150 Comments - x ace - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 10:45 am: Would say ” latter”. - mythoughtis - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 10:48 am: I could be wrong, but a constitutional amendment isn’t going to be retroactive. He still can’t diminish or impair pensions/health insurance rights earned prior to a change in the constitution. He does, however, have the same right to propose a constitutional amendment going forward…. just as everyone else has the right to oppose it, vote against it, etc. , - Norseman - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 10:50 am: To all my fellow retirees who believe that Rauner will keep his word to them that he will protect their benefits, read this real carefully and then read it again. Don’t let your guard down because this guy can’t be trusted. P.S. Thank you Gov for tweaking the court before they rule on SB 1. - exbricklayer - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 10:53 am: I said it yesterday and I’ll say it again today; How can money corrupt this one, co-equal, branch of government and not the other two? - Anon1234 - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 10:56 am: I heard the constitutional amendment will be worded, “benefits can not be diminished, unless the governor says so”. It will be much less vague. Is it legal to amend the Constitution to change that clause? If so, I’m surprised no one suggested that sooner. It sure seems to be the simplest way around the Constitution. Just change it. I can’t imagine what else we can now accomplish without worrying about the Constitutional limitations. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 10:57 am: ===“We can’t just let the Supreme Court decide these issues just with the vague language we’ve got now,” Rauner said. “I have no confidence.”=== Let that fester for a moment that the Executive of Illinois Government believes, and says so, unabashedly, that the Judiciary of Illinois government IS corrupt, and one whole branch of said government has… “…no confidence…” No. Confidence. No confidence in an entire branch of Illinois’ co-equal government. Let that sink in. Governor Rauner, Do you believe in any constitutional branch of Illinois government, and the people that make up those branches? I’m asking Governor Rauner, not “Sonny Mode” Rauner who looks at things far different. Mr. Rauner, you sir, not the Democrats of Republicans, career politicians or citizen legislators, Justices and judicial bodies, not them, but you sir, that’s why we have a Constitution. To remind you, government with checks and balances that follows the rule of law isn’t corrupt, no matter how many times you say it. The irony, Mr. Rauner? That pesky Constitution is doing exactly what it was designed to do; protect. That’s why all this is lost on you, even if…you go to the mattresses. - Just saying... - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 11:00 am: The height of Aristocracy has arrived! This guys hypocrisy would be comical if it wasn’t at the expense of the everyday folks. Thank you Rich for your willingness to point out this guys insanity when his own party lacks the courage to do so. Money does not buy integrity or common sense!! Just saying… - out of touch - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 11:02 am: Is this the same person that threatened the GOP caucus in the same breath that he bragged about his $20 million dollar campaign fund? Vote my way or I’ll spend money against you. Vote my way and I’ll spend it to protect you. What kind of “bargain” is that? Where is the mainstream media when hard questions need to be asked? - Langhorne - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 11:04 am: “I don’t trust the Supreme Court to be rational in their decisions,” Rauner told the Daily Herald. “I think they’re activist judges who want to be legislators.” Thats as specific as you can get. Trying to say, after the fact, that you meant the entire judiciary helps how? You want to change the constitution to wipe out the pension clause, fine. INTRODUCE a CA. Get it passed(ha). Get it approved by the public. Even then, it only applies prospectively. Remember, this is the guy who ran ads saying the supremes ignored strong public opinion when they dumped his term limits charade. - chicon - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 11:04 am: Interesting how each side of the political divide have switched sides on the “strict construction” front. Apply the language as written,says the left, no need to legislate from the bench. The right says there’s no way the writers of the Constitution meant what they plainly wrote. Fun to watch the mental gymnastics. - dupage dan - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 11:04 am: Gov Bruce, THE BODY, Rauner. Channeling Jesse Ventura. Boy, am I glad I am retiring soon. And leaving. - Bigtwich - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 11:04 am: The Governor’s attack on the Court is shameful. I do not find mitigation is his amendment that it is the whole judicial system that is corrupt. Perhaps he should direct his attack on business groups that contribute in retention campaigns. Perhaps he should direct his attack on Governors who have campaign funds to punish or reward Legislators. - Anon1234 - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 11:05 am: I guess it isn’t a new idea: www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20140716/news02/140719888/amending-the-illinois-constitution-a-tough-path-for-pension-reform - Demise - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 11:05 am: Thanks governor for opening the eyes of all citizens that nothing our courts do or say can be trusted. I can only hope we can reform the system before you leave office so you can scour the country for the brightest jurist-consultants to put on the bench. Perhaps some judges from Kansas, Indiana, Wisconsin, or even Alabama can make this state great again. - Wordslinger - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 11:06 am: The old “out of context” dodge. As credible in this instance as his “vague language” claim. Who are you going to believe? Rauner or your lying eyes? - Walter Mitty - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 11:09 am: The worst part of this… Just like the Union bashing rhetoric… It plays to the majority of voters. This is no different. Take a step back, if he knows as polls have shown the Union message works? Do you not think an Amendment to change the Constitution for these benefits to be changed would not be popular? I am one that will be more than halfway in one of the systems that would lose out. I am confident enough that if this is put to the majority of voters, they would change this. I am not saying it is right. Just my belief. This would “solve” a huge funding issue of our state. What would be interesting is, could the Far right and far left come out against it together? Seems like if you believe in everything the Constitution stands for and the benefits for these workers is at the root, the same side. - Sir Reel - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 11:11 am: Word summarized it well yesterday. This guy’s in over his head. He had no vision for the state beyond an impressive line on his resume. He distanced himself from the moderate wing of his party in the primary and now finds himself in bed with the nut job wing. It’s like he’s play acting at Governor instead of governing. - Honeybear - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 11:13 am: I would like to ask why nobody is talking about having a progressive tax on the pensions? Can’t we do that? Or is that “diminishing”? That would tax the Doctors, Lawyers, Legislators, etc who got us in this mess without harming us frontline folks who would be destroyed by pension cuts to all. Why? Please, sincerely why? - Mama - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 11:13 am: ++- Norseman - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 10:50 am: To all my fellow retirees who believe that Rauner will keep his word to them that he will protect their benefits, read this real carefully and then read it again. Don’t let your guard down because this guy can’t be trusted. P.S. Thank you Gov for tweaking the court before they rule on SB 1.