Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Did Oberweis pull a Brady?
Next Post: Everybody’s right and everybody’s wrong
Posted in:
* As expected, the pressure in the House to vote on Senate President John Cullerton’s pension reform bill is mounting. I don’t think I disagree with a word of what Rep. Hays said here…
“I think if we voted on the Cullerton bill, I think it would pass overwhelmingly,” said Rep. Chad Hays, R-Catlin. “My gut is that it would pass handily. Whether we get that opportunity remains to be seen.
“You might see some of the Republicans who did not vote for the Madigan bill (SB 1), I think they’d strongly consider voting for 2404.”
He predicted it would pass with “80-plus votes” out of the 118-member House.
“I’ve been saying for two years that we need a negotiated approach, with everybody at the table,” said Hays. “It’s certainly not a perfect bill, but it is by far the closest to that kind of a solution.”
But he said chances that it would get a vote in the House are “less than 25 percent.” […]
Rep. Naomi Jakobsson, D-Urbana, said she thinks the Cullerton bill “should come to the House, but I don’t know how that will be resolved.” […]
Rep. Adam Brown, R-Champaign, said “that would be the most fair way to do it.
“Let’s have a fair hearing over here in the House and see if there’s support for it,” he added.
It’s simple math. Not the savings part, but the support part. Legislators always prefer negotiated solutions to huge, seemingly intractable problems. They’ve been told for years that there was no magic solution to this dilemma. They’d have to vote for something the unions hated. But now, there is a bill out there that the unions support. Yes, it doesn’t save as much as the bill which already passed the House, but it is an incredibly attractive proposition.
So far, though, there’s been no indication from Speaker Madigan that he’ll allow the union bill to the floor. Stay tuned, but don’t get your hopes up, either.
* Related…
* Teachers elect Lewis to 2nd term as CTU head
* Cullerton, Madigan square off with competing pension reform plans - Madigan’s bill provides greater savings, but would courts approve reduced benefits for retirees?: Still, billions of dollars behind in overdue bills and faced with rising costs of health care and other programs, the state has financial problems that run so deep that pension relief alone will likely be insufficient to balance the books. But lawmakers have trouble fathoming what Illinois would face in future budget years if they fail this spring to overhaul pensions.
* Employees, retirees worry about impact of fixing state pension shortfall: An Illinois agency manager might have to delay retirement. A former university secretary wonders if she’ll have to cancel vacations. A state office assistant fears he won’t be able to afford the medical care his wife needs.
* AFSCME, Illinois Reach Contract
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, May 20, 13 @ 9:53 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Did Oberweis pull a Brady?
Next Post: Everybody’s right and everybody’s wrong
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
It would be very helpful for the Gov, Madigan, or Cullerton to get some sense of what the ratings agnecies think of both proposals. Most importantly, is another downgrade going to happen even if 2404 gets passed? Any indication from them could go a long way to determining if Cullerton’s bill could satisfy wall street while it goes to the courts from a retiree challenge. If it doesnt then momentum could shift back to SB1.
Comment by Abe the Babe Monday, May 20, 13 @ 10:00 am
I think Cullerton could get us to 70 which I think you have said is good enough. I know it says 90 but 70 for a state is fine …..
Did you buy up the NYTs in Springfield yesterday?
Comment by RNUG Fan Monday, May 20, 13 @ 10:01 am
===Did you buy up the NYTs in Springfield yesterday? ===
LOL
Thanks for reminding me. Forgot to look.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, May 20, 13 @ 10:02 am
Retirees and employees should look carefully at the Cullerton options and not worry too much
We should worry about SB1
The ratings outfits should be somewhere but not writing legislation. They have had too much deference with their history
Comment by RNUG Fan Monday, May 20, 13 @ 10:05 am
Thanks for reminding me. Forgot to look
Page 1 Sports. Let me know if you want hard copy. I made a national paper once and hunted down every copy in Illinois
Comment by RNUG Fan Monday, May 20, 13 @ 10:06 am
“The ratings outfits should be somewhere but not writing legislation. They have had too much deference with their history”
I agree. But their reaction will have consequences (political and fiscal) whether we like it or not. If i was voting on it, I would like to know what the affects are going to be in the bond markets. Its not the only factor to be weighed but it is the only one that is least talked about (publicly).
