Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Local “right to work” push not showing much success… yet
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** “Confused and surprised”
Posted in:
* Oh, please…
Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner said he probably didn’t choose his words carefully enough when he said the state Supreme Court is part of a “corrupt” judicial system.
In a meeting Wednesday night with the Quad-City Times editorial board, Rauner said he wasn’t singling out the high court, nor did he use the word “corrupt” again.
“I probably didn’t use words carefully enough,” he said. “I believe our judicial system is full of conflicts of interests. And the Supreme Court is part of the judicial system. It’s not the Supreme Court, per se, it’s the system.” […]
“My comments about the Supreme Court, one of the issues I raised is, you know, they’re opining on things that impact them, when they talk about pensions and health care and what not,” he said. “I’m just troubled by the conflict. I don’t criticize them. They’re doing the best they can. They’re good people. I don’t criticize individual judges or a particular court. The system, I think, has conflicts.”
* First of all, that’s not a walk-back, it’s a double-down.
* Secondly, he did indeed “criticize” the Supreme Court on stuff besides the “corrupt” angle…
“I don’t trust the Supreme Court to be rational in their decisions,” Rauner said. “I think they’re activist judges who want to be legislators.”
And…
The justices on the high court signaled devotion to that language when they ruled in favor of retirees in a separate case last summer involving an attempt to make retirees pay more for their state-subsidized health care. The court ruled 6-1 that the language in the constitution was “aimed at protecting the right to receive the promised retirement benefits, not the adequacy of the funding to pay for them.”
Rauner told the Tribune on Monday he thought the court’s ruling in that case was “off base.” He said he wants to use a constitutional amendment to “end-run the years of lawsuits” that would come from his plan to reduce pension benefits.
“We can’t just let the Supreme Court decide these issues just with the vague language we’ve got now,” Rauner said. “I have no confidence.”
* Our commenter “walker” offered up a succinct critique yesterday…
Rauner really seems confused.
He calls a strict constructionist stance on Constitutional language “judicial activism.”
He then says the court is corrupted by politics, but then agrees with them by stating that we need changes to the Constitution to move forward with his versions of pension “reform.”
Really, folks — do those statements hang together?
* And as far as the “conflict of interest” regarding the courts ruling on the constitutionality of pension and health insurance laws, who the heck does he think should rule on those statutes? I mean, should all judges just step aside and let the other two branches do whatever they want?
That’s either a completely disingenuous argument or just plain juvenile logic.
* Also, from this week…
“I’m open to tax reform. The critical thing is that we get structure change inside the state. If we just raise income taxes, which is what many people are encouraging me to do, they say put in a graduated income tax that will fix the problems,” said Rauner.
But, Rauner said raising taxes doesn’t always work. He points to similar problems in New Jersey that he said Illinois can’t repeat.
“New Jersey has high property taxes like us, high sales taxes like us. They’ve already put in a graduated income tax. They have very high taxes where they can’t afford to pay their pensions.”
That last graf contains a nonsensical comment, but more important is the fact that the governor is a wealthy man and he got a ton of campaign money from fantastically wealthy people during and after the campaign and he opposes a graduated income tax, which would most definitely hurt himself and his main campaign contributors.
That’s not a conflict of interest?
Of course it is. The world is full of conflicts. There is no possible world where conflicts of interest do not exist, except maybe in some freshman college classes.
* I’m sure all of this polls well. “He’s shaking things up and attacking the status quo just like he promised!” But, dealing with this governor is kinda like dealing with newbie commenters here who believe all solutions are simple and everything is black and white. Experienced adults know better.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 10:40 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Local “right to work” push not showing much success… yet
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** “Confused and surprised”
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Rauner continues to speak like a candidate rather than an office holder. I think much of the tone he has set speaks to his lack of governmental experience. He’s never before been elected to public office and it shows.
Comment by Stones Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 10:47 am
Is this petulant child going to get around to governing at some point?
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 10:48 am
Some days I think Rauner has no clue what to do. Some days I think Rauner is Blago without the hair. Some days I think Rauner’s trying to hard. And some days I think Rauner believes the things he says.
I still have no clue why he’s fighting the union fight when a) that’s not the biggest issue facing the state and b) that’s not why he got elected. I have no clue why he’s picking fights with everyone. And I have no clue why he’s pandering to the Trib Ed Board.
I guess I’m just very confused about what Rauner is doing because it doesn’t make any sense what-so-ever.
