Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar » House Speaker blames media, downplays pension differences with Senate President

House Speaker blames media, downplays pension differences with Senate President

Tuesday, May 8, 2012 - Posted by Rich Miller

* The House Speaker tried to blame the media yesterday for pointing out some very real and substantive differences between himself and the Senate President about how to proceed with pension reform. As I told you yesterday, Speaker Michael Madigan introduced legislation that would change the MWRD’s pension plan in a deal worked out with most of the unions involved. It was seen as a model for reforming the state’s pension funds, but Senate President John Cullerton tacked on an amendment in the Senate which would’ve “nudged” employees into a new pension system by cutting their benefits in the current system. Cullerton eventually backed off that proposal and allowed Madigan’s version to stand. WUIS picks it up from there…

Several news reports highlighted the differences. But Madigan was diplomatic.

MADIGAN: “I don’t know that Cullerton took that much of a different approach.”

The speaker says he’s keeping an open mind.

MADIGAN: “I wouldn’t get uptight about the opinions unless of course you want to run a story that there’s a big conflict. If you want to do that, well you’re going to do what you’re going to do.”

Despite what Madigan says, the legal differences between the approaches are central to the debate over what Illinois can and cannot do as leaders look to cut the cost of retiree benefits.

That reporter is exactly right. These may look like technical differences, but they are quite different approaches to pension reform. And if Madigan does his usual thing and insists on his way or the highway, he could divide the two chambers.

Cullerton’s idea looks far more constitutional to many Statehouse eyes. But the reality is that neither may pass judicial muster.

12 Comments

- Rich Miller - Tuesday, May 8, 12 @ 10:47 am:
No comments? Really?

- PublicServant - Tuesday, May 8, 12 @ 11:03 am:
Sorry Rich, I was trying to listen to the tortured “logic” of the mayor. He’s not diminshing the pension, he’s rightsizing it, ensuring it will be there, and making it sustainable since not getting a pension check is the biggest impairment of all. You know you’re hearing a flimsy argument when both the words rightsizing and sustainable are used in the same sentence.

I hope Cullerton sticks to his guns, it’s an individual contract right.

- Curious - Tuesday, May 8, 12 @ 11:05 am:
Is it possible that the Speaker wants the MWRD bill to be used as a kind of trial balloon with the courts? Trying to start the convo here, Rich

- dave - Tuesday, May 8, 12 @ 11:15 am:
@Curious- so you think that they are going to wait to pass a more comprehensive pension reform plan until after the Supreme Court rules on the MWRD bill?

- Curious - Tuesday, May 8, 12 @ 12:02 pm:
I suppose it’s possible. The thought could be: why waste the capital on something we don’t know will work? Let’s pass something now, see if it holds up and then do everything else. It’s probably too urgent a priority to wait that long, however.

- Anonymous - Tuesday, May 8, 12 @ 12:19 pm:
Why not go Madigan’s way first and, if that doesn’t work in the Courts, then you have Cullerton’s way as a fall back?

- PublicServant - Tuesday, May 8, 12 @ 12:37 pm:
If the consideration being offered isn’t sufficient, Cullerton’s way won’t work either, but since the current theory here seems to be let’s throw everything we can at the wall and see what sticks, I suppose going with Madigan first makes sense.

- western illinois - Tuesday, May 8, 12 @ 3:18 pm:
I think Public Servant is right on the pensions because there is not only the constitution but federal and state contract law to which the constitution references. I dont think any of it passes the courts.
One Calpers offcial told CNBC Bankruptcy would not effect it because the top 2 creditors in California are the bondholders and the penioners and everything else would rank as unsecured creditors so on to healthcare.
Let us assume it is not a constitutional issue ,it is still a contractual issue not a gift like the John Deere case
http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/article_638710de-baa9-11de-9e54-001cc4c03286.html
Deere specifically said its retiree healthcare was a gift. The state did just the opposite and may have even codified it?!
The state can change its laws but the federal courst wont care if the state has made a valid contract

- reformer - Tuesday, May 8, 12 @ 3:21 pm:
More than any other individual, Madigan shares responsibility for decades of benefit enhancements and pension under-funding. Now he proposes to fix his handiwork with the cost being borne by government workers.

- PublicServant - Tuesday, May 8, 12 @ 3:35 pm:
At least he’s consistant, Reformer. A self-serving, power-hungry, self-centered piece of work.

- wordslinger - Tuesday, May 8, 12 @ 4:42 pm:
I think it’s fascinating that Cullerton messed with a bill that passed the House unanimously.

You wonder about the tension between those two. Cullerton was Madigan’s (insert your adjective here) for many years.

If past is prologue, Madigan has a history about letting former underlings know who’s the real boss.

See LaPaille, Gary.

Or for those Dems who thought they were Big Heat on their own and could diss Madigan, see Hartigan, Neil, or Blagojevich, Rod.

- Robert - Tuesday, May 8, 12 @ 4:46 pm:
==I think it’s fascinating that Cullerton messed with a bill that passed the House unanimously.

You wonder about the tension between those two. ==

I agree, I certainly wonder. Here’s hoping these two can get over whatever personal problems they may have with each other, given the state’s finances. Maybe Rahm can get them both in a room?

Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.