By Meredith Colias
Chronically ill residents would have another option to relieve long-term pain under a plan to legalize medical marijuana, which an Illinois House committee approved today.
The committee approved House Bill 1 on a 11-4 vote.
The legislation’s sponsor, Rep. Lou Lang, a Skokie Democrat, cited the18 other states, plus Washington, D.C., that already legalize marijuana for medical use in some form.
“We can help sick people have a quality of life,” he said.
Lang said it was important that there were specific restrictions to the measure to limit participation to those with an actual medical need with “continual pain, nausea and discomfort.”
Patients older than 18 afflicted with chronic or terminal ailments specifically listed in the bill, such as multiple sclerosis, cancer, Alzheimer’s disease and HIV/AIDS, would qualify to apply for a medical cannabis card issued by the Department of Public Health.
Patients issued permits would be limited to possessing 2.5 ounces of marijuana every two weeks.
Opponents said the measure would set a bad example for children. “The law’s a teacher,” Ralph Rivera of the Illinois Family Institute said. He cited a study showing marijuana usage for those 25 and younger increased in states such as Colorado that previously legalized medicinal usage. If the measure becomes law, “the students, the children [will] think it’s OK.” Colorado voters recently approved a measure to legalize the possession of marijuana for recreational use.
Limey Nargelenas, a lobbyist with the Illinois Association of Police, said he was concerned that those who would be approved to use medical marijuana would be allowed to drive under the influence, giving them a “back door to get out of the situation.”
But Lang said the law was not meant to open the door for those who smoke marijuana recreationally, who he says will smoke regardless of the law. “We know teenagers are going to smoke marijuana whether we pass this bill or not,” he said.
Lang said patients would also have to pass background checks, verify they are ill and demonstrate that other possible medical solutions had been tried. Licensed patients would have to prove that they are regularly seeing the doctor who prescribed medical marijuana. Caregivers and state employees overseeing growing and dispensary operations also would be required to pass a background test. Lang said the law would not spare legally impaired drivers: If caught, “the legal system will take its course.” He said that he thinks the committee’s approval of the legislation will help him as he lobbies for votes to pass the bill out of the House. Lang called bills to legalize medical marijuana for three floor votes in the House in 2011. All three times, the measures failed. “I think it will be easier to find the votes on the floor once it’s out of committee. Many members of the floor will say, let me know when it’s out of committee, and then I’ll commit to you,” Lang said before today’s committee vote.
Wednesday, March 06, 2013
Tuesday, March 05, 2013
Quinn to propose education cuts and pension changes
By Jamey Dunn with Meredith Colias contributing
In his budget proposal tomorrow, Gov. Pat Quinn is expected to lay out substantial cuts to education and press lawmakers for changes to public employee pensions.
“This is a difficult budget. It holds the line on spending and reflects the state’s fiscal challenges. This budget doesn’t propose any new taxes fees or programs. It’s an honest budget that’s based on actual costs, and continues to eliminate gimmicks. This budget is a direct result of the inaction on stabilizing the pensions,” Jack Lavin, Quinn’s chief of staff, said at a briefing for reporters this evening. Quinn plans to propose a nearly $400 million cut education. CORRECTION: Quinn's budget staff gave this figure as a cut to K-12. They later revised that statement to cover all education, including higher ed.) General State Aid to schools would be reduced by $150 million. Quinn also plans to call for cuts to transportation funding. Funding for higher education would be reduced by almost 5 percent. Early childhood education and Monetary Awards Program (MAP) grants for low-income college students would be safe from cuts. “Here we have a series of reductions that the governor does not want to do. These are outside of his vision of where we ought to be as a society. These reductions are a direct result of no action on pension reform,” said Jerry Stermer, director of Quinn’s budget office.
Quinn’s general revenue estimate of $35.6 billion comes in higher than the $35.08 billion that the House approved today. The House's number is based on analysis from the bipartisan legislative Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability. Quinn's budget calls for a total of $62.4 billion, including federal revenue and spending from other funds, but the bulk of the appropriation process focuses on general revenue. Quinn’s budget is predicated on the idea that lawmakers would get on board with taking some money that is typically automatically transferred out of the General Revenue Fund (GRF) before the budget battle each year and instead toss it into the appropriations process. Quinn’s representatives at a budget briefing this evening said he does not intend to make specific suggestions about which transfers to tap into but will instead call upon lawmakers to assess all of the transfers out on an annual basis. “It is an autopilot kind of an appropriation. It just goes by itself without an annual review by the General Assembly. … It just goes out the door,” Stermer said. “All of those dollars in FY 13 are on autopilot, according to existing statutes. The only way you can make a change is to change the statute.”
The largest transfer, more than $1 billion, is of income tax revenues that are funneled to local governments based on their populations. In 2011, Quinn proposed delaying payments to local governments as part of a plan to cut some of the backlog of unpaid bills. That plan was met with vocal opposition and lobbying from local mayors and was quickly dropped. A budget plan that Senate Republicans proposed that same year called for a $300 million cut to revenues shared with local governments.
Stermer said one fund at the Department of Revenue has a surplus that will be automatically dumped into the GRF at the start of the next fiscal year. “So that’s $150 million that COGFA did not account for.”
The budget calls for reducing the backlog by $2 billion over the current fiscal year and Fiscal Year 2014. The governor’s budget projection estimates the backlog, which is now more than $8 billion, will be $6.8 billion by the end of FY 14.
Quinn spokeswoman Brooke Anderson said the governor does not plan to propose billions in borrowing to pay down the backlog, an idea he has advocated in the past. However, she said, “He will propose a way to pay down the bills faster,” although she declined to share details. “We’ll leave that” for tomorrow’s budget address, she said.
In his budget proposal tomorrow, Gov. Pat Quinn is expected to lay out substantial cuts to education and press lawmakers for changes to public employee pensions.
“This is a difficult budget. It holds the line on spending and reflects the state’s fiscal challenges. This budget doesn’t propose any new taxes fees or programs. It’s an honest budget that’s based on actual costs, and continues to eliminate gimmicks. This budget is a direct result of the inaction on stabilizing the pensions,” Jack Lavin, Quinn’s chief of staff, said at a briefing for reporters this evening. Quinn plans to propose a nearly $400 million cut education. CORRECTION: Quinn's budget staff gave this figure as a cut to K-12. They later revised that statement to cover all education, including higher ed.) General State Aid to schools would be reduced by $150 million. Quinn also plans to call for cuts to transportation funding. Funding for higher education would be reduced by almost 5 percent. Early childhood education and Monetary Awards Program (MAP) grants for low-income college students would be safe from cuts. “Here we have a series of reductions that the governor does not want to do. These are outside of his vision of where we ought to be as a society. These reductions are a direct result of no action on pension reform,” said Jerry Stermer, director of Quinn’s budget office.
Quinn’s general revenue estimate of $35.6 billion comes in higher than the $35.08 billion that the House approved today. The House's number is based on analysis from the bipartisan legislative Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability. Quinn's budget calls for a total of $62.4 billion, including federal revenue and spending from other funds, but the bulk of the appropriation process focuses on general revenue. Quinn’s budget is predicated on the idea that lawmakers would get on board with taking some money that is typically automatically transferred out of the General Revenue Fund (GRF) before the budget battle each year and instead toss it into the appropriations process. Quinn’s representatives at a budget briefing this evening said he does not intend to make specific suggestions about which transfers to tap into but will instead call upon lawmakers to assess all of the transfers out on an annual basis. “It is an autopilot kind of an appropriation. It just goes by itself without an annual review by the General Assembly. … It just goes out the door,” Stermer said. “All of those dollars in FY 13 are on autopilot, according to existing statutes. The only way you can make a change is to change the statute.”
The largest transfer, more than $1 billion, is of income tax revenues that are funneled to local governments based on their populations. In 2011, Quinn proposed delaying payments to local governments as part of a plan to cut some of the backlog of unpaid bills. That plan was met with vocal opposition and lobbying from local mayors and was quickly dropped. A budget plan that Senate Republicans proposed that same year called for a $300 million cut to revenues shared with local governments.
Stermer said one fund at the Department of Revenue has a surplus that will be automatically dumped into the GRF at the start of the next fiscal year. “So that’s $150 million that COGFA did not account for.”
The budget calls for reducing the backlog by $2 billion over the current fiscal year and Fiscal Year 2014. The governor’s budget projection estimates the backlog, which is now more than $8 billion, will be $6.8 billion by the end of FY 14.
Quinn spokeswoman Brooke Anderson said the governor does not plan to propose billions in borrowing to pay down the backlog, an idea he has advocated in the past. However, she said, “He will propose a way to pay down the bills faster,” although she declined to share details. “We’ll leave that” for tomorrow’s budget address, she said.
House takes test votes on assault weapons ban
By Jamey Dunn
The Illinois House took several votes on assault weapons bans today but did not approve a bill to send to the Senate.
The votes were held as part of a "Weekly Order of Business" on gun safety. Steven Brown, spokesman for House Speaker Michael Madigan, described the process last week, after the House took similar votes on pension reform: “The strategy is to test the gambit of ideas. ... Test every idea that’s out there. You’ve heard people complain over the years about not being able to vote. Well, here’s a chance to vote.”
The House approved four amendments today that call for the ban of the sales of several types of so-called assault weapons, including guns used in recent mass shootings in Connecticut and Arizona. Another amendment that passed would ban the possession or sale of high-capacity magazines, which hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
Opponents called the measures extreme, saying that they would severely limit residents’ access to guns. “What we have here today is just a full out attempt to ban every gun in this state,” said Harrisburg Republican Rep. Brandon Phelps. “This bans every rifle in this state.” They accused supporters of playing politics and trying to back them into controversial votes. “At the end of the day this is no about public safety this is all about politics,” said Elmhurst Republican Rep. Dennis Reboletti. “This is nothing but a political exercise to have that gotcha moment.”
But those in favor said that the weapons the amendments would ban are dangerous and should not be available to the general public. “This is not a game. We’re talking about human lives, innocent lives, and this need to be addressed first and foremost. Keep our communities safe,” said Chicago Democratic Rep. Luis Arroyo.
The Illinois House took several votes on assault weapons bans today but did not approve a bill to send to the Senate.
The votes were held as part of a "Weekly Order of Business" on gun safety. Steven Brown, spokesman for House Speaker Michael Madigan, described the process last week, after the House took similar votes on pension reform: “The strategy is to test the gambit of ideas. ... Test every idea that’s out there. You’ve heard people complain over the years about not being able to vote. Well, here’s a chance to vote.”
The House approved four amendments today that call for the ban of the sales of several types of so-called assault weapons, including guns used in recent mass shootings in Connecticut and Arizona. Another amendment that passed would ban the possession or sale of high-capacity magazines, which hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
Opponents called the measures extreme, saying that they would severely limit residents’ access to guns. “What we have here today is just a full out attempt to ban every gun in this state,” said Harrisburg Republican Rep. Brandon Phelps. “This bans every rifle in this state.” They accused supporters of playing politics and trying to back them into controversial votes. “At the end of the day this is no about public safety this is all about politics,” said Elmhurst Republican Rep. Dennis Reboletti. “This is nothing but a political exercise to have that gotcha moment.”
But those in favor said that the weapons the amendments would ban are dangerous and should not be available to the general public. “This is not a game. We’re talking about human lives, innocent lives, and this need to be addressed first and foremost. Keep our communities safe,” said Chicago Democratic Rep. Luis Arroyo.
House preempts Quinn and approves a spending cap the day before his budget speech
By Jamey Dunn
The Illinois House kicked off its budgeting process a day before Gov. Pat Quinn is scheduled to present his budget plan.
The House approved a spending cap of $35.08 billion today, preempting the estimate that will presumably be a part of Quinn’s plan. “It ... means that if the governor walks into this chamber tomorrow, walks up to that podium and proposed to spend more than $35.081 billion, then he puts himself at odds immediately with this chamber,” said Arlington Heights Rep. David Harris, the ranking Republican on the House Revenue and Finance Committee, which produced the estimate. Rep. John Bradley, who chairs the committee, said it moved ahead because Quinn’s budget office was “all over the place” with its revenue estimates. “If the House adopts this number today, the House will have already spoken,” he said before the floor vote.
The revenue estimates approved in the last two years have been the basis for the budgets that lawmakers ultimately sent to Quinn. Those estimates were approved, however, after Quinn presented his plan. “It’s the same process we’ve used for the last two years ... and it’s the first and most crucial step in beginning the budget process,” said Bradley, a Marion Democrat. The projection means lawmakers will have more to work with than last year, when the estimate was $33.7 billion. “The revenues are expected to be stronger this year than last year, and we have significant spending pressures that we’re going to have to deal with,” Bradley said. “I think we’re going to have close to $2 billion of additional pressures this year, and that’s not including whatever may or may not have happened with regards to the contract announcement.” He said that the committee was still working to estimate the cost of the new contract for state workers. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is in the process of ratifying the proposed three-year contract, which includes pay raises and requires employees to contribute more to their health care costs in retirement. He said the estimate also takes into account federal across-the-board budget cuts, known as the sequester, that went into effect on Friday.
The revenue committee’s estimate was created by the bipartisan legislative Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability. “We drove down into the numbers of the COGFA report, and we determined that the COGFA numbers, unlike in previous years, we believed were accurate,” Bradley said. He said he thinks the estimate will be lower than Quinn’s projection. “I anticipate and I predict we’ll be below the governor’s number tomorrow.” Quinn’s office did not respond to questions about the House’s projection.
Harris said that several issues before the legislature could bring in more revenue next fiscal year. “There certainly are unknowns out there, and maybe those unknowns will be favorable. Depending on what we do with hydraulic fracturing and gaming and telecommunications, maybe the revenue will be higher.” But he cautioned his colleagues not to expect new spending. “While the number is big, I believe that it’s reasonable, but let’s not plan to go out and spend it right away. Because my friends, we can’t spend it on education, or health care, or assistance to the developmentally disabled, or roads or any other needed service because our pensions payment alone goes up by $1 billion. So unless we make reforms to the pension system, this $1 billion increase in revenue goes to one place, and that’s for pensions.”
