Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Sunday leaders meeting notes: Madigan counts the minutes, Republicans claim “new level of stalling”
Next Post: Rhetoric can have consequences
Posted in:
* My weekly syndicated newspaper column…
As Senate President John Cullerton sees it, Gov. Bruce Rauner “needed an excuse” to veto a bill last week that would’ve given the Chicago Public Schools $215 million for its June 30th pension payment. And Cullerton believes he turned out to be that excuse.
There’s little doubt that Rauner was likely to veto the proposal, which passed in June with Rauner’s support contingent upon a pension reform agreement by early January. Rauner’s office was already privately threatening to veto it as part of the ever-escalating war over a “stopgap” budget with House Speaker Michael Madigan. And, frankly, one of the biggest reasons why the neo-liberal education reformer ran for governor in the first place was his view that the Chicago Teachers Union had “won” its 2011 strike and needed to be severely reined in or even broken. “Starve the beast” to force teacher layoffs would be one way to hobble that union.
Not to mention that the governor and his top people have been convinced for months that Speaker Madigan wouldn’t ever come to terms on a pension reform deal. A proposal backed by Mayor Emanuel to make changes to the pension laws for non-educator employees at the Chicago Public Schools system is opposed by the CTU, and Madigan and that union have become super-tight since Rauner’s inauguration—and the relationship only strengthened when CTU backed Madigan during his primary campaign earlier this year.
It also probably didn’t help matters much when Cullerton suggested to Rauner during a leaders meeting earlier last week that it would be a whole lot easier to pass a pension reform bill if the governor reached a contract agreement with AFSCME. Gov. Rauner, who has often referred to the state employee union as “AF-Scammy” and said during his campaign that he might have to “take a strike” to bring the union to heel, told Cullerton in no uncertain terms that the two issues were not connected and would not be connected. This from the same guy who wants to connect term limits to passing a budget.
And then after last Thursday’s leaders meeting at the Statehouse, Cullerton was asked about the timeline of the pension reform negotiations so that CPS could get its $215 million. “You’re talking about two different bills,” Cullerton said. “We haven’t talked about putting those two things together at this point in time.” Reporters followed up, saying they thought there was a deal tying the two topics together. Cullerton said that was the governor’s plan. Rauner, he said, had declared he wouldn’t sign the CPS bill without a pension agreement, but that the Democratic leaders had always reserved the right to override if that didn’t happen.
The governor’s people only heard Cullerton say there was no deal. They claimed he was deliberately blowing things up and were furious about it. The governor’s veto of the CPS legislation soon emerged: “Breaking our agreement undermines our effort to end the budget impasse and enact reforms with bipartisan support,” Rauner wrote in his veto message.
The move took Cullerton by surprise. He agreed during a chat with me later in the day that he’d put a parliamentary hold on the bill in June in order to “buy time to negotiate the pension reform.” But he denied that he’d broken any agreement. “Pension reform was the price for signing the bill,” he admitted, but “I was always reserving the right to try to override” a CPS funding veto if that deal couldn’t be done.
“They misunderstood what I said and they should’ve called and asked me and I would’ve gone back out and clarified it,” Cullerton insisted. “They just vetoed the bill.” That failure to reach out to him convinced Cullerton that Rauner was simply looking for any excuse to kill the CPS bill.
Cullerton insisted that he was serious about trying to negotiate a pension reform deal. “I’m the only one pushing the pension reform stuff. He hasn’t actually worked on passing any bills,” Cullerton said of Rauner.
Sen. Cullerton didn’t deny that he’d brought up settling the AFSCME contract with Rauner, but said it was a “logical” step to take to find the necessary votes to pass a pension reform bill. Plenty of Republican legislators, after all, have state employees in their districts. “You don’t just go out there and pass a bill,” he said, adding, “They don’t know how to pass a bill.”
They do know how to veto one, though.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 8:37 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Sunday leaders meeting notes: Madigan counts the minutes, Republicans claim “new level of stalling”
Next Post: Rhetoric can have consequences
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Great, thorough column of reporting!
And it says everything anyone needs to know about a clueless Billionaire in charge of running IL (down).
As suggested before, he don’t care; his lifestyle will change zero amount regardless of what condition he leaves IL in.
Comment by sal-says Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 8:50 am
“They don’t know how to pass a bill.”
Speaking truth to the authoritarian mindset of the executive branch.
Comment by Dee Lay Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 8:53 am
===They do know how to veto one, though.===
Great column, Rich. Great close too.
To the post,
The “trick” Rauner has learned these 22 months is…
Use the tools to withhold governing and compromise, while giving the impression that he is a “victim” of the office and powers of the Governor.
Be it making himself a “victim” of ensuring Ken Dunkin will never make that “phantom 71″, or the “Good Friday Massacre Cuts”, this Veto, purposeful and premeditated, was looking for an excuse to also have “victimhood” attached to it too.
