55 Comments - Aaron - Thursday, Sep 6, 12 @ 11:22 am: If Cross and Radogno were committed to pension reform, it would be done. Instead, they simply want to use the issue to bludgeon Democrats. There’s a reason the ILGOP is weak and it stems right from their strategy of playing political games above all else. - 1776 - Thursday, Sep 6, 12 @ 11:25 am: No. It’s a political game that they are trying to use to help them at the ballot box in November. Cross in particular has moved the ball so much (everybody in, no teachers, and finally he suggested only GA and then opposed it) that it looks like the “shell game” that they show on the scoreboard during the 4th inning stretch at Cardinal games. Radogno pulled the John Kerry of the year (First I was for it before I was against it). - Easy - Thursday, Sep 6, 12 @ 11:28 am: How is it a political game? How does offering a comprehensive pension reform solution that angers every teacher, every state worker a good political move? With that said, Madigan is gaining the most. It’s clear he is opposed to comprehensive reform and that’s why public employee unions are making such large investments in his warchest. - G'Kar - Thursday, Sep 6, 12 @ 11:29 am: I voted “No” simply because this is Illinois in 2012. No one in state government with any power is interested in bi-partisanship. It makes me wish there was a “Pox on both your houses” on the elections ballots. - Ray del Camino - Thursday, Sep 6, 12 @ 11:32 am: Their comments make it obvious they are not in favor of real, comprehensive reform. They have to understand the problem before they can fix it. - PQ's Primary Opponent - Thursday, Sep 6, 12 @ 11:36 am: I think Cross got in too deep with the Civic Committee guys before he ever actually polled his caucus. Not sure Tom EVER gets 30 in his group to vote for true pension reform.. - dirt diver - Thursday, Sep 6, 12 @ 11:38 am: The Republicans can and will do what they do best, play the obstructionist role and bad mouth the Dems for failing to get something done on their own. Cross keeps moaning about property tax increases that will result from this bill, but his version of SB 1673 that eliminated the 6% rule and made it the 0% rule would have had more substantial short terms costs that would have required higher property tax increases than those laid out in Madigan’s phased in proposal. I am skeptical that the Dem’s can do this alone. However, my skepticism is based on the fact that I believe that there are honorable democrats that won’t stab their labor allies in the back. - Anon - amiss - Thursday, Sep 6, 12 @ 11:39 am: Voted no. This position that the cost-shift guarantees a property tax hike is a farse. As reported back in June: “Quinn aides released an internal report suggesting that almost all school districts are capable of assuming their own retirement costs. Specifically, the report says that 95 percent of districts have reserves exceeding minimum recommended standards and that phasing out state payments over several years would affect their budgets only about 0.4 percent a year.” Most, not all, districts would be able to absorb the costs. Additionally, this change would provide an incentive to districts to be more fiscally prudent when it came to spending on salaries. Sounds like a traditional a conversative principle to me - but don’t let principles get in the way of politics. - tubbfan - Thursday, Sep 6, 12 @ 11:39 am: There is no such thing as bi-partisanship in this State, except when it comes to kicking out a corrupt Governor or legislator. - dirt diver - Thursday, Sep 6, 12 @ 11:39 am: @ PQ’s primary Opponent. No, Cross never had 30. I’ve heard it ranged from 19-26 depending on who and when you asked. I know that he never had 30. I’ve also been told he was supposed to throw on more than 30 (for his SB 512). - Crime Fighter - Thursday, Sep 6, 12 @ 11:42 am: No they definitely do not. Ray del Camino says it best: ==Their comments make it obvious they are not in favor of real, comprehensive reform. They have to understand the problem before they can fix it.== @ Easy ==How is it a political game? How does offering a comprehensive pension reform solution that angers every teacher, every state worker a good political move?== Because these employees are a minority and those who want to harm them are a majority of voters, media, and businesses. - Elm Princ - Thursday, Sep 6, 12 @ 11:45 am: I voted no. Neither party is interested in Bi-partisanship. The issue needs to be address in a comprehensive way with the legislature admitting that their lack of payment int the system over the years is the major source of the problem. Not the “Princely pensions”. All will have to pay some to fix this. - Just Me - Thursday, Sep 6, 12 @ 11:49 am: Since the democrats are the ones in control, shouldn’t the question be whether they want to be bi-partisan instead? - Anon - amiss - Thursday, Sep 6, 12 @ 11:55 am: “Since the democrats are the ones in control, shouldn’t the question be whether they want to be bi-partisan instead?” No. The Republicans are the ones kicking and screaming about the need for pension reform, and don’t want to contribute the votes to get it done. Its classic double talk. - Anon - amiss - Thursday, Sep 6, 12 @ 11:57 am: Im sorry, I