The next step in the House budgeting process will be to take fixed costs, such as debt service and the pension payments, off of the top of the estimate and then dole out spending numbers to the various appropriations committees. Members of those committees then make spending decisions in their specific areas of state government, such as education. “This was the first step of a long journey we have ahead of us this year,” Bradley said.
The Illinois House kicked off its budgeting process a day before Gov. Pat Quinn is scheduled to present his budget plan.
The House approved a spending cap of $35.08 billion today, preempting the estimate that will presumably be a part of Quinn’s plan. “It ... means that if the governor walks into this chamber tomorrow, walks up to that podium and proposed to spend more than $35.081 billion, then he puts himself at odds immediately with this chamber,” said Arlington Heights Rep. David Harris, the ranking Republican on the House Revenue and Finance Committee, which produced the estimate. Rep. John Bradley, who chairs the committee, said it moved ahead because Quinn’s budget office was “all over the place” with its revenue estimates. “If the House adopts this number today, the House will have already spoken,” he said before the floor vote.
The revenue estimates approved in the last two years have been the basis for the budgets that lawmakers ultimately sent to Quinn. Those estimates were approved, however, after Quinn presented his plan. “It’s the same process we’ve used for the last two years ... and it’s the first and most crucial step in beginning the budget process,” said Bradley, a Marion Democrat. The projection means lawmakers will have more to work with than last year, when the estimate was $33.7 billion. “The revenues are expected to be stronger this year than last year, and we have significant spending pressures that we’re going to have to deal with,” Bradley said. “I think we’re going to have close to $2 billion of additional pressures this year, and that’s not including whatever may or may not have happened with regards to the contract announcement.” He said that the committee was still working to estimate the cost of the new contract for state workers. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is in the process of ratifying the proposed three-year contract, which includes pay raises and requires employees to contribute more to their health care costs in retirement. He said the estimate also takes into account federal across-the-board budget cuts, known as the sequester, that went into effect on Friday.
The revenue committee’s estimate was created by the bipartisan legislative Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability. “We drove down into the numbers of the COGFA report, and we determined that the COGFA numbers, unlike in previous years, we believed were accurate,” Bradley said. He said he thinks the estimate will be lower than Quinn’s projection. “I anticipate and I predict we’ll be below the governor’s number tomorrow.” Quinn’s office did not respond to questions about the House’s projection.
Harris said that several issues before the legislature could bring in more revenue next fiscal year. “There certainly are unknowns out there, and maybe those unknowns will be favorable. Depending on what we do with hydraulic fracturing and gaming and telecommunications, maybe the revenue will be higher.” But he cautioned his colleagues not to expect new spending. “While the number is big, I believe that it’s reasonable, but let’s not plan to go out and spend it right away. Because my friends, we can’t spend it on education, or health care, or assistance to the developmentally disabled, or roads or any other needed service because our pensions payment alone goes up by $1 billion. So unless we make reforms to the pension system, this $1 billion increase in revenue goes to one place, and that’s for pensions.”
The next step in the House budgeting process will be to take fixed costs, such as debt service and the pension payments, off of the top of the estimate and then dole out spending numbers to the various appropriations committees. Members of those committees then make spending decisions in their specific areas of state government, such as education. “This was the first step of a long journey we have ahead of us this year,” Bradley said.
Former comptroller Dawn Clark Netsch dies at 86
by Maureen Foertsch McKinney
Dawn Clark Netsch, the first woman to hold constitutional office in Illinois and the Democrats’ 1994 straight-shooting gubernatorial candidate, died early Tuesday. She was 86.
The former state comptroller was also a long-time state senator and champion of such diverse causes as tax reform, good government, gay and lesbian rights and the Chicago White Sox. In January, the professor of law emerita at Northwestern University announced that she had amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, more commonly known as Lou Gehrig’s disease. She spoke out about having ALS, hoping her disclosure might spread information about the disease.
Her biographer, Cynthia Grant Bowman, a Cornell University professor of law who worked with the former comptroller in the law school at Northwestern, described Netsch as a “warm and charming woman of many contradictions — a schoolmarm who drinks and smokes, a powerful woman who has never learned to drive, a feminist who thought of herself as one of the boys, a well-to-do woman who is frugal to a fault. As a woman in the legal profession, legal academy and politics, she has also been a pioneer.”
Cindi Canary is former executive director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, which Netsch helped establish. Canary says of Netsch, with whom she served on the Illinois Issues advisory board: “She worked to build a generation that would pay it forward. I never met someone who was so generous with their wisdom and their time and their support. I think she helped so many – middle-aged now — young men and women, and she continued to help and guide and advise anyone who asked her. “So many people know she had a brilliant policy mind but she also loved her life. She loved her White Sox and she loved her opera and she loved her friends. She was a person who lived life to the fullest and relished it. She loved the city and the state and just loved every minute of her life. That’s a good remembrance for all of us.”
She was praised for being outspoken. “Long before it was the politically safe thing to do, there was Dawn Clark Netsch fighting for LGBT rights and giving voice to those who would be silenced. She was never quiet when she felt her voice could make a difference,” Bernard Cherkasov, CEO of Equality Illinois, said in a prepared statement.
Several prominent Illinois political figures issued statements about the loss of Netsch. “More than any other person in our state’s history, Dawn Clark Netsch created the modern era of women in Illinois political leadership. As always, those who open the doors of opportunity must be extraordinarily gifted, determined and patient. Dawn was all of these and more,” said U.S. Sen. Richard Durbin. Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan: “Dawn Clark Netsch set the standard for integrity in public service. She led by example with relentless honesty, fierce independence and a passionate belief in civil liberty for all. Her unwavering dedication to the people of Illinois will be missed. She blazed a trail for women and worked hard to make sure so many of us could follow her.”
Current comptroller Judy Baar Topinka: “Illinois lost a true legend and trailblazer today with the passing of Dawn Clark Netsch. Dawn faithfully served Illinois and its residents for more than four decades, fighting for good, honest government that rises above politics. In fact, one of the highlights of my legislative career was partnering with her to co-sponsor the state's Open Meetings Act. She continued her work as state comptroller, establishing the office as an honest broker and credible source of information when it comes to state finances. And she continued her crusade into retirement, regularly speaking out on the need for government reform and accountability. Dawn always remembered that government exists to serve taxpayers, not the other way around. She was a leader who was ahead of her time and our state is better for her service. More than that, she was a consummate professional and a class act. It was my honor to call her a colleague and friend.”
Lt. Gov. Sheila Simon called Netsch a “hero of mine since the early 1980s and a friend and mentor ever since. We served on the board of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform together and collaborated on reform issues for many years. She was straight forward, a straight shooter and great at explaining state issues. She was not just a public servant, but a teacher.”
State Sen. President John Cullerton noted that in 1991, he was appointed to the Illinois Senate to fulfill Netsch's term representing the sixth legislative district: “Dawn Clark Netsch has been a mentor throughout my career. As the first woman to run for governor, she has been a motivator for an entire generation of public servants. That is her lasting legacy.”
Durbin stated: “Her ill-fated run for governor lacked the political polish of many winning campaigns, but her thoughtfulness, candor and blunt honesty about the challenges we faced will be remembered. “The Illinois political scene will not be the same without that pool-shooting Sox Fan with a cigarette holder, but generations of Illinois women can thank the indomitable force of Dawn Clark Netsch for blazing their path.”Gov. Pat Quinn stated: “As an elected delegate to the Illinois constitutional convention in 1970, she spearheaded the movement to modernize our Constitution. I witnessed firsthand her dedication to honest government when we served together as state treasurer and comptroller. “Most importantly, Dawn was a straight shooter, and not just at playing pool. [Campaign ads for Netsch in her losing race against former Gov. Jim Edgar showed Netsch shooting pool.] She always told the people of Illinois what they needed to know. Throughout her life, Dawn Clark Netsch taught us all about the right way to move forward in our democracy. We are all better off because of her purposeful life.”
Monday, March 04, 2013
Despite vetoes, gaming supporters still hope for compromise
By Jamey Dunn
As expected, Gov. Pat Quinn today vetoed a gaming expansion bill that was sent to his desk more than a year and a half after the measure passed.
The Senate approved Senate Bill 744 on the last day of the spring legislative session in 2011. The proposal called for five new casino licenses, along with slot machines at horse racing tracks and the Illinois State Fairgrounds. Senate President John Cullerton put a procedural hold on the bill because Quinn had made his distaste for the plan public, calling it "top heavy." Quinn voiced a particular disdain for allowing slot machines at the fairgrounds. Cullerton and supporters of the plan had hoped to work out a compromise with the governor. But Quinn called for them to send the bill and let him rewrite it with his veto power. Instead, proponents of a gaming expansion backed away from SB 744 and threw support behind another bill that they viewed as a compromise. Legislators approved SB 1849 on the last day of the regular spring session of 2012. Quinn vetoed that bill, and lawmakers did not take a vote to override his veto.
“Everybody, including us, knew that he was going to veto [SB 744]. It was just when he was going to veto it,” said Waukegan Democratic Sen. Terry Link, who sponsored both bills. Quinn’s complaints about SB 744 and SB 1849 are similar. Quinn said in today’s veto message that he would not sign off on any gaming plan without “strong ethical standards, comprehensive oversight and dedicated resources for education.” According to the message, Quinn liked SB 744 even less than the gaming plan he previously vetoed. “Senate Bill 744 is even more significantly flawed than SB 1849. Senate Bill 744’s most glaring deficiency is the total absence of comprehensive ethical standards and regulatory oversight. The bill also lacks a ban on campaign contributions by gaming licensees and casino managers, which is essential to keeping corruption out of the gaming industry.”
Link said he plans to propose new legislation that he believes will meet Quinn’s requirements. “We will be introducing a bill that we feel that answers most of the governor’s requests or desires.” However, Link said he and other supporters have been trying all along to get a plan approved that Quinn could accept. “When the goal line keeps moving every time, it’s kind of hard to get to the goal line.”
SB 744 was kicked to Quinn when the 97th General Assembly ended in January. Because the two-year legislative session of the 97th General Assembly is over, lawmakers have no opportunity to try to override today’s veto.
As expected, Gov. Pat Quinn today vetoed a gaming expansion bill that was sent to his desk more than a year and a half after the measure passed.
The Senate approved Senate Bill 744 on the last day of the spring legislative session in 2011. The proposal called for five new casino licenses, along with slot machines at horse racing tracks and the Illinois State Fairgrounds. Senate President John Cullerton put a procedural hold on the bill because Quinn had made his distaste for the plan public, calling it "top heavy." Quinn voiced a particular disdain for allowing slot machines at the fairgrounds. Cullerton and supporters of the plan had hoped to work out a compromise with the governor. But Quinn called for them to send the bill and let him rewrite it with his veto power. Instead, proponents of a gaming expansion backed away from SB 744 and threw support behind another bill that they viewed as a compromise. Legislators approved SB 1849 on the last day of the regular spring session of 2012. Quinn vetoed that bill, and lawmakers did not take a vote to override his veto.
“Everybody, including us, knew that he was going to veto [SB 744]. It was just when he was going to veto it,” said Waukegan Democratic Sen. Terry Link, who sponsored both bills. Quinn’s complaints about SB 744 and SB 1849 are similar. Quinn said in today’s veto message that he would not sign off on any gaming plan without “strong ethical standards, comprehensive oversight and dedicated resources for education.” According to the message, Quinn liked SB 744 even less than the gaming plan he previously vetoed. “Senate Bill 744 is even more significantly flawed than SB 1849. Senate Bill 744’s most glaring deficiency is the total absence of comprehensive ethical standards and regulatory oversight. The bill also lacks a ban on campaign contributions by gaming licensees and casino managers, which is essential to keeping corruption out of the gaming industry.”
Link said he plans to propose new legislation that he believes will meet Quinn’s requirements. “We will be introducing a bill that we feel that answers most of the governor’s requests or desires.” However, Link said he and other supporters have been trying all along to get a plan approved that Quinn could accept. “When the goal line keeps moving every time, it’s kind of hard to get to the goal line.”
SB 744 was kicked to Quinn when the 97th General Assembly ended in January. Because the two-year legislative session of the 97th General Assembly is over, lawmakers have no opportunity to try to override today’s veto.
Friday, March 01, 2013
Sequester would make Illinois' bad budget situation worse
By Jamey Dunn
Days before Gov. Pat Quinn is scheduled to present his budget plan for the next fiscal year, the reality is setting in that federal spending will be cut across the board.
A plan, referred to as the sequester, to cut $85 billion from the federal budget is expected to kick in. The cuts were meant to force a compromise on deficit reduction measures that would have averted the draconian and widely unpopular reductions, but Congress and President Barack Obama’s administration were unable to work out a deal before today’s deadline. Obama today called the cuts “arbitrary” and “dumb.” The president told reporters in Washington D.C.: “Now, what’s important to understand is that not everyone will feel the pain of these cuts right away. The pain, though, will be real. Beginning this week, many middle-class families will have their lives disrupted in significant ways.”
U.S. House Speaker John Boehner said at a Washington, D.C,. news conference today that “there are smarter ways to cut spending.” However, he said that his chamber had done its part to avert the cuts. “The House has laid out a plan to avoid the sequester. I would hope that the Senate would act.” He added that “discussion about revenue .. .is over.”
Boehner said he would move next week to ensure that the government does not shut down when current spending authority is scheduled to end on March 27. “I did lay out that the House is going to move a continuing resolution next week to fund the government past March 27,” Boehner said today after a meeting with the Obama administration produced no solution to stop the sequester. “And I’m hopeful that we won’t have to deal with the threat of a government shutdown while we’re dealing with the sequester at the same time. The House will act next week, and I hope the Senate will follow suit.” Many hoping for a sequester deal had looked to the March 27 deadline as a potential opportunity for a compromise to avert the cuts.
If a deal is reached soon, much of the brunt of the cuts could still be avoided. However, if the sequester remains in place, Illinois would lose:
According to the Obama administration, cuts to the Head Start program would mean that more than 2,700 children in Illinois could lose access to preschool. Education cuts would put more than 700 educator’s jobs at risk. The state will also be subject to national reductions in military spending. If federal layoffs kick in as scheduled in April, travelers at airports, such as Chicago’s O’Hare, could see long wait times. (For more information on Illinois and a comparison of all the states, see this handy breakdown from The Washington Post.)
