Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Show me the money
Next Post: Negotiating against themselves
Posted in:
* From a press release…
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Bill Daley took Governor Pat Quinn to task for failed leadership, offering a three-point plan to break the impasse on pension reform.
“Governor Quinn has failed to lead, maintaining over and over again that it’s the legislature’s job to pass the bill, and his job to merely sign it. That’s not leadership, that’s a cop out,” said Daley, who added “his failure to get a legal opinion from the Attorney General Madigan has made the impasse even worse.”
Daley noted that Quinn’s vacillations have exacerbated the differences between the Senate and House. “Quinn was for his own plan, but never made the case for it. Squeezy the python never squeezed anyone. He was for the Cullerton plan, then he was for the Madigan plan. Then last Monday, almost comically, he said he wanted to pass both plans at the same time. Friday he asked for a conference committee, which is nothing more than passing the buck. No wonder the legislature is conflicted,” said Daley.
Daley maintains that the plan backed by House Speaker Mike Madigan, now known as Senate Bill 1, is the only solution that truly addresses the pension shortfall. Senate Bill 1 is projected to trim $21 billion off the nearly $100 billion unfunded pension liability the state now faces and reduce overall state payments to the pension systems by $187 billion over the next 30 years — about three times the savings of Senate Bill 2404, the plan backed by Senate President John Cullerton and a coalition of labor unions.
Daley said if he were governor right now, he would have driven three important principles to shape the debate and forge a consensus around Senate Bill 1:
Step One - Make a Clear Case That Senate Bill 1 is Constitutional
Daley observed that one of the biggest issues separating the House and Senate is the dispute over the constitutionality of both bills. Senate President John Cullerton’s staff has argued that only Senate Bill 2404 is constitutional. Daley says other lawyers differ, including the law firm of Sidley Austin, in a detailed opinion prepared for the Civic Committee of the Commercial Club.
The opinion explains that if the State has the right to lay off workers or cut salaries in times of budget crisis, then it also has the right to take the much less drastic step of reducing pension benefits earned in the future.
“Senate Bill 2404 was written with good intentions, but it is simply another band-aid that will not solve the problem. There is a solid legal case that it is no more constitutional than Senate Bill 1. The only real difference is that Senate Bill 1 goes three times farther toward solving the problem,” said Daley.
Daley criticized both Governor Quinn and Attorney General Lisa Madigan for failing to make the legal argument that Senate Bill 1 is every bit as constitutional as Senate Bill 2404.
“Governor Quinn failed to make the case that Senate Bill 1 is constitutional. Attorney General Madigan, who has publicly opined on other constitutional issues she may later defend, has refused to say anything other than she would support doing something. That’s not leadership,” said Daley.
“If Attorney General Madigan can’t provide a full legal opinion without a formal request from the Governor or the legislature, they should make that request right away,” added Daley.
Step Two – Veto any pension plan except Senate Bill 1
Daley said the Governor should long ago have made it clear that he would veto any pension plan that did not achieve the same amount of savings as Senate Bill 1. “If the Governor had said from the beginning that Senate Bill 2404 was dead on arrival and actually stuck by his words for a change, Senate Bill 1 would have gotten a lot more than 16 votes,” said Daley.
Were he the governor, Daley would have made the veto threat early and often. “I saw first hand how Presidents Clinton and Obama used the veto threat to move Congress toward the right action. That’s what I would have done here,” said Daley, referring to his service as Secretary of Commerce under President Clinton and Chief Staff to President Obama.
Step Three – Give Senators something to vote FOR.
According to the Civic Federation’s February 25, 2013 budget report, pension contributions could decline by $2.5 billion in FY2018 if the state enacted comprehensive pension reform similar to Senate Bill 1.
Daley suggested that a portion of the $2.5 billion in reduced pension contributions – perhaps as much as 51% — could be earmarked for public education as a related piece of legislation connected to the passage of Senate Bill 1.
“The most important job the state does is finance the education of our children. It is the key to economic growth and it is key to making sure every child has a shot at a brighter future,” said Daley, who added, “Senate Bill 1 is a very tough vote. To me, you have to give these senators something to be for, and dedicating over $1 billion in freed revenue to educate our kids is something both Democrats and Republicans can get behind.”