didnt mean double talk, I meant talking out of both sides of their mouths - western illinois - Thursday, Sep 6, 12 @ 12:00 pm: And Madigan just helped him some more The republicans are totally cynicaal. I expect them to run hard against pension reform now! If I were a downstate or suburban dem I would not be happy with the Speaker - RNUG - Thursday, Sep 6, 12 @ 12:02 pm: No, but they are being bi-partisan about it. Right now it isn’t about fixing the problem; it’s about fixing the blame. - Michelle Flaherty - Thursday, Sep 6, 12 @ 12:04 pm: The GOP leaders want pension reform as much as Lucy Van Pelt wanted Charlie Brown to kick the football. - just sayin' - Thursday, Sep 6, 12 @ 12:05 pm: “…will lead to a massive property tax increase” Not if your local Republican friends would stop passing themselves big salary increases Tom. That’s the whole point of the shifting. Making people be accountable for the increases they approve instead of making others keep paying. Basically what Republicans are supposed to be about. It’s called accountability Tom. Look into it. Just when you thought the GOP couldn’t be a bigger joke in this state, Tom Cross proves you wrong. - Sideliner - Thursday, Sep 6, 12 @ 12:09 pm: At this point it seems Cross and Radogno look at the pension issue as an opportunity to score talking points, instead of a problem to be solved. Being able to wash their hands of any Madigan-only vote would let them whine even louder. - Michelle Flaherty - Thursday, Sep 6, 12 @ 12:14 pm: You know what else could lead to “massive property tax increases”? Massive state cuts to education funding. You know, like the ones the Republicans keep demanding. - GA Watcher - Thursday, Sep 6, 12 @ 12:35 pm: I agree with those who say Republican leadership is playing election politics right now. I vote “No”. Also, former Governor Edgar’s comments re start by reforming the smallest pension system in Crain’s the otehr day were insightful. Too bad they came weeks after the special session. - Thoughtless Penny - Thursday, Sep 6, 12 @ 12:40 pm: No. For the GOP it’s just rope-a-dope action. It’s all empty bluster. No. Bills. Ever. - too obvious - Thursday, Sep 6, 12 @ 12:50 pm: Same old thing. Tom Cross and the gop want the state to tank and everyone to suffer in the hopes of gop pick-ups in November. Needless to say it won’t work. Cross and the gop will of course lose seats across the state in November, as they should in response to the shameful refusal to try and help Illinois and its people. - Cook County Commoner - Thursday, Sep 6, 12 @ 12:53 pm: No. I’m looking at the list published by Treaurer Pappas on her website of 498 Illinois government units, most of whom reported their “pension fund percent funded.” Most are well below the recommended 80% funded rate. And that is at a probably inflated expected future rate of return. If these funds must redo their numbers at a rational rate rate of return in the future, the overall numbers are catastrophic. I don’t know where Governor Quinn got his numbers to conclude most school districts can fund their pension obligations without significant property tax increases or significant reductions in costs or both. These numbers indicate that a biparisan solution is out of the question, unless politicians in Illinois develop a selfless and honorable attitude and tell the truth together and get voted out of office. Unlikely. The only solution involves tax increases, service cuts and reform of presntly vested workers and retirees. Not going to happen. So, all that is left is posturing, bickering and hoping for another term in office. - Belle - Thursday, Sep 6, 12 @ 1:11 pm: It’s so difficult to believe any of them. I wish it were more complex than the experience of constant deception. - Hal Meebles - Thursday, Sep 6, 12 @ 1:17 pm: No. Cross and Radogno have proven themselves totally disingenuous on pension reform. They want to perpetuate dysfunction and blame it on democrats - Rod - Thursday, Sep 6, 12 @ 1:27 pm: I voted no, but I agree with both Rep Cross and Sen Radogno that downstate and suburban areas would experience a property tax increase based on cost shifting. Clearly property taxes will be the only way these school districts will be able to pick up pension costs even with a long phase in. But the root of the school funding issue here is really Republican opposition to taxing the most wealthy in our state at a higher rate than the poorest tax payer in the state. There is also no question that Democrats supported the Constitution’s provision that gives our state the flat income tax, but the time for that provision is over. The flat tax is fundamentally a position ideologically consistent with Republican thinking and not that of Democrats. There will be no school funding reform until the State constitution is amended in relation to the flat income tax, if the cost shift provision forces that discussion then it is all for the better. - Bill - Thursday, Sep 6, 12 @ 1:28 pm: No. If they really wanted to arrive at a solution they would begin serious talks with the We Are One Coalition and use their 3 point framework as a starting point. All the rest is just theater. Their plans become more and more ridiculous and unconstitutional as time goes on and none