Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Report: Rauner compares experience to Romney
Next Post: DCCC rents a billboard while Davis raises big money
Posted in:
* During his State of the State address in February, Gov. Pat Quinn said he was in favor of SB1, which at that time was a hybrid pension reform plan that included the Nekritz/Cross language and Senate President John Cullerton’s likely more constitutional reforms…
President Cullerton, thank you for recognizing this, and thank you for your leadership in providing us a path forward through Senate Bill 1, a comprehensive bill that stabilizes our pension systems and fixes the problem.
And thank you, Leader Tom Cross and Representative Elaine Nekritz for working together on a bi-partisan basis to make sure that pension reform is Job One for this General Assembly.
I urge all of you to be part of the solution. And while refinements may come, Senate Bill 1 is the best vehicle to get the job done. [Emphasis added.]
This was something like the third pension bill that Quinn had supported.
* Then, during his budget address last month, Gov. Quinn dropped his explicit support for SB1 and laid out several “fundamental elements” which he said “should be part of pension reform”…
First, there must be a firm guarantee that the State of Illinois will pay its full pension amount every year. I’ve done that since I’ve been governor.
But that did not happen under previous governors and legislatures. They shorted the pension fund and shirked their responsibility. That’s why we have a pension crisis today.
As you know, to make up for that failure, we’ve had to issue two pension obligation notes under my administration. The debt service on these notes will expire in 2020.
Once those notes expire, all of that revenue – nearly $1 billion annually – should be dedicated to the unfunded pension liability.
In addition, employees should adjust their own contributions to their pensions.A few weeks ago, I attended the summit called by representatives of public employees. I listened to them.
I was pleased that they volunteered to raise their employee contribution to help resolve the pension crisis. This offer should be part of the solution.
* From yesterday…
Quinn endorsed the approach to reforming the underfunded state pensions that has gained the most traction. The House approved separate bills that would rein in cost-of-living adjustments, raise the retirement age and limit how salary could counted toward a retirement check — elements that Quinn wants senators to support in a final pension package.
Trouble is, those bills don’t include Quinn’s “fundamental elements” like guaranteed pension payments, using proceeds from pension bonds for pension payments when the bonds are retired and higher employee contributions.
* The governor’s full remarks…
I respect all of the legislators. I was so happy to see the House come together in a bi-partisan way. They had 25 Republicans, 41 Democrats, vote for a very comprehensive bill - and that’s really good.
I hope this passes the house very quickly. We need to do pensions sooner rather than later. This should not be happening at the last minute. Let’s get it done right away. I’m anxious to get a bill on my desk. In the senate I noticed there were about 23 votes for the House bill. When it comes back over, we only need seven more and I really look forward to working with Senate Democrats to get that extra seven votes to get to 30 to get the job done for the taxpayers of Illinois and the people of our state.
Pension reform is Job 1 this year and everybody has a little different idea. We’re not all going to get every single thing we want.
But let’s get something on my desk that I can sign into law for the people.”
So in just two months he’s gone from insisting on a comprehensive reform that tries to cover all bases, to demanding that “fundamental elements” be included in a pension bill, to yesterday’s “let’s get something on my desk.”
Also, he’s mistaken about that Senate vote. They had a roll call on the much more comprehensive Nekrtiz/Cross bill, not those three individual House bills.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 9:57 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Report: Rauner compares experience to Romney
Next Post: DCCC rents a billboard while Davis raises big money
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
What is the difference between the state owing the pension fund and owing the college prepayment fund or any other state bill?
Comment by Liberty_First Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 10:11 am
Devastating summary, Rich.
For a guy who claims pension reform is his top priority, Gov. Quinn sure seems to lack consistency as well as knowledge of the status of bills.
Comment by Robert the Bruce Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 10:11 am
or bonds for that matter? This is what if boils down to- (sorry I hit the return)
Comment by Liberty_First Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 10:12 am
Honestly, does any of this waffling and confusion coming from the governor (small g) surprise anyone who has either worked with him or observed him over the years? He doesn’t have a grasp of the problem or the solution and he makes it clear every time he opens his mouth!
