Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: RollCall poll shows Seals leading Kirk 52-44, undercuts Kirk pollster’s anti-Semitism argument
Next Post: Is the G getting closer to Blagojevich? Signs point to “Yes”
Posted in:
* My syndicated newspaper column continues the series on the constitutional convention…
It’s no secret that Gov. Rod Blagojevich is probably the most unpopular Illinois governor in living memory.
The entrenched politicians and special interest groups who oppose a state constitutional convention are rightly worried that the public’s mistrust, even hatred, of this governor will skew November’s vote. Every twenty years, voters are given the right to call a constitutional convention, and the next opportunity is this November 4th. Opponents fret that Illinoisans may decide to make the constitutional convention vote a referendum on Rod Blagojevich. If that happens, they say, then illogic and emotion will prevail and terrible consequences could follow.
Ridiculous.
The truth is that Rod Blagojevich is a walking, talking poster child for a constitutional convention.
Blagojevich’s disastrous, harmful and years-long fight to the death with his political nemesis House Speaker Michael Madigan has featured numerous and often dangerous attempts to exploit the constitution’s needlessly vague language.
For instance, the courts have gone back and forth on gubernatorial veto powers, and Blagojevich has seized his opportunities. The governor believes he can use his amendatory veto power to drastically write totally new legislation and send it back to the House and Senate for approval. Others say his amendatory veto authority is limited to only minor corrections to whatever passes both legislative chambers.
Trouble is, the constitution’s language is so terribly vague that nobody really knows who is right.
This may seem too “insiderish” to you, but the governor has used those amendatory vetoes to act as if he is a legislature unto himself by creating gigantic and complicated new laws. Most of the constitution’s drafters who are still alive will tell you that they never meant this to happen, but they should also admit that they did a very poor job of wording the provision.
Nothing in the Illinois constitution specifically gives the governor any authority to create what are known as administrative rules. In the past, the General Assembly would pass legislation, but it would also allow state agencies to come up with the details needed to implement the new laws. Many years ago, the legislature created an oversight committee to make sure the governor’s rulemaking stayed within reason, and Blagojevich even signed a law a few years back to give the legislature more power to stop his rules.
Since then, however, Blagojevich has used administrative rules to create completely new programs out of nothing. When the special legislative committee tried to stop him, he said it had no authority to do so, thereby ignoring the law that he, himself had signed.
Blagojevich essentially believes that he has almost dictatorial powers to create new taxpayer-funded programs without the General Assembly’s approval. Speaker Madigan retaliated by demanding that almost all bills had to include language forbidding the governor from creating new rules. The fight has basically halted all major legislation this year. A court recently shot Blagojevich’s argument down, but he still won’t admit defeat.
The constitution allows the governor to call special sessions of the General Assembly, but Blagojevich insisted that he had the authority to call special sessions at any time he wanted. That case went to court as well. The governor’s lawyers then demanded that House Speaker Madigan be sanctioned if he did not call special sessions at the exact times demanded by the governor and also guarantee that enough legislators were present to conduct business. The sanctions and quorum arguments were dropped, but the governor can now call special sessions at 3 o’clock in the morning if he sees fit, even though nothing in the constitution gives him that specific right.
I could go on for days, but I’m running out of room. The point is that Blagojevich has done us all a favor by attempting to exploit these and many, many other constitutional loopholes. We now know where they are and how to close them. And we also know that if we don’t do something about this, then Blagojevich or the next governor who decides he’s a dictator can’t be stopped.
So, if you believe as I do that Gov. Blagojevich has abused his constitutional powers, you should vote “Yes” on a constitutional convention.
Always remember that you’ll have the right to vote for convention delegates, and then you’ll vote up or down on any and all constitutional changes. It’s not nearly as scary as the other side wants you to think.
Rich Miller also publishes Capitol Fax, a daily political newsletter, and thecapitolfaxblog.com.
[If you would like to be removed from this list, please respond to this e-mail and type “Remove” in the subject line.]
* Meanwhile, the Sun-Times editorial board takes the opposite approach to myself and the Chicago Tribune…
The dangerous wild card in all this, however, is not so much what a convention might fail to do, but what it might do. Once the Constitution is thrown open, anything goes. A woman’s right to choose an abortion could be curtailed. Same-sex marriage could be permitted or prohibited. Home rule authority, crucial to ability of cities such as Chicago to manage their finances, could be substantially weakened.
