Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: Topinka wants legal review of veto
Posted in:
* Here is House Speaker Michael Madigan’s full react to Gov. Pat Quinn’s line-item veto of legislative salaries and benefits…
“I have been working for many months to pass real, comprehensive pension reform. During the first Democratic Caucus of this General Assembly, I admonished our members that doing nothing or passing only a half measure on pension reform was not an option. This issue must be solved in order to put Illinois on a more secure financial path.
“I, along with Representative Nekritz, Leader Cross and the members who supported House Amendment 1 to Senate Bill 1, have been the only lawmakers willing to take a difficult vote that would lead to solvency in our pension systems. The Governor’s decision follows my efforts and I understand his frustration.
“I am hopeful his strategy works.”
Translation: Unless something drastic happens, there ain’t gonna be an override vote until pension reform passes.
This is a House Bill, sponsored by Madigan himself, so he alone controls what happens next.
* Senate President John Cullerton’s full react…
Lawmakers have worked hard this session. That work included passing a balanced budget, paying off hundreds of millions of dollars in old bills, cutting their own pay and numerous, serious bipartisan efforts to enact comprehensive pension reform.
The governor’s actions today are as unproductive as yesterday’s arbitrary deadline. Responsible leaders know that unworkable demands will only delay progress.
Our efforts on pensions will continue until we’ve reached our goal. In the meantime, the work of the pensions conference committee shouldn’t be undermined or deterred by today’s or future political grandstanding.
Cullerton can complain all he wants. The sponsor in the originating chamber controls the override motion’s fate. If MJM is with Quinn, then there won’t be an override.
…Adding… Commenter 47th Ward is again spot on…
Madigan must believe Quinn’s “strategy” will soften up the Senate more than causing a ruckus in the House. The pension debate is still Cullerton v. Madigan, and neither is yet willing to blink.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 12:13 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: Topinka wants legal review of veto
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Well, well, well, doth King Mike agreeth with said Governor’s actions? Is hell freezing over?
Comment by Loop Lady Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 12:20 pm
My understanding is that the GA is a part time job. My understanding is that most, if not all, GA members have other jobs or businesses. I suspect that few if any will need to go on food stamps. As I see it, this is just another of our non-governors’ stunts.
Comment by sal-says Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 12:22 pm
Well, did anyone think to ask Madigan whether his statement meant that he wouldn’t be scheduling an override vote soon? Just asking.
Comment by PublicServant Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 12:22 pm
I’m very surprised at Madigan’s reaction.
Regardless of the issue, I would have thought he would have seen Quinn’s move as a separation of powers matter, with the executive here acting unconstitutionally in an effort to extort the legislature.
He gives some cover to the next governor who takes similar actions.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 12:24 pm
The bill originally only got 70 votes in the House. So it wasn’t veto proof to begin with. I know there would be members jumping back and forth since it is only one item out of many in that bill but it definitely makes it harder to round up the votes instead of taking them off.
Comment by Been There Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 12:27 pm
I think MJM knows the move is unconstitutional but it does nothing to weaken his hand. He’s already got the vote on the hard line proposal so any pressure this exerts, and it might not be much, falls more on Cullerton to move.
Comment by horse w/ no name Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 12:28 pm
Madigan must believe Quinn’s “strategy” will soften up the Senate more than causing a ruckus in the House. The pension debate is still Cullerton v. Madigan, and neither is yet willing to blink.
I doubt they need to wait for an override vote before someone takes this to court. My money is that a Senator files the first suit and that it happens before the week is over.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 12:29 pm
I think Madigan’s reaction was understandable and that the Comptroller will file suit over the Governor’s illegal act. Further that a judge will rule quickly.
Comment by Cassiopeia Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 12:30 pm
Rich is correct about this particular budget bill and Madigan’s hold on it, but technically the Senate could pass a suplemental budget bill with a veto proof majority that restores the cuts if they wanted to. Of course, Madigan wouldn’t have to call that bill either.