Comment by Abe the Babe Monday, May 20, 13 @ 10:14 am
Good point on the ratings agencies. Makes little difference what is passed, if the ratings agencies still drop the debt rating.
Comment by Downstater Monday, May 20, 13 @ 10:15 am
I’d say that the people who listened to the ratings agency’s triple A rating of derivatives and bought them are faring much worse than those who buy State of Illinois Debt, which hasn’t missed a payment…ever. So, allowing the ratings agencies to have any impact on our legislator’s actions in terms of what bill should be considered is ludicrous. Their reputation is justifiably non-existent. Cullerton should make it clear to Madigan that SB1 (as Gutted, err, I mean amended) doesn’t have the votes to pass in the senate, while SB 2404, as Rep. Hayes points out, would pass overwhelmingly.
If Madigan’s actions have brought the unions to the table on a negotiated bill, which 2404 represents, he’d be foolish not to allow SB 2404 a vote in the house. Note to Mike: If the likes of Msall and his fellow plutocrats support SB1, you’re in the wrong playground. While Cullerton’s bill will most certainly be challenged, at least it has a chance of passage, at least until the Supremes rull on the MAAG health insurance premium lawsuit.
Comment by PublicServant Monday, May 20, 13 @ 10:19 am
if the goal of legislation is to actually solve our fiscal problem, we must remember that even the Madigan bill doesn’t really solve the issue, though it comes a great deal closer than cullerton.
I’m not sure it really helps the state at large to pass legislation which doesn’t significantly address the financial shortfalls.
remember that pacifying the unions and actually ameliorating the state financial morass are not necessarily the same thing.
with regard to constitutionality, I don’t see cullerton as being much less culpable to being overturned than Madigan for reasons discussed at length here already. accordingly, one could make the argument to pass the pension reform that can actually go further in helping ease the financial pressures accumulating. There is no question that Madigan’s plan goes further in solving the financial problems we face.
Comment by biased observer Monday, May 20, 13 @ 10:20 am
Rnug is on point in stating that the rating agencies should not have a hand in this legislation. It isn’t exactly ancient history that they played a big part in triggering the great financial collapse in 2008. The roll these agencies play in our financial system is way overdue for an overhaul and the sooner the better. Why S&P and Moody’s have any credibility after the recent enormous harm they caused this country and what reforms are needed to make sure they don’t do it again is a topic for another time.
Comment by Dude Abides Monday, May 20, 13 @ 10:25 am
If Madigan refuses to let this bill be voted on the floor of “his” chamber, he is showing that he doesn’t care one whit about solving the problem, just serving his own sense of grandiosity and power.
I hope public pressure can be mounted in the final weeks of session to force the issue.
Even though everyone says Lisa Madigan is her own person, will still hold the bag to a some extent for her Dad’s unwillingness to bring a viable pension bill to the people’s respresentatives when she runs for whatever office she vies for in the next election.
Think it over Daddy Madigan…
Comment by Loop Lady Monday, May 20, 13 @ 10:28 am
remember that althought the unions and stateworkers are highly organized and vocal, this financial absyss which is developing is becoming an issue that even normal non union citizens are starting to talk about at work or at home over dinner. accordingly, the politicians are realizing that perhaps in this instance they cant just focus on the wailing opposition of the highly organized union forces and that the citizenry at large are paying close attention to this issue. they aren’t going to think highly of politicians raising taxes and cutting funds to schools and programs for the disabled, while the small but highly vocal and organized unions maintain their benefits, relatively unscathed.
more people are thinking about pension reform in this state than ever before. scrutiny is being applied that has never been applied before. politicians are becoming acutely aware that it is not just union leaders that are analyzing their voting and legislative decisions.
I agree, who cares about the ratings agencies. just do what is best for the state at large. make the minimum amount of cuts in pension benefits to get us out of this mess; similarly revenues should be raised only enough to get us out of the mess.
Comment by biased observer Monday, May 20, 13 @ 10:29 am
@PublicServant.
Im not defending the ratings agencies. I’m merely pointing that they are still relevant (see the State’s withdrawl of its debt issuance in Jan 2013 after the negative outlook from S&P and Moody’s and concerns from individual investors).
Auctually, a positive or non-negative reaction from the agencies on 2404 could go a long way toward getting Cullerton’s plan over the hump. Whether we like it or not it has to be considered.
