Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: PPP poll shows wide support for minimum wage hike, not much for cutting biz taxes
Next Post: Is this really a scandal?
Posted in:
* The Sun-Times announced years ago that it wouldn’t be endorsing any more candidates. Then came today’s editorial…
If Pat Quinn is re-elected, Illinois can expect a continued slow ascent… The danger — the real and formidable danger — is that recovery at this speed, such as it is, won’t come soon enough to save our state from ultimate and permanent economic decline. Not for nothing does Illinois have the second-highest out-migration — folks picking up and leaving — of all 50 states.
There are drawbacks to Rauner’s proposed remedies as well. His budget numbers, to begin with, don’t completely add up. But Rauner, a private equity investor by nature and politician by choice, does seem to understand down to his toes that time is up — big things have to happen fast or Illinois will become a backwater state, so economically far behind it can never recover. Illinois is desperate for big change, not cautious steps.
Rauner wants to roll back the income tax, though wisely he plans to do it over four years. And, if you read between the lines in his “jobs and growth agenda,” he is committed to rolling back the income tax fully only if other reforms take place first.
And concludes…
For every voter in Illinois, the question becomes which candidate understands that best and has the skills — both the business acumen and the political savvy — to get the job done.
While there’s still time.
That sure looks like an endorsement to me.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 10:42 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: PPP poll shows wide support for minimum wage hike, not much for cutting biz taxes
Next Post: Is this really a scandal?
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Its a pretty strong endorsement for change.
So, has Quinn gotten any newspaper endorsements yet?
While they don’t carry the punch they used to do, it would be a stunning statement if Quinn got none.
Comment by Cassiopeia Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 10:46 am
Rolling back their mistake without acknowledging they made a mistake. Isn’t that what they give elected officials grief for constantly. Cowards.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 10:47 am
Yep, a non endorsement that is an endorsement.
The editors just could not resist supporting Rauner.
Comment by Federalist Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 10:47 am
“His budget numbers, to begin with, don’t c̶o̶m̶p̶l̶e̶t̶e̶l̶y̶ add up.”
The Sun-Times needs to hire some more editors.
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM (@MisterJayEm) Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 10:49 am
Reading between the lines will get Rauner’s position on the income tax?
Let’s be honest — if somebody posted a comment on the Sun Times website saying you need to “read between the lines” to understand Rauner’s tax plan, people would respond with comments about tinfoil hats.
No ST, reading between the lines or use of tinfoil will not get you to Rauner’s income tax plan.
He doesn’t have one, other than one number in for years.
Any suggestion to the contrary is the ramblings of crazy people.
Comment by Gooner Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 10:50 am
“While we are certainly not suggesting our readers should vote for Rauner, we are just asking that they consider the utter destruction and demise of this great state if they vote for Quinn. Bruce isn’t perfect, but it sure would be a shame if people voted for the current Gov, rather than Bruce. Please remember that voting is a choice, and because we don’t give endorsements, we can only hope that you make the right choice and vote for the candidate that currently isn’t in office.”
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 10:50 am
I would call this a “church endorsement.” Talk about they guy you want in office while dancing right up to the line without ever flat-out saying “vote for XXX.” No doubt who the Sun-Times wants to see win this thing…
Comment by Big Muddy Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 10:50 am
I agree it’s probably an endorsement for Rauner… Except, it sorta breaks the choice down simplistically. He’s had his shot… Maybe it’s time for something very different? Looking at poll numbers and undecideds.. I think it’s really just echoing the sentiment…Same guy do you expect something different? New guy who the heck knows but can’t get much worse..
Comment by Walter Mitty Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 10:51 am
Sounds pretty much like an endorsement from a newspaper that claimed they would not endorse.
But then again, when you strip away all the noise, those bitter facts they cite remain.
Comment by Louis G Atsaves Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 10:52 am
I’ve heard of covert operations where the government wants to be able to deny that it was involved, but I’ve never heard of a newspaper endorsement with deniability.