I boldened the Lisa Madigan stuff. The rest is in the original.
Your thoughts on this?
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 10:31 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Show me the money
Next Post: Negotiating against themselves
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I wonder if Rauner thought he was The Ty Guys guy. Because Daley sure is singing their song.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 10:35 am
The only problem with that is that the state created the crisis , they now can’t go in and say hey we have a crises make it constitutional.
Comment by Retired State Worker Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 10:36 am
At least Bill Daley is clear where he stands . . .
=== Step Two – Veto any pension plan except Senate Bill 1 ===
Comment by Bill White Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 10:36 am
Smart move by Bill Daley. Looks like he is singing the praises of the Madigan bill, while beating up on Quinn.
Comment by Downstater Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 10:38 am
Word, I think the hedgies are doing what they do best. In Rauner they have 6, in Daley, they have a half-dozen.
Ty’s Guys know how to manage risk.
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 10:38 am
Daley just flushed his campaign down the toilet. Good riddance.
Comment by Bill Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 10:39 am
Hey Bill… by just saying its so doesn’t make it so…bonehead. Pay back what has been stolen and the system will be just fine.
Comment by Rob Roy Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 10:40 am
Where in the constitution does it say you have a right to job and pay security? These guys are grasping at straws.
Comment by foster brooks Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 10:40 am
“Both laws are unconstitutional, so let’s go with the big one.” ?????
Comment by Keyrock Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 10:41 am
I was refering to Bill Daley not our Bill..sorry Bill
Comment by Rob Roy Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 10:42 am
Thanks, Rob, and your right. Daley is a bonehead and so are the rich guys that give him money to waste.
Comment by Bill Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 10:45 am
–Word, I think the hedgies are doing what they do best. In Rauner they have 6, in Daley, they have a half-dozen.
Ty’s Guys know how to manage risk.–
I’m sure that’s the play, but it looks like a 2008 meltdown to me, because I don’t think either of those guys will win.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 10:47 am
Has John Cullerton commented on Bill Daley’s comments?
Comment by Bill White Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 10:47 am
I’m not sure it was very smart to cite President Obama as an example of effective use of the veto threat to achieve a desirable legislative result. I mean, I like the guy, but is anybody really afraid of him? At all?
Comment by Levi Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 10:49 am
Of course the Civic Committee of the CC wants SB 1 They want to destroy any pension benefit earned. They also want everyone to earn about $9.25 and hour. Daley is just a blowhard from the machine. The hell with the constitution if it means the people benefit!
Comment by Mike Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 10:49 am
One of many reminders to come that Daley was a big wheel in the Clinton and Obama administrations. Albeit briefly, in the latter.
Comment by cassandra Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 10:50 am
Word is spot on. Daley just said to h*&% with the union vote, I am hanging with the Repub. Civic Guys. I am amazed at the growing group of Dems who are abandoning their base supporters.
If the GOP had any organization and if they put forth a moderate downstater with any kind of support in the collar counties Oswego Willy could be celebrating.
Comment by Irish Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 10:51 am
Barack Obama is on track to have the fewest vetoes since Warren Harding or maybe even James Polk. He already has more than Martin van Buren (2 vs 1) and therefore Marty’s record is safe.
Comment by Bill White Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 10:53 am
=== If the GOP had any organization and if they put forth a moderate downstater with any kind of support in the collar counties Oswego Willy could be celebrating. ===
Rutherford - Dillard
Just saying . . .
Comment by Bill White Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 10:53 am
Another politician who moves to the tune of the Civic Committee. How disappointing. My Democratic Party seems to have forgotten the working man and women. Daley is no better than Fahner.
Comment by MDoyle Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 10:54 am
The Lisa comments notwithstanding (soft compared to his criticism of Quinn), it feels like Daley is trying to position himself to get the Speaker’s support in case Lisa doesn’t run for governor. Even if the support was only tacit, it might be Daley’s best chance in a 1-on-1 primary.
Comment by Snucka Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 10:54 am
Another politician who moves to the tune of the Civic Committee. How disappointing. My Democratic Party seems to have forgotten the working man and women.