++ You took the “thank you Gov for beating up the IL Supremes before the pension ruling” right out of mouth. - pundent - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 11:14 am: =But this guy just has to create strawman enemies. It’s his schtick. It ain’t gonna end. Ever.= This needs to be the tagline on each and every Rauner article from here on out. It puts things in perfect context. - Qui Tam - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 11:16 am: =”regardless of the bill’s actual merits.”= The bill certainly has merits to ComEd and Ameren executives and shareholders. All of the risk and cost go to Illinois ratepayers, while the utilities’ executives and shareholders receive the benefits. Surely this cost-shifting decision by Rauner and the legislature wasn’t influenced by the substantial “investment” that the big utilities made in the current executive and legislative branches.(?) - Diogenes in DuPage - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 11:17 am: So, ….. Donations by unions to legislators are wrong and corrupt. Donations by attorneys to judges are wrong and corrupt. But donations by businesses, corporations, and rich corporate raiders are okay. — Their money is better, their interests are superior, their influence is just?????? - Andy S. - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 11:18 am: As a point of information, could someone tell us exactly what hurdles must be overcome for an amendment to the State Constitution to be adopted, i.e. what percent of the vote in the Illinois House, the Senate, what percent of those voting in the election, what percent of those voting on the amendment, etc. If memory serves me correctly, Madigan proposed a much less extreme amendment in 2012 or 2013 which would have required a supermajority vote in the legislature to increase anyone’s pension benefit. That amendment failed, I believe even though it got a majority of those voting on it, because many voters did not vote on the amendment and an insufficient percentage of total voters in the election supported it. - Fr. Murphy - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 11:20 am: And dumbo Chicagoans just re-elected his weird bff as our mayor. - Huh? - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 11:21 am: Even if a state constitutional amendment passes all of the hurdles, that does not mean it can’t be ruled unconstitutional by the Federal Courts. The timex watch is going out of his way to alienate anyone who could help him. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 11:21 am: - Honeybear -, It was answered in your comment yesterday. Have a read. Further, read the Illinois Constitution. - BMAN - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 11:21 am: Maybe Rauner would have more success with the other Supremes; Diana, Mary, and Flo . - laughs out loud - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 11:21 am: Yeah, no politics at the Supreme Court. That’s why millions spent on their campaigns and pension reform didn’t include judges. (look to Speaker Madigan’s comments during the debate) The exception being Justice Burke’s well reasoned dissent in the decision extending constitutional protections for health care benefits. Where should I start on judicial rulings based on political agendas vs. legal reasoning. The triall lawyers spend millions on judicial elections because they want good government? Maybe less than artful language, but give the Guv credit for calling it like it is. Our judicial system is a joke. - Jocko - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 11:22 am: ==I don’t trust the Supreme Court to be rational in their decisions== This coming from a man who is monomaniacal in his desire to disband public sector unions. - Wensicia - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 11:22 am: Rauner doesn’t want to change the constitution; he wants the authority to rule Illinois outside of its influence and protections. - Not quite a majority - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 11:26 am: Walter Mitty @ 11:09 am — it’s important to note that the vast majority of people in this state have no idea about any of this. The vast majority don’t vote in off year and municipal elections, think politics are dirty, don’t watch the news because it’s depressing and unless BVR now has a program on faux news, I would bet half the people on the street couldn’t identify him. They won’t know what hit them until after it hits. - Demoralized - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 11:27 am: I try not to be against somebody for the sake of being against them. I despise people that do that. Unless there is a good reason . . . . . . and here comes the “but” . . . But, the Governor seems to trip all over himself attacking anyone and everyone that doesn’t agree with him and doing so by calling them corrupt. It’s hard not to always be against a guy like that. I was concerned the Governor was going to attempt to operate like a CEO. Well, he’s confirmed by suspicions. The guy doesn’t seem to get he ain’t a CEO anymore. He doesn’t get to bark orders and have them be done as if he is King. He doesn’t seem to grasp the concept of governing. One of the criticisms of the President has been So far this Governor is in campaign mode in high gear. No governing. Just attacking. No ideas on paper. Just pie in the sky platitudes of what is wrong. I hope Rich is wrong and that the Governor will eventually get over this “schtick.” Because if he doesn’t the next four years are going to be hell. - Anon - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 11:27 am: Honeybear- I asked an Illinois legislator who worked on the committee reviewing the pension problem that same question. The answer I received was that such a tax would not significantly reduce the unfunded pension liability and would anger retirees (voters) across the state. Any such tax would likely be applied to all retirement income, not just public pensions. - Demoralized - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 11:28 am: Might want to finish my thought on the President. It was supposed to say one of the criticisms of him was that he is always in campaign mode. Sorry for the cutoff. - better days - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 11:31 am: Illinois Supreme corrupt ,like rest of Illinois They got to be Supreme Court thru money laundering of political contributions from unions back to politicians ,,The problem is the money has run out and now all the corrupt roaches can’t hide ..Illinois has over 8,000 governing bodies, the most of any state in America .. nuff said - Andy S. - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 11:34 am: Here is another link to the article on changing the Illinois Constitution regarding pensions that is accessible to nonsubscribers of Crain’s: http://www.pionline.com/article/20140717/ONLINE/140719883/amending-the-illinois-constitution-a-tough-path-for-pension-reform It answers most of the questions I raised in my earlier post. - Demoralized - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 11:35 am: @better days: If you could speak coherently I might think you are writing for the Governor. - Vivian Bagley - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 11:35 am: I hope the Supreme Court rams SB1 up his ascot, 7-0. - out of touch - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 11:35 am: laughs out loud–millions are spent on judicial races by businesses and insurance companies, not just lawyers (or trial lawyers) and unions. Same goes for legislative races. The point is that Rauner is blaming the game while being its biggest player in Illinois. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 11:36 am: What I “enjoy” most about Raunerbots and their drive-by talking points is that like Rauner himself, in “Sonny Mode”, you read, then re-read and you can’t find a lick of substance that adds to, or makes a case for, the ridiculousness of what they are supporting. