Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Morning shorts
Next Post: Kirk a tossup? Plus: Oberweis goes negative
Posted in:
* Longtime Statehouse reporter Kurt Erickson backs a constitutional convention…
Q: Some pretty well-known and respected special interest groups are trying to convince Illinoisans to vote against the question of holding a constitutional convention. What’s up with that?
A: Everyone likes the status quo. These groups have gotten to be influential under the current system. They help control who’s elected. Why would they want to change that? Remember that when you go to the polls: your voice or their voice.
Q: What would be one reason to vote for a constitutional convention?
A: It should be pretty clear when you go into the ballot box. Because of the way lawmakers have gerrymandered the political map, it makes it nearly impossible for incumbents to lose. Out of 80-some races for seats in the General Assembly, just a handful are actually competitive. Think about what the current crop of incumbents has achieved in the last two years.
* The SouthtownStar’s living legend Phil Kadner also urges a “Yes” vote…
Other states have found ways to support their schools without relying so heavily on the property tax. So can Illinois.
But the state constitution needs to be changed to alter the way that legislators are elected, to threaten them with recall and to clarify the state’s responsibility for school funding.
Despite what people tell you, no changes in the constitution can be made without a final vote at the ballot box.
All the corrupt, powerful forces that have controlled this state oppose the constitutional convention.
If you trust them, vote “no” on Tuesday. If you don’t, vote “yes.”
* Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. will support a con-con today. From a press release…
Today, Tuesday, October 28th at 1:30pm Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr., and Alderman Sandi Jackson will join Lt. Governor Pat Quinn in endorsing a “yes” vote on the November 4 Constitutional Convention.
* Rep. John Fritchey tackles the pension issue…
In 1969 and 1970 when the pension guarantee was debated, it was decided that the particulars of how to fund the pension should be left up to the General Assembly. We have seen the profound error of that decision. In every single year since the ratification of the 1970 Constitution, the General Assembly has failed to put in their promised share of contributions to the pension system. More than once they actually attempted (sometimes successfully) to raid those pension funds.
If this was a problem that only occurred in one budget year, it would have long since been solved. This is a systemic constitutional defect that takes place year and year. It allows the state to delay meeting its obligations while the debt keeps on growing and growing. The state is in debt almost $111 billion (or twice the annual state budget) and a large part of that is pension debt. This debt prevents capital projects moving forward, puts a straying on improving education funding, and has drastic effects all across Illinois.
While some argue that the pensions are “safe” now, how could a system that doesn’t require the state to put up its fair share be considered safe? The fact is, the state is going bankrupt because of the recurring deferral of pension payments. Bankruptcy is the only situation when the pensions can be cut because a federal judge will come in and decide what bills can be paid and what can’t, and historically pensions haven’t done well in that situation.
Simply put, there is absolutely no risk to the pensions should there be a constitutional convention. Most importantly, the voters have to ratify any change that a constitutional convention proposes. Not even a single comma can be modified without voter approval. It is ludicrous to believe that voters will approve a “special interests” constitution.
Bethany Jaeger…
Elena Kezelis, former chief counsel for then-Gov. Jim Edgar, says she interprets the Constitution as protecting those who are fully vested in the pension system as having unalterable rights. She points to the back of the state Constitution, where a “savings clause” would protect every contract in place if a new document were approved. If another convention were called and pension benefits were revised, then she says that provision would grandfather in the existing pension contracts. Prudent drafters would include that kind of language again, she says.
The question is, she says, how delegates and how courts would define the point at which current state employees are vested into a contractual right that cannot be taken away from them.
* Jim Edgar urges a No vote…
“Our constitution, regarded as one of the best in the nation, certainly does not require the sweeping rewrite that a convention could produce. Like the U.S. Constitution, it is an enduring, broadly worded document that protects our rights, lays out a sound framework for governing and is insulated from the passions of the moment.”