It should be pointed out that Quinn didn’t “suspend” the GA’s pay…that implies he can reinstate when he wants. He line-itemed it out of the budget…it’s gone forever without legislative action.
And it should also be pointed out that Mike Madigan is a millionaire who probably doesn’t need to cash his state paycheck. While many of his members have lucrative “side jobs” there several who actually need their legislative salary to pay their mortgate and feed their families. Wonder how they feel now that their leader has announced he doesn’t have their backs?
Comment by Tom Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 12:33 pm
just another example of Quinn’s total lack of leadership and ability to work with the General Assembly. and “the people” are not with him, at least not the people in my area.
Comment by Susiejones Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 12:35 pm
I am surprised at the Speaker. He has made more mistakes on the pension issue this term than I have seen him make in the previous decade combined, and this is the latest. His mind is particularly hard to read, but I am starting to wonder if he can’t stand Cullerton being his equal in ability as well as position. He could always run circles around Emil Jones and of course Blagojevich and now Quinn, but Cullerton is every bit as smart and capable as Madigan. Madigan may be reacting badly to that.
Comment by jake Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 12:41 pm
It’s “Showtime”
Comment by Louis Howe Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 12:46 pm
Rauner: “This would be a good move by Pat Quinn if it wasn’t just another political stunt.”
https://twitter.com/davemckinney123/status/355011526807130112
So is it or isn’t a good move Bruce? Can’t get it in your system to praise PQ because you know this kind of move torches any goodwill anyone in the GA has for Quinn? Sure, it is a fire lit under the butt of members, but that doesn’t actually mean a solution is any closer or easier to reach. Pick a few people off the street, stick them in a room, and let them talk about “solutions.” I’m sure they will vote to “compromise.” Now, add in detailed provisions that will force people to slaughter sacred cows and they’ll be just as acrimonious, stagnant, and polarized as a legislature. PQ did a good thing if he wants pension reform to be a “solved” issue, but lets be honest that this is a killer for the man to get anything else done ever (although he doesn’t get many victories anyway) and doesn’t actually do one thing to change minds on specific constitutional and fiscal issues as they relate to pension reform. Instead, we might get “pension reform” hastily passed, full of gimmicks, too punitive or too weak, chock full of loopholes, and another need to substantively address the issue again in a few years.
Comment by Precinct Captain Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 12:48 pm
===with the executive here acting unconstitutionally==
I don’t see where its unconstitutional(Goofy stunt,etc I agree). The constitution says a member shall receive a salary as provided by law. And from my experience there are many, many other funds that should be paid and are provided by law but are not paid because they have not been appropriated. And there have been plenty of court cases by people who have tried to get the state to pay but unless the law specifically says it is a non-appropriated item (and their salaries are not), then goose egg. An example of this can actually be found in the same bill for an amount appropriated that is less than provided for in law.
Comment by Been There Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 12:49 pm
Somewhere in Colorado, Rod is saying, Why Didn’t I Think Of Doing This?
Comment by Give Me A Break Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 12:50 pm
==The bill originally only got 70 votes in the House. So it wasn’t veto proof to begin with. I know there would be members jumping back and forth since it is only one item out of many in that bill but it definitely makes it harder to round up the votes instead of taking them off.==
This isn’t an amendatory veto, where they vote up or down on the bill as passed or as amended. They only vote on the items vetoed. If it’s called, they’ll get 100% in both houses.
==I don’t see where its unconstitutional(Goofy stunt,etc I agree). The constitution says a member shall receive a salary as provided by law.==
You forgot the final clause of that sentence — “but changes in the salary of a member shall
not take effect during the term for which he has been elected.”
Comment by Anon. Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 12:56 pm
Don’t need to override it. If someone takes it to court, base don past rulings, I expect there will be an order to the Comptroller to pay the salaries without an appropriation.
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 1:00 pm
Old situations,
New complications,
Nothing portentous or polite;
Tragedy tomorrow,
Comedy tonight!
Comment by Ruby Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 1:03 pm
–Rauner: “This would be a good move by Pat Quinn if it wasn’t just another political stunt.”
