Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Inside the secretive “working groups”
Next Post: That 70s show
Posted in:
* November 20, 2014…
Making his first post-election appearance at the Capitol on Thursday, Gov.-elect Bruce Rauner said he hopes the Illinois Supreme Court eventually will provide guidance on what changes are acceptable when it comes to fixing the state’s more than $100 billion debt in the government worker pension system. […]
“My preference is probably to wait until the Supreme Court rules so we have some ground rules for what probably works and won’t work. I think that’s the smarter way to do it,” Rauner said.
* November 25, 2014…
Republican Gov.-elect Bruce Rauner said Monday that he was hardly surprised by a judge’s ruling last week that found Democrats’ landmark 2013 pension reform law to be unconstitutional.
But he said he hoped future appeals of the decision would supply a blueprint for what type of reform might pass constitutional muster. […]
“Hopefully they will give us some feedback that will help guide the discussion for future modifications as appropriate for the pensions,” Rauner said.
* May 9, 2015…
Rauner said he didn’t appreciate several suggestions for pensions fixes that the Supreme Court included in its 38-page decision. The unanimous decision included suggestions by the court that the state raise new revenue or enact a new schedule for repaying pension debt.
“I’m not sure it makes sense for the judiciary to comment on government policy. I think it’s their role to interpret the law, the existing law,” Rauner said.
Apparently, the governor didn’t get the guidance he wanted, so he slammed the justices for exceeding their constitutional roles.
Sheesh.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, May 11, 15 @ 9:29 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Inside the secretive “working groups”
Next Post: That 70s show
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Sheesh is right …and kind…..OW is right RNUG is we are in for an interesting summer
Comment by Illinois Manufacturer Monday, May 11, 15 @ 9:32 am
Just like the overwhelming vote in favor of the millionaire tax. If he doesn’t like the result, just toss it and disregard.
Comment by AnonymousOne Monday, May 11, 15 @ 9:33 am
Attention Governor, Bozo is on line one
Comment by Precinct Captain Monday, May 11, 15 @ 9:34 am
Obviously his November, 2014 comments came before he realized the Supremes were a bunch of corrupt insider cronies. Duh!
Comment by Johnny Pyle Driver Monday, May 11, 15 @ 9:38 am
==suggestions by the court that the state raise new revenue==
Earth to Illinois: You need new revenue.
Comment by Roamin' Numeral Monday, May 11, 15 @ 9:39 am
And this is the person the majority of voters in the last election wanted!?!?
Comment by forwhatitsworth Monday, May 11, 15 @ 9:39 am
Reminds me of the default Republican position to whine about “activist judges” in any instance where the “activist judge” rules contrary to the Republican preferred position. If the “activist judge” rules the other way, then it’s a simply a well reasoned victory for conservatism.
Comment by slow down Monday, May 11, 15 @ 9:40 am
Second public slamming of the ISC. Cannot understand why he is not getting better advice from his inner circle. To let him make those statements just proves how dysfunctional his machine is, and why Durkin has no chance to rein him in. Good luck, ILGOP.
Comment by Now What? Monday, May 11, 15 @ 9:40 am
What do we expect from a court that is part of a corrupt system?
Comment by Anonymous Monday, May 11, 15 @ 9:41 am
Bruce it’s time for the rubber to meet the road. We need to raise the income tax, cut our 7000 governments in half. And Chicago should have 25 wards. And privatize every thing that can be.
We owe what we owe.
Comment by Mokenavince Monday, May 11, 15 @ 9:42 am
“What do we expect from a court that is part of a corrupt system?”
Poe’s law: Without a clear indicator of an author’s intention, it is often impossible to tell the difference between an expression of sincere extremism and a parody of such extremism.
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Monday, May 11, 15 @ 9:44 am
The ‘guidance’ was proof that this isn’t an emergency- there are other options to using police powers.
Surprised BVR didn’t mention the shot fired across his bow about about changing the pensions in regards to the 14th amendment (US).
Comment by Tornadoman Monday, May 11, 15 @ 9:46 am
“My Preference”
“I think”
“Hopefully they will give us”
“I’m not sure”
“I think”
It’s all about Bruce with no regards to any insight from anyone else.
