Things got done during Quinn administration despite General Assembly preference for inaction

I can already hear the trash talk that will be spewed about Pat Quinn – the governor whose term ends Monday at Noon was a failure who brought down Illinois and whose very existence must be eradicated (along with that of Barack Obama) from history.

They’re the people who literally will be praying that Quinn gets smacked on the behind by the door that closes behind him when he leaves!

NOW ANYBODY WITH sense realizes how over the top that kind of rhetoric is. Because if anything, Quinn was the governor who managed to get a few things done despite the General Assembly’s desire at times to do nothing.

That attitude was most blatant with what Quinn had hoped would be the farewell gesture of his six years as Illinois governor – a significant increase in the minimum wage required of companies that operate in this state.

Anybody who ever claims that Democrats run roughshod over the desires of the people is absurd, and the minimum wage issue is probably Exhibit A in that argument. The Quinn years were nothing like 1995-96 when Republicans dominated state government, and it took the state Supreme Court to strike down the most egregious measures.

There was that referendum question that showed two-thirds of Illinoisans would have supported an increase. Yet the Legislature felt compelled to do nothing. There wasn’t even a token effort made on the issue.

IT IS BECAUSE Democrats, by their nature, are capable of being an ornery lot who can’t get along with themselves. The idea of Quinn leading some plot to impose his own will with a sympathetic Legislature doing his bidding is ridiculous.

It seems some people have watched the City Council way too much. Quinn is not Mayor Rahm Emanuel by any means!

There are the two issues that many political observers are citing as the key parts of the Quinn gubernatorial legacy – abolishing the death penalty in Illinois and actually approving the concept of legitimate marriage for gay couples (rather than having a court strike down the existing laws that banned such marriages).

Yet let’s be honest. Who thinks that Quinn came up with those ideas and gave them to us?

ELIMINATING CAPITAL PUNISHMENT in Illinois was an idea that had lingered for more than a decade since the days of George Ryan. Gay marriage came to other states, including some in the Midwestern U.S., long before it came to the Land of Lincoln.

It was when the Legislature could no longer resist the national trends that they finally acted as they did – and I’m sure there are a few people who believe now that there’s a Republican as governor, it is the first step toward repealing gay marriage and bringing back lethal injection.

Let’s also consider the ample problems our state faces in funding the pension programs maintained for state workers and educators.

How many years was the Legislature willing to ignore all the talk about how severe the debt had grown? How many “drop dead” dates passed before the Legislature finally went along with a Quinn desire.

AND HOW MANY of the legislators are secretly hoping that resolution manages to get shot down by the Supreme Court of Illinois – leaving state government (let alone the city and Cook County government problems that the Legislature also has to address) in just as big a mess as ever.

My own view of Quinn’s “legacy” is that he carried on his mentality of being the gadfly of Illinois government – the pain-in-the-behind who constantly pointed out the problems.

Back in those days, he often was laughed at, if not outright ignored, by legislators – who kept that same mentality in place once he became the head of the state’s executive branch.

I remember one legislator (a Democrat and member in good standing with the black caucus) once telling me that Quinn’s temperament was so quirky that he couldn’t be trusted to stand up in support for them. So they felt no compulsion to support him in return!

SO THAT IS most likely the Quinn “legacy;” not fully appreciated until after he’s gone and we see how much worse things can become (You know they will!).

And that date back in January of 2009 when Quinn entered the state Senate chambers to cheers from legislators in the moments following the impeachment of Rod Blagojevich now feels like it was even more distant in time than the Chicago Cubs’ last World Series title.

  -30-

Court ruling not the final say when it comes to pension funding reform

Organized labor is pleased with itself these days; they were able to get a judge to say that the state’s attempt to revise the way it funds pension programs for government retirees was flawed and qualifies as “unconstitutional.”

They’d probably use a more profane phrase to describe the reform, believing that it taps into previously promised benefits that retired state government employees were promised.

