|
Draft pension bill released
Sunday, Dec 1, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller * 10:44 pm - Some legislators have received a draft version of the pension reform bill tonight. Click here to read it, but keep in mind that this is only a draft. …Adding… TRS did an analysis of the proposal which you can read by clicking here. From the analysis…
|
|
Unions planning district office pension reform meetings
Sunday, Dec 1, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller * Public employee unions are planning to have their members and retirees meet with legislators about pension reform at numerous district offices on Monday. From an e-mailed schedule, sans organizer contact info…
|
|
Rauner blasts pension proposal
Sunday, Dec 1, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller * From a Bruce Rauner e-mail blast…
* “It’s rumored”? “We’ve learned?” C’mon, Bruce. You got that info from the same dot points as everyone else. Also, this…
“Cap the current system” means no more cost of living adjustments for retirees. Ever. That’s fair? * This makes no sense…
Um, actually no. The pension systems would be allowed to sue if state pension payments aren’t made, not the “government union bosses.” Also, this…
* And this is rich…
Durkin and Radogno aren’t “trying in good faith to negotiate,” they already did negotiate in good faith. Several of their ideas are incorporated into the proposal. Giving them an attaboy at the end after completely eviscerating the legislation they negotiated serves to dishonestly make this a partisan issue when it is not. This is the most deliberately misleading screed to come out of the 2014 governor’s race to date. * On a related note, I’m told that the pension bill’s language is expected to be released this evening. That’s two days before the House and Senate are expected to take up the matter. That’s about the same lead time given before Speaker Madigan passed his pension bill in early May - a timeline that suited the Chicago Tribune just fine.
|
|
The Tribune’s pension flip-flop
Saturday, Nov 30, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller * From the legislative history of SB1, which Speaker Michael Madigan amended with his pension reform language…
* The amendment was filed shortly before noon on April 30th. Despite the amendment’s length - 277 pages - and its complicated subject matter, the very next morning, on Wednesday, May 1st (which means they wrote it in the hours after the measure was introduced), the Chicago Tribune published an editorial supporting immediate passage of the Madigan proposal...
* On the morning of Thursday May 2nd, less than two full days after Madigan introduced Amendment 1, the Tribune again argued for swift passage…
* Later that day, Speaker Madigan introduced an 11-page cleanup amendment and pushed it through the House Rules committee and onto the House floor. This was not a minor amendment…
* The same day the clean-up amendment passed committee, and the same day that the Tribune had argued a second time for its “swift approval,” the full bill cleared the House…
* The Tribune hailed its passage…
* And then, on November 7th of this year, the Tribune editorialized on the Chicago Park District pension reform bill…
* So, to sum up, the Tribune twice demanded immediate passage of a huge and complicated pension reform bill, once the morning after it was introduced and then the very next day, before it was amended with some much-needed clean-up language. After it passed, the Tribune praised those who voted for it. A few months later, the Tribune wondered why “the same sense of urgency” wasn’t being applied to state pension reform as it had been to a local pension reform bill that “zoomed” through both chambers. * Yet, as we’ve already discussed, the same editorial board now wants the process slowed down…
* And the editorial board has once again made the same demand in its Sunday editorial…
* So after years of arguing for swift passage of a pension bill, why all of a sudden is the Tribune so worried about taking it slow? Pardon me if I don’t wonder whether the Tribune might not be playing a cute game of under the table footsie with the Bruce Rauner campaign, which is making the same argument about delaying a vote. And you’ll have to excuse me if my tinfoil hat was catching mega rays when the Tribune editorial board published an op-ed by Rauner’s single largest campaign contributor and a member of his campaign finance team that demanded a pension bill vote delay and trashed the bill with only this identifying information…
I won’t argue at all with legitimate demands for legislative transparency. But the Tribune hasn’t shown any real interest in transparency as far as pension bills go. Why all of a sudden is the Tribune so worried about taking more time to hold a vote? Something is wrong here. It almost seems like the Tribune is looking for an excuse to bail.
|
| « NEWER POSTS | PREVIOUS POSTS » |