Comment by MDoyle Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 10:54 am
“Attorney General Madigan, who has publicly opined on other constitutional issues she may later defend, has refused to say anything other than she would support doing something.”
[first, I recognize the rhetorical value, and the context basically demanding it] Does no one acknowledge the possibility (I would say, likelihood) that the AG has been asked about giving an opinion, and she has said (basically) “you don’t want me to do that; *if* either of these would survive a well-litigated challenge, it would be on public policy grounds, rather than having a bona fide ‘legal’ basis”? That would add weight to the basis for MikeMad’s big preamble to SB1, no? And it makes sense–were I AG, I wouldn’t want to stake out a public position that either bill is Constitutional based on some voodoo about ‘consideration’.
Comment by Chris Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 10:55 am
–Barack Obama is on track to have the fewest vetoes since Warren Harding or maybe even James Polk.–
Congress would actually have to pass something other than continuing resolutions and post office building name-changes for a chance of a veto.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 10:55 am
–- Barack Obama is on track to have the fewest vetoes since Warren Harding or maybe even James Polk. –-
- Congress would actually have to pass something other than continuing resolutions and post office building name-changes for a chance of a veto. -
Indeed. Which is why Daley’s reference to Obama’s leadership is so very odd. Unless Bill Daley is happy with the sequester and the current stalemate in Washington.
Comment by Bill White Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 10:58 am
OK, let’s move away from the national stuff, please. Thanks.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 10:59 am
==The opinion explains that if the State has the right to lay off workers or cut salaries in times of budget crisis, then it also has the right to take the much less drastic step of reducing pension benefits earned in the future.== If I’m a 55-year old with 30 years of service, cutting my pension benefits hurts me way more drastically than laying me off.
Comment by SAP Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 10:59 am
This quote from Daley supports Word’s theory that MJM might not want LM to run for Governor:
=== “If Attorney General Madigan can’t provide a full legal opinion without a formal request from the Governor or the legislature, they should make that request right away,” added Daley. ===
Comment by Bill White Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 11:05 am
I think Bill Daley needs to bone up on his facts. SB1 is cutting future benefits - but the bulk of the “savings” is in cutting already earned benefits (the COLA). To site the Sidley Austin opinion as support for SB1, “reducing pension benefits earned in the future”, is a mis-application of that opinion.
Second, making increased funding for Education a condition (or at least linked) to SB1 would be a sure fire way to have the Supreme Court rule against SB1. To quote an earlier Federal Supreme Court opinion, “If a State could reduce its financial obligations whenever it wanted to spend the money for what it regarded as an important public purpose,the Contract Clause would provide no protection at all.”
Comment by archimedes Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 11:07 am
If Daley wants to give legislators something to vote for, he ought to be pushing for a bill to implement a graduated income tax claiming a state crisis to override THAT clause in the constitution. A graduated income tax will allow the state to pay its bills, overcome the structural deficit that is the root cause of not only the borrowing from the pension in the first place, but the state’s inability to raise enough revenues to fund the state’s programs. It would also allow the democrats to vote to support their base instead of acting more Republican than, well, the Republicans.
Comment by PublicServant Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 11:08 am
I’m disappointed that Daley’s solution isn’t a solution. Not surprised though.
Comment by Soccertease Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 11:11 am
–This quote from Daley supports Word’s theory that MJM might not want LM to run for Governor:–
He might not, but I was joking about his undermining her chances.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 11:11 am
“Daley maintains that the plan backed by House Speaker Mike Madigan, now known as Senate Bill 1, is the only solution that truly addresses the pension shortfall. Senate Bill 1 is projected to trim $21 billion off the nearly $100 billion unfunded pension liability the state now faces”
A reduction of $21B out of $100B over 30 years is only a partial solution to the pension funding problem (about a 21% solution). What is Bill Daley’s solution to the problem of the other 79% of the unfunded pension liability?
“Daley suggested that a portion of the $2.5 billion in reduced pension contributions – perhaps as much as 51% — could be earmarked for public education as a related piece of legislation”
I know that more spending would be approved by many people. However, other people might like some of the $2.5B be directed to paying the multi billion dollar backup of unpaid bills currently awaiting payment. One might also consider using the remainder to cover more of the unfunded pension liability.