* Patterson has the top donors to the Alliance to Protect the Constitution…
1) Illinois Federation of Teachers and affiliated: $300,000
(2) Illinois Education Association/National Education Association: $225,000
(3) Exelon: $100,000
(4) Illinois Coalition for Jobs, Growth, and Prosperity: $92,500
(5 - tie) American Insurance Association: $50,000
(5 - tie) Health Care Services Corp: $50,000
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Oct 28, 08 @ 10:18 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Morning shorts
Next Post: Kirk a tossup? Plus: Oberweis goes negative
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Reps. Fritchy & Tyron are right to bring up the bankruptcy issue. I had a conversation with a state pensioneer last week and actually said the words: “Just because it’s in the Constitution you think your pension is safe?” Incredible that a state would let its accounts get so far in the red that you have to question it, but that’s the state we’re in…
Comment by Vote Quimby! Tuesday, Oct 28, 08 @ 10:28 am
===The fact is, the state is going bankrupt because of the recurring deferral of pension payments.===
Only reason?? I think not.
Edgar is correct.
=== does not require the sweeping rewrite that a convention could produce. ===
I have respectfully watched the debate, and will continue to do so. However, simply put, in my mind, no one has convinced me a con-con is going to achieve the accomplishments the pro-cons have lauded. If we have a con-con, I don’t believe anything of any substance can be achieved.
Simply put, I do believe this is a knee jerk reaction to the state of the economy, the state of the State, and the behavior of our Governor and Legislature. It’s merely a coincidence that we are able to vote on a con-con during these times of despair. If we were all high on the hog, no one would be complaining.
There will always be was to manipulate a document, no matter how sacred. That’s why we have so many lawyers.
Vote no.
Comment by BandCamp Tuesday, Oct 28, 08 @ 10:39 am
I found Mr. Erickson’s column mostly glib. His views are cliche for the most part, not really insightful. His rationale on the con-con makes me wince: “Because of the way lawmakers have gerrymandered the political map, it makes it nearly impossible for incumbents to lose.” I believe that when the 1990s district map was drawn, Republicans controlled the map boundaries. The Democrats in the House were able to regain the majority after only a two-year span. Districts may be gerrymandrered by either party, but it not impossible for the minority party to gain the majority, as the House Dems proved.
Comment by Captain Flume Tuesday, Oct 28, 08 @ 10:50 am
Interesting comments from John Fritchey since he voted for the last Madigan pension holiday in 2005.
Comment by Bill Tuesday, Oct 28, 08 @ 10:52 am
Well that really seals the deal for me - if the Teachers union is the biggest contributor to pushing the “no” vote, I’m absolutely sure the right choice is “yes”. I don’t have anything against teachers themselves, but IMO the powers that be behind them are some of the most powerful and conniving individuals in this state. Whenever a teacher issue is up for vote, they push the angle of your kids’ teachers being in jeapordy, and they are entrusted to educate our young, etc, etc, as if nobody else in our society serves a remotely significant function just because they’re not educating kids. They’ve managed to position their employees to be virtually untouchable once they’re on the job a few years, and then all pay scales and retirement benefits are guaranteed. In my kids’ school, there’s one teacher that everyone knows is the single person that you absolutely don’t want your kid to end up with in that grade. In almost any other sector of our society, that person would be in jeapordy of losing their job unless their performance improved. Not so in this case. We’re stuck with her, like it or not. How do we put up with that type of system? This only serves to hurt the vast majority of teachers, who are great at what they do, because it creates a valid reason complaint about the manner in which they function. I wouldn’t begrudge them their guaranteed retirement benefits nearly so much if I knew they were held accountable for their job performance in some manner. (I won’t even get into the side issue of the huge raises just before an administrator retires to boost pension benefits - that is quite simply criminal)
Comment by BigDog Tuesday, Oct 28, 08 @ 10:52 am
It will be any minute until Blagoof joins your crusade as a “yes” vote….good riddance…he can’t wait to be out of the media spotlight….maybe you could sign up Kass too!
Comment by 2ConfusedCrew Tuesday, Oct 28, 08 @ 10:55 am
The Jacksons participation is interesting. My guess, and it is only a guess, is that they would run a slate of delegates independent of the other powers-that-be, i.e. Beavers, Stroger, et. al., in their continuing efforts to gather political power to themselves on the South Side.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Oct 28, 08 @ 10:59 am
===Simply put, there is absolutely no risk to the pensions should there be a constitutional convention.===
This is a lie as I have repeatedly pointed out here through numerous specific examples as well as general points of law and the reliability of the same Supreme Court that selected George Bush as president.
