close to an agreement, could Quinn start paying legislators again in exchange for them finalizing an agreement and other legislators’ agreeing to vote for the agreement?
But with Madigan not on board and so many bad feelings between Quinn and legislators generally, I still am skeptical that anything will pass this year.
Comment by Robert the Bruce Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 9:49 am
I was very dubious about the conference committee believing it was just another stunt. But this one appears to be paying some dividends. If it works, Quinn actually deserves some credit.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 9:53 am
How does Quinn start paying the legislators does he veto his veto.
Comment by Fed up Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 9:55 am
==If it works, Quinn actually deserves some credit.==
Let’s hope he doesn’t claim credit until something is actually passed, because his claiming credit will probably antagonize some petulant legislators, who might delay passage of anything due to their personal distaste for Quinn.
Comment by Robert the Bruce Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 10:03 am
It may not be a coincidence, that this conference committee is making progress because it isn’t holding public meetings and its members aren’t regularly announcing Quinn-like ultimatums to the press or constant issue updates, and it’s actually taking its time to deliberate despite the ADD ravings of the Tribune.
To further test this notion, we’ll see what happens when it has to make its negotiations public and the TV cameras are back in force and the press conferences and position taking resume.
Comment by ZC Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 10:14 am
So I guess in Madigan’s mind SB2404 would have of course been soundly defeated in the House!!
Gotta luv the Caputz of this guy!
Comment by WhoKnew Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 10:14 am
If we have to depend on Pat Quinn to garner enough votes for passage of pension reform (or even any vote for that matter), we might as well drop the charade and begin plans for filing an Illinois bankruptcy.
Comment by downstate hack Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 10:17 am
Rub-a-dub-dub, three men in a tub. MJM, Cullerton and Quinn all have a lot at stake here. I’m not sure Quinn isn’t exactly where the other 2 want him on this; a safe distance. There’s communication between them precisely because we’re not hearing any. I’m surprised Brady even went so far with his remarks. He’s either doing it with the Con Com’s permission or about to get his mouth washed out with soap. Time will tell…apparently in the next week or so we’ll see the broth.
Comment by A guy... Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 10:21 am
Madigan ““I’m prepared to go to Springfield whenever we have 60 votes in the House and 30 votes in the Senate to do pension changes,” Madigan said. “So it doesn’t make much sense to go there and to consider a bill if you don’t have the required number of votes to pass it.””
Um cullertons bill has the reuired number of votes to pass it. I would hope somone calls the speaker on this bit of hypocrisy. perhaps the tribune editorial board would right a scathing diatribe against madigan for not running a much needed pension reform bill that has support to pass.
Comment by Ghost Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 10:32 am
Quinn has earned his political brownie points for his item veto gambit. However, if he wanted to speed up pension reduction, he’s done the opposite. Legislators can be a very surly bunch when aggrieved. Missing two paychecks will certainly weigh heavily on the minds of a lot of folks who depend upon their legislative salary.
Comment by Norseman Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 11:12 am
Maybe Judges will be in this new proposal?….just saying…
Comment by BoSox Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 11:22 am
This is all a meaningless side show. With close to 1 million state and local government retirees and those entitled to pensions, the demographics are politically dangerous. Roll in interested spouses and other family employees and sympathetic federal employees with pensions, you are talking about the ONLY issue for a whole lot of folks. Out of four homes surrounding me, two are local government retirees. One is a retired CPS teacher and his daughter works for the feds and son in law for Chicago.
In my humble opinion, any state legislator which votes for meaningful pension reform is toast. Nothing happens until pension costs crowd out services to the point the private sector folks really, really feel the pinch and convince legislators that they will vote the issue and outweigh negate the government sector money and campaign work. Don’t see this until a few more years out.
Comment by Cook County Commoner Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 12:25 pm
Robert the Bruce @ 9:49 am:
There is no way for Quinn to start the GA’s pay back up. The only ways for the GA to get paid are override the veto, get a judge to rule the veto is meaningless due to seperation fo powers or the no pay reduction statute, or pass a supplemental with just their pay in it that Quinn will have to sign off on.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 12:39 pm
Will be interesting to see Quinn trying to round up votes among the people whose pay he just suspended.
How to win friends and influence legislators - NOT!
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 1:21 pm
Hack
Plans for Illinois filing for bankruptcy…….
Sorry to disappoint the sayers of doom but Illinois cannot declare bankruptcy. You may want to take the blinders off and actually read up on this……..
