Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

* UPDATED x3 * Nekritz: Maybe we should pass both bills

Posted in:

Illinois
Updated Posts

* Rep. Elaine Nekritz may have shown the way forward today on stalled pension reform legislation. From the Daily Herald…

Nekrtiz said that given the Illinois Senate’s strong rejection of her [pension] proposal Thursday, she’d be open to an idea proposed by Senate President John Cullerton that would have lawmakers approve two competing plans. That would, in theory, let the courts strike one down plan and let the other stand.

Showing the immense legal complexities of the debate, Nekritz said she’d only go along if the two plans were approved in separate legislation, not in one bill.

“That’s something that I think we should consider,” she said.

I’m not sure how they could pass both bills as separate entities because it would be a legal nightmare, unless one was held up with a parliamentary hold while the other moved through the courts. That’s a scenario I told subscribers about weeks ago.

*** UPDATE 1 *** Rep. Nekritz’s spokesperson told me that the parliamentary hold idea (making a motion to reconsider and then keeping it on until it has to be lifted as a backup) is exactly what Nekritz was referring to when she talked to the Daily Herald.

*** UPDATE 2 *** They may need to get something done quick or trouble could be afoot. Reuters…

Moody’s Investors Service warned the state of Illinois that its credit rating could fall further if the legislature fails to fix the state’s huge public pension problem.

“Our view is that failure to enact pension reforms could drive the state’s general obligation bond rating lower from A2, which is already the lowest level for a U.S. state,” said Moody’s analyst Ted Hampton.

*** UPDATE 3 *** The obvious problem with the idea is that the court case on the first bill could end up lasting longer than the 98th General Assembly. If that happened, then the parliamentary hold would expire, along with the bill. So, it may very well be a no-go with the Senate Democrats.

posted by Rich Miller
Friday, May 31, 13 @ 1:20 pm

Comments

Or she figures the governor will veto the Cullerton bill.

Comment by mr. whipple Friday, May 31, 13 @ 1:23 pm
Or she could take her blinders off and let go of her punishing plan. If SB2404 were to come up for a vote, it would pass by a much wider margin than the Madigan/Nekritz/Cross plan. Unfortunately, Madigan’s idea of leadership is to only allow votes on the things he likes.

Comment by ash Friday, May 31, 13 @ 1:27 pm
And the parliamentary hold would be on her bill, right?

Comment by Anonymous Friday, May 31, 13 @ 1:29 pm
Anon, Cullerton has already offered to let MJM’s bill take precedence. It was in the original SB1.

Comment by Rich Miller Friday, May 31, 13 @ 1:34 pm
Someone please inform the representative that her bill went down in flames in the Senate. Ask her why the House won’t vote on both bills as the Senate has done. Ask her why the Senate should provide so much consideration for her failed plan, when the House won’t even vote on SB2404. Ridiculous

Comment by hello Elaine Friday, May 31, 13 @ 1:37 pm
this is illinois…

Comment by bored now Friday, May 31, 13 @ 1:41 pm
Nekritz is making an 11th hour attempt to salvage her political career which may well have gone down in flames last night in the Senate. Her comments when the SS problem was brought up were a classic of what not to say.

Comment by Cassiopeia Friday, May 31, 13 @ 1:43 pm
Too late, I think the House burned the bridge on the two option approach. The Senate would look silly having trashed the SB 1 and touting SB 2404 as the constitutional alternatve. I think Nekritz suggestion is even sillier.

Comment by Norseman Friday, May 31, 13 @ 1:44 pm
Hail Mary won’t work either.

Comment by Mouthy Friday, May 31, 13 @ 1:44 pm
Suggestion of two separate bills passing with 2404 being held.

Comment by Norseman Friday, May 31, 13 @ 1:46 pm
If you put them on two sepearate bills that means two separate roll calls. Even using the “if and only if SB1 get struck down” language you still have to pass SB1 in the senate.

It doesnt look likely.

Comment by Abe the Babe Friday, May 31, 13 @ 1:46 pm
If the Speaker calls Cullerton’s bill, it’ll fly through the House faster than grass through a goose. Moodys will be pacified for a while, and additional steps can be taken in the future to further address the financial crunch.

By no means is this the last word on pensions, but it would be a start to a long and difficult journey through the courts and to (hopefully, with additional work) solvency for the funds and the state.