THERE ALSO ARE the people who were so eager NOT to vote for Pat Quinn in his recent unsuccessful bid to get re-elected as governor. They wanted to blame Quinn for the reform measure getting passed into law in the first place, and I’m sure they view the ruling of a Sangamon County judge last week as vindication of the justness of their position.

I’m not as willing to consider this issue done. Not by a long shot.

In fact, my reaction to the ruling issued Friday was something along the lines of “ho-hum.” This is a legal battle that is far from resolved. There are a lot of things that could change before we know whether the General Assembly has to start all over in trying to figure out how to close the gap in funds that could cause all of state government to come up short financially.

The ruling by a circuit judge was merely the first step in a lengthy process. No one should be assured of what the outcome of this case ought to be.

IN FACT, THE one positive I saw in the news coverage of Judge John Belz’ ruling was that the Illinois attorney general’s office said it plans to take its appeal directly to the Supreme Court of Illinois.

Not having to endure hearings, deliberations and a ruling at the appellate court will save a lot of time – particularly if the state’s high court follows the desires of the attorney general’s office for an expedited ruling.

For the sooner we get the Supreme Court to rule, the sooner we can resolve the funding shortfall that threatens the future of state government – one in which the pension obligations cost so much of the state’s money that the state can’t do much of anything else.

And anyone who watches court activity knows that judicial panels should never be regarded as predictable. Who’s to say how this case will turn out – even though I’m sure the labor interests are convinced the Supreme Court will merely reaffirm what happened last week.

MY OWN THOUGHTS about this issue are to realize how serious it is for officials to act on bringing pension program funding under control; and sooner rather than later. If the high court does wind up striking down what happened in the Legislature a couple of years ago, it means more wasted time.

And the attitude I get from some of the people upset with pension funding reform is that they’re not all that concerned with the financial status of the state – they’d be more than willing to accept the reform measure if they thought their pension could be exempt.

Then again, to someone who has worked a lifetime with certain expectations and who did not spend a lifetime paying money into Social Security, hearing talk of having their “fixed” incomes slashed to make up for past screw-ups by government officials has to be a bit insulting.

So where do we go from here?

I’M NOT ABOUT to predict how this problem will be resolved by the court, or if it will be resolved at all.

Labor interests got a victory in that when the appeal is heard, the burden of proof will be on state government to justify why their reform proposal should be taken seriously – rather than on unions to argue why it should be rejected.

I also suspect that by the time this situation is resolved, nobody is going to be all that pleased!

  -30-

EXTRA: Gubernatorial, el finito

Call me among the pathetic – insofar as the masses are concerned. I turned off my television and chose not to watch “Dancing with the Stars,” instead turning to WLS-TV’s web site to see the final gubernatorial debate live held Monday night.

Those who had no computer access had to wait for the delayed broadcast (at 10:30 p.m., following the late-night news). It reminds me of 1981 – when I listened to the Chicago Sting win the North American Soccer League championship that year on radio because no one would carry the NASL “Soccer Bowl” live on television.

SO WHAT DID we, the people (at least those of us with an interest in voting for governor), gain from this final face-to-face confrontation between Gov. Pat Quinn and his Republican challenger, Bruce Rauner?

There’s the ongoing problem of shortfalls in the amount of money needed to fund state-monitored pension programs. Quinn signed a reform measure into law, but the courts have not been favorable to it – and some people expect the courts will eventually strike down that measure.

Leaving Illinois with nothing in place.

Rauner wants to think that Quinn himself is to blame for this mess. “Pension issues are one of the biggest issues we face,” he said. “Quinn failed, then dumped into the Legislature’s hands this issue. It’s the governor’s obligation.”

HE ALSO SAID that Quinn has been eager to point out social issues, “because he can’t run on financial issues.”

Although I know first-hand from dealing with the General Assembly that any governor who thinks he can strong-arm the Legislature is going to find himself thoroughly beaten. Just look at what became of Rod Blagojevich – a Legislature that was more than eager to impeach when the feds began probing his administration.

So Quinn may have a point when he says, “I know how to work with legislators. My opponent demonizes legislators.” He also said, "I have a lot of power, and I have used it wisely," while downplaying the many moments when Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, has treated Quinn as though he ranks lower than a legislative page.