Do we honestly fear the Constitution would be so completely overhauled? Not really. Without a shared agenda among the state’s power brokers — as there was in 1970 — our best guess is nothing would be changed.
* Related…
* Proponents could appeal judge’s ruling on con-con ballot: We’ll learn more Tuesday.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Oct 7, 08 @ 9:59 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: RollCall poll shows Seals leading Kirk 52-44, undercuts Kirk pollster’s anti-Semitism argument
Next Post: Is the G getting closer to Blagojevich? Signs point to “Yes”
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Rod Blagojevich is more than a walking, talking poster child for a constitutional convention.
He’s a walking, talking poster child for corruption and unethical behavior.
Comment by Illinois New Lows Tuesday, Oct 7, 08 @ 10:07 am
The Sun-Times scary laundry list sounds like it was written by the Bill Murray character in “Ghostbusters.:
“Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!”
Seriously, one of their points is that “same-sex marriage could be permitted or prohibited.” Are they making an argument that they’re both undesirable? That’s incoherent. Anyway, I think it’s prohibited now, isn’t it?
It’s absurd to think a con-con in Blue Illinois is going to get hijacked by a band of right-wing cultural warriors. Besides, even if they did, they’d have to put it to a vote, right?
The Sun-Times is drinking the Kool-aid.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Oct 7, 08 @ 10:26 am
Heh, the Governor is partially why I support a con-con. Of course, I don’t want to make him my sole reason. There are a lot of change to be considered. Not only curbing the power of an inept governor who doesn’t have the goods to get his programs passed.
Comment by Levois Tuesday, Oct 7, 08 @ 10:48 am
The Sun Times is being mature and even handed unlike the Trib’s pandering yesterday. As for the column, ho hum, same old ,same old.
Comment by Bill Tuesday, Oct 7, 08 @ 10:49 am
As I said in a post yeasterday regarding gubernatorial veto powers, a constitutional amendment to limit the governor’s amendatory veto to matters of form and correction of technical errors was rejected by voters in 1974. We had a chance to change that provision and did not. Maybe the general voting public does not see the same ptential for abuse that “insiders” see in the current amendatory veto powers. Maybe voters see this language (or saw it in 1974) as a check on the legislature.
Comment by Captain Flume Tuesday, Oct 7, 08 @ 10:51 am
The editorial claims that we would spend a bunch of money, and nothing would change. Or everything would change–and maybe for the worse. It’s argument is that we don’t know what would happen with a con-con, so we should just stay where we are, no matter how bad the current set up might be.
That’s courageous.
Comment by Fan of the Game Tuesday, Oct 7, 08 @ 10:55 am
The Sun-Times editorial is an insult to Illinois citizens.
A constitutional convention, proponents say, would let ordinary folks take matters into their own hands and fix the structural weaknesses of state governance that have led to gridlock. Equally attractive, they say, it would give grassroot reformers a chance to circumvent the gridlocked political process and solve major policy problems that have festered for decades.
Ordinary folks circumventing decades-old major policy problems involving constitutional structural problems? The way they set this up makes it sound like we want Ma & Pa Kettle doing brain surgery. The Sun-Times board is suffering from willful blindness brought on by their intellectual vanity.
The problems of Springfield are best blamed on the failures of our political leaders, not on the Constitution; and the risk of bad, unintended consequences in rewriting it are real. A convention could do more harm than good to the Constitution, which is generally sound.
We’ve never had this happen. We’ve never had a constitutional convention result in a worse constitution and forced the state into adopting it. It can’t happen. Period.
Our political leaders are the problem, they claim. They are wrong. Our political leaders will do what they can get away with when doing battle with opponents. The point of a constitution is to clarify the limits, close the loopholes and set a standard for these nutjobs to heed and our courts to enforce them to heed.
A con-con today, given our fractious times, easily might be dominated by single-issue crusaders, paid lobbyists and the same feuding politicians running the state now. They will be the ones who decide whether delegates to the convention are elected on a partisan or non-partisan basis (say goodbye, folks, to heavy grass-roots participation) and set the convention’s budget.