But Illinois will not be hit as hard as some states. According to an analysis from the Pew Center on the States, the cuts would be equal to of 2.5 percent of Illinois’ Gross Domestic Product. That compares with states such as Virginia, where the cuts would equal almost 20 percent of GDP. States such as Virginia, with high levels of defense spending, will be especially hurt by the $43 billion in defense cuts called for under the sequester. (For more information, see this analysis from Pew.)
While the federal cuts in Illinois may not be as dire as in some other states, Illinois is heading into an especially difficult budgeting year. Growing pension costs are putting pressure on other areas of spending. The pensions contribution for Fiscal Year 2014 would be more than $6 billion, and the state is projected to have more than $8 billion in unpaid bills by at the end of the current fiscal year. Quinn’s budget office did not return a request for comment on the sequester. Quinn is scheduled to give his budget address on Wednesday.
Days before Gov. Pat Quinn is scheduled to present his budget plan for the next fiscal year, the reality is setting in that federal spending will be cut across the board.
A plan, referred to as the sequester, to cut $85 billion from the federal budget is expected to kick in. The cuts were meant to force a compromise on deficit reduction measures that would have averted the draconian and widely unpopular reductions, but Congress and President Barack Obama’s administration were unable to work out a deal before today’s deadline. Obama today called the cuts “arbitrary” and “dumb.” The president told reporters in Washington D.C.: “Now, what’s important to understand is that not everyone will feel the pain of these cuts right away. The pain, though, will be real. Beginning this week, many middle-class families will have their lives disrupted in significant ways.”
U.S. House Speaker John Boehner said at a Washington, D.C,. news conference today that “there are smarter ways to cut spending.” However, he said that his chamber had done its part to avert the cuts. “The House has laid out a plan to avoid the sequester. I would hope that the Senate would act.” He added that “discussion about revenue .. .is over.”
Boehner said he would move next week to ensure that the government does not shut down when current spending authority is scheduled to end on March 27. “I did lay out that the House is going to move a continuing resolution next week to fund the government past March 27,” Boehner said today after a meeting with the Obama administration produced no solution to stop the sequester. “And I’m hopeful that we won’t have to deal with the threat of a government shutdown while we’re dealing with the sequester at the same time. The House will act next week, and I hope the Senate will follow suit.” Many hoping for a sequester deal had looked to the March 27 deadline as a potential opportunity for a compromise to avert the cuts.
If a deal is reached soon, much of the brunt of the cuts could still be avoided. However, if the sequester remains in place, Illinois would lose:
- $33.4 million for primary and secondary education.
- $24.7 million for educating children with disabilities.
- $6.4 million in funds for environmental protection.
- $3.5 million for substance abuse treatment.
- $1.4 million for job placement programs.
- $764,000 in food assistance for seniors.
- $587,000 in law enforcement and public safety grants.
- $357,000 for children’s vaccinations.
- $273,000 programs that serve victims of domestic violence.
According to the Obama administration, cuts to the Head Start program would mean that more than 2,700 children in Illinois could lose access to preschool. Education cuts would put more than 700 educator’s jobs at risk. The state will also be subject to national reductions in military spending. If federal layoffs kick in as scheduled in April, travelers at airports, such as Chicago’s O’Hare, could see long wait times. (For more information on Illinois and a comparison of all the states, see this handy breakdown from The Washington Post.)
But Illinois will not be hit as hard as some states. According to an analysis from the Pew Center on the States, the cuts would be equal to of 2.5 percent of Illinois’ Gross Domestic Product. That compares with states such as Virginia, where the cuts would equal almost 20 percent of GDP. States such as Virginia, with high levels of defense spending, will be especially hurt by the $43 billion in defense cuts called for under the sequester. (For more information, see this analysis from Pew.)
While the federal cuts in Illinois may not be as dire as in some other states, Illinois is heading into an especially difficult budgeting year. Growing pension costs are putting pressure on other areas of spending. The pensions contribution for Fiscal Year 2014 would be more than $6 billion, and the state is projected to have more than $8 billion in unpaid bills by at the end of the current fiscal year. Quinn’s budget office did not return a request for comment on the sequester. Quinn is scheduled to give his budget address on Wednesday.
House votes to ban hand-held cell phones while driving
By Jamey Dunn
The Illinois House today approved a ban on the use of hand-held cellphones while driving.
House Bill 1247 prohibits the hand-held use of a cell phone while driving. The bill would allow drivers to talk on the phone if they use a speakerphone setting or a device that allows them to chat hands-free. The measure also has an exception for emergency situations. The legislation would allow police to pull over drivers they saw using cell phones.
The House passed a similar ban last year, but it was not called for a floor vote in the Senate. However, Senate President John Cullerton also said last year that he thought a ban on all cell phone use while driving “might be inevitable” in Illinois. “There’s no question it’s a distraction from driving,” Cullerton said at the time. “There’s not a big difference between whether you’re holding a phone or whether you’re not holding a phone. It’s the distraction in talking to someone that’s not in the car with you. It’s not what’s in your hand; it’s what’s in your head.” He said such a ban would probably come incrementally. The state has already banned texting while driving, as well as talking on cell phones in construction zones and school zones. In Illinois, drivers under 18 are prohibited from talking on cell phones while driving. There is also a national ban on drivers of large trucks and buses using phones while on the road.
Opponents of the ban passed today said that they think the end goal of supporters is a complete ban on cell phone use while driving. HB 1247 sponsor Rep. John D’Amico, a Chicago Democrat, said that he is not pushing for a full ban. “That is not where I intend to go,” he said. Some Republicans called the bill an overreach of government into people’s lives. “This kind of stuff is the ultimate, ultimate in Big Brother,” said Rep. Mike Bost, a Murphysboro Republican. He said drivers engage in many other activities behind the wheel, such as applying makeup disciplining children or eating, that can be distracting and dangerous. “I know it is dangerous, but there’s a lot of things that we do every day while driving in our cars that become dangerous. ... Where do we stop [on bans]?”
Rep. David Harris, an Arlington Heights Republican, said “I readily admit” that the legislation has “elements of Big Brother.”
“This is the government telling you what you can and cannot do within the confines of your car while driving.” But Harris said that the intrusion is justified by the public safety benefits. He noted that technology would eventually reach the point where all drivers would use their phones hands-free. “Until that time comes, our job is to try to make the roadways as safe as possible.”
D’Amico said that more than 70 local governments in Illinois already ban the use of hand-held cell phones while driving, and it makes sense to put a consistent statewide policy in place. “People are dying every day, and if we can do something about it, we need to stop it.” The legislation passed on a 64-46 vote and now heads to the Senate.
The Illinois House today approved a ban on the use of hand-held cellphones while driving.
House Bill 1247 prohibits the hand-held use of a cell phone while driving. The bill would allow drivers to talk on the phone if they use a speakerphone setting or a device that allows them to chat hands-free. The measure also has an exception for emergency situations. The legislation would allow police to pull over drivers they saw using cell phones.
The House passed a similar ban last year, but it was not called for a floor vote in the Senate. However, Senate President John Cullerton also said last year that he thought a ban on all cell phone use while driving “might be inevitable” in Illinois. “There’s no question it’s a distraction from driving,” Cullerton said at the time. “There’s not a big difference between whether you’re holding a phone or whether you’re not holding a phone. It’s the distraction in talking to someone that’s not in the car with you. It’s not what’s in your hand; it’s what’s in your head.” He said such a ban would probably come incrementally. The state has already banned texting while driving, as well as talking on cell phones in construction zones and school zones. In Illinois, drivers under 18 are prohibited from talking on cell phones while driving. There is also a national ban on drivers of large trucks and buses using phones while on the road.
Opponents of the ban passed today said that they think the end goal of supporters is a complete ban on cell phone use while driving. HB 1247 sponsor Rep. John D’Amico, a Chicago Democrat, said that he is not pushing for a full ban. “That is not where I intend to go,” he said. Some Republicans called the bill an overreach of government into people’s lives. “This kind of stuff is the ultimate, ultimate in Big Brother,” said Rep. Mike Bost, a Murphysboro Republican. He said drivers engage in many other activities behind the wheel, such as applying makeup disciplining children or eating, that can be distracting and dangerous. “I know it is dangerous, but there’s a lot of things that we do every day while driving in our cars that become dangerous. ... Where do we stop [on bans]?”
Rep. David Harris, an Arlington Heights Republican, said “I readily admit” that the legislation has “elements of Big Brother.”
“This is the government telling you what you can and cannot do within the confines of your car while driving.” But Harris said that the intrusion is justified by the public safety benefits. He noted that technology would eventually reach the point where all drivers would use their phones hands-free. “Until that time comes, our job is to try to make the roadways as safe as possible.”
D’Amico said that more than 70 local governments in Illinois already ban the use of hand-held cell phones while driving, and it makes sense to put a consistent statewide policy in place. “People are dying every day, and if we can do something about it, we need to stop it.” The legislation passed on a 64-46 vote and now heads to the Senate.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Senate approves federal Medicaid expansion
By Meredith Colias
The Illinois Senate approved a measure to expand Medicaid coverage beyond mothers and children to low-income single adults as part of the federal health care reform law.
Senate Bill 26 would expand Medicaid eligibility to an estimated 350,000 adults who do not currently qualify for Medicaid. Adults from 19 to 64 earning up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level would now qualify. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act calls for coverage to be extended for those making 133 percent of the federal poverty level. However, the feds are allowing states some wiggle room, so in practice, the coverage will be extended to those making 138 percent, which was $31,809 for a family of four and $15,415 for a single person in 2012.
The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Heather Steans, a Chicago Democrat, said the expansion would be better for providers such as hospitals, local townships and health care clinics that currently are not reimbursed for providing health care services for uninsured adults. She said it would shift individuals now without health insurance away from using hospital emergency rooms as a costlier last resort for injury and illness. “We can get them up front into care coordinated programs…make sure they are getting the preventative health care they need to stay healthier, which is a much better system when you actually get people care they need,” she said.
Sen. Jacqueline Collins, a Chicago Democrat, said the expansion is important for vulnerable citizens of the state, such as those who “were asked to bear the brunt” of the Medicaid cuts last year. The federal government will pay 100 percent of the costs of the Affordable Care Act for the first three years. Afterward, the state will be responsible for 10 percent of the total cost per year. The bill has specific language allowing Illinois to opt out of the expansion if the share of the federal government's payment falls below 90 percent, and the state has to pick up more than 10 percent of the total cost.
No Republican voted in favor of the legislation. They said they were concerned it was a commitment the state could not afford, and would force newly eligible participants to choose Medicaid over other options, such as buying insurance in the online marketplace that is another component of the Affordable Care Act. "At some time, we have to understand that we have to take responsibility" for its cost when the federal government stops footing the full bill, said Sen. Bill Brady, a Bloomington Republican.
Minority Leader Christine Radogno said that Illinois should do more to negotiate the terms of the expansions with federal officials before agreeing to sign on. Arkansas recently struck a deal with the United States Department of Health and Human Services that will allow that state to spend some of its Medicaid dollars to buy Medicaid-eligible residents insurance in the online exchange. “What I think we lose by getting on more quickly than we need to is any leverage to work with the federal government to make the program fit better for Illinois,” Radogno said.
Steans said she was confident that proper safeguards were built into the law to avoid a risk to the state budget. “We are going to have control over this program as we want,” she said. She said it is more important to change how the current costs are paid and said governors throughout the country are also embracing the expansion. “We pick it up in [the budget now], it doesn’t get any federal matching dollars … Folks are coming in and getting this care [anyway],” Steans said.
She added, “It just makes total economic sense, as well as it’s the right thing to get people more health care coverage.” The measure now heads to the House.
For more on the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, see Illinois Issues September 2012.
The Illinois Senate approved a measure to expand Medicaid coverage beyond mothers and children to low-income single adults as part of the federal health care reform law.
Senate Bill 26 would expand Medicaid eligibility to an estimated 350,000 adults who do not currently qualify for Medicaid. Adults from 19 to 64 earning up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level would now qualify. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act calls for coverage to be extended for those making 133 percent of the federal poverty level. However, the feds are allowing states some wiggle room, so in practice, the coverage will be extended to those making 138 percent, which was $31,809 for a family of four and $15,415 for a single person in 2012.
The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Heather Steans, a Chicago Democrat, said the expansion would be better for providers such as hospitals, local townships and health care clinics that currently are not reimbursed for providing health care services for uninsured adults. She said it would shift individuals now without health insurance away from using hospital emergency rooms as a costlier last resort for injury and illness. “We can get them up front into care coordinated programs…make sure they are getting the preventative health care they need to stay healthier, which is a much better system when you actually get people care they need,” she said.
Sen. Jacqueline Collins, a Chicago Democrat, said the expansion is important for vulnerable citizens of the state, such as those who “were asked to bear the brunt” of the Medicaid cuts last year. The federal government will pay 100 percent of the costs of the Affordable Care Act for the first three years. Afterward, the state will be responsible for 10 percent of the total cost per year. The bill has specific language allowing Illinois to opt out of the expansion if the share of the federal government's payment falls below 90 percent, and the state has to pick up more than 10 percent of the total cost.
No Republican voted in favor of the legislation. They said they were concerned it was a commitment the state could not afford, and would force newly eligible participants to choose Medicaid over other options, such as buying insurance in the online marketplace that is another component of the Affordable Care Act. "At some time, we have to understand that we have to take responsibility" for its cost when the federal government stops footing the full bill, said Sen. Bill Brady, a Bloomington Republican.
Minority Leader Christine Radogno said that Illinois should do more to negotiate the terms of the expansions with federal officials before agreeing to sign on. Arkansas recently struck a deal with the United States Department of Health and Human Services that will allow that state to spend some of its Medicaid dollars to buy Medicaid-eligible residents insurance in the online exchange. “What I think we lose by getting on more quickly than we need to is any leverage to work with the federal government to make the program fit better for Illinois,” Radogno said.
Steans said she was confident that proper safeguards were built into the law to avoid a risk to the state budget. “We are going to have control over this program as we want,” she said. She said it is more important to change how the current costs are paid and said governors throughout the country are also embracing the expansion. “We pick it up in [the budget now], it doesn’t get any federal matching dollars … Folks are coming in and getting this care [anyway],” Steans said.