Comment by Abe the Babe Monday, May 20, 13 @ 10:39 am
Madigan will not move 2404 if he thinks Cullerton will blink.
Comment by Norseman Monday, May 20, 13 @ 10:40 am
=== If Madigan refuses to let this bill be voted on the floor of “his” chamber, he is showing that he doesn’t care one whit about solving the problem ===
Im a little confused. Are you saying that Madigan only cares about solving a problem if he allows a vote on a bill that he believes doesn’t solve the problem?
You may disagree with Madigan’s position, but to say he doesn’t care about solving the problem is a little absurd. He has invested a lot of time and energy toward crafting a solution to the problem.
Comment by Fred's Mustache Monday, May 20, 13 @ 10:47 am
How does the budget look for the next few years if 2404 passes, if pension debt payments are adjusted to take into account budget amounts available when pension bonds are paid off and when normal costs are transferred to districts/universities, and if the temporary income tax increase is extended in some form?
If this yields a balanced but no-growth other than inflation State budget, then the ratings agencies should react positively.
I realize that some want the outcome to be pensions are cut to the point that other parts of the budget can receive substantial increments or alternatively that the income tax increase can be sunsetted, but the Constitution, etc….
Comment by east central Monday, May 20, 13 @ 10:49 am
I can’t imagine the ratings agencies commenting on any bill until that bill has cleared the courts.
Comment by Joe M. Monday, May 20, 13 @ 10:51 am
I don’t think most Illinoisians would disagree that Illinois has a debt problem and that that public pensions contribute significantly to that debt.
The question continues to be, who pays to dig us out. Madigan, more than Cullerton, and Madigan’s supporters seem inclined to take a sizeable chunk out of middle class retirees, present and future.
This despite the fact that we have all seen the figures on middle class stagnation in recent decades. It’s not just the poor who have to worry about decent housing, retirement security, and post-secondary education for their kids. The middle class, increasingly, is right in there with them, albeit to a slightly lesser degree.With equally minimal hope for improvement.
So, if the Madigan Dems are going with the plutocrats on the pension “reform,” isn’t that an abandonment of their supposed championing of the little guy?
Really, does it make any difference which party is in charge. In which case, we “little guys” are sunk.
Comment by cassandra Monday, May 20, 13 @ 11:11 am
Frankly, I think the ratings agencies would react more favorably to a pension debt repayment ramp restructuring than either pension “reform” bill. When is that conversation going to take place? And while they’re conversing, how about discussing an extension of the temporary income tax. Those two measures would have the most impact on improving the state’s reputation with the ratings agency, if that’s what people are concerned about, and…bonus…they’re both constitutional.
Comment by PublicServant Monday, May 20, 13 @ 11:11 am
Fred: Madigan did not negotiate his pension bill with anyone that has a real stake in it. Please inform me of the folks that helped Madigan will crafting his bill.
It is pretty obvious he is not open to compromise on this very pressing financial and quality of life isssue for all Illinoians by the mere fact that no one is optimistic that he will call Cullertons bill in “his” chamber. I find this stance unconsciable.
The Senate routinely votes on Madigan’s bills in their chamber. If he really cared about making a dent in this ginormous issue, he’d allow a vote.
I understand that he is entitled to be a gatekeeper, but he should’t take a decent bill hostage to his feelings of power and control. Hope I made myself clear.
Comment by Loop Lady Monday, May 20, 13 @ 11:13 am
If there are 80 votes or more(similar to Senate)
Why don’t they just grow……and get the job done
Comment by RNUG Fan Monday, May 20, 13 @ 11:19 am
I don’t know if this makes any sense or not - but the thought came to me that somehow Madigan may tie letting Cullerton’s bill pass the House, as long as he can also get his upcoming pension “shift” legislation through the House, and also work some deal to get the “shift” through the Senate. Could Madigan’s ultimate goal and priority be the “shift” - and dropping his SB1 is just a bargaining chip?
Comment by Joe M. Monday, May 20, 13 @ 11:31 am
- Joe M. - Monday, May 20, 13 @ 11:31 am:
I don’t know if this makes any sense or not - but the thought came to me that somehow Madigan may tie letting Cullerton’s bill pass the House, as long as he can also get his upcoming pension “shift” legislation through the House, and also work some deal to get the “shift” through the Senate. Could Madigan’s ultimate goal and priority be the “shift” - and dropping his SB1 is just a bargaining chip?
