* Rep. Chad Hays (R-Catlin) recently penned a magnificently blistering op-ed on Gov. Pat Quinn’s veto of legislative salaries due to the General Assembly’s inaction on pension reform. Let’s take it in pieces. First, the consequences…

Today the issue is pension reform. What will the issue be tomorrow in terms of threatening the people’s duly elected representatives? Will it be bullying them into accepting the temporary tax increase as permanent because the governor declares that to be the new “crisis”?

What would downstate voters think if the governor had decided to hold hostage your legislator until he/she came around to his way of thinking on the right to carry issue? The truth is that one can insert any issue here, from any political point of view, and the conclusion is still the same.

The precedent that this type of blackmail represents is reprehensible and has no place in the governance model held up as the gold standard around the world. […]

Even a fledgling third world republic would not allow a governor to shake down the people’s elected representatives. This type of heavy-handed thuggery might pass for democracy in some parts of the world (generally identifiable by the marching in the streets to overthrow the leadership), but not in the 104th District. The vote is not for sale, even when car payments begin to be missed. This is a Blagojevich-style circus stunt.

* The alternative bill…

There was absolutely no need for the Legislature to adjourn the spring session without a pension reform bill in place. Senate Bill 2404 would have passed the House with a veto-proof majority had the speaker called the bill. It had previously passed with 40 of the 59 votes in the Senate. […]

The notion that it is acceptable to hold legislators for ransom because they have serious concerns about the approach in Senate Bill 1 favored by the speaker and others is outrageous on its face. Scholars who have looked at that plan found it blatantly unconstitutional at worst and at best extraordinarily punitive toward retirees who did their part and played by the rules.

Regardless of the constitutional debate, the bill only received 16 of the 30 necessary votes in the Senate. Not a close call. Please do not confuse the speaker’s unwillingness to call a vote on SB 2404 with some newly discovered fiscal conscious. He presided over $2 billion in supplemental spending over and above the FY 2012/2013 budget this spring alone.

Critics suggested that SB 2404 would not save enough money. That is primarily because only one-third of the savings are sent back into stabilizing the system, largely due to the majority party favoring spending the rest on other initiatives. I suggest an amendment that rolls ALL of the savings from this concept back into the pension system.

* Media coverage of the governor’s veto…

How is it possible that the Midwest’s largest newspaper is silent on the matter of the bill favored by the majority of the House not being called for a vote, but issues an endorsement of a gubernatorial tactic that can reasonably be termed grandstanding by a desperate politician? I think I just heard Thomas Jefferson gasp.

That a publication as prominent as the Chicago Tribune would state on its front page that this tactic is appropriate is mind-boggling. The editorial board must be meeting at Mike Royko’s old table at the Billy Goat Tavern making decisions such as these in the early afternoon between refrains of “It’s Five O’Clock Somewhere.” I direct you to the Constitution and the concept of co-equal branches of government.

Sometimes political theater needs interpretation. There was a day when the media employed excellent investigative reporters who helped the public sift through the talking points and blather. Some still do (including The News-Gazette, with Tom Kacich), but many now have their own political agendas, or simply can no longer afford the veteran reporter who can decode the Springfield nonsense. In light of this painful reality, let me help.

The governor has established a pattern of sitting out the discussion on a myriad of issues, only to issue grandiose statements after the fact. He is remarkably unskilled in terms of navigating the legislative process and has few identifiable allies in the General Assembly; a strange and crippling combination for a chief executive.

He is, however, populist enough to understand that most media outlets will follow any shiny object without digging beneath the surface. He conjures up “they are not doing their job … don’t pay them.” No culpability for him as a leader, no call for even a single idea or creative thought. The media goes into a frenzy.

* Conclusion…

Leaders lead. Pretenders hide in the shadows and hold press conferences hundreds of miles from the Capitol. Unilaterally declaring in the fashion of a barfly on his ninth beer “don’t pay the bums” sounds great at the corner tap. Don’t confuse this with governing, governor. It more readily defines a grifter.

We are not for sale in the 104th District and have no earthly intention of being intimidated. The people themselves will retain 100 percent of the responsibility of deciding who will be paid to represent them at our Capitol. Not you.

Discuss.