Comment by From the 'Dale to HP Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 10:51 am
So essentially, he meant what he said, only he wished he’d said it more politely?
Comment by How Ironic Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 10:51 am
“See, when I said ‘I don’t trust the Supreme Court to be rational in tneir decisions’ and that they are part of a ‘corrupt system’ I meant they were ‘good people’ doing ‘the best they can.”
“Why is that confusing?”
Comment by Wordslinger Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 10:54 am
- I still have no clue why he’s fighting the union fight -
I still have no clue why people are surprised by this. He made it abundantly clear during the campaign.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 10:56 am
Rich’s Question:
==* And as far as the “conflict of interest” regarding the courts ruling on the constitutionality of pension and health insurance laws, who the heck does he think should rule on those statutes? I mean, should all judges just step aside and let the other two branches do whatever they want?==
Answer:
Bruce Rauner!
Comment by exbricklayer Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 10:59 am
“I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant”
― Alan Greenspan
Comment by Skeptic Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 10:59 am
Troubled words…troubled thinking from an apparently troubled person. He thinks the courts cannot possibly rule in favor of pension reform since they receive a state pension. Maybe they need to be volunteer judges with no compensation and no retirement income so they have no conflict of interest in the matter. However, our governor would like everyone who works for the government to not take payment, like himself. Save taxpayers alot of $
Comment by AnonymousOne Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 11:00 am
And if Rauner’s own lawsuit actually succeeded, and he convinced a court to throw out decades of fair share laws as unconstitutional, would that not be judicial activism? If he wants the courts to take a narrow role, why did he file suit?
Comment by Anon Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 11:01 am
Rauner was pretty effective on the campaign trail selling himself as a problem solver and not an ideologue. Now three months into his term, I’m struggling to find even the faintest basis to believe that he’s pragmatic in any way. Very disappointing.
Comment by slow down Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 11:03 am
CEO’s will speak whatever comes to mind that they think will sound good and show them to be insightful — and their audiences will usually just smile and nod.
Rauner’s not yet used to having to think through his statements because they will be openly analyzed and criticized. There will be a lot of walking back this coming year.
Hopefully there will also be some fact checking by Rauner before he broadcasts the talking points of some of his less informed allies and staff.
Comment by walker Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 11:03 am
It sounds to me like he’s watched too much Fox News. He spouts half-baked talking points that he heard but hasn’t thought too much about. We’ll know for sure if he comes out against ‘The War on Christmas’ this December.
Comment by Quizzical Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 11:04 am
I think the explanation is perhaps far more simple. He’s still learning that words have consequences and that as governor, you can’t just spout your mouth off like you’re in at lunch with your buddies.
Interestingly, Pat Quinn had exactly the same problem after Rod was arrested. Remember the “we should have a special election, no, we should appoint, no, we should…” fiasco. It’s because he hadn’t learned that you can’t just say whatever you believe because words have consequences.
The question is, will our new governor learn those lessons or will his arrogance trump all.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 11:05 am
===(Bruce Rauner) “I don’t criticize individual judges or a particular court. The system, I think, has conflicts.”===
Really? Hmm…
===(Rauner) “I don’t trust the Supreme Court to be rational in their decisions,” Rauner said. “I think they’re activist judges who want to be legislators.”===
I think ya just criticized individual judges. Dope.
Someone “tackle” Rauner. I know, Rich reminded me in comments, specifically, that the only person seemingly that could talk sense into Rauner is no longer with us, so which one of his trusted “Superstars” will be the “Paul Lis” of the group, and will Rauner understand what that role is suppose to do to help him?
When Gov. Rauner goes off the reservation, and lately it’s been often, “Sonny Mode” is really about Citizen Rauner not understanding what it means to govern, be a governor, and that both governing and being governor isn’t as easy as calling everyone corrupt. It’s actually about calling everyone together where common ground is found…
…and you word is your bond.
I’m sure in business, as in life at times, any industry, that going back on your word happens. “Leveraging” yiursekf to make your double-cross worth it is a strategy, sure. In politics, especially Illinois State Politics, it often more about your word, than the words in the Bill.
This post highlights how Bruce Rauner, as Governor Rauner doesn’t understand what he’s doing, and the harm he’s causing himself. Doubling down in “Sonny Mode” isn’t helping those who understand the pokitics that got all of us to the FY2015 “fix”…until the double-cross tainted it.