BINGO!
Comment by Sparky Monday, May 20, 13 @ 11:35 am
Why doesn’t Cullerton call SB1 first and see it go down to defeat like HB3411? Then SB2404 would be the only option. Apparently Madigan could not do the same, because if he calls Cullerton’s bill first it would pass.
Comment by Bobbysox Monday, May 20, 13 @ 11:38 am
There is already an agreement on the cost shift with the universities and community colleges. This is likely to pass both houses.
Comment by Ruby Monday, May 20, 13 @ 11:47 am
biased observer @ 10:29 am:
After the legislator passes either of these bills which don’t solve the underlying revenue problems, the GA will have to pass a tax increase. If you think the public is upset now, just wait for the screams when the public finds out the GA lied again about solving the State’s fiscal problems.
Comment by RNUG Monday, May 20, 13 @ 11:54 am
=== Please inform me of the folks that helped Madigan will crafting his bill. ===
Rep. Nekritz, Rep. Cross, Sen. Biss, and each of the members of the House that participated in the “Weekly Orders of Business” that established what sorts of ideas would be or would not be able to pass through the House in a final bill.
Im assuming that what you really are alluding to is the fact that Madigan did not meet with union leaders in crafting this bill. Madigan did talk with the unions regarding pensions in past years, and found those talks not to be fruitful.
Comment by Fred's Mustache Monday, May 20, 13 @ 11:54 am
east central @ 10:49 am
No so good. They still, at minimum, will have to vote to make the tmeporary tax increase permanent.
Comment by RNUG Monday, May 20, 13 @ 11:56 am
Joe M.- Madigan is always thinking three moves ahead. It would make total sense for him to push through the worst (to retirees and employees) bill through knowing that he can drop it to get something else he really wants (the cost shift) added to the more reasonable Cullerton bill. I guess we will know if that was his plan in a week or two
Comment by Roadiepig Monday, May 20, 13 @ 11:59 am
RNUG @ 11:56am
Yes, I was assuming that the temporary income tax is extended in some fashion. If all those elements are in place (2404, near-term adjustments taking into account longer-term changes including bond payoff and normal cost shift, and income tax increase extension), then is the State budget balanced?
This is the question I would ask if I were voting on the legislation.
Also, if these measures balance the budget, then it is even more difficult to see justification for emergency powers.
Comment by east central Monday, May 20, 13 @ 12:07 pm
Fred: Yeah, I’m talking abou the Unions.
What part of the talks did Madigan find “unfruitful”? Could it be that he does not care to negotiate, just dictate?
I assume you are not a union member as I am.
When someone says to me that this is all I can do for you without hearing your thoughts or interests, it goes over like a lead balloon.
To the fact that Madigan has been in Springfield for many, many years and did not encourage payment into said system makes his legislation all the more insulting and self serving.
Comment by Loop Lady Monday, May 20, 13 @ 12:28 pm
===I assume you are not a union member as I am.===
Nope, not a union member, but affected by the proposed legislation just the same.
Comment by Fred's Mustache Monday, May 20, 13 @ 12:44 pm
@- Loop Lady - Monday, May 20, 13 @ 12:28 pm:
As a union member you pay dues and get to vote on the leadership of your union. Retirees, at least the ones I’ve been affiliated with, do neither. I never negotiated for retirees and they didn’t get to vote on anything. So if any union says they’ve negotiated for me, I’ve got to say “By what right”.
If your union asked your leadership to negotiate with President Cullerton when does your membership get to vote on the package? I bet there is no vote. Maybe you can go to the union’s web site and voice your opinion but I’d bet not. They don’t allow members to communicate with one another like that. They might get an ear full.
By negotiating rights away from retirees which they have no business doing then they’ve provided themselves cover to provide large sums of money and manpower in the next election. That, IMO, is what the union’s involvement is all about….
Comment by Mouthy Monday, May 20, 13 @ 1:00 pm
east central,
Answered you too fast. Here’s a quick back of the envelope swag the way I look at it …
From the numbers I’ve seen, if you reset the ramp such as proposed by Martire (assuming a funding goal of either 90% or 100%), that raises the pension payments about $1.9B higher annually than today. So the budget would be about $1.9B further out of balance there.
