This is our last weekend across the Lake.
Our timing could not have been more perfect. We have watched the Fall colors in their full cycle from green to brilliant red and orange.
We have driven up and down the west coast of Michigan up as far as Holland. If Romney is going to take Michigan’s electoral votes (which he is not expected to do) it won’t be from voters here. Not if lawn signs tell the story.
The other take away from being here is that our cable TV gets Michigan, Indiana and Illinois stations.
It’s been nearly unbearable non-stop political ads for Indiana governor and senator and local congressional elections. I read reports that this super PAC and that super PAC are going to do another multi-million dollar ad drop over the next two weeks. But I can’t imagine that there is any ad room left to fill. And it’s all just noise.
I also imagine that most people are DVRing right through most of them.
I get a certain pleasure in thinking that all that Koch brothers money is just being zipped through with the simple press of a remote button.
More important in Michigan is passing Proposal 2. That would restore collective bargaining rights – rights that the Tea Party Governor and legislature took away. I have a personal stake in this. The victory of Proposal 2 would be a major defeat for the people who went after me, who filed a FOIA request and got my work emails and personnel file. These are the folks Ben Velderman and Kyle Olson work for.
Yes. I know it isn’t just about me.
It’s for the working folks of Michigan. Teachers. Firemen. Cops.
And if I haven’t said it enough, if you live in Illinois and you read this blog then you have to vote against the Constitutional Amendment that would restrict public employees from bargaining contracts. Any compensation package that would impact pensions would require a super majority of say, a school board, to be approved. The most troublesome thing about this over 700 word amendment is that nobody knows for sure what it will do. It is really voting for a pig in a poke.
Vote no. Because a constitutional amendment requires 60% to pass, two no votes beat three yes votes. But if you don’t vote, it doubles the value of a yes.
Follow?
Doesn’t matter. Vote no and you don’t have to figure it out.
John Dillon, Glen Brown, and I will be speaking at Plymouth Place, LaGrange Park (315 N. LaGrange Rd.) on Wednesday (October 24) at 7pm. Topics will include the constitutionality of pension “reform,” HJRCA 49, revenue and pension debt reform… This is also an opportunity for you to engage in a conversation with us. We hope to see you there.
Fred Klonsky 
I received the following e-mails from a friend, and I wanted to know how YOU would respond to them. Thanks, Esther Allman
Below are two emails that I received in response to my sending out my own emails to all of my friends and family to vote NO against the amendment. What arguments can be used to respond to these type of messages? Or does mean that we are in a tough battle and the lines are drawn?
———————————————————————————————————————————
there are many laws in Illinois that address individual issues.
There is no money. This is a step in the direction of controlling spending and is less “radical” then what has been done in many other states.
———————————————————————————————————————————-
Please vote YES to the Illinois Constitutional Amendment on November 6th ballot.
On November 6th, Illinois voters will vote on a proposal to amend the Illinois Constitution. This proposal would amend the Constitution to require a 3/5s majority vote of each chamber of the Illinois General Assembly, as well as the governing bodies of any unit of local government, school district, or pension or retirement system in order to increase a benefit under any public pension or retirement system.
Tyrone Fahner is the former attorney general of Illinois and president of the Civic Committee of the Commercial Club of Chicago. He talked to Ward Room about why voters should approve Amendment 49, a which would change the Illinois constitution to require a three-fifths vote to increase pension benefits for public employees.
Q: Why should people vote for this amendment?
A: Well, you should vote for the amendment because for years increases have been able to be obtained for public employees and their pensions, and all sorts of additional benefits, without any particular attention by the public. The General Assembly, which is controlled by the Democrats in both houses, as well as the governor, continues to do as they will in terms of keeping the teachers’ unions and AFSCME and all the rest happy, and they’ve done that with taxpayers’ money, so this would make it more difficult, give greater public scrutiny to any changes in the system.
Q: It’s actually not any changes in the system. Why does the amendment only requires a three-fifths majority for increases, but not for decreases?
A: I imagine if anybody wanted to put that part in…first of all, it doesn’t because the sponsors didn’t introduce it that way. It’s not a matter of fairness. The fairness is that the public, 95 percent of the public which are not members of a public employees’ pension system, are paying for the largesse of all the rest. So they’re the ones that need to be protected. The unions have had free shots for whatever they’ve wanted over the years, which is one of the reasons the state’s in the debt crisis it’s in.