So, our politicians are the problem and we live in too fractious of times to discuss it, right? We elect the wrong people and can’t be rational? The Sun-Times makes a claim that is false; that we have a government where citizen’s rights are protected from lobbyists, single-issue crusaders, and non-partisanship! REALLY? Where is this happening? Not in Illinois!
The Sun-Times talks out of both sides of their mouth. “…we are loath to rewrite the Constitution out of frustration with one unpopular governor.”
One? Exactly who is supposedly the newspaper reporters at the Sun-Times? How short are these people’s attention span? Illinois has a new crappy legacy of “unpopular” governors since 1970. We are on the verge of setting a new all-time state government low by having two concurrent governors indicted. But the Sun-Times thinks this is a new problem? Perhaps someone should introduce the Board to The Paper’s archival section, and do a little homework!
Once the Constitution is thrown open, anything goes. Right. Dogs and cats will marry, Latin will become our new official language, we will decide to start driving in the right lanes on even numbered days, and drive in the left lanes on odd numbered days - it will be Armageddon!
The Sun-Times is finally signalling to readers that it fails as a newspaper. After years of informing citizens, it doesn’t believe it’s coverage of state issues has created an informed body of Illinoians capable of making rational decisions, or able to self-govern.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Oct 7, 08 @ 10:59 am
The current setup is not bad. That’s the whole point. The fiscal and political situation in this state has nothing to do with problems in the constitution which the governor and leaders feel free to ignore at will. We need new leaders not a new constitution.
Comment by Bill Tuesday, Oct 7, 08 @ 10:59 am
===The fiscal and political situation in this state has nothing to do with problems in the constitution which the governor and leaders feel free to ignore at will===
Bill, if the governor and legislators both feel free to and have been successful at ignorning the state constitution, doesn’t that signal the need for a convention?
Comment by The Doc Tuesday, Oct 7, 08 @ 11:09 am
Bill, c’mon. Be honest. There is one reason and one reason only why you oppose a con-con.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Oct 7, 08 @ 11:10 am
If the governor and GA are ignoring the current constitution, what prevents a future governor or GA from ignoring whatever constitution comes next? Apparently the force of law is felt only as an encumberance by our elected representatives, not a new phenomenon (take No Smoking in the Statehouse, except for the “private offices” of our elected officials, for example). Those who make the laws, or are charged with executing or enforcing them, will always find ways to not subject themselves to those laws.
Constitutional amendments are a viable and accessible avenue for change. I am not against a constitutional convention, or even a new constitution. It is just that amendments seem so much more accurate in their intent, and certainly less convulsive in their genesis. If the voters want to change the current constitution through amendment, it is within power to do so. If the voters approve or reject an amendment, then that is more the gauge to judge the necessity of the change.
Comment by Captain Flume Tuesday, Oct 7, 08 @ 11:30 am
===If the voters want to change the current constitution through amendment, it is within power to do so.===
That’s mostly inaccurate.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Oct 7, 08 @ 11:36 am
Sun-Times shoulda, coulda, woulds list is screaming of the “sky is falling”. I will be voting YES for the Con-Con.
Comment by Dan S. a Voter and Cubs Fan Tuesday, Oct 7, 08 @ 11:36 am
No, the constitution doesn’t need a complete overhaul. Most of it is okay, but it needs a few additions, including term limits, recall elections, and binding referendums.
Many school districts should be consolidated. In other states where I lived (CA, CO, KS, AR, and OK), each school district includes at least one high school, at least one junior high, and at least one elem. school. In IL, many districts only have one school, and that’s the main reason why IL is the state with the most governments, 8,655, including counties, townships, towns, school districts, library boards, and park district boards. All of the school districts charge property taxes, and all of the districts have superintendents, with an average salary of about $120,000, per year. If some of the districts consolidated, it would probably be more efficient, saving money for the taxpayers.
Comment by Phil Collins Tuesday, Oct 7, 08 @ 11:40 am
The current constitution was written in a rare moment in Illinois political history — a time when the idealistic strain of politics in Illinois was rather powerful. The resulting document was one of the best state constitutions in the country.
Forty years later, I think we’re in another ideal moment to consider changes to the constitution. Some things, imo, simply have to change: our flat income tax, the archaic personal property tax replacement tax, school funding, and of course defing the executive power.
