21 Comments - Abe the Babe - Tuesday, May 7, 13 @ 9:05 am: To me the “plan A, plan B” scenario for lawmaking is a dangerous precedent. A judge who is supposed to interpret and determine a law’s constitutionaility would now get to choose the best “policy” for the State. In a sense he or she becomes the 178th legislator who has the last say. Judges are already tempted too much with policy preferences. This would just make it worse. - Anonymous 1 - Tuesday, May 7, 13 @ 9:13 am: Agree with Abe the Babe.Voted NO. Put your best plan out there and see what happens. Not all sorts of contingency plans. - Mouthy - Tuesday, May 7, 13 @ 9:15 am: Voted yes. Having them together is the same as trying to pick up the clean end of a piece of dung. - Statesman - Tuesday, May 7, 13 @ 9:19 am: Excellent round of good cop bad cop in an attempt to not infuriate the beehive of union workers or campaign contribution spigot. End result, Illinois taxpayers still lose. - the Patriot - Tuesday, May 7, 13 @ 9:22 am: No, if the legislature does not have the guts to pass a bill and live or die with the consequences, they should resign. Saying we are going to pass the buck to the Court can have severe consequences as a yield of power to the third branch. Looking at the other post, I hope the GOP finds someone with some big cahonies. If Madigan and Cullerton say we can’t figure this out, then the GOP needs to send a message. Vote Republican, or vote for people who admit they can’t fix this problem. There are very simple constitutional solutions. 1. Raise taxes. 2. Cut entitlements. Madigan is willing to cut public sector unions because he knows they will support democrats even if the democrat is a blind 3 legged dog.(I provide Blago x2 and Quinn/Simon as evidence). If he tried to cut entitlement programs those people won’t go vote next time. They have been hosing teachers and AFSCME for 10 years and keep getting their support so it is really an easy call for Madigan to hose them again. It is very simple, Madigan would rather take money from people who have worked their whole lives or from people who continue to work, then force young, able bodies people into the workforce. - GoldCoastConservative - Tuesday, May 7, 13 @ 9:23 am: I voted no as I don’t beleive the Senate provisions will solve the unfolding fiscal calamity. If they were to enter into force, legislators would behave as if they were off the hook and would refrain from doing anthing else. - Ghost - Tuesday, May 7, 13 @ 9:25 am: Yes. The Supreme Court had already upheld constitutional protections for their salaries. The existence of an alternative solution whether passed or not shows solutions exist that are constitutional. If/when plan a is struck down we would be years down the road and even farther away from fixing the problem. This claim that judges should t set policy is an odd argument. Selecting between two options, or laws would not be setting policy. The unspoken opposition argument seems to be: we know the Madigan bill is bad, but it’s not my pension being impacted its some state worker who I think is over paid anyway so let’s do it Lets be honest, this is a giant hypocrisy. The ga left the judges out, and left there own formula to give them 80% of their salaries from a part time job . When the ga retires they draw basically the same pay as when they worked, so the cola change impacts their standard of life little. The average state workers retires on half pay, so that cola helps to keep them solvent as they get older. We are just moving state retires long term to soci service programs to help them as they get older due to lack of funds. Instead of our retires spurring the economy by shopping and eating out, they will be struggling to afford medical care and cover living expenses - foster brooks - Tuesday, May 7, 13 @ 9:35 am: Whatever passes they will be back 4 years from now to try and chip away at it again. Cullertons is the only option here. - Abe the Babe - Tuesday, May 7, 13 @ 9:35 am: “This claim that judges should t set policy is an odd argument. Selecting between two options, or laws would not be setting policy.” How wouldnt it be setting policy? If you have two options in front of you, then you get to choose. And unions have been very invovled in judicial races including the SSC. - Loop Lady - Tuesday, May 7, 13 @ 9:35 am: I voted no. Cullerton at least took the time to work with the unions on his plan, unlike King Madigan. John’s plan is constitutional as far as I can surmise, whereas Mike’s is very draconian and punishing. The Speaker needs to remember from whence he came and stop creating ill will if he wants his daughter to fare well in the primary. - Roadiepig - Tuesday, May 7, 13 @ 9:57 am: Abe the Babe at 9:35 - The judges would be deciding on the constitutionality of Madigan’s slash and burn plan or whether the Cullerton plan is constitutional. That is not setting policy. That’s interpreting the law. That said, I voted no. Pass one or the other, let the courts do their job, and start the process all over again in the fall session( or more likely a year or two down