She added, “It just makes total economic sense, as well as it’s the right thing to get people more health care coverage.” The measure now heads to the House.
For more on the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, see Illinois Issues September 2012.
More test votes coming on pensions and guns
By Jamey Dunn
Votes to gauge lawmakers’ sentiments on several pension proposals today produced little information, as Republicans refused to take part in a process that they called a political game.
Northbrook Democratic Rep. Elaine Nekritz, who has sponsored several pension reform proposals recently, presented four amendments put forward by House Speaker Michael Madigan, and the House resoundingly rejected them all. The amendment that received the most support, five “yes” votes, would prohibit cost of living adjustments [COLAs] for retirees if the pensions systems were less than 80 percent funded. The systems are currently funded at 39 percent. The least popular amendment, which would have moved the retirement age to 67, received only one favorable vote, and that came from Madigan, himself. The other two amendments would have eliminated COLAs entirely and would have required employees to contribute an additional 5 percent of their salaries toward pension costs. There was little debate on any of the amendments. However, House Minority Leader Tom Cross rose to give a lengthy speech explaining why Republicans refused to engage or vote on the amendments. “Today, we’re going to go through the charade of acting like we are going to do something about it, and it’s nothing but a joke,” he said on the House floor. “It’s like this is the dysfunctional family with the alcoholic, and we think if we ignore it, it will go away, while he or she wrecks the car, destroys the family finances, causes problems at home. And we think, well it will just go away. We’re not even addressing the problem today. And somewhere, someday, somehow, we’ve got to accept the fact that we have a challenge on our hands. And we have to do [something about] it in a comprehensive way.”
Cross praised Nekritz for her separate efforts to craft a comprehensive bill. “She’s a leader. She stood up, taking on and fighting folks that have been natural allies of hers, and she’s to be commended for what she’s done and what she’s doing and what she wants to do.” Cross and Nekritz sponsor House Bill 3411, which they unveiled yesterday. Cross said the measure, which has bipartisan support in both chambers, should be a starting point for negotiating a bill that can pass. “We need to sit down — the four [legislative] leaders with the governor — quit the B.S. and get a bill with 60 votes, 30 in the Senate and 60 here, and send it to the governor’s desk.”
Nekritz said she preferred her and Cross’ proposal to the amendments offered by Madigan, which were generally harsher on state employees and retirees. But she said that today’s votes did illustrate the levels to which lawmakers are not willing to go when it comes to reducing COLAs, hiking employee contributions and increasing the retirement age. “We don’t have 60 votes on [HB3411] yet. And we have to engage in a process that will get us there. And maybe this isn’t exactly what we would all want, but we needed to shake things up. We needed to do something a little different than we’ve been doing because, as Leader Cross said, we’ve been working for three years to get to a point where we have a bill that can get 60 votes here,” Nekritz said on the House floor. “We all need to find something we’re for, and if this is a process that can get us to something that we’re for, then let’s go ahead with it. If it’s some other process, I’m open to that, too. But we have to get to something that we’re for, and each of you has to engage in that process of getting to yes.”
Marengo Democratic Rep. Jack Franks called on the party leaders to convene a "committee of the whole," which consists of all members of the House, and put all other issues aside until the chamber approves a bill with changes to the pension system. “I would ask that instead of being a pawn in the process, that instead, we take back the process. And I know this is unprecedented, but we’ve never faced this type of problem before.”
Cross said he would agree to such a move, but the idea did not go over well with Madigan. “The last thing I think the House of Representatives needs is another hearing. How many hearings have we had? How many bills have we offered? How many times have people withdrawn bills and ducked and bobbed and weaved? So a committee of the whole is really the craziest idea,” said Madigan spokesman Steve Brown.
Despite the unenthusiastic response to today’s exercise, which was similar to the treatment that concealed carry amendments got on Tuesday, Brown said lawmakers should expect the process, dubbed Weekly Order of Business, to continue. He said that there will likely be more of them on both pensions and “gun safety issues.” Under such orders, lawmakers are asked to take roll call votes to adopt various amendments, which each contain a single provision. However, no final action is called on the bill after amendments are adopted or rejected. “The strategy is to test the gambit of ideas. ... Test every idea that’s out there. You’ve heard people complain over the years about not being able to vote. Well, here’s a chance to vote.”
He also said the language in Cross and Nekritz’s bill could be moved straight to the floor, skipping over a committee hearing. “I think there’s some interest in maybe just discharging that bill and sending it to the floor and see who wants to vote on it,” Brown said. “Don’t rule anything out.”
Votes to gauge lawmakers’ sentiments on several pension proposals today produced little information, as Republicans refused to take part in a process that they called a political game.
Northbrook Democratic Rep. Elaine Nekritz, who has sponsored several pension reform proposals recently, presented four amendments put forward by House Speaker Michael Madigan, and the House resoundingly rejected them all. The amendment that received the most support, five “yes” votes, would prohibit cost of living adjustments [COLAs] for retirees if the pensions systems were less than 80 percent funded. The systems are currently funded at 39 percent. The least popular amendment, which would have moved the retirement age to 67, received only one favorable vote, and that came from Madigan, himself. The other two amendments would have eliminated COLAs entirely and would have required employees to contribute an additional 5 percent of their salaries toward pension costs. There was little debate on any of the amendments. However, House Minority Leader Tom Cross rose to give a lengthy speech explaining why Republicans refused to engage or vote on the amendments. “Today, we’re going to go through the charade of acting like we are going to do something about it, and it’s nothing but a joke,” he said on the House floor. “It’s like this is the dysfunctional family with the alcoholic, and we think if we ignore it, it will go away, while he or she wrecks the car, destroys the family finances, causes problems at home. And we think, well it will just go away. We’re not even addressing the problem today. And somewhere, someday, somehow, we’ve got to accept the fact that we have a challenge on our hands. And we have to do [something about] it in a comprehensive way.”
Cross praised Nekritz for her separate efforts to craft a comprehensive bill. “She’s a leader. She stood up, taking on and fighting folks that have been natural allies of hers, and she’s to be commended for what she’s done and what she’s doing and what she wants to do.” Cross and Nekritz sponsor House Bill 3411, which they unveiled yesterday. Cross said the measure, which has bipartisan support in both chambers, should be a starting point for negotiating a bill that can pass. “We need to sit down — the four [legislative] leaders with the governor — quit the B.S. and get a bill with 60 votes, 30 in the Senate and 60 here, and send it to the governor’s desk.”
Nekritz said she preferred her and Cross’ proposal to the amendments offered by Madigan, which were generally harsher on state employees and retirees. But she said that today’s votes did illustrate the levels to which lawmakers are not willing to go when it comes to reducing COLAs, hiking employee contributions and increasing the retirement age. “We don’t have 60 votes on [HB3411] yet. And we have to engage in a process that will get us there. And maybe this isn’t exactly what we would all want, but we needed to shake things up. We needed to do something a little different than we’ve been doing because, as Leader Cross said, we’ve been working for three years to get to a point where we have a bill that can get 60 votes here,” Nekritz said on the House floor. “We all need to find something we’re for, and if this is a process that can get us to something that we’re for, then let’s go ahead with it. If it’s some other process, I’m open to that, too. But we have to get to something that we’re for, and each of you has to engage in that process of getting to yes.”
Marengo Democratic Rep. Jack Franks called on the party leaders to convene a "committee of the whole," which consists of all members of the House, and put all other issues aside until the chamber approves a bill with changes to the pension system. “I would ask that instead of being a pawn in the process, that instead, we take back the process. And I know this is unprecedented, but we’ve never faced this type of problem before.”
Cross said he would agree to such a move, but the idea did not go over well with Madigan. “The last thing I think the House of Representatives needs is another hearing. How many hearings have we had? How many bills have we offered? How many times have people withdrawn bills and ducked and bobbed and weaved? So a committee of the whole is really the craziest idea,” said Madigan spokesman Steve Brown.
Despite the unenthusiastic response to today’s exercise, which was similar to the treatment that concealed carry amendments got on Tuesday, Brown said lawmakers should expect the process, dubbed Weekly Order of Business, to continue. He said that there will likely be more of them on both pensions and “gun safety issues.” Under such orders, lawmakers are asked to take roll call votes to adopt various amendments, which each contain a single provision. However, no final action is called on the bill after amendments are adopted or rejected. “The strategy is to test the gambit of ideas. ... Test every idea that’s out there. You’ve heard people complain over the years about not being able to vote. Well, here’s a chance to vote.”
He also said the language in Cross and Nekritz’s bill could be moved straight to the floor, skipping over a committee hearing. “I think there’s some interest in maybe just discharging that bill and sending it to the floor and see who wants to vote on it,” Brown said. “Don’t rule anything out.”
State and union leaders reach deal on new contract
Gov. Pat Quinn’s administration and the state’s largest public employee union have reached a tentative deal on a new contract for state workers.
Negotiations over a new contract stretched on for more than 15 months. The state’s contract with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 31 expired last June. The contract was extended until November, when Quinn refused to extend it further. Employees have been working without a contract since then.
The union and Quinn’s administration announced the deal for three-year contract today, but AFSCME said it does not plan to make the details public until the union’s members have a chance to review the agreement. “At a time when the state is facing unprecedented financial challenges, this agreement is fair to both hard-working state employees and all taxpayers of Illinois,” Quinn said in a prepared statement. “I want to thank the women and men who have stayed at the table for more than a year for their commitment to reaching an agreement.”
Union members still have to approve the new contract. According to a news release from AFSCME, the ratification process will start at work sites next week. “AFSCME is very pleased that we were able to reach an agreement that protects our members’ standard of living, and is fair to them and all Illinois citizens, even in these very challenging economic times,” AFSCME Council 31 executive director Henry Bayer said in a prepared statement.
Negotiations over a new contract stretched on for more than 15 months. The state’s contract with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 31 expired last June. The contract was extended until November, when Quinn refused to extend it further. Employees have been working without a contract since then.
The union and Quinn’s administration announced the deal for three-year contract today, but AFSCME said it does not plan to make the details public until the union’s members have a chance to review the agreement. “At a time when the state is facing unprecedented financial challenges, this agreement is fair to both hard-working state employees and all taxpayers of Illinois,” Quinn said in a prepared statement. “I want to thank the women and men who have stayed at the table for more than a year for their commitment to reaching an agreement.”
Union members still have to approve the new contract. According to a news release from AFSCME, the ratification process will start at work sites next week. “AFSCME is very pleased that we were able to reach an agreement that protects our members’ standard of living, and is fair to them and all Illinois citizens, even in these very challenging economic times,” AFSCME Council 31 executive director Henry Bayer said in a prepared statement.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Supporters hopeful about new bipartisan pension bill
By Jamey Dunn
Lawmakers who have been spearheading recent pension reform efforts have introduced yet another plan they say could garner strong support from Republicans and Democrats.
The changes to benefits for current employees in House Bill 3411 are identical to a bill Northbrook Democratic Rep. Elaine Nekrtiz and Sen. Daniel Biss introduced in December. Biss, an Evanston Democrat, was serving in the House at the time. “Everyone was working in good faith. Everyone was pulling in the same direction, but fundamentally, we were never able to get a bill that a critical mass of both Democrats and Republicans could support,” Biss said at a news conference to unveil the legislation today. “We had a bill that had a lot of Democrats and a few brave, or maybe foolhardy, Republicans, and then we had a bill that had a lot of Republicans and a few brave, or maybe foolhardy, Democrats. And we all knew that there was a way of meeting in the middle that could put together both coalitions at once, and I think today we’ve found it.” Biss introduced identical language to HB 3411 in his chamber as Senate Bill 35. The legislation would:
Biss estimated that if the measure were approved and upheld by the courts to go into effect by July, it could shave $2 billion off the state’s pension payment for the next fiscal year. It would reduce the unfunded liability by an estimated $28 billion and fully fund the systems by 2043.
A new component of the proposal would place all employees of schools outside of Chicago, university and community college employees hired after January 1, 2014, into a so-called hybrid plan that has a defined benefits component and a defined contribution component. Schools, colleges and universities would be responsible for the cost of these plans and could offer an optional employer match of 3 percent to 10 percent of an employee’s pay for the 401(k)-like component of the hybrid plan. It is the hybrid plan for new workers that proponents point to as the compromise that will help them build support. Schools and colleges will take over the cost of retirement benefits for future employees, but the measure does not contain the cost shift of future benefits for all employees, which was strongly opposed by many Republicans. “So at the end of the day, the state, for these two systems, is out of the pensions business,” said House Minority Leader Tom Cross. “We think that is the wave of the future. It’s the way that many other states have gone and obviously the private sector. And it’s the only way we think as a state we can sustain a pension system and take care of our employees at the same time.”
A statement from union leaders called the plan “a step backwards” in the debate over pension reform. “Like the previous approach, HB 3411 continues to focus on unfair, unconstitutional benefit cuts that erode the value of retirees’ pensions. Now, it also creates a hybrid 401(k) plan that would harm retirement security for a new generation, even though this feature does not substantially address the state’s unfunded liability. Employees like teachers, state university personnel, and police officers already do not receive Social Security, and more than half of their retirement would be at market risk under a hybrid proposal like HB 3411,” The We Are One Coalition said in a news release. “Traditional defined-benefit pensions simply work better than defined-contribution plans — even hybrid plans. Defined-benefit plans are more efficient at providing retirement income. They generate better returns, and they diversify holdings and spread risk more effectively. Moreover, ongoing costs for defined-contribution plans exceed those of defined-benefit plans.”
The bill comes the day before the House is expected to consider several pension amendments from House Speaker Michael Madigan. Amendments filed by Madigan would:
However, the House is not expected to take a final vote on any of these proposals. Tomorrow’s session will likely be similar to Tuesday’s session that focused on concealed carry, when House members voted on several amendments but did not pass a bill.
Lawmakers who have been spearheading recent pension reform efforts have introduced yet another plan they say could garner strong support from Republicans and Democrats.