Comment by 47th Ward Friday, May 31, 13 @ 1:48 pm
Doing what Rep Nekritz has suggested is quite similar to what President Cullerton proposed with SB 1 at the beginning of session; bifurcate the two options and let the courts decide which is constitutional. I say, go for it, Elaine.

Comment by GA Watcher Friday, May 31, 13 @ 1:48 pm
Maybe Ted Hampton at Moody’s should run for the General Assembly and submit a bill. He has the interests of Illinois’ citizens’ and its future at heart.

It’s more than galling that these guys think they can weigh in on public policy while its being considered. Go home and get your shine box.

To paraphrase Otter: “I got news for you, buddy. They’re going to stick it to us anyway.”

The rating agencies said Illinois had a structural deficit problem. So the state raises incomes taxes, cuts spending, pays down a chunk of bills and the rating agencies stuck it to them, anyway.

Or perhaps the state should no longer pay Moody’s for its ratings.

If history is a guide, the rating agencies change their tune when business is threatened.

Comment by wordslinger Friday, May 31, 13 @ 1:49 pm
So the same Senators who railed against SB 1 as being unfair and uncosntitutional should now pass it as the primary bill?
And Cullerton, having been admonished as a weak leader by Madigan, now should call for a revote on SB 1 to prove Madigan is correct and that he is a weak leader who will always bow to Mr. Speaker?
As for Nekritz, where to start? She doesn’t anticipate the Social Security issue and, when confronted, says “Don’t worry…that’s only a problem down the road.” Then she says that the three separate bills would be unconstitutional because they a) don’t amount to enough individually to convince the Supreme Court to grant police powers, and b) the (laughable) state “guarantee” of future pension system payments is the tradeoff that makes SB 1 constitutional. She must really believe most Illinoisans are idiots. Or, more to the point, that most don’t really care if retirees get hosed as long as the GA can keep spending on other programs that bring more political capital.

Comment by Decaf Coffee Party Friday, May 31, 13 @ 1:49 pm
Thanks Ted, we get it. We are also aware of Ty Fahner’s thoughts on the matter as well as the Tribunes. Really, this is getting old.

Comment by Jimbo Friday, May 31, 13 @ 1:50 pm
= To paraphrase Otter =

Wordslinger, I hope you’re not suggesting that the General Assembly hold a toga party.

Comment by cover Friday, May 31, 13 @ 1:56 pm
Great suggestion, Word. Nice cost-saving measure.

Comment by Norseman Friday, May 31, 13 @ 1:58 pm
conference committee

Comment by Amalia Friday, May 31, 13 @ 1:58 pm
Wordslinger- perfect ideas on Moody’s !

Comment by Roadiepig Friday, May 31, 13 @ 2:02 pm
Sure, let’s keep things on equal footing.

Call the Senate bill in the House to be fair.

If that goes down in flames as well, then we can talk about passing both of them.

Otherwise this comes across as the sponsor of the bill grasping at straws, still looking for a way to manuever “my bill” ahead of “their bill”.

Comment by Formerly Known As... Friday, May 31, 13 @ 2:02 pm
Last May, I thought she had some answers that could work but now this May she demonstrates no understanding of the arguments against her bills and ideas. She is sticking too close to a bad script.

Comment by Makandadawg Friday, May 31, 13 @ 2:06 pm
The issue of constitutionality of these bills keeps coming up as if it is a complete mystery to the people writing the proposals. Yes, it is very complex. Yes, there are competing ideas. Are there no recognized legal experts anywhere in Illinois who can help create this stuff and stay within the existing law? No retired SC judges, no law school presidents, no high powered legal staff, no pension/actuary experts, just no one who can provide realistic, non-political(?) advice? If the process will likely go through the courts anyway why not bring these kind of people in while developing the proposals? Of course it is much easier to bluster endlessly and look for ways to politically out-flank any opponents. Who would want to stop that?

Comment by zatoichi Friday, May 31, 13 @ 2:07 pm
“Maybe Ted Hampton at Moody’s should run for the General Assembly and submit a bill. He has the interests of Illinois’ citizens’ and its future at heart.”
Ready, aim, shoot the messenger!

Comment by El Swerean Friday, May 31, 13 @ 2:09 pm
Elaine doesn’t listen very well. The Senate HAS voted and rejected her baby. Reminds me of how she and Biss giggled the whole way through Ralph Martire’s unbelievably logical, coherent plan to address our revenue/debt problem. Not listening gets you in trouble in school. Apparently she never learned.