There’s also the notion that the General Assembly may consider a permanent boost in the state income tax – the increase that was supposed to be temporary and wither away after this year. But which Quinn says is now necessary just to maintain government.

QUINN HAS CONSTANTLY said he’s going to push this issue in the veto session come November (after the Nov. 4 elections), and twice reiterated that notion on Monday. “He (Rauner) doesn’t want the income tax, he wants the Bruce Rauner tax,” which Quinn defines as, “fees charged on services that apply to regular people.”

Although Rauner tried again (just as in the debate last week) to pressure Quinn to say he would NOT back the increase and would let the state funding wither away. Which came across more as Rauner getting overly preachy with his rhetoric. Move on, already!

One tidbit of interest – it has been reported that city Treasurer Stephanie Neely does not plan to seek another term in office come the 2015 municipal elections. Rauner on Monday said he plans to hire her to be a part of his gubernatorial administration and said Quinn “threw her off the ticket” when he chose former Chicago schools CEO Paul Vallas instead of Neely to be his lieutenant governor running mate.

If Rauner manages to win come Nov. 4, that is. Otherwise, Neely could wind up governmentally unemployed.

I ALSO GOT my kick from hearing Rauner refer to himself as a “nobody.”

As in, “I’m Nobody that Nobody sent.” As a reference to political science professor Milton Rakove’s famed book about Chicago politics during the Richard J. Daley era – which referred to what he was told when he, as a University of Chicago student, tried to volunteer his services to work for the local ward organization.

Somehow, I don’t think that a venture capitalist was the type of person who qualified as a “nobody” in Rakove’s mind!

Although I wonder if Rauner was trying to compare himself to the Roosevelt and Kennedy families when he pointed out their personal wealth. “You don’t judge a person by the size of their wallet,” he said.

  -30-

Has “shall” ever been such an issue? Pension reform wends way into courts

The lawsuits that were long expected against Illinois state government are now arriving.

Pension funding "reform" is going to wind up here, regardless of what route it travels in coming years

 

For the Illinois Retired Teachers Association managed to get their arguments against the pension funding reform measure the General Assembly managed to approve this year – and the teachers couldn’t even wait until the new year.

THEIR LAWSUIT IN Cook County Circuit Court got slipped into the legal process before Janet Davies could do her annual “sayonara” to 2013. Of course, there will be other groups representing various political interests who also will file lawsuits to make sure they’re represented in this political fight.

All of the groups that hate what the state Legislature did concerning pensions are going to want to claim it is their lawsuit that took down the law that is desperately needed.

All the people who are desperate to believe that the state is trying to resolve its financial problems at the expense of its retired employees aren’t going to care if their success in court winds up tossing Illinois government into an even bigger financial jam!

And all of those who just want to cause mischief for state government? They will be the big winners.

THIS IS ALL caused because of the fact that for many years going back to the 1940s, state government short-changed the amount of money it should have been putting into funds to cover the costs of providing pensions in the future to its retired employees.

Short-changing an expense works if you only do it briefly, then immediately come back and put a surplus of cash into the accounts to make up for the brief loss.

But as many people find out when they try doing the same thing to pay their own bills, the short-changed expense often does not get replenished in a timely manner. As time passes, it becomes more and more difficult to cover the cost.

In the case of state government, the debt had grown so large that it was eating up state funds that government officials would prefer to spend on other areas – such as education, health care, public safety or other programs.

THE COST-OF-living adjustments meant to account for inflation were causing the debt to grow so large. Something had to be done; something desperate and drastic.

Such as the limits on the adjustments in future years. The increases written into law won’t be as big. EXCEPT, …

The lawsuits are all going to find various ways of claiming that such a cut violates the clause in the state constitution that says public pensions are a “contractual relationship” whose benefits “shall not be diminished or impaired.”

They are taking such a literal, hard-lined interpretation that I suspect the masses of Illinois will become incredibly disgusted if they actually prevail in court.