Don’t try to make sense of that statement; none is to be found.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 1:09 pm
@Been There:
You forgot the second part of that provision which says that changes to a member’s salary shall not take effect during the term they are elected. I think no salary is clearly a change to salary. It’s clearly unconstitutional and it will take a court about 3 seconds to say so. If it was unconstitutional to deny Judges their COLAs because it “diminished” their salaries then it is clearly unconstitutional to not pay a salary at all.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 1:09 pm
couldn’t they be paid on the last day of the session and still not have their salary “diminished”? constitutitionally at least. now IRSnregs may be different. and isn’t the remedy a claim with the court of claims?
Comment by in the know Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 1:11 pm
===You forgot the final clause of that sentence — “but changes in the salary of a member shall
not take effect during the term for which he has been elected.”===
Your missing the point. He is not changing the salary. It is set in the law. Along with plenty of other items. But that doesn’t mean they (nor anyone else) get their money unless its appropriated. Even If they pass a supplemental bill 11 months from now then they will get their full amount as provided by law. Otherwise why do they bother to appropriate it? It’s a two step process. Put it in the law but then take the next step and appropriate
Comment by Been There Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 1:17 pm
- …Adding… Commenter 47th Ward is again spot on…
Madigan must believe Quinn’s “strategy” will soften up the Senate more than causing a ruckus in the House. -
Would that be an example of helping to break a legislative deadlock?
Comment by Small Town Liberal Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 1:17 pm
Actually, he is changing the salary if state law sets out a specific schedule upon which that salary is doled out. Think about it this way. If state government were shut down, lawmakers would still be getting paid because of the pesky constitution.
Comment by Precinct Captain Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 1:21 pm
Bravo Senate President Cullerton! “Snake Oil” Pat is at it again.
Comment by Rolo Tomassi II Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 1:23 pm
If the state would reimburse my over 300 day old dental claim I could make those funds available as part of a relief fund for members suffering financial hardship. Would this be administratively difficult to do?
Comment by just asking Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 1:24 pm
Call my cynical (34 years of government servitude….uh service will do that to ya) but I think Madigan said he hopes Quinn’s strategy is successful tongue in cheek as he was handing him the rope
Comment by Former Merit Comp Slave Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 1:27 pm
Sal-Says: My understanding is that the GA is a part time job. My understanding is that most, if not all, GA members have other jobs or businesses. I suspect that few if any will need to go on food stamps. As I see it, this is just another of our non-governors’ stunts.
You are incorrect. For some this may be a part-time job. For a few others this is full-time and their only source of income.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 1:29 pm
===Would that be an example of helping to break a legislative deadlock?===
Only if it works.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 1:34 pm
I don’t see the move as a strategy to move legislation. I think it’s just a bald campaign stunt that’s red meat to the throw-the-bums-out crowd.
I’ve defended Quinn on a lot of things but this is a bad joke. He’s using his office and powers in a ham-handed fashion not to move good legislation (which would still be wrong) but to increase his personal popularity.
If any other governor had pulled this, it would be seen as sinister violation of the concept of separation of powers. That’s probably why other governor didn’t do it.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 1:36 pm
=I think Madigan said he hopes Quinn’s strategy is successful tongue in cheek as he was handing him the rope=
That was my first response. But I had a chance to talk to my rep, part of Madigan’s caucus, after Madigan’s statement was released. If it was a joke, that person did not get it, and expressed unhappiness with the Speaker. Don’t know what the reaction of others will be, however.
Comment by jake Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 1:38 pm
The Speaker’s reaction makes sense to me. He wants a bill passed sooner rather than later, as the coming elections, his power and his legacy are all at stake to some degree.
I would not be shocked if it turns out that the Speaker and Governor conspired on this. They have a mutual interest in cuts large enough to blunt election challenges that are based upon them not solving the problem, regardless of constitutionality.
Comment by east central Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 1:39 pm
The Illinois Bankers’ Association will be offering zero interest loans to legislators!!!