the road). That’s the outcome with Madigan’s plan, and the odds of one or more angry non-union retiree filing suit against Cullerton’s plan due to their belief that it is a diminishment might slow down its implementation too. - zatoichi - Tuesday, May 7, 13 @ 10:04 am: The GA members are supposed to be making hard choices. What comes out is ‘pressure from back home’ gets intense and they simply cannot make a choice for whatever reason. Merging these two bills is just another way to avoid getting their hands dirty. Most of the current GA had little to do with actually creating the current problem over the last 20 years. Most of those members are gone (retired, lost election, died,…safe from having to make a choice). No matter which way the GA goes it will be unpopular. Pick one bill and go with it. It’s not a fun job. - walkinfool - Tuesday, May 7, 13 @ 10:26 am: No. Abe the Babe has it right. - Grandson of Man - Tuesday, May 7, 13 @ 10:29 am: I voted yes because if Plan A is found to be unconstitutional, Plan B can kick in and begin dealing with the problem. If only Plan A is passed and is later ruled to be unconstitutional, then that would cost the state more money and be more time and trouble. We would be back to the drawing board again, as we always seem to be on this issue. - Exhausted - Tuesday, May 7, 13 @ 10:54 am: I voted no to the combine. Some here are assuming that if one is found uncon. that the other will be good. This is simply not the case, they both may have some constitutional problems. Do like other have suggested. Vote on the bill that you believe is best and take your chances… - Liberty First - Tuesday, May 7, 13 @ 10:54 am: I didn’t vote because I don’t think the courts will uphold any of this based on past pension case law and other relevant rulings. I think leaving the judges out gives the legislature political protection but the reality is the Supremes are not dumb people. They have already ruled on the appropriateness of their decision making in these cases. The state has a weak case on insurance… courts apparently put the burden of proving something doesn’t vest onto the employer. I also still leave open the possibility that the court could rule that because the legislature believes the system is in danger, they have to find ways to fund the system. - JustMe_JMO - Tuesday, May 7, 13 @ 11:16 am: No. Who gets to determine what is to be implemented and when? Then the courts will have to make a ruling. The back to implementing something else — back to the courts. etc. Plan “A” has been to reduce benefits. If rejected by the courts just what is Plan “B”? - Cincinnatus - Tuesday, May 7, 13 @ 11:37 am: I believe all future legislation be a Chinese menu… - RNUG - Tuesday, May 7, 13 @ 12:04 pm: I voted no because the GA shouldn’t be sending bills off to the courts to begin with, let alone multiple choice ones. They should do their job by putting together a constitutional bill, which won’t save anything short term; in fact, it will probably cost more in the short run. Too bad it doesn’t bail the GA out of the $100B+ hole they dug themselves in to. Everyone who has looked at the numbers for both the pensions and all the other state spending knows the State has been living beyond it’s means for decades. A permanent revenue increase has to happen EVEN IF the GA gets away with their attempt pensiuon theft. It’s time to quit the positioning for the blame and get down to fixing the problem. 1) Start by resetting the ramp and dedicating the current pension bond payments to future pension fund payments. Include a guarantee in that bill that any citizen of the State can sue to enforce the funding. 2) Take the extra payments the unions are offering but the State is going to have to offer a real benefit in exchange … which may well increase unfunded liability in exchange for up-front cash. 3) Then, for a short term revenue solution, either move the income tax rate to 6% or expand the tax base to services. 4) For a longer term revenue fix, start the process of amending the Constitution to a progressive income tax. 5) Finally, start to figure out what the GA / State will do in 5 years after they run through all the new revenue (I’m basing this on how long it took after the original income tax to start to short the pension funds in order to balance the budget and the expectation that ACA will bust the State’s budget in 3 to 5 years). - Irish - Tuesday, May 7, 13 @ 12:46 pm: No, Offering two options of diminishment is still diminishment. Pass what you will. Then see you in court. - Just The Way It Is One - Tuesday, May 7, 13 @ 3:31 pm: Yes. Pension reform that is Constitutional, obviously, beats any plan the Il. Supreme Ct. might strike down as UNconstitutional. It’s a fallback approach. Hopefully, the House version stands up because it save$ WAY more money, and thus is better for all of Illinois and our children in the LONG run, but if the Il. Supremes nix it, then at least in the Cullerton bill then instantaneously becoming law, we’d have a very decent alternative. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.