Bruce and Diana Rauner, since 2013 have poured in over $60 million dollars to advocate and make possible the destruction of Labor. Bruce Rauner uses the “negative” powers of the Office, as Diana Rauner advocates, as business decisions by the Governor Bruce Rauner.
Is there ANY question why MOUs are not only on the table, but are going to be the only avenue going forward?
Bruce and Diana Rauner are going to hurt Illinois for Bruce’s agenda, one way or another. It will be by hurting Illinois’ social service safety net (while The Ounce and Diana make sure “they’re fine”) or be the Veto pen, timed to ensure Bruce is a victim, and Diana can call it a business decision… as long as those thru deem needing to be hurt, get the hurt the RaunerS think they deserve.
===They do know how to veto one, though.===
That’s right. Exactly right.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 8:53 am
== “They don’t know how to pass a bill.” ==
And they don’t appear interested in learning how to do so, either.
Comment by thunderspirit Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 9:05 am
Rauner seems to only understand victory by bulldozing over everything with money to achieve absolute crushing defeat with no mercy or compromise. With him, it’s all or nothing.
This is where his lack of previous government experience hurts him. He’s never learned that incremental change is much easier to achieve and, if consistently pursued year to year, can accomplish the same or more than a frontal assault. It’s a lot easier at eat a salami if you slice it up first.
He’s also failed to be realistic. His problem is an out of balance budget. His solutions, such as they are, don’t offer much, if any, fiscal relief. Local consolidation is a good idea and even needed in some cases, but it doesn’t save State dollars. Same thing for term limits; if anything, terms limits brings less experienced people who are more likely to follow lobbyists and waste State money.
I don’t see Rauner changing, so, unfortunately, the best we can hope for the next two years is that the no budget impasse continues.
Comment by RNUG Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 9:19 am
Perhaps Senator Cullerton should stop throwing stones from his glass house.
The Governor can only sign bills that have been passed by the legislature which would leave out a pension or budget bill.
The Democrats were unable to get a consensus on the budget between the House and Senate and won’t call the pension bill as they agree to and wonder why the gridlock persists.
Comment by Lucky Pierre Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 9:23 am
Are we missing something or didn’t the media report last spring that the $215 was conditional on an overall pension reform bill. Cullerton deserves 4 Pinocchio s on this one
Comment by Sue Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 9:27 am
A new pension “reform” bill would be a waste of time. You aren’t going to be able to negate what is owed. The courts have been clear that existing workers get the deal they signed up for, so the “unearned benefits”argument doesn’t hold water. And you can’t get cheaper than Tier 2 where the employee pays for all of it.
That’s why a pension bill doesn’t matter.
Time for Rauner to accept he can’t bust out the pensions.
Comment by RNUG Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 9:36 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-eYBZFEzf8
Comment by Biker Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 9:43 am
==and wonder why the gridlock persists.==
Are you really saying the Governor hasn’t also played a role in the gridlock? Please.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 9:47 am
the Governor started with 44 items on his Turnaround Agenda
He is now down to two, both of which enjoy huge majority support.
No movement from Democrats.
Comment by Lucky Pierre Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 9:56 am
Lucky
Please. It’s not compromise to get rid of things that have no chance of passing.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 9:58 am
And you only solidify your position as a Raunerite if you can’t even acknowledge that both the Governor and the Democrats are responsible for the gridlock.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 9:58 am
You are right 100 percent of the bills(even popular ones) that don’t make it out of the Speaker Madigan’s rules committee have no chance of passing.
Comment by Lucky Pierre Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 10:08 am
“Pension reform was the price for signing the bill,” Cullerton said.
Doesn’t that say it all? He’s surprised that Rauner vetoed the pension bill even though he acknowledged that Rauner’s signature was contingent on Cullerton not passing pension bill he promised to pass along with the CPS bailout.
Looks like the Dems were trying to pull a fast one on Rauner, and he didn’t go for it.
Further, if the deal really was the deal Dems can easily pass both bills and send them to Rauner for his signature.
Comment by jim Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 10:28 am
===Doesn’t that say it all?===
No.
The governor had until early January to act on that bill. A simple phone call could’ve cleared it up. Instead, he vetoed an important bill without so much as a how do you do.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 10:34 am
Rauner, as governor, is the only one that can veto a bill.
Deal, no deal, excuse, no excuse…
Can’t talk yourself out of Rauner hurting Chicago students… with a Rauner veto.
- Lucky Pierre -
You should be happy. Rauber taught a lesson… by hurting Chicago students… with a Veto.
Rauner did that. You should be cheering, lol.
Why aren’t you?
Think on that.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 10:36 am
What would a phone call have accomplished?