Comment by 1776 Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 1:41 pm
Been There
A bit of advice, go to law school before you start interpreting the law. This one is clearly a violation of several parts of the constitution and at least three court precedents. Watch for a quick injunction if nothing else.
As for the Speaker, can you imagine his reaction if this were an issue other than pensions? Clearly, a ‘diminishment’ of the separation of powers and a naked attempt to extort the outcome you want from the GA. What would stop another governor, PQ is done after this term, from doing this on another issue? Maybe they would have the votes to override or maybe not. Clearly PQ doesn’t want a compromise but ‘his way’ or else.
Sad day for the citizens of Illinois.
Comment by Old and In The Way Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 1:46 pm
Good for the Gov. The ComEd (insert any special interest that pays them enough) line during his press conference was awesome and true.
Comment by dang Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 1:47 pm
If the governor truly wanted to make a statement he would have line item vetoed his salary as well as that of the legislature as he too has failed to lead on this issue. But of course that didn’t happen because he doesn’t see himself as part of the problem. (He may also have been afraid that, had he done so, the GA would have upheld that veto leaving him without a salary for the remainder of the year.)
Comment by kerfuffle Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 1:50 pm
What is lost here is that the CC is very close to a recommendation according to my sources! PQ may well have hurt his chances of winning over some votes on compromise. Did some one use the word petulant to describe his actions and timing, very appropriate, along with shortsighted!
Comment by Old and In The Way Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 1:51 pm
I’m sure this is all just part of the Speaker’s strategy to get AG Madigan elected Governor.
Comment by SAP Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 1:52 pm
Seems to me that “out on the streets” this type of manuever by Quinn would be called blackmail.
Comment by East Central Illinois Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 1:52 pm
==Your missing the point. He is not changing the salary. It is set in the law. Along with plenty of other items. But that doesn’t mean they (nor anyone else) get their money unless its appropriated.==
How soon they forget. Blago cut the appropriation for judges’ cost of living increase. Remember what the result was?
Comment by Anon. Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 1:55 pm
Why would MJM want to give Quinn a victory? If they pass the pension bill, Quinn declares victory and will use it on the Campaign trail.
Comment by He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 1:56 pm
The position Madigan has taken is very interesting. As a previous post pointed out, he’s very wealthy…many of his members are not. On a slow day during session this Spring I flipped through a Blue Book or one of those publication (I can’t remember which one,) that has legislator profiles. I was surprised by how many members listed themselves as a “full time legislator.”
Maybe those members are playing it a little loose with the definition of “full time” or maybe their spouses have good paying jobs, but there are going to be some unhappy campers in the House Dem Caucus if they are not paid at the end of this month and they might be as mad at Madigan as they are at Quinn, particularly given the position Cullerton seems to be taking.
Comment by Frank Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 2:00 pm
===Why would MJM want to give Quinn a victory?===
Maybe you should stop believing goofy Chicago media conspiracy theories.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 2:00 pm
I agree that it won’t matter whether or not MJM calls a override vote. What Quinn is trying to do is probably going to be found illegal and the court will settle this issue, not the Legislature. Quinn doesn’t seem to mind going to court and eventually losing, as you all know he’s gone to court and lost before.
I don’t know if MJM really believes withholding Senators pay will help in quickly coming to a consensus on Pension Reform though it could have an opposite effect. Sometimes the carrot works better than the stick.
Comment by Dude Abides Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 2:03 pm
Gov Quinn’s announcement this morning was really an audition to do improv at Second City.
Comment by Cook County Commoner Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 2:08 pm
What is being lost here is that the bill Madigan was insisting on was a terrible bill, and would probably have been declared unconstitutional. The fact that with a supermajority in his caucus, with full press arm twisting he was only able to get a bare majority, speaks to that. His refusal to even let to the floor a bill that both his members and the Senate could support has been as much of a problem as the Governor’s refusal to engage in a meaningful way.