Q: Why should this particular function of government require a supermajority? Does this not open the door for requiring a three-fifths majority for wage increases, or contract, or other votes? Why single out this?
A: It comes right back to the fact that not enough attention has been paid to the benefits and the pension increases over the years. The state is in a state of financial ruin. We’re 50th out of 50. We’re broke and broken. All this says is that someday — and I don’t know if it can be fixed anymore, to tell you the truth, I think we’re so far upside down that the whole thing cannot be corrected — so actually, it’s a good piece of legislation, but it’s too little, too late. I would still vote for it, and I intend to vote for it.
Q: It’s almost as though the legislature feels it can’t trust itself to control these pension benefits? Why can’t we simply elect a majority that’s not going to increase pension benefits?
A: We have a clear history that the members of the General Assembly cannot be trusted and haven’t been trusted, are not worthy or trust, and the other reason is, the legislators are one of the groups that are receiving these benefits, and as you’ll recall, the tax increase that passed two years ago was done in January, the last day of the closing session, with a whole bunch of lame ducks. They’re going to do the same thing, I will promise you. You can write it down now and call me the day after. They’re going to pass something they’re going to call pension reform, which will not be pension reform, and they’ll do it with 20 or 25 people who will have secured their pensions, and will not be responsible, because they’ll be out and not have to face the voters again.
Q: What do you say to the opponents’ accusations that this is an anti-union measure aimed at the union movement in general, and public employee unions in particular?
A: I guess I would say that the unions in Michigan, where I grew up, destroyed the car companies and the economy, and then we have a Democratic governor, we have a Democratic mayor, we have a Democratic General Assembly. What I would say to them is, they are supported and underwritten by the Illinois Education Association, by AFSCME, by SEIU, and I would tell them that they’ve just about killed the goose…That’s why the state is broke. That’s why there’s no money for education, that’s why there’s no money for the elderly, for health care, for the poor, for autism. I could go on and on and on. That’s why they should look in the mirror.
Q: If we are able to make it more difficult to increase these pensions, how long will it be before we see any fiscal benefit?
A: I don’t know if we ever will. The real thing is, we wouldn’t need it if they’d sit down and pass some meaningful pension reform, which they’ve failed to do and they won’t do in January.
Q: This could be taken as, Republicans are unable to win a majority electorally, so they’re trying to change the rules.
A: Wasn’t the Speaker one of the co-chairs?
Q: Certainly, the legislation passed almost unanimously in both houses.
A: What the Republicans are trying to do is what they’re trying to do nationally, which is have some fiscal responsibilty. It’s a blue state, it’s dominated by the unions. The unions support the General Assembly members. Look at all the money from the Illinois Education Association that goes to the General Assembly members, Republican and Democrat.
Q: So this is a group that’s able to spend money and lobby people who have the responsibility for determining their wages and their benefits.
A: Money comes out of every one of their checks, and it’s mainlined to support people who will continue to give them more than they deserve.
Q: That’s an advantage that other employees don’t have anywhere, isn’t it?
A: That’s exactly right.
Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Opinion-Why-You-Should-Vote-Yes-On-Amendment-49-174232021.html#ixzz2A7sa9wnK
Thanks for sending this. It demonstrates most clearly why voters should defeat this amendment.
Ty Fahner of the corporate Civic Committee answers your question himself in the interview:
Q: If we are able to make it more difficult to increase these pensions, how long will it be before we see any fiscal benefit?
A: I don’t know if we ever will.
The State of Illinois presently faces an $85 billion unfunded pension liability. The Constitutional Amendment does absolutely nothing to address the most serious financial issue confronting the state.
The goal of Ty Fahner and the Civic Committee is to privatize, do away with, all public employee pensions. The fact that he admits that this amendment will do nothing to solve the unfunded pension liability, yet wants it to pass, demonstrates that he sees it as a first step, a foot in the door, to doing away with pensions entirely.
The problem will not be solved by focussing on benefits. The focus must be on revenue, a graduated income tax and an end to corporate tax loopholes.
Requiring a 3/5ths super majority in Springfield and from local school boards to bargain local contracts is a recipe for labor turmoil in Illinois.