|
Once again, with feeling
Wednesday, Jun 16, 2021 - Posted by Rich Miller * From the legislative article of the Illinois Constitution…
* Press release excerpt from Sen. Don DeWitte (R-St. Charles)…
Not trying to pick on Sen. DeWitte here. He seems like an otherwise decent legislator. And legislators in both parties and in both chambers are saying the same thing as him. But this argument is pure political posturing and blatantly unconstitutional. It’s really up to the majority Democrats who are also griping to sponsor and pass legislation to remove legislator cost of living raises from state statutes starting in the next General Assembly. Frankly, the COLA doesn’t bother me. But if it’s so darned onerous, then get rid of it already and dispense with the silly public rending of garments every year.
|
 |
|
|
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jun 16, 21 @ 10:20 am:
Be it … Pat Quinn, Leslie Munger, Susana Mendoza, any and all legislators… if you can’t grasp the constitutionality of compensation and the real reasons why…
… it’s important to the governing…
They all deserve the spotlight to real ignorance because of political posturing.
If any of the above I have listed can’t grasp their own ignorance, maybe they have no idea the real damage they are doing to our state.
Stop. Enough.
- RNUG - Wednesday, Jun 16, 21 @ 10:26 am:
The system is working as designed by the Legislature. As Rich said, if you don’t like it, change it legislatively.
- Willie - Wednesday, Jun 16, 21 @ 10:31 am:
Well said Rich. I would go a step further and let legislators have an option to “opt-in” or “opt-out” to receive a salary. Legislators deserve a salary and I have no issue with the COLA. If both sides want to politicize the issue they can put their money where their mouth is..
- muon - Wednesday, Jun 16, 21 @ 10:56 am:
Prior to 2009 there was a constitutional mechanism to decline pay increases. It involved rejecting the report of the Compensation Review Board. That board was discontinued and with it went the constitutional mechanism.
- Frank talks - Wednesday, Jun 16, 21 @ 11:11 am:
Looks good on mail. It’s why both sides do it.
Dem Incumbents will say they refused their raise, challengers will say they increased their pay.
GOP incumbents will say they voted no on the budget and their pay raises, challengers will say they voted against breast cancer screenings, sex offender violation programs and school funding.
This dance isn’t new.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jun 16, 21 @ 11:13 am:
===This dance isn’t new.===
lol
Thank you so much for that explanation of which we all were certainly unaware.
- Downstate Illinois - Wednesday, Jun 16, 21 @ 12:10 pm:
Agree wholeheartedly. I actually have a bigger issue with the salary bumps for committee chairs. That’s part of their job as a legislator. They shouldn’t get paid extra for that.
- Union thug - Wednesday, Jun 16, 21 @ 12:33 pm:
Correct me if I am wrong. The raises are automatic based on legislation. If they really had an issue with them, they would present a bill to change the legislation.
- Soccermom - Wednesday, Jun 16, 21 @ 1:02 pm:
Ugh. I am absolutely opposed to opt-in and opt-out for legislative salaries. I don’t want a legislature made up solely of rich people who can afford to work for free. And the impact this would have on women and people of color…
- RNUG - Wednesday, Jun 16, 21 @ 1:52 pm:
== absolutely opposed to opt-in and opt-out for legislative salaries ==
That choice already exists. Any legislator is free to write a check to the State Treasury for any amount they want to refuse.
- Annonin' - Wednesday, Jun 16, 21 @ 2:11 pm:
We like the idea if it onerous just give the money back/ away. Otherwise you wnd with a bunch of fat cats who self fund or the infamous banditos
Meanwhile why be nice to DeWitte ? He issued the press release
- Huh? - Wednesday, Jun 16, 21 @ 5:24 pm:
Regardless of how they vote, someone is going to sue over not getting their raises.
https://www.bnd.com/news/politics-government/article251985363.html
- COLA Elimination - Wednesday, Jun 16, 21 @ 10:35 pm:
You mean like SB 612 that had Chief Co-Sponsors from both sides of the aisle that never even got a hearing? I think it was filed last year and “snagged” by majority members in prep for a vote last Veto session…but nope, couldn’t muster doing it right.