The changes to benefits for current employees in House Bill 3411 are identical to a bill Northbrook Democratic Rep. Elaine Nekrtiz and Sen. Daniel Biss introduced in December. Biss, an Evanston Democrat, was serving in the House at the time. “Everyone was working in good faith. Everyone was pulling in the same direction, but fundamentally, we were never able to get a bill that a critical mass of both Democrats and Republicans could support,” Biss said at a news conference to unveil the legislation today. “We had a bill that had a lot of Democrats and a few brave, or maybe foolhardy, Republicans, and then we had a bill that had a lot of Republicans and a few brave, or maybe foolhardy, Democrats. And we all knew that there was a way of meeting in the middle that could put together both coalitions at once, and I think today we’ve found it.” Biss introduced identical language to HB 3411 in his chamber as Senate Bill 35. The legislation would:
- Increase employee contributions by 2 percent of their salaries. The increase would phase in over two years.
- Allow cost of living adjustments [COLAs] on only the first $25,000 of a retiree’s pension, or on only $20,000 for those who receive Social Security benefits. COLAs would not kick in until a retiree turns 67 or five years after retirement, whichever comes first.
- Increase the retirement age for employees younger than age 46. Employees from age 40 to 45 would see a one-year increase, employees 35 to 39 would see a three-year increase and employees 34 and younger would see a five-year increase.
- Limit the amount of pensionable income to the Social Security wage base, which will be $113,700 in 2013, or the employee's current salary, whichever is greater.
- Guarantee that the state make required annual payments to the pension systems.
Biss estimated that if the measure were approved and upheld by the courts to go into effect by July, it could shave $2 billion off the state’s pension payment for the next fiscal year. It would reduce the unfunded liability by an estimated $28 billion and fully fund the systems by 2043.
A new component of the proposal would place all employees of schools outside of Chicago, university and community college employees hired after January 1, 2014, into a so-called hybrid plan that has a defined benefits component and a defined contribution component. Schools, colleges and universities would be responsible for the cost of these plans and could offer an optional employer match of 3 percent to 10 percent of an employee’s pay for the 401(k)-like component of the hybrid plan. It is the hybrid plan for new workers that proponents point to as the compromise that will help them build support. Schools and colleges will take over the cost of retirement benefits for future employees, but the measure does not contain the cost shift of future benefits for all employees, which was strongly opposed by many Republicans. “So at the end of the day, the state, for these two systems, is out of the pensions business,” said House Minority Leader Tom Cross. “We think that is the wave of the future. It’s the way that many other states have gone and obviously the private sector. And it’s the only way we think as a state we can sustain a pension system and take care of our employees at the same time.”
A statement from union leaders called the plan “a step backwards” in the debate over pension reform. “Like the previous approach, HB 3411 continues to focus on unfair, unconstitutional benefit cuts that erode the value of retirees’ pensions. Now, it also creates a hybrid 401(k) plan that would harm retirement security for a new generation, even though this feature does not substantially address the state’s unfunded liability. Employees like teachers, state university personnel, and police officers already do not receive Social Security, and more than half of their retirement would be at market risk under a hybrid proposal like HB 3411,” The We Are One Coalition said in a news release. “Traditional defined-benefit pensions simply work better than defined-contribution plans — even hybrid plans. Defined-benefit plans are more efficient at providing retirement income. They generate better returns, and they diversify holdings and spread risk more effectively. Moreover, ongoing costs for defined-contribution plans exceed those of defined-benefit plans.”
The bill comes the day before the House is expected to consider several pension amendments from House Speaker Michael Madigan. Amendments filed by Madigan would:
- Eliminate COLAs.
- Freeze COLAs until the system is 80 percent funded.
- Require employees to contribute an additional 5 percent of their pay toward retirement benefits.
- Increase the retirement age for full benefits to 67.
However, the House is not expected to take a final vote on any of these proposals. Tomorrow’s session will likely be similar to Tuesday’s session that focused on concealed carry, when House members voted on several amendments but did not pass a bill.
Lobbying battle over same sex marriage heats up in the House
By Meredith Colias
An Illinois House committee advanced a same-sex marriage proposal late this evening, but its sponsor said he would not call the bill for a floor vote this week.
The House Executive Committee approved Senate Bill 10 on a 6-5 vote.
Chicago Democratic Rep. Greg Harris, the bill’s sponsor, said he was upbeat about its chances for passage, even though the bill may face a tougher challenge than it did in the Senate. “I think it will look very good on the full floor,” he said. Bernard Cherkasov, chief executive officer of Equality Illinois, said he was optimistic and he thinks growing public opinion for same-sex marriage statewide would play an important role in pushing the final vote. "Every day that goes by, there's more and more support for this issue,” he said. “If they vote against the freedom to marry, they are going to be on the wrong side of history." Public opinion for support on same-sex marriage has been growing steadily in the state. A poll by the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute between taken between January 27 and February 8 showed 45.5 percent of Illinoisans favored legalizing same-sex marriage, up from 33.6 three years prior.
Opponents testifying, however, took a notably sharper tone than they did during Senate debates, citing religious objections and the possible detrimental effects on children with same-sex parents. Ralph Rivera of the Illinois Family Institute said before the hearing that members of both parties opposed the bill, and he was confident the measure did not have enough support to reach that point. “I don't see the votes. ... The numbers aren't there for them,” he said.
No Republican committee members voted in favor of the bill. East St. Louis Democratic Rep. Eddie Lee Jackson Sr. voted against it, and Rep. Luis Arroyo, a Chicago Democrat, said he may not vote in favor of the proposal when Harris calls it in the House because of his religious objections and feedback from his district. The measure needs a minimum of 60 votes to pass the House. Senate Bill 10 passed the Senate on Valentine’s Day, 34-21, but with only one Republican vote. Democratic Governor Pat Quinn has said he would sign the measure into law if it passes the General Assembly.
An Illinois House committee advanced a same-sex marriage proposal late this evening, but its sponsor said he would not call the bill for a floor vote this week.
The House Executive Committee approved Senate Bill 10 on a 6-5 vote.
Chicago Democratic Rep. Greg Harris, the bill’s sponsor, said he was upbeat about its chances for passage, even though the bill may face a tougher challenge than it did in the Senate. “I think it will look very good on the full floor,” he said. Bernard Cherkasov, chief executive officer of Equality Illinois, said he was optimistic and he thinks growing public opinion for same-sex marriage statewide would play an important role in pushing the final vote. "Every day that goes by, there's more and more support for this issue,” he said. “If they vote against the freedom to marry, they are going to be on the wrong side of history." Public opinion for support on same-sex marriage has been growing steadily in the state. A poll by the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute between taken between January 27 and February 8 showed 45.5 percent of Illinoisans favored legalizing same-sex marriage, up from 33.6 three years prior.
Opponents testifying, however, took a notably sharper tone than they did during Senate debates, citing religious objections and the possible detrimental effects on children with same-sex parents. Ralph Rivera of the Illinois Family Institute said before the hearing that members of both parties opposed the bill, and he was confident the measure did not have enough support to reach that point. “I don't see the votes. ... The numbers aren't there for them,” he said.
No Republican committee members voted in favor of the bill. East St. Louis Democratic Rep. Eddie Lee Jackson Sr. voted against it, and Rep. Luis Arroyo, a Chicago Democrat, said he may not vote in favor of the proposal when Harris calls it in the House because of his religious objections and feedback from his district. The measure needs a minimum of 60 votes to pass the House. Senate Bill 10 passed the Senate on Valentine’s Day, 34-21, but with only one Republican vote. Democratic Governor Pat Quinn has said he would sign the measure into law if it passes the General Assembly.
House feels out concealed carry proposals
By Jamey Dunn
Over the course of seven hours today, Illinois House members went on the record on various provisions that could make up a final plan to allow concealed carry of firearms. Pension changes may get the same treatment later this week.
In December, the federal 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the state’s ban on carrying firearms in public is unconstitutional. The court gave The General Assembly 180 days to pass a law to regulate carry. The court’s opinion said the state could set reasonable restrictions on carry, such as training requirements for licenses and banning guns in certain places.
Now, the House is trying to wade through the potential components of a plan. Lawmakers were faced with 31 amendments to House Bill 1155 today dealing with various components of concealed carry, including where guns would be allowed and what kind of licensing system that state might have. Debate lasted for about seven hours, and lawmakers voted in favor of 10 amendments. Amendments that were approved would:
Lawmakers rejected amendments that would have banned guns at places that dispense alcohol, public gatherings, such as fairs, and on university and community college campuses. Rep. Brandon Phelps, who has sponsored several concealed carry bills in recent years, said that the amendment that dealt with universities did not adhere to a previous compromise made with the universities. “We had a deal. A deal is a deal, especially in this General Assembly.”
Republicans complained about the unorthodox process, which called on the full House to vote on complex and controversial amendments. Typically, such amendments are first vetted and approved by a committee before reaching the floor. However, none of the votes cast today were final action, and HB 1155 might not be the final concealed carry bill. Republicans accused Democrats of trying to push them into votes that could later be used against them in future elections. “I don’t think this is going anywhere. I really don’t. We’re playing games,” said Rep. Mike Bost, a Murphysboro Republican. But others said they saw today’s events as a kickoff to the debate over carry. “People are going to get excited about some of these amendments, but I believe this is the beginning of a process. And I hope everybody understands that,” said Rep. Jim Durkin, a Western Springs Republican.
House members approved an amendment that contains concealed carry legislation similar to HB 997, which Phelps introduced earlier this year. His proposal would require applicants to have training and a shooting test to obtain a license. The application fee for a license would be $85, and the Illinois State Police would be required to issue licenses to those applicants who were eligible. The proposal would ban guns from several locations, including schools and bars. It would also allow universities and community colleges to prohibit guns on campus. “We believe we have a reasonable bill that complies with the court’s decision and directions. We should have one standard for our state.”
Phelps said language that would allow the state police to use discretion when issuing licenses could lead to cases of discrimination. “We believe that a bureaucrat should not dictate who gets a permit or [does] not get a permit.” Phelps warned that if lawmakers cannot get concealed carry legislation passed, there would be no restrictions after the court’s deadline is up in June.
Democratic Rep. Michael Zalewski of Riverside said that today’s session was useful for getting members to grasp the complexity of the issue and getting a feel for where their preferences lie. “I think we needed this particular day to ensure that people were aware of the issues that we face on this. Everyone assumes that we can just pass a bill and this will all figure itself out, but there’s so many ... factors that go into this and how we balance protecting public safety with the constitutional right to carry a weapon, so we needed this for people to start thinking about the issue.” He said the votes on the amendments banning guns were instructive about what proposals could receive support in a final bill. “We may not be able to put a restriction on what people do in a public way. We may only be able to regulate schools and mass transit and parks and things. So that’s my takeaway.”
As the hours ticked by, several amendments were passed over without a vote. Zalewski sponsored an amendment that would have allowed the police to use discretion when issuing licenses but did not call the provision for a vote. He said the arguments over more rigid language that the state “shall issue” concealed carry permits and his more permissive “may issue” language came up during debate over Phelps’ amendment. Phelps and other concealed carry supporters believe that “may issue” language would not meet the requirements in the federal court’s ruling. Zalewski disagrees. He said that just because 67 House members voted in favor of Phelps’ plan does not mean it will be the final language. “I think that it’s important to note that that bill didn’t get 71 votes. We’ve always operated under the assumption that we’re going to preempt home rule here. And if that’s the case, then it needs a 71 [to] 36 majority.”
During the debate, Republicans complained that Democratic leaders plan to address proposed changes to the pension systems for state employees in a similar way this week. Zalewski said he thinks the process could be even more useful for addressing pension reform. “Thursday, we’re doing the same thing on pensions so that will be instructive,” he said. “On pensions, everyone talks a really nice game, but no one’s actually had to vote for something [on the floor] yet. So we will find out if people are really wiling to raise contributions, and we will find out if people are really willing to limit [cost-of-living adjustments]. ... Forcing people to the table and forcing them to take hard votes, I think it’s helpful. We were bogged down, so we need to move the ball a little bit.”
Over the course of seven hours today, Illinois House members went on the record on various provisions that could make up a final plan to allow concealed carry of firearms. Pension changes may get the same treatment later this week.
In December, the federal 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the state’s ban on carrying firearms in public is unconstitutional. The court gave The General Assembly 180 days to pass a law to regulate carry. The court’s opinion said the state could set reasonable restrictions on carry, such as training requirements for licenses and banning guns in certain places.
Now, the House is trying to wade through the potential components of a plan. Lawmakers were faced with 31 amendments to House Bill 1155 today dealing with various components of concealed carry, including where guns would be allowed and what kind of licensing system that state might have. Debate lasted for about seven hours, and lawmakers voted in favor of 10 amendments. Amendments that were approved would:
- Prohibit concealed carry in schools, libraries, government buildings and on public mass transit.
- Bar guns from child care facilities, hospitals and mental health facilities.
- Ban carry in gaming facilities, at amusement parks and sporting events.
Lawmakers rejected amendments that would have banned guns at places that dispense alcohol, public gatherings, such as fairs, and on university and community college campuses. Rep. Brandon Phelps, who has sponsored several concealed carry bills in recent years, said that the amendment that dealt with universities did not adhere to a previous compromise made with the universities. “We had a deal. A deal is a deal, especially in this General Assembly.”
Republicans complained about the unorthodox process, which called on the full House to vote on complex and controversial amendments. Typically, such amendments are first vetted and approved by a committee before reaching the floor. However, none of the votes cast today were final action, and HB 1155 might not be the final concealed carry bill. Republicans accused Democrats of trying to push them into votes that could later be used against them in future elections. “I don’t think this is going anywhere. I really don’t. We’re playing games,” said Rep. Mike Bost, a Murphysboro Republican. But others said they saw today’s events as a kickoff to the debate over carry. “People are going to get excited about some of these amendments, but I believe this is the beginning of a process. And I hope everybody understands that,” said Rep. Jim Durkin, a Western Springs Republican.
House members approved an amendment that contains concealed carry legislation similar to HB 997, which Phelps introduced earlier this year. His proposal would require applicants to have training and a shooting test to obtain a license. The application fee for a license would be $85, and the Illinois State Police would be required to issue licenses to those applicants who were eligible. The proposal would ban guns from several locations, including schools and bars. It would also allow universities and community colleges to prohibit guns on campus. “We believe we have a reasonable bill that complies with the court’s decision and directions. We should have one standard for our state.”