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 11:42 am: @better days Perhaps there are that many units of gov. because the majority of voters want it that way, no? http://www.sj-r.com/article/20150407/NEWS/150409542 - Louis G Atsaves - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 11:44 am: “===What I “enjoy” most about Raunerbots and their drive-by talking points is that like Rauner himself, in “Sonny Mode”, you read, then re-read and you can’t find a lick of substance that adds to, or makes a case for, the ridiculousness of what they are supporting.===” The fictional Sonny in the fictional movie The Godfather DID get everyone’s attention and the end results were some pretty dramatic story line changes and shifts in power. Interesting times in Illinois these days. Pretty fascinating to watch what is happening. Even more fascinating to me is watching everyone’s different reactions, depending on which side of the “Raunerbot” fence you are standing behind. Rauner has kept his word. He was coming in to “Shake up Illinois.” - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 11:49 am: ===The fictional Sonny in the fictional movie The Godfather DID get everyone’s attention and the end results were some pretty dramatic story line changes and shifts in power.=== LOL! Sonny dies. Michael, the level-headed brother has to “clean up” Sonny’s messes, and at no time did the Corleones “prosper” with Sonny as Don. Dear goodness gracious, - Louis G. Atsaves -, are you saying was “good” so Rauner in “Sonny Mode” is good? It has to be real tough being a shill to believe all that. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 11:51 am: “…Sonny was good…” - Judgment Day (on the road) - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 11:53 am: An interesting ‘read’ today: http://newsletters.briefs.bloomberg.com/document/3fz176niqylzjr6oax/commentary Here’s the starting point…. “Next Stop for Chicago: Emergency Financial Control Board BY Joe Mysak Now that Rahm Emanuel has been reelected mayor of Chicago and that distraction is out of the way, we can all start thinking about the future of the city. I’m not a betting man. If I were, I’d bet that Chicago is going to be run by an Emergency Financial Control Board, or something like it, within two years, the same as New York City back in 1975 (and until 1986). The city is now rated Baa2 by Moody’s, one step from the basement of investment grade. (See link above for more)” Little off topic, and yes, nothing is in place yet (for an Emergency Financial Control Board or bankruptcy), but maybe Bruce Rauner is just working to get himself out there ahead of what he sees coming down the road (like City of Chicago/Cook County fiscal issues)… The rules as they are today could easily not be the rules as will exist tomorrow. IF that’s the case, then most likely Rauner wants to be out ahead of that financial tsunami. Positioning. That’s what that Bloomberg Briefs commentary piece is. Did it ever occur to anybody that if no SB1, then it’s eventually down to path to something like a Emergency Financial Control Board? That’s a very interesting potential negotiating chip…… Just saying…. - better days - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 11:53 am: Demoralized - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 11:35 am: @better days: If you could speak coherently I might think you are writing for the Governor You all know that is the reality of Illinois .. too bad corrupt Patty Quinn isn’t around to reap what he and democrats have sowed - Randolph Street - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 11:53 am: So wait, Karmeier is being subpoenaed by a federal jury, why doesn’t Rauner start right there? - Wordslinger - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 11:57 am: Demo, I think it’s been very clear over the months that the obvious Rauner trolls aren’t in his “superstar” category. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 12:01 pm: @ Better Days 11:53 am – Who’s Patty Quinn? I don’t believe I know her. (If you’ve been brought in from out of state to shill for our new governor, I’ll link you below to something you might want to read.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_Illinois - olddog - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 12:03 pm: Oops! Anonymous at 12:01 was me. - Joan P. - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 12:07 pm: @ anon 11:27: “Any such tax would likely be applied to all retirement income, not just public pensions.” It would HAVE to be. If it singled out public pensions, it would be a diminishment. If all retirement income is taxed, then arguably it’s not; any reduction is simply a by-product of a change in the tax laws that applies to everyone. - Wordslinger - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 12:09 pm: I wonder if Rauner would be in favor of banning contributions from private equity partners who seek government pension business, or whose companies seek government contracts. Given his history as one of the single biggest contributors to both Democractic and GOP politicians while he was seeking government business, his perspective on the potential for corruption would be informative. - chi - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 12:10 pm: Which political donations would not be classified as corrupt, according to the Governor? His, Griffin’s and Uihlein’s? - Steve - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 12:12 pm: Gov. Rauner didn’t use the most “artful” language to express himself. But, he and the Illinois Supreme Court are going to be on the same page. If you want changes in public pensions in Illinois: go get a change in the Illinois state constitution. It might be difficult to do. It might take years. But, the options are limited. - chi - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 12:12 pm: =I wonder if Rauner would be in favor of banning contributions from private equity partners who seek government pension business, or whose companies seek government contracts.= Or business owners advocating minimum wage decreases, right to work, work comp reform, tort reform, infrastructure improvements, tax increases, etc etc etc. Rauner’s logic is completely vacant. - Das Kapital - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 12:19 pm: I wonder what makes Bruce attack a voter established constitution and not the system that created this mess? He’s not willing to do the hardwork of fixing an entitled politician culture and instead aims at the easier bigger target of Pensions? - Wordslinger - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 12:23 pm: JD, Emergency Control Board? Yeah, I’m sure Madigan and Cullerton will sign off on that no problemo. I guess you missed that bit yesterday on Chicago’s low property tax rates. Joe Mysak is the country’s leading media expert on the muni market, but he knows oogats on politics west of the Hudson, which he still thinks is Indian Territory. Heck, Joe thinks north of the Central Park Reservoir is Canada. Joe made his bones in the 1970s NYC fiscal crisis and never passes up a chance to go down memory lane, regardless of the subject matter. - bluecollargal - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 12:37 pm: Let’s be clear Rauner would love a more sympathetic court in Illinois, not only for pension issue but also for other priorities on his “turnback” agenda, such as stripping unions of rights. See Wisconsin. - foster brooks - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 12:39 pm: But wait! Bruce Rauner in a gubernatorial debate with pat quinn last fall indicated that the pension protection clause was a good clause and we should not do away with it. - Federalist - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 12:40 pm: Let’s be honest. There is a lot of judicial activism out there. Often from the Left, but not always. That’s the reason it is often important to ’select’ your judges if at all possible. File a lawsuit where you think you can win because of the personal political opinions of the judge(s). However, the language in the IC about pensions is not vague. It is very clear which is what irritates the politicians on both sides of the aisle. Will Rauner really push such a constitutional Amendment? Will it exclude