Comment by Old and In The Way Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 1:40 pm
If someone else comes up with a solution to Illinois’ pension troubles, Madigan won’t lift a finger to support it?
Talk about bitter apples/sour grapes.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 2:12 pm
MJM’s failure to call Cullerton’s bill for a vote reeks of “if you aren’t going to play the game my way then get off of my baseball diamond. I’m locking the gate to it.”
That said, I agree with the comments that if we have to wait for Quinn to get the votes, the state will only be in more & more of a fiscal mess.
Comment by Kevin Highland Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 2:21 pm
I very much doubt that we will see a pension bill from the Conference Committee until after the September 18th hearing date. Meanwhile, Quinn will appear to be fighting for the taxpayers, and Madigan and Cullerton will play the part of the patriots who are protecting constitutional separation of powers.
Comment by Ruby Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 3:11 pm
Bill Brady said yesterday that the co-called compromise bill the CC is considering would save the state $150 Billion, vs. $187 Billion in Madigan’s bill - presumably at the expense of pension system members. This sounds like an extremely one-sided compromise to me.
Let me reiterate once again how utterly draconian the Madigan bill was. I am on the cusp of getting a pension from Illinois, and I have not worked for the state since 2001. The COLA provisions in the bill alone would diminish the present value of my benefits over my expected actuarial lifetime by 21%. So I can only guess at this point that the CC bill will cost me 80% as much, or about 17% of my benefits. Wow, I feel much better!
One more point: short of bankruptcy (which states cannot declare) this would be unprecedented in the history of the United States. Private sector employers were never permitted to cut benefits for pension plan participants who had already retired, or to diminish benefits that had already been earned based on past employment; rather, they were only allowed to change the accumulation of additional benefits based on continued employment going forward. Many provisions in Madigan’s bill (including the COLA modifications) go way beyond that.
Comment by Andrew Szakmary Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 3:18 pm
Will the state pay interest on withheld salary?
Comment by Cincinnatus Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 3:33 pm
I bleive the “university Plan” as it is called, will need to be ajusted if it is to be found legal. To say 1/2 inflation rate period is diminishment. Now, rate of inflation up to say 1 1/2% or 2% and then 1/2 the rate of inflaton above that to say a cap of 5% or 6% might be interesting. Consideration for loosing the 3% fixed COLA replaced by rate of inflation to a certain lower level and then added inflation protection above the 3% level. I beleive the plan will need to tie itself to inflation up to a certain point and then allow inflation protection in periods of higher inflation up to a cap. Would like to see no cap but supsect that will be insisted upon.
Comment by facts are stubborn things Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 4:12 pm
what has always seemed interesting to me though, is this. If there are savings then where do they come from? Isn’t the savings sort of proofe of diminishment? Need “RNUG and OLD and IN THE WAY” to jump in on this one.
Comment by facts are stubborn things Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 4:25 pm
==f there are savings then where do they come from? Isn’t the savings sort of proofe of diminishment?==
Not quite. You could cut back on the amount of benefits that can be earned in the future, so that the same annual payments into the system would pay down the underfunding more quickly, saving future costs the same as paying off your credit cards faster. But the existing $100b in underfunding can’t be reduced without either paying it or diminishing benefits, because the $100b is for benefits already earned.
Comment by Anon. Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 6:57 pm
@Anon. - Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 6:57 pm:
True enough, but was more thinking in terms of those already retired and the COLA not those working still to retire.
Comment by facts are stubborn things Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 8:29 pm
For those already retired, you cannot do anything that is not a diminishment.
Comment by Anon. Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 9:47 pm
How is this pension reform going to affect Gov. Quinn ,Speaker Madigan and the rest of the
General Assembly. Why is it about the people that worked hard for people of the State Of Illinois that paid into the system. The problem will continue with double dipping and borrowing .You have taken our money that we paid and have the right to.THE QUESTION SHOULD BE WAS IT LEGAL TO TAKE OUR MONEY OR BORROW IT WITH OUT PAYING IT OR GIVING IT BACK.
Comment by No Sense Friday, Aug 9, 13 @ 9:27 am
No Sense @ 9:27 am:
It was legal because (a) the framers of the 1970 pension clause inadvertently left a loophole and (b) the IL SC said in IFT the state could get away with it using that loophole.
In IFT, the IL SC also expressed the opinion that the pensions DID have to be paid when due (implied no reductions). In the subsequent decades / decisions, the IL SC has been pretty consistent about no diminishment.
What is more important is whether the current IL SC will see it same way.
Comment by RNUG Friday, Aug 9, 13 @ 10:55 am