Phelps said language that would allow the state police to use discretion when issuing licenses could lead to cases of discrimination. “We believe that a bureaucrat should not dictate who gets a permit or [does] not get a permit.” Phelps warned that if lawmakers cannot get concealed carry legislation passed, there would be no restrictions after the court’s deadline is up in June.
Democratic Rep. Michael Zalewski of Riverside said that today’s session was useful for getting members to grasp the complexity of the issue and getting a feel for where their preferences lie. “I think we needed this particular day to ensure that people were aware of the issues that we face on this. Everyone assumes that we can just pass a bill and this will all figure itself out, but there’s so many ... factors that go into this and how we balance protecting public safety with the constitutional right to carry a weapon, so we needed this for people to start thinking about the issue.” He said the votes on the amendments banning guns were instructive about what proposals could receive support in a final bill. “We may not be able to put a restriction on what people do in a public way. We may only be able to regulate schools and mass transit and parks and things. So that’s my takeaway.”
As the hours ticked by, several amendments were passed over without a vote. Zalewski sponsored an amendment that would have allowed the police to use discretion when issuing licenses but did not call the provision for a vote. He said the arguments over more rigid language that the state “shall issue” concealed carry permits and his more permissive “may issue” language came up during debate over Phelps’ amendment. Phelps and other concealed carry supporters believe that “may issue” language would not meet the requirements in the federal court’s ruling. Zalewski disagrees. He said that just because 67 House members voted in favor of Phelps’ plan does not mean it will be the final language. “I think that it’s important to note that that bill didn’t get 71 votes. We’ve always operated under the assumption that we’re going to preempt home rule here. And if that’s the case, then it needs a 71 [to] 36 majority.”
During the debate, Republicans complained that Democratic leaders plan to address proposed changes to the pension systems for state employees in a similar way this week. Zalewski said he thinks the process could be even more useful for addressing pension reform. “Thursday, we’re doing the same thing on pensions so that will be instructive,” he said. “On pensions, everyone talks a really nice game, but no one’s actually had to vote for something [on the floor] yet. So we will find out if people are really wiling to raise contributions, and we will find out if people are really willing to limit [cost-of-living adjustments]. ... Forcing people to the table and forcing them to take hard votes, I think it’s helpful. We were bogged down, so we need to move the ball a little bit.”
Friday, February 22, 2013
Corrections begins awarding 'good time' off inmates' sentences
By Jamey Dunn
The Illinois Department of Corrections has begun awarding inmates time off of their sentences under a good-time credit law approved last year.
“After careful review, the department has begun to provisionally award supplemental sentence credit to approximately 12 eligible inmates. These provisional awards will become final awards of sentence credit near an inmate’s parole date. The department continues to review inmate files and will award credit to eligible low-level inmates as appropriate after careful and thoughtful review,” said a written statement from the DoC. So far, no inmates have been released early under the program.
In 2009, the Department of Corrections instituted a policy dubbed MGT Push, which waived the a longstanding waiting period and allowed inmates to apply their credit immediately. This decision was made behind closed doors and was not publicized. After the Associated Press reported on the program, the fallout plagued Gov. Pat Quinn as he was running for the governor’s office in 2010. Quinn pulled together a group of staff members and experts who released a report in 2010 suggesting reforms that should take place before early release was reinstated. However, Quinn dropped the issue, and the program remained suspended for years while the state’s prisons faced overcrowding.
But after the General Assembly approved legislation creating a new program for awarding non-violent prisoners time off their sentences for good behavior, Quinn signed the bill last summer. “We worked it out with the legislature. It was long in coming. A judge did a study of the whole system and recommended a number of reforms. The legislature took that study, put it into law. I signed it into law, and we’re carrying it out,” Quinn said earlier this week. “We’ve got to follow the blueprint that is outlined in the law, and I think we will do very well if we go forward right with that.”
The department is referring to the time off, as “supplemental sentence credit (SSC).” The credit can shave up to 180 days off a sentence. Inmates must serve 60 days before becoming eligible for program. According to a news release from DoC: “The file review includes a comprehensive examination of an offender’s current holding offense(s) as well as any criminal history and disciplinary record. Programming, educational courses, assignments and any other supporting evidence that could show an offender’s progression towards rehabilitation will also be reviewed.” After credit is awarded, the department can revoke it if an inmate has disciplinary problems.
Requirements for the program are listed on the department’s website. However, awarding of the credit is at the discretion of DoC. “It is important to note that even if an offender is potentially eligible for an award of SSC, the offender should not and does not have an outright expectation to receive an award,” the website states. DoC says it will not be able to project who will receive credit under the program, and it will not respond to inquires about potential eligibility. “Because of the many factors the department intends to consider for each potentially eligible offender, it is impossible for the department to project whether or when any specific offender will receive an award of SSC credit. It is also not possible for the department to respond to inquiries concerning an offender’s likelihood of receiving an award of SSC due to the department’s policy that prevents the disclosure of confidential master record file information and criminal history.” However, DoC says it will notify inmates who get credit, and the credit will be reflected on their profiles on the DoC’s website. The department is also required to notify local law enforcement at least two weeks before the parole date of any inmate who receives time off his or her sentence under the program.
The Illinois Department of Corrections has begun awarding inmates time off of their sentences under a good-time credit law approved last year.
“After careful review, the department has begun to provisionally award supplemental sentence credit to approximately 12 eligible inmates. These provisional awards will become final awards of sentence credit near an inmate’s parole date. The department continues to review inmate files and will award credit to eligible low-level inmates as appropriate after careful and thoughtful review,” said a written statement from the DoC. So far, no inmates have been released early under the program.
In 2009, the Department of Corrections instituted a policy dubbed MGT Push, which waived the a longstanding waiting period and allowed inmates to apply their credit immediately. This decision was made behind closed doors and was not publicized. After the Associated Press reported on the program, the fallout plagued Gov. Pat Quinn as he was running for the governor’s office in 2010. Quinn pulled together a group of staff members and experts who released a report in 2010 suggesting reforms that should take place before early release was reinstated. However, Quinn dropped the issue, and the program remained suspended for years while the state’s prisons faced overcrowding.
But after the General Assembly approved legislation creating a new program for awarding non-violent prisoners time off their sentences for good behavior, Quinn signed the bill last summer. “We worked it out with the legislature. It was long in coming. A judge did a study of the whole system and recommended a number of reforms. The legislature took that study, put it into law. I signed it into law, and we’re carrying it out,” Quinn said earlier this week. “We’ve got to follow the blueprint that is outlined in the law, and I think we will do very well if we go forward right with that.”
The department is referring to the time off, as “supplemental sentence credit (SSC).” The credit can shave up to 180 days off a sentence. Inmates must serve 60 days before becoming eligible for program. According to a news release from DoC: “The file review includes a comprehensive examination of an offender’s current holding offense(s) as well as any criminal history and disciplinary record. Programming, educational courses, assignments and any other supporting evidence that could show an offender’s progression towards rehabilitation will also be reviewed.” After credit is awarded, the department can revoke it if an inmate has disciplinary problems.
Requirements for the program are listed on the department’s website. However, awarding of the credit is at the discretion of DoC. “It is important to note that even if an offender is potentially eligible for an award of SSC, the offender should not and does not have an outright expectation to receive an award,” the website states. DoC says it will not be able to project who will receive credit under the program, and it will not respond to inquires about potential eligibility. “Because of the many factors the department intends to consider for each potentially eligible offender, it is impossible for the department to project whether or when any specific offender will receive an award of SSC credit. It is also not possible for the department to respond to inquiries concerning an offender’s likelihood of receiving an award of SSC due to the department’s policy that prevents the disclosure of confidential master record file information and criminal history.” However, DoC says it will notify inmates who get credit, and the credit will be reflected on their profiles on the DoC’s website. The department is also required to notify local law enforcement at least two weeks before the parole date of any inmate who receives time off his or her sentence under the program.
House to focus on guns next week
By Jamey Dunn
Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan is urging lawmakers to approve legislation regulating the concealed carry of firearms after a federal court denied her appeal of its ruling.
In December, a panel of judges from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Illinois' ban on carrying guns in public unconstitutional. The decision gave the General Assembly 180 days to pass concealed carry legislation. Madigan asked for the entire court to reconsider the case, but her request was denied today. “Although the 7th Circuit rarely grants rehearing en banc [by all of the judges], it was important to ask the full court to reconsider its opinion. Significantly, in today’s decision, four of the 7th Circuit judges have provided a clear framework to guide the legislature in drafting a new law. With the 180-day deadline still in place, it is critical that the legislature continue to work to enact a law that will protect public safety,” Madigan said in a prepared statement.
Judge David Hamilton wrote in his dissenting opinion that the court's ruling was the first time a federal appeals court has struck down a law barring public carry of a firearms. “In so many public settings, carrying and using firearms present lethal risks to innocent bystanders. Yet when people go about their daily lives in public places, they have no choice about whether to consent to the dangers posed by firearms in public. We can all choose whether to visit homes where firearms are present,” Hamilton wrote in his dissent. “To illustrate the dangers posed by lawful use of firearms in public, consider a deadly confrontation on the streets of New York City in August 2012, when police confronted an armed man who had just shot and killed another man. The police officers were well-trained in both how to shoot and when to shoot and not shoot. The officers fatally shot the gunman, but the officers’ many shots also wounded nine bystanders.”
The denial comes as the House is preparing to debate gun control next week. House Speaker Michael Madigan has called for “Weekly Order of Business” to begin next week focused on gun issues. (House Rule 31, Page 50 line 13) The move is a call for the House to focus on a single topic, and it begins next Tuesday. “It will be a time to consider gun safety issues,” said Madigan spokesman Steve Brown. He said the official designation allows lawmakers and interested parties to prepare. However, it does not change legislative procedure. “The steps you take to pass a bill or amend a bill would be the same.” The House has already held two hearings on the topic of concealed carry and has a hearing on assault weapons scheduled for next Thursday.
Some gun control advocates say they do not plan to fight against carry because they concede that the court ruling means it is coming to the state. Mark Walsh, campaign director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, said his organization's opposition to carry “has been well-documented over the years.” But he said at a hearing in Springfield this week, “We are now working under a court order to pass legislation regulating some form of concealed carry.” Walsh and others are pushing for restrictions such as a requirement that gun owners report lost or stolen guns, restrictions on where guns can be carried and legislative language that allows law enforcement officials to use discretion when issuing permits for carry. Walsh said he now hopes to “use this court order as an opportunity to save lives.
A representative from Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez’s office indicated at the hearing that unless lawmakers passed concealed carry legislation, the state’s attorney would continue to prosecute people under the current law, even after the court’s deadline. “The lower federal courts, either the district courts or the courts of appeal, cannot tell the Illinois Supreme Court how to rule or whether or not that law is constitutional. The only court that can resolve that split is the U.S. Supreme Court,” said Cook County Assistant State's Attorney Paul Castiglione. But Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle said at a Chicago hearing today said she acknowledges the court’s ruling. “Of course we will be respectful of the decision made by the 7th Circuit Court.” Preckwinkle said, however, that she wants Madigan to continue to fight the ruling in court. “I would hope that the attorney general would continue to pursue this matter in the federal courts.” Gov. Pat Quinn also said lawmakers should observe the federal appeals court's ruling and approve concealed carry legislation before the June deadline. “A federal court order is a serious matter. I take it seriously. I think we need to comply with it,” Quinn said.
Harrisburg Democratic Rep. Brandon Phelps, who has sponsored concealed carry bills in recent years, said, “Today was another victory for law-abiding gun owners.” Phelps has said his proposal, House Bill 997, is a compromise that will ensure concealed carry is well-regulated. The legislation requires training for permits and does allow some areas, such as schools, businesses and universities, to bar guns from their premises. The language in the bill does require that the Illinois State Police issue licenses to applicants who are qualified. However, there is a process through which local law enforcement officials could object to applications. “Probably some pro-gun advocates would say we have too many restrictions,” Phelps said.
Phelps said he does not know what to expect next week. But he said that supporters of concealed carry would likely not back legislation that contains other gun control provisions, such as an assault weapons ban or a requirement that gun owners register their firearms. “I just don’t see how any pro-gun legislator is going to be for something like that because the ruling only specifies concealed carry.”
Brown said the Weekly Order of Business session would focus on multiple “gun safety” issues.
Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan is urging lawmakers to approve legislation regulating the concealed carry of firearms after a federal court denied her appeal of its ruling.
In December, a panel of judges from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Illinois' ban on carrying guns in public unconstitutional. The decision gave the General Assembly 180 days to pass concealed carry legislation. Madigan asked for the entire court to reconsider the case, but her request was denied today. “Although the 7th Circuit rarely grants rehearing en banc [by all of the judges], it was important to ask the full court to reconsider its opinion. Significantly, in today’s decision, four of the 7th Circuit judges have provided a clear framework to guide the legislature in drafting a new law. With the 180-day deadline still in place, it is critical that the legislature continue to work to enact a law that will protect public safety,” Madigan said in a prepared statement.
Judge David Hamilton wrote in his dissenting opinion that the court's ruling was the first time a federal appeals court has struck down a law barring public carry of a firearms. “In so many public settings, carrying and using firearms present lethal risks to innocent bystanders. Yet when people go about their daily lives in public places, they have no choice about whether to consent to the dangers posed by firearms in public. We can all choose whether to visit homes where firearms are present,” Hamilton wrote in his dissent. “To illustrate the dangers posed by lawful use of firearms in public, consider a deadly confrontation on the streets of New York City in August 2012, when police confronted an armed man who had just shot and killed another man. The police officers were well-trained in both how to shoot and when to shoot and not shoot. The officers fatally shot the gunman, but the officers’ many shots also wounded nine bystanders.”
The denial comes as the House is preparing to debate gun control next week. House Speaker Michael Madigan has called for “Weekly Order of Business” to begin next week focused on gun issues. (House Rule 31, Page 50 line 13) The move is a call for the House to focus on a single topic, and it begins next Tuesday. “It will be a time to consider gun safety issues,” said Madigan spokesman Steve Brown. He said the official designation allows lawmakers and interested parties to prepare. However, it does not change legislative procedure. “The steps you take to pass a bill or amend a bill would be the same.” The House has already held two hearings on the topic of concealed carry and has a hearing on assault weapons scheduled for next Thursday.