Live and learn. Maybe it’s a “first.”
Comment by Mighty M. Mouse Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 10:53 am
“Slow ascent” versus what? A fast descent? A slow descent?
Comment by truthteller Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 10:54 am
Sometimes I wish I could read between the lines better, but I remind myself that when you do that you tend to see what you want to see: so, I pretty much just read the lines. A lot of thoughtful people have been saying for years to politicians, “Just tell us the truth, so we can make educated decisions as voters”. I guess the other approach works better: then you can be all things to all people, at least until after the election.
Comment by steve schnorf Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 10:55 am
If you can’t explain that it’s not an endorsement, it’s an endorsement.
Dopes.
===There are drawbacks to Rauner’s proposed remedies as well. His budget numbers, to begin with, don’t completely add up.===
“His understanding of how government works, financially is lacking, at best, but probably ignorant if we’re being honest.
===But Rauner, a private equity investor by nature and politician by choice, does seem to understand down to his toes that time is up — big things have to happen fast or Illinois will become a backwater state, so economically far behind it can never recover. Illinois is desperate for big change, not cautious steps.===
“We know the only rational way to convince you, and ourselves, since we have no facts to justify supporting Rauner, is to try to scare you, and ourselves, and ignore…
===Illinois can expect a continued slow ascent… The danger — the real and formidable danger — is that recovery at this speed, such as it is, won’t come soon enough to save our state from ultimate and permanent economic decline.===
…which is also speculation to feed fear, as we also say things are getting better,…and saying things are getting better…undercuts our own reasons to support Rauner, and we can’t have that.
Dopes indeed.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 10:55 am
Disgusting. Pathetic. Ferro bans political endorsements so he doesn’t have to offend his buddies, then sneaks in this back-handed endorsement.
Comment by Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 10:58 am
Not good for Quinn. A full endorsement would have been worse. But not good.
Comment by From the 'Dale to HP Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 11:00 am
So the media lies? Did Mitt rent the Sun Times too
BTW we noticed pledged that he and Slip&Sue were very pro immigration. Guess that is why they were so helpful in defeating term limits and remap amendments
Oh wait….that was their idea.
Bet the whack jobs and wing nuts are not too happy with Mitt
Fire, Aim, Ready
Comment by circularfiringsquad Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 11:00 am
The “Chicago Sun-Times” endorses: Change. Action. Leadership. If you cannot figure out which candidate most embodies this, then you are ill-prepared to vote. #rauneristherealdeal
Comment by Black Ivy Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 11:02 am
The Sun-Times apparently didn’t disclose the fact that Rauner was once an investor in the company that owned them.
Comment by Valerie F. Leonard Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 11:03 am
What fails to be mentioned: Rauner’s firm (GTCR) owned part of Suntimes through an investor group at the same time SunTimes decided to stop doing endorsements.
It also was the same time Rauner was rumored to be looking at Governor race.
Comment by Kyle Hillman Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 11:05 am
“The ‘Chicago Sun-Times’ endorses: Math Challenge. Fear. Excuses. If you cannot figure out which candidate they want endorse most, but can’t find real reasons to do it, then you are a lemming and can’t read what they are actually NOT endorsing. #RaunerIsTheSalesman
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 11:06 am
Won’t matter much at all. The times readers are mostly liberals and pay more attention to news stories then the editorial page
Comment by In the know Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 11:06 am
A bit surprised by the Sun Times for this editorial. If you’ve paid attention, their editorials have been exceptionally good for Quinn, virutally no matter how bad Quinn screwed something up. Those editorials in support of Quinn have been crystal clear. So what if one opaquely written editorial can be intpreted as being mildly critical of his tenure as Governor. Regular readers of the paper know that the Sun Times has been generally supportive of Governor Quinn.
Comment by phocion Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 11:06 am
Interesting comment by Black Ivy.
That person believes that a plan that includes massive new spending, a huge expansion of the sales tax, potentially leaving incomes taxes at 5% for three years, and no detailed plans to cut the budget is “change” and “leadership.”
