48 Comments - Knome Sane - Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 10:46 am: That’s a ridiculous statement. I now see where the chairman is sharpening his message for the 2012 election cycle. - Bill - Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 10:57 am: I think that Madigan probably believes that accumulating power is sound public policy and maybe it is if you look at the alternative. To say that he is afraid of losing the “millions” he receives from labor is just stupid. He passed real, constitutional pension reform in 2010 in 12 hours despite the staunch opposition of labor. The reason the current Cross/Madigan pension scheme hasn’t been called is because it is bad public policy, doesn’t have the votes to pass, and has already been declared unconstitutional by the Senate Dems. It will be DOA unless they cut some kind of deal with labor, and that has nothing to do with money or power, just common sense. Brady makes even less sense than his predecessors. - sal-says - Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 10:58 am: It seems the ‘public good’ got lost somewhere along the way. Not to say the either party has been distinguishing themselves with public policy or financial prudence. - wordslinger - Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 10:58 am: No, when it comes to public policy, Madigan is pretty conservative and often the only grownup in the room. That doesn’t mean he hasn’t made a good living as a rainmaker lawyer — they just don’t necessarily go hand-in-hand. And despite all the blather, he’s powerful, not all-powerful. He gets a seat at the table, but over the years, he wasn’t able to simply dictate to Thompson, Edgar, Blago, Pate, Emil Jones, Daley, et. al. Only the simple-minded blame complex problems of government and society in a democracy on one person. - walkinfool - Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 11:06 am: No. It’s such a disheartening, and misleading statement. Brady is projecting his own defects on someone else, precisely to accumulate power and self-enrichment, and to avoid discussing real policy solutions. - Lakeview - Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 11:12 am: Madigan’s power is a symptom of the total dysfunction in Springfield, but he’s forced out some of the grownups because they became disgusted with him (e.g., Julie Hamos). - Ahoy - Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 11:13 am: I voted yes, but I strongly disagree with Brady’s comments. I think the downgrade is an indictment on the Democrats and Republican’s inability to work together on sound solutions. The Republican’s can’t put all the blame on Madigan, it’s time they step up to the plate as well with more than just rhetoric and press conferences. - beserkr29 - Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 11:19 am: I voted yes, but would qualify it with the same “it’s not Madigan alone” caveat others have expressed. He’s just doing what it takes to win in Illinois. I respect that. It means that he has his backers to keep happy, even if it’s not the absolute best thing for the citizenry. Of course, as a downstater, much of my griping is directed at policies dictated by the “needs” of Chicago. Illinois is stuck between a rock and a hard place. People like me want to see spending slashed, not because there’s “waste” but because I disagree with many policies on principle. Waste is a term that gets thrown around too much at the state level. Federally, I feel that is more true, but this is a state blog and I’ll curb myself. Point is, Madigan is not exactly helping all the time, but it’s much bigger than him. - Reality Check - Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 11:19 am: So is Pat Brady endorsing Moody’s call for “adoption of a credible, comprehensive long-term pension funding plan”? That is the #1 thing Moody’s says is needed to repair the state’s credit rating, and it is exactly what the unions that represent public employees have been urging. Thanks to Rich for posting the document (https://capitolfax.com/MoodysGORatingActionJan12.pdf), we know that Moody’s DID NOT demand that legislators reduce pension benefits. Moody’s DID NOT urge legislators to unconstitutionally force higher contributions on public employees. Moody’s DID call for “adoption of a credible, comprehensive long-term pension funding plan”. - Soccertease - Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 11:22 am: Sound public policy seems to always take a back seat to politics (i.e., self-enrichment) in Illinois. It’s not just Madigan though-it’s pretty much all inclusive. - CircularFiringSquad - Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 11:25 am: First….can we conclude that since TWO other bond rating agencies — who are all frauds btw — did NOT down grade Madigan must be viewed as a policy wizard Bat .660 and you get to the Hall of Fame. Let’s be clear here, Gags Brady and Billboards Cross are on Round II of Blame Madigan For Everything Tour . It failed in 2010 and it will fail 2012. What Gags really needs to explain he how and Billboard LOST IL, wasted millions on their remap bungling and will be more behind the bullseye after November? Gags forgot the real credit for the downgrade goes to the folks who blocked the effort to pay down the old bills at record low interest rates and force IL taxpayers to spend MORE on old bills Please keep in mind that last week Gags big media stunt was to attack the Attorney General for being soft on corruption while forgetting to mention it was HIS US Attorney who bigfooted IL officials and then spent 4 long years before getting a conviction. BTW