Some gun control advocates say they do not plan to fight against carry because they concede that the court ruling means it is coming to the state. Mark Walsh, campaign director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, said his organization's opposition to carry “has been well-documented over the years.” But he said at a hearing in Springfield this week, “We are now working under a court order to pass legislation regulating some form of concealed carry.” Walsh and others are pushing for restrictions such as a requirement that gun owners report lost or stolen guns, restrictions on where guns can be carried and legislative language that allows law enforcement officials to use discretion when issuing permits for carry. Walsh said he now hopes to “use this court order as an opportunity to save lives.
A representative from Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez’s office indicated at the hearing that unless lawmakers passed concealed carry legislation, the state’s attorney would continue to prosecute people under the current law, even after the court’s deadline. “The lower federal courts, either the district courts or the courts of appeal, cannot tell the Illinois Supreme Court how to rule or whether or not that law is constitutional. The only court that can resolve that split is the U.S. Supreme Court,” said Cook County Assistant State's Attorney Paul Castiglione. But Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle said at a Chicago hearing today said she acknowledges the court’s ruling. “Of course we will be respectful of the decision made by the 7th Circuit Court.” Preckwinkle said, however, that she wants Madigan to continue to fight the ruling in court. “I would hope that the attorney general would continue to pursue this matter in the federal courts.” Gov. Pat Quinn also said lawmakers should observe the federal appeals court's ruling and approve concealed carry legislation before the June deadline. “A federal court order is a serious matter. I take it seriously. I think we need to comply with it,” Quinn said.
Harrisburg Democratic Rep. Brandon Phelps, who has sponsored concealed carry bills in recent years, said, “Today was another victory for law-abiding gun owners.” Phelps has said his proposal, House Bill 997, is a compromise that will ensure concealed carry is well-regulated. The legislation requires training for permits and does allow some areas, such as schools, businesses and universities, to bar guns from their premises. The language in the bill does require that the Illinois State Police issue licenses to applicants who are qualified. However, there is a process through which local law enforcement officials could object to applications. “Probably some pro-gun advocates would say we have too many restrictions,” Phelps said.
Phelps said he does not know what to expect next week. But he said that supporters of concealed carry would likely not back legislation that contains other gun control provisions, such as an assault weapons ban or a requirement that gun owners register their firearms. “I just don’t see how any pro-gun legislator is going to be for something like that because the ruling only specifies concealed carry.”
Brown said the Weekly Order of Business session would focus on multiple “gun safety” issues.
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Plan to regulate fracking has broad support in the House
By Jamey Dunn
After a bipartisan bill to regulate hydraulic fracturing
stalled last year, supporters think they have a better chance at success with a
new plan.
Hydraulic fracturing, which is commonly referred to as
fracking, is achieved by pumping water mixed with sand and chemicals through a
well into rock that holds a carbon fuel, such as oil or natural gas. The water
creates pressure, which fractures the rock or opens up pre-existing cracks. The
sand holds the cracks open so the gas and/or oil can be extracted. It has been
done since the 1930s. But recently, fracking has been coupled with horizontal
drilling, which allows gas and oil companies to drill down into the earth and
then permeate rock along a horizontal line, which is sometimes miles long. The
marrying of the two technologies has allowed for projects that are much larger
in scale.
The combined practice is not specifically regulated in
Illinois, but many lawmakers, environmentalists and regulators agree it is
coming to the state. Two Illinois rock formations, the New Albany Shale in the
southeast and the Maquoketa Group Shale in the north, could potentially hold
carbon fuels. Energy companies across the nation have spent hundreds of
thousands of dollars to lease mineral rights for land above these formations,
mainly in southern Illinois. “We don’t have regulations in the state of Illinois,
we don’t have laws that will deal with horizontal fracking,” said Chicago
Democratic Rep. Barbara Flynn Curry. She said that fracking could start in the
state at any time without a bureaucratic system to regulate it or bar certain
practices.
House Bill 2615 has a
broad coalition of supporters, including Republicans, Democrats, environmental
groups, unions and representatives of the coal and natural gas industry. The
bill would create a permitting and regulatory system for horizontal fracking.
It would not apply to vertical fracking wells. The measure would:
- Set standards for the cement casings that are put into wells to prevent leakage of fracking fluid.
- Require water testing before and after hydraulic fracturing wells are constructed.
- Require disclosure of chemicals used in the process.
- Set standards for the disposal of water used for fracking.
- Prohibit hydraulic fracturing near certain sensitive sites and water sources, including schools, churches and health care facilities.
If water pollution
were detected near a fracking wells, it would be the owners’ responsibility to
prove that it was not caused be the well. “We have crafted a piece of
legislation, which first and foremost protects our water supply and the
communities and families of southern Illinois but allows an industry to develop
in a responsible manner for the creation of thousands of jobs and the potential
for tens of millions of dollars of revenue for the state of Illinois,” said
Marion Democratic Rep. John Bradley, who sponsors the bill.
Willow Hill Republican Rep. David Reis, who also sponsors
the measure, said that fracking revenues could help bolster the state’s
struggling budget. “This is historic from an economic standpoint. We know we
have to put the safeguards in place, and we’ve done that with this [bill]. But
the revenue that this is going to generate for the entire state of Illinois
through income taxes and severance taxes — that we’re still going to negotiate
— reoccurring sales taxes is going to be maybe one of the things we need to get
out of our financial challenges that we face in this state.”
Environmental groups that worked on the bill say they do not
support the practice, which has vocal detractors in other states that already
have horizontal fracking operations, coming to the Illinois. “In the
environmental community, we have a lot of concerns about what fracking is going
to bring to Illinois, and when we look at some of the controversies that have
happened in other parts of the country, there’s a real need for us to prepare
for that,” said Jack Darin, director of the Illinois chapter of the Sierra
Club. But they say fracking in Illinois may be inevitable, and they want to
make sure that there are regulations in place when that day comes. “We
understand that the industry is coming to Illinois ... and I think we all
understand that our current set of rules and regulations and laws are not up to
the task of looking at the potential impacts from this industry.”
But those who support a moratorium on fracking disagree. “Fracking
is not inevitable,” said Liz Patula, coordinator of Southern Illinoisans
Against Fracturing Our Environment (SAFE). Senate Bill 1418 calls for a ban on
horizontal fracking and the creation of a task force to study the issue. Patula
called the move a “common sense” approach. “The idea of just writing a
regulatory bill out of fear, that doesn’t make any sense.”
Patula said SAFE has several concerns with the bill. “The
idea that the bill is written on so-called best practices in other states —
well, that hasn’t exactly worked in other states.” She said that any fracking
regulation should allow for local controls, including local bans on fracking.
SAFE plans to do a comprehensive analysis of the legislation in the coming
weeks. Patula said there is also worry that the state lacks the funds and
manpower to enforce the proposed regulations. The Department of Natural
Resources would be responsible for much of the permitting process. The
legislature recently passed a funding package for DNR, which included an
increase to license plate fees, because the agency lacked the funds to keep up
with maintenance of the state’s parks.
“Whatever is written, how could it
possibly be enforced?” Patula asked. SB 2615 does not address the fees that
would be paid by licensees. Bradley said the need for additional funding and
manpower to regulate the new industry would be a consideration when negotiating
such costs. “We’re going to have to figure out in the process of coming up with
permits and applications. We’re going to have to make sure that they have
sufficient funding in order to process the increased amount of work.”
Bradley said he
thinks horizontal fracking could start in Illinois by the end of the year. “The
pressure is on for the state of Illinois." He said he hopes to move
through the process soon and not wait until the end of the spring legislative
session to get it passed.
Gov. Pat Quinn supports SB 2615. “Today’s proposal is
good news for southern Illinois and our entire state’s economy. This
legislation has the potential to bring thousands of jobs to southern Illinois,
while also ensuring that Illinois has the nation’s strongest environmental
protections,” Quinn said in a prepared statement. “I am committed to creating
jobs and economic growth in every part of Illinois and always making sure our
water and natural resources are protected for future generations.”
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
House misses deadline on doctor licensing fees
By Meredith Colias
The state agency that licenses doctors says it needs budget relief to ensure that a new crop of doctors coming to the state to complete residency training will receive licenses by the time they start this summer.
Lawmakers failed to address a shortfall in a state budget fund for licensing doctors in time for a deadline today for medical students nationwide to decide where they would like to complete their residencies. Danny Chun, spokesman for the Illinois Hospital Association, said he was concerned the issue could deter prospective medical students from coming to Illinois. “We would hope these medical students still hope to choose Illinois,” he said.
Dr. William Werner, president of the Illinois State Medical Society, said it was unlikely that medical students would reject Illinois because of licensing issues. Students usually rank their residency choices on where they would get the best training for their specialties, rather than the state, he said. Some heads of teaching hospitals were concerned, but “I’ve not heard a lot of concerns” that programs will fail to attract good candidates, Werner said..
But there is worry that the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, the state agency that approves doctor licenses and investigates medical malpractice complaints, does not have enough money and staff to ensure that licenses are approved for medical students before they are scheduled to start their residencies in July. Susan Hofer, a spokeswoman for the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, said money was needed to restore staff the department recently cut from 26 to eight. The reduction in staff has prolonged the processing time for a medical license application from about 15 business days to close to six months.
Werner said excessive application delays need to be resolved by April and called the matter “unacceptable”. “You can’t expect a young person to delay their training that long. This has to be solved by the spring, so residents can get their licenses,” he said.
An Illinois House committee today approved Senate Bill 622, which would transfer $6.6 million from the Local Government Tax Fund to the fund that pays for doctor licensing and increase three-year medical licensing fees from $300 to $750. The money from the local tax fund would be paid back by 2015. Chicago Democratic Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie told the committee that approving the measure “would be an indication to medical students across the country that Illinois is going to solve the problem.”
Manuel Flores, the acting secretary of the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, said the long-term viability of the fund should be examined with the fee structure. “[Administrative] costs are going to continue to rise,” he said.
“The one thing Illinois isn’t last place in is our hospitals,” said Rep. Michael Tryon, a Crystal Lake Republican.
James Tierney of the Illinois State Medical Society said a fee increase is necessary but not to the $750 figure that Currie proposed. The society has said it would agree to increasing the fee to $500 every three years. He said doctors should not have to pay for a problem created when money from the fund was swept and spent in other areas of the budget. The measure “really amounts to nothing more than a tax on physicians,” he said.
The state agency that licenses doctors says it needs budget relief to ensure that a new crop of doctors coming to the state to complete residency training will receive licenses by the time they start this summer.
Lawmakers failed to address a shortfall in a state budget fund for licensing doctors in time for a deadline today for medical students nationwide to decide where they would like to complete their residencies. Danny Chun, spokesman for the Illinois Hospital Association, said he was concerned the issue could deter prospective medical students from coming to Illinois. “We would hope these medical students still hope to choose Illinois,” he said.
Dr. William Werner, president of the Illinois State Medical Society, said it was unlikely that medical students would reject Illinois because of licensing issues. Students usually rank their residency choices on where they would get the best training for their specialties, rather than the state, he said. Some heads of teaching hospitals were concerned, but “I’ve not heard a lot of concerns” that programs will fail to attract good candidates, Werner said..
But there is worry that the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, the state agency that approves doctor licenses and investigates medical malpractice complaints, does not have enough money and staff to ensure that licenses are approved for medical students before they are scheduled to start their residencies in July. Susan Hofer, a spokeswoman for the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, said money was needed to restore staff the department recently cut from 26 to eight. The reduction in staff has prolonged the processing time for a medical license application from about 15 business days to close to six months.
Werner said excessive application delays need to be resolved by April and called the matter “unacceptable”. “You can’t expect a young person to delay their training that long. This has to be solved by the spring, so residents can get their licenses,” he said.
An Illinois House committee today approved Senate Bill 622, which would transfer $6.6 million from the Local Government Tax Fund to the fund that pays for doctor licensing and increase three-year medical licensing fees from $300 to $750. The money from the local tax fund would be paid back by 2015. Chicago Democratic Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie told the committee that approving the measure “would be an indication to medical students across the country that Illinois is going to solve the problem.”
Manuel Flores, the acting secretary of the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, said the long-term viability of the fund should be examined with the fee structure. “[Administrative] costs are going to continue to rise,” he said.
“The one thing Illinois isn’t last place in is our hospitals,” said Rep. Michael Tryon, a Crystal Lake Republican.
James Tierney of the Illinois State Medical Society said a fee increase is necessary but not to the $750 figure that Currie proposed. The society has said it would agree to increasing the fee to $500 every three years. He said doctors should not have to pay for a problem created when money from the fund was swept and spent in other areas of the budget. The measure “really amounts to nothing more than a tax on physicians,” he said.
Lawmakers face a slew of pension proposals
By Jamey Dunn
A new proposal for state employee pensions would make the temporary income tax increase permanent to cover pension costs.
Skokie Rep. Lou Lang, a member of House Democratic leadership, pitched House Bill 2375 today. He said that all the other pension plans that have been up for consideration violate the constitutional protection of state workers’ retirement benefits. “I am not going to vote for a pension bill that I think is unconstitutional. This is the very first proposal on the table in all this time that is constitutional,” Lang said. “I think this debate has to start with a constitutional piece of legislation. Can we negotiate things? Of course we can. Can we talk things through? Certainly we will. But this is a good start to putting something on the table that will resolve the problem of the pension system.” Lang’s bill would make permanent the temporary personal income tax increase, which was passed in 2011, and dedicate the revenues to paying down the state’s almost $100 billion in unfunded pension liability. The tax increase is scheduled to start phasing out in 2015. Lang's proposal would guarantee annual pension payments from the state and restructure the so-called ramp, the state’s plan for paying off the unfunded liability. Lang said that under his plan, pensions would be 80 percent funded after 50 years.
The measure would also increase the retirement age to 67 and phase in over six years employees' contribution of an additional 3 percent of salary. Any money from the tax increase that is not needed for the annual contribution would be refunded to taxpayers. Lang does not yet have actuarial numbers for his plan. But he says estimates that starting in 2020, there would be at least $1 billion in funds for rebates. “There was an expectation by some taxpayers that we would be ending the additional 2 percent income tax increase. This is my way to say to them, ‘I’m sorry you’re going to have to share some sacrifice with us for a little longer, but I’m going to do my best to get as much money back to you as I can.’”
