Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Two peas in a pod
Next Post: The mystery deepens
Posted in:
* Earlier this week, the Chicago Tribune editorial board surmised that the pension reform impasse was really just a ruse…
And there’s plenty of suspicion that good buddies Madigan and Cullerton aren’t really at impasse, they’re just gaming everybody; failure, for some reason, suits them.
* Today, though, the Trib is all about helping Madigan pass his bill…
At a meeting this week, House Speaker Michael Madigan urged Gov. Pat Quinn to help get pension reform out of the Senate.
“Let me say it again: The best pension bill passed so far, and the one that does the most cost savings, is the House bill, and that’s in the Senate,” Madigan said. “The governor ought to work to get that passed.”
Mind if we make a suggestion, governor, on an arm that merits twisting?
Madigan’s more aggressive pension bill — the one that would help dig Illinois out of debt more quickly — went down in flames. So-called tea party conservatives who preach fiscal responsibility voted against it, along with Democrats who allowed the pension system to blow out of control in the first place. Senators in both categories should have been on board.
So let’s review the roll call. Over the next few days, leading up to the Wednesday special session called by Quinn, we’ll write about some of the rank-and-file Democrats and Republicans who ignore their constituents’ best interests and stand in the way of saving Illinois.
Well, hmm. Lemme see. If the pension reform stalement is a ruse concocted by the leaders, then trashing the Madigan bill opponents ain’t really gonna help, is it?
Maybe I’m missing something here. A little help?
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Jun 14, 13 @ 10:23 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Two peas in a pod
Next Post: The mystery deepens
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Capt Fax:
Always view Tribbie edits as some non performing junior high kids arguing in the hall. If that persuaded you when you were 13 it should do wonders now.
If not too bleeping bad!
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Friday, Jun 14, 13 @ 10:34 am
Just another reason of many others, why I havent purchased or read a Tribune in over 6 years…
Comment by PQ's Primary Opponent Friday, Jun 14, 13 @ 10:34 am
Sybil has been writing the edits at the Trib for a while.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jun 14, 13 @ 10:34 am
Maybe the Tribune Editorial Board is like a blog, where someone’s comment of the day is chosen to be printed.
How else to explain inconsistencies and nonsense?
Comment by walkinfool Friday, Jun 14, 13 @ 10:37 am
(Not this blog, of course.)
Comment by walkinfool Friday, Jun 14, 13 @ 10:39 am
I just wish there would be a reality check…this House bill just takes more money away from people who have earned it. It is just a big money grab pushed by the Commercial Club of Chicago which will help make their ridiculous profits even better. How come I can’t get the same breaks they do. And will someone explain to me exactly how many jobs this group creates? I am tired of the untruths perpetuated in the name of a manufactured pension crisis. Why isn’t the Martire plan gaining any publicity or traction for the sanity of our state?
Comment by doubled Friday, Jun 14, 13 @ 10:40 am
Sometimes when you shoot from the hip you don’t care what you hit, you just enjoy the shooting.
Comment by archimedes Friday, Jun 14, 13 @ 10:41 am
To be fair, the Tribune has all of that ink and all of that paper and they have to write stuff every day.
Comment by 47th Ward Friday, Jun 14, 13 @ 10:42 am
I’m guessing more people read the Trib’s editorials on CapFax Blog - via excerpts republished and criticized here - than in the Trib’s print or web versions. The editorials are so far removed from credible, I’m feeling nauseated just having read another one.
The Trib is desperate and flailing to re-establish some semblance of influence over Illinois politics and policy. It’s spent years endorsing failed candidates, and throwing itself against the wall to try and budge the speaker one iota and in any direction.
Yet, even in the face of those repeated and utter failures, the Trib continues to use wildly condescending and childish tones even as it flip-flops its message on a weekly (if not daily) basis.
Get a clue, Trib: stuff that monstrous and maniacal ego back into its cave, and go report some news.
Comment by Raymond Friday, Jun 14, 13 @ 10:43 am
Why isn’t the Tribune is allowed to call things like they see them while still pushing for the bill they want? They aren’t obligated to silence their doubts just to improve the bill’s chances. We wouldn’t want newspapers censoring themselves like that, right? Second, if you believe the stalemate is a ruse, then calling it out into the sunshine is logically one way to fight it: pressuring them to prove it *isn’t* a ruse by acting. You might not think this would be the best tactic, but there’s a logic to it. I personally think the kabuki is a little different from what the Tribune thinks it is (I think this is designed at the end of the day to end up with the senate bill - either via vote or the court - while giving Madigan the ability to say “I tried so valiantly - real reform will require real leadership of a real governor.” But if we wind up with no vote at all, I won’t be shocked.
Comment by lake county democrat Friday, Jun 14, 13 @ 10:44 am
Maybe someone can explain how either the House or Senate bill meets the provision of Article XIII, Section 5 of the Illinois Constitution?
I don’t mean to be flippant or ignore the obvious pension debt problem but how does either bill not “diminish or impair” the pension system?