those already retired like he wants us to believe? Will the Democratic establishment back him? - illinifan - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 12:42 pm: John Colombo (a law professor at of UofI) in Crains in July 2014 said an amendment would most likely apply prospectively. If that is true, then it would not resolve what is currently owed to retirees. Not sure if there have been other opinions offered. Energy should be focused on clearing up the debt the state has to the pension system, then move forward. - Wake Up! - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 12:43 pm: Step 1. Change the pension clause in the Illinois Constitution. Step 2. Also would need to change the ex post facto clause in the Illinois Constitution- Article I, Section 16. No ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts or making an irrevocable grant of special privileges or immunities, shall be passed. Step 3. Oh yeah, then there’s that pesky U.S. Constitution might need to change that too! Article 1, Section 10-No State shall … pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts… - Chuck - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 12:47 pm: So Governor, we should trust the legislators and politicians to judge what is legal, fair and equitable? Judging from past performance, I think NOT! - Judgment Day (on the road) - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 12:50 pm: “Yeah, I’m sure Madigan and Cullerton will sign off on that no problemo. I guess you missed that bit yesterday on Chicago’s low property tax rates.” ————– Nope, didn’t miss the ‘low property tax rates’. But both the City of Chicago and Cook County have some seriously underfunded pension plans to fill, and the bills start coming due shortly. Couple points though you might want to consider when you start jacking up property taxes in Chicago. The tax rate increases for retirement funding will also apply to parcels located within TIF districts, so when the tax rates increase for non-TIF parcels, those same tax rates increase for TIF parcels, except all that increase in tax dollars for those TIF parcels goes directly to the TIF Districts (redevelopment funds). There’s a lot more opportunities for cronyism with all those unanticipated dollars sloshing around in those TIF District redevelopment funds. Ah, more fun and games….. IMO, the above is likely one reason that Madigan and Cullerton will fight tooth and nail against any outside governance. Why pass on a chance to get a relatively ‘free’ long term revenue stream from taxpayers that most people won’t follow. “When they say it’s not about the money, it’s ALWAYS about the money”. Wait for it….. - Honeybear - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 12:51 pm: Thanks to all those responding to my tax the pensions question. I greatly appreciate it. I’m new to the political game and greatly appreciate the help in understanding these complex issues. Just read the passages in the IL constitution. That explains a lot. Thanks for the help. It’s why I love this site. - Anon. - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 12:52 pm: laughs out loud == The exception being Justice Burke’s well reasoned dissent in the decision extending constitutional protections for health care benefits.== You mean the one where she said that the constitutional clause entitled “pension and retirement rights” means only “pension benefits”? Changing the wording of the constitution sounds like legislating from the bench to me. - Cheryl44 - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 12:53 pm: The arrogance is astounding. - A Jack - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 12:55 pm: Shouldn’t Governor Ranter be pushing campaign finance reform instead of calling everyone corrupt? - pundent - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 1:02 pm: Rauner believes that the wealthiest guy in the room is by default the smartest guy in the room. He also believes that anyone that disagrees with him is by default corrupt. - facts are stubborn things - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 1:08 pm: Notice how quiet MJM is — why say a word, Rauner is hurting himself, on his own, quite nicely. MJM is the velvet hammer and he will artfully be teaching the reckless Rauner some lessons as the months go by. - downstate commissioner - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 1:08 pm: @ A Jack Doesn’t make enough people mad.. - PAM - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 1:09 pm: If you read the points of his plan, the changes are all going forward. Thus the ex-post-facto argument is minimized to the 3% annual adjustment, which is a change going forward of a previous promise. While he blasts the judges, note that his points do not propose to apply the changes to the judges retirement plan. - archimedes - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 1:10 pm: It may be possible to amend the constitution to add the word “earned” or “accrued” to qualify that benefits not yet earned do not have the protection of the clause. This kind of change might not be prohibited by the “ex post facto” provision of the Illinois and US constitutions. However, this would not help - the unfunded liability is the amount of already earned benefits that are not covered by assets. So, even with a change to prospective benefits (not yet earned) there would be no reduction in the unfunded liability. It could, however, reduce the normal cost of benefits earned in subsequent years for existing employees. Still would take a monumental effort - 3/5 of the House and Senate and 60% of those voting on the issue. Remember - back in 2012 the GA placed an amendment on the ballot to require a super majority for any pension benefit increases. Only 56% voted for that. - Louis G Atsaves - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 1:10 pm: OW: Thanks for pointing all that out. Using the Fictional saga of a fictional crime family, then “Sonny” as the one who fought with everyone and everything is really Pat Quinn, and Bruce Rauner is “Michael” who has to clean up his messes? So who is Fredo? - Loki - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 1:11 pm: “Context is all.” - Margaret Atwood “’I personally don’t think that that constitutional language is a mistake at all,’ Rauner said. ‘I think pensions are a contractual obligation, and what is agreed to should be paid into and honored by all parties.’” http://www.chicagolawbulletin.com/Archives/2014/10/10/Quinn-Rauner-Debate-10-10-14.aspx - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 1:19 pm: - Louis G. Atsaves - MJM is Michael. Please learn. The Speaker is, has been, continues to be Michael, ask around. It’s not up for discussion. Rauner IS Sonny. Rauner owns it. Rauner lives it. Even Vito Corleone called Sonny “a bad Don, rest his soul”. Fredo? The comically obvious choice is ole Slip and Sue, but “magically” you can’t make her relavant. Quinn was Fredo, and since we’re less than 90 days into Sonny’s run as Don, we will have to see who Fredo turns out to be. I am still laughing, you - Louis G. Atsaves - spinning Sonny Corleone is good. Comically pathetic. - Stones - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 1:22 pm: -Pam @ 1:09 PM- Don’t think for a minute that the Judges aren’t aware that if SB1 is found to be constitutional that Judicial pensions aren’t next on the chopping block. - Jack Stephens - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 1:22 pm: @federalist: Is it “judicial activism” just because you disagree and/or because the comedians on “fox” day so? - Rod - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 1:29 pm: Judgment Day I agree that the possibility of a control board for the City of Chicago is possible and also for the Chicago Public Schools. To Wordslinger I would add that according to my recollection Mike Madigan voted for the Chicago School Finance Authority in 1979 and did other regular Democrats, which effectively was a control board for the schools in the City. I would not rule out this possibility. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 1:33 pm: What does that mean perspectively? Benefits going forward can be changed? Or only applies to new hires? - Norseman - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 1:39 pm: === If you could speak coherently I might think you are writing for the Governor === Demoralized, what makes you think coherency is a prerequisite for employment on the Gov’s press staff. They give them a dictionary of Rauner buzz words to work from. - dupage dan - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 1:40 pm: === laughs out loud - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 11:21 am: Yeah, no politics at the Supreme Court. That’s why millions spent on their campaigns and pension reform didn’t include judges. (look to Speaker Madigan’s comments during the debate) The exception being Justice Burke’s well reasoned dissent in the decision extending constitutional protections for health care benefits. Where should I start on judicial rulings based on political agendas vs. legal reasoning. The triall lawyers spend millions on judicial elections because they want good government? Maybe less than artful language, but give the Guv credit for calling it like it is. Our judicial system is a joke === So, what is your proposal? How do you pick judges fairly and ethically? Maybe we could have a panel of attorneys and judges pick the judges. Who picks the panel? No political sheninagans possible there, right? Politics will enter ANY arena where power is to be meted out. Count on it. - Casual Observer - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 1:41 pm: If the Governor trusts the electorate more than the elected then he should be pushing for a 3 percent tax on earnings over a million dollars. The majority of voters support it. - Qui Tam - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 1:41 pm: “’I personally don’t think that that constitutional language is a mistake at all,’ Rauner said. ‘I think pensions are a contractual obligation, and what is agreed to should be paid into and honored by all parties.’” = Loki @1:11pm Excellent catch Loki. However it appears that the quote above is what Lisa Madigan and Rod Blagojevich determined to be “political puffery” and should not be relied upon. - Anonapopolis - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 1:43 pm: Regarding the ex post facto discussions……could someone more knowledgeable than I please opine on this for me. If an amendment to the IC were passed weakening the pension clause, would any of that apply to the future benefit of existing employees or would it just weaken the clause for future employees? I would think that since the Courts are likely to rule that the current guarantee is codified at the beginning of employment that this would fall under ex post facto protection. Am I understanding the argument correctly? - Anon. - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 1:43 pm: PAM ==Thus the ex-post-facto argument is minimized to the 3% annual adjustment, which is a change going forward of a previous promise.== It’s not a “previous promise,” it’s reneging on something already earned. Or do you mean I can tell my mortgage company that I can get out of any rate increase on my variable rate mortgage because that is only a previous promise, not something that they earned by lending me the money on that express basis? - Anonymous - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 1:44 pm: Rich, anyone who believes that those three Republican judges voted to uphold the pension clause did so because of donations received from unions and trial lawyers should have an asterisk placed by their names on future posts or simply be banned from the blog since they clearly don’t know what they are talking about and should not be allowed to waste our time - Norseman - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 1:49 pm: Loki, you didn’t really believe Rauner was telling the truth do you? - Wordslinger - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 1:53 pm: Rod, the difference is that no one wanted any direct responsibility for fhe schools back then. Buffers were good. But the mayor’s office still ran that show behind fhe scenes, believe me. The chance that MJM or Cullerton would go along with clipping the wings of city government is zero. - Wake Up! - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 2:00 pm: Regarding the ex post facto discussions……could someone more knowledgeable than I please opine on this for me. If an amendment to the IC were passed weakening the pension clause, would any of that apply to the future benefit of existing employees or would it just weaken the clause for future employees? I would think that since the Courts are likely to rule that the current guarantee is codified at the beginning of employment that this would fall under ex post facto protection. Am I understanding the argument correctly? —- Employees rights become fixed when they enter the system. That’s the Kraus case. So the contract was formed at that point. The State is free to make changes for new employees, we already saw that with Tier 2. - MrJM - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 2:11 pm: Only ideological amateurs and corrupt hucksters claim to be purists in this business. Let’s hope it’s the former with this governor and not the latter. In the spirit of compromise, I’m willing split the difference: this governor is a corrupt amateur. – MrJM - Anonapopolis - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 2:11 pm: @WakeUp “Employees rights become fixed when they enter the system. That’s the Kraus case. So the contract was formed at that point. The State is free to make changes for new employees, we already saw that with Tier 2.” I am aware of this. I’m specifically asking about what Rauner seems to be proposing…..a constitutional Amendment weakening that clause. Assuming this actually comes to pass, would it be legal for state to impair the pension of an existing employee going forward? Or would the new weakened clause only weaken the contractual agreement for employees hired in the future? - illinifan - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 2:12 pm: Let’s also look at the 3% issue…it is more than a promise. It is a benefit that many employees pay for up front in their monthly contributions to the system. TRS, SURS all pay .05 a percentage point more into the system to help fund the AAI (sometimes called the COLA). So we most likely should not discuss this as if it is being provided out of the “kindness” of anyone’s heart….it is an earned AND paid for benefit. - nothingsurprisesme - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 2:16 pm: Honeybear, about the raising of taxes on pensions. It’s too good of an idea for it to pass. Our fearless leaders haven’t had the stones to do anything about the pension problem for 4 decades so it’s highly unlikely they’ll pass legislation to tax pensions. Why not? The older you are the more likely you are to vote. Leaders know if they raise taxes on the old folks they’ll be defeated in the next election so they might as well pass the buck to the younger generation who seem to have a low percentage of voter turnout. Keep up the good work Honeybear. I’m on your team but you’re fighting a losing battle. - Bigtwich - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 2:19 pm: “Who’s Patty Quinn? I don’t believe I know her.” That would be Magenta! - Big Muddy - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 2:21 pm: I’m a fan of Baron VonCarhartt but he’s gotta learn to keep his mouth shut. What he said here accomplishes nothing. Well, nothing that helps him. - Six Degrees of Separation - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 2:22 pm: Employees rights become fixed when they enter the system. That’s the Kraus case. So the contract was formed at that point. The State is free to make changes for new employees, we already saw that with Tier 2. The hierarchy of who is protected, as I see it: 1. The already retired have the highest protection under any proposed change in the constitution. 