If you cost shift all the TRS/SURS stuff immediately (no phase-in over years) WITHOUT increasing other education spending to make up for that shift in disguise, then you “save” about $1.6B or so annually. But the talk is a phase-in, so these “savings” can’t immediately offset the increase ramp cost. I’m not going to count on any savings here short term.
If you keep the temp income tax, then you don’t immediately blow a roughly $7B hole (40% of last year’s $17B personal income tax revenue) in the revenue stream. If you let the temp tax expire, you create the need for draconion cuts (about $7B out of about $30B).
The pension bonds don’t get paid off for about 6 years yet, so that funding of about $1B isn’t available yet. You could reduce current payments some if you intend to dedicate this future stream of revenue, but since you’re giving up about about 6 years of earnings / payments on the front end, the reduction potential will be relatively small, so I’m not going to count on anything here.
I didn’t run the numbers through a speadsheet calculator (maybe someone else wants to do it this time), I’m just SWAGing it in my head. Let’s say for argument’s sake that Cullerton’s bill will save $1B annually and Madigan’s would save about $2B annually. After the ramp change, Cullerton’s may leave the State budget about $0.9B worse than now and Madigan’s might have it about $0.1B to the good. But that’s only if either Cullerton’s or Madigan’s bills survive a court challenge … which IMO is looking less and less likely.
And ALL we’ve talked about is the PENSION issue. After the spending cuts the last couple of years, the State is getting pretty lean on average. Yes, some agency’s are still fat but others have been cut beyond the bone. So there’s going to be some normal growth that probably can’t be stopped. Add on top of it the coming Medicaid expansion due to Obamacare; the State’s going to have to pay for at least a small part of it short term, with bigger bills further down the road. Then there’s the whole unanswered employee / retiree health insurance cost issue. If “Maag” gets reveresed, that’s something like a $0.8B hole, based on this past year. And we’re still carrying over that $5B to $9B backlog of unpaid bills.
So to answer your question, IMO, even AFTER all the potential pension changes above, the next 3 to 6 year’s budgets aren’t going to be anywhere near balanced without either another revenue expansion, draconian service cuts, or futher “raiding” of the pensions.
And yeah, I know, all I say is there are more taxes coming … but I don’t see any magic beans laying around.
Comment by RNUG Monday, May 20, 13 @ 1:16 pm
RNUG:
Any possible solution to this mess will include BOTH significant pension reform AND revenue increase. Without both of these items involved, it is a not a real solution to the Illinois fiscal calamity. End of story.
Comment by biased observer Monday, May 20, 13 @ 1:20 pm
east central,
RE your police powers comment, as is apparent in my comments above, the pensions are just one factor in the State’s fiscal problems. And if it ever gets to the police powers point, you’ll see the bond holders also take a haircut. Even though the State has always paid the bonds, this whole class warfare is really about the 1% trying to ensure their bonds get paid and their income taxes don’t get raised.
Comment by RNUG Monday, May 20, 13 @ 1:26 pm
Spot on RNUG.
Comment by PublicServant Monday, May 20, 13 @ 1:27 pm
RNUG….
the old one percenter argument. nice. that never gets tiresome.
Comment by biased observer Monday, May 20, 13 @ 1:39 pm
biased observer @ 1:39 pm:
For what it’s worth … having grown up with one foot in the business class and one foot in the union class, the two groups aren’t quite the same in the way they think …
Comment by RNUG Monday, May 20, 13 @ 1:54 pm
RNUG,
you are correct, and I am happy to admit that I have learned a great deal from your analysis and greatly appreciate your input, even if we at times have different perspectives.
Comment by biased observer Monday, May 20, 13 @ 2:25 pm
RNUG
Thanks very much for your analysis.
Increasing taxes further to address the pension debt seems very difficult. I can see revenue increases (from taxing services or whatever) as a way to address other cost increases such as those associated with ACA.
The Martire plan does not seem possible without revenue increases in the near term. Planning on increasing annual payments seems more realistic even though the overall long-term cost is higher.
While the bond payoff and cost shift do not occur for many years, their eventual impact could be an argument for targeting 80% funding for current calculations, with an increase in the target percentage to occur in the future as these additional funds become available.
Comment by east central Monday, May 20, 13 @ 2:34 pm
Delaying some pension payments in order to accumulate greater investment earnings would help. Might the following be a constitutional addition to the Cullerton-Holmes plan?