Comment by Stones Friday, Jun 14, 13 @ 10:44 am
Yeah, but I am going to enjoy watching the so-called fiscal conservatives in the House Republican caucus get called out.
Comment by Marty Funkhouser Friday, Jun 14, 13 @ 10:46 am
You’re not missing anything. The Tribune is exasperated and is not getting its way, so it’s flailing about with its opinions. That’s not a position of strength. I used to subscribe to that paper and was even tolerant of its anti-labor views, but no more.
Comment by Grandson of Man Friday, Jun 14, 13 @ 10:47 am
@Stones:
Nobody knows what does or does not meet constitutional muster until the Court looks at something.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Jun 14, 13 @ 10:47 am
If you listen closely you can hear the saliva dripping from their cashmere sweaters and Armani ties every time a Rauner commercial airs. If passed, I cannot wait to read the editorial after SB 1 goes down in the courts.
Comment by Obama's Puppy Friday, Jun 14, 13 @ 11:00 am
=== this House bill just takes more money away from people who have earned it. ===
Combine that with Dave McKinney’s report in yesterday’s SunTimes that Lisa Madigan has been suing people to eliminate the idea of health care as a “benefit” and you have some very concerned state employees and retirees.
It’s also a scary time for anyone within a decade of retirement.
Despite the portrayal of state employees as lazy fat cats, most of them could be making more money in the private sector but accepted less with the knowledge they would have decent benefits after years of service and a chance to serve the state.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Friday, Jun 14, 13 @ 11:01 am
Demoralized - While I agree with you that the question will ultimately be decided by the Courts, any layperson knows that pension reform is an effort by the State of Illinois to save money (i.e. reduce their pension obligation). I don’t think any reasonable person can deny that this savings is going to come at the expense of those to whom are owed pensions. That amounts to a diminishment of the pension in my book.
The question of what happens if the system goes broke is another matter altogether.
Comment by Stones Friday, Jun 14, 13 @ 11:03 am
=== most of them could be making more money in the private sector but accepted less with the knowledge they would have decent benefits after years of service and a chance to serve the state. ===
That may be true for some of the employees in the Chicagoland area, but downstate? Where are all the high paying private sector jobs downstate that these state employees could flock to? In a lot of places, the state is the only game in town for jobs.
Comment by Fred's Mustache Friday, Jun 14, 13 @ 11:07 am
Its time for the We are One coalition to ramp up their resources and get their members to thank and provide support to those solons who voted for 2404. They should also note their opposition to any combined bill.
Comment by Norseman Friday, Jun 14, 13 @ 11:07 am
I think the staffer working on pension “reform” got himself lost…..
Comment by Mouthy Friday, Jun 14, 13 @ 11:15 am
I repeat my offer to the Tribune: Call me to negotiate a contract for real, effective opposition research.
Your own journalists are terrible at it and demagoguing pensions is not going to scare or convince anyone.
Comment by Will Caskey Friday, Jun 14, 13 @ 11:18 am
To cut the Tribbie edit writers a little slack, I get the sense that some of their edits are derived from some Zell directives after he’s been ruminating out on a Tower terrace.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jun 14, 13 @ 11:27 am
It’s pretty simple: They’re off their multiple-personality disorder meds.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Friday, Jun 14, 13 @ 11:49 am
Perhaps at this stage in its life “Mother Tribune” has become “Granny Trib” and is suffering from a bout of Alzheimer’s.
Comment by Deep South Friday, Jun 14, 13 @ 11:49 am
I think the Tribune editorial board lives in a fantasy world where they believe their insults and threats are actually effective. If things turn out their way, they’ll take credit. If not, well those rank-and-vile Democrats and Republicans who ignore their editorials are to blame. Yet, they’ll probably endorse most of them next election.
Comment by Wensicia Friday, Jun 14, 13 @ 12:29 pm
**Combine that with Dave McKinney’s report in yesterday’s SunTimes that Lisa Madigan has been suing people to eliminate the idea of health care as a “benefit” and you have some very concerned state employees and retirees.**
I didn’t get a chance to respond to this yesterday, so I’ll do so today.
Lisa isn’t choosing to sue for the right to diminish benefits. Lisa is defending the state in a lawsuit over the law that passed last year to diminish retiree health benefits. In other words, she isn’t arbitrarily suing for the right, she is fulfilling her constitutional and statutory role in defending the state’s laws.
Comment by dave Friday, Jun 14, 13 @ 12:43 pm
Fred’s Mustache: many/most people in SURS are university faculty, and the market for us is national, perhaps even global. I moved to Carbondale in 1990 (from Louisiana) upon getting my PhD and moved to a private university in Richmond, VA in 2001 upon being offered a 30% salary increase.
The pension system in Illinois was never particularly attractive (even Tier 1) relative to what other state or private universities offer. For example, my current university pays 6.2% into SS and 10% of salary on top of that into a defined contribution plan. As a Finance prof I have done the math, and had the state of Illinois contributed that into a defined contribution plan for me for the 11 years I was employed by the state, with investment returns the present value of my accumulations would be higher than the present value of the pension benefits I am due to receive IF there are no more cuts. So no, I don’t feel the slightest bit guilty about getting a pension from Illinois, and I will fight for every dollar the state contractually owes me, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if that’s what it takes.
