Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Positioning, practicalities and politics weigh heavily against a House override
Next Post: Caption contest!
Posted in:
* Tribune…
Lawmakers approved the CPS bill at the end of June, but Cullerton did not send the measure to Rauner until last month. The delay was intended to provide time to reach a deal on a larger pension measure, but that was never achieved.
“If he wants to tie it to something else like pension reform, that’s something I am supportive of. We haven’t talked about putting the two things together at this point in time,” Cullerton said.
* Capitol Fax…
Cullerton said the governor told the leaders today that he wasn’t going to sign the CPS funding bill.
“The governor indicated that he thought before he would sign that he wanted to have some pension reform,” Cullerton said. “That was the governor’s insistence. We passed the bill and put it on his desk, so I would urge him to sign it. If he’s not going to sign it because he wants something else, he hasn’t told us what that is yet.”
* Rauner veto message…
Still, President Cullerton withdrew his motion to reconsider the bill, ruled that Leader Radogno’s motion was inapplicable, and presented the bill to me for approval or veto – forcing me to take action. Then today, President Cullerton suddenly denied that the leaders had agreed that this bill would depend upon first enacting comprehensive pension reform. Breaking our agreement undermines our effort to end the budget impasse and enact reforms with bipartisan support.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 10:54 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Positioning, practicalities and politics weigh heavily against a House override
Next Post: Caption contest!
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Has the Governor ever broken from his carefully scripted reality? Why would he start now?
Comment by His World Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 11:04 am
Vetoing the bill on the last day of Veto Session, long before gubernatorial action was required, was unnecessarily belligerent. He was clearly looking either for an excuse, or to make a provocative statement.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 11:05 am
The only surprise from yesterday was the Trumpishness of Rauner’s hair-trigger veto.
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 11:07 am
The governor has fun with the oompa-loompa game of misdirection and obfuscation (those are the nice euphemisms).
He’s paying big money for this hobby-horse, and he’s going to ride it as he sees fit for his personal enjoyment.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 11:07 am
There is nothing preventing Rauner, Radogno and Durkin from coming up with their own pension “reform” plan, is there? Other than is has to be Constitutional and also follow Illinois Supreme Court rulings on pension changes.
It reminds me of an old saying about farming, or any other endeavor for that matter, “If it was easy, everybody would be doing it.”
Comment by Joe M Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 11:08 am
It’s really a stretch to try and give President Cullerton cover on this one. The agreement was widely reported and well known. The reporters who questioned him yesterday rightfully pressed him on this obvious walking away from the agreement. This ones on Cullerton.
Comment by Jammin Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 11:09 am
===The agreement was widely reported and well known===
OK, but…
“If he wants to tie it to something else like pension reform, that’s something I am supportive of.”
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 11:11 am
1. The Governor didn’t want to sign the bill, preferring not to help CPS.
2. The Governor’s pension reform proposals are not constitutional and aren’t going anywhere in the General Assembly.
3. They could negotiate forever and not reach agreement on pension reform.
4. The Democrats got tired of the Governor’s games.
5. Here we are.
Comment by 47th Ward Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 11:11 am
The Governor wants a war.
Comment by northsider (the original) Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 11:14 am
“We haven’t talked about putting the two things together at this point in time…”
How is that NOT breaking the agreement?
Comment by Phil King Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 11:14 am
I suspect — as I said yesterday — that Karen Lewis was right. Rauner had no intention to give CPS the money in the first place. When the gears started to turn and Rauner realized what was going down — despite Cullerton’s willingness to bargain — he vetoed the bill.
Comment by Bobby Catalpa Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 11:14 am
===“We haven’t talked about putting the two things together at this point in time…”
How is that NOT breaking the agreement? ===
If they haven’t talked yet about putting it together, how is that breaking the agreement?
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 11:20 am
Perhaps the only real pension reform proposal out there is to actually “pay the bill” rather than keep trying to find creative, un-constitutional ways to renege on pension obligations. I wish that Cullerton would have told Rauner that as the pension reform proposal they had come up with. I’m guessing that Rauner still would have vetoed the CPS bill though.
Comment by Joe M Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 11:22 am
“Well, it depends what your definition of ‘breaking our agreement’ is” - Fake Bruce Rauner
Giving a play-by-play that is disputed with a veto statement is explaining in a way to push back a “realer” reason.