Comment by Old and in the Way Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 10:14 am
Translation:
Give me a bill so I can check this item off my “to do” list … plus I really need this so I can campaign on saving the State from financial ruin.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 10:16 am
“Pension reform is Job 1 this year and everybody has a little different idea. We’re not all going to get every single thing we want. But let’s get something on my desk that I can sign into law for the people.”
Translation: I’m running for reelection and I need to say I did something…….anything. Just let me have a press conference and sign something.
Comment by Old and in the Way Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 10:18 am
Quinn has been very consistant in the fact that he has always said he will sign just about anything that he can call pension reform. The lack of leadership is breath-taking!
Comment by facts are stubborn things Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 10:19 am
RNUG
We both had essentially the same translation. I didn’t see yours until after my post……..lol. Guvenor Dufus, about the most inept and transparent politician I have seen in the governors office in my 40 plus years of experience!
Comment by Old and in the Way Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 10:23 am
Stop the Presses!!!! Gov Quinn waffles on pensions!!!
Comment by dupage dan Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 10:24 am
Old,
Yeah, LOL. We both obviously think it is all about the politics …
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 10:25 am
The day that Quinn does anything consistently, with some real thought, and possibly really solves something will be newsworthy.
I am shocked that he is still in second place as the most unpopular governor in the United States.
Comment by Cassiopeia Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 10:27 am
Nobody brings up the possibility that these reforms might be struck down by the supreme court. Then what?
Comment by foster brooks Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 10:29 am
When it comes to pensions, I imagine he’ll sign anything that can pass both chambers.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 10:33 am
foster brooks,
If the ruling doesn’t happen until after the election, it doesn’t matter from a political perspective.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 10:38 am
I don’t think it is just about the politics for Gov. Quinn. Call me naive, but I think Quinn sincerely does want some pension reform. He’d prefer bigger reform, but will take what he can get. He’s just really lousy at getting anything done.
Comment by Robert the Bruce Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 10:39 am
You know i have always wondered about the Cullerton logic of I am going to reduce your Pension by either A or B pick one. Then saying since you have a choice i am not reducing your benefits. It is definitely an interesting position.
As for Quinn this is just continuation of his typical trajectory. Look at the Negotiations with AFSCME. I am going to demand this, this, and that. He realizes a strike or even strike talk with AFSCME will kill him in primaries and he folds. Anyone know if Quinn ever visits a public Poker Game???
Comment by Sgt USMC Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 10:42 am
I wonder if all of you who are critical of Quinn’s inability to get something done on pensions are equal critically of Obama’s inability to get things done; or do you blame the GOP house? I am no fan of Quinn, but the Illinois House will not give Quinn any “wins” if Lisa is running.
Comment by Fair Share Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 10:43 am
In a battle of wits the man is unarmed!
Comment by Old and in the Way Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 10:48 am
Were anyone here the current governor of Illinois, not a man or woman among us would refuse any pension bill on our desk.
Comment by Dan Bureaucrat Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 10:49 am
“Goat’s head delivered to Wrigley Field” is a headline that recently hit the news just a day after Rich shows us pictures of his dog and himself on a roadtrip…coincidence? I think not! Now back to the pension debt debacle.
Comment by PublicServant Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 10:53 am
===logic of I am going to reduce your Pension by either A or B pick one===
That’s not the choice.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 10:54 am
Rich
How isn’t it? Make no mistake i have no dog in the fight other than paying my taxes. But isn’t he basically saying take a smaller COLA or you don’t get the healthcare benefits everyone else gets. Seems like a reduction either way? I could be wrong but that is what it appears. Did he drop the whole wage freeze thing he originally had in there seems like it?
Comment by Sgt USMC Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 11:01 am
===But isn’t he basically saying take a smaller COLA or you don’t get the healthcare benefits ===
Yes, that’s what he’s saying. Healthcare benefits ain’t pension payments, however.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 11:02 am
Still waiting on the all-powerful Madigan and his veto-proof majority to pass something.