of them address the massive debt which the state has run up. Hosing people who are already retired will never get through the courts and everyone knows it. Whether they cut benefits or not they will still need a substantial increase in revenue. Pay now or pay more later. - nickypiii - Thursday, Sep 6, 12 @ 1:38 pm: Obviously Tom Cross doesn’t understand how property taxes work. Tax Caps limit levy increases. Most districts already ask for a maximum increase allowed by law. How is the property tax going to increase without approval of the voters via referendum? Am I missing something here? - Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Sep 6, 12 @ 1:45 pm: LOL. For years the GOP mantra — often reiterated on this blog — is that Democrats created the problem, Democrats control state government, and Democrats should fix it. Now that Madigan is threatening to do just that, Cross wants a bipartisan solution? LOLLOLLOL. Others here are correct. Cross NEVER had 30 votes, and I doubt he was ever as close as 26. My count was 22…not even half of his caucus. Cross has botched this and the other budget issues so badly that his caucus, the Civic Federation and the Tribune editorial board should throw him off the bus. Back up over him, and peel out. Seriously. If I’m the Tribune, I’d call Cross into the editorial board, ask him what his plan is, ask to see his list of 30 names, and then pen an editorial calling for his ouster as minority leader if he can’t get pension reform done. - Crime Fighter - Thursday, Sep 6, 12 @ 1:57 pm: YDD - If you were the Tribune, you’d be delusional by now. - Reality 101 - Thursday, Sep 6, 12 @ 2:01 pm: There are quite a few people posting opinions here. Here are the facts Cross filed SB512 two years ago to be vetted by all. Rep. Fortner has a bill out there similar has has been filed for all to vette. Both of these gentlemen are Republicans. These two bills are the ONLY BILLS that have been filed that deal with comprehensive pension reform. The governor filed a sheet of paper with 6 dot points. Nice job Governor, glad you could join the debate. Madigan shoved a bill before the general assembly at the end of session that was by all standards NOT comprehensive. So, please if people are going to talk about placing blame on a partiular person or a particular party, please know the facts. - foster brooks - Thursday, Sep 6, 12 @ 2:04 pm: Cross and rodogno are making blagoofy look good. - walkinfool - Thursday, Sep 6, 12 @ 2:10 pm: NO Not yet, at least. If there were a willingness by the GOP to reach bi-partisan painful compromise on this issue, it would already have passed as the Nekritz bill, or something close to it. When one party group (Dems) tries to be bi-partisan for months, and takes fully into consideration the other party’s ideas, and comes up with a true mix of the ideas of both sides, while taking significant pain politically themselves — And the other party goes along for the ride until they decide they want to lay all the political pain on the Dems, and then they threaten to vote No as a bloc even on their own ideas – Then Yes. One party has shown itself to be acting in a bi-partisan way, and the other party has not. Obstructing true and difficult compromise does not allow one to fairly criticize the other party for not being bi-partisan. Same is true in US Senate, where members of the minority party have filibustered or otherwise killed 241 bills, including many for jobs growth and recovery. Included were many ideas initially proposed by the GOP, but rejected when Obama agreed to compromise and include them. An absolute disgrace, for which everyday Republicans should hold their party leaders accountable. - Robert the Bruce - Thursday, Sep 6, 12 @ 2:14 pm: Voted no. Radogno and Cullerton seem closer to “Yes” than do Madigan and Cross. Radogno was compromising for awhile until she joined Cross in playing the obstruction game. Madigan has done a great job of deflecting the blame to Gov. Quinn while seemingly doing nothing to advance pension reform in the house. There aren’t enough votes for the Democrats to go it alone, nor are there enough Republican votes to expect a 50-50 split. From a vote tally point of view, the solution is clearly somewhere in between. Leadership from within the membership (could Fortner and Greg Harris work together?) would be ideal. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Sep 6, 12 @ 2:17 pm: @Reality 101 - And yet, Cross has not called his bill. Why not? You’d THINK he’d be anxious for a roll call showing the majority of Republicans, including all of his targets, support pension reform, and that Democrats don’t. Heck, you’d think that he’d atleast have 30 Republicans co-sponsoring the bill with him. Or ATLEAST all of his caucus leaders. But nope. The Republicans’ “comprehensive solution” has only six co-sponsors, and one of those is Mike Madigan. Heck, only one other Republican leader’s name is on that bill: Tim Schmitz. Why isn’t Skip Saviano’s name on it? Or Jim Watson? Or Mike Bost? Or David Leitch? Or Dan Brady? I’ll tell you why: they aren’t for the bill. Any idea how many union members Saviano has in his district, and how much money he’s received from organized labor over the years? Any guess as to how many