Comment by throwing Stones Monday, May 11, 15 @ 9:48 am
Isn’t that how you run government like a business?
The CEO sends the middle management back to their cubicles and exclaims, “and don’t come back here until you come up with the solution I asked for.”
If you know what’s good for you …
Comment by Wallinger Dickus Monday, May 11, 15 @ 9:50 am
The governor apparently thought he and his friends had paid enough in campaign contributions to the justices to win — or at least get “guidance” that he would like.
I don’t like electing judges, but the Court did itself proud this time.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, May 11, 15 @ 9:51 am
“No, no, no, no, no. That’s not the guidance we need. We already knew that stuff! we need the guidance on how we can constitutionally stick-it to public employees and retirees. Oh yeah and corrupt unions too.”
Comment by kimocat Monday, May 11, 15 @ 9:51 am
The Supremes went yard in their unanimous smack down. The decision read like a ray of sunshine, cutting through all the cynical nonsense of the boodlers and cheap hustlers.
Quinn and the GA were hardly profiles in courage passing SB1 to get the hysterics and thieves off their backs prior to the election. And let’s not forget, Rauner said it didnt go far enough in stealing from employees and retirees. But it was probably necessary to get a definitive ruling.
And we got one, with the bark on. Hopefully, Ty and the Tribbies will pile back into the clown car and go home and get their shine boxes.
The grown ups have spoken, finally, thankfully.
Comment by Wordslinger Monday, May 11, 15 @ 9:51 am
The Governor made a big point about requesting “guidance” from the Courts. Sometimes, it’s best to be careful what you ask for because you may indeed get it. He absolutely looks like a rank amateur.
Comment by Stones Monday, May 11, 15 @ 9:52 am
That’s his way of doing business. You don’t agree with me, you’re wrong. The venture capitalist way.
You know what always puzzled me..there are plenty of business guys out there who know how to compromise to get things done. Why can’t he grasp this? He could be a very, very popular governor if he wanted to be if he dropped the my way or the highway act and learned how to listen. Instead, it seems like welcomes the road less traveled.
Maybe he’s right with his way of thinking. But I don’t think so. I guess we’ll see!
Comment by Corporate Thug Monday, May 11, 15 @ 9:52 am
At age 66, when I say stuff, and then forget I said it, like this, I chalk it up to early-onset alztimers…what’s his excuse???
Comment by downstate commissioner Monday, May 11, 15 @ 9:55 am
Rauner (and others) are like a record stuck in one track, over and over again. He is determined to ruin the financial lives of public employees, for whatever fetish reason that might be. There is no other way to get money for programs than by sticking it to the public servants. No advice needed, no guidance needed. All efforts, all energy, all attention must be paid to grabbing what is left of these peoples’ money and dignity, apparently. This is what has been elected.
Comment by AnonymousOne Monday, May 11, 15 @ 9:55 am
Ah yes, that activist liberal trial lawyer lackey, Justice Lloyd Karmeier.
Comment by Juvenal Monday, May 11, 15 @ 9:56 am
Don’t tell me what you think, tell me what I want to hear.
Comment by The Colossus of Roads Monday, May 11, 15 @ 9:56 am
Rauner is the 5th grader during recess trying to play a game with 8th graders, and the 5th grader can’t conprehend the questions he’s asking, and worse, the answers he’s getting from the 8th graders to his questions.
Campaigns are hard, governing is difficult.
Rauner lacks the real working knowledge of governing within the 3 co-equal branches, and those branches doing 2 important things;
Governing together, and governing under the “rules”… the Constitution.
I guess “some” governmental experience is good?
Yikes.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, May 11, 15 @ 9:56 am
==== forwhatitsworth - Monday, May 11, 15 @ 9:39 am:
And this is the person the majority of voters in the last election wanted!?!?====
Answer: YES. Something to keep in mind. I do think the ISC made clear why they ruled the way they did. Guidance??? Not sure we got so much of that. Not sure we need them to propose a legislative solution, perhaps just comment on the constitutionality or not of the one in front of them and why. I think they mostly did that.
Comment by A guy Monday, May 11, 15 @ 9:57 am
Will the “real” Bruce Rauner please come forward? Does anyone remember the movie “Sybil” with Sally Fields?
