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-

What’s more important to the political people; gay marriage or re-election?

Something I have learned over and over about the Illinois General Assembly is that it is a legislative body that likes to do things on its own time-clock and resents it whenever it perceives that someone is trying to rush them.

A house of inactivity??!?

Heck, one of the reasons that the last-minute bill back in 1988 that approved the funding for construction of a new stadium for the Chicago White Sox was controversial was that it got rammed through the legislative process when many political people would have just as soon put the issue on hold for a few years.

KEEPING THAT ATTITUDE in mind, I’m not going to be surprised if Illinois House of Representatives officials wind up doing nothing in coming weeks with the issue of gay marriage.

The bill that would allow same-gender couples to have legally legitimate marriages already has Illinois Senate approval, but has yet to come up for a vote in the Illinois House.

Back in May, state Rep. Greg Harris, D-Chicago, implied when he didn’t push for a vote on the issue that it would be something that would come up in the fall Veto Session.

Well, the Veto Session is scheduled to begin this week (although the substantive work by the General Assembly won’t take place for another couple of weeks).

DOES THIS MEAN we’re on the verge of a measure being sent to Gov. Pat Quinn for his approval? He has said he’d sign it into law the moment he gets ahold of it.

I was amused by reading the advance stories on this issue published by the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times – both of which seem to be as skeptical as I am that anything will happen.

Will we get an Illinois House version of this roll call?

 

The Tribune emphasized the Veto Session’s time proximity to the upcoming election cycle. Candidates for the March primary would have to submit their nominating petitions to get on the ballot by early December.

Meaning anybody who’s determined to keep the homophobic viewpoint as a part of Illinois would have an incumbent legislator’s “yes” vote fresh on the electorate’s mind. There’d be time to get themselves on the ballot and stir up resentment toward an incumbent legislator.

ALTHOUGH I WAS intrigued by a mention in the Sun-Times report, which says that some of the financial types whose cash props up political campaigns are eager to have a vote on the issue even if it winds up failing.

This rhetoric will rise!

Because they want it on the record who would vote “no” on the gay marriage issue – so they can start providing the funds to political challengers who could possibly defeat them!

The point of all of this is that no matter how someone votes, there will be someone else who will become offended. There likely will be somebody who loses their legislative post because of their vote on this issue – regardless of how they actually vote!

All of which makes me think the legislative leadership will take the politically cowardly (they’ll say they’re just being safe) stance of doing nothing. The bill likely will not get called up before the Illinois House.

AFTER ALL, THE point of the Veto Session is for the General Assembly to consider the bills that the governor spent the summer months vetoing. Other issues are supposed to wait until the spring. It is their chance to either override his intent, or decide that it’s not worth fighting for and they go along with it.

Will the next step take place this week?

For now.

This same attitude may well apply to the pension funding problems our state government faces. Nothing will happen because nobody can agree on what should be done.

Considering that Quinn has said he wants action on that issue before he’s willing to do much of anything else (particularly those tax breaks soon-to-be-formerly-of Archer Daniels Midland wants to stay in Illinois instead of moving to a place like Dallas), this veto session could be a whole lot of nothing.

PARTICULARLY SINCE THE one controversial amendatory veto by Quinn has already been dealt with – the General Assembly couldn’t wait until October to dump all over the governor when it came to the issue of “concealed carry” of firearms. They reconvened in special session during the summer.

That was more about the Legislature asserting its own self-interest. Which, sad to say, is the usual motivation for any time the General Assembly gets off its collective keister to do anything!

  -30-