Is there really a Rauner/Cullerton pension deal? A weapon of (m)ass distraction.

images

State Representative Lou Lang.

Watching veteran Democratic legislator State Representative Lou Lang on Chicago Tonight last week, I had to laugh.

Sure. Lang had voted for pension theft before.

But he knew it was unconstitutional when he voted for it. He even admitted that when we met with him.

Now the Illinois Supreme Court had confirmed its illegality, so Lang just smiled as the Republican legislators Matt Murphy and Jeanne Ives hailed the governor for his movement towards the pension-choice position of Democratic Senate President John Cullerton.

Even if the Governor and the Senate President overcome the Governor’s anti-union overreach from last week, the proposal is doomed.

Even if the Illinois House were to agree to it, which Michael Madigan currently says won’t happen, it is doomed.

It is doomed even if a lower court were to ignore the Illinois Supreme Court’s ruling. Which it won’t.

I want to be in the Illinois Supreme Court chambers when the state’s lawyers try to argue that a choice between less salary or reduced COLA is anything other than a diminishment.

I’m pretty sure Justice Thomas will laugh them out of the room.

Lang said what some of us have said for years. It just took him longer. It won’t pass constitutional muster.

Said the Illinois Supreme Court in its unanimous decision:

Moreover, no possible claim can be made that no less drastic measures were available when balancing pension obligations with other State expenditures became problematic. One alternative, identified at the hearing on Public Act 98-599, would have been to adopt a new schedule for amortizing the unfunded liabilities. The General Assembly could also have sought additional tax revenue. While it did pass a temporary income tax increase, it allowed the increased rate to lapse to a lower rate even as pension funding was being debated and litigated.

That the State did not select the least drastic means of addressing its financial difficulties is reinforced by the legislative history. As noted earlier in this opinion, the chief sponsor of the legislation stated candidly that other alternatives were available. Public Act 98-599 was in no sense a last resort. Rather, it was an expedient to break a political stalemate.

Now that the court has ruled that the constitutional prohibition against benefit diminishment applies to a state employee from the moment we are hired and enter the pension system, the union leadership has no incentive to agree to any part of a deal between Rauner and Cullerton.

So, what are these guys up to?

As the budget stalemate gets worse, they want to blame it on the pensions.

As they have always tried to blame the pensions.

The court explained what they needed to do, even if legislators, the governor and Springfield observers either never read the court decision or have forgotten what it says.

Re-amortize the debt. Raise revenue.

But they won’t. They’re hoping regular folks will buy the blame-the-pension story instead.

More foolish distraction.

4 thoughts on “Is there really a Rauner/Cullerton pension deal? A weapon of (m)ass distraction.

  1. But he knew it was unconstitutional when he voted for it. He even admitted that when we met with him. Sounds just like 3 other State reps. that said the same thing.Madagoon want us to do it!

    • Chuck,
      We heard that over and over again. “We will vote for it and see what the Court says.” Now that the Court has told them, they still won’t do what the Court told them they must do: Raise revenue. Re-amortize the debt. So, they not only voted for a bill they either didn’t read, or didn’t care, they also didn’t read the court decision. Or don’t care.

  2. This [Supreme] Court replied that the General Assembly was ‘clothed with ample powers to provide for all financial difficulties.’ Id. No financial difficulties, the Court explained, could justify violating the Constitution. Id. at 444. Rather, our ‘safety, in the midst of perils, is in a strict observance of the constitution—this is the bulwark to shield us from aggressions.’ Id…”

  3. All elected officials took an oath of office to uphold the constitution. If they go against the constitution by voting on anything that goes against it they should be thrown out of office for breach of fiduciary duty. When you enter into a pension system you enter into a contract for benefits that shall NOT BE DIMINISHED OR IMPAIRED and that is protected by our constitution. Where were the editorial board and the investigative reporters over the years when the system was being run into the ground and the pension funds diverted for other purposes?

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s