“dedicating over $1 billion in freed revenue to educate our kids is something both Democrats and Republicans can get behind.”
The payments from the teachers retirement system is a form of teacher compensation and thus funding to educate the children of Illinois. Is Daley suggesting that an extra $1B per year be given to the TRS or is he suggesting something else?
Comment by Property Owner Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 11:11 am
== Daley suggested that a portion of the $2.5 billion in reduced pension contributions – perhaps as much as 51% — could be earmarked for public education as a related piece of legislation connected to the passage of Senate Bill 1.==
Bill Daley is admitting that he would continue to under fund the pensions with the sacrifices he demands from retired public employees. Spoken like a true supporter of the Civic Committee.
Comment by Ruby Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 11:16 am
Cullerton’s plan may not save as much money as SB1 but at least it has a hint of morality by including the voice of the state employees who didn’t cause the problem and are being used as scapegoats to try and solve the problem.
Comment by Re-elect No One Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 11:24 am
Now that I know where William Daley stands on pension reform, he will not get my vote for Illinois Governor!
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 11:31 am
More rhetoric than solution.
It’s sad to see the length Daley and other folks go to mislead the public about pension issues. Daley’s 2 + 2 = 5 argument about the constitutionality of SB 1 is ridiculous. To say that because the state can layoff folks and cut salaries, pensions can be cut is disingenuous at best. There is NO constitutional provision providing for guaranteed employment or a protected salary level. There IS a constitutional provision protecting pensions from diminishment.
Comment by Norseman Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 11:31 am
Following upon Property Owner’s 11:11 comment, is Daley assuming that the State’s revenue is sufficient such that the so-called funds from pension payment reductions become available for other purposes?
In other words, the State can afford to cover the pension payments but Daley would rather spend the funds elsewhere?
Comment by east central Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 11:33 am
Daley says they could entice Senators to vote on SB1 by ear-marking money saved towards education. Isn’t this how the pension system became a problem in the first place by not putting the money in the pension system and using the money for other projects?
Comment by Re-elect No One Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 11:34 am
who’s doing his press?
Comment by soccermom Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 11:38 am
Daley will never be governor.
Comment by Mouthy Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 11:41 am
Strictly on the gubernatorial politics of this, embracing SB1 is a mistake for Daley. It’s not a bad general election strategy, but he’s got to win a Democratic Primary first. Embracing SB2404 and adding a few tweaks to increase savings would marginalize Quinn and the Madigans and put him in better shape next March.
Comment by Roger Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 11:45 am
Very smart move by Daley. He gets to beat up on primary opponents and cast blame on them for being indecisive. If a bill doesn’t pass on Wednesday, will he accuse Quinn of being a bad leader because he called the special session? Go after AG Madigan for not “offering an opinion” on the matter? Maybe the race for governor isn’t a done deal.
Comment by The Muse Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 11:48 am
So…. he will use the savings and “pork” it out to senators for votes. How? He has already stated he was in favor of rolling back the income tax hike. Seems like Mr. Daley has conflicted posisions: pork and cut.
Comment by "Edge" Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 11:56 am
Savings that can be reassigned undermines the emergency police powers argument, doesn’t it?
Comment by east central Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 12:02 pm
And this was the smart Daley? Meh.
Massive. Fail. I think others have covered all of the fiscal falsehoods contained here, except maybe that the new walking around money he wants to pork out from cutting pensions will never be there if the tax hike expires. In fact, if my back of the envelope is right, there may be a deficit in FY 16.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 12:31 pm
I see a new era for that pesky constitution. If we can lay off workers and cut salaries when times are tough (even if hardship is of our own making), we can ignore constitutional protection of pensions, just because we feel its the only solution.
Similarly, we have a structural deficit, and can’t fund super important things like education, health care, and infrastructure. The only solution is obviously a graduated income tax. So we can ignore the flat rate constitutional provision.
Hey, this logic is lot more fun and expedient than constitutional amendments. Any other provisions we want to ignore?