Comment by Minnow Monday, May 11, 15 @ 9:59 am
It is apparent from comments made on Friday and over the weekend that Rauner wants to remove the Pension Protection Clause (Art. XIII Sec. 5) from the Illinois Constitution, and if/when that is accomplished (2017 at the earliest) implement his plan to switch current employees into Tier 2 for future work. However, if you read the ISC ruling carefully, it is fairly obvious that even without Article XIII Sec. 5 the ISC will not allow changes to the pensions of both current employees and retires based on the contracts clauses of the Illinois Constitution (Art. I, Sec. 16) and the US Constitution (Art. 1, Sec. 10, Clause 1). In paragraphs 60-69 of the ISC ruling, the justices discuss at length how the state’s police powers defense to alter pension contracts falls short based on these contract clauses and NOT solely on the pension protection clause.
Based on paragraphs 60-69 of the ISC ruling, I can predict with virtually 100% certainty that if Rauner and the legislature attempt to get around the ruling by repealing the pension protection clause, then even if they succeed with the public they will fail with the ISC. Another 3 years will be wasted with nothing accomplished.
Comment by Andy S. Monday, May 11, 15 @ 9:59 am
- Guidance??? Not sure we got so much of that. -
Maybe you wouldn’t worship Bruce so much if you’d actually read what he says. Like when he said he wanted guidance, and then when he said he wished the supremes hadn’t provided guidance.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, May 11, 15 @ 10:00 am
Aren’t those ISC justices from each party in a unanimous vote?
Comment by stlboy Monday, May 11, 15 @ 10:00 am
Lol Rich. Lol.
Comment by Austin Blvd Monday, May 11, 15 @ 10:02 am
RAISE TAXES-nuff said.
Comment by BlameBruceRauner Monday, May 11, 15 @ 10:05 am
“Not sure we need them to propose a legislative solution, perhaps just comment on the constitutionality or not of the one in front of them and why. I think they mostly did that.”
Sorry, that’s why we have an Attorney General. If you have a question about a proposed law, the legislature can ask for an opinion on that law. But they can’t just hop across the street, one block down and ask the court. It’s called separation of powers. That’s why we had to wait so long for this ruling. I’m sure the Sen Pres would have loved to know this ruling in advance when everyone and his brother was telling him they had a better way.
Comment by Not quite a majority Monday, May 11, 15 @ 10:05 am
The Supreme Court has in past decisions made suggestions about legislative changes because they know they do not make laws. No one else in the executive or legislative branches has had a problem with that previously. This is especially hypocritical based on earlier comments inviting feedback.
Comment by West Side the Best Side Monday, May 11, 15 @ 10:07 am
Andy S. said it well. It is time to end the obsession with taking more (again) from the public pension system. Move along. There are other options as the Supreme Court said. Sorry the other options aren’t liked, but those in the pension systems did like having their future retirement money spent on other people either.
Comment by AnonymousOne Monday, May 11, 15 @ 10:09 am
OW:
“…governing is difficult…”
For guys like “Sonny” especially
This is a Sonny moment if there ever was one.
Open the trunk and grab the machine guns, boys.
Comment by Austin Blvd Monday, May 11, 15 @ 10:11 am
Maybe Bruce should read the Illinois state constitution for guidance.
Comment by Shanks Monday, May 11, 15 @ 10:15 am
Guidance that helps me achieve my agenda - GOOD
Any other Guidance - BAD
Comment by veritas Monday, May 11, 15 @ 10:17 am
“And this is the person the majority of voters in the last election wanted!?!?”
Well, he’s not Pat Quinn, so, yes.
Comment by Arsenal Monday, May 11, 15 @ 10:20 am
These benefits, including promised future increases, are set by contract, according to the ISC. The “not to be diminished” clause was really just piling on.
Therefore, removing that Constitutional clause would have no impact on the legal restraints on Rauner’s potential plans, and there are other legal bases for the contract decision as well.
Not sure there is a state constitutional amendment solution here.
Comment by walker Monday, May 11, 15 @ 10:24 am
The smart thing for Cullerton to do is to offer up a Constitutional amendment that would give all retirement savings in Illinois the same protections as the ones for public employees.