AFSCME members and other state employees live in Watson’s district? Or Bost’s?? That is the reality. - Concerned Professor - Thursday, Sep 6, 12 @ 2:52 pm: “We can’t keep throwing new revenue at our problems, especially from the taxpayers in this state.” This is a COST SHIFT, not new revenue. What they are basically saying is that their constituents Downstate and in the suburbs shouldn’t have to support their own school pensions like Chicago does. instead they want to keep getting free money from Chicago. - Cynic - Thursday, Sep 6, 12 @ 2:53 pm: I say yes in a qualified way. As a minority they want the majority to take a lead in making these politically unpopular choices. Thus, the deal will have to be structured correctly before they sign on to it. Before the election,this was almost impossible. It may be more so afterwards. In the end,because of their districts, some members of both parties may never be able to support pension reform. - anonymous45 - Thursday, Sep 6, 12 @ 3:22 pm: Absolutely not. They won’t offer a plan that their caucases can get behind, and are against whatever the Dems put up for consideration. That’s not leadership on the issue as far as I can see it. - Decaf Coffee Party - Thursday, Sep 6, 12 @ 3:51 pm: The notion that school districts can or should use their reserve funds to pay for the cost shift is not realistic. Those funds are a district’s only safety net when the state payments are late, when the state cuts the education budget after the school’s budget is formulated for the next year (schools have to make personnel decisions in March or April but the state budget is not determined until much later). Many districts are running deficits and get through the year using the reserves. When they are gone, they’re gone, but the cost shift would remain. The idea that schools should drain their reserve funds is the same prescription the state used to get into the fiscal disaster it has created. - Mr.Big Trouble - Thursday, Sep 6, 12 @ 3:57 pm: I am sad to have to have to vote no,but the truth is that entrenched self interest again rules the day in this state. In many ways, they all remind of a classroom full of second graders fighting w/ the substitute teacher over what to do next in class. They are all screaming, little is heard, and the sub ( Quinn ? ) is trying to get a handle on the whole situation. Sad, sad, sad days for this once great state… - Commonsense in Illinois - Thursday, Sep 6, 12 @ 4:33 pm: Just a question here, but does anybody know the definition of “comprehensive pension reform”? I staffed the Pension Committee many years ago and even then (we had an unfunded accrued liability of $10 billion) I couldn’t tell you what the definition was. It’s a real can of worms, but what the heck, I’ll open it. - Reality 101 - Thursday, Sep 6, 12 @ 4:46 pm: @YDD, My sources that I have utmost faith in said there were 30 Republican votes. Kicking and screaming no doubt but they where there. Madigan had 6 therefore the vote was not taken. Funny thing though. When SB512 was to potentially come up for a vote there were 5,000 protesters at the Capitol. WHen any of Madigans bills that did not have comprehensive reform came up there wasn’t a union member to heard from. Can you tell me why that is? I can and the reason is simple. Madigan does not want reform before the election. So after the election Madigan will stick it to the Unions like he did with Tier II and he will stick it to down state and the suburbs with the cost shift. - steve schnorf - Thursday, Sep 6, 12 @ 6:10 pm: At some point we have to look at actions not words, and action/inaction speaks for itself. I have hope, but not faith, and hope is fading. They should jump on Fortner’s bill and play offense for a while instead of defense. “Here is a bill we will put half the votes on. What will you do, Mr Speaker, Mr President?” - wishbone - Thursday, Sep 6, 12 @ 6:34 pm: Pension reform is a red herring. You cannot put an 83 billion dollar fiscal problem on the backs of future and current retirees alone. As Rich has pointed out a major tax increase is a once in a generation opportunity, and we have had ours. This means the $83 billion has to come from the spending side of the ledger. The only way the pain of the needed cuts will be bearable is to spread them over time, and over ALL recipients of state spending. A 3 or 4 percent cut to all state appropriations (including current pensions) for as long as it takes to bring spending into balance with revenues is the only fair approach. The longer across the board cuts are delayed the worse they will have to be when the logic of this approach finally sinks in. No court is going to substitute its judgment for that of the legislature on how to spend the state’s money, and politics demands that no single group bear a disproportionate share of the needed cuts. Another way of looking at this is that any group arguing that they be spared their fair share of an across the board cut is saying that some other group should suffer more than them. I don’t think that argument will succeed in the long term. - PublicServant - Thursday, Sep 6, 12 @ 8:16 pm: ===politics demands that no single group bear a disproportionate share of the needed cuts. Another way of looking at this is that any group arguing that they be spared their fair share of an across the board cut is saying that some other group should suffer more than them.