Comment by Anonymous 1 Friday, May 31, 13 @ 2:11 pm
What did Rich Miller say a few weeks ago? It’s all about timing. This two-bit two-bill offer went away yesterday evening around 7 p.m.

Comment by Bobbysox Friday, May 31, 13 @ 2:18 pm
Here’s how it goes: your team bats and you get three outs, Rep. Nekritz. You sent Adam Dunn to the plate with a feather and he responded as expected. Now the other team gets to bat.

And who’s to say 2404 won’t satisfy the rating agencies even more than Ms. Nekritz’s constitutionally-challenged litter?

Comment by wallinger dickus Friday, May 31, 13 @ 2:19 pm
Rep Nekritz’ strategy will prove Pres Cullerton is right! His bill is the constitutional one.

Comment by Oy Vey Friday, May 31, 13 @ 2:20 pm
There is also the common sense issue. Invoking police powers assumes that there is no other less drastic alternative. Passing legislation claiming police powers because there is no other alternative except if it is ruled unconstitutional then lets trot out this alternative (the pseudo swap) instead. Sounds like the reasoning of a real estate lawyer……oh I guess that’s why it appeals to a desperate Rep. Nekritz.

Lest it be overlooked there are serious issues with the Cullerton Bill as well. First there is the health care suit that is yet to be heard. That may well make this whole charade moot. Second, a choice cannot be forced into a contractual concession. You can make the choice to trade for consideration but you always have the option for maintaining the status quo. In other words I cannot say that you must make a decision either way that diminishes the condition of your contract. My law professor called it, “Heads I win, Tails you lose.”

Just back from Louisiana I thought I’d see it all but I gotta say we are something special in Illinois! Pensions are crowding out the budget, that’s why we are increasing spending by $2 billion. As they say down there….blees their heart!

Comment by Old and In The Way Friday, May 31, 13 @ 2:21 pm
The Speaker really created this mess. His approach all session has been “once the House solves this issue, we’ll share the solution”. He’s been completely dismissive of the Senate and the hard (and credible) work they have done on this issue.

He’s done a great job of leading his caucus, and has done a horrible job working with anyone he doesn’t directly control. That’s bad leadership folks.

Comment by ILPundit Friday, May 31, 13 @ 2:24 pm
Wordslinger: I liked your comments about Moody’s
Has Moody’s lost some of its “prestige” due to the Subprime securities debacle

Comment by Earl Shumaker Friday, May 31, 13 @ 2:39 pm
They Bills don’t have the same support so why pass them as if they do? SB1 went down with a huge number of no’s and 2404 passed with a clear majority. The only thing stopping 2404 from being passed in the house is Madigan or as many have said it would pass with a huge majority. So no don’t vote for SB1 again it’s not what the representatives of the people of the state want they want 2404. Further if you vote for both why Quinn would just sign SB1 isn’t that the one he wants. If this is about fixing a problem fix it, pass 2404 rather pass than vote for SB1 hoping the courts decide years from now.

Comment by No really Friday, May 31, 13 @ 2:47 pm
Or maybe just, you know… Call the one that has the votes to pass? Or is that too complex? BTW the trib today talked about legislators needing the summer to explain their NO vote. Seems to me they don’t need that much to simply utter “it’s illegal.”

Comment by Bush Twins Friday, May 31, 13 @ 2:50 pm
How on Earth do you pass 2 totally inconsistent bills without establishing which one takes precedence? What if both are upheld? How does the court or anyone else evaluate the consequences of overturning all or part of one if it does not know the fate of the other–which could be critical in a police power argument.

This is all nuts.

Comment by Harry Friday, May 31, 13 @ 2:53 pm
Everything has gotten a little silly and now Governor Goofy is crying veto, veto rather than doing anything constructive.

Comment by Cassiopeia Friday, May 31, 13 @ 2:58 pm
Does anyone but Barry Nekritz really care what she thinks? Does He? At this point she is just acting out of a despearte attempt to cause pain to workers, for some strange reason. Her plan went up in flames so she needs to build a bridge and get over it.

Comment by ash Friday, May 31, 13 @ 3:13 pm
“Has Moody’s lost some of its “prestige” due to the Subprime securities debacle”

Assuming they had any to start…. “Prestige” - maybe.. “Honesty” and “Integrity”? Well, different issues…..