Comment by Juvenal Monday, May 11, 15 @ 10:26 am
Walker: Bingo.
Comment by Juvenal Monday, May 11, 15 @ 10:26 am
I think it was appropriate for the court to point out that the state has the authority and ability to raise taxes, revamp funding, etc. It explains why they ruled the way they did. Truth hurts sometimes.
Comment by Soccertease Monday, May 11, 15 @ 10:27 am
How soon will a legislative committee be formed and how soon will they come up with new unconstitutional legislation?
Comment by Esquire1 Monday, May 11, 15 @ 10:27 am
There’s no state constitutional amendment solution to our problems today.
But (though I dislike admitting this in most contexts) as a long-term improvement, Rauner’s idea to get this pension language out of the IL Constitution is absolutely a good one.
It won’t solve our current problems, no question. But it would be a breath of fresh air if we were actually proactive in this state and looked forward to solving -future- problems, for future generations.
Because if we keep this pension language in, I predict 50-60 years from now, we’ll be doing this whole sad dance all over again. Let’s do the future a favor. Bonus points if we swipe out all the prohibitions on a progressive income tax, at the same time.
Comment by ZC Monday, May 11, 15 @ 10:28 am
let’s get this straight . Rauner criticizes the ISC for comments exceeding their authority but he wants ‘guidance, on what might be acceptable.
As usual Rauner wants what he wants, how he wants it and when he wants it.
I would agree that their suggestions on the state budget were out of line and smacked of judicial activism and overreach. However, that also means they rule on the laws before them and not stray beyond that.
Difficult concept of political zealots of either side to understand this concept.
Comment by Federalist Monday, May 11, 15 @ 10:30 am
Maybe he is just crazy-smart enough to want to throw every single option on the table, hope a few stick, then when he has to sign off on the inevitable tax increase, he can say he was truly out of options. Only thing I can figure.
Comment by Shemp Monday, May 11, 15 @ 10:30 am
Even when we separate his politics from his governing, we see failure with Bruce Rauner.
His Good Friday cutbacks were unnecessary and bad politics. His RTW-Pickett’s Charge is a continuing political bloodbath. His river of negative outlook for our state is bad politics. His insults towards the General Assembly and the party holding veto-proof political power is bad politics. His secret meetings are bad politics. As a politician, our new governor is a flaming Hindenburg of incompetence.
As a chief executive and top administrator, Bruce Rauner fails as well. A whole lot of bad politics can be overlooked if voters see someone who at least keeps the state running daily. What have they seen with this guy so far? A governor who refuses to acknowledge the importance of the other branches of government and their roles. A man who couldn’t assemble a budget beyond a pair of prairie chickens as a prop. A man who casts aspersions towards everyone working in state government. As a chief executive, Bruce Rauner is a flop.
If a governor can’t play the political game well, and can’t govern either - he is going to become irrelevant as our problems mount.
Can anyone save this governor, and would he even listen to anyone trying to save him?
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, May 11, 15 @ 10:31 am
Rauner is looking for a way to get out of paying for something. In the private sector, he would buy a company and have it go bankrupt. It seems he can’t understand a debt that he can’t get out of paying.
Comment by DuPage Monday, May 11, 15 @ 10:33 am
===Based on paragraphs 60-69 of the ISC ruling, I can predict with virtually 100% certainty ===
No, you can’t. The ISC focused solely on legislative powers, not constitutional amendments backed by a popular vote.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, May 11, 15 @ 10:35 am
Andy S. is right, but I don’t think the Governor will like his guidance either. Joe Sosnowski is already restarting a push to get his constitutional amendment bill out of the rules committee.
Politicians are elected and swear an oath to defend and protect the constitution. It is a shame that many of them instead try to use their office to attack that same constitution when it becomes inconvenient to them.
The Supreme Court has ruled. Accept that Governor. It is time to move on from the blame game and find a way for the state to fulfill its obligations.