Comment by Langhorne Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 12:32 pm
== Another politician who moves to the tune of the Civic Committee. How disappointing. My Democratic Party seems to have forgotten the working man and women. Daley is no better than Fahner. ==
I can see how this is bad for the working for the state man and woman… But not so much how it is bad the workin for anyone else man..
Comment by OneMan Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 12:38 pm
I don’t see any connection between the state having the right to fire and lay off its employees and the pension diminishment clause of the constitution. To my knowledge, nothing in the constitution precludes the state from laying off and firing its employees. So the Civic Committee legal argument is flawed.
Next, the pension crisis doesn’t have to be solved in one bill, as Madigan says. This is a massive problem that may have to be attacked from different angles, and one of the angles should be a graduated income tax. I wouldn’t be wasting time talking about this if pension reform was already done, or if it’s easier to do that it apparently is, since we still don’t have reform and may not have it even after the upcoming legislative session. Since pension reform is so difficult, why not undertake the difficult task of amending the state constitution to allow for a progressive income tax?
It’s an old poll, from 2008, but the poll showed that Illinoisans overwhelmingly favor a progressive income tax. It’s as good a sell as pension reform. Plus, we are at or near the top in income averages compared to our neighbor states, yet our income tax is lower than all of their top rates (except for Indiana). Therein lies one of the causes of our budget woes.
Comment by Grandson of Man Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 12:51 pm
“In other words, the State can afford to cover the pension payments but Daley would rather spend the funds elsewhere?”
In a word, yes. By paying in a little as possible to fund the pension promises made in the past he looks to be attempting to free up some cash. This will allow Illinois to give the money to someone else that the retired workers.
Daley talks about education and its importance. He appears to think that it is a better use of funds to pay today (salaries for teachers) than to pay teachers for their past work (pensions for teachers).
Comment by Small Town Taxpayer Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 12:52 pm
== “In other words, the State can afford to cover the pension payments but Daley would rather spend the funds elsewhere?”
In a word, yes. By paying in a little as possible to fund the pension promises made in the past he looks to be attempting to free up some cash. This will allow Illinois to give the money to someone else that the retired workers. ==
People run for governor to do new things, build bridges add programs, etc. Not to deal with existing issues…
What is the fun in that.
Comment by OneMan Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 12:58 pm
In the June 12, 2013 Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Professor Ann Lousinof the John Marshall Law School, a former researcher at the 1969-70 constitutional convention and parliamentarian of the Illinois House of Represetatives, wrote a letter to the editor about the pension “crisis.” (I don’t have the expertise to provide a link.) She points out that the underfunded figure of $96 billion (or the close to $100 billion number in this post) would happen if and only if every member of every State pension fund all retired at once. That will not happen.The figure she suggests is important is the $7 billion plus that was paid out in pensions last year. She also notes that when the state income tax went into effect in 1969 “income” included pensions and nothing in ConCon changed that to make it unconstititional. In 1984 “In a burst of generosity to senior citizens, the legislature voted to stop taxing pension income, no matter how high.” Prof. Lousin suggests from what was told her by a tax accountant that $1 billion dollars is lost because of that. She also notes how most state employees would rather pay taxes on their pension rather than have the “pension reform” go into effect. Maybe if people were using real numbers instead of the imagined number that would kick in when every State employee quits on the same day, some more reasoned legislation, campaign statements and editorials might come as a result. (Well, maybe not the Trib.)
Comment by West Side the Best Side Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 12:59 pm
==The opinion explains that if the State has the right to lay off workers or cut salaries in times of budget crisis, then it also has the right to take the much less drastic step of reducing pension benefits earned in the future.==
This actually makes a lot of sense to me, but there are two problems: First, the IL Supreme Court has made noises to the contrary. Second, and far more important, is that the unfunded pension liability is all owed for services already performed, so this argument does not support any plan to reduce the $100 billion that Squeezy is so upset about. You could change the law to say “no more pensions can be earned,” and the $100 biliion would still be there.
Comment by Anon. Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 1:02 pm
Has AG Madigan ever taken up a case where consumers or workers were victimized by corporation unilaterally abrogating a contract?
If so, perhaps she would provide a surprising opinion on pension reform.