Particularly with the rise of Barack Obama on the national political scene (win or lose), I think a constitutional convention will provide a platform for new, thoughtful political leaders. Sure, some of the old guard representing and defending special interests will still be around — they were in 1969, too. But this may be a moment that won’t happen again until the current constitution becomes completely unworkable.
Comment by the Other Anonymous Tuesday, Oct 7, 08 @ 11:45 am
==That’s mostly inaccurate.==
Well, are you saying the voters have no power? As a cynic and realist, you may be right. Voters, and voter groups, though, can apply lots of pressure on legislators to introduce and approve amendment resolutions that will go on ballots. They can also initiate amendments for structural and procedural changes concerning the legislature. Just because voters have not done so with any regularity, does not mean they cannot do so. As I said earlier, an amendment to limit amendatory veto power was rejected by the voters only four years after the current constitution was adopted.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Oct 7, 08 @ 12:01 pm
Anonymous 12:01 p.m. was me. Sorry.
Comment by Captain Flume Tuesday, Oct 7, 08 @ 12:01 pm
Captain, that’s pretty pie in the sky.
Here’s a better way. Voters can vote for a con-con, vote for delegates and then vote on the changes.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Oct 7, 08 @ 12:08 pm
My point is that with amendments, voters can vote on specific issues (problems?) with the constitution. Voting for for a new constitution is a take-it-or-leave-it proposition for the whole ball of worms. And that new constitution will have its own, unforeseen or hopefully unintended, flaws that will need to be addressed through amendments.
Comment by Captain Flume Tuesday, Oct 7, 08 @ 12:16 pm
And just what would be so terrible about having some social or fiscal conservatives get elected convention delegates? I doubt very much there will be enough of them to “control” or “hijack” the entire convention; but God forbid any of their concerns — or those of any of the strange alien beings in the parallel universe south of I-80 — should even be heard, right?
Comment by Secret Square Tuesday, Oct 7, 08 @ 12:26 pm
===Bill, c’mon. Be honest. There is one reason and one reason only why you oppose a con-con.===
Yeah and it is a real good reason. But besides that, as you know, politics is like softball. You pick up sides and then do whatever it takes to win.
The Sun-Times editorial is a good one. If anything is an insult to Illinois citizens it is VanillaMan’s post.
Comment by Bill Tuesday, Oct 7, 08 @ 12:29 pm
The voters rejected curbs on the amendatory veto power way back in 1974, before any governor ever had a chance to abuse it as spectacularly as Blago has.
If you argue that AV power should be left alone now simply because the voters back then chose to do so, then why bother voting on anything that the voters have already “spoken” on in the past?
Comment by Secret Square Tuesday, Oct 7, 08 @ 12:35 pm
Of course this is the same newspaper that backed Gov. Sleazy for re-election two years ago and endorsed Toddler Stroger for Cook County Board President (which probably provided Toddler the crucial boost he needed to edge Tony Peraica). Unfortunately, I am unable to describe adequately my disgust for this latest disgusting editorial, as they employ Rich Miller as a columnist and I do not wish to be banned from this site.
The most I can say now is that the Sun-Times editorial board continues to be a disgrace to our community and to journalism.
Comment by fedup dem Tuesday, Oct 7, 08 @ 12:41 pm
Before the last two referendums there was a lot of preparation and study that prepared citizens for their vote. There was a commission that studied possible changes and the ramifications and unintended consequences that could result. They also studied and researched what deficiencies, if any, the current constitution had and what could be done to remedy them.
This year…no study, no research, no thought, just…we hate Rod, let’s have a con con. We want abortion outlawed, let’s have a con con. We want school vouchers, let’s have a con con. We want to carry our pistols around…concon!! All politicians are crooked…Let’s have a concon! Hate the Speaker?…concon!
It brings weirdos like John and Bruno out of the woodwork. It doesn’t solve anything. It cost a lot of money. It puts our basic rights and freedoms at risk. It’s stupid.
But don’t let that stop you.
Comment by Bill Tuesday, Oct 7, 08 @ 12:54 pm
“…politics is like softball. You pick up sides and then do whatever it takes to win.”
Actual governing be damned.
This comment explains a lot of the problem we have with the current structure of Illinois government.