Look, until the feds and the FINE (Financial, INsurance, & Equities) groups come to grips with a whole raft of issues, including how credit rating firms get compensated, we’re stuck with the credit rating system that helped create the whole sub-prime (Mortgage Backed Securities, Credit Default Swaps, Auction Rate Securities, Structured Investment Vehicles, etc.) disaster.

The way it’s done currently creates incentives for all sorts of bad decision making. But with all the litigation still going on, nobody’s going to be willing to step forward and push to change the system, because then it’s pushed out there that the credit rating system was (and still is) badly flawed. So, the litigation goes (endlessly) forward and everything else waits.

That does not excuse the State of Illinois, though. Nobody put us in this mess but ourselves. Our biggest problem is that there’s a real likelihood that we could end up with this same pension/retirement issue front and center next year, if not the year after.

Remember, GASB 68 kicks into effect by 06.15.2014, and that means standardized and far more extensively detailed reporting on pensions and retirement obligations. That’s when we find out how these proposed legislation will really perform.

Word, nice idea on Moody’s, but it’s useless at this point in time. If you remember, about 18 months ago, the Feds wanted to require certifications from the big rating agencies on each rated security. They had a couple new issues come up to be rated, and the credit rating firms refused to issue credit ratings. And Treasury and the Federal Reserve flat out caved. It was “Stick the fork in, they’re DONE!”.

Just saying….

Comment by Judgment Day Friday, May 31, 13 @ 3:19 pm
Judgement Day: I appreciate your comments

Comment by Earl Shumaker Friday, May 31, 13 @ 3:33 pm
What is this about a Chicago Teacher pension holiday. Has everyone had complete memory loss?

Comment by RNUG Fan Friday, May 31, 13 @ 3:35 pm
I want to hear the story about any legislator hearing from anyone BUT the Trib editorial board member or civic committee CEO about the NO vote on SB 1 ……One of SB 1 s supporters cam up with some silly conspiracy about why they only got calls AGINST it an none for it.

Comment by RNUG Fan Friday, May 31, 13 @ 3:39 pm
That comment from “ash” should be removed.

Comment by Lotta Liaison Friday, May 31, 13 @ 3:44 pm
Displeasure with Moody’s is understood. However, if the state runs its finances so that it needs outside money, then it will just have to tolerate meddling from rating agencies.

Comment by Cook County Commoner Friday, May 31, 13 @ 3:45 pm
If I’m Madigan, I revive Cullerton’s original SB 1, with the Part A, Part B approach….tack it onto a Senate bill and pass it over to the Senate and dare Cullerton to find the votes to pass it. This allows MJM to go home saying “not only did Cullerton tank SB 1, but he wouldn’t even call a bill which was once his pet idea. Hey, I was flexible and he wasn’t.” This move would put Cullerton and the SDems into a heck of a trick box with the unions and the editorial boards.

Comment by Harry Lefkowitz is not your friend. Friday, May 31, 13 @ 3:47 pm
I think this new Moody’s quote is not new. It is from January. Really?
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/50403954/ns/us_news/t/illinois-again-fails-act-pensions-risking-credit-downgrade/#.Uaj_UtK858E

Comment by Makandadawg Friday, May 31, 13 @ 3:49 pm
Harry
Sorry but the process just doesn’t work that way. It might be possible with more time but not literally at the 12th hour…….

Comment by Old and In The Way Friday, May 31, 13 @ 3:54 pm
Thank you Rep. Nekritz. All others may refer to my Comment (#50, I believe) in the “Question of the Day” Post. Right on. Common sense. If it has to come to a choice between doing THIS vs. NOTHing? Then do it–whatdya all have to lose?!

Comment by Just The Way It Is One Friday, May 31, 13 @ 3:55 pm
Moody’s should comment on the CPS pension holiday! How about Governor Dufus threatening to veto the bill? He really knows how to scare those legislators! What a hard man!

Comment by Old and In The Way Friday, May 31, 13 @ 3:58 pm
Old and In,

The system doesn’t work that way? When did the Chicago Teacher Pension Holiday emerge? Wasn’t that like 2 hours ago?

Comment by Harry Lefkowitz is not your friend. Friday, May 31, 13 @ 3:59 pm
Lotta,
Why is that? You think she isn’t acting out of desperation or that everyone hangs on her every word?