Find your own “Paul Lis” that you will actually listen to, Governor Rauner. Sonny told Tom Hagen he didn’t want help, just wanted to wim. That’s what these move reflect; you don’t want the advice, you want to win, no matter the cost to you, your word, your image, your effectiveness, and most of all your state.
You need help, Governor, listen firbthr advice from those around you…and take it.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 11:06 am
Ok, I actually support moving to a system of merit selection of judges. But the Governor’s rhetoric on this subject is just so completely ridiculous (not to mention borderline offensive). I mean, even if he appointed the judges, they would still be public employees, and would still be impacted by certain health care and pension cases that may appear before the court (as Rich alluded to), so his proposed solution doesn’t even address the problem that he is incorrectly asserting exists.
Ooohh! Maybe that’s the ticket! Privatize the judiciary. I’m sure that will go over well!
(And on the graduated income tax, since it would need to be done by a JRCA, legally he has no role, so can avoid the conflict. Though the reality is quite a different matter.)
Comment by Juice Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 11:06 am
So rauner really believes supremes are so venal, and bereft of integrity, that they would decide an issue as momentous as pensions simply based on their own health insurance or pension? Thats scary. That may be how Rauner views the world, but thankfully thats not how everyone views it.
He doesnt want judges to be activists, but he wanted them to
uphold his term limit proposal–because it was popular.
Bruce is focused, not on the real priorities, but on exorcising the demons he sees in every corner. I fear he is absolutely deaf. I think the other principals are quiet bec they are playing the clock. And no one has come to the defense of the supremes. Not even a college law school dean, that i know of.
Comment by Langhorne Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 11:07 am
In Rauner’s misguided mind, only those that are ultra-wealthy have the peace of mind to make objective decisions.
I don’t even think it’s arrogance at this point, just ignorance and disdain for the working class.
Someone should explain to Bruce that some people actually have principles, and believe in democracy and building up society.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 11:08 am
Everything to Gov. Rauner is a conflict of interest, unless it is influencing things he wants.
Comment by facts are stubborn things Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 11:09 am
As a bullying CEO drive by profit, he was accountable to his wallet and apparently addressed criticisms through threats and intimidation.
I think his incompetency and uninformed proclamations go beyond a learning curve about governing. He has no interest in learning. He sees the world through his own narrow point of view.
He flaunts the law, lies, deceives others, is aggressive, feels no remorse and had little regard for others. These are symptoms, my friends, and they are frightening.
Comment by Anon Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 11:10 am
So far I am not seeing that Rauner is doing the hard work of learning what governing is all about….head down, learn the ropes, work on compromise (so you win some and lose some), fully understand how the budget process works. All I am seeing is a continuous cycle of campaigning. I am not sure if his ego will permit him to learn.
Comment by illlinifan Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 11:10 am
The pension clause is not vague, it says exactly what it says. The issue for Gov. Rauner is really about the fact that it does not say what he wants the clause to say.
Comment by facts are stubborn things Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 11:11 am
By shaking up Springfield he meant ripping everything up and starting from scratch (his way)apparently. So much for cooperation, cohesion, working together to get things done. At this rate, no one will even want to be in the same room together to get anything done. Alienation seems to be modus operandi. More chaos is just what Illinois needs ?
Comment by AnonymousOne Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 11:14 am
The reality of the situation, at least as far as the pension clause goes, it the courts don’t have much wiggle room. It’s pretty clear the clause means what it says and almost everyone, including Rauner at one time, have said so. The only wiggle room is trying to find an end run around the clause, like “police powers” … and that doesn’t appear likely to happen.
So I don’t understand what Rauner hopes to accomplish by his attack on the courts. The only semi-logical explanation is that he is playing a long game for public support for a constitutional amendment. If that’s not his game, then the only explanation is my father-in-law’s favorite expression from his Navy CPO days; “He’s %&$*& nuts!”
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 11:16 am
If the governor seriously thinks this sentence is “vague language”, we need to child-proof the governor’s mansion ASAP.
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 11:22 am
Langhorne–it’s been pretty quiet, but the Ill. Judges Association and Ill. State Bar Association did call Rauner out. Here’s a link:
http://www.chicagolawbulletin.com/Articles/2015/04/08/Rauner-Illinois-Courts-04-08-15.aspx
Comment by Crispy Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 11:26 am
Of course Rauner wants to appoint judges. It would save Rauner and his billionaire cohorts a lot of money if they only have to buy the governorship instead of all of the judgeships too.