Comment by S. Illinois Tuesday, Oct 7, 08 @ 1:04 pm
Why bury the Sun Times editorial and put the Trib on the front page - interesting? I know we should put Senate and House rules in the new Con Con also who can pick up a bill (Ethics), amount of time a chamber can hold a bill (budgets), outlaw shell bills (every controversial issues vehicle), and prohibit the Speaker and the Pres of Senate from raising money then things will be fine because the voters would have approved it. So easy!
Comment by Harry Caray's Glasses Tuesday, Oct 7, 08 @ 1:36 pm
I’m unfamiliar with the reason for Bill’s opposition, but if it’s pensions, I find the lies being promoted by the Teacher’s Unions to be one of the worst examples of large collectives lying to their constituents that we’ve seen.
Teachers (and other public employees) should be aware that their unions are lying to them when they say their pensions can be “taken away.”
118 delegates hand-picked by a “pension hawk” like me (and I think I qualify for that moniker) couldn’t pass a clause that would reduce one dime of benefits.
Your vested benefits are locked in by the US Contracts clause, and NOTHING can reduce them.
Further, it is doubtful that anyone (even me) would try to change the “guarantee.” The fact is that you have to guarantee FUNDING as well as PAYMENT. The reason the Unions don’t want this to be fixed is that they like the opaque, massive liability increases locked into the current system. (huge tax hikes to follow by default)
The cynical game being played by the public-employee unions end in a game of chicken with their own constituents being run off the road by events.
There isn’t enough cash in the state to fund the past debts, current largess, and numerous new hires. Just like the recent financial meltdown, something is going to give.
When we debate these issues, we tell public employees that they are missing an important (and dangerous) point by blindly following their cynical leadership.
Voting “no” continues the status quo of underfunding. If you look to CA, you can already see numerous municipalities using bankruptcy to shed pension liability. With bank after bank dropping and the whole world financial system in turmoil, do you really want to bet your pension that a state won’t follow that path?
If states do go down that road, IL will be the first. If that happens, public employees probably WILL LOSE BENEFITS. These folks should know that there is more risk with a “no” vote than a “yes.”
Illinois is headed toward an economic death spiral. Absent the will of either party to honestly address the problem and solution (tax restructuring with deep and meaningful spending cuts), the only “solutions” are large tax increases as far as the eye can see.
We do that and we will only shrink the tax base and chase taxpayers out of Illinois. Reasonable people can differ, but the cynical campaign of misrepresentation used by the public employee unions should not go unmentioned.
Comment by Bruno Behrend Tuesday, Oct 7, 08 @ 1:52 pm
== If you argue that AV power should be left alone now simply because the voters back then chose to do so . . .==
What I am arguing is that whatever led to the proposed amendment being on the ballot 1974 did not seem to warrant it being approved by the voters. Yesterday on the blog I questioned whether a similar amendment might not find a different reaction today. Certainly there is precedence for such an amendment being voted.
Also, I would no more argue the uselessness of trying to another chance at that, or any, amendment any more than I would argue that since the last con-con vote rejected a con-con, that we should not have another today. Voters should ALWAYS have the opportunity to exert our will. It’s our government.
Comment by Captain Flume Tuesday, Oct 7, 08 @ 2:29 pm
Bruno,
You’re the one spreading lies.
There is no “contracts” clause protection for public employee pensions in the US Constitution. There is a somewhat vague court decision relating to a pension being a contract.
If I were a state employee, I sure wouldn’t want my future decided by the same right-wing Supreme Court that made GW President.
Anyone participating in a state pension plan would be insane to vote yes.
Bruno hates public employees. He resents their benefits. He is the Cassandra of the Northwest suburbs. His is the type of mentality you’ll have to deal with if this boondoggle passes.
That’s the real truth. As far as his buddy John is concerned, he’s the guy who tried to stifle freedom of speech by trying to put Daily Kos off the internet. Is this the kind of guy you want to trust your human and civil rights to?
Vote no, save yourself some possible trouble and save the state tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars that are needed elsewhere.
Comment by Bill Tuesday, Oct 7, 08 @ 2:47 pm
I think Governor Pinnochio and Toddler Storger constitute a dynamic duo as poster boys for a Constitutional convention.