Speaker Madigan has publicly said no reforms can be linked to the budget and would not comment on the CPS pension funding
He has not agreed to call Senator Cullerton’s pension bill for a vote
Comment by Lucky Pierre Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 10:50 am
===What would a phone call have accomplished?===
Then Rauner planned to veto all along? Got it.
===Speaker Madigan has publicly said no reforms can be linked to the budget and would not comment on the CPS pension funding===
Isn’t the deal with Cullerton? Why does it matter if Cullerton is the one that “failed”? It doesn’t.
===He has not agreed to call Senator Cullerton’s pension bill for a vote===
Did I miss a step or 3, or is that you?
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 10:53 am
The Stopgap budget to delay agreeing on a budget until after the election was originally proposed by Senator Cullerton.
The pension precondition was agreed to by the Speaker, Senate President and the Governor.
The election is over and the veto session has ended with legislators gone until January.
What signs do you see that a pension deal was imminent?
Comment by Lucky Pierre Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 11:00 am
===What signs do you see that a pension deal was imminent?===
Had Rauner called, we’d all know. Rauner wanted the veto. Governors veto. Only governors.
Like I said, you should be cheering, why aren’t you?
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 11:09 am
you don’t think this came up in the Leader’s meetings?
I missed the Speaker and the Senate President rushing to the microphones stressing the urgent need for pension reform
Comment by Lucky Pierre Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 11:18 am
===I missed the Speaker and the Senate President rushing to the microphones stressing the urgent need for pension reform===
The the Governor’s veto, the… governor’s… why aren’t you cheering. If you believe all that, then why aren’t you excited Rauner purposely hurt Chicago Students?
Vetoes are the choice of governors. Their timing too.
Rauner wanted the Veto. He got bit.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 11:21 am
The whole pension reform (or better called, pension change) discussion is a waste of time and money. The courts have clearly ruled that no change can be made to existing employees.
Comment by illdoc Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 11:33 am
I think the Governor wants a balanced budget with reforms of pensions, state government, workers comp, term limits, redistricting, and new revenues
I think the Speaker and the Senate President want to do exactly what they have done for the past few decades which include none of those items
Comment by Lucky Pierre Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 11:35 am
Rauner taught a lesson… by hurting Chicago students… with a Veto.
That’s the meatball. I had a lengthy, poorly written comment in the works. 11 words and OW nails it.
Comment by Lobo Y Olla Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 11:40 am
I enjoy this site and rarely comment. Why are people still discussing pension changes? The courts have rules very clearly even to a non attorney. No changes will be allowed no matter how much some people would like it
Comment by illdoc Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 11:42 am
Lucky,
According to post-meeting comments, a walk through of a pension plan was the discussion of the previous day’s leaders’ meeting.
that’s what Rich is referencing here:
It also probably didn’t help matters much when Cullerton suggested to Rauner during a leaders meeting earlier last week that it would be a whole lot easier to pass a pension reform bill if the governor reached a contract agreement with AFSCME. Gov. Rauner, who has often referred to the state employee union as “AF-Scammy” and said during his campaign that he might have to “take a strike” to bring the union to heel, told Cullerton in no uncertain terms that the two issues were not connected and would not be connected. This from the same guy who wants to connect term limits to passing a budget.
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 11:53 am
One sure way to put a wrench in a deal is to move the goal posts inside the two minute warning
Comment by Lucky Pierre Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 12:03 pm
== Why are people still discussing pension changes?==
a) Rauner came out of the vulture finance market where contracts are just something to be broken through bankruptcy
b) Some people, Rauner apparently included, despite the court’s clear rulings, believe in the Sidley-Austin law firm opinion that yet to be earned benefits can be changed.
c) That’s where the easy money / savings is IF you could negate part of the pensions.
To elaborate, yes, I think that yet to be earned benefits can be changed via MUTUAL agreement, just like any contract. But the State isn’t going to offer a deal beneficial to the employee, and the employee would be a fool to take it. In addition, most the proposals floated around are unilateral, with no “keep what you have”, so they would be coercive and illegal.
Comment by RNUG Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 12:07 pm
The Senate President has stated that there is no constitutional protection for future salary or health care benefit increases creating an obvious pressure point for concessions on yet to be earned pension benefits.
Comment by Lucky Pierre Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 12:12 pm
If I’m reading all this correctly, there was some form of a quid pro quo deal to exchange pension reform for money to Chicago. No one explicitly stated that pension reform required a bill. Did Sen Cullerton and Rep Madigan at least discuss voluntary changes with the Chicago union bosses that might pass constitutional muster?
And if you’re reserving the right to over-ride a veto in the event the deal breaks, shouldn’t you first know you have the votes in both houses to do so?
Comment by Cook County Commoner Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 12:14 pm
The state cannot dictate whether or not a University or school district gives employees wage increases.
Comment by illdoc Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 12:15 pm
(Tops cap to - Lobo Y Olla -)
- Cook County Commoner -
If all that’s true, why no heads up call and why “now”?