Comment by chi Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 11:27 am
So, Rauner’s point on revenue is that we can’t just pour more money on a broken system. I grok that reasoning; the system will remain broken, there will just be more money sloshing through it. I don’t entirely agree (sometimes you need money to fix problems, but I see it).
But here’s my thing- taking money OUT of the system isn’t going to fix it, either. It’ll still be broken, it’ll just be broke, too.
Comment by Arsenal Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 11:30 am
Crispy, nice to see them fight back. This is outrageous.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 11:31 am
Let the Governor propose a constitutional amendment to appoint all judges, instead of electing them. Let’s see how far that gets in the G.A.
Comment by nona Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 11:31 am
Didn’t FDR take on the SCOTUS by trying to add members to the bench? Seems he didn’t like the make-up, couldn’t get rid of some of the more pesky jurists, and decided to stack more sympathetic judges. Maybe Gov Jesse Rauner, I mean Bruce Ventura, could try that.
Comment by dupage dan Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 11:38 am
It’s the “experienced adults” who got Illinois in this mess and stand to lose the most if structural change occurs.
Comment by Load and A Half Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 11:40 am
To actually “hurt” the very wealthy, their taxes would have to be raised astronomically. Unlike, say, working parents who can’t afford day care AND food and are going to have to make that choice because of Rauner’s budget cuts.
Comment by Cheryl44 Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 11:45 am
@ Dupage dan
FDR wanted legislation to add more justices and wanted mandatory retirement ages. Look up the term “the switch in time saved nine.” That was a totally different time. Rauner just shoots off his mouth because he can run the show because he flashes his money around and can extort people who disagree with him.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 11:52 am
“Whatnot?”
I’m embarrassed to live in a state with a Governor who can’t put a coherent sentence together.
Pretty soon he’ll be reduced to “um” and “you know.”
Comment by Sir Reel Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 11:55 am
No one ever said money can buy you class.
Comment by AnonymousOne Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 11:59 am
But if there is no conflict, why were judges left out of the pension reform?
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 12:03 pm
I think there may actually be a strategy to it all. And that strategy is disaster capitalism. Throw enough mud at the system, but don’t do anything to fix it. When it collapses, voters will approve solutions that would otherwise be unacceptable, such as a constitutional convention that returns us to pre-1970 rules on local government and pensions. It’s inherently reactionary, but I don’t see evidence so far that Rauner is anything else.
Comment by Angry Chicagoan Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 12:10 pm
Z to Gov: “Your excellency, it may not have been the best to criticize the Supreme Court justices when they are considering a ruling on pensions and will be asked to rule on a lot of our initiatives.”
Gov to Z: “I’ll fix it.”
(Quad-City Times editorial discussion)
Gov to Z: “How was that?”
Z: Sigh!
Comment by Norseman Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 12:16 pm
They say that you see the world through a lens colored by your own beliefs. Rauner can’t imagine anyone acting on behalf of the common good and against their own interests simply because he would never do so.
Comment by CharlieKratos Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 12:23 pm
So, to avoid a conflict of interest, maybe the Indana Supreme Court can hear Illinois cases and the Illinois Supreme Court can hear Indiana cases. I don’t think Rauner or Pence would agree to that trade. This Governor needs to play with the hand he’s been dealt. It’s too late in the hand to declare mis-deal.
Comment by Casual Observer Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 12:25 pm
@ Quizzical - Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 11:04 am:
“…We’ll know for sure if he comes out against ‘The War on Christmas’ this December.”
The war on Christmas is an annual event, with a kickoff shortly after Halloween.
Comment by How Ironic Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 12:31 pm
CharlieKratos, you just hit the nail on the head.
Comment by Concerned Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 12:34 pm
“But if there is no conflict, why were judges left out of the pension reform?”
The judges have a separate pension program that is in much better shape than many others. One of the things that gets lost in the pension crisis discussion is the fact that not every pension program was mismanaged or underfunded. A few are in healthy shape including the judicial system.
Comment by Upon Further Review Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 12:42 pm
==Rauner can’t imagine anyone acting on behalf of the common good and against their own interests simply because he would never do so==
Just the right kind of personality to be in the highest office of the state looking out for us right? Voters couldn’t see this before the election? I guess most people in Illinois love a bad boy. We’ve sure had enough of them as governors. There are probably many cheering on his chutzpah at going at the Supremes and look forward with delight on who will be next! Ole!