Comment by ash Friday, May 31, 13 @ 4:01 pm
Won’t work Harry - too late. Madigan lost all credibility last night when he announced he was “heading to the mansion.” Teaming up with Quinn is the surest way to instill failure in any endeavor. And when Quinn heard he was heading over he should have ordered his security guys to block the doors. Heres a news flash Pat - Madigan is about to launch his daughter up your chimney - you should be locked in a room with Cullerton and Rahm if you want a future.

Comment by Anon Friday, May 31, 13 @ 4:02 pm
By the way, to Cassiopeia @2:58 pm, maybe our Blogger missed it, but despise him or not, your utterly insulting reference to “Governor Goofy” is not only way over the top, but utterly ridiculous and ill-informed. Pat Quinn has been both saying and working diligently for years now to get something reasonable passed. Guess you figured you’d just sneak-in and off the cuff, vulgar, and totally uncalled-for “Pot Shot” against Governor Quinn (or is it that you’re working for Rauner, Rutherford, or some other Governor “want-to-be”??!!

Comment by Just The Way It Is One Friday, May 31, 13 @ 4:02 pm
Sounds like desperation to me. Passing two bills, Moody’s calling the shots and leavings the Judge’s Retirement out of the legislation. Is this let’s make a deal with the judges?

Comment by Soccertease Friday, May 31, 13 @ 4:03 pm
Sad to say I will have to read later how this all turns out. I was gone so long I forgot just how goofy and dysfunctional the legislature in Illinois is! Gotta run to catch a flight but I look forward to reading about the next chapter tomorrow! Pensioners, keep the faith!

Comment by Old and In The Way Friday, May 31, 13 @ 4:04 pm
Isn’t Cullerton the godfather of one of Madigan’s children? Can that kid be pulled away from whatever cushy sinecure of a job he may have to broker a deal between his two “fathers”

Comment by Meanderthal Friday, May 31, 13 @ 4:19 pm
==you’d just sneak-in and off the cuff, vulgar, and totally uncalled-for “Pot Shot” against Governor Quinn==
Ummmm…what is “vulgar” about Governor Goofy?

Comment by Vote Quimby! Friday, May 31, 13 @ 4:32 pm
When Governor Quinn approved Squeezy the Pension Python, he opened the door to being called Gov. Goofy. What goes around comes around.

Comment by anon Friday, May 31, 13 @ 4:46 pm
Ash,
No. Obviously the Representative is not making a desperate attempt to cause pain to state workers. Do you really believe her goal is to cause pain to state workers rather than save the system? Also, do you think it’s maybe a little crazy to drag an elected officials’ family into the mix?

Comment by Lotta Liaison Friday, May 31, 13 @ 4:48 pm
It’s simple: one plan (SB1) would go 80% or more of the way to solving the related financial problems, and was passed on a bi-partisan vote in the House, and rejected by in the Senate Dems. None of the sponsors ever said this bill would finally solve all the problems, but rather that it would take us a long way to that goal.

The other (SB2404) goes maybe 30% of the way financially, and passed the Senate easily, but has not been called in the House. Probably because the Speaker still wants to actually solve this problem.

Of course the easy way out could pass if called, and we would have failed once again to make substantial progress.

Maybe that’s all we can get right now.

That’s cowardice, not courage or leadership, by the Senate Dems. Shame on them.

Comment by walkinfool Friday, May 31, 13 @ 4:51 pm
“Saving the system” is merely spin. The goal is to have more cash to spend. While they spend money on things like a new arena for the DePaul basketball team. The groups they are targeting now are teachers and state workers. When they have burned through that money, they’ll look for other groups to fleece.

Who in their right mind, if they had a mountain of bills to pay and were in a “fiscal crisis” so dire that they needed to ignore the constitution, would find $1.2 billion more than expected in revenue and, rather than paying down debt, would turn around and spend it in the very next budget?

Comment by Decaf Coffee Party Friday, May 31, 13 @ 5:24 pm
Walkinfool, it’s simple only if you ignore that pesky ol’ constitution. And, as far as I can tell, the Cullerton bill would get us to around 90% funding. That is plenty good enough. Looks to me like the speaker is showing at he is short on leadership and long on ego right about now.