/s
Comment by Formerly Known As... Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 11:03 am
I see the distinction you make. Didn’t he originally have something in there saying future raises would not be included if you kept current COLA? As a side note i really don’t see with the state playing with retiree contributions to healthcare, this being much of a benefit going forward.
Comment by Sgt USMC Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 11:05 am
@Dan Bureaucrat
I respectfully disagree. I would have already laid out the framework and been consistant on what elements a fair, ethical, and legal pension overhaul must look like. If the bill on my desk did not contain those long time solid principles then I would veto it. The bill would have to be truely measured and reasonable — setting aside the legal plain reading of the Constitution for a bit. I would insist that in fixing our pension system we ask the least of those with the least ability to ajust to the change. For retirees, If I accepted the “police powers” only as necesary and reasonable approach, then I would have said change those already retired to a 3% compounded until their pension reaches $40,000 and then at that point become 3% simple interest. No COLA freeze for those already retired. The COLA freeze would come much as the increase in retirment age. 30 years and younger would retire with a 4 year freeze on COLA. Those 30 to 35 a 3 year freeze on COLA. 35 to 40 year olds a 2 year freeze. etc. etc.
Comment by facts are stubborn things Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 11:06 am
Maybe instead of working night and day on pension reduction, he should sleep a few nights. Then he’d be awake enough during the day to put forward a consistent response for once.
Comment by Norseman Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 11:09 am
C’mon folks, give the guy a break. He is working night and day on this. He’s incoherent cause he’s tired.
(snark)
Comment by Irish Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 11:10 am
If I recall correctly, there is no option under the Cullerton plan to retain the same pension benefits which are available today. If you give up your health care, you will still receive less benefits because his plan imposes a salary cap and other restrictions. So yes, it is A you lose, B you lose. @ Sgt USMC, this is not just “interesting,” but obviously unconstitutional in that it provides no consideration. I find it “interesting” that people keep parroting that this plan is somehow constitutional when it flunks law school 101.
Comment by wtf Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 11:10 am
wtf
I thought that too which is why i said that. Is that still the position Cullerton is pointing too? If so then Cullerton is saying not only do you lose your Healthcare but you also take a Cap on your earnings for pensions which would make it unconstitutional. Which is why i asked Rich if it is still in there. As for my wording of interesting i use it in the same way i tell my Son that his Speeding ticket was the result of an Interesting choice.
Comment by Sgt USMC Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 11:30 am
wtf; It may flunk law school 101, but if a judge thinks it is the right solution there will be all sorts of legal contortions to justify it. All these commenters who so righteously are counting on the Constitution to save the status quo while ignoring the political/judicial practical concerns may be in for a surprise. There are no sure bets here. It’s not always a case of having the most persuasive argument as convincing a judge that the equities are in your favor and providing a logical-enough argument he or she can hang their hat on.
Comment by Original Rambler Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 11:35 am
I don’t know why I am standing up to defend the Governor. But he is constrained by the GA’s unwillingness to bite the bullet and get this thing solved.
Personally, I wish he had developed his own highly specific pension proposal two years ago and had taken it to every single ed board, public meeting and high school pep rally in the state. I think that, with a strong, forthright and consistent campaign, he could have brought public pressure to bear on the GA and passed it.
But I am willing to admit that it wouldn’t have been easy — and it would have risked losing a boatload of credibility in the face of implacable opposition by the Speaker.
So no, I don’t blame the Governor for choosing to keep his options open in the hopes of getting SOMETHING passed. I would have advised him differently, but that doesn’t mean that I’m right.
Comment by soccermom Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 11:43 am
We have all seen this “Governor” make statements that seem like it is one of his core beliefs. Of course that core belief changes the next time he opens his mouth on the same subject. Can’t we just agree that he is a totally inept politician who benefited from an indicted predecessor and a moved up 2010 primary that allowed him to hold on by the slimmest margin over a better candidate Dan Hynes. There is no chance this man will be re-elected in 2014. His current strategy of grasping at straws in this pension debate just shows his desperation to say “I did something!” Posturing by all our State politicians to be able to say the same thing are also just hoping to get re-elected. Until an elected official isn’t worried about winning the next election there will be no REAL PROGRESS made in re-funding the States’pension liabilities.