2. The already working under Tier 1 and Tier 2 have very little chance that their existing pension terms will be changed going forward, and are in the same position as the retirees on benefits already accrued. It would take a real reach of existing case law at the state and US level to change that. 3. Future hires, hired after an amendment were to take effect, would presumably have the least protection…only what the amendment allowed, which probably would be limited to the terms at the time of employment, and any enhancements could be taken away at the state’s will. I think the new amendment would re-define what a diminishment is, and would be more lengthy than the present simple pension clause, out of necessity. However, it could be as simple as something tacked on to the pension clause as, “This provision does not apply to any person hired after such and such a date.” - Wake Up! - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 2:23 pm: @Anonapopolis-IMO, amending the IL Pension clause would have some, but in reality little practical effect for current employees. The employees would still be able to assert both the IL ex post facto/contracts clause and the U.S. contracts clause. For me to be concerned, I would need to see the IL ex post facto clause be amended-no way that happens. Then, and only then does this whole police powers argument come into play with regard to the contracts clause. - walker - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 2:24 pm: Rauner really seems confused. He calls a strict constructionist stance on Constitutional language “judicial activism.” He then says the court is corrupted by politics, but then agrees with them by stating that we need changes to the Constitution to move forward with his versions of pension “reform.” Really, folks — do those statements hang together? - Wake Up! - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 2:27 pm: @Six Degrees of Separation-I pretty much agree. The only difference though for already retired and current employees is that the current employees can be laid off or have their salaries reduced. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 2:29 pm: walker, as usual, hits the nail precisely on the head. Good job. - gopower - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 2:31 pm: Assuming (big assumption) a constitutional amendment gets on the ballot, which will the voters choose, keeping public union retirements unchanged or doubling the income tax? - Frenchie Mendoza - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 2:35 pm: The fact that the ILSC hews closely to the clear language of constitution is a good thing. There’s nothing vague about the impairment clause. I suspect Rauner means “vague” in the sense that he’s not able to complicate it — or traduce it. This, too, is a good thing. Rauner is revealing himself to be a not very smart man. These attacks of his appeal to the lowest of the low — the party fringe. He’s clearly taking his marching orders from folks outside of Illinois. And I find this despicable. - Mama - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 2:38 pm: Don’t blame rich little Rauner. He is part of the one- percent group - - He doesn’t know 99% of the people have to follow the laws. - Rod - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 2:42 pm: Wordslinger Martin Koldyke who ran the School Finance Authority has denied he acted as a puppet for the regular Democrats in Chicago. Even though he was appointed jointly by Republicans and Democrats Mr. Koldyke has indeed been a big Democrat contributor. Mr. Koldyke and his wife are also extremely active in not for profit charities here in Chicago, but he is and was never a stand in kind of guy for the regular Democrats. Koldyke rejected numerous CPS budgets and forced millions of dollars of cuts down the throat of the CPS Board. An oversight board can be created that has a Democrat party slant yet forces austerity on both the city government and schools. It is a preferable option to bankruptcy, especially in the eyes of the bond holders. The possibility that Bloomberg raises is real, but Word I suspect you and I will continue to disagree. All will be revealed in due time as will a rise in my property taxes here in the City. - Ernest T - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 2:43 pm: John Adams described “A government of laws, not of men.” Fortunately, our institutions were designed to withstand men like Bruce Rauner. And they will. - Joe Biden Was Here - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 2:52 pm: He’s sure someone stole the strawberries - Mama - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 2:58 pm: ++- foster brooks - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 12:39 pm: But wait! Bruce Rauner in a gubernatorial debate with pat quinn last fall indicated that the pension protection clause was a good clause and we should not do away with it. ++ Statements made before winning the election mean nothing. - chicon - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 3:05 pm: Walker - well said and likely accurate. However, many on the left who are today seeking a strict construction of the Constitution on the pension case have spent years saying that such judges and justices are closely related to The Beast himself. Convenient…. - Six Degrees of Separation - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 3:15 pm: Assuming (big assumption) a constitutional amendment gets on the ballot, which will the voters choose, keeping public union retirements unchanged or doubling the income tax? If it is explained that retirees and current workers will be unaffected, a constitutional amendment might have a good chance of passing the legislature and the voters, and would be a feel-good amendment that would do next to nothing in solving the current unfunded liability. If it is explained that retirees will be unaffected, and current workers will be diminished going forward, a constitutional amendment will be a knock-down drag out fight between public and private sector workers and businesses, would be bitterly debated and considered by the legislature and the voters, would be the subject of 3 or 4 more years of state and federal court battles if it passed, and would be a feel-good amendment that would do next to nothing in solving the current unfunded liability. - Lurker - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 3:23 pm: If a constitutional amendment will only affect future workers, amending it won’t help the current mess. If the gov wants to reduce benefits for future workers, it can already do that. The only way an amendment would help would be if it allowed the gov to renege on either its past promises or future promises. It seems unlikely the amendment will get the gov out of its past promises. So, the only thing it can do is make it easier for the gov to renege in the future. In that case, the gov’s promise will be worth even less than it is now, and there will be no choice but to move to a 401K-style system. - illinifan - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 3:25 pm: How do you write a constitutional amendment that says it will affect this group of retirees but exempt judges, fire and police. Many retired police voted for Rauner as he went to them and promised he would not diminish their benefits, just every one else. Or is it possible he said what he needed to get elected (snark)? - Lurker - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 3:30 pm: The amendment will obliterate the non-impairment clause. Then they can pick and choose whose pension they want to steal. - out of touch - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 3:33 pm: The man-with-a-van-but-no-plan is starting to show his true colors. Just noticed that the Senate scheduled an Approp hearing to contemplate (among other things) “the immediate suspension of autism programs”. Looks like the Prez isn’t too happy about a deal being reneged. That won’t bode well for the Rauner Run Aground agenda. - Norseman - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 3:42 pm: === Statements made before winning the election mean nothing. === And you want to trust statements made after the election? - Six Degrees of Separation - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 3:56 pm: The amendment will obliterate the non-impairment clause. Then they can pick and choose whose pension