Comment by east central Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 1:10 pm
Anon catches an important point in daleys stmt. it says FUTURE benefits earned can reduced. Correct. But that doesnt save much at all or any time soon. That also does not mean other provisions are constitutional
Comment by Langhorne Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 1:15 pm
A link to the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin letter:
http://www.chicagolawbulletin.com/Articles/2013/06/12/ann-m-lousin-pension-letter-6-12.aspx
Comment by Bill White Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 1:18 pm
In fact, if you combine taxing penion income AND keep the curent 5% income tax rate - everything is solved.
But - that is not an option. The Fiscal crisis we face must be solved without any increase in revenue - acording to Springfield.
Comment by archimedes Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 1:30 pm
Is it just me, or does anyone else think MJM already has some High Court opinions in his pocket?
Comment by Spidad60 Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 1:39 pm
Are any of the candidates for governor (or presumed candidates) for the Cullerton bill? Quinn and Daley have both argued for SB1,mane I think that is the preferred bill for the Repubs also (Rutherford and Rauner). You’d think someone would embrace the Cullerton/ union compromise.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 1:53 pm
I hope Sydely and Austin read the IL supreme courts decision on reducing their future unearned salaries by removing their COLA’s because of the States economic crisis. The Il Supreme’s said it would violate the constitution.
Which begs the question, if madigan, Daley and the “Civic” club think it is legally valid, why did they not include Judges pension; and why is Daley and the Civic club not demanding we reduce Judge Pensions.
Judicial pensions are one of the most abusive. they make 80% of their salaries when they retire, based on pennies for contributions, and only need to put in 20 years to fully vest! How can we “fix” pensions without getting rid of that major expense which is supported by only the thinest margin of contributions.
Comment by Ghost Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 2:02 pm
At least Daley has stated some clear and specific positions to which we can all react.
No other potential gov candidate (except PQ) has been as forthcoming.
Comment by walkinfool Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 2:09 pm
Ever since Bush v. Gore, I’ve been less than impressed with Bill Daley’s legal acumen.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 2:51 pm
==No other potential gov candidate (except PQ) has been as forthcoming.==
I guess that’s true if you count, “I’ll sign whatever they send me” as a clear and specific position.
Comment by Anon. Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 2:54 pm
Well, I guess, in a perverse sort of way, it is nice to see Daley come out and say he wants cut retirees’ pensions so that he can spend that money on something else. No hypocrite here. He’s standing tall and saying he doesn’t give a rip about retired teachers and public employees and that he’d rather stick them in the eye so he can get votes. How refreshing.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 3:03 pm
Is there an actual Democrat left in Illinois who might stand up for one of their core constituencies when being attacked?
Comment by kimocat Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 3:06 pm
Hard to believe he’s the sharpest of the Daley clan.
Comment by anon Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 3:06 pm
“In other words, the State can afford to cover the pension payments but Daley would rather spend the funds elsewhere?”
Exactly, that is why this will never fly. Across the board cuts that affect all recipients of state funds equally is the only defensible approach. Given that raising taxes significantly is politically impossible, imposing equal pain to all is the only way out. It is taking folks a long time to see this truism, and some are so invested in the status quo they never will.
Comment by wishbone Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 3:33 pm
I, for one, agree with The Muse. I think this is the best move Daley had to make. In an election, everyone knows Quinn has strength among the unions.
Daley made a firm stance in the other direction.
In a situation where everyone else is anticipating what Lisa’s going to do, Daley’s forcing a competing Lisa to anticipate him. Quinn is a known quantity. Lisa’s not. Daley’s defining himself against Quinn and forcing Lisa in the middle.
From a campaign perspective, I have to commend him for jumping in. It may serve as his Achilles heel in the end, but it’s certainly a timely move right now, on a timely issue, that is either going to force the hand of anyone else on the field or make them look weak. And, actually, I’m not even sure this is a risky maneuver. Daley’s just claiming the free pieces on the board.
Comment by Newfound Dutch Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 3:41 pm
Nice letter, Professor, but it’s wrong. The unfunded is not “what it costs if everybody retires at once.” It’s the present value of all benefits accrued to date. For just one example of the considerable difference between the two, think about all the people in this group who are working, but are not eligible to retire. Another category is people who worked in one of these Systems for a period of time and took a job out-of-state, in the private sector, etc.