Comment by Nickypiii Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 11:48 am
wtf,
You are partially correct.
For the retiree, if you retain the AAI, you lose the ability to (currently 20 year free or purchase) be a member of the State’s group health plan. Although we have the Maag ruling which is being appealed, it is not final, so we don’t know for sure if health insurance is a contractual right or not. But, in general, the retiree’s only diminishment is loss of group health participation..
For the current worker, you are correct. Decide to keep the AAI and you lose both group health participation in retirement and all future raises don’t get counted for the pension calculation. Based on previous rulings, not counting the future raises will not past muster and is a diminishment … the current worker gets hit twice.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 11:52 am
Ask Quinn again tomorrow - he’ll have another idea for the real solution…
Comment by Roadiepig Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 11:55 am
Even if health care premiums, not free health care,, are not protected as a pension benefit there was a contract, which was also codified by statute (law) to have the State pick up 5% for each year worded and the Constitution also prohibits laws that impair contractual obligations. Further, membership in the pension system is what allows the payment of health care premium. Even if you put that aside asking me to give up an earned benefit to keep my earned constitutionally protected pension benefit is not giving me consideration. It is taking away.
Comment by retired and fed up Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 11:55 am
Definition of “Reform” from the Merriam Webster dictionary
a: to put or change into an improved form or condition
b: to amend or improve by change of form or removal of faults or abuses
2
: to put an end to (an evil) by enforcing or introducing a better method or course of action
What is called Reform is really CHANGE. But in order to fool the public the word reform is always used. And it is done by all sides when it suits their purpose
Comment by Fultonfarm Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 11:58 am
The Senate bill has a different problem . The teachers paid into a fund for retiree health care that is different from the state fund and might not even fit the definition.
The senate already voted down the house proposals in one package and it passed the other one by just one vote
As for why they think there is great public clamor for this whole thing Look at NRA post . Completely out of touch
Comment by RNUG Fan Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 12:20 pm
Original Rambler
How many cases have you personally tried or adjudicated? How many have you even closely followed or observed?
Your statement belies not only a lack of legal knowledge but a level of prejudice against the courts and legal system that I find objectionable and in fact would suggest are part of the problem.
Comment by Old and in the Way Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 12:21 pm
Does Squeezey eat waffles?
Comment by Anonymour Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 12:32 pm
He also gave himself an out to veto whatever might pass and blame the GA.
At some he has managed to endorse some part or all of the plans….Union,nekritz,Cullerton…
Maybe He will endorse Rauners next and then unendorsed it
Comment by RNUG Fan Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 12:43 pm
@ Original Rambler, yes, litigation always has a risk. But the courts have their own institutional limitations and different concerns than the legislators. Justices are reluctant to overturn prior precedent which in this case is strong. And the “police power” arguments are generally reserved for extreme situations which do not include a politician’s calculation that his or her chances of re-election would be lessened if taxes were raised. Indeed, the failure to actually pass any of these hare-brained schemes is probably attributable to the fact that they don’t really think the Court will go along.
Comment by wtf Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 12:47 pm
……So in just two months he’s gone from insisting on a comprehensive reform that tries to cover all bases, to demanding that “fundamental elements” be included in a pension bill, to yesterday’s “let’s get something on my desk.”
I think this is pretty much SOP for Quinn so it really isn’t surprising.
Comment by Kerfuffle Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 12:53 pm
“First, there must be a firm guarantee that the State of Illinois will pay its full pension amount every year. I’ve done that since I’ve been governor.”
This is an important promise that has been made and kept by Governor Quinn. Without the pension payment guarantee the General Assembly will continue to take pension holidays and Illinois will still have an underfunded pension problem.