Comment by Bill Tuesday, Oct 28, 08 @ 11:01 am
Well I like to see Jackson take the lead on this. Just concerned about what they would like to see in the state constitution though.
Comment by Levois Tuesday, Oct 28, 08 @ 11:04 am
===This is a lie as I have repeatedly pointed out here through numerous specific examples as well as general points of law and the reliability of the same Supreme Court that selected George Bush as president. ===
Repunctuated in the interest of accuracy:
This is a lie:
I have repeatedly pointed out here through numerous specific examples as well as general points of law and the reliability of the same Supreme Court that selected George Bush as president.
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Oct 28, 08 @ 11:12 am
This week, the Illinois Center Right Coalition (ICRC) passed a resolution, to endorse a yes vote, on the con. con. The ICRC is a conservative group that was founded, in 2003, to recruit conservative candidates, endorse them, give donations to them, and find volunteers for them. The steering committee has included John Cox, Jim Oberweis, Pat O’Malley, Steve Rauschenberger, Chad Koppie, Mike Psak, Norm Hill, John McNeal, and Bob Redfern. Please read our site, www.illinoiscenterright.com.
Comment by Phil Collins Tuesday, Oct 28, 08 @ 11:37 am
The cast of characters who have dumped resources into the “no” push are reason enough to vote “yes”.
Most people I talk to are very adamant in their dislike of special interests and their control over state institutions. Here’s your chance to put it back in their face.
If a new constitution is put forth with a clause ending all current state contracts, the U.S. Supreme Court would hear the case as an original case - and it would be an immediate hearing.
The fearmongering on this is silly.
Comment by Team Sleep Tuesday, Oct 28, 08 @ 11:45 am
Phil,
Thanks for another reason to vote NO!
Comment by Bill Tuesday, Oct 28, 08 @ 11:45 am
Fritchey should stick to his day job. Oh, never mind.
He writes=In every single year since the ratification of the 1970 Constitution, the General Assembly has failed to put in their promised share of contributions to the pension system. More than once they actually attempted (sometimes successfully) to raid those pension funds=
Absolutely incorrect. Were the pensions funded according to an actuarially-based funding plan? No. Were they funded according to the law on the books at the time? Yes, with a couple debatable exceptions.
Will a new Constitution fix this? Probably not.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Tuesday, Oct 28, 08 @ 1:29 pm
If it does not pass, the overreach on the language and the refusal of some clerks to hand out the new language flier guarantees that it will show up on the ballot in 2010.
They would have been wiser to have the same question as in 1988 and then put a couple of amendments on the ballot as proof of the way they claim it can be changed.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Oct 28, 08 @ 1:57 pm
It’s possible for the minority party to become the majority party under the current system, all right - if they’re able to elect a majority to the state supreme court (now there’s a change that needs to be considered) and/or if they win the crazy game of decennial Russian roulette that passes for a reapportionment system.
Comment by Excessively rabid Tuesday, Oct 28, 08 @ 2:12 pm
Were they funded according to the law on the books at the time? Yes, with a couple debatable exceptions.
But wasn’t this because laws were passed that temporarily udid other laws, allowing “pension holidays” and the like? Where would we be if all the payments were made according to the 1994 “Pension Ramp” legislation?
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Tuesday, Oct 28, 08 @ 4:39 pm
I think the con con is toast.
The best way to pass it is to have a poster of Bill’s writings put up on display. That would stampede the public to do the right thing and vote for a new deal.
Comment by plutocrat03 Tuesday, Oct 28, 08 @ 5:39 pm
I do not think the time is right for the C.C.
As the political winds blow, I can just imagine the powers that be, Blago, Jones, Daley, and all those that live within a mile or so of eachother, in some smoke filled back room drafting the Chicago Benefit Document also called the Illinois Constitution…… Something smells bad-here!
Although, I see some benefits and good points made, most people just don’t trust the current administration with this task.
A Democrat bunch that can’t get along, a Governor being investigated, and a bunch that already has already passed legislation to give over 100 million to Illegals, free housing, free childcare, free healthcare, can’t pass a Capitol Bill, State ranks with the highest on job loss, Pass a deficit budget……I really don’t think this is the right time!
Comment by Big W Wednesday, Oct 29, 08 @ 7:05 am