wasn’t GAGs getting a check from the Justice Dept before grabbing the GOPie reins in IL? - Jim - Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 11:25 am: It would be a mistake to lay all of Illinois’ woes at Madigan’s feet. There have been so many other political sleazeballs who should not be denied the credit they deserve. - mokenavince - Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 11:31 am: I voted yes,but while I feel Madigan was at the forefront of this mess he had plenty of help.Cullerton had his hand in it along with Lee Danials and Pate Phillips.There was a lot of hard work put into this mess.The where’s mine additude is ingrained in both the House and Senate. We have also had some real gems as Governor which hasn’t helped. All in all most of us should just look in the mirror,because were the real culprits for electing these people. - Jaded - Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 11:35 am: No, but all these political party types do anymore is blame the other side. All you have to do is read the (sometime daily)emails from the DNC, RNC, DLCC, etc., to illustrate this behavior. Brady is just taking a page out of the federal playbook on these types of communications. Throw lots of mud, and hopefully some of it will stick. I think most people are sick of it all and pay little or no attention to any of it. - unspun - Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 11:44 am: –”Madigan’s power is a symptom of the total dysfunction in Springfield, but he’s forced out some of the grownups because they became disgusted with him (e.g., Julie Hamos).”– Hamos ran for higher office and lost. She had been planning to run for AG, then switched course when Lisa Madigan decided to stay put. Now, maybe she was at odds with MJMadigan, but blaming him for her ouster is not accurate. Personal ambition played the largest role. - 1776 - Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 11:45 am: This statement and this theme is a joke. Madigan has amassed a tremendous amount of power - in some part because of the ineptness of Republicans (look at the Rosemary Mulligan issue for example). However, it takes both chambers and a Governor to pass legislation. My question for Pat Brady. Are you supporting the primary candidate against Roger Eddy who is strongly on record against pension reform? Dave Luechtefeld? Raymond Poe? If pensions are paramount, will you also issue statements blaming these folks who have all been around for more than a decade? - Oswego Willy - Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 11:59 am: I voted “No” and this is why. wordslinger makes the point that I think crystalizes what is the difference between MJM and this question, and possibly a great number of the other 3 “Tops” that have come and gone and this question. Madigan is the only “Grown-up” at times during very tense discussions about the serious issues facing the General Assembly. The Madigan “Rules” are all about doing nothing to jeopardize the majorty. That’s it. Madigan’s policies and conservative (relatively) leanings are to ensure the HDems do not go too far off course in ideology, while looking for a solution that is also best for Illinois, as Madigan sees it for the policy and keeping the majority. Everything is under that prism. MJM’s other sparring partners in policy have grandstanded, negotiated for the pure political purpose of being political, and rarely offer an alternative that would be a compromise that MJM could look at in both his majority’s eyes and what is best for Illinois as a policy. MJM is no saint, and often I am at odds with what the Speaker wants to do, but I have never thought Madigan has/d gone off the reservation and did/does all he did/does for power, at the expense of sound policy or accumulating power for its own sake. That is it. However, if you really want to know why Daniels failed, and why Cross IS failing, this question is the opening “incision” to the entire “operation”. Madigan needs to do nothing to accumulate power, because he has the “power”. Period, end of sentence, new paragraph. The power of being the “grown-up”. Even if you say, for the arguement that Pat Brady is talking about YEARS and YEARS of decisions, then why can it be said during the past governors of Thompson, Edgar, Ryan, Blago, Quinn, … that it was/is Madigan’s cool head during negotiations with the likes of Pate, or Daniels or Emil, or Cross, etc., Speaker Madigan was where it was known policy could be best carved? Madigan was/is the “Grown-up”. That is why Rod failed too. Among the “too numerous to mention” reasons MJM never met with Rod soon after taking office was that Rod was never an “adult” in policy, but about the soundbite or the grandstand, not about being sound policy, which is one of so many factors that has Illinois where we are today. The answer is “No”. Being an adult has gotten MJM his power, not the premise Pat Brady has summized. - bored now - Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 12:03 pm: i voted no. while i wouldn’t despite the evidence that the speaker has accumulated a disproportionate amount of political power in the state (and i have a problem with that), i see that as completely separate to his implementation of that power. it’s not like he’s way outside the mainstream of democratic legislators around the country. to me, he’s a conservative democrat who runs a tight ship. sometimes he makes choices i don’t appreciate, but when you look at what he’s done, he fits squarely within what one would expect of a catholic democrat from a white, working class neighborhood in chicago. while we might not agree, you got