Comment by jake Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 2:16 pm
If Speaker Madigan isn’t against it, and I do think he wants his version of pension reform to pass, perhaps Gov. Quinn has stumbled on a good idea?
Or maybe Madigan just figures Gov. Quinn will flipflop in a week or so on this, so why bother fighting it.
Comment by Robert the Bruce Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 2:58 pm
He has an amendatory veto provided by the IL Constitution. He used it. How is that not Constitutional? As for separation of powers, the GA has the authority to override the veto; there’s the check to balance the shared power. Try being any organization that has had money appropriated and never released. This isn’t a new concept. If we don’t pass pension reform, this is exactly what’s going to happen to pensioners, one day there just won’t be any money to pay them. The solution is complicated, but the problem is quite simple. The math does not work and every day that goes by it compounds and gets a lot worse. My experience has been; take a couple bucks out of a public official’s pocket and they whine mightily. Take a week’s pay and just wait to hear the growl. By the way, that goes for Senators too, not just Reps. More people are open to a discussion on SB 1 now than 8 hours ago. Just watch.
Comment by A guy... Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 3:17 pm
As to why the governor did not veto his own salary, but instead proclaimed he wouldn’t accept it, I’m guessing he’s avoiding the risk of the legislature not restoring that line item (maybe they’re not real happy with him) in the event they decide to restore their own line items.
Comment by Raymond Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 3:58 pm
=== As to why the governor did not veto his own salary, but instead proclaimed he wouldn’t accept it, I’m guessing he’s avoiding the risk of the legislature not restoring that line item (maybe they’re not real happy with him) in the event they decide to restore their own line items. ===
I was just about to post the same thought . . .
Comment by Bill White Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 4:07 pm
@a guy
The Illinois Constitution , in Article IV, Section 11, says that “changes in the salary of a member shall not take effect during the term for which he has been elected.” If a legislator makes $67,000 (or whatever it is that they make; base salary is around there) a year, and the Governor’s action reduces that to $0/year, that is a change in salary ($67K does not equal $0K) and is, therefore, not constitutional. Money appropriated to organizations does not have that same protection.
The Governor can do what he wants to a bill, but the courts will just put it back, regardless of the lack of appropriation. The only thing Governor Blago– uh, Quinn, has accomplished by his action is ensure he will be even less effective with the General Assembly than he was before, if that’s even possible. It only takes one of the 177 members to file suit.
Comment by TwoFeetThick Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 4:09 pm
TwoFeetThick
I don’t think members of the GA will be lining up to file that lawsuit. Not with an election year coming up.
Imagine Representative White from the 119th IL House District defending that lawsuit during the March 2014 primary.
Yes, PQ’s move is a meaningless grandstanding stunt, however any GA member who voluntarily suspended his/her salary until pension reform was passed would probably be praised for that decision, back in the home district.
Comment by Bill White Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 4:16 pm
@Bill White
I think you are mostly right. But I bet there’s at least one, safe member out there who would do it. Only takes one.
Comment by TwoFeetThick Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 4:26 pm
But the stipends, per diems and travel allowances are not salaries…
Comment by gmklass Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 4:26 pm
BTW 2404 also leads to solvency of the pension systems but let’s not confuse political backslapping with the facts. Just be honest this is about slashing teachers and public employee pensions so you can repeal part of the tax increase, and get to 60 once again.
Comment by Obamas Puppy Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 5:04 pm
- Frank -
Just did a quick run through the bios of House Dems on the ilga.gov website. Not all of them list occupations, but of those who do, 24 claim to be full time legislators…roughly a third of Madigan’s caucus. I personally know a few others who definitely need their state paycheck, despite having another job. So, I don’t see Madigan asking them to forgo their pay for too long. He must be confident that Quinn’s move will be overturned legally or that a pension reform bill will be passed by the end of the month, which would give the GA the political cover to restore the cut before they miss a pay check.
We all know that the Speaker exercises incredible control over his caucus, but asking his members to work for free is really testing the limits. Ultimately, I don’t think he can take it that far.
Comment by Tom Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 5:05 pm