THIS MAY BE one of those times when the fact that the courts have their own moments of being politicized may wind up giving us a benefit.



This year's issues will carry over into future

Because the perception by some political observers is that Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan’s influence over the courts is such that there isn’t a judge alive who would be willing to have his (or her) name on a court order that struck down the pension funding reform measure.

I’m not about to guess how this issue will eventually be resolved – other than to say that if “pension reform” does wind up getting struck down, any future attempt at reform by the Legislature will likely be even more punitive.

And we may someday see the organized labor interests that are desperately fighting against this version of pension reform wishing they had accepted it while they had the chance!

  -30-

EXTRA: A pension reform party split

I got my chuckle from Tuesday’s vote on pension funding reform from the split in the Kirk Dillard/Jil Tracy vote.

DILLARD: A "no"

Dillard is a Republican from Hinsdale wishing to be governor, while Tracy is a GOPer from Quincy who is Dillard’s lieutenant governor running mate. They ought to be a team.

YET WHEN THE vote came up in the Illinois Senate, Dillard was amongst the people who voted “no.” While when it came up in the Illinois House of Representatives, Tracy voted “yes.”

For the record, this was an issue that seemed to ignore partisan political lines.

There were many Republican officials who voted “no” to the plan that was perceived by some as an Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan proposal that was desired by Gov. Pat Quinn.

Yet would-be Senate candidate James Oberweis voted for it, as did gubernatorial candidate William Brady and Darrin LaHood – the son of the former Republican congressman and Transportation secretary, Ray LaHood.

THE FINAL VOTE in the state Senate saw 20 Democrats and 10 Republicans vote “yes,” with 15 Democrats and 9 Republicans voting “no.” Three Democrats voted “present,” while two Dems (including Donne Trotter of Chicago, who likes to bill himself as a political powerbroker who does great things for his legislative district) did not vote.

In the Illinois House, there were 47 Democrats and 15 Republicans who voted “yes,” while 22 Democrats and 31 Republicans voted “no.”



TRACY: Didn't follow her leader

Although before you think that this issue was completely bipartisan, keep in mind that within minutes of the final votes being taken, Republican gubernatorial candidate Bruce Rauner was quick on the draw with a statement condemning the government activity that occurred Tuesday.

Calling the pension funding reform measure a “small bandage on an open wound” that would “help (legislators) temporarily feel better,” he said that if elected governor, he would “shake things up in Springfield and deliver results that will truly bring back Illinois.”



RAUNER: Destined to complain

WHICH MEANS WE'RE still going to have to endure several months of his cheap, anti-organized labor rhetoric on the issue.

Rauner is not about to let the Legislature’s actions take away his pet campaign issue, and all the rants that go along with it.

Let’s only hope that it’s a rant that comes to an end in March, rather than lasting all the way through nearly a full year and the November general election.

  -30-

So much for pension funding reform this fall, gay marriage likely the miracle

There are those people who argued that the Illinois Legislature had no business contemplating measures to make marriage between gay couples legal – how dare they do anything other than try to resolve the problems confronting the state from pension funding problems!

Legislature soon to return for pension reform?

Of course, that’s a nonsense argument. Any public official worth a salt ought to be capable of addressing multiple issues at once. If they can’t, we ought to dump them in next year’s election cycle.

BUT I AM aware that our legislators – while capable of acting – often are not the most inspired of individuals. They don’t like to be bothered with more than one thing at a time.

Which means the passage of gay marriage on Tuesday probably means we’re not getting pension funding reform any time this week – the General Assembly’s fall veto session ends Thursday. No, I'm not overly impressed by the Illinois House action Wednesday that approved a measure altering the pension program for the Chicago Park District retired employees. It's so far from the overall solution.

Of course, even if the gay marriage issue had lingered on and on, it was unlikely the Legislature would have gotten around to pension funding – even if those Senate members of the committee trying to negotiate a deal did say on WTTW-TV’s “Chicago Tonight” program they thought action was possible.

I did find it interesting that House Democratic aides were saying a vote on the issue could come before the Legislature begins 2014 – which would mean a special session.