to respect a politician who understand the rules and knows where the money is. every politician should know this, because you won’t be successful in doing whatever you were elected to do otherwise… - Shock & Awww(e) - Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 12:06 pm: Madigan has been the single, constant, overwhelming force in IL politics for many years. Many years of “sound public policy” did not get IL to where it is today. Many years of “sound partisan policy” have. My tune might be different if our general state of affairs were currently improving, but they’re not. Hopefully they will. - Kasich Walker, Jr. - Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 12:18 pm: No. Not that I ever met him or would even recognize him if I saw him walking down Pulaski, but if Speaker Madigan was all about accumulating power and self-enrichment he would have figured out a way to leave the the Statehouse and get the heck out of Springfield a long time ago to become a corporate lobbyist, POTUS, or something like that. The guy loves Illinois. - wordonthestreet - Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 12:19 pm: Of course. Which makes him no different than 98% of all politicians at the state or national level. - Kasich Walker, Jr. - Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 12:19 pm: …further, if the projected deficit is $507 million, I’m guessin’ Speaker Madigan would cough up forty bucks to pay his share. - MrJM - Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 12:24 pm: Perhaps, but that would in no way distinguish Mr. Madigan from the vast majority of elected officials serving in Springfield. – MrJM - Yellow Dog Democrat - Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 12:29 pm: I can only think of three examples where Madigan’s political instincts got the better of him, and they had absolutely nothing to with self-enrichment: #1 - Remaining neutral in the 2002 Democratic primary for governor, instead of supporting Paul Vallas; #2 - Focusing resources on re-electing downstate Democrats (Bill Grunloh, I love you, but…) at the expense of underperforming in the collar counties; #3 - Delaying the inevitable vote for a tax increase and THEN passing one that was too small to pay passed due bills and protect funding for education and human services. On the other side of the ledger, I can think of plenty of examples where Madigan went against the political tide in pursuit of strong public policy, to name a few: - Working with Governor Edgar to rein in state spending, especially in Chicago; - Leading the fight for reforms of our criminal justice system, like ending racial profiling and videotaping homicide interrogations, the fruits of which were later claimed by Candidate Obama; - Com-Ed; - McCormick Place; - Prospective pension reforms; - Standing up to Blagojevich; The fact is that Moody’s, as many commenters here note, was relieved when Illinois raised taxes, as I’m sure most Republicans are privately. And Moody’s recognizes, as both Madigan and Cullerton do, that passing unconstitutional measures that will inevitably be overturned by the courts might be a great way to placate the Tribune and voters, but won’t actually do anything to improve the state’s physical health. If Tom Cross and Pat Brady want to do something to relieve our pension obligations, I suggest they only endorse or support candidate who sign the required document for opting out of the pension system prior to the election. And introduce and pass legislation to eliminate the current deadline for elected officials to opt out of the pension system (currently, two years). - shore - Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 12:39 pm: Short answer. No. It’s called governing. - D.P. Gumby - Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 12:41 pm: That’s just silly. Pension and other public policy problems in Illinois are no more the fault of one person than is Ron Paul a great political philosopher. A FUBAR like Illinois takes lots of people and lots of years. - Irish - Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 12:46 pm: I voted yes but not for the reason Brady names. Mike Madigan has never been an avid supporter of public employees. The place where “sound public policy long ago took a back seat to accumulating power and self-enrichment”. came into play was when he could have passed an income tax increase and started other fiscal measures 10 years ago when the increase could have been less and accomplished more but he chose to preserve his dynasty instead of doing the right thing for Illinois. The real problem with the pensions started a long time ago under Republican administrations when the payments to the fund were diverted and no money was going into the system. This continued through three Republican administrations and into the administration of Blago when pension payment holidays continued. The fact that no payments were made AND that the repayment hs been tied to a 90% funded pension system instead of a more manageble lower amount has made the pension payments unmanageable. Also at no time during the last ten years did the Republicans mount any type of serious attempt to fix the fiscal mess themselves. - Jeeves - Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 12:47 pm: I also find it interesting that none of the statements coming from the GOP leadership actually address what Moody’s said, just what it did. The reasoning put forward includes only political talking points, so they can ignore that Moody’s raised the state’s outlook to “stable” from “negative”, indicated that the 2011 tax increase was a good start, and that funding