Godafather Jones and Speaker Machiavellie also constitute a nice supporting cast for this argument too. And lets not forget the competent, but corrupt,Czar Daley.
Too much power is concentrated in the power of too few men. Let’s send them a message and let the chips fall where they may! We can do better?
Illinois is ready for reform. Why leave all the hard work for Patrick Fitzgerald? Let’s help him out by striking a blow agaisnt the system that appears to be incorrigibly, endemically corrupt.
Comment by Captain America Tuesday, Oct 7, 08 @ 3:08 pm
Oh Bruno, reading is a skill and if you read the unions info it talks about the future accrual of benefits not what they have already earned. Furthermore it is the number one item on the big bussiness agenda dont try to fool yourself that it is not.
Oh and Rich since Rod abused this Constitution shouldn’t we re-write the Federal Constitution after what W has done? This Governor would have abused any Constitution that was in effect. Dishonorable people act dishonorably regardless of what the rules are.
I often wonder if this Governor never took office would there be half as much support for a Con Con?
Comment by Harry Caray's Glasses Tuesday, Oct 7, 08 @ 3:08 pm
If anything is an insult to Illinois citizens it is VanillaMan’s post.
I know we can do better than we have now. I believe we have the best educated society in human history. I believe we can have a productive conversation defining governments in our lives. I believe we recognize a trend, a fad, a fact, and a fiction. I believe we can get a random group of 100 American citizens together and they’ll exceed most elected governmental bodies in honesty, hard work and intellect.
I know democracy works. I know self governments work. I know that when left alone we naturally band together to civilize a wilderness, educate our children, and care for the ill and needy.
I don’t believe in a governing class. I don’t believe that a diploma guarantees intelligence. I don’t believe that we have to have Ivy League graduates to understand what is fair, how to tax, how to lead or how to meet needs. I do not expect to be led, I expect to lead, protect and fight if called. I know a man has responsibilities that is not the government’s to perform.
I know businesses. I know profit. As a result, I do not consider it illegal, greedy or unethical to be a successful business leader. I know that an open market beats a regulated one everytime.
If you give us a chance to rewrite a constitution for this state, we will surprise you with our results. You will find us fair, honest, and willing to sacrifice for others understanding the importance of doing so. It will be a constitution we can be proud of because we came together to create it. It will help renew our belief in our state government after a decade of political betrayals from our highest officials.
We need this. For us. For our children. And for our homes in this state. It is our right as citizens to do our duty. Come along. Join us. There will be times when we will need a laugh and a reminder of what we are leaving behind.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Oct 7, 08 @ 3:41 pm
Harry Caray’s Glasses said, “Oh Bruno, reading is a skill and if you read the unions info it talks about the future accrual of benefits not what they have already earned.” Even if we don’t read it, it says the same words.
Comment by Phil Collins Tuesday, Oct 7, 08 @ 3:49 pm
The “just elect better people” argument doesn’t hold water when maps are gerrymandered to cut out competition. We have too many constitutional officers and need serious reforms in local government (fewer taxing bodies for one, moving the structure of county government out of the 1800s for another)- then there’s the issue of tax reform.
It is theoretically possible for single issue delegates to end up in the Con-Con trying to get their pet issues into a constitution- and ultimately rendering it unacceptable to be ratified.
But if we vote to have a Con-Con and then fail to elect grown-ups with a focus on producing a new document that can be ratified and fixes major structural problems- then we get what we deserve.
But let’s be realistic- could a quorum of single issue delegates who agree on anything be achieved? I doubt it.
Comment by Rich O Tuesday, Oct 7, 08 @ 3:50 pm
== There is no “contracts” clause protection for public employee pensions in the US Constitution. ==
Article I, Section 10:
“No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.”
The federal courts have repeatedly held that, under this provision, a right created by state statute may not be taken away if the statutory provision was worded in a way that gave the appearance of creating a contract. Article XIII, Section 5, of the Illinois Constitution says:
“Membership in any pension or retirement system of the State, any unit of local government or school district, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which
shall not be diminished or impaired.”
Ain’t no way Illinois could argue its way out of this one.
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Oct 7, 08 @ 3:55 pm
“I know that an open market beats a regulated one everytime.”