Comment by Ronbo Monday, May 11, 15 @ 10:43 am
=== Rich Miller - Monday, May 11, 15 @ 10:35 am:
===Based on paragraphs 60-69 of the ISC ruling, I can predict with virtually 100% certainty ===
No, you can’t. The ISC focused solely on legislative powers, not constitutional amendments backed by a popular vote.===
Thank you for making this very important point.
Comment by A guy Monday, May 11, 15 @ 10:48 am
Just a couple of question on this idea of guidance: Is the ISC providing some guidance to members of the pension system with footnote number 3. I know contributors to Capital Fax have previously rejected the idea that the court would order state funding of pensions, but are we heading there? Nobody has asked the court to intervene on the funding side lately. I am not sure what constitutes imminent on pensions but has the state made the case for ISC intervention on funding?
Footnote number 3 on page 7 of Friday’s decision:
Consistent with an earlier opinion by this court in McNamee v. State, 173 Ill. 2d 433 (1996),
and comments at the Constitutional Convention, we did not, however, foreclose the possibility that a
direct action could be brought by pension system members to compel funding if a pension fund were
on the verge of default or imminent bankruptcy. Sklodowski, 182 Ill. 2d at 232-33.
Comment by ex-ISU Monday, May 11, 15 @ 10:48 am
Why would he want advise from Judges who were elected by way of a “corrupt bargain”? Just like waiting for leaders to call for his RTW, pension and other language. How many sides can one mouth have?
Comment by Obamas Puppy Monday, May 11, 15 @ 10:48 am
Same clown show…….same circus!
Comment by Bushwacker Monday, May 11, 15 @ 10:52 am
- Andy S. - @ 9:59 expressed a lot of my thoughts.
Rauner is going to try everything: a constitutional amendment, flipping employees to “Tier 2″ or “401K”, firing / rehiring and outsourcing. The only question is in what sequence and combination. Rauner is so used to circumventing the law on pensions and other debt during his bust-out operations he can’t conceive what he wants to do is mostly impossible under the law. The only place he may get a partial win is through outsourcing … but while it may have initial savings outsourcing usually costs the state more in the long run.
Look for 3 more years of lawsuits.
Comment by RNUG Monday, May 11, 15 @ 10:56 am
No such thing as an unconstitutional constitutional amendment. That’s an oxymoron, if the amendment is drafted broadly and properly adopted. A U.S. Constitutional issue would remain, however. http://wp.me/p2Oseh-6yM
Comment by WirePoints Monday, May 11, 15 @ 10:57 am
- ex-ISU -
I took that as a bit of a veiled threat to the General Assembly, something along the lines of ‘if you don’t get your act together, we could end up ordering a solution you may not like”.
Comment by RNUG Monday, May 11, 15 @ 10:59 am
As far as the guidance the court issued, the court simply pointed out possible solutions; they didn’t order any specific solution other than saying pay what you owe.
I suspect the entire opinion was carefully crafted to try to forestall the issue from returning to the court in the next few years.
Comment by RNUG Monday, May 11, 15 @ 11:02 am
RNUG–
Thanks. The problem with threats, veiled or not, is that sooner or later there has to be follow through on some of them or none have meaning.
Comment by ex-ISU Monday, May 11, 15 @ 11:03 am
I think the only obvious thing that can be predicted with 100% certainty is that it ain’t over yet. However, it is 99 44/100% certain the existing retirees won’t be affected (even BVR says so), that any potential savings from changing plans for existing employees is at least 5-6 years away with the ensuing political theater and court battles, and that someone is gonna have to figure out how to fund the thing in the meantime, and very probably into the near and distant future without too much outside help.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Monday, May 11, 15 @ 11:05 am
This sort of comment plays well to his base, most of which are uninformed about what his comments were back in November.
Comment by Anon Monday, May 11, 15 @ 11:10 am
ZC:
Although the idea of coupling a progressive tax increase with the abolition of the pension clause may seem like a populist “grand bargain,” it is just the sort of grans bargain that brought together the AFL-CIO and Illinois Chamber to oppose a constitutional convention.
Not impossible legislatively, but certainly unlikely.
Comment by Juvenal Monday, May 11, 15 @ 11:17 am
This wasn’t Rauner’s pension plan. He repeatedly stated that he felt it was unconstitutional before the ruling and while on the campaign trial.