Comment by AnonymousOne Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 12:48 pm
As to the Judges Pension System, I think that the opposite is true. The judicial pension is in the category of the most generous in benefits with the worst funding. Check it out.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 12:50 pm
Maybe Rauner would prefer some form of publically funded elections… that would get rid of some of the conflicts of interests he is so concerned about. Oh wait that would also mean that he and his wealthy friends can’t buy elections… nevermind.
Comment by WAK Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 12:51 pm
In everything I hear and read, I just keep thinking:
“What (the frick) is his end game (in practical terms)?
If the answer is “he doesn’t have one”, this is going to be a long, long year.
Comment by Left Leaner Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 1:04 pm
==It’s the “experienced adults” who got Illinois in this mess and stand to lose the most if structural change occurs.==
I certainly hope with that comment you aren’t saying the Governor is an “experienced adult.”
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 1:10 pm
Just another day on the campaign trail — the campaign to save our souls, that is.
“He testified with many other arguments, and was exhorting them, ‘Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.’ Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand persons were added that day.”
Acts 2:40-41
Comment by Anon. Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 1:12 pm
These crazy statements come out of his mouth like an old habit. As a CEO, he could say whatever he wanted for years and the people usually had some financial tie to him or were peers. Now whatever he says gets recorded, remembered, and compared because it directly effects relationships needed to get the state’s business done. He badly needed some time in AA league before stepping into the Big Seat.
Comment by zatoichi Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 1:17 pm
The Judicial branch of Government has been a thorn in the side of Corporate CEO’s like Rauner for a long time. The way for Rauner to get around this is instead of Judges being elected, have them be appointed by panels, whose members will presumably be appointed by Rauner. Thus rather than have 3 branches of Government you basically have 2 branches as the Judical branch will be controlled by the Executive. The other day when Rauner made the statement of appointing Judges instead of electing them, he was advocating a dangerous idea to our form of Government.
Comment by The Dude Abides Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 1:17 pm
Casting stones at the IL Supreme Court will win you no favors Bruce. Get your head straight, take some accountability, and govern for goodness sake. Oh, news flash, your money doesn’t buy everything big boy.
Comment by BlameBruceRauner Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 1:25 pm
But it can buy more than it rightly should, like this office
Comment by AnonymousOne Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 1:48 pm
==I’m sure all of this polls well.==
I’m not sure … one of my not-government-nerd friends said to me the other day, “Hey, what’s up with this governor? Wasn’t his whole thing about how he’d change Springfield so it wasn’t corrupt? But he seems to be doing the same thing as the last guy, except he REALLY hates children.”
(That last was a reference to cutting the autism funding and to school district funding problems.)
Local parents who don’t pay a lot of attention to state politics seem MOSTLY to be hearing not the things he says, but the cuts he’s making to programs that affect families with children (and to what they’re hearing from local school districts about problems with state funding for schools, which is more complex, but they basically understand it as “cuts” because they’re not super-clear on how the funding works). And they’re not blaming Quinn; they’re blaming the current guy for (for example) all the low-income kids who lost daycare. Now and then one of the more politically astute says, “I know the legislature bungled the budget last year, but I don’t understand why they let the 5% tax rate expire if keeping it another year would have prevented this while they sorted it all out.”
Hammering and shaking upper-middle-class suburban parents by taking away programs for children is maybe not the best strategy for a Republican. I mean, wealthy business leaders is a great constituency, but there just aren’t that many of them … he has to keep suburban moms. (Well, I suppose he doesn’t, if he isn’t going to bother running for office ever again … but it’s definitely going to damage the party across the state if he alienates every suburban mom in Illinois and turns the Illinois GOP into the party that hates your children.)
Comment by Educated in the Suburbs Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 1:51 pm
Since when do experienced adults win elected office?
Comment by Filmmaker Professor Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 2:17 pm
Just imagine how probably most of the House and Senate Republicans feel about many of Rauner’s statements and actions since the election. I suspect most of them have traded their election night euphoria for midnight nightmares and alternating chills and sweats.
Comment by Buzzie Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 2:20 pm
===* I’m sure all of this polls well. “He’s shaking things up and attacking the status quo just like he promised!” But, dealing with this governor is kinda like dealing with newbie commenters here who believe all solutions are simple and everything is black and white. Experienced adults know better.