they want to steal. This supposedly “easy” fix…to just delete the clause altogether as the amendment…would create a world of uncertainty and be a hard sell, not to mention the years of court battles to ensue going to the state and US language about impairment of contracts, and go against the Governor’s statements about protecting the existing pensioners (and older voters are the most motivated). In the meantime, if the plaintiffs got an injunction as they did with SB 1, the annual pension raises would keep a-coming. - Anon. - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 4:11 pm: ==In the spirit of compromise, I’m willing split the difference: this governor is a corrupt amateur. – MrJM== David Frye — “Instant forever!” - Anon - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 4:39 pm: Anyone running for federal or state office should be vetted in order to run. Requirements to qualify would require degrees in Federal, State and corporate law. They would also need a degree in governmental finances and accounting. The people that want to serve the public should be as qualified as a doctor or any other professional. Their grades have to be above standard (A’s only on their own.) The people that are in most political titles both Federal and State only got there by money. A true political title should not need money only the qualifications to run that office and by following both the Federal and State constitutions and laws. Priorities need to be set on what is vital to run the country or state and keep them current on their obligations by following the law. Lobbyist, politicians along with corporations should not be allowed to pass additional spending without following strict guidelines that determine that the items requested are needed and funds are available. Now back to the unfortunate real world we are in. I believe the governor we currently have is on his way of being the most corrupt governor Illinois has ever had. His legal issues in his professional life and the money that he spent along with his millionaire and billionaire cohorts to buy the governors office so that they can take over the state with no regard for the citizens of Illinois only for themselves and their bank accounts is corrupt all on its own let alone his threats to politicians with his $20 million to destroy them if they do not comply with his demands are possibly illegal and corrupt as far as I am concerned. The governor is nothing but a “bully” that needs classes in English, speech and anger management. He also needs help in dressing himself. Mr. Rauner you need to help the state and pay for you wife’s hired help yourself,she was not included in your paid position you bought rather you accept your salary or not. Mr. Rauner, God does not like ugly. I hope God blesses the citizens of Illinois with one term only for you. God speed for the next four years. - walker - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 5:22 pm: chicon: good comment. Those who are suspicious of strict constructionism in general, should include such skepticism for the pension ones. - Federalist - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 5:51 pm: @Jack Stephens. The good ole Fox news response. Please be more original. - Jack Stephens - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 6:11 pm: @federalist: Truth hurts….doesn’t it? - MAL - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 6:28 pm: This is a wonderful site, and my first visit..I have been dwelling on the legality of our current ‘Governor’s” actions and it seems that he is on the fringe of many questionable actions. Isn’t “ending around’ the Constitution acknowledging an intent to not follow it, in other words break the Law? On another note, isn’t asking state workers to create a false and separate set of books to handle union monies also questionable? I have no Law background, but am interested to know other’s views on these matters. - One to the Dome - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 6:31 pm: So let me get this straight… 2/3rd of our state government is corrupt? - AnonymousOne - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 6:37 pm: LOL. Apparently ONLY 2/3 is corrupt. The governorship is pristine, it appears. - PoolGuy - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 6:48 pm: more like 5/6 because you have to toss in the corrupt union state workers in the executive branch - Norseman - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 8:27 pm: === So let me get this straight… 2/3rd of our state government is corrupt? === Oh, it’s more like 99% according to Gov. You’re Corrupt. The exception being his so-called superstar staff. - JS Mill - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 8:27 pm: Governor fancypants and Bill Brady, one of his least intelligent flunkies, are on record with with the following “reform” (REDUCTION or THEFT) of pensions: All current retirees- no change Current workers- would keep all earned/accrued pension benefits. From this point forward they will move to a 401k style system for future earnings. Future employees- 401k They have also mentioned moving into Tier 2 from this point forward. Problem- Tier 2 does not meet the federal requirements and will ultimately be subject to SSI. Tier 2 currently has no employer cost. 401K would require SSI, if you get a pension in Illinois AND you have qualifying quarters in SSI your SSI benefit is diminshed. 401k typically requires a “match”, who is going to do that? The state? If you believe that is going to happy pull my leg and it will play jingle bells. If you move everyone to a 401k system, the pension system will no longer receive contributions. Given the level of underfunding, that will be an issue. The state still has to pay back the underfunded amount. The pension debt payment is $5 plus billion. So no savings there. No matter how you slice it, the proposal is illegal and will only result in additional millions in court costs. Rauner continues to sound like a ten-year-old. Very impressive. - AnonymousOne - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 8:54 pm: There appears to be plenty of cash for court battles but none available to repay the pension theft debt. - RNUG - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 9:31 pm: From what I hear, the unions just figure they are going to win in court and that is all that matters. They need to get over that attitude. The unions better be mapping out their year and a half public relations plan to defeat the coming Pension Clause Constitutional Amendment. It doesn’t matter if the unions can afford it or not; they need to be on the air and in the papers every day with positive spin. They’re in the fight of their life (which they don’t seem to understand) … and it needs to start today and be non-stop until election day in 2016.” The way the current union leadership is acting, I doubt they even knew who Mother Jones was. For that matter, they probably don’t know any of Woody’s union songs either. - RNUG - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 9:33 pm: == There appears to be plenty of cash for court battles but none available to repay the pension theft debt. == Court battles only cost a few million a shot. Making the five pension funds whole costs $111B. - RNUG - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 9:37 pm: Read the Bloomberg article. I want some of whatever drugs that writer is on. Even if Rauner wants to help Rahm, I don’t see the State having the money to bail out Chicago’s pension problems. It would have to be the Feds with their printing press. - Illinois Manufacturer - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 9:38 pm: All I have to add is to the comparison to Jesse Ventura…Ventura was not doing stuff like this a Gov of MN - Wordslinger - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 9:54 pm: RNUG, if I were the unions, I would be concerned with a pension shift to Downstate and suburban school districts coupled with a muni bankruptcy law. Push the liability on to them and let them run it through bankruptcy court to knock it down. Kind of a burn the village down in order to save it strategy, in Raunerworld. - Xavier Woods - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 10:34 pm: All the while, the Speaker just hangs back and laughs as Rauner keeps digging his own grave. It’s going to be a long 4 years. - RNUG - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 10:41 pm: Word, I think we both know the downstate pension shift is going to happen sooner than later (although the record Chicago has set doesn’t bode well). And I hear you on the bankruptcy law. But if the muni bankruptcy law only allows it to happen in state courts, I suspect the IL SC will rule government employee pension obligations can not be discharged, period. As I understand it, the only way Detroit got to reduce some of their pension obligations was the person appointed to oversee Detroit’s financial problems rushed a filing into federal court ahead of the scheduled state filing, thereby bypassing Michigan law on pensions. The unions have a whole ton of problems facing them, but they need to be getting in front of this stuff instead of chasing after it. Positive PR is one of the elements that is missing; they need the public on their side to try to muster enough votes in the GA to stop the various bills. I truly believe the unions, both leaders and members, don’t understand the battle they are facing. Other than the Raunerbots, I’ve probably been one of the more vocal critics of union abuses … but I also understand the positive contributions unions bring to the workplace. In this battle, I’m rooting for the unions to win. - justthefacts - Wednesday, Apr 8, 15 @ 11:19 pm: Is there any way to check if Rauner or any of his businesses/associates have donated to any IL judges? - suddenlyconcerned - Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 6:50 am: So RNUG, do your 9:31pm comments imply that you now think a constitutional change could potentially be applied to current employees’ pension earnings going forward? I previously took solace in your view (at least as I perceived it) that any amendments could be applied only prospectively, to new employees — but are you now concerned that might not be the case? We greatly value your perspective on these things… - chi - Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 8:33 am: Of course Rauner wants to appoint judges. It would save Rauner and his billionaire cohorts a lot of money if they only have to buy the governorship instead of all of the judgeships too. - PolPal56 - Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 9:00 am: I say Rauner is a dingbat for seeming to think that the 1% and the Tribbies are his coequal branches of government and insulting the people who actually pass bills and decide lawsuits, and my post gets pulled yesterday, but it’s okay for MJM to call Rauner a corrupt amateur? It’s your blog and your right to privilege some above others, but really… - Skeptic - Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 9:09 am: JustTheFacts: http://www.elections.state.il.us/CampaignDisclosure/ContributionsSearchByAllContributions.aspx Have at it. - Huh? - Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 9:30 am: The problem with buying a politician is making sure that once they are bought that they stay bought. What MJM has going for himself is that he makes sure that his party toes the line or suffer the consequences. - Anonymous - Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 9:30 am: Google new jersey constitutional ammendment pensions.. yes this will apply to current employees - RNUG - Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 9:41 am: - suddenlyconcerned - said == now think a constitutional change could potentially be applied to current employees’ pension earnings going forward? == No, based on past IL SC rulings to date, I still believe any changes, including to the constitution, will only apply to newly hired employees. But I also believe the union needs to fight to hold on to what they already have. If they allow a change to the pension clause to be passed (or, as -word- pointed out, muni bankruptcy), then they have created two different “classes” of union members with somewhat conflicting needs and goals. /rant on I don’t know your background so I may be preaching to the choir, but the purpose of a union is to better things not only for current members but also for future members. Having come from a family where my grandfather and father were union members, I can tell you from personal experience that the members often never gained back in increased wages what was lost during very lengthy strikes; sometimes all that was really gained was a higher starting wage for the new apprentices. I just think the what I would call “white collar” unions don’t have a clue about what it took to unionize this country against the big business “robber barons”. For better or worse, I remember during my lifetime when union pickets were just that, pickets that blocked access, sometimes with force. I still remember talking my way through a picket line at a local automotive dealership, explaining they were the only place within 25 miles I could get the part I needed to repair my car so I could go to work. Bottom line: I just happen to think the unions are going to end up giving away a lot of hard earned advancement without much of a fight. I also understand they may have to give up a bit to survive under the current administration. If I were running one of the unions, I would be looking to maintain the core benefits and sacrifice some of the stupid stuff that has crept in and allowed abuse of the system. Time to quit defending the slackers who don’t even try to do their job because they know the union will have their back in grievance procedures. One of the other things that I personally think should come to an end is the whole “step raise” process that was retained in addition to the COLAs; IMO that is what has driven the sometimes out of whack salary structure at the State for some positions. /rant off - RNUG - Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 9:44 am: == The problem with buying a politician is making sure that once they are bought that they stay bought. == In Illinois, that is the definition of an honest politican - one who stays bought. - Langhorne - Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 10:05 am: Just to clarify– didnt rauner say “only” about a third of the GA was corrupt? I suppose he may have been soft pedaling it for the primary. So, is the entire supreme court corrupt? Half? - RNUG - Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 10:13 am: == is the entire supreme court corrupt? == Just the part that doesn’t agree with Rauner. - Wordslinger - Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 10:14 am: RNUG, I’m pretty sure all bankruptcies are under domain of the federal courts. - RNUG - Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 10:22 am: -word-, Could be but I thought the Detroit filing was initially scheduled for state court there. I’m going to have to find time to re-read the whole Detroit thing … - Crispy - Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 11:10 am: Frenchie & walker–exactly. Ernest T.–Bless you for pointing that out; I fervently hope you’re right. - Nota Bene - Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 12:35 pm: Here’s an excerpt from a 2004 law review article: “The Ex Post Facto Clause proscribes the enactment of any law that ‘imposes punishment for an act that was not punishable at the time it was committed or imposes additional punishment to that then prescribed.’ . . . Additionally, a civil law may violate the Ex Post Facto Clause if a court finds that the law’s effect is punitive. . . . [N]onpunitive civil regulations do not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause even if they impose a hardship. Consequently, the Court has drawn a distinction between laws that are punitive and laws that are civil, even though they may be burdensome.” Note, Smith v. Doe: Judicial Deference Towards the Legislative Intent Behind a Broad, Punitive Civil Law Betrays the CorePrinciples of the Ex Post Facto Clause, 63 Md. L. Rev. 369, 372-74 (2004), http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr/vol63/iss2/6 Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.