EVERYBODY RETURNING TO the Statehouse for one day of sitting around, waiting for the moment when they will be asked to vote “aye” on a plan to reduce the amount of state money that has to go toward paying for pension obligations.
 

Did gay marriage approval ...

Likely, somebody will have an objection to that plan – no matter what it is – and will file a lawsuit. Which means it will be years before this issue is truly resolved.

And if, by chance, it turns out that the Legislature’s actions are struck down by the courts, then we get to go through all of this again!

We did, of course, have the Legislature try to vote on this issue back in the spring – only to have the state Senate vote in favor of its version of a reform plan, and the Illinois House backing what it considered to be adequate reform.

GIVING TRUTH TO the old cliché about how perhaps Illinois, not just Chicago, “ain’t ready for reform.”

... really squeeze out pension reform?

Now I doubt most people really comprehend what the difference was between the plans, or even what the proposed compromises now being discussed truly are. That’s why it ultimately came down to people viewing this issue as a feud of sorts between House Speaker Michael Madigan and state Senate President John Cullerton, both Chicago Democrats.
 

Ultimately, our politicians are going to be asked to vote for something by placing their trust that this will work. And our state legislators, in particular, are an untrusting bunch.

Which is why I don’t see a sudden, last-minute, effort on Thursday that brings this issue to an end.

GAY MARRIAGE ULTIMATELY got resolved on Tuesday because Madigan put the screws to a few legislators to bring the vote total to just enough for the measure to pass – albeit with a delayed date of enactment (June 1, 2014, instead of immediately upon Gov. Pat Quinn’s signature).

He could never have gotten enough votes for the immediate enactment date. Nor could he swing over enough people to support anything resembling pension funding reform – no version of a reform plan seems to be just on the verge of having enough votes for approval.

Personally, here’s hoping that something breaks in the next few weeks that enables the conference committee to come up with something that can get a vote of approval.

Somehow, a special session some time in December might well be the best Christmas present (or belated Hanukkah present, since that holiday coincides with Thanksgiving this year) our Legislature could give to the people of Illinois.

  -30-

EXTRA: Will Ill. high ct. back Gov?

Will Ill. Supreme Court back Quinn?

So what happens if the Supreme Court of Illinois decides that Gov. Pat Quinn was justified, after all, in his attempt to deny pay to the state Legislature while the pension funding problems confronting the state were still pending?

It won’t mean the state gets the money back.

FOR THE ILLINOIS comptroller’s office made sure to rush out the checks for legislative salaries for August and September, and the General Assembly members have since received their pay due Oct. 1.

I don’t envision any of the 177 members of the Legislature chosen to do “the peoples’ business” being willing to “give back” the money they were paid – that’s three month’s salary.

Would you be willing to give back that much money from your own income?

All of this is a relevant possibility, because the Supreme Court on Wednesday issued an order saying it will hear arguments by Quinn and his attorneys to challenge the Cook County judge who last month ruled that he had no authority to withhold pay from anyone in state government.

TYPICALLY, SOMEONE WISHING to challenge a circuit court ruling would have to take their case to the Illinois appellate court for their part of the state. Only after that court rules would the state Supreme Court even consider hearing the case.

Wednesday’s ruling allows Quinn to skip a step and ensures that the Illinois high court will rule on the issue eventually -- although the case may not be heard (and ruled on) until next year.

They may well decide that the Cook County court (in the form of Judge Neil Cohen) got it right. Or they may not. I try never to predict what appeals courts do on any level! Judicial temperament can be so erratic and unpredictable.

QUINN: About his political ego now

There won’t be any financial savings to the state – other than the fact that Quinn insists he’s still refusing to accept a salary while the whole pension funding issue is pending.

BY THIS POINT, it’s personal. Quinn would like to have a court ruling that backs him up. Not that the public at large objected to the idea of legislators going unpaid (they probably believe the political hacks don’t deserve any salary at all).

But he’d like for history to record that he’s making some sort of effort – compared to the Legislature. Where the typical member doesn’t have a clue what is going on, and where the members of a special panel that are supposed to be studying the issue seem split.