Comment by Andrew Szakmary Friday, Jun 14, 13 @ 1:15 pm
@dave - it sounded like she was trying to communicate to the public that she is actively seeking to reduce benefits and help with the situation. This quote in particular by her:
“So to be clear, I am actively working to help resolve this crisis, and anyone who suggests otherwise is just creating diversions from the task at hand.”
It’s always good to get another perspective. Thanks for responding and sharing your view on it.
Of course, she could always choose not to defend the state in those cases, just like she did last summer in regards to the same sex marriage issue, and help stand up for the benefits of retirees
. Ah well.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Friday, Jun 14, 13 @ 1:28 pm
SO the bankrupt Tribune is arguing austerity? the only consideration that matters is what saves the most the fastest? The people invovled, the need to keep experienced employees, what promises and compensation has been promised to them doesnt matter…. This is the same tribune which is in bankruptcy asked the bankruptcy judge to allow them to pay bonuses to top managers, because it was critical that the litterally bankrupt paper continue through with promised incentives to keep the experienced staff.
If thats true for the tribune in the private sector then it should be trus for the State they are writting about….perhaps they will return those bonuses to the creditors of the paper, that way the tribunes debt can be reduced by the maximum amount at the fastest pace.
Comment by Ghost Friday, Jun 14, 13 @ 1:32 pm
- Andrew Szakmary -
University professors are the vast minority of state employees. I think that in your case, and in the case of other professionals, yes, they may go out to make more money in the private sector. In many cases, (such as yours) you moved to the private sector even without pension reform measures.
My point is that for non professional staff in state agencies, this is usually not the case.
Comment by Fred's Mustache Friday, Jun 14, 13 @ 1:49 pm
**It’s always good to get another perspective. Thanks for responding and sharing your view on it.**
It isn’t another perspective - it is the facts. Lisa didn’t sue anyone so that the State could reduce health insurance benefits. She is defending the state’s current law on retiree health insurance. It is her job to do so.
Comment by dave Friday, Jun 14, 13 @ 1:57 pm
Andrew makes me want to support the Speaker’s pension plan.
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Friday, Jun 14, 13 @ 2:35 pm
@dave - I fear my post wasn’t clear.
After your clarification regarding the defense nature of those cases, I agree with you that the fact is she is choosing to defend the state in this case and upholding her duty as she is supposed to do.
In plain terms, she is doing her job by choosing to defend the state against these cases - unlike the cases she chose not to defend last summer.
The difference in “perspective” that exists resides in the way we apparently view her assertion she is “actively working to help resolve this crisis” and that her office is “making aggressive legal arguments that would help provide room for the legislature to enact strong reforms”.
Those quotes and tone in the story give the impression that she is “actively” and “aggressively” pursuing the defense of these cases with the goal of giving the legislature “room” to maneuver in cutting benefits.
That stands in stark contrast to the zeal (or complete lack thereof) she exhibited in choosing not to defend the state and uphold the law in other cases last summer.
Then again, perhaps she uses that sort of tone and tenor regarding every run-of-the-mill case her office prosecutes.
Not that they all capture the interest of voters and media attention as much as these ones do during a pension crisis.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Friday, Jun 14, 13 @ 2:43 pm
The Illinois Supreme Court has already ruled on the constitutional question, the pensions are protected why is everyone ignoring this ruling?
The People ex rel. Sklodowski vs. The State of Illinois, 182 Ill.2d 220 (1998)
From the courts decision:
“The court examined the defendants’ claims that the pension protection clause creates an enforceable contractual right only to receive benefits, not to control funding. The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ allegations of inadequate funding on the part of the State were insufficient to constitute an impairment of benefits in violation of article XIII, section 5 of the Illinois Constitution. The plaintiffs could not prove that the funds at issue were “on the verge of default or imminent bankruptcy” or that the benefits were in immediate danger of being diminished (182 Ill.2d at 233). While the Court recognized that article XIII, section 5 of the Illinois Constitution created an enforceable contractual right to benefits, such a right could not be divined to enforce the level of state contributions mandated by Public Act 86-273. The court found that the framers of the Illinois Constitution were careful to craft in the pension protection clause an amendment that would create a contractual right to benefits, while not freezing the politically sensitive area of pension financing.”
Comment by Fulfilled My Part of the Contract Friday, Jun 14, 13 @ 3:24 pm
Michelle, comment of the week.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Friday, Jun 14, 13 @ 3:26 pm
Michelle, Arthur:
The Speaker’s plan would reduce the present value of my pension benefits by 21%. For the record, despite your ill will, I would NOT support a bill that would steal 21% of your 401k balance, or reduce your Social Security benefits by 21%.
Comment by Andrew Szakmary Friday, Jun 14, 13 @ 4:36 pm
==A little help?==
Take some drugs. If you still care about the pension issue, take some more. Repeat.
Comment by Precinct Captain Friday, Jun 14, 13 @ 4:51 pm