Add as an option for retirees the choice to defer a portion of the AAI/COLA until say 72 (?) with the amount credited to the retiree compounded by one-half the pension fund’s investment return during this period, at which point the AAI and investment earnings amount would be credited to the retiree’s account in some manner. Make this a requirement rather than an option for retirees with pensions greater than some amount ($50K?) or alternatively for the portion of pensions above some amount ($50K?) .
This would help funding by delaying AAI/COLA payments for some years and by giving the systems one-half the returns from investing the funds during this period.
Comment by east central Monday, May 20, 13 @ 2:53 pm
Out of curiosity, I looked at the actuarial valuation reports of TRS, SURS, and SERS for the projected required contributions for the next few years under current law, if no pension cuts are enacted. While the pension payments for FY14 are $6.7 billion, a 928 million over the current fiscal year, the increases for FY15 and beyond are much more modest — 278 million in FY15, 203 million in FY16, 263 in FY17, 286 in FY18, and 272 in FY19. Increases of between 2.9% and 4.1% each year.
Incidentially, SURS and SERS account for about $200 million of the increase from FY13 to FY14, about a 6.2% increase in contributions to those two systems. TRS on the other hand has a huge 27% increase from FY13 to FY14, about $700 million dollars. Some of that is likely because they reduced their estimated investment rate of return from 8.5% to 8.0%. SURS and SERS both reduced their estimated rate of return from 8.5% to 7.75% in 2010.
Comment by drew Monday, May 20, 13 @ 4:03 pm
I can’t believe I am pulling for Madigan, but Cullerton’s bill is just too much band-aid and not enough cure. If it passes, everyone applauds themselves on the back yet the State will still have a big problem and we’ll be right back here in a matter of years. Time wasted just exacerbates the problem. But if it buys the GA ten years, then it’s probably not half of these peoples problem to deal with.
Comment by Shemp Monday, May 20, 13 @ 4:19 pm
It strikes me that if public employees had the same intensity as the gun guys, the legislature wouldn’t think of passing the Madigan bill any more than it would think of voting to ban semi-auto rifles. There are some exceptions, but generally the public employees aren’t as fired up about their pensions being emasculated as the gun guys are about their rights being emasculated.
Comment by reformer Monday, May 20, 13 @ 4:58 pm
east central @ 2:53 pm:
You’re thinking about the pensions as if they were 401K accounts; they aren’t (except for some teachers in optional plans like “cash balance”). There is no individual retiree “account” in a traditional pension plan.
You might be able to modify yout proposal to either grant a huge COLA the first year it resumes or a permanent higher COLA rate, based on some calculation about earnings over time. But all that would do is delay the day of payment, not eliminate it.
To be honest, I don’t see many retirees choosing such an option unless it is a really sweet deal. The up front loss is unlikely to be recooped over the life expectancy. That same math is why you see a lot of baby boomers, myself included, who take SS at age 62 instead of age 67 … the break-even point for a lot of people is between 79 and 84, and our life expectancy is about 83 - 86.
Comment by RNUG Monday, May 20, 13 @ 5:19 pm
biased observer @ 2:25 pm
We’re probably closer on our viewpoints than Madigan and Cullerton are on pension reform … LOL.
Comment by RNUG Monday, May 20, 13 @ 5:31 pm
“So, if the Madigan Dems are going with the plutocrats on the pension “reform,” isn’t that an abandonment of their supposed championing of the little guy?”
How about the little guy’s family of four who now owes $31,000 to finance overly generous pensions (free healthcare anyone)? That is in addition to what they will owe to run all of the rest of state government. At some point we will simply refuse to elect legislators who attempt to collect that ridiculous debt, the courts be damned. Wrapping yourself in the flag of the “little guy” is a diversion, and a perversion of the reality of the situation.
Comment by wishbone Monday, May 20, 13 @ 5:52 pm
Woo–pretty bold prediction that the Senate version has THAT much support that it’d pass with solid bi-partisan support and over 80 votes? INteresting! Wonder what some GOP state SENator in the know is predicting what the vote might end up being on the Madigan HOUSE version…?! (And maybe some brilliant CapFax contributor will SHARE such an insight sometime within the next few days for all of us out here NOT “in the know”)?? Sure hope so!
Comment by Just The Way It Is One Monday, May 20, 13 @ 7:50 pm