Rauner wants pain to CPS and teachers. Laying off teachers, union teachers, is good.
What, is Rahm going to complain. Ok, then what?
No downside.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 11:23 am
Because they HAD talked about it as part of the stop-gap, but then Cullerton went out, lied and said they had never talked about it. It’s on him.
Comment by anon Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 11:24 am
Seems like vintage Bruce. He wants the Democrats to come up with a legal way for his administration to short change the State Employees on their promised retirement benefit. He then of course can pin the blame on that party.
Comment by Bemused Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 11:25 am
There are no winners here. Only losers.
Comment by Responsa Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 11:28 am
It’s amazing to read all this. Strategy employed. Strategy boomeranged. Hold the bill, send it late, dare him to veto it. He does.
Then offer the parsed explanation your most staunch supporters can’t even believe.
Didn’t work. Doesn’t work. No more petulant meetings. Get in there and get a deal.
Comment by A guy Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 11:37 am
What exactly does anyone want in this so called pension reform? Not to give one (pension) to workers? Yeah, there are probably want to be teachers out there who would work for 10K and no benefits for the love of other peoples’ children. Go find them.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 11:38 am
–It’s amazing to read all this. –
You’re reading?
“If he wants to tie it to something else like pension reform, that’s something I am supportive of. We haven’t talked about putting the two things together at this point in time,” Cullerton said.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 11:42 am
RICH OR ANYBODY
Do you have any idea’s of what can be done to modify the pension burden and still fulfill the court orders requiring payment in ful.
If there is no solution then what is there to negotiate?
Comment by MOON Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 11:43 am
Negotiation Tactic #1
Eliminate funding for schools unless you get what you want.
Negotiation Tactic #2
Give me term limits and I will let you raise taxes.
Comment by Expert Negotiator Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 12:08 pm
The 205 million was always hinged on “meaningful” pension reform being passed in order for the money to be granted to CPS. I read that months ago and knew the money wasnt going to materialize. This is what was printed in various news articles on July 11, 2016:
“Then there’s the additional $205 million (the Chicago Tribune puts this figure at $202 million) in state funding that is earmarked for the Chicago teachers’ pension system. While this does constitute additional state funding for CPS, it will only be distributed if the supermajority Democrats propose meaningful pension reform, which is a key component of Gov. Rauner’s Turnaround Agenda, by January 2017. If Gov. Rauner isn’t presented with a viable plan to significantly overhaul the state’s crumbling pension systems, then CPS will not receive the additional $205 million.”
Comment by Maximus Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 12:10 pm
The thing that is crazy to me is the deficit hole of CPS for THIS fiscal year (which includes this State payment) was also to be filled with savings from the next teachers contract. They did not get that either, where were the outrage and press releases then? The only fix that actually got done was the property tax levy. Sigh, all parties are to blame here.
Comment by Former Bartender Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 12:12 pm
My take on all of this after going back and reading the various news articles from when the “agreement” to wait until after the election, which somehow wasn’t quite an agreement but just “semantics,” is that Rauner finally realized that he was being played as a fool by:
Speaker Michael Madigan
Senate President John Cullerton
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel
If I am correct, then a State shutdown is on the horizon. Between the lack of a budget due to certain immovable forces and a lack of a labor agreement due to certain immovable forces, could there be any other way of avoiding this catastrophe?
Arguing for the status quo after a $200+ CPS bailout “agreement” with a Governor who clearly bent on his positions to make this happen, sure sounds like a stunt to me. Sounds awfully like “lets do a complete budget first, then we will humor you by discussing your reform measures even though we continue to state that we will never agree to any of them.
Hopefully I’m wrong here. If I’m not, then all I can say is: “S.S. Illinois, meet this massive iceberg.”
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 12:12 pm
The Governor has stated numerous times he will support Senator Cullerton’s pension reform proposal.
Senator Cullerton tells us yesterday that the Governor has not told him what he wants before he signs the CPS pension bill.
He expects us to believe the Governor is vague and not offering specifics.
Senator Cullerton says he continues to support pension reform but will not call his own bill
Comment by Lucky Pierre Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 12:15 pm
- Louis G Atsaves -
So many words. Lots of words. Lots. Lots of blame too.
Didya forget the word “Veto”?
You, and the ILRaunerite State Party.
Rauner vetoed. Only a governor can veto.