pensions - not blowing them up - needed to be a priority. Lack of political will was the overriding reason given for dropping the bond rating to A2, and not wanting to pay bills on time - including what is owed to pensions - was the primary symptom noted. - OneMan - Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 12:47 pm: Not really sure if this can be placed at the feet of the speaker, but at some level I think what is in it for me and mine has a level of influence that is unhealthy - BelleAire - Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 12:59 pm: I don’t agree with Brady but feel that Madigan is only out for himself just like most of the other bad people that we voters seem to fall for every cycle. Part of the issue with Madigan is the amount of time he has spent as an elected offical which automatically gives him more opportunity and power—and he is more than willing to take it. Madigan, Cullerton, Daley and a host of others are the perfect examples of why we need term limits yesterday. - Esquire - Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 1:08 pm: For the past three decades, with one brief two year period where the Democratics were in the minority in the House, Madigan has been the one constant in Illinois politics. For better or worse, he owns much of the debacle in Springfield. He has been an effective politician, who has amassed wealth and power, but a poor statesman. - Retired Non-Union Guy - Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 1:33 pm: Irish, George Ryan actually made the full pension payments. - reformer - Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 1:37 pm: Putting partisanship above sound public policy? If that doesn’t define the Chris/Cross/Brady philosophy, then I don’t know what does. - Perturbed - Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 1:41 pm: The pension problem is the responsibility of both parties. Over the years that Madigan has been Speaker, both parties have robbed the pension system so revenues would be available for appropriations desirable to members of both parties. Sometimes those projects are called pork or ear marks; but nearly always there is bi-partisan support. The legislature ought to figure out a way to correct their mistake in a way that does not penalize state employees, especially long term employees. There are about 30,000(?) state employees in IL who provide services to 13 million Illinoians. Why should 30,000 people pay for a deficit that was incurred by an incompetent legislature to provide services to 13 million citizens. To do so is further evidence of the cowardice and corruption of the legislative leaders…Cullerton excepted. - Easy - Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 1:56 pm: I’m not ready to say what the motivations are, but I think it is pretty clear that the Speaker has advocated some very detrimental public policy over the last decade. lump sum budgets to Blagojevich unbalanced budgets to Gov skipping a pension payment spending that far exceeds revenue I have read the refrain the he is the adult at the table, but I don’t see it. Wouldn’t he pass a balanced budget? wouldn’t he prep line by line budgets and not send Blago lump sum budgets? Why skip a pension payment? Illinois has been riddled with some very poor bordering on drastic public policies and the common denominator is MJM. I’m not saying everything he did was done for political or personal benefit. Although he should have to explain not refinancing RTA debt. What I’m saying is he just made some poor decisions that exacerbated a bad situation. I think in 20 years people are going to have a hard time explaining/justifying the Madigan era. - Observing - Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 1:56 pm: And I was just wondering when Pat Brady would again bestow upon us more nuggets of his inherent wisdom. My day is complete. Nevermind the fact that, in regards to tax hike vs. pensions, a healthy number of legislators wanted to pass a tax hike so it could (presumably) generate more money for services. Very, very few want to get within 1,000 feet of scaling back pension benefits for current employees. The answer to the question about Madigan is No. And anyone who was awake during the Blago years knows why. Dog and Irish, relative to the idea that Madigan should have passed a tax increase years ago. Let’s not forget that our since-impeached and removed governor repeatedly vowed to veto any tax increase. So the point in passing one would have been what, exactly? I’m pretty confident the GOP would not have put any votes on it to help ensure an override. - Teamster - Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 2:25 pm: Problem being is all these so called legislators look for headlines. Cross doesn`t care if a law is constitutional with respect to pension reform.He says pass it and let the courts decide, which leads to litigation that costs the Illinois taxpayers millions of dollars. One has to question the legislatures attacks on the employees instead of the funding problem that they created over years of indecision. How many bills do think these politicians read? I bet not 5% of the one`s they vote upon.They are bobbing heads and wagging tails to the legislative leaders.I also have to question Minority Leader Cross`s condenmation of pensioners when he receives a legislative pension and works a part time job to receive it? Does he defer his law firms 401 (k) while in Sprinfield why no. He will receive two streams of retirement and a third in Social Security, so who is calling the kettle black? Minority Leader Cross will receive (3) forms of retirement benefits