While those things might be change and leadership, I just don’t see that as the change leadership that Illinois needs.
Comment by Gooner Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 11:07 am
Change for the sake of change is a dangerous proposition.
Comment by yo Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 11:12 am
as for the ‘they didn’t mention he was an investor at one time’ thing, this is the same newspaper group that once endorsed (back when they did) a candidate who used to write for them and didn’t bother to mention it (it was a D btw)…
Comment by OneMan Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 11:14 am
Not for nothing do we, as editors of the Sun Times, stand by our previous decision not to endorse candidates…
Comment by Abraham Froman Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 11:14 am
“Change for the sake of change is a dangerous proposition.”
And maintaining the status quo isn’t?
Comment by pundent Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 11:16 am
When you are convinced the current slow ascent under one candidate is not sufficient, then you hope against hope that the alternative is too smart to really mean what he says.
Got it. That’s quite a gamble.
And then you shy away from throwing in any chips.
Agree with Schnorf on reading the lines themselves, — and using arithmetic.
Tin foil hat time: Are these editorial board members privy to communications from or about Rauner that their reporters are not aware of — like at one of the Civies’ luncheons? Maybe they’re getting some strong hints from Rauner’s circle and not really “reading between the lines.”
Comment by walker Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 11:17 am
Those quotes will definitely end up in a Rauner endorsement commercial…”All the major newspapers agree…”
Let’s not forget that Rauner used to be an investor in Wrapports, owner of the Sun-Times. And all his buddies still control the paper. Would not be surprised if there was some behind-the-scenes pressure.
Comment by Rick T. Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 11:21 am
This is one of those “nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more” moments.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 11:23 am
@ Rick T.
You sure answered an important question for me. Thanks.
Comment by SkeptiCal Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 11:26 am
“While there’s still time.”
Another way of saying, “Before it’s too late.”
Quinn’s base — get it?
Come up with that tortured whatever-it-is on your own, Tom? Or were there some suits breathing down your neck?
Well done. Maybe Bruce’s pals will keep you in business another year.
Comment by Wordslinger Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 11:27 am
If a tree falls in a forest…
Comment by Meanderthal Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 11:27 am
Even a paper that presented itself as “returning to our liberal, working-class roots” back in ‘07 and endorsed Quinn four years ago has now turned against him. The choice is that clear.
Comment by Lunchbox Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 11:27 am
What do you fear most?
A continuation of what we have now, or worse?
Or, that a socially liberal rich guy who spends his millions upon education, and other social causes, including political donations to prominent Democrats, would actually be some kind of uber-powerful monster?
The demonization of Mr. Rauner has really jumped the shark during the past two months. Negative campaigning does that.
Quinn needed to defeat Rauner by demonstrating and showing voters who had already elected him in 2010, that he could do the job.
He failed.
Now instead of showing and telling us how great a job he did as governor, he assassinated his political opponent in a multi million dollar campaign. If Quinn is elected, no one wins a mandate during a very difficult time for our state. Negative campaigns are bad for governing and government, as well as bad dependent upon it.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 11:31 am
Wordslinger,
I caught that reference too.
Actually, I saw the dog’s ears go up, and then I I read it again.
It is appalling that the Sun Times would go there.
Comment by Gooner Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 11:35 am
This just shows why the Sun Times is not as good as the Tribune. Does a back door endorsement from a poorly edited and proofed newspaper mean anything?
Comment by The Colossus of Roads Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 11:40 am
did they just call bruce a “wise~guy?
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 11:40 am
The Sun-Times announced last year they would endorse again.
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20131031/NEWS06/131039950/sun-times-to-endorse-candidates-again
Comment by Precinct Captain Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 11:42 am
PC, they walked that one back pretty quickly.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 11:42 am
All Rauner endorsements start with a “going-down -the-tubes” scenario for Illinois.
It is too extreme a picture of our reality, despite some real challenges.
Too bad folks jump on to that bandwagon and blow their horns.