The bill calls for money currently being used to pay off pension bonds, which were issued when lawmakers and governors opted to borrow instead of making the annual pension contributions, to pay down the unfunded liability once the bonds are paid off.
The idea comes from a proposal by West Chicago Republican Rep. Mike Fortner. HB 2365, which Fortner introduced yesterday, calls for the pension bond revenue to shift to the liability once the bonds have matured. It also would require employees to contribute 8 percent of their salaries, which is the amount participants in the State University Retirement System currently pay. The proposal would also cap pensionable salary and offer an optional self-managed defined benefit plan. Such a plan is currently offered to university employees. “It draws a certain percentage of people who for various family reasons and fiscal reasons in their household find that it works better for them to do that. It’s purely a choice. That’s constitutional,” Fortner said of the self-managed plan. “It’s not as aggressive of some of the other ones, but I am confident it’s constitutional because we have a long history of doing it.”
Fortner says his bill would “bring the rate of growth of the pension payments to a level that matches the rate of our natural revenue growth without a tax hike.” He says his plan would fully fund the pension systems by 2045. Both Lang’s proposal and Fortner’s proposal would include judges' pension systems. Previous proposals up for consideration did not. Sponsors of other plans have said that they did not want to create a conflict of interest for judges who might rule on the constitutionality of any pension changes that became law.
Lawmakers also have a union-backed proposal before them for the first time in the form of legislation. Senate Bill 2404 would require employees to pay an additional 2 percent of salary, phased in over two years, and guarantee that the state makes its required annual contribution. “The [union] coalition considers the introduction of SB 2404 to be the beginning of a discussion that the unions intend to see end with an agreement on a fair and constitutional bill that, when passed, will help Illinois get back on solid financial footing and ensure the participants on the state pension systems receive the pensions they have been promised,” said a statement from the Illinois Education Association.
But House Minority Leader Tom Cross does not support either Lang’s plan of the union-backed bill. “Leader Cross is not in favor of Rep. Lang’s proposal. He doesn’t believe that hardworking taxpayers in Illinois would be in favor of keeping their income taxes at a high level to pour that money into a broken pension system. We do not believe that this bill fixes our pension problem, which is the goal,” Sara Wojcicki Jimenez, a Cross spokeswoman, said in a prepared statement. “He also does not favor SB 2404. Leader Cross, [Northbrook Democratic] Rep. [Elaine] Nekritz and others are continuing to work on a comprehensive plan that will fix our pension problem — those details will be coming in the near future.”
Nekritz, who has tried to shepherd several versions of pension reform through the House, said she is continuing to negotiate pension legislation and is meeting with new legislators to educate them on the pension problem. She said negotiations are also ongoing. “While they knew it was bad, maybe they didn’t know it was this bad. And so the solutions, while they seem really difficult, are in fact the solutions that are needed to solve that big a problem. And I think we’re getting them to understand that.” Nekritz has her own bill, HB 98. Her plan would fully fund the system by 2043.
“I think there are a number of ideas that are out there that are interesting to look at,” Gov. Pat Quinn said today. However, he is generally sticking by his preference of Senate Bill 1. Senate President John Cullerton proposed SB1 as a compromise. It contains a proposal that was previously sponsored by Nekritz and being considered in the House during the lame duck session. That provision would temporarily freeze cost-of-living increases, require higher contributions from employees, put a cap pensionable salary and include a guarantee that the state makes its annual required contribution to the pension systems. The bill also tacks on a proposal that Cullerton says is constitutional He believes that to pass constitutional muster, some consideration must be given to workers for any reduction in their benefits. Legislation that passed in the Senate last year would have asked employees to choose between their compounded-interest cost-of-living adjustments or state-subsidized retiree health care. If the Supreme Court were to rule the House plan constitutional, it would become the law. But if the court rejected the House proposal, the Senate version could then be considered.
“I think that’s the right vehicle,” he said. “I think SB 1 understands that there are different concepts, but you can put them in one bill that can get the job done. ... There may be refinements, that’s part of the legislative process in both the House and the Senate, and people may have a new idea or two that could be useful, and if that’s the case, we put it in.” Quinn said of Lang’s proposal to extend the tax increase to pay off pension costs: “I really don’t feel that solving the pension problem is ... a revenue issue. I think we have to deal with it on a comprehensive basis, so it’s not just about revenue. It’s a lot more than that.”
But Lang said that even if a pension plan is signed into law and survives a court challenge, it is likely that the state would not be able to afford employee retirement costs without continuing the tax increase. “Even if one of the current reform plans on the table can reduce our annual pension payment from $6.5 billion to, let’s say, $4 billion, the inconvenient truth is without the income tax increase, we don’t have the $4 billion,” Lang said. “To pretend that Illinois can pay for even a reformed pension system without a portion of the current tax increase money is to whistle past reality.”
A new proposal for state employee pensions would make the temporary income tax increase permanent to cover pension costs.
Skokie Rep. Lou Lang, a member of House Democratic leadership, pitched House Bill 2375 today. He said that all the other pension plans that have been up for consideration violate the constitutional protection of state workers’ retirement benefits. “I am not going to vote for a pension bill that I think is unconstitutional. This is the very first proposal on the table in all this time that is constitutional,” Lang said. “I think this debate has to start with a constitutional piece of legislation. Can we negotiate things? Of course we can. Can we talk things through? Certainly we will. But this is a good start to putting something on the table that will resolve the problem of the pension system.” Lang’s bill would make permanent the temporary personal income tax increase, which was passed in 2011, and dedicate the revenues to paying down the state’s almost $100 billion in unfunded pension liability. The tax increase is scheduled to start phasing out in 2015. Lang's proposal would guarantee annual pension payments from the state and restructure the so-called ramp, the state’s plan for paying off the unfunded liability. Lang said that under his plan, pensions would be 80 percent funded after 50 years.
The measure would also increase the retirement age to 67 and phase in over six years employees' contribution of an additional 3 percent of salary. Any money from the tax increase that is not needed for the annual contribution would be refunded to taxpayers. Lang does not yet have actuarial numbers for his plan. But he says estimates that starting in 2020, there would be at least $1 billion in funds for rebates. “There was an expectation by some taxpayers that we would be ending the additional 2 percent income tax increase. This is my way to say to them, ‘I’m sorry you’re going to have to share some sacrifice with us for a little longer, but I’m going to do my best to get as much money back to you as I can.’”
The bill calls for money currently being used to pay off pension bonds, which were issued when lawmakers and governors opted to borrow instead of making the annual pension contributions, to pay down the unfunded liability once the bonds are paid off.
The idea comes from a proposal by West Chicago Republican Rep. Mike Fortner. HB 2365, which Fortner introduced yesterday, calls for the pension bond revenue to shift to the liability once the bonds have matured. It also would require employees to contribute 8 percent of their salaries, which is the amount participants in the State University Retirement System currently pay. The proposal would also cap pensionable salary and offer an optional self-managed defined benefit plan. Such a plan is currently offered to university employees. “It draws a certain percentage of people who for various family reasons and fiscal reasons in their household find that it works better for them to do that. It’s purely a choice. That’s constitutional,” Fortner said of the self-managed plan. “It’s not as aggressive of some of the other ones, but I am confident it’s constitutional because we have a long history of doing it.”
Fortner says his bill would “bring the rate of growth of the pension payments to a level that matches the rate of our natural revenue growth without a tax hike.” He says his plan would fully fund the pension systems by 2045. Both Lang’s proposal and Fortner’s proposal would include judges' pension systems. Previous proposals up for consideration did not. Sponsors of other plans have said that they did not want to create a conflict of interest for judges who might rule on the constitutionality of any pension changes that became law.
Lawmakers also have a union-backed proposal before them for the first time in the form of legislation. Senate Bill 2404 would require employees to pay an additional 2 percent of salary, phased in over two years, and guarantee that the state makes its required annual contribution. “The [union] coalition considers the introduction of SB 2404 to be the beginning of a discussion that the unions intend to see end with an agreement on a fair and constitutional bill that, when passed, will help Illinois get back on solid financial footing and ensure the participants on the state pension systems receive the pensions they have been promised,” said a statement from the Illinois Education Association.
But House Minority Leader Tom Cross does not support either Lang’s plan of the union-backed bill. “Leader Cross is not in favor of Rep. Lang’s proposal. He doesn’t believe that hardworking taxpayers in Illinois would be in favor of keeping their income taxes at a high level to pour that money into a broken pension system. We do not believe that this bill fixes our pension problem, which is the goal,” Sara Wojcicki Jimenez, a Cross spokeswoman, said in a prepared statement. “He also does not favor SB 2404. Leader Cross, [Northbrook Democratic] Rep. [Elaine] Nekritz and others are continuing to work on a comprehensive plan that will fix our pension problem — those details will be coming in the near future.”
Nekritz, who has tried to shepherd several versions of pension reform through the House, said she is continuing to negotiate pension legislation and is meeting with new legislators to educate them on the pension problem. She said negotiations are also ongoing. “While they knew it was bad, maybe they didn’t know it was this bad. And so the solutions, while they seem really difficult, are in fact the solutions that are needed to solve that big a problem. And I think we’re getting them to understand that.” Nekritz has her own bill, HB 98. Her plan would fully fund the system by 2043.
“I think there are a number of ideas that are out there that are interesting to look at,” Gov. Pat Quinn said today. However, he is generally sticking by his preference of Senate Bill 1. Senate President John Cullerton proposed SB1 as a compromise. It contains a proposal that was previously sponsored by Nekritz and being considered in the House during the lame duck session. That provision would temporarily freeze cost-of-living increases, require higher contributions from employees, put a cap pensionable salary and include a guarantee that the state makes its annual required contribution to the pension systems. The bill also tacks on a proposal that Cullerton says is constitutional He believes that to pass constitutional muster, some consideration must be given to workers for any reduction in their benefits. Legislation that passed in the Senate last year would have asked employees to choose between their compounded-interest cost-of-living adjustments or state-subsidized retiree health care. If the Supreme Court were to rule the House plan constitutional, it would become the law. But if the court rejected the House proposal, the Senate version could then be considered.
“I think that’s the right vehicle,” he said. “I think SB 1 understands that there are different concepts, but you can put them in one bill that can get the job done. ... There may be refinements, that’s part of the legislative process in both the House and the Senate, and people may have a new idea or two that could be useful, and if that’s the case, we put it in.” Quinn said of Lang’s proposal to extend the tax increase to pay off pension costs: “I really don’t feel that solving the pension problem is ... a revenue issue. I think we have to deal with it on a comprehensive basis, so it’s not just about revenue. It’s a lot more than that.”
But Lang said that even if a pension plan is signed into law and survives a court challenge, it is likely that the state would not be able to afford employee retirement costs without continuing the tax increase. “Even if one of the current reform plans on the table can reduce our annual pension payment from $6.5 billion to, let’s say, $4 billion, the inconvenient truth is without the income tax increase, we don’t have the $4 billion,” Lang said. “To pretend that Illinois can pay for even a reformed pension system without a portion of the current tax increase money is to whistle past reality.”
Jesse Jackson Jr., Sandi Jackson plead guilty to federal crimes
By Maureen McKinney
Former Democratic U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. and his wife pleaded guilty today in federal court in what prosecutors said was a scheme to use $750,000 in campaign cash for such personal expenses as a $43,350 gold-plated Rolex watch, flat-screen TVs, a cruise and more than $60,000 at restaurants, nightclubs and lounges.
Jackson, 47, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, mail fraud and false statements, while his wife, Sandi, a 49-year-old former Chicago alderwoman, pleaded guilty to one count of willingly filing a false tax return, according to news reports. Between 2005 and 2012, Jackson spent almost $584,000 on about 3,100 purchases made with a campaign credit card, according to federal prosecutors.
The Jacksons used campaign cash to pay down personal credit cards and for more than $30,000 in personal airfare expenses. Jackson Jr. spent $17,163.36 at tobacco shops and collected elk heads from Montana and memorabilia from Michael Jackson, Bruce Lee, Jimi Hendrix and Martin Luther King Jr. One of the expenses cited was $466 dinner for two. Federal prosecutors contend that Jackson Jr. directed that false and misleading reports be sent to to the Federal Elections Commission from August 2005 to July 2012.
The former congressman from Illinois' 2nd District will be sentenced on June 28 and faces a maximum of five years in prison. A 17-year veteran in Congress, Jackson resigned shortly after his victory in the November election, citing health issues and the ongoing federal investigation. Diagnosed with bipolar disorder, he had been on leave since June of 2012.
“For years, I lived off my campaign. I used money that should have been for campaign purposes for personal purposes,” Jackson said in court, according to news reports. In explaining his decision to plead guilty, Jackson said, “I have no interest in wasting the taxpayers’ time or their money.
“I’m guilty, your honor,” Jackson said.“Tell everybody back home I’m sorry I let them down, OK?” he said outside the courtroom, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.
According to the newspaper, “Jackson’s attorney, Reid Weingarten, told the judge he expected to make a substantial presentation at sentencing regarding the serious medical conditions that Jackson faces that could be mitigating factors.”
“That’s not an excuse; that’s just a fact,” Weingarten said outside the courtroom, speaking about Jackson’s mental health.
According to the Chicago Tribune: “Washington defense attorney Stan Brand, the former general counsel of the House of Representatives, said … that Jackson Jr.’s case involved the largest sum of money he’s seen in a case involving personal use of campaign money.”
Brand told the newspaper, “Historically, there have been members of Congress who either inadvertently or maybe purposefully, but not to this magnitude, used campaign funds inappropriately.”
“A reliable liberal, Jackson voted with the Democratic caucus 97 percent of the time,” according to the Washington Post. “He joined House Democrats in pushing for the impeachment of George W. Bush over his handling of the Iraq war, opposed the 2008 financial industry bailout and fought to abolish the Electoral College and for a constitutional amendment guaranteeing high-quality public education for all U.S. citizens.”
Sandi Jackson is scheduled to be sentenced on July 1.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