Comment by Nice kid Friday, May 31, 13 @ 5:28 pm
“Looks to me like the speaker is showing at he is short on leadership and long on ego right about now.” Nothing new there nice kid. I could quote you my one and only conversation with MJM, but his words would get me banned on this site.

Comment by kimocat Friday, May 31, 13 @ 5:37 pm
I love the black and white statements about how the Madigan bill clearly violates the constitution. It’s amazing the wealth of folks who have studied the case law and can predict the judiciary. A true brain trust around the Capitol!

Comment by Lotta Liaison Friday, May 31, 13 @ 5:42 pm
Think of this in political terms, we have a solution looking for a problem. Ty and his comrades have declared an emergency, which…is questionable;not even 25% of expenditures. they just choose to have the money for other expenditures. Nekritz and MJM have taken on their base on behalf of these…Republicans. And missed. In politics,never take on your base or a primary and not get the guy.
I see a lot of exposure here for Ms. N.

Comment by Madison Friday, May 31, 13 @ 5:52 pm
Eric Madiar, one person who did actually research the issue of constitutionality of pension benefit diminishment and looked at case law, certainly believes SB 1 is unconstitutional.

Even Rep. Nekritz acknowledged today that the pieces of SB 1 are unconstitutional unless the Supreme Court grant the state “police powers” and/or considers the state’s “guarantee” to finally make the payments it should have been making all along to be a tradeoff for cuts to pension benefits.

Comment by Decaf Coffee Party Friday, May 31, 13 @ 5:53 pm
===Decaf Coffee Party - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 5:24 pm: ===
I totally agree with your view of the money situation.

Comment by Mama Friday, May 31, 13 @ 6:01 pm
If we’re looking for an 11th hour constitutional test case, let’s go a different route.
Instead of testing the pension clause, let’s test Aritlce VIII (Finance) Article IX, Section 3. Limitations on Income Taxation.

That’s the part that mandates a flat income tax and why everyone seems to think we need a constitutional amendment to change it to a graduated, progressive tax.

But wait, this just in … I’m told we have a fiscal emergency and the constitution no longer matters.

Well, talk about an opportunity, let’s get a bill filed for a progressive income tax and send it to Quinn and go tell the courts they should ignore the constitution.

Problem solved.

Comment by Michelle Flaherty Friday, May 31, 13 @ 6:32 pm
Great point Michelle. Ignoring the flat tax portion of the constitution would actually address the structural tax deficit that is the root cause of the state’s penchant for using the pensions as a piggy bank that is the root cause of the pension debt problem we have today.

Comment by PublicServant Friday, May 31, 13 @ 6:44 pm
I like Michelle’s idea. Violating one part of the Constitution would certainly be no worse than violating another part of it. And we could get some entertainment while the millionaires affected bring suit.

Comment by Jack Friday, May 31, 13 @ 7:22 pm
Yeah Jack, imagine all the chauffeurs picketing at the capitol while a yacht blockade of the lakefront hits page 1.

Comment by PublicServant Friday, May 31, 13 @ 7:30 pm
Vote Quinby and anon in the 4 ‘o clock hour–pretty easy to Google what vulgar means, or actually look it up in a printed, reputable Dictionary. Don’t play stupid. It was a cheap pot shot against the Chief Executive of this State. And although creating Squeezy may be somewhat of an unusual or “goofy” approach to addressing an extremely serious problem borne out of frustration IN trying for months TO solve the pension problem in good faith does not make his entire Governship so bizarre so as to characterize the popularly elected Chief Executive of the People of Illinois in an offensive way by slamming him with such a demeaning title. Show some class, or as my parents used to say, “Grow up and act your age…!”

Comment by Just The Way It Is One Friday, May 31, 13 @ 7:57 pm
Old and In The Way,

Good to see you back.

Comment by RNUG Friday, May 31, 13 @ 8:23 pm
Gov. “Dufus?” Vulgar man, just plain vulgar–cmon–show some class, even if you despise the guy, he’s still the Governor…such explicit outright insults also looks a WHOLE lot like borderin’ on “excessively rabid” there, too, though admittedly, not running this Blog, that one’s not my call….

Comment by Just The Way It Is One Friday, May 31, 13 @ 9:14 pm
She is sounding more like Nancy Pelosi every day.

Comment by Not Rollo Tomasi Friday, May 31, 13 @ 10:42 pm
here here

Comment by withstateworkersnteachers Saturday, Jun 1, 13 @ 12:27 pm