You’re so proud, why not just type in ALL those words…
“Rauner vetoed to hurt CPS”
You should love that.
If Rauner so against the “status quo”, you and the State Party should use bold letters…
Rauner Vetoed to Hurt CPS!
Why won’t you?
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 12:18 pm
===Do you have any idea’s of what can be done to modify the pension burden and still fulfill the court orders requiring payment in ful.===
Madigan has long suggested what’s known as the cost shift: shifting the burden of paying the employers share of normal pension costs from the state to local school districts for teachers (CPS already pays this in Chicago) and to the public universities for their employees. That would lower the state’s cost of funding the pensions but would likely drive up local property taxes and tuition.
The Courts have said the promised pensions must be paid. They didn’t say which public entity must pay them. The only way for the state to get relief is to push the cost onto someone else.
Not ideal, but there you go. It’s one idea that’s been on the table for a while.
Comment by 47th Ward Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 12:22 pm
Rahm has been around for years and will continue to be, so folks really should learn to spell his name.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 12:23 pm
Rauner has succeeded in painting Chicago democrats into a corner. Who do they support, Chicago public school children and their families or the government unions resisting pension reform?
Senator Cullerton is one of the few democrats publicly supporting pension reform. It would be nice to find out who in their caucus is not. I don’t think the Speaker has weighed in recently other than to say it shouldn’t be linked to the budget.
If it wasn’t would he call Cullerton’s bill?
Comment by Lucky Pierre Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 12:27 pm
===Who do they support, Chicago public school children and their families or the government unions resisting pension reform?===
CTU and their image within Chicago and their relationships with parents and the community polls real well in Chicago.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 12:28 pm
47
Thanks for your input.
Any attempt to transfer the pension burden to local school districts, universities, etc. would never pass in the legislature. Also, under that plan, the State would still be responsible for making up the shortfall in the current pension deficit.
Comment by MOON Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 12:34 pm
Avoiding a 200 million+ dollar property tax increase every years after the average tax burden for Chicago families will increase by over $1,700 dollars over the next few years polls real well too.
Comment by Lucky Pierre Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 12:36 pm
= The only way for the state to get relief is to push the cost onto someone else. =
I agree with 12:22 pm
Shifting a larger part of the employers share of pension costs from the state to local school districts for teachers… and to the public universities for their employees.
(CPS already pays this. Why not require this from other school districts?
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 12:45 pm
===would never pass in the legislature===
Well MOON my friend, maybe if we live long enough, we’ll find out someday.
Yes, there is the not so little problem of repaying under-funding and that still falls on the state. But going forward, this would reduce the state’s annual obligations and it is has the added benefit of being constitutional, and those are two critical things that any pension “reform” bill must have.
Comment by 47th Ward Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 12:47 pm
When elephants fight, the grass gets hurt.
Comment by Publius Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 12:48 pm
MOON and 47–we all know the solution b/c it sets there like the nose on our face:
1. Graduated/progressive income tax. Could even designate part for pension relief and part to property tax relief on top of what standard rates would be.
2. Equalize school funding and reverse Il. SC ruling that the constitutional mandate that state has primary obligation for funding is only hortatory.
3. Two year budgeting.
4. Shift school pension obligations to local school districts, but only if 1 & 2 above are done and limitations on late employment pension boosting tricks are prohibited–especially for administrators.
I have faith that none of these will be achieved while any and all of those in office remain.
Comment by d.p.gumby Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 1:32 pm
==the government unions resisting pension reform==
That statement is just idiotic. The only thing that is standing in the way of “pension reform? is the Illinois Constitution and the Supreme Court. And I’m on their side.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 1:38 pm
==The Governor has stated numerous times he will support Senator Cullerton’s pension reform proposal.==
But does anyone seriously think that the Illinois Supreme Court will support Senator Cullerton’s pension reform proposal? What Rauner or Cullertion think, really doesn’t matter.
Comment by Joe M Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 1:48 pm
d.p.gumby -
5. Should be re-amortize the unfunded liability as recommended by the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability.
http://www.ctbaonline.org/reports/ctbas-testimony-and-presentation-pension-conference-committee
Comment by Seymourkid Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 3:12 pm
==the government unions resisting pension reform==
Doesn’t matter; the unions have zero authority or authorization to negotiate pension changes on behalf of the employee.
Comment by RNUG Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 4:09 pm