Comment by Ruby Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 2:00 pm
But since a future GA cannot be bound by a current GA, that promise is unenforceable and therefore worthless, Ruby.
Comment by PublicServant Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 2:02 pm
But Ty Fahner tells us that the unenforceable promise is more than enough consideration for us greedy public servants.
Comment by wtf Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 2:06 pm
To PublicServant @ 2:02 pm
If what you say is true then current state employees should not agree to pay a higher pension contribution in exchange for a GA promised payment guarantee.
Comment by Ruby Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 2:10 pm
Everyone already knows that Quinn is not a player in the pension story. Why doesn’t he just keep his mouth closed and let Madigan do what he’s probably already decided will happen anyway? Maybe Quinn could slide into another term without any more alienation on his part, unless Lisa feels otherwise.
Comment by Meaningless Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 2:32 pm
Ruby, we have the best guarantee now! It’s called the Illinois Constitution. If the GA is successful in diminishing our pensions with this constitutional guarantee nothing else matters.
Comment by Norseman Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 2:33 pm
Ruby, with respect to us agreeing to any changes. Cullerton’s original proposal is the only one that offered employees/retirees any input. Otherwise this is strictly an effort to unilaterally diminish our benefits.
Comment by Norseman Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 2:41 pm
- Norseman -
“…we have the best guarantee now! It’s called the Illinois Constitution.”
What impact will Sosnowski’s Constitutional Amendment have if passed? See the IL GA’s Website here: http://tinyurl.com/c4wcqh8
Comment by sal-says Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 2:59 pm
The General Assembly will only be successful in diminishing state pensions if the Illinois Supreme Court agrees with them. This seems to be the road the legislators and their powerful allies are determined to take.
Comment by Ruby Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 3:00 pm
I think the House has made a political decesion that it is best to try a large diminishment of pensions and send it to the SC. If the SC rules against that House then they have polical cover, perhaps some legal guidance from the court, to proceed in a different or modified path.
Comment by facts are stubborn things Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 3:40 pm
Well, 50-50 odds we might get an answer pretty soon since the health insurance appeal was accepted by the IL Supreme Court.
If the State wins at the IL SC, we’ll have more uncertainty.
If the retirees win, regardless of pension clause or contract law reasoning, it’s gave over. Effectively speaking, all that will be left on the table for the GA will be one or more of thses: ramp reset, higher taxes, TRS normal cost shift.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 4:52 pm
Ruby, an unenforceable promise is not consideration, thus a choice is not required by state employees.
Comment by PublicServant Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 4:56 pm
sal-says; They can pass all the constitutional amendments they want, but they can’t be ex post facto.
Comment by Pacman Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 6:53 pm
Oops! RNUG
You may recall I mentioned a development in the Marconi Suit in a post the other day. My mistake. My info suggested an IL Supreme Court announcement on hearing the health care issue to be announced by Friday. I assumed they would take up the Marconi suit and consolidate it with the Maag Suit later reconciling the issue. The chronolgy of the suits would put Marconi first. Evidently they have skipped over the Marconi suit. The question is whether this suggests any direction in either their grounds or leaning. The process would suggest that there is a reason they selected this particular case. Could be anything from timing to litigants to the substance of the lower court ruling. I hope to learn a bit more when I get back to Illinois. Intriguing.
Comment by Old and in the Way Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 7:56 pm
http://www.wiu.edu/news/newsrelease.php?release_id=10681
Comment by RNUG Fan Thursday, Apr 11, 13 @ 9:06 pm
Why not do all of this the right way with a discussion among all parties involved…including legislators, teachers, firemen, policemen, state workers, current retirees. A number of minds must be better and have a wider perspective than just the legislature one. Otherwise, this is what is going to happen to “pension reform” in Illinois. Anything questionable will first have to go the the Supreme Court of Illinois regarding its constitutionality and then, with an unfavorable ruling, to the U.S Supreme Court to rule on the breach of contracts as enumerated in Article I. In the meantime, what are we going to get?
Comment by Jason Friday, Apr 26, 13 @ 2:32 pm