* From the Sun-Times’ transcript of Senate President John Cullerton’s Friday afternoon press conference…
“If you go back and look at the Senate Bill 1 that I introduced, it had two parts. It had both bills in the same one, and the one that the House passed was primary. And I sponsored it and wanted that to go to a court. And if, and only if, they threw it out would they have to look at the back-up. And Ty Fahner and the Tribune editorial board and the Republicans who said they would be for that came off the bill. And I didn’t have enough votes because, of course, the unions were against it. So congratulations business community, who now want me to only call the first part of the bill and not the second part even though the second part, the one that we passed, had a three-fifths vote. Republicans and Democrats alike, Republicans in the House, are urging the speaker to call [SB2404] so they can vote for it. And [Madigan’s] bill barely passed.
“So, you know, I’ve always been trying. And I, by the way, called for a vote Senator Biss’ bill, which is very similar to the speaker’s bill, and it got 23 votes. Seven votes short, and by the way, seven Republicans voted ‘no.’ And I voted for it. I’m sponsoring Senate Bill 1. It doesn’t have enough votes. It has fewer votes than Senator Biss’ bill because now the unions have gone out and they’ve actively worked against it, okay. So, I’m going to continue next week to see if I can reach some kind of compromise. Maybe the Tribune editorial board and the business community would - and the Sun-Times editorial board - would change their position and go back to my original Senate Bill 1 that I originally proposed, which has both bills with theirs being primary. And then we can have the court decide on that.”
Q: Would you lose union support on a bill like that?
A: “That would be up to them to decide. I suppose they probably would be against that. That’s why I’m having trouble passing Senate Bill 1, you see. I just want to emphasize that I’m not holding us back from trying to advance compromises.”
Q: Do you have any idea how close SB2404 is to getting 60 votes in the House?
A: “The bill that we passed here with 40? That had two people missing when we passed it so we would have 42? I would say probably 84 votes, maybe 85 like [Speaker Madigan’s concealed carry bill] got today.”
Discuss.
- Chris Sale Fan - Sunday, May 26, 13 @ 3:16 pm:
He made the same point on Fox News Chicago Sunday with Mike Flannery this morning as well.
- east central - Sunday, May 26, 13 @ 3:58 pm:
Can they amend SB2404 with a couple House-ish reductions and make them severable to achieve a better package than passing legislation that simply melds the two bills?
If they limit the additions to caps on high pensions and to reductions in COLA/AAI for relatively high pensions (over $50K?), would the unions be less likely to try to kill an amended 2404?
This would look like a compromise and would save something more than SB2404 does currently.
- Grandson of Man - Sunday, May 26, 13 @ 4:26 pm:
First I’d like to wish everyone here at Cap Fax a wonderful Memorial Day weekend. I am recuperating after having knee surgery, amidst the love and support of my wonderful family and friends.
The House should just call and pass SB2404. We can help fix the pension in other ways, over time. Let that be step one in the process.
We also can close corporate loopholes, as another step. Minnesota just raised taxes on the wealthy. California did the same thing and now has a budget surplus. The US economy did better than originally projected in the first few months this year after the tax increases, and the government coffers are growing (for now).
I wish we would stop letting the Republicans dominate the narrative on fixing budgets. This a party that’s very unpopular because of its shift to the far right. I saw Sen. Bob Dole on television this morning, and he slammed his party. He said that Reagan and Nixon were too moderate for the party.
- jake - Sunday, May 26, 13 @ 5:30 pm:
I agree with Cullerton that SB 2404 would get more votes in the House than the pension bill that passed the House. On the merits of the case, the Cullerton bill is a better bill with respect to policy and more likely to stand up to the test of Constitutionality.
- RNUG Fan - Sunday, May 26, 13 @ 6:38 pm:
Also with 85 votes its Cullerton and the Senate that can just wait the clock out because it can pass next week of summer or whenever
- Joe M - Sunday, May 26, 13 @ 7:06 pm:
==Can they amend SB2404 with a couple House-ish reductions==
I think the unions representing the teachers, state, and state university employees have given enough, (probably more than they should be) already. Any changes to SB 2404 and the unions will rightfully so, oppose any amendments to SB 2404 with all their might, including court challenges if such a bill passed.
- 47th Ward - Sunday, May 26, 13 @ 7:06 pm:
Does anyone else think Cullerton’s pension bill that the unions agreed to, plus Madigan’s cost-shift proposal, is the compromise we need to finally put this issue behind us?
- RNUG Fan - Sunday, May 26, 13 @ 7:44 pm:
The unions want no amendments. I know IEA is opposed to cost shift as is UPI but I don’t think that would break the deal if that was the 2404 amend …I just don’t think the cost shift votes are there just like the SB 1 votes aren’t there in the Senate
- RNUG - Sunday, May 26, 13 @ 10:02 pm:
The one surety is, whatever bill gets passed, someone will sue … most likely several group of retirees similar to the various plaintiff’s in the consolidated “Maag” case.
- RNUG Fan - Sunday, May 26, 13 @ 10:08 pm:
yep maybe federal too……..
- 47th Ward - Sunday, May 26, 13 @ 10:23 pm:
The cost shift isn’t a legal question, and if the agreement with the unions holds, then yes, the retirees have a case. But given all the gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands, Cullerton plus cost shift should pass muster. At least with Illinois courts.
- Harry - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 12:24 am:
Everyone ignores the real Achilles heel in SB2404–the trade of COLA against future raises being pensionable. THAT is a coercive impairment, no two ways about it.
The health care choice may well be constitutional, the arguments that health care is constitutionally protected are not very convincing. But having your raises count toward your pension, there’s just no way to argue that isn’t in the pension code at this time, and Cullerton has to amend the pension code to create a new category of income to take it away.
- jake - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 5:33 am:
Neither of the pension bills will be the final word on meeting the accumulated unfunded liability of the pension systems because neither of them deals with it. There will still need to be a graduated tax amendment to permit more revenue from the high income individuals, a broadening of the state sales tax to permit services to be taxed at the same level as goods, and a reamortization of the pension debt (issuing pension bonds and putting the proceeds into the state’s investment portfolio) to enable the state to pay off the accumulated debt. All of these things should have been done before messing with the pension terms at all–except for the cost shift, which is necessary for accountability of the system (and which may not happen anyway). I realize I am stating a minority view on this. However it happens to be supported by the numbers, which will ultimately rule.
- Truthteller - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 8:47 am:
Speaker Madigan accused the unions of delaying.
Now that they have reached an agreement with Cullerton, who is causing the delay?
Why is Madigan delaying the vote? Let the House vote!
- RNUG - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 9:19 am:
Harry @ 12:24 am:
While not protected under the pension code, it’s highly likely the health insurance is protected under straight contract law. While Nardulli here said it wasn’t in the “Maaq” case, in Marconi the Appellate Court was pretty clear they believed it was protected under contract law.
If that’s the case, Cullerton choice is no choice.
- RNUG Fan - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 9:27 am:
Nardulli didn’t even rule on the contract issue did he? Didn’t he claim the plaintiffs didn’t have standing to make the claim?
Anyway the Supremes must have seen something because they agreed to hear all the counts.