He could make a nuanced argument that direct election of judges has serious issues including requiring them to fundraise from potential litigants. I would argue that other systems such as the Missouri system with appointment followed by retention lessen some of the electoral pressures on judges.
Except Rauner isn’t arguing that. He’s stomping his feet and whining he didn’t get his way and so it’s corrupt. Walker points this out perfectly.
He wants his pony and he wants it with one horn and he wants it rainbow colored and if he doesn’t get it the process is corrupt. Clearly. Because billionaire.
Though as a minor criticism of Rich’s point, in this case it is a black and white case–it’s just that Rauner refuses to understand that it is so clear cut. The adult would recognize that in a rare case in politics, the interpretation of the pension clause is just that black and white.
Comment by ArchPundit Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 2:28 pm
As to the Judges Pension System, I think that the opposite is true. The judicial pension is in the category of the most generous in benefits with the worst funding. Check it out.
From the SRS Judges Retirement System website:
Funded Ratio as of June 30, 2013: 28.3%
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 2:46 pm
Most generous and worst funded. But nobody is screaming about those overpaid, under-worked freeloaders, are they? Why is that? We’ve heard precious little about the legislator’s and judge’s pension funds and benefits but plenty about worthless teachers and state workers. Why is that?
Comment by AnonymousOne Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 2:51 pm
JRS 6/30/14 34.8%
Comment by West Side the Best Side Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 2:57 pm
- Upon Further Review - Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 12:42 pm:
“But if there is no conflict, why were judges left out of the pension reform?”
The judges have a separate pension program that is in much better shape than many others. One of the things that gets lost in the pension crisis discussion is the fact that not every pension program was mismanaged or underfunded. A few are in healthy shape including the judicial system.
What color is the sky in your world? Next time before you type you may want to check out your preconceived notions of reality! Dope. Just the opposite is true….28% funded and average annuity nearly $90,000 a year vs 43% funded and $28,000 average annuity. By the way outside of IMRF they are all woefully underfunded and that is the issue, not mismanagement. Bone head!
Comment by Screwed Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 2:58 pm
All of this is why I held my nose and voted for Quinn.
And it was not an easy decision!
Comment by Federalist Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 3:17 pm
On any case a judge who may have been a swing vote will not be ruling in favor of Bruce the Almighty. As cases come down against him he can continue to play the victim. Poking a sleeping giant in the eye with a stick is a very stupid thing to do.
Comment by ROLLO TOMASI Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 3:27 pm
If West Side’s data is correct, JRS gained 6.5% in funding ratio from FY 13 to FY 14; must have had a good investment year. Another 10 years like that in a row and they might be fully funded. Many seem to forget that investments (probably the most important leg of the 3-leg stool of employer contributions, employee contributions and investments) goes a long way to making or breaking the solvency of the systems, and that SERS was 80% funded as late as FY 2000., primarily because of an outsized string of investment returns.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 3:34 pm
Six, for 2014 the Judges have the 2nd WORST funded ratio at 34.8%. The WORST is GARS at 17.6%.
http://cgfa.ilga.gov/Upload/FinConditionILStateRetirementSysFeb2015.pdf Page 27.
Comment by Norseman Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 3:37 pm
“If you go legal on us, I’ll hurt you and your family” “I will bury her” - Bruce Rauner. That should have given us a clue on what Rauner thinks of judical systems.
Comment by Joe M Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 4:17 pm
Maybe one of his staff can tell Rauner that JRS was not included in SB1? If any of them know anything about it, I mean…
Comment by Harry Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 4:22 pm
Norseman, not surprised that the legislators have the worst funded. Aren’t they maxed out at 85% if they hang on in the GA for 20 years, and they start vesting at 4 years, way before most of the other systems.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 4:43 pm
Norseman, my point at 3:34 was that, even though JRS is poorly funded at 34.8% in FY14, they were even worse at 28.3% in FY 13, and gained 6.5% funded ratio in one year. If we hit a booming stock market run for several years and money is invested wisely, it could take some of the pressure off. Wishful thinking for sure, but it could happen, as long as no further enhancements are made and no “pension holidays” are taken. Requires discipline(HA).
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 4:48 pm
Six, can’t disagree with your point. Discipline has and will continue to improve the funded ratio. I believe the discussion began with the false premise that the Judges were left out of SB 1 because their system was well funded. That’s not the case. They were left out in the hope that the exclusion would make it easier for the judges to rule in favor of the law.
Comment by Norseman Thursday, Apr 9, 15 @ 5:01 pm