Well, I guess that about sums it all up doesn’t it. Let business run free. They’ll look out for our best interests, won’t they. They are driven, not by profit, but by the common good.
“I know businesses. I know profit. As a result, I do not consider it illegal, greedy or unethical to be a successful business leader”
Yeah, like the former CEOs of Lehman Brothers and AIG, like John D. Rockefeller and Gustavus Swift. Like Henry Ford and J.P. Morgan. Like Dick Cheney and Charles Keating. Humanitarians and civil libertarians all.
” You will find us fair, honest, and willing to sacrifice for others understanding the importance of doing so.”
Yeah, if this passes I guess we will just have to trust you on that.
“I believe we have the best educated society in human history.”
Somehow, I don’t think Bruno would agree with you on that.
Spare us the poor Patrick Henry imitation. It sounds like you don’t want a new constitution. You just don’t want a constitution at all. Every man for himself (forget about women).Survival of the fittest. Trust big business take care of us.
ConCon is an unnecessary overreaction to current events. You don’t need to change our constitution, which is the envy of other states, every time you become disillusioned with the politicians that you voted into office.
Vote NO in order to maintain your civil and human rights that our current constitution guarantees.
Vote NO so that your taxes cannot be jacked up indiscriminantly while business gets off without paying their fair share. Vote NO to preserve the voice you now have at the polling place.
Vote NO to preserve your pensions and your way of life.
Comment by Bill Tuesday, Oct 7, 08 @ 4:22 pm
“Vote NO to preserve the voice you now have at the polling place.”
I didn’t realize we could take voting rights away at Con-Con. Now I’m definitely in. I’m sure the rest of Illinois voters, who get an up/down vote on the new Constitution, will agree to that.
Bill, you and the anti-ConCon’s soundly awfully desperate. Sounds like a bad case of the Fear.
Comment by Gene Parmesan Tuesday, Oct 7, 08 @ 4:46 pm
Bill, AA is getting older and more confused about these Con-Con issues by the day. Maybe you can help me out on something I read that a teacher friend of mine gave to me. It’s from one of the teacher’s union magazines-the “Summer 2008 Insight,” it’s called.
It has a Q & A page about Con-Con and one of the questions asks “Don’t we need something in the Constitution to require funding our pensions?”
The answer given is, “No. Pension payments are required under current law to be funded automatically at the amount that is certified by the systems.”
Isn’t the answer wrong, and doesn’t that answer contradict the labor position that ConCon will undercut the existing constitutional protections?
If AA’s wrong or confused, tell me. Old age is rough.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Tuesday, Oct 7, 08 @ 5:50 pm
Existing, already earned benefits are about 99.999 percent guaranteed regardless of any future constitution because the current constitution terms pensions as a contract. An extreme national calamity could be the only thing that could break the contract.
It’s future benefits not yet earned by current and future employees that the unions are most concerned with. If the constitution is changed to delete the contract language, those future, not yet earned benefits could be changed (read: lowered).
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Oct 7, 08 @ 6:02 pm
Capt, that’s what AA thought. The Q & A is perhaps inartfully worded.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Tuesday, Oct 7, 08 @ 6:13 pm
Harry’s Carey’s Glasses,
I’m reacting to the numerous simplistic fliers put out by the unions, and not to any small print you may be referring to. The unions know exactly what they are doing with those fliers.
I invited Mike McGue of the Lake County Fed. of Teachers on my show, and we had a cordial conversation about their scare tactics. We agreed to disagree, but he admitted that pensions couldn’t be reduced.
The fact is that, a) as Anon points out above, your pension benefits can’t be touched, and b) anyone who would try to would lose their delegate races.
As you may or may not know, the ‘business agenda’ is hardly my agenda. They are afraid of losing the 8:5 tether, and the flat tax.
While those 2 items are the ONLY thing keeping Illinois even marginally competitive outside a convention, I could see a convention crafting a better tax system that trades permanent, hard spending restraint for the “flat tax.”
I’m also agnostic on the business community’s penchant for defined contribution over defined contribution. While there are good arguments in favor, Martire’s piece on the issue points out some flaws in the defined contribution dogma.
The biz community’s biggest blind spot is their unreasonable fear of binding citizen initiative. While they like to put on the “California-style” fright wig, they seem to miss the fact that the old “lobbying” model isn’t working too well anymore, as the activist can now use new tech to go directly to the people.