If your premise is true, Rauner decided on his own for the Veto. No one owns a veto but a governor and his/her choice
With respect.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 12:23 pm
== no constitutional protection for future salary or health care benefit increases … ==
No and yes. It’s not quite that clear cut.
Health care, no protection for employees other than the “20 year” retiree benefit on the books.
But there have been varying court rulings on future earnings and/or other actions that cap future earnings or years of service, and that raises (salary increases) must be included in the pension earnings / calculations.
Bottom line: getting a raise is not guaranteed, but if you do get a raise, it most likely has to be counted as pensionable. The State wants to be able to grant a raise on the condition it is not pensionable; courts would most likely reject it if coerced … and, given the power of an employer, it would be hard it wasn’t coerced.
Comment by RNUG Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 12:23 pm
==The Senate President has stated that there is no constitutional protection==
So what? Do you have a point?
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 1:11 pm
-Oswego Willy @ 12:23pm-
I suspect a real culture clash (businessman vs pol) or these folks really don’t like each other or both.
I probably understand a business person better than a pol. If they looked each other in the eyes and said this for that, that’s the end of it for many businessmen. No calls. No reminders. No renegoiation.
I wasn’t in the room when the issue was discussed.
Sure. The Gov owns the veto. That was his tool when the supposed deal broke.
Comment by Cook County Commoner Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 1:13 pm
===I probably understand a business person better than a pol. If they looked each other in the eyes and said this for that, that’s the end of it for many businessmen. No calls. No reminders. No renegoiation===
Even if that’s the case, and I don’t know either, governing and negotiating in governing is different.
How?
There’s no walking away. The next day, everyone is still there.
===That was his tool when the supposed deal broke.===
Why won’t Rauner just own it?
Yaffe gave a long-winded resolpovse about Democrats and taxpayers, and never wrote “Veto”. Why?
That’s the ball game. That’s why hurting Chicago Students, Rauner can’t cheer, even as Governor’s own.
Respectfully.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 1:25 pm
Straight up earned lack of trust between both sides. The timing of the veto was unnecessarily moved up. When they were meeting that week, why didn’t they make clear their positions? The Governor could simply have said “I expected some action on pensions. I won’t sign this bill until I see that.” Cullerton could then have told him the likelihood of that occurring by a given date. No need for either side to be surprised or to act precipitately.
Comment by walker Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 1:42 pm
===Why won’t Rauner just own it?===
With all due respect, I guess I’m missing your point. Of course the Gov owns it. Only a Gov can veto. I don’t expect him to appear on the news with mea culpas.
I don’t meet with the Gov to engage in the time honored tradition of “in vino veritas.”
I suspect he knows that his veto potentially has damaged the education of many Chicago students. But perhaps he is playing a longer game to serve the interests of all Illinoisians.
Comment by Cook County Commoner Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 1:53 pm
==The Senate President has stated that there is no constitutional protection for future salary or health care benefit increases creating an obvious pressure point for concessions on yet to be earned pension benefits.==
My only question is when/if this last ditch effort on pension reform fails, will they give up the ghost and pay the piper or does the search for Atlantis continue?
Comment by CrazyHorse Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 2:30 pm
===Of course the Gov owns it. Only a Gov can veto.===
According to Rauner, Rauner thinks he’s Judge Smails…
“I didn’t want to Veto it, I felt I owed it to Cullerton to teach a lesson”
It’s on Cullerton, according to Yaffe and the Superstars.
And it’s working(?)
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 3:14 pm
== will they give up the ghost and pay the piper or does the search for Atlantis continue? ==
Only when it is more painful / costly to keep searching instead of raising revenue to pay the bill.
Comment by RNUG Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 3:15 pm
Rich my reading of SB 2822 was that absolutely none of the $215.3 million would have gone directly to CPS, it all went directly to CTPF. See http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/99/SB/PDF/09900SB2822ham003.pdf
The amount paid to the CTPF “shall be deemed a portion of the employer’s required contribution.” The reason it was being sent to the Fund directly was because the General Assembly wanted to make sure the Fund got it.
Comment by Rod Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 4:30 pm
==Only when it is more painful / costly to keep searching instead of raising revenue to pay the bill.==
Agreed. Unfortunately, the search is always on for a creative legal mind that’s willing to bill the state millions of dollars for his alternate definition of diminished.
Comment by CrazyHorse Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 4:59 pm
–A new pension “reform” bill would be a waste of time. You aren’t going to be able to negate what is owed. The courts have been clear that existing workers get the deal they signed up for, so the “unearned benefits”argument doesn’t hold water. And you can’t get cheaper than Tier 2 where the employee pays for all of it.–
There you go again, injecting facts into a perfectly nice, meaningless and distracting political p-match.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Dec 9, 16 @ 9:48 am