when he retires for a part time job! How many legislators are Township Supervisors, City of Chicago employees or in another government capacity receiving a legislative and municipal pension? Saviano( Leyden Township Supervisor), Lyons(Cook County), Bugielski( City of Chicago), Osterman( City of Chicago), Peterson ( Vernon Hills Supervisor), Viverito(Stickney Township Supervisor) , Rich Bradley (City of Chicago)D`Amico(City of Chicago). Water Reclamation Commissioner Cynthia Santos will receive a Water Reclamation pension and a State pension as a result of being a supervisor at the Secretary of State`s office while she serves as a commissioner and is married to Rep. Bradley. This is to name a few. Where is the political outrage there? Lastly, I would appreciate it if someone could tell me how representaive Cross is allowed to use state funds for his website promoting his law firm on his taxpayer funded website? He is not the only one many other legislators use taxpayer funds listing the companies they work for. Treasurer Dan Rutheford lists his employer Servicemaster. - 47th Ward - Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 3:23 pm: No. More histrionics in lieu of leadership from Pat Brady. Someone here (I can’t remember who) said it best about Madigan and power (paraphrasing): He has all of the power in the state, but doesn’t want to use it, and more importantly, he doesn’t want anyone else to use it either. I still chuckle at that. - Dirt Digger - Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 3:37 pm: The allegation is gibberish. Illinois’ state legislature gives outsized influence to its leaders, and Madigan has an outsized reputation even given that influence. But whining about “sound public policy” presumes in Springfield has any “sounder” alternatives, which is demonstrably not the case. Also, of all of the things to complain about with regards to labor unions, campaign contributions are laughable. If Republicans dont like the mighty juggernaut of labor campaign spending they are free to avail themselves of any number of larger revenue streams. - CircularFiringSquad - Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 4:06 pm: Another thought as the workday winds down and we head in to our customary 20 min. “wash-up” Someone ask Gags where credit rating would be if his idiot cousin, NoTaxBill, had not bungled the campaign and actually won! IL would be $6 billion farther behind….the bond rating would have been ………………. Fire, Aim, Ready - Capital View - Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 4:24 pm: Illinois is not the only state in pensions trouble, even if we are the worst in the nation at the moment. It has been too easy for past governors, past BOB directors, and past legislators to simply fund state government services and let the pensions funds cruise along on underfunded autopilot. Here in “Ill”-inois Speaker Madigan himself did not pass all the “early out” state employee retirement packages at then end of most gubernatorial terms these past thirty years. I’m tired of the two parties throwing blame at each other rather than suggesting corrective actions. - Louis Howe - Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 4:44 pm: NO!!!…Madigan’s power comes from the ability to STOP legislation. Under funding the pension system went on for all of the 26 years of Thompson/Edgar/Ryan republican administrations. Governors propose budgets and the legislature authorizes spending. Gov. Thompson really accelerated the pension underfunding when he allowed the state’s contribution to be based on “100% of Payout,” a euphemism for ignoring future pension benefit liabilities. - Anonymous - Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 5:07 pm: Didn’t vote. The statement is simply worth a retort that many others have already made. Brady’s just going to have to try harder than pushing out those one-liners as if they’re fact, which many in the GOP have gotten used to slinging around. Illinois Voters deserve better. (lol) - game over4me - Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 6:38 pm: wordslinger and YDD are 100% correct. I would also add that I really doubt at this point in his life MJM needs to do anything for, what did Brady call it–”self enrichment” The guy has one of the most effective property tax appeal law firms in the state. He could have left years ago-and made more money by focusing on said firm. Pat Brady- “now stop-hatin is bad!” - Observing - Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 7:33 pm: ==lump sum budgets to Blagojevich unbalanced budgets to Gov skipping a pension payment spending that far exceeds revenue== Easy, are you prepared to acknowledge that the GOP helped pass half of those budgets and the spending you mention? Since 2003, anyway. Before then it was more than that. And maybe I’m mistaken, but I don’t recall any lump sum budgets to Blago. To Quinn, yes (one of which the GOP put votes on). And as far as pension, the five systems got billions in funding the years the GOP likes to reference, despite their claims to the contrary. Nothing was “skipped”. - Sunshine - Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 7:43 pm: Not Madigan’s world. It’s been going on for the past 50-years as far as I’m concerned. It’s still going on. We all own this one. - just sayin' - Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 11:43 pm: Doesn’t Pat Brady have a party to not lead? - Aldyth - Tuesday, Jan 10, 12 @ 7:09 am: Interesting that there were more comments that said no rather than yes. But the vote came out yes at almost 75%. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.