The comparison is apples to fruit salad and no actuary with a scrap of knowledge about Illinois pensions told her that. Period.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 4:06 pm
I think Daley has it exactly right. I’m sure most of the followers on here disagree.
It is interesting to see that significant candidates in both parties are touting similar plans. This doesn’t bode well for the unions.
Comment by biased observer Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 4:11 pm
How does Bill Daley’s “solution” solve anything?
1) We already know Lisa Madigan’s opinion;
2) You can’t veto legislation into law;
3) A continuing approp for education is a promise you can’t keep, which Madigan opposes, and btw, 51% of new revenue for education had been done already, by George Ryan, and kinda how we got here.
Someone get the Daley Brain Trust some chalk and send them back to the drawing board.
Comment by Juvenal Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 5:50 pm
B.O. opines -
“This doesn’t bode well for the unions.”
I respond: ‘zzzzzz’ - another empty, nothing comment, based on nothing more than your desire to fleece me and thousands of others of their contractual, constitutional rights.
Hey, “my friend”, let’s cut to the chase: what *exactly* does “shall not diminish” mean to you? I mean, specifically.
Is it simply whatever you and “B.O.’s people” chose it to mean when you want to unconstitutionally try and abandon your debts?
Comment by Algonquin J. Calhoun Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 6:40 pm
== In an election, everyone knows Quinn has strength among the unions.==
You gotta be kiddin’.
Comment by Bill Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 7:09 pm
When Daley does a press conference on his pension splution, I’d like to hear him answer this question: What, if anything, have you learned from how your brother (mis)managed City pensions?
Comment by reformer Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 7:10 pm
–When Daley does a press conference on his pension splution, I’d like to hear him answer this question: What, if anything, have you learned from how your brother (mis)managed City pensions?–
And when Rauner has his, he should answer: how much did your firm profit in managing Illinois public employee pension funds? What was your personal share as an owner?
Here come the Hawks!
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 7:17 pm
Algonquin,
let me guess, you want the house to vote on sb2404. sb2404, when using the dubious “no diminishment unconstitutionality argument” is just as unconstitutional as Madigan’s bill.
what a joke. they are using the political tactic of calling sb1 unconstitutional, but trying to force a vote of sb2404, even though sb2404 is just as at risk of being unconstitutional based on the dubious “no diminishment.”
this isn’t a legal issue, this is just the unions going with cullerton in hopes that once it passes all this pension reform pressure will go away.
what a farce.
only problem with cullerton is that it doesn’t even come close to ameliorating the fiscal situation.
Comment by biased observer Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 7:40 pm
I am not sure i would call the Sidley opinion “detailed.”
Comment by Hawkeytown Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 8:22 pm
B.O.
Nope - SB2404 is unconstitutional as well. I want reasonable, constitutional solutions. Lets start with Ralph Martire’s as a starting point.
Again - what does “shall not be diminished” exactly mean to you? You can’t answer that question straightforwardly since you know what it means - you’re manufacturing its “dubiousness”.
What “fiscal situation” are you talking about? Pensions are generally as “well” funded as they were in 1970 - around 40%. The GA found it “reasonable” to spend $2 billion more this year than last - again, what crisis?
There is no crisis - its a poorly reasoned, manufactured device designed to preserve the power of those who were/are too incompetent to act like real adults and pay their debts.
Finally, I don’t even think you need to get to either the state or federal constitutions - any non-agreed to negative diminishment of my property right (pension) violates contract law.
Comment by Algonquin J. Calhoun Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 8:23 pm
Total positions: 75,918 in State Government as of the start of 2013. I believe this number was much higher in 70’s 80’s & 90’s if the State would rehire people that they have not replaced & hire younger people that are not close to retirement then there would be new money going into the retirement system that we have been losing because the State is not replacing the work force . One pays for the other and don’t borrow from money that is not theirs. This I think is the situation that has made this problem.
HIRE AT LOWER WAGES NEW MONEY GOING INTO THE SYSTEM !
Comment by no sense Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 9:25 pm