Losing by a unanimous vote in the Supreme Court were Governor Pat Quinn and the legislature as it existed pre-November 2014. That harsh opinion was as to the actions of the pre-November 2104 group.
Tax increase to cover public pensions? The public won’t stand for it. Continued beating on public employees who played by the rules and paid into their plans by following the rules? Misguided and must stop.
This failure is on Illinois Government pre-November 2014. The Supreme Court detailed those failures in their decision.
So Governor Rauner, leaders Madigan, Durkin, Cullerton and Radogno, and members of the General Assembly. You going to continue those failures post November 2014?
Any adults in Springfield? Now is your time to step up on this issue.
Comment by Permanent partial disability Monday, May 11, 15 @ 11:17 am
This is the same guy that froze all NON-ESSENTIAL Spending and then hired a $100K scheduler for his wife….his hypocrisy continues to be his hallmark- Governor Hypocrite strikes again. Is anyone really surprised by his pivot?
Comment by Anonymous Monday, May 11, 15 @ 11:25 am
Tax increase to cover public pensions? The public won’t stand for it.
Unfortunately, this leaves only a few options, or combinations, available. Cut services to a heretofore unthinkable level, have a fire sale of state assets (with the tollway being the crown jewel), or find a way to raise substantial income (casinos, legal MJ, extraction tax on fracking) without calling it a tax.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Monday, May 11, 15 @ 11:25 am
I think the “guidance” was there and it was very clear. Our state leaders (gag) created this crisis…and will not be allowed to blame the workers and retirees for the failures of the GA and past governors.
Comment by Jasper Monday, May 11, 15 @ 11:26 am
=== Any adults in Springfield? Now is your time to step up on this issue. ===
We had adults in Springfield step up on Friday. Now you’re looking for adults in the Capitol Building. That appears to be a much harder ask.
Comment by Norseman Monday, May 11, 15 @ 11:27 am
In the case about county treasurer stipends, the Appellate Court ordered payment out of the general fund when the legislature refused to appropriate enough money to pay the constitutionally-required stipend. I think that footnote is a warning that separation of powers will not stop the court from ordering payment of pensions if the legislature actually stiffs anyone on a check.
Comment by anon Monday, May 11, 15 @ 11:28 am
*** The author’s words here are 100% snark ***
Pension problem?
Pffttt.
Implement the Koch Bros / Menard / Wisconsin solution:
1. Buy some puppets to serve as Justices of the IL Supreme Court
2. Tap the endless supply of Tea Party geniuses and let them *LEAD* IL TO PENSION *REFORM*
3. Have the Supreme Court’s new puppet Justices bless the *reform*
What’s the mechanism?
HJRCA0009
Filed with the Clerk by Rockford’s Rep. Joe Sosnowski (1/23/2015)
Added Co-Sponsor Palatine’s Rep. Thomas Morrison (2/18/2015)
Proposed HJRCA0009
proposes to amend Section 5 of Article XIII of the Illinois Constitution BY SIMPLY REPEALING IT
SYNOPSIS AS INTRODUCED: Proposes to amend the General Provisions Article of the Illinois Constitution. Repeals a provision that specifies that membership in any pension or retirement system of the State, any unit of local government or school district, or any agency or instrumentality thereof shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/99/HJRCA/PDF/09900HC0009lv.pdf
See below for links to their explainers - - in full glory - - which appeared in
1. Illinois Review | Crossroads of the Illinois Conservative Community
and
2. the Daily Herald.
December 10, 2014
Sosnowski: Real pension reform requires voters to change the state constitution
http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2014/12/sosnowski-real-pension-reform-requires-voters-to-change-the-state-constitution.html
State Rep. Tom Morrison of Palatine
3/27/2015 1:00 AM
Change in constitution is only permanent solution to pension crisis
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20150327/discuss/150329153/
Comment by zonz Monday, May 11, 15 @ 11:34 am
Meanwhile slumberin State Chamber has awakened and sent out this great website http://www.ilturnaround.com/page.asp?content=startpage&g=il_turnaround
Comment by Anonin' Monday, May 11, 15 @ 11:37 am
= Footnote number 3 on page 7 of Friday’s decision:
Consistent with an earlier opinion by this court in McNamee v. State, 173 Ill. 2d 433 (1996), and comments at the Constitutional Convention, we did not, however, foreclose the possibility that a direct action could be brought by pension system members to compel funding if a pension fund were on the verge of default or imminent bankruptcy. Sklodowski, 182 Ill. 2d at 232-33. =
IMHO, I doubt that we’re going to get to that point in the state’s retirement systems. But this could soon become very relevant to pension funds like Chicago’s multiple funds, or all those downstate municipal police and fire pension funds, many (most?) of which are in worse shape than the state’s. Local governments, even Chicago, simply have fewer options than the state to cut services and/or raise revenue.