=== The group who benefitted from the state’s “borrowing” from the pension over the last four decades is the taxpayers, of which state employees are included. The four year temporary tax increase is no substitute for forty plus years of lower taxes due to pension dipping by the taxpayers elected representatives. The debt they ran up benefitted Illinois taxpayers through lower taxes than they would have otherwise had to pay over the last 40 years. That group, which includes state employees, should bear the burden of repaying the debt problem that the state has. As I’ve said before, it’s a debt problem, not a pension problem. The pensions are not the problem. “Borrowing” from them is, and the group that benefitted from that borrowing should be the ones that are impacted by any solutions that actually solve the problem. Both of the bills currently under consideration, irrespective of their illegality, do not solve the debt problem. They barely make a dent. See the CTBA numbers for verifiable proof. The state of Illinois has a structural tax problem that will have to be addressed to both solve the current debt problem attributed to pensions, which are only involved because they were the victims of the “borrowing” as well as the new debt that will be added in the coming years. Stop blaming the victim. That’s once again the supposed easy way out that will be found to be illegal, and focus on keeping reasonable promises made, and correcting the real elephant in the room caused by our regressive tax system. - geronimo - Thursday, Sep 6, 12 @ 8:29 pm: Public Servant—-you could not have stated the truth more eloquently! But the game is to blame the victims. A good offense is much better than a good defense. If state employees will buy it, well then……… - PublicServant - Thursday, Sep 6, 12 @ 9:08 pm: Geronimo-State Employees, many other Illinois taxpayers, and many state politicians aren’t buying it. I believe, due to the total abandonment by the democrats, that the bills will pass. I can’t see the courts sustaining them. If they do, then this country has much more serious problems than the bills purport to fix. What makes this country great is the rule of law. That certainty that agreements made are enforceable. That’s how people are free to focus their efforts on bettering themselves through individual initiative. These proposals attempt to destroy that bedrock of legally enforced trust. The bills, if passed, must be rejected by any fair interpretation of current law. Without that strong rejection, this state, and this country are doomed. - Anon - Thursday, Sep 6, 12 @ 9:32 pm: Yes, but only if real reform. The Dems don’t want real reform. They want to make the smallest possible changes. - Michelle Flaherty - Thursday, Sep 6, 12 @ 10:46 pm: Wishbone, “all state appropriations” so we should cut our payment to the unfunded pension liability by 4 percent? And also short debt service by 4 percent? Try this: Call up your bank and tell them you’re not going to make the full mortgage payment because you’re reducing your liabilities. Then try it with your credit card company. Let us know how that works for you. Perhaps you meant all state operations? Well, that’s a much smaller pool, I think around $30 billion. So a 4 percent cut out of that to address an $83 billion liability (that grows at 8-plus percent annually) should have us out of trouble in no time. - Demoralized - Thursday, Sep 6, 12 @ 11:15 pm: ==The Dems don’t want real reform== Stop it already with this partisan nonsense!!! There is opposition all over the board to massive changes. And I swear if I hear the tired old argument that the “Dems control everything so they should fix” it one more time I’m gonna scream. I wish each time somebody said that a giant hand would slap them very hard in the back of the head. - Michelle Flaherty - Thursday, Sep 6, 12 @ 11:34 pm: Demoralized, the next time you hear someone say that, you should tell them to ask the GOP members if they’re still collecting their state paychecks. If they don’t want to participate in the legislative process, well then they should really not participate. It turns out they’re the ones in the empty chair. - orlkon - Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 9:08 am: No, and neither are the Democrats! It’s a do-nothing legislature and voters need to vote on effectiveness, not partisianship! For once do what’s right for the people and not politics. - wishbone - Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 3:27 pm: “Try this: Call up your bank and tell them you’re not going to make the full mortgage payment because you’re reducing your liabilities. Then try it with your credit card company.” Sorry Michelle, but that is not a credible analogy. Governments get to do lots of things that individual citizens would go to jail for. Please tell me, if across the board cuts won’t work, how do you solve the 83 billion problem without those imaginary tax increases which are not going to happen? Fiddling with the pension programs will certainly never get there. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.