John Dillon. Repesentative Sosnowski’s constitutional amendment. Say it ain’t so, Joe.

In the Shakespearian tragicomedy Merchant of Venice, a seminal moment arrives when the evil moneylender Shylock demands his pound of flesh to be cut off nearest the heart of loan-victim Antonio.  Defenders of the threatened plaintiff beseech the judge to reconsider the ridiculousness of the original contract, one ultimately ending in the death of another.  The judge, a brilliant and disguised heroine, warns that it cannot be done: breaking contracts would set a precedent in the state which would result in the destruction of all confidence in Venice and with its business partners beyond the sea. 
In the tragicomedy that is Representative Joe Sosnowski, his recent sponsorship of HJRCA0011 demonstrates the Rockford legislator’s complete disregard for the pension protection clause of the Illinois Constitution as also nothing more than fiction, a careless piece of writing that he can expunge without consequence.  Or can he?  HJRCA0011 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. Effective upon being declared adopted.” 
Sadly, it appears Representative Sosnowski has not considered the results of his proposal to strike down safeguards to the pensions systems in Illinois.  Hopefully, other legislators have.  Even if it were legal, such a proposed amendment would face the challenge of the United States Constitution under the Contract Clause of Article 1.  Even if it were to come to fruition, such changes might result in an exodus of state workers from their present positions to other states or other employment.  What responsibilities might the state face immediately for federal provisions regarding social security or retirement savings?  What would the state do, still facing a nearly $100 billion debt that has to be paid?  What would happen to the contributions of those who were paying into the various funds?  What would be the legal (Representative Sosnowski cares not for moral concerns) rights of anyone now retired in an action designed specifically to deprive them of what heretofore had been a contractual promise – and we are back again to the United States Constitution.
Of course, this may be just fine with Representative Sosnowski, who one previous neighbor described as being well supported by Tea Party members in the area of Fox Ridge, where Representative Sosnowski lived before quickly escaping the nearby construction of a large asphalt production plant he had helped to arrange (  The neighbor complained that Representative Sosnowski and his family moved nearly five miles away from Fox Ridge after the Representative’s declaring that such an enterprise as William Charles Asphalt would provide no differences in the environmental atmosphere or land.  The concerned neighbor, Mr. J. Sammon, states,” Mr. Sosnowski…is a political opportunist.  The Republican Party obviously advised him that becoming involved in this controversy and taking a stand against the William Charles conglomerate would constitute political suicide.”  Ironically, the same resident describes Representative Sosnowski’s act of political cowardice as one more example of another legislator in Winnebago County willing to “feed at the public trough.”  And yet, that is precisely how Representative Sosnowski thinks of those of us who would work in the public sector and expect a promised pension (after being denied social security) at the end of a long and often distinguished career. 
Besides appearing at the Northern Illinois Tea Party Forums, Representative Joe Sosnowski is a full time employee of the Rockford Christian Schools, working in a promotional responsibility as Director of Institutional Advancement.  On the other hand, when it comes to public schools, Representative Sosnowski’s votes seem less than generous when it comes to tax money for education or for regional superintendents.  You can find quite a bit about Representative Sosnowski’s past voting records or his contributors (mostly realtor associations) at Project Vote Smart (   For Illinois pensions, the Representative conveniently and unthinkingly links the unfunded liability and the normal required payment to victimize retired pensioners.  In the Rockford Register Star voter guide, Joe’s description of Illinois is one of “past poor fiscal management,” one that requires a restructuring our retirement programs.”  When Joe comes to restructure, he employs only a wrecking ball.
Representative Sosnowski ran unopposed this last time around, but many of his previous neighbors and others had created a write-in candidate to show their distrust and dislike of Representative Sosnowski:  Mickey Mouse.  Apparently, the cartoon character was a description of the lack of significant legislation (beyond special use permits for real estate friends) that Sosnowski accomplished in Springfield. 
Maybe this is Sosnowski’s big moment?  Maybe a really big bill like a House Joint Resolution for a Constitutional Amendment will provide some gravitas that will make the next write-in candidate a bit more serious?  Mighty Mouse? Or maybe it will appease the Tea Partiers who are watching his every move?  On the other hand, real legislation, Rep. Sosnowski, is designed with eventual outcomes in mind – both good and bad – not just to hit a target.


2 thoughts on “John Dillon. Repesentative Sosnowski’s constitutional amendment. Say it ain’t so, Joe.

  1. It is really unfortunate that Rep. Sosnowski is not forthcoming in making sure that voters know the facts. He should educate the voters by letting them know what he knows about this issue, so people can believe in his integrity. He should inform them that, the reason the constitution contained this provision, was to make sure that lawmakers, like himself, would be forced to fund the pensions for employees after the wording was added, since they did not do so before the wording was included. He should admit to the fact that employees contributed their share of the pension dollars throughout their career but that elected representatives, like himself, decided not to fund the States’ share before or even after this wording was added. He should also educate the voters that he represents that the people, like himself, who were voted into office, already passed legislation that cut the amount that teachers who, no matter how long or how much they contributed to social security before, during, or after they taught, can only collect 1/4 of what they are due. Rep. Sosnowski should also state that many of the Representatives who shirked their duty to fund the pension throughout the years are still in office. He should also let the voters know that a bill to circumvent this wording in the Constitution was already put on the ballot this last election and was voted down by the people in Illinois. So, instead of educating voters about these issues and admitting that this proposal is formulated to cover up for all these past misdeeds, he leads people to believe that this proposal is good and brand new. I would have the utmost respect for Rep. Sosnowski if he were to admit that what he is trying to do is to reduce the pension benefits for the people that earned them. I am sure that Rep. Sosnowskis’ proposal will also include, like those proposals before his, that, honest and I mean it, from now on the Legislature will fund their obligation to the pension system (trust me on this).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s