Should there be an effort to protect the interests of state employees who have worked all these years with some expectation of retirement benefits? Or should this be part of an effort to weaken the influence of organized labor within state government?

It’s important to realize that this has become an overly partisan political issue, regardless of who one listens to. And one in which no one really has a clue if it can be resolved during the Legislature’s upcoming veto session – regardless of Quinn’s constant rhetoric that he’s doing everything he can to try to solve the pension problem.

WHETHER ONE WANTS to accept it or not, the Cook County courts put themselves into a political hissy fit when Cohen ruled.

Will the high court further enhance the partisanship with their ruling? We’ll have to wait to see just how more mucked up things can become!

  -30-

Legislators rush to the bank to get their money before a judge changes mind

“An extortionist” was the term used by one member of the Illinois General Assembly to describe Gov. Pat Quinn these days.

QUINN: A loser, for now

Of course, this particular legislator was snickering when he used the term. He could afford to laugh. For just a few hours earlier on Thursday, a Cook County judge issued an order that said Quinn was wrong to take actions that caused legislators to not get paid during the months of August and September.

THAT SAME JUDGE on Friday refused Quinn’s request of a stay that would allow for the governor’s salary ban to remain in place while legal appeals continue before the Illinois Supreme Court. Late in the day, an appellate court panel also rejected the idea of a stay.

Personally, I won’t be surprised if some judge somewhere manages to rule that Associate Judge Neil Cohen missed some esoteric concept of law and that his ruling is flawed. As it is, there are those who say that this was a purely political ruling that shows the high level of influence that Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, has over the court system in Cook County.

But it won’t matter from a practical standpoint.

Because Illinois Comptroller Judy Baar Topinka – who in recent weeks has bad-mouthed Quinn every chance she could get for this issue – was quick on the draw to start issuing checks to the Legislature’s members.

IN THEORY, THE people who received their monthly payments (the 1^st of each month) by direct deposit into their bank accounts had their money by Friday morning. Topinka’s staff said that all checks were in the mail by 3 p.m. on Friday.

I could just envision the outburst that would occur if someone gets a check in the mail in coming days, only to learn that a stop-order prevented them from getting their money.



Will Gov. Quinn glare at Daley Center ...

Particularly since it creates a situation where some would get paid and some wouldn’t – because the people with direct deposit already have their money.

And I doubt they’re ever going to be in a mood to give the money back.

IN SHORT, THE Legislature wins this fight in the short-term. The 177 members of the General Assembly to whom Quinn wanted to deny their salaries until a resolution was found to the problem of inadequate pension program funding will get their money.

The best that Quinn could hope for at this point is that he can find a sympathetic judicial panel somewhere that’s willing to re-impose his salary ban on legislators – and do so before Tuesday.

... while asking Supreme Ct to overrule?

Because that’s the beginning of a new month. We could well get legislators all gleeful that they got two months back pay, along with a little bit of interest, only to have them repeat this legal fiasco next week!

Now I don’t know how you feel about this situation, although I am amazed the degree to which many people who don’t follow the inner-workings of government don’t have any objection to the notion that the Legislature didn’t deserve to be paid.

MAYBE WE’RE GOING to see an outcry to the legislators getting all happy about being paid even though we still don’t have a solution to pension program funding problems.

Although the fact that nobody really likes Quinn all that much probably means they’re not going to get too worked up over his legal loss! This issue may well turn out to be a big “yawn” in the minds of the public.

Which is the sad part. Too many people don’t care enough to get involved. Which is why our state’s pension funding problems have lasted for so many years without solution – WITHOUT recriminations against anyone.

 

That pension problem is the REAL problem. And it is one that we don't seem to be focusing on in all this politically-inspired gibberish about compensation.

  -30-

Another month w/o pay for legislators; how much longer ‘til reform achieved?

Sunday was another milestone – two straight pay period for the members of our Illinois General Assembly without compensation.