Comment by walker Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 11:45 am
There’s old say’in by us bumpkins from outside of Chicago. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck; it’s a duck.
MrJM addressed my first point about “completely” add up. There’s no completely about it. It doesn’t add up.
My other point is that the Sun Times editorial writers are a bit uniformed - to put it politely - if they think that Rauner “is committed to rolling back the income tax fully only if other reforms take place first.” Consider this Sun Times folks, the tax will be rolled back to prior to Rauner taking office. So do they really think he will push the General Assembly (yes, Sun Times, the General Assembly has a say in this) to increase the tax and then agree to a rollback of that tax if they include his reforms. That’s a big ask of this or the next General Assembly. To those who suggest this will be all in one package, I remind them that any problem in passing that package will result in NO TAX INCREASE TO ROLLBACK.
Basically the Sun Times has bought Raunervich’s line of malarkey, or should I say the Sun Times has been bought.
Comment by Norseman Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 11:54 am
“All Rauner endorsements start with a ‘going-down -the-tubes’ scenario for Illinois.”
If you worked in the newspaper business, you too would probably have a dire and desperate outlook.
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM (@MisterJayEm) Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 11:56 am
I cited this in yesterday’s blog action. I was taken aback when I read it and expected the final line to be “Pat, you’ve had a good chance and you’ve given it your all, but we endorse the other guy”.
There is a palpable fatigue and dispirit among voters. I’ve seen it with my own eyes, heard it with my own ears. Pat is viewed as a guy who tries hard, flies by the seat of his pants, and goes from crisis to crisis. Rauner is offering a planning horizon. Debate it all you want to, but he is perceived as a long term planner. This editorial is a thought provoker. It may even go too far for a publication that has gotten out of the endorsement business. But it’s thoughtful enough to have not crossed the line.
My memory fails to come up with the last time the Editorialists across the line all came to the same conclusion.
Comment by A guy... Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 12:04 pm
LOL, A Guy, feeling the fatigue and dispirit of the masses. You bear such a cross.
Um, you do know your guy is trailing in the polls, right? So it appears your eyes and ears might be deceiving you quite a bit.
As far as Rauner being “perceived as a long-term planner,” what in the world are you talking about? His “plans” have been widely ridiculed as fantasies that simply don’t add up.
Comment by Wordslinger Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 12:15 pm
Ouch. With the Sun Times gone, that does not leave much for PQ to hang his hat on.
The SJR, Quad City Times and a few smaller ones seem to be about it. And when even Mr. Quinn has a hard time making the case for himself, any endorsements of him would be lukewarm at best.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 12:21 pm
== My memory fails to come up with the last time the Editorialists across the line all came to the same conclusion ==
Does anyone know the answer to this offhand?
When was the last time the Trib, SunTimes, Daily Herald, etc. all agreed on a major candidate for President, Governor or Senator in a close race?
Comment by Formerly Known As... Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 12:26 pm
===Now instead of showing and telling us how great a job he did as governor, he assassinated his political opponent in a multi million dollar campaign. If Quinn is elected, no one wins a mandate during a very difficult time for our state. Negative campaigns are bad for governing and government, as well as bad dependent upon it.===
Thank goodness that if Rauner wins at least HE won’t have the burden of having done so by relying on negative campaigning.
Comment by Mighty M. Mouse Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 12:33 pm
===Rauner is offering a planning horizon. Debate it all you want to, but he is perceived as a long term planner.===
From above…
===There are drawbacks to Rauner’s proposed remedies as well. His budget numbers, to begin with, don’t completely add up.===
How can “Planning Horizon” that even the Sun-Times sees as “drawback” a positive?
Your reality, appears to be your reality.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 12:38 pm
Partisans may be reading too much into this. It says what it says, to which it is difficult to disagree. We may all wish that this State was not in the tank, but it is.
Comment by Keyser Soze Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 12:43 pm
He has the “business and political savvy” to get it done.
He sure showed “political saavy” by basically saying anyone currently in the legislature is an overpaid hack. Both parties he has characterized them this way.