Comment by cover Monday, May 11, 15 @ 11:41 am
Anonin’, I hope they didn’t spend much on that clunker.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Monday, May 11, 15 @ 11:49 am
- Juvenal - The smart thing for Cullerton to do is to offer up a Constitutional amendment that would give all retirement savings in Illinois the same protections as the ones for public employees.
Probably pre-empted by ERISA.
Comment by tominchicago Monday, May 11, 15 @ 11:54 am
Of course, bullies never like to take suggestions. It is their job to make them!
Comment by Big Mike Monday, May 11, 15 @ 12:15 pm
Juvenal 11:17 am -
I don’t disagree.
Way easier for the peanut gallery to throw up ideas, than for elected officials down in the trenches to enact them. Well aware of that.
Comment by ZC Monday, May 11, 15 @ 1:06 pm
may be too dicey (issue would be have US Govt occupied the field?)
====== - Juvenal - Monday, May 11, 15 @ 10:26 am:
The smart thing for Cullerton to do is to offer up a Constitutional amendment that would give all retirement savings in Illinois the same protections as the ones for public employees.
Comment by zonz Monday, May 11, 15 @ 1:44 pm
The ILSC quotes Article I-section 16 of the constitution that says no law impairing contracts shall be passed. Then down in paragraph 80-it says ‘It cannot exceed the bounds imposed by the
constitution or, through legislative DECREE seek to alter them, for the constitution; etc. Does that mean a resolution to put an amendment on the ballot would not be allowed since it ultimately would lead to a change in a contract? (I define a decree ‘as an initiative by the legislature’, which is possibly wrong on my part) All answers/comments would be appreciated.
Comment by Minnow Monday, May 11, 15 @ 1:46 pm
Rich, Wirepoints:
Here is Article 1, Section 16 of the Illinois Constitution:
No ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts or making an irrevocable grant of special privileges or immunities, shall be passed.
Are you saying, then, that a constitutional amendment is not a law (even though the legislature must pass it), so an amendment can be ex post facto and revoke a pre-existing contract?
This is a crucial question because in paragraph 61 of its ruling, the ISC cites an Illinois case from 1961 that predates the pension protection clause in the 1970 Constitution, but the ISC (in 1961) nevertheless ruled that a pension was a contract and diminishment of it violated the contract clause of the old constitution. The link to that case (Bardens vs Board of Trustees of the Judges Retirement System)is here:
http://law.justia.com/cases/illinois/supreme-court/1961/36073-5.html
Obviously the key question is whether the people of Illinois can unilaterally revoke an existing contract by amending the constitution, and whether if the legislature and governor attempt to do that, could the courts void such an amendment before it even goes to a popular vote?
Comment by Andy S. Monday, May 11, 15 @ 2:22 pm
Rich,
Whatever the people can do in amending the Illinois Constitution, it could delegate to have the GA do.
I do not, but apparently you DO think the IL Sup Court (and US Sup Court) would bless the following amendment to ARTICLE I, Constitution of the State of Illinois:
NOTE: the included language “within twelve months following the effective date of this provision of the Constitution” is optional but highly advisable
== Add New ==
SECTION 25.
DELEGATION FOR GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO SOLVE FISCAL CRISIS NOTWITHSTANDING ARTICLE XIII, SECTION 5 and ARTICLE I, SECTIONS 2 and 16.