QUINN: Daring the Lege to override him

For our legislators get paid once a month, at the beginning of each calendar cycle. So the action of Gov. Pat Quinn to refuse to pay legislators until they get off their duffs and approve something resembling a reform of the pay state-monitored pension programs are funded.

THERE HAS BEEN speculation in recent weeks that the committee of legislators that is trying to resolve the problem has some serious ideas.

We may be headed in the right direction. Or maybe it’s just an illusion – the same way that Chicago Cubs fans are delusional enough to think that their favorite ball club actually is headed in the direction of being a pennant contender in the near future.

Quinn, himself, didn’t do much to ease the tensions that now exist.

On Saturday, he defended his actions and said if the Legislature really hates the idea of not being paid (they didn’t get an August check, and now they’re not getting anything for September) they can go ahead and use their override power to take down the amendatory veto he used to strike their salaries from the state budget.

OF COURSE, QUINN knows full well the Legislature is not likely to do that. They don’t want the newspaper headline Legislature restores own salaries while pension problem remains to be turning up all over Illinois.

All over the country actually, because this is just the kind of story that could be spun by all the anti-government geeks into a government DEMANDING to be paid for doing nothing.

Dueling pension plans ...

That’s not literally true. But this is a move by Quinn that resonates with the populace, even if the electorate doesn’t think much of the governor himself. The reality is that he gets away with it because the public thinks even less of legislators than they do the governor.

All of this, however, is mere trivia. What we ought to be focused on is the pension question – the five programs overseen by Illinois state government that cover the retirement benefits of assorted public service workers and public school teachers outside of Chicago.

THE FACT IS that state officials all too often resolved financial problems of the past by short-changing the amount of money needed to fund the pension programs.

... from dueling leaders

When the state does that, it gets the same result as when you hold off on paying your bills in a timely manner – the debt accumulates and at some point you have to make an extra-large payment to get yourself caught up.

In the case of Illinois state government, that payment is now about $6 billion – which is about 20 percent of all the money the state will have to pay for all its daily operations for the current fiscal year. In short, it isn’t going to happen.

We all saw how Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan and state Senate President John Cullerton (both Chicago Democrats) came up with dueling plans, only to see neither actually pass.

WE NOW HAVE the legislative panel (with state Sen. Kwame Raoul, D-Chicago, as a member who could use the results of this issue to propel himself to higher office in the future) trying to come up with solutions.

There is speculation that the cost of living adjustments to the pension payments could be reduced for future years, but the state workers themselves would have to pay 1 percent less as their contribution toward their eventual pensions.

Which could be spun by officials as giving something to state workers (the reduction would mean more money in the employee pockets right now), in exchange for a little bit less come the future.



RAOUL: Pension problems jolt career

I’m sure there are those who will fault the concept. Although there is going to be somebody who will fault it no matter what happens; and will file a lawsuit to challenge it!

THE KEY TO comprehending this issue, however, is to remember that nothing is definite. The legislators aren’t ready to recommend anything for approval, which means the General Assembly isn’t close to voting to send something to Quinn for his final action.

There’s a good chance that nothing will be ready come Sept. 18 – the date when a lawsuit filed by the legislative leaders to force payment of their salaries is scheduled to come up again before Cook County Judge Neil Cohen.

In fact, I won’t be surprised if there isn’t a resolution to this issue come Oct. 1 – which would mean a third month without pay. And more confusion about the future – which our politicos always behave as though it won’t ever come if they just ignore it long enough.

  -30-

EXTRA: It’s now in the courts!

A Cook County judge is going to be asked to decide whether or not Gov. Pat Quinn overstepped his bounds when he decided to not pay legislators until they come up with a plan for revamping the way the state covers the cost of pension programs.

MADIGAN: Using his clout against Quinn

The lawsuit filed in our own circuit court system was filed by the legislative leaders (House Speaker Michael Madigan and Senate President John Cullerton) on Tuesday. They claim that the concept of “separation of powers” means that a governor doesn’t have the right to mess with the Legislature’s compensation.

AS THOUGH HIS authority merely extends to the state agencies. Or perhaps solely to the people who actually work on the governor’s staff.