That’s good political saavy for the campaign, but I’m really not sure how he undoes that if elected. As for business saavy- right. Still not clear how he earns all those millions each year but I do know he threatens female executives that get in the way.
Comment by low level Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 12:52 pm
Formerly Known As
Obama 2008
Comment by Kyle Hillman Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 12:55 pm
==Debate it all you want to, but he is perceived as a long term planner.==
If you tell me what his plan is then I might switch my vote. I haven’t seen a coherent one yet. I’m giving you an opening @A guy. Convince me.
Signed,
A “dispirited” voter
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 12:55 pm
== Change for the sake of change is a dangerous proposition. ==
That’s what conservatives used to believe. They also used to understand that change can and usually does have unexpected consequences, some of which may make things worse.
Comment by anon Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 12:56 pm
If he were to propose a budget just on the broad planning framework he’s revealed so far, he’d get about 10 votes in the House and 5 in the Senate. Maybe.
And I’m honestly not sure who in each chamber would put their names down as sponsors.
Real political saavy.
Comment by low level Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 12:57 pm
== negative campaigns are bad for governing and government ==
True, but to chastise only Quinn for a negative campaign is a flagrantly partisan double standard.
== Rauner is offering a planning horizon ==
His plan (the part on the record) would in the short-term result in higher debt and less funding for core services. Slashing taxes and raising spending isn’t sustainable. (see Reagan, Ronald)
Comment by anon Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 1:03 pm
Of course its an endorsement. Critical mass of incompetence has been reached and everyone, media, business leaders, ed boards and most importantly people who are actuallly going to vote—-understand that if Quinn wins, kisss the state goodbye and look for the push to amend bankrupcty code so states can file. Have fun begging a bankruptcy judge to fund the pensions. Yes, it is that serious
Comment by 19th ward guy Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 1:06 pm
Using phrases like ” permanent economic decline” and Pat Quinn is no different than Rauner campaign propaganda. The Sun-Times might not be endorsing Bruce Rauner but they suspect the worst about Pat Quinn and another 4 years in office.
Comment by Steve Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 1:08 pm
===kisss the state goodbye and look for the push to amend bankrupcty code so states can file.===
Welp, that was fun.
At least “The City That Shan’t Be Named” was left out.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 1:08 pm
==understand that if Quinn wins, kisss the state goodbye and look for the push to amend bankrupcty code so states can file. Have fun begging a bankruptcy judge to fund the pensions. Yes, it is that serious==
Sigh. There’s always one in the crowd.
Here’s a tip. When you are arguing state bankruptcy, you’ve already lost the argument.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 1:09 pm
Kyle Hillman - thank you
Comment by Formerly Known As... Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 1:13 pm
Willy- Rich, food for thought. With the big deal being made over Carol Marin commercial could Times being trying to level that out? Tit for tat so to speak!!!
Comment by In the know Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 1:16 pm
It never ceases to amaze the simple-mindedness that equates who’s in the govenor’s chair with the “state economy.”
By that logic, we should bring back Blago, because things were going great guns when he had the Big Chair.
Where does that come from, anyway? They don’t teach that in school.
What’s the “Illinois economy?” Explain to me the relationship between the expressway corporate corridors and farming? Between the financial sector and coal mining?
There are many “economies” in Illinois. State governments role is infrastructure, educate, medicate and incarcerate.
Comment by Wordslinger Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 1:20 pm
== When you are arguing state bankruptcy ==
States obviously cannot file bankruptcy as it stands.
But would anyone say that our coffers are flush? Are we bankrupt not in a technical sense but in a more practical sense? When you are closing public health centers and start screening to kick people off Medicaid…
Comment by Formerly Known As... Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 1:23 pm
== Where does that come from, anyway? They don’t teach that in school. ==
imho, it comes straight from the horse’s mouth. The politicians themselves.