A. We, the People of the State of Illinois delegate to our representatives as follows:
The General Assembly, by the vote of three-fifths of the members elected to each house within twelve months following the effective date of this provision of the Constitution, may by law find that the State government is in a fiscal crisis, and adopt a package of solutions it deems necessary to addresses the fiscal crisis which includes the diminution of the benefits of membership in one or more pension or retirement systems of the State, or units of local government or school district, or any agency or instrumentality thereof.
B. No law passed in accordance with the foregoing provision shall be declared invalid under the following provisions of this Constitution (refer to 3 sections of the Illinois Constitution - see below).
………………
………………
ARTICLE XIII, SECTION 5. PENSION AND RETIREMENT RIGHTS
Membership in any pension or retirement system of the State, any unit of local government or school district, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)
………………
………………
ARTICLE I, SECTION 2. DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor be denied the equal protection of the laws.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)
………………
………………
ARTICLE I, SECTION 16. EX POST FACTO LAWS AND IMPAIRING CONTRACTS
No ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts or making an irrevocable grant of special privileges or immunities, shall be passed.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)
Comment by zonz Monday, May 11, 15 @ 2:41 pm
i.e., limiting condition: vote must be taken within twelve months following the effective date of the Amendment to the Constitution
Comment by zonz Monday, May 11, 15 @ 2:44 pm
Reboot Illinois, the decidedly pro-Rauner news generator summarizes the ISC ruling well in two words: “Pay Up.”
Those looking for alternate meanings between those two words, via back-masking, and other methods would be well-advised to move as quickly as possible through the five stages of loss:
1. Denial (Rauner)
2. Anger (Chicago Tribune)
3. Bargaining (Cullerton)
4. Depression (Nekritz)
5. Acceptance (Raoul)
Comment by Juvenal Monday, May 11, 15 @ 3:12 pm
TO: WirePoints re
==========- WirePoints - Monday, May 11, 15 @ 10:57 am:
No such thing as an unconstitutional constitutional amendment. That’s an oxymoron, if the amendment is drafted broadly and properly adopted. A U.S. Constitutional issue would remain, however. http://wp.me/p2Oseh-6yM ==========
The 2010 & 2012 decisions in the California Prop 8 case discredit your 1st statement (”No such thing”), and validate your 2nd statement.
http://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/PB-CA-0029-0002.pdf
Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010)
On August 4, 2010, United States District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker declared Proposition 8 a violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, a decision upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on February 7, 2012.
see
1. http://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/PB-CA-0029-0001.pdf
2. https://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/prop-8-enbanc-denial.pdf
Comment by zonz Monday, May 11, 15 @ 3:22 pm
TO: Andy S. - Monday, May 11, 15 @ 2:22 pm
I believe mine @ 2:41 pm shows starkly by example why this idea of a Constitutional Amendment is so silly - - unless it addresses this:
SECTION 3. LIMITATIONS ON INCOME TAXATION
(a) A tax on or measured by income shall be at a
non-graduated rate. At any one time there may be no more than one such tax imposed by the State for State purposes on individuals and one such tax so imposed on corporations. In any such tax imposed upon corporations the rate shall not exceed the rate imposed on individuals by more than a ratio of 8 to 5.
(b) Laws imposing taxes on or measured by income may adopt by reference provisions of the laws and regulations of the United States, as they then exist or thereafter may be changed, for the purpose of arriving at the amount of income upon which the tax is imposed.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)
Comment by zonz Monday, May 11, 15 @ 3:31 pm
“Are you saying, then, that a constitutional amendment is not a law … so an amendment can be ex post facto and revoke a pre-existing contract?”
I would say that your question is mixing apples with oranges. An amendment allowing diminishment of pensions would only a law to be written to do that. If that law were to be ex post facto, or break an existing contract, unless *that* clause of the Constitution were repealed, then the law would also fall.
Comment by Skeptic Monday, May 11, 15 @ 4:25 pm
“…would only _allow_ a law…”
Comment by Skeptic Monday, May 11, 15 @ 4:30 pm
Six degrees of separation
All though I mostly agree with everything you said in your 11:05 am post,i have a nagging suspicion that when rauner says everything they have already earned ,he still believes he can get out of the AAI with a ca .
Comment by work in progress Monday, May 11, 15 @ 7:52 pm