How well has relying on the “Republican Party” worked out for them? If the Biz community was as entrepreneurial about politics as it was about business (if indeed it still is), they might realize that the initiative process can be a powerful tool to wield, instead of merely fighting things they don’t like.
(see MA and Maine)
Frankly, if the business community is too stupid to compete with the left financially in the arena of politics (and no, $$ to 501(c)3s and the ILL GOP doesn’t count), they get what they deserve in any case. Their punting on the convention issue is Exhibit A as to why their “better leadership” argument is so weak.
To invert Obama’s language, “They aren’t the leaders they haven’t been waiting for”
Bill,
Speaking of “fright wigs…” I wish you a great deal of success trying to convince people I’m so dangerous.
I don’t “hate public employees,” and you know it. I DO point out that the existing system has been abused by the political class, and that many in the public sector have gone along for the ride.
Everyone reading this blog regularly has their own example. When I showed my Democrat, public-ed-loving neighbor the abuses of our former superintendent, and how that abuse was spread over nearly every Suburban school district, he said “that’s not right.”
He still loves pub. ed., and he’s still a Democrat, but he knows EROs and end-of-career bumps for what they are - abusive and unsustainable.
One down, and about 3-4 million to go, and that conversion is going to take place with or with out a Convention vote.
Be well.
Comment by Bruno Behrend Tuesday, Oct 7, 08 @ 6:22 pm
Bruno, did you mean to say “I’m also agnostic on the business community’s penchant for defined contribution over defined BENEFIT”? Defined benefit is what public employees have now; defined contribution (as I understand it) means a 401 (k) type thing.
Comment by Bookworm Tuesday, Oct 7, 08 @ 7:18 pm
Bookworm,
Sorry, I typed one twice. Yes, you are correct, and I’m still agnostic. DC is a more realistic model for a more diverse and mobile workforce, but it isn’t the panacea the “RW think tank” community makes it out to be.
Keep bad management and corruption out of the DB plans and have them properly funded and managed, and they can work.
Comment by Bruno Behrend Tuesday, Oct 7, 08 @ 8:14 pm
Amen, Bruno.
DC is not the answer for most public employees, the more mobile higher ed faculty being the notable exception. SURS has thoughtfully offered a DC and a Portable option for their members for over a decade.
The Larry Msalls of the world and all their whiny reports notwithstanding, most of the abuses in the State pension programs were knocked off in the 2005 law. To your point, if the Superintendents of the future want a golden parachute, they will have to sweet-talk the school board into paying for it if it costs more than 6%. One of the things the ConCon won’t solve that contributed mightly to the latter problem is the unholy alliance between Supts, school boards, and the small cadre of law firms that specialize in “school law.” 95% of the pork-laden Supt. contracts of the past were written by an attorney ostensibly representing the Board, but who gets most of the assignments from the Supt. and who knows upon which side the bread is buttered.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Tuesday, Oct 7, 08 @ 10:04 pm
You are exactly right Rich thank you for carifying the point.
Bruno I actually agree with you on the majority of your post however “scare tactics” and fearmongering that have been the montra of the pro con con groups against those who feel there are better ways to address our problems is not constructive dialogue.
The only good answer on pensions is when you can tell a person that something is 100%. Eliminating that clause opens up a bag of worms you have to recognize that. In a day and age where private sector pensions are being stolen from the hard working men and women in the private sector isnt it concievable to see that there would be political support for reducing benefits prospectively? Clearly yes there would be.
Don’t open up the Constitution because of a disfunctional group of leaders. Just like Warren Buffet I am wiling to buy into this COnstitution to solve our problems not some pie in the sky promise of a better documnet that will magically appear from a Con Con. VOTE NO!
Comment by Harry Carays Glasses Tuesday, Oct 7, 08 @ 10:50 pm
HCG,
Then we have an honest disagreement as to how to fix things.
For my part, We have no interest in removing protective language. We merely want conferred benefits 100% funded by the employing agency at the time conferred.
Note that pensions aren’t the only issue either. There are just too many things that need fixing that the current system is unwilling to address.
“Yes” is still the better option.
Comment by Bruno Behrend Wednesday, Oct 8, 08 @ 9:17 am