At least, that’s what Pat Quinn told me a few days ago while trumpeting Illinois’ drop in the unemployment rate
/s
Comment by Formerly Known As... Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 1:27 pm
- In the know -
I dunno if the equation works, like a “payback” call in sports, since we are talking about, arguably, the #1 negative Ad if the cycle (Durbin’s wounded soldier Ad, arguably, #1 positive Ad…) versus a Tip-In, non-endorsement…endorsement, especially since the Quinn Ad keeps rolling.
I hear ya, but I haveta believe it’s more about the “We just back Bruce for, whatever” versus a “makeup”
Would the Sun-Times tried this regardless of the Ad?
It’s a bit rhetorical.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 1:27 pm
===When you are closing public health centers and start screening to kick people off Medicaid…===, you need to raise the revenues to pay for them.
There, completed it for ya, FKA.
Comment by PublicServant Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 1:27 pm
Much obliged, PublicServant.
Though it is funny how plenty of money is suddenly available for certain things but not others.
$10 million for a privately owned theater and $35 million for a new school in the speaker’s district, but no money for building even a basic library in hundreds of public schools? All approved in just a couple of days during the close of session?
Bronzed doors, decorative chandeliers and stairway maidens? Proposing $100 million for a Presidential Library that is traditionally funded via private donors?
And I thought Rauner’s budget was the one utilizing == fuzzy math ==. We just can’t catch a break here, can we?
Comment by Formerly Known As... Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 1:50 pm
“Change for the sake of change is a dangerous proposition.”
“And maintaining the status quo isn’t?”
Maintaining status quo for the sake of maintaining status quo (a.k.a. the “We’ve always done it that way”) argument is also a dangerous proposition. However, maintaining status quo when the alternative is worse is not.
Comment by Skeptic Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 1:51 pm
Ferral: Do I have to write it for you? Come on just get it done.
Capt. Kirk: But you said we wouldn’t have to anymore…
Ferral: Fine, I’ll write it myself. But would you deal with that meddling Irishman already?
Comment by El Gato Brillante Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 2:22 pm
Wasn’t Bruce one of the initial investors of the sun times?
Comment by Power statement Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 3:06 pm
I’ve read it twice, and see it more as a statement of facts than an endorsement. If facts constitute a de facto endorsement,so be it: the ST is only reporting them.
Comment by The Whole Truth Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 3:08 pm
“The demonization of Mr. Rauner…”
VM, I don’t think most voters are going to feel sorry for Bruce at this point.
And in terms of demonizing, we probably shouldn’t forget his efforts to demonize thousands of teachers, government employees, etc. I honestly never thought I would see the day when teachers, first responders, and hourly workers were seen as the problem with society. Forgive those who would demonize Bruce…
Comment by the wonderboy Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 3:08 pm
I haven’t seen where anyone has “demonized” public employees. Certainly some of the more egregious individual examples of people gaming the system have been reported and noted, as well they should be. I have seen where Rauner concedes the pensions are protected by the Illinois constitution, while PQ maintains they are not and continues to pursue an ill advised and expensive court battle that is doing nothing to correct the problem. With one candidate trying to take away protected retirement benefits and the other on record as not, just who is actually “demonizing” who?
Comment by The Whole Truth Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 3:23 pm
- The Whole Truth - Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 3:23 pm:
At this point in time, Quinn has to maintain he believes SB-1 is constitutional or the State won’t have a leg to stand on in court (they don’t anyway, but the State lawyers have to pretend they do).
Quinn must believe stae employees / retirees deserve the pensions they’ve earned; Quinn has actually gotten the GA to fully fund the pension systems every year he’s been Gov. as required by the 1995 ‘ramp’, something only one other Govenor (Ryan) has managed since 1975.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 3:31 pm
- The Whole Truth - Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 3:23 pm:
And Rauner is on record about wanting to move all existing State employees to a 401K (actually, would have to be a 457 plan), which would be unconstitutional also.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 3:33 pm
RNUG-
I agree PQ’s funding of the system the last few years is a positive sign, but more of a recognition of reality than acknowledgement of something deserved. It’s his other actions and statements that cause me concern. His continued defense of SB-1 (along with that of the AG and State legal team) in the face of the constitutional plain language and ISC ruling verbiage on the health insurance suit seem to defy common sense. Pursuit of that suit is wasting both time and money, which is pretty much the status quo for state govt. Something different than SB-1 will be needed, and so far PQ,the Madigans, et. al. have not acknowledged that, let alone proposed an alternative. BR has.