CULLERTON: A legal sidekick

Which means this whole issue is going to become a legal battle over exactly who has to pay any attention to a governor. If it were up to the legislative leaders, that would be “zero.”

They’d want to have no one listening to him.

How else to interpret the line from the lawsuit that says, “If the governor’s line item veto is upheld, the independence of each member of the General Assembly will be forever compromised. Any governor will hold a trump card over a co-equal branch of government.”

IT IS INTERESTING that Madigan and Cullerton are the ones putting their names on this lawsuit. I guess it figures that enough people already despise the concept of Mike Madigan that his reputation can’t take a harder hit by being the “bad guy” who files a lawsuit to get paid without resolving the pension funding problem.

So to ensure that officials actually get paid (state Comptroller Judy Baar Topinka has said she’d cut the checks if a court told her to do so), this now becomes a legal issue. Even though I'm inclined to agree with Quinn when he says, "today's lawsuit ... is just plain wrong,"


QUINN: Another battle to undergo

Although I won’t be surprised if a local judge winds up ruling in Madigan’s favor. As an attorney, he has some serious clout in Chicago. The real trick will be to see how high up the legal ladder this case winds up going. Is the Illinois Supreme Court destined to have to take up this issue later this summer?

Then, there’s the real question; the one that will get lost in all the upcoming legal bickering that we’re going to hear – when will the pension funding problem be resolved? The two sides aren’t anywhere near close to doing that!

  -30-

EXTRA: Pat Quinn to Illinois General Assembly – “No pay for you!”

Gov. Pat Quinn kept at least one promise – he’s going to refuse to let legislators get paid for what he considers their non-work.

Speculation about such an act popped up right after the General Assembly voted this week to override his changes to the state’s new “concealed carry” law, while refusing to do anything with regards to the way the state funds its pension programs.

THE LATTER, AFTER all, was the official reason the Legislature was in special session on Tuesday. Instead, they engaged in their political putdown of the governor.

Which is what motivated the Mighty Quinn to take his action – deciding on Wednesday to use his amendatory veto powers to alter one of the bills that comprises the state’s budget for the fiscal year that began July 1.

Specifically, Quinn deleted the portion of state funds that covers the legislators getting paid for their work.

“Pension reform is the most critical job for all of us in public office,” Quinn said, in a prepared statement. “I cannot in good conscience approve legislation that provides paychecks to legislators who are not doing their job for the taxpayers.”

QUINN ALSO CLAIMED on Wednesday that he will not accept a salary for his work until the state Legislature approves something that he can sign into law to resolve the state’s pension problems.

Although the political skeptic in me has seen many officials make such a promise, only to learn later that they somehow conveniently “forgot” to refuse to take the paycheck.

So we’ll see if Quinn keeps true to his word on that point. But more importantly, we’ll also have to see whether the loss of income is sufficient to motivate the Legislature to act on pension funding!

Because the truth is that many of the legislators are not independently wealthy. They actually live off these salaries. I’m sure this will cause some harm to them.

ALTHOUGH I ALSO wonder if the legislative mentality is going to be more vindictive – remind Quinn that he’s nowhere near being Mighty!

Political payback? I can’t even envision yet how they’re going to come at Quinn. But I don’t doubt they will.

I’m wondering if the Legislature has the nerve to call itself into a special session so they can consider an override Quinn’s amendatory veto on the budget. Would they be willing to put themselves on the record as wanting their money – even though I suspect the gut reaction of the public would favor not paying da bums a dime until something is resolved!

It would take a special session, since the Legislature isn’t technically supposed to return to Springfield until late October, with the bulk of their business in the fall veto session to be done in November.

I DOUBT THEY want to go without pay (a base salary of $67,836, with more pay added on for senior members who hold leadership positions) throughout the summer.

But are they shameless enough to demand their pay, while continuing to claim that pension funding reform remains beyond their grasp?

It’s the Illinois General Assembly, so anything’s possible! And maybe it will take Pat Quinn adopting a Seinfeld "Soup Nazi" mentality on salary to jar something loose on this issue.

  -30-