Comment by The Whole Truth Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 3:42 pm
Added without comment. I do ask that you ignore the factual inaccuracies in Mr. Rauner’s comments…he isn’t my candidate to coach. Please let me know if you would like more, The Whole Truth.
http://www.sj-r.com/videos/ID:3232089106001/Video:Bruce%20Rauner%20discusses%20unions%20during%20Brandt%20appearance%20-%20June%202013
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuXvMadnyBM
Comment by the wonderboy Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 3:43 pm
RNUG-
The 401K and 457 concepts may not be constitutional, but they are a positive step to re-opening the “fair consideration” discussions of last year. The most troubling aspect of the situation is that we are where we were two years ago in the search for a solution, and that won’t change for another 3 months, if then.
Comment by The Whole Truth Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 3:47 pm
The Whole Truth
Please see Senate Bill 2404.
All the Best,
The Wonderboy
Comment by the wonderboy Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 3:47 pm
Good news for Quinn, this article wasn’t in todays print home delivery. Must have been only on line which would drastically bring down its readership…..
Comment by say it aint so Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 3:51 pm
Wonder-
BR’s statements about unions are not necessarily reflective of his views on public employees either individually or as a group. Pragmatically, unions will have to be involved with any ultimate solution, and he has laid some groundwork for those intended discussions. They, and you, may not like it, but hard choices and negotiations will have to be made, and I seriously doubt anyone will end up happy with the final results. We’re too far down the road already and we’re presently still on the same track.
Comment by The Whole Truth Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 3:55 pm
The Whole Truth is right.
Rauner does not hate public employees.
Instead, he views them like he views anybody in the working class — they need to keep quiet, be happy they have any job, and not demand decent pay, benefits, or pensions. As long as they do so, he won’t crush them or their families or anybody!
Comment by Gooner Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 4:02 pm
=== Pursuit of that suit is wasting both time and money, which is pretty much the status quo for state govt. ===
At this point there hasn’t been any ruling on SB 1. Don’t confuse the Kanerva ruling with SB 1. I would agree with the above if Judge Belz rules SB 1 is unconstitutional.
Comment by Norseman Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 4:02 pm
“Fair consideration” may not necessarily entail direct impacts to retirement benefits or even be financially practical. While pension benefits are protected by the constitution, future pay raises for current workers are not. Those are subject to union agreements, at least for those who are union members. Negotiations for future contracts may have to include provision for salary adjustments to keep the pension system solvent. Seems unfair as the employee has kept his end of the pension bargain without fail, but I have to believe it’s under study by both camps. Understandably, neither wants to talk about it now.
Comment by The Whole Truth Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 4:09 pm
Norse-
You are right that SB-1 has yet to be ruled on, but the language that came down with Kanerva is pretty telling as to it’s fate. I’d not want to take odds that it will pass muster.
Comment by The Whole Truth Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 4:13 pm
The Whole Truth-
Thanks for your input. I would point out to you that our public unions are led by public employees. Attempts to separate the two ignore reality.
I will avoid my instinct to provide you with endless quotes and videos that rebut your point regarding BR’s feelings about public employees and their pay/benefits. Feel free to use the googles. For further insight please refer to past statements and actions of BR’s mentors (the googles has plenty on Scott Walker, Chris Christie, and Mitch Daniels).
In terms of the negotiation to which you refer, I simply reiterate my request that you look into Senate Bill 2404. Of course, that ship has sailed.
Incidentally, I know I prefer when someone who doesn’t like me simply owns it and doesn’t try to deny past statements or actions. Be who you are. BR would get more credit in my book if he took the same approach. Perhaps you could share this idea with the rest of the campaign staff.
All the Best,
The Wonderboy
Comment by the wonderboy Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 4:18 pm
- The Whole Truth - Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 3:55 pm:
The unions won’t be able to negotiate away existing employees’ pension rights.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 4:20 pm
Wonder-
You might take a look at some of BR’s statements regarding police and firemen. Pretty plain talk, and supportive of their pension systems. As far as considering individual employees separately from their unions, or any larger group for that matter, it’s pretty common, and needed. Ask a few state police troopers about the FOP, or your child’s teachers about the NEA.
Comment by The Whole Truth Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 4:26 pm
RNUG-
Agreed, and really the point. About all that’s left is salary that I can see. There are other perks not protected, but they would be more symbolic that material. As a RNUG, you may recall that when Blago came in, raises for non-union employees were not given for years. That may have to happen again on a broader scale.
Comment by The Whole Truth Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 4:30 pm
If the darned Sun-Times goes for Rauner too, I’m going to be left with exactly zero papers to read in Chicago.
Comment by Levi Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 4:37 pm
The Whole Truth,
The unions have the vast majority of support of the membership. Attempting to find the anecdotal does not negate the overwhelming support of collective bargaining units and elected leaders in those organizations. If this weren’t true, local bargaining units would be decertified as a normal occurrence. I assure you this is not taking place.
A couple of quick points…
Scott Walker also exempted first responders in Wisconsin from changes…until he started discussing the possibility of including them in restricted bargaining rights. Furthermore, the Illinois FOP endorsed Quinn.
I have spoken to my childrens’ teachers, my friends who are state troopers and local police and fire, my acquaintances who work for a Republican statewide elected official in Springfield…and all support their union and the endorsement of Quinn. (As a side note, I don’t believe that the NEA is engaged in the day to day operations of the IEA…but I digress.)
I don’t honestly have a dog in this fight. However, I do appreciate candidates and campaign staff who are intellectually honest.
All the Best,
The Wonderboy
Comment by the wonderboy Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 4:42 pm
Wonder-
We’ll have to agree to disagree. I just don’t see a comment directed toward an organization or group as necessarily indicative of perception of it’s individual members, and that is true for both positive and negative comments. Lawyers and bankers as a group often have a bad rep, but when you need one as an individual, they look a little different.
Comment by The Whole Truth Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 4:49 pm
So if Rauner wins, is he going to ask a legislator to introduce his 401(k) style pension plan? It would have 0 chance of passage and on the miracle it did pass would be ruled unconstitutional.
Say what you will about Quinn, but SB1 had significant cost savings and was a step in the right direction. Sure MJM and Cullerton did the heavy lifting, but Quinn signed it.
So how exactly is Rauner going to move the ball forward on pension reform?
Comment by low level Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 5:32 pm
Just checked it isn’t in the sun times print today
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 8:45 pm
- low level - Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 5:32 pm:
You DO realize SB-1 is going to be found unconstitutional and will result in zero savings?
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 10:51 pm
It was printed in the Sun-Times on Wednesday.
Comment by Corey Thursday, Oct 16, 14 @ 10:59 pm
I continue to be puzzled how anyone thinks that the state budget can be balanced without the tax rate being extended. i just don’t think it’s possible if you take a look at where the money goes. Who are you gonna fire: state troopers, child welfare workers, prison guards?None of the true discretionary choices can really make up that much money.
Comment by dr. reason a. goodwin Friday, Oct 17, 14 @ 12:24 am
RNUG - yes. That’s why I used the past tense. That’s my point: if SB1 is unconstitutional then how in the world will Rauner’s idea to switch to a complete 401(k) style plan - or 457(b) in the public sector be found to pass muster with the court???
The fact he’s still advocating it, and that some editorial boards are accepting it, just reinforces why I don’t bother with most papers